Coming War With Iran - All Iran News Here

[Optimus]

Iran Opens Base at Hormuz Strait for Gulf `Defense' (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUyVhtyozuC8&refer=home
By Ladane Nasseri

 Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Iran opened a naval base on the Strait of Hormuz that's capable of keeping foreign forces out of the Persian Gulf, the chief of the Iranian navy said.

``With this naval base, a new line of defense was created in the Persian Gulf,'' Admiral Habibollah Sayyari was cited today as saying by state-run Fars News. ``If necessary, we can prevent any enemy from entering the Persian Gulf's strategic area.''

The naval chief said the facility, which was inaugurated yesterday, is needed because of the presence of foreign forces in the region. The base in the southern port of Jask, 1,050 miles (1,690 kilometers) south of Tehran, is in the eastern part of the strait at the entrance to the Gulf.

The Strait of Hormuz has been the focus of increasing tension in recent months. Iran has said it may close the strait should the U.S. attack the country over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment as part of a nuclear program. Some 20 percent of the world's oil is shipped through the strait, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

A spokesman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain had no immediate comment on the base opening, saying he wasn't aware of the Iranian report and would look into it.

The Fifth Fleet held maneuvers on July 7 to practice protecting Persian Gulf oil rigs. Days later Iran said its military test-fired a missile with a 2,000-kilometer range.

Revolutionary Guards

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month put Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards Corps in charge of defending the Gulf from possible attacks by the U.S. or Israel. The move came a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran refused to answer questions about possible nuclear-weapons development and expanded production of atomic fuel in further defiance of demands by the United Nations to halt uranium enrichment.

``The powerful presence of the naval forces in the Persian Gulf and the combination of the Revolutionary Guards and armed forces have turned on its head the predictions of enemies,'' said the army deputy commander, General Abdolrahim Mousavi, according to a report on the state-run Iranian Students News Agency today.

``The time for bullying, unilateralism and aggression has ended,'' Mousavi said while visiting the Jask naval base. ``The sooner enemies realize this, the better for them. Otherwise, they will have to pay heavy costs.''

The U.S. and major allies have accused Iran of enriching uranium as part of nuclear-weapons development. The government in Tehran has insisted that the program is intended only to generate electricity, and is legal under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory.

The Bush administration says it favors a diplomatic solution to the dispute, though it hasn't ruled out military attacks.

On June 2, Israeli warplanes carried out an exercise in the eastern Mediterranean Sea that was interpreted by military analysts as a rehearsal for a strike on Iranian nuclear sites.

[skyfind]

Israel prepares 'decisive' strike against resistance - report
By Andrew Wander
Daily Star staff
Thursday, October 30, 2008




BEIRUT: The Israeli military is "making preparations" for a strike against Hizbullah that "appears inevitable" and will be "decisive," a former top Israeli diplomat has written in a report for a US-based think tank with strong links to America's Jewish lobby. Oded Eran, Israel's former ambassador to the European Union and now director of the Institute for Security Studies in Tel Aviv, published a report for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) entitled "UN Resolution 1701: A view from Israel."

In it, he says that "since Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000, Hizbullah has built a massive military infrastructure. Among Israel's 2006 war objectives was the destruction of that infrastructure."

Since the conflict, the Shiite group "has more than doubled its pre-war arsenal," the report notes, despite UNIFIL's presence in the South of Lebanon.

The result, Eran writes, is that "another war with Hizbullah appears inevitable and the Israeli military currently is making preparations to ensure the next round is decisive."

The report was issued last week to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the suicide attack on the US Marine barracks near Beirut airport.

The report was part of a series on Resolution 1701, which ended hostilities in Israel's war on Lebanon, which devastated large swathes of the country.

Eran admits that the conflict did not go as Israel had planned. Describing it as a "debacle," he says "UNSCR 1701 provided Israel with a reasonable exit from a military dead-end."

But he rejects the idea that the peace secured by Resolution 1701 is sustainable. "Although the resolution ended the fighting, it did not end the conflict," he warns. Rather than peace, he describes the cease-fire as a "lull" in fighting.

Noting Hizbullah's increased political power in Lebanon since the end of the summer war of 2006, Eran writes of Israel's desire to "undermine" the party's position in the country. "Logic suggests this can only be achieved by a successful military operation followed by a clear diplomatic solution," he argues.

Two companion reports which provide views on UNSCR 1701 from Lebanon and the US also conclude that another conflict is likely. In the "View from Lebanon" report, Beirut-based journalist Nicholas Blanford says Hizbullah has completed a "massive, unprecedented recruitment training and rearmament drive," since the 2006 war.

"Israel ... would likely gain a more sympathetic ear from the UN if it were to desist from its own breaches of the resolution." he writes. "Hizbullah and Israel continue to pay lip service to UNSCR 1701 while focusing on preparations for the inevitable second round of conflict."

In the "View from the United States" element of the report, Michael Singh, a former senior director for Middle East affairs on Washington's National Security Council and fellow of the Washington Institute, writes that it is "tempting to view another conflict as inevitable."

"The possibility of renewed conflict looms large and is compounded by tensions between Iran and Israel, the potential for Hizbullah to avenge the death of Imad Mughniyeh ... and the activities of terrorist groups operating in Palestinian refugee camps," he says.

WINEP has been criticized for its pro-Israeli agenda. It was founded in 1985 by a senior member of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee who later went on to become America's ambassador to Israel.

Meanwhile in Tel Aviv, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said this week that the Israeli military was better prepared for a forthcoming conflict than it was before the summer war of 2006. "It really inspires confidence and warms the heart to see the efforts made to implement lessons learned from the flaws of the war" Barak said on a visit to a military base, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Barak's comments came after a series of senior Israeli military officials warned that in any future conflict, Lebanon's civilian infrastructure would be targeted to a greater extent than in 2006.

source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=97247

[skyfind]

PGCC Supports Iran's N. Work

 News number: 8708081499     
17:39 | 2008-10-29

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council Secretary-General Abdul Rahman al-Attiyah stressed here on Tuesday that the council will continue supporting Iran's nuclear work.
   

"We have always expressed support for Iran's nuclear program, which we are sure is peaceful," al-Attiyah told reporters at a press conference.

Al-Attiyah added that the Persian Gulf littoral states believe peaceful nuclear technology is Iran's inalienable right, slamming global silence toward Israel's nuclear arsenal.

"This is an example of double standards. Israel must disarm all of its nuclear weapons," press tv quoted him as saying.

Al-Attiyah's Israel remarks come as a Kuwaiti diplomat at the UN, Talal Zaid Al-Azemi, also criticized Israel's refusal to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities at Monday's semi-annual meeting of the UN General Assembly.

"In view of this Israeli intransigence," he said, "we demand the international community pressure Israel to join the NPT and subject all of its nuclear facilities to the IAEA safeguards regime."

The US and Israel, the Middle East's sole possessor of nuclear warheads, accuse Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of conducting a military nuclear program. Iran says it only seeks the civilian applications of the technology.
Despite the rules enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entitling every member state, including Iran, to the right of uranium enrichment, Tehran is now under three rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West's illegitimate calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment.

Tehran has dismissed West's demands as politically tainted and illogical, stressing that sanctions and pressures merely consolidate Iranians' national resolve to continue the path.

Iran insists that it should continue enriching uranium because it needs to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it is building in the southwestern town of Darkhoveyn as well as its first nuclear power plant in the southern port city of Bushehr.

Iran currently suffers from an electricity shortage that has forced the country into adopting a rationing program by scheduling power outages - of up to two hours a day - across both urban and rural areas.

Iran plans to construct additional nuclear power plants to provide for the electricity needs of its growing population.

The Islamic Republic says that it considers its nuclear case closed as it has come clean of IAEA's questions and suspicions about its past nuclear activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also in his latest report to the 35-nation Board of Governors, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed "the non-diversion" of nuclear material in Iran and added that the agency had found no "components of a nuclear weapon" or "related nuclear physics studies" in the country.

The IAEA report confirmed that Iran has managed to enrich uranium-235 to a level 'less than 5 percent.' Such a rate is consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production, meanwhile, requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent.

The Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog continues snap inspections of Iranian nuclear sites and has reported that all "declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently said that Iran remains far from acquiring capabilities to develop nuclear weapons as it is still lacking the key components to produce an atomic weapon.

"They do not have even the nuclear material, the raw unenriched uranium to develop one nuclear weapon if they decide to do so," said the head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency.

Many world nations have called the UN Security Council pressure against Iran unjustified, especially in the wake of recent IAEA reports, stressing that Tehran's case should be normalized and returned to the UN nuclear watchdog due to the Islamic Republic's increased cooperation with the agency.

Observers believe that the shift of policy by the White House to send William Burns - the third highest-ranking diplomat in the US - to the latest round of Iran-West talks happened after Bush's attempt to rally international pressure against Iran lost steam due to the growing international vigilance.

US President George W. Bush finished a tour of the Middle East in winter to gain the consensus of his Arab allies to unite against Iran.

But hosting officials of the regional nations dismissed Bush's allegations, describing Tehran as a good friend of their countries.

Political observers believe that the United States has remained at loggerheads with Iran mainly over the independent and home-grown nature of Tehran's nuclear technology, which gives the Islamic Republic the potential to turn into a world power and a role model for other third-world countries. Washington has laid much pressure on Iran to make it give up the most sensitive and advanced part of the technology, which is uranium enrichment, a process used for producing nuclear fuel for power plants.

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

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


source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8708081499

[eddy64]

 Intel says Iran plans secret nuclear experiments

VIENNA, Austria – Iran has recently tested ways of recovering highly enriched uranium from waste reactor fuel in a covert bid to expand its nuclear program, according to an intelligence assessment made available to The Associated Press.

The intelligence, provided by a member of the 145-nation International Atomic Energy Agency, also says a report will soon be submitted to the Iranian leadership for a decision on whether to go ahead with the project.

The alleged tests loosely replicate Saddam Hussein's attempts to build the bomb nearly two decades ago. But experts question the conclusion by those providing the intelligence that Tehran, too, is trying to reprocess the fuel to make a nuclear weapon.

They note that the spent fuel at issue as the source of the enriched uranium is not enough to yield the approximately 30 kilograms (65 pounds)of weapons-grade material needed for one simple warhead.

Still, they say that the alleged experiment appears plausible — if not as a fast track to weapons capability then as an incremental step that could move it further along that path.

With Iran's nuclear program already under international scrutiny, any new efforts by Tehran to increase its nuclear expertise and its store of enriched uranium would set off alarm bells. The concerns would be particularly serious if that stock was highly enriched. The higher the enrichment the less time and effort it takes to reach the 90-percent level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

The 3-page intelligence report, drawn from Iranian sources within the country, says the source material would be highly enriched — some at above 90 percent, the rest at 20 percent.

In contrast, Iran's enrichment program under constant IAEA monitoring has churned out material that is less than 5 percent enriched, in line with the fuel needs of modern reactors.

"Procedures were evaluated for recycling fuel by dissolving fuel rods" for irradiated waste and then reprocessing the material into uranium metal, says the intelligence assessment. Uranium metal is used for nuclear warheads.

"Sufficient data was collected for planning production lines for recovering the fuel," says the assessment, which gave Tehran's Jaber ibn Hayan Laboratories, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as the location for the experiment.

Top officials of AEOI are "in the final stages" of writing a report for the Iranian leadership for assessment on whether to go forward with reprocessing, according to the intelligence.

The laboratories and the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, where the research reactor is located, have figured in numerous experiments that have raised the suspicion level about Iran, including plutonium separation attempts that Iran owned up to only after it was pressed by IAEA experts probing its nuclear past.

If the information is accurate then Iran is "trying to get their nose in the tent" of reprocessing material potentially suitable for a warhead, said David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspect secret proliferators.

"On the surface it may have nothing to do with making a bomb, but in the end that's what it could be about."

IAEA spokespeople were unavailable Thursday but an official of the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog said the agency would have no comment. He asked not to be named because he was not authorized to be quoted by name.

For the U.S and others, Iran is a top proliferation concern because of suspicions it had at least drafted concepts of nuclear weapons programs during nearly two decades of covert atomic activities discovered six years ago.

Tehran denies past, present or future nuclear arms ambitions. But it is stonewalling IAEA attempts to probe alleged past weapons program experiments and continues to expand its uranium enrichment program.

Iran has shrugged off U.N. Security Council sanctions prompted by fears that through enrichment, it may want to produce the fissile core of nuclear warheads instead of the fuel the Islamic Republic says it needs for a future civilian program. Those fears are stoked by Iran's refusal to consider foreign nuclear fuel deliveries.

Both Albright and a senior Vienna-based diplomat agreed that the alleged experiment roughly jibed with Saddam's efforts to chemically process research reactor fuel to recover enriched uranium — in the case of Baghdad, enough and at a sufficiently high level of enrichment to make a bomb.

Close to success, the Iraqis saw their plans fail with the destruction of the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center during the first Gulf War of 1990-1991.

"This is the 'Iraqi scenario,'" said the diplomat, referring to the alleged Iranian experiment. He — like the source of the intelligence — demanded anonymity because their information was restricted.

But both he and Albright noted that the source for the fuel named in the intelligence assessment — Tehran's TNRC research reactor — was unlikely to have enough material for reprocessing into the amount of uranium needed for a warhead.

The five-megawatt reactor initially ran on weapons-grade uranium fuel enriched to 93 percent that was provided by the U.S. in the late 1960s to the then pro-Washington regime. But measured in terms of potential proliferation, the amount was small — only 7 kilograms.

Then, in the late 1980s, Argentina helped reconfigure the reactor core and provided about 115 kilograms of uranium with international approval. In contrast to modern reactors that run on low-enriched fuel, that material was highly enriched to about 20 percent but still well below the 90-percent weapons-grade level.

Albright said that even optimal reprocessing of the waste would probably yield less than about half of the 30 kilograms (65 pounds) of weapons-grade uranium needed for a bomb. That restriction makes it unlikely that Iran was looking to the TNRC reactor for that immediate purpose.

Instead, an Iranian reprocessing plans could be part of Tehran's attempts to push the nuclear envelope.

U.S.-led efforts for swift and tough U.N. sanctions on Iran have been consistently blocked by Russia and China, which have strategic and economic ties to Tehran. It also has support of developing countries traditionally suspicious of Washington.

That has allowed the Islamic Republic to forge ahead with uranium enrichment, defying weak and delayed sanctions and moving further toward developing weapons capability — now anywhere from six months to several years away, depending on the source.

Iran may be banking on further international inaction if it announces it will reprocess spent fuel from the TNRC reactor, perhaps arguing that it will need it as a source for new fuel for that facility once the material from Argentina is spent. If allowed to do so, it will have moved another step ahead on the path to being able to develop warhead material.

"It's the idea that Iran wants to slowly develop nuclear weapons capability under the tent and it does it slowly so that people will accept it," said Albright. "It's (a matter of) keeping your head down, moving slowly and deliberately and winning at each step."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nuclear_iran

[ConcordeWarrior]

I wish we could deprogram all the brainwashed sheep and make them understand that Israel (and the US) are far more dangerous than Iran. Politicians keep liying about where the real danger is. I have only one thing to say to them: leave Iran alone and mind your own business. 

[skyfind]

according to an intelligence assessment made available to The Associated Press.

that source is like the "notebook" that they found and proves that Iran wants nuclear weapons. This kinda source was used against Chavez-Venezuela to link him to "Las Farcs", a "notebook" that they found in the jungle and had info of millions of USD that Chavez gave to "las Farcs".  Magic-Info/Documents that comes from nowhere 

Weeks ago they said about Iran, "From USA intel source, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the 2010", then  days ago "they will have it in months"..., I´m so tired about this disinfo that the corrupts governments say.

Sure they ninja-secretagent-source know more than the IAEA... still waiting for Osama that they said was in Iraq-Afganistan and the WMD 

well, more propaganda from they
"Iran threatens US with suicide bombers"
(will not put here, is not worth, if you know how the Israel and USA governemts works, you will hate how    
hypocritical they can be    )
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199610409&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[jeremiah]

The people who call themselves in one breath Judeans/Israelis are as the Book of Revelations, 2:9 and 3:9 says they are - that is, "and they are not, but they lie."

Romans 2:28, says:- " For the one who manifests [Strongs 5319] as a Judean is not, nor is the manifestation of circumcision in the flesh, but the one in secret [Strongs 2928] a Judean is, and circumcision is of the heart in spirit, not in writings [Strongs 1122],  of whom the praise is not from men, but from God."

If one is to boast that they are the kingdom of  Israel then they would have to conform to Exodus 19:5-6:- "And now if you will surely listen to my voice, and will keep my covenant, you shall become a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations, for all the earth is Mine. And you shall become a kingdom of priests for Me, A holy nation; these are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

Jeremiah 9:8 says of the old Jerusalem:- "Their tongue is a slaughtering arrow; it speaks deceit; one speaks peace with his neighbour with his mouth, but in his heart he sets his ambush."

Jeremiah 11. "And I will make Jerusalem ruins, a den of jackals; and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation, without inhabitant."

The people who call themselves Jews and Israel today should start listening to prophecy, and it might be a good time to consider heading for the hills.

[bigron]

Former CIA Officer: Iran, a Rising Star That’s Now Too Powerful to Ignore
ELAINE SCIOLINO, NYTimes
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m48392&hd=&size=1&l=e

 

October 30, 2008

THE DEVIL WE KNOW
Dealing With the New Iranian Superpower
By Robert Baer
279 pages. Crown Publishers. $25.95.





As the end of the Bush era draws near, it is clear that its policy of treating Iran as a country that must be weakened, punished and perhaps even overthrown has failed. Suddenly it has become fashionable to say that Iran must be recognized, respected and dealt with as the increasingly powerful nation that it is.

Earlier this month Henry A. Kissinger, who as secretary of state helped arm and prop up Iran’s monarchy in the 1970s, said there was "no reason for the United States to resist a strong Iran" today. The goal should be to restore the old regional balance of power based on the pillars of two countries friendly to America, Israel and Iran, he added.

In his new book, "The Devil We Know," Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. case officer turned author, goes further. He paints a picture of Iran as a disciplined, strategic, monolithic "police state" and military power driven by imperial ambitions. "At the bottom of Iran’s soul is a newfound taste for empire," he states.

Mr. Baer, who is fluent in Arabic and says he has rusty Persian, spent years in the Middle East. He certainly knows places like Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia well. But Arabia is not Persia, and the lens of the Arab world can distort Iran rather than bring it into sharp focus.

His Iran doesn’t care about international boundaries or accept Western definitions of how the world should be organized. His Iran has "effectively annexed" the entire south of Iraq and could gain control of Iraqi oil. His Iran wants control of Islam’s holiest sites, Mecca and Medina.

"I witnessed firsthand Iran’s seismic shift, its rise from anarchy to statist power," Mr. Baer writes. But most of his eye-witnessing was done from afar. Mr. Baer says he was in Iran for a week in late 1978, just before the victory of the revolution. He visited again in 2005 — he doesn’t say for how long — as part of a British television documentary team.

On that visit, he laments, he "couldn’t find a single good restaurant in Tehran." He was invited to parties, which he heard were as "wild and hip" as anything in the West, but worried that he had "pressed his luck" and stayed away. Anyway, he adds, "I couldn’t stay up that late." Readers who enjoyed George Clooney’s performance in "Syriana" (the character was modeled on Mr. Baer) might be disappointed that in real life Mr. Baer was too timid and tired to go to a party in a private Iranian home. He might have met some real Iranians there. And did he really have so few sources on the ground in Tehran that he could not find a good restaurant? (There are many.)

Perhaps Mr. Baer is unaware that Iranians operate in two worlds, the public and the private, and that just about everything meaningful in social and political life happens behind closed doors. Some of the best conversations — and the best meals — are in private homes.

"Iran is a culture completely alien to ours," he writes. But behind those walls are a lot of regular people from different backgrounds who want much the same things Americans do: a decent standard of living and secure futures for their kids.

At times Mr. Baer describes Iran in sweeping absolutes. "For the last 15 years, Iran has demonstrated a consistent, coherent strategy: It tests its strategy, vets it proxies, judges who is serious and who isn’t, and makes plans accordingly," he writes. The statement ignores the fact that Iran’s leadership sometimes behaves in unpredictable ways. Iran is a country of raw, often raucous politics where different points of view — within the ruling elite — are expressed, debated and accepted or rejected.

Then he shifts course, saying that Iran’s lines of power and authority are "almost impossible to follow."

"They seem to change between morning and night," he continues.

He correctly points out that Iran is a place of checks and balances, where the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, "rules by a consensus obscure even to outsiders." But then he says with authority that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is merely a "figurehead," ignoring that he is an important player whose public declarations that Iran will never bow to the will of others in its nuclear program have been accepted as policy. One of Mr. Baer’s most honest assertions in "The Devil We Know" is toward the end, when he finally admits, "At all levels Iran is never what it seems."

Throughout the book readers may find themselves asking, "How does he know?" How does he know that in a secret address to Iran’s National Security Council in October 2000, Ayatollah Khamenei put both hands on the conference table, looked around the room and announced, "Lebanon is Iran’s greatest foreign policy success" and said that success would be repeated "until all of Islam was liberated." Did the C.I.A. have a secret video camera in the room? A spy?

How does he know that Iran’s military is still a formidable, combat-hardened fighting force because of its experience on the battlefield in the Iran-Iraq war? That conflict ended 20 years ago. Just because Iran thinks of itself as the pre-eminent power of the Persian Gulf (look at its size, population and location) doesn’t mean that it is bent on establishing an empire from the Middle East to South Asia. Just because Iran has based its military doctrine on a defensive strategy of asymmetrical warfare doesn’t mean that it has expansionist designs.

He calls Iran "the only stable, enduring state in the gulf" and "a rational actor with fixed reasonable demands." The only real option, he adds, is to sit down together at the negotiating table, treat Iran as the power it has become and see what it has to offer. The United States should also guarantee Iranian international security, conduct joint patrols in the Persian Gulf, establish direct military-to-military communications there, ease sanctions so that Iran will not lust after Saudi oil and give Iran a defined security role in Iraq and Afghanistan, he writes.

Many of these ideas sound reasonable. Indeed, Iran is the most powerful and stable country in the Persian Gulf, and the United States has for too long often treated it as an unruly child to be ignored or a criminal to be punished. But Mr. Baer undercuts the force of his argument when he throws out a list of more ambitious recommendations that would require the reshaping of the Middle East.

The United States should leave Iraq and "drop the mess" into Iran’s lap. The partition of Iraq should happen as quickly as possible. Iran should not be prevented from being allowed to administer the holiest sites of Islam with Saudi Arabia. Jordan should be turned into a Palestinian state. Why not hold a referendum in Bahrain to determine whether it wants to return to its status as an Iranian island? Why not redraw the borders of the Middle East in both Israel’s and Iran’s favor?

These proposals could be the subject of Mr. Baer’s next book. Perhaps he could begin it by explaining why he seems to hold the Iranians in such awe and the Arabs in such contempt. As he writes at one point, the Arabs "lack the spiritual and intellectual depth of Iranians." How does he know?






 

[bigron]

SPEAKING FREELY


The impending strike on Iran

By David Fink

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JK01Ak02.html

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say.



Fact. We are in the beginning of a worldwide recession that will last until at least late 2009. This recession will be worse than the "light" recession of 2001-2002, and the "serious" recession of 1990-1991. In scope, it will be a "severe" recession like the one in 1982.

Fact. People will start saving for the first time in a generation. The savings rate will go from a negative 1% to 8-9%.

Fact. Without increases in consumer spending, the government

 

will have to spend trillions of dollars to restart the economy. The United States is experiencing unprecedented levels of government, corporate, and individual debt. It cannot go through a period of inflation without its economy collapsing. Policymakers know this and they will do anything in their power to prevent deflation and re-inflate the economy. The Treasury and Federal Reserve have literally been printing money in order to float us out of the current crisis in an ocean of liquidity.

This policy has been working for over two decades. However, to inject this much liquidity into the system will create tremendous downward pressure on the dollar. If the dollar falls apart, the United States will no longer have the ability to fix its problems with the printing press.

How will we know if we will be able to get out of this recession in one piece? We will need to know if, a) we are experiencing deflation or inflation, and b) if the dollar is strong enough to keep reproducing itself at this rate.

The price of gold will tell us what type of monetary environment we are in. If gold stays put at $700, or begins to go down from here, then we are in a deflationary period. For the United States to be going through deflation when everybody in this country is over their heads in debt is dangerous. For these two problems to occur during an economic downturn where unemployment could hit 10% is potentially catastrophic. Over the past month, major downturns in the stock market indices have been preceded by huge drops in the price of gold.

The US dollar index will tell us if we can still use the same medicine traditionally prescribed by Alan Greenspan. If the dollar index holds above 70, we can print our way out of this recession. If the index breaks 70, then the dollar could be in trouble. Look for higher interest rates, inflation, and the government's ability to raise debt will be hampered - this could kill future growth.

Gold and the US dollar index have become the two vital signs of the global economy.

If there is a run on the dollar, the US will not be able to borrow enough money to fight two wars, bail out the whole financial system, and initiate a spending program that will end the current recession. Policymakers will have to make difficult choices. This presents a once-in-a-lifetime "opportunity" for President George W Bush.

The smart money has chosen Senator Barack Obama as our next president. If we don't have a currency strong enough to borrow the necessary funds to do everything, I think Obama will try to pull out of Iraq. Given that we are winning the war in Iraq and have pledged to significantly draw down troop numbers in the next couple of years, how hard would it be for Obama to declare victory and pull out now? Politically, this would signal a message to the rest of the world that America has changed course and is ready to work with everybody else.

But that's not why Obama would pull out.

He won't do it for political reasons - he will do it for economical ones. A beaten-down dollar means that spending in one place will mean less money somewhere else. Up until now, Americans have been able to spend in one area, and borrow to finance another one. If president Obama doesn't end the war, monies that are needed at home will not materialize. We will hear stories about how the everyday American can't afford basic health care while we are still fighting in Iraq.

The popularity Obama has enjoyed as a candidate will soon turn to hostility if the average American family had to suffer because he didn't keep his promise to end the war. His decision will be due to economic reality - but it will have very dangerous political, military, and national security implications. Most of all, George W Bush's entire legacy will be wiped away.

Don't you think the Bush administration is pondering this possibility?

A president is definitely most powerful when he is a lame duck who is ceding power to an opposing party. If you are the outgoing president, or a member of the outgoing administration, you are thinking one thing: if Obama wins, November and December would be ideal time to attack Iran.

Consider this:

Bush is a lame duck. He won't be around to have to deal with any fallout from such a move.

Obama will never attack Iran. Four years from now, we will not be able to stop Iran from completing work on their bomb. Bush has always had a big sense of destiny in his leadership. If he believes that he is the only one who can save the world, he may decide to do it.

Obama can fix the damage. The Arab world loves Obama. They view him as a fellow Muslim. After Bush protects the nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar and half of Europe from nuclear disaster, and these nations openly proclaim their hatred for him, Obama can come to power and spend his first 100 days in office "apologizing" for Bush's "mistakes". The US will literally get a "free pass" for this in the eyes of the world.

When oil was at $147 a barrel, there was no way the Bush administration was going to risk spiking it to $250 - especially with a presidential election coming up. Come November, oil will be trading at $70 per barrel. A strike on Iran may raise the price temporarily to its 52-week high of $150 per barrel. The election will be over and politically, the Bush administration will have nothing to lose.

An attack on Iran will force the American military to stay in Iraq for a longer period of time. The immediate Iranian response to an American attack will be to escalate the war. They will "green light" Shi'ite groups in Southern Iraq to go back to war with American forces. They will finance and encourage terrorist groups around the world to hit America wherever and whenever. They will broaden the war in the region by inciting Syria, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel - assuming they don't fire on Israel themselves. America will have to stay at least an extra 2-3 years until things "quiet down" again. This new situation will also insure that the national security infrastructure created after September 11, and nurtured throughout the Bush administration, will not lose any of its powers during the new administration.

Members of the Bush administration, who left their jobs in the private sector, will soon be returning to the private sector. They all came from the oil industry and they want to make sure that they will be taken care of. Those 433,000 stock options in Halliburton outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney put in a trust before he assumed office - he gets them back January 20. It would be in his best interests if the shares of these companies were trading higher. That goes for the rest of the Bush administration - they will all want to make sure that the heads of the oil industry - their next employers - are happy. Obama has promised to tax the oil industry next year. An attack on Iran will drive oil prices up so that the additional revenue generated by these companies will, at a least, make up for any new tax obligations.

The aftershocks of the US attack will keep oil prices in triple digits and reinitiate the debate about drilling for offshore oil. A higher price will give big oil new political clout in developing oil fields in areas considered environmentally unsound. A heightened global tension means that the next administration will be forced to maintain current government outlays to the defense industry.

The final three points will force Obama to continue the core policies of the Bush administration whether he likes it or not. If you are viewing the world from the point of view of the Bush administration, you see a lot of very big arguments for attacking Iran now.

From this we can come to a very simple conclusion: America will either attack Iran in the next two and a half months, or it never will.

David Fink is the editor-in-chief of the daily investment newsletter www.realwealthrecon.com. Throughout 2008, his RWR Investment Portfolio has outperformed the market indices by 20%, and the average hedge fund by 3%.

[skyfind]

Leader urges Iran military breakthrough 
Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:12:03 GMT 



The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has urged Iranian experts to make a technological breakthrough in the country's defense industry.

Iran's Deputy Army Commander Brigadier General Abdolrahim Moussavi said Saturday that Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in a new command, had called for exclusively-developed military equipment.

"One method to win an all-out war is to employ weapons which the enemy is unfamiliar with," Brig. Gen. Moussavi said.

The Iranian official also announced that 109 types of innovative military equipment had been added to the Iranian arsenal over the past two years, a few of which were displayed during the country's recent maneuvers.

The report comes as earlier in August, the Leader called for concerted efforts to further upgrade and promote the Iranian Air Force fleet to counter Western threats of an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Brig. Gen. Moussavi cautioned that Iran has a better geopolitical and strategic advantage over the enemy in the event of an attack on Iranian soil.

'Different locations outside Iranian borders have been chosen as targets and should the occasion arise Iran's Armed Forces will strike these bases,' said the Iranian commander.

Israel, the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, accuses Iran - a signatory to the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - of making efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and has threatened to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

In response to war threats, Iran has warned it will not hesitate to target 'Israel and 32 US bases' in the region, should the country come under attack.

CS/HGH

--

source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=73981&sectionid=351020101

[skyfind]

Some Israelis feel an urgency to attack Iran

Officials say other nations quietly want Israel to act unilaterally against Tehran's nuclear ambitions. But an effective strike would be difficult and could stir up a wider conflict.

By Ashraf Khalil and Paul Richter
10:43 AM PDT, November 1, 2008

Reporting from Washington and Jerusalem -- With international efforts to increase sanctions against Iran at a standstill, many Israelis believe their nation alone stands in the way of Tehran eventually building nuclear weapons.

But officials and analysts in Jerusalem also acknowledge that a unilateral attack is fraught with danger and might fail to cripple Iran's bomb-making abilities. Much of the international community quietly wants Israel to launch a strike, the officials say, but only if it succeeds.

"They will be very happy if we do their dirty work for them," said Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. "The world is moving into 'What can we do about it?' mode. There is a strong instinct here to do it on our own."

To many in Israel, the situation is reminiscent of 1981, when the Jewish state acted on its own in bombing the Osirak reactor in Iraq, and last year, when it launched a unilateral strike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria.

A wild card in the equation is Israel's own political situation. With parliamentary elections on the horizon, no leader in Jerusalem is a dove concerning Iran.

Last month, the U.N. Security Council voted to extend sanctions on Iran, but failed to add new strictures. Immediately after, Israeli Cabinet minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer charged that "the world has resigned itself to the fact that Iran is going to be a nuclear power. . . . This means only one thing: that we have to look out for ourselves."

Patrick Clawson, a longtime Iran analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, believes an Israeli strike on Iran would be received with gratitude in some capitals, provided it worked. "Success would have a thousand fathers," he said. "A lot of Arab countries would be pleased."

Several Sunni Arab governments, especially the Persian Gulf states, openly worry that a nuclear Iran, a predominantly Shiite Muslim nation, would extend its growing regional influence.

In Israel, the issue of whether to strike first against Iranian nuclear facilities remains a steady topic of debate.

"I don't know which direction this is going to go in Israel," said Emily Landau, director of arms control and regional security programs at the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank.

Although the "pressure is rising" domestically toward undertaking a unilateral attack, public sentiment is still in flux, Landau said. It could "move in the direction of more and more people in Israel concluding that a nuclear Iran is not something we can stop."

Tehran has consistently said that its nuclear program is for peaceful power generation. And former U.S. and U.N. weapons inspector David Kay recently said in a speech that he thought it would be two to five years before Iran could produce enough fissile material for a bomb. A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate last year said it would be possible but "highly unlikely" for Tehran to reach that goal by the end of 2009.

But some in Israel see a narrow window in which to act.

"Time is running very, very short right now," said Ephraim Asculai, a former top official at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission who is now a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies.

U.S. officials fear that an attack would trigger violent repercussions, most notably a wider regional conflict that would inevitably force the entry of American troops. Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said he does not intend to get involved in another war when he has his hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan.

The global economic crisis only strengthens opposition. The ambassador of one Arab country predicted this week that the major powers would be unwilling to take any step that might drive the price of Iranian oil back up again.

An August report by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank that studies nuclear proliferation, said the dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear facilities and the still-sketchy Western intelligence made it impossible for a single airstrike to succeed. "It would need multiple strikes against many sites," the report concluded. "After such strikes, the attacker might still have little confidence that it had denied Iran the ability to produce weapon-grade uranium."

Within Israel, there are rising voices against a unilateral attack.

"We can't afford to lose wars here," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli analyst and director of Middle East Economic and Political Analysis Co.

Israel's military establishment knows that an effective strike would be difficult, Javedanfar said, and could prompt a large and multi-pronged Iranian retaliation against Israel and against U.S. troops in Iraq.

"They'll only support [an attack] if it would set Iran's nuclear program back at least five if not 10 years and they could restrain the Iranian retaliation. Then it's a viable option," Javedanfar said.

The U.N.'s failure to impose tougher penalties probably signaled the end of a final U.S. push against Iran before President Bush leaves office.

Although Russia and China approved an extension of the ban on arms sales to Iran and a partial freeze of its assets overseas, they opposed additional measures.

In September, the Bush administration stepped up economic pressure outside the U.N. framework, blacklisting Iran's national shipping line, eighteen of its affiliates and about 120 individual ships for allegedly cooperating with Tehran's nuclear and missile development.

And last month, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions against the Export Development Bank of Iran, charging that the government bank was an instrument supporting the country's nuclear research program.

But in other ways, the level of activity and rhetoric from Washington has fallen noticeably in recent months.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in September that the U.S. continued to work with its allies to develop new ways to pressure Iran. But she did not promise that the group would complete the work before January.

"We'll see," she said.

Khalil and Richter are Times staff writers.

--

source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iziran2-2008nov02,0,7599004,full.story

[Optimus]

Pentagon warns Europe about Iran missiles
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74061&sectionid=3510203
Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:09:32 GMT

Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency says Iran is close to using its missile capabilities against Washington and its European allies.

In a recent address in Prague, head of Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, Henry A. Obering III stepped up efforts to persuade the Czech Parliament to ratify the deployment of a US missile defense shield in the country's territory.

"There's an urgency to getting the schedule on," Obering said.

Washington has strived to gain Czech approval to build a defense shield southwest of Prague, claiming it would protect the United States and Europe from the so-called 'rogue states'.

The controversial shield has sparked increasing protest among Czechs, who are wary of any foreign military presence after two decades of occupation.

According to a recent opinion poll, 68 percent of Czechs were against the shield, while 24 percent were in favor of it. Anti-radar activists believe the shield will make the Czech Republic a target and thus undermine its security.

This comes as a Pentagon official claimed on Friday Oct.31 that any country should be allowed to attack states it considers terrorist havens.

"If country X, within its borders, is openly tolerating or incapable of managing a location where people are consistently attacking a neighbor, is it sufficient to say, 'well, it's within their sovereign territory, nobody can do anything about it'? I think that's not true and I think there's a serious question about whether that's what the law ought to be," said Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.

The remarks followed recent US raids on Syria and Pakistan which sparked world-wide condemnation.

"It is obvious that such unilateral military actions have a sharply negative effect on the situation in the region, and widen the seat of dangerous armed tension," read a Russian Foreign Ministry statement dated Oct.27.

"During the US chopper attack on Syria on Sunday, innocent people were killed, and again children were among the dead," said Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Qashqavi in an Oct.27 press conference.

[Optimus]

Pentagon: Iran Will Soon be Able to Attack Europe
http://www.poligazette.com/2008/11/02/pentagon-iran-will-soon-be-able-to-attack-europe/
November 2nd, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien
 
Speaking in the Czech Republic, Pentagon official Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III told the country’s Parliament that it would not take long before Iran will be able to strike against every single European country. The U.S. too would be within reach of Iranian missiles, Obering said, in five to six years.

Obering spoke in Prague in an attempt to convince the country’s Parliament to support the decision of the government to let the U.S. build part of its missile defense system in the eastern European country.

Now keep in mind that French intelligence officials believe that Iran will be able to build its first nuclear bomb in the summer of 2009. That means that one year from now, Iran will be able to destroy an entire European city by just one strike. Shortly after, of course, more cities will be within Iran’s reach, for the country will continue to build nuclear weapons once it has one; it wants more.

Not only would this put Europe and later the U.S. at risk, it would also dramatically alter the balance in the region. If Iran is capable of striking against Europe, and later against the United States, the West will be unlikely to act against Iran when it tries to, say, take over other countries in the region. This means that Iran will become the region’s superpower.

These developments make it even more important for the West to build the missile defense system and to make sure that Iran will not be able to put nuclear heads on its missiles.

[skyfind]

America With No Plan for an Oil Interruption

Iran Defiantly Increases Threat to Strait of Hormuz with New Naval Base
Martin Barillas   November 3rd 2008

Cutting Edge Senior Contributor



Iran opened a new naval base on October 27, 2008, at the southern mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic chokepoint for Persian Gulf oil.

About 20 percent of the world’s petroleum and 40 percent of the searborne crude traverse the Strait daily. As such, some 20 percent of America's daily oil needs, passes through the Strait, according to the Energy Information Administration. The EIA has dubbed it, “by far the world’s most important chokepoint.”

Author Edwin Black in his book, The Plan, has spotlighted the fact that the United States has no plan in the event of an oil interruption. The threat to American oil was a point not lost on Iranian naval chief Habibollah Sayyari who was quoted as saying the base at the town of Jask (1,050 miles from Tehran) would enable Iran to block the entry of an "enemy" into the Gulf.

"In this region we are capable of preventing the entry of any kind of enemy into the strategic Persian Gulf if need be," said Sayyari. Iran appears to be bent upon extending its strategic reach to the Indian Ocean and the Sea of Oman, as well.

Iran has threatened to close the Strait in response to a potential military strike over its nuclear activities, while vehemently denying claims by Western powers that it is seeking to create a nuclear weapon. Even so, the Islamist controlled government continues its uranium enrichment program, which is feared to hide a process to make fuel for nuclear weapons.

There has been speculation that the U.S. or Israel might stage a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in response to Iran's refusal to halt the enrichment of uranium, a process which can be used to make fuel for nuclear bombs. Even so, an oil interruption staged by Iran could also have devastating effects for the region and the world. Hundreds of oil tankers pass through the Strait annually, laden with oil for the world. The Strait's navigable channel is only two miles wide in each direction. A military strike by Iran--reactive or premptive--could stop this flow. Any international military response would be met by the new Iranian naval base and a phalanx of missiles now possessed or in development by Iran and North Korea, as well as assymetical small swarming tactics, suicide forces, entrenched cave-based terror rockets and other forces.

Iran's Deputy Army Commander Brigadier General Abdolrahim Moussavi announced that the new naval base at Jask would serve as an “impenetrable naval barrier” against Iran’s potential adversaries, according to TV.  Sounding bellicose, Moussavi  stressed Iran’s commitment to expanding its strategic reach, arguing that, "In the past, our military had to brace itself for countering regional enemies. This is while today we are faced with extra-regional threats."

If the Strait should be closed, and the access to the world's markets for Saudi Arabia's oil terminals be hindered due to an attack, some six to nine million barrels per day will be taken off the global market, leading to an overnight oil price-hike to more than $200/bbl. Author Black has stated that with no plan for fuel shifting and retrofitting, within weeks the country would see food shortages, mass unemployment and a neighbor vs. neighbor scenario.

Iran could possibly cause a disruption without resorting to mining the Strait, as it did in the Iran-Iraq war. The world would rely on the United States Navy to eliminate this conventional threat. But US sea mine capabilities are predicated on a non-threatening environment, which is something that could not now be guaranteed given Iran’s missile batteries along its shores. At best, it could take weeks or months for the Navy to clear the strait of mines and restore confidence to shippers and the oil market. In today’s environment, however, the Navy would face Iranian cruise-missiles enhanced by North Korean technology launched from land-based and ship-based batteries. Thus the potential of further military escalation is obvious. The US has not faced such a cruise missile threat in the past. Argentina used a French-made Exocet short-range cruise missile in 1982 during the Falklands-Malvinas War that severely damaged the HMS Glamorgan destroyer. The cruise-missiles in Iran’s stockpile have a longer range. An October 28 test by North Korea, a supplier of technology to Iran, showed that it now has the capability of launching a sub-sonic cruise missile with a 100 mile effective range.

In order to protect its fleet, the US would be faced with the prospect of seeking and destroying the several hundred Iranian mobile land-based, anti-ship cruise missiles, mushrooming into a sustained naval and air warfare.

But experts believe Iran would not have to entirely shut down the Strait in order to cause an escalation of hostilities in the region and a resultant spike in oil prices. By laying just a few mines from its stockpiles, Iran could create a "virtual closure," convincing petroleum shipping companies and their insurers that the risk of passage outweighs the benefits. The mines that Iran is thought to have are the Russian-made MDM-6, delivered by ship or submarine, and ten times more powerful than those used in the 1980s. These detonate in response to acoustic, magnetic, or pressure phenomena within a range of 60 yards. These could halt or severely limit ship traffic through the Strait and the Persian Gulf. Iran is believed to have at least 2,000 such mines that can be delivered from its  three frigates, two corvettes, three submarines and 10 fast missile boats. Iran maintains three ships in the Persian Gulf that appear to have dedicated mine-laying capabilities, plus three mine-laying helicopters. For a sense of scale, in 1972 the US Navy was able to totally shut down North Vietnam’s Haiphong Harbor with just 36 much less sophisticated mines.

Many believe the first test for the new American president will in fact be centered at the Strait of Hormuz.

Senior Cutting Edge correspondent Martin Barillas is a former diplomat who edits www.speroforum.com

--

source: http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=888&pageid=20&pagename=Security

[skyfind]

'Iran ready to counter possible attack'
Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:04:35 GMT


Iranian soldiers marching earlier this year

"Our modern weaponry, most of which are homemade, and advanced military tactics have turned the Islamic Republic of Iran's Armed Forces into a determined force that is ready to respond to any military attack," Deputy Commander of the Iranian Army, General Mohammad-Hassan Baqeri said on Monday.

Baqeri's comments came as a Los Angeles Times article revealed that many Israelis feel they need to carry out a military strike against Iran.

The paper quoted Ephraim Asculai, a member of the influential Israeli think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies and former top official at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission as saying, "Time is running very, very short right now."

However, the LA Times also reports that some in Israel believe a unilateral attack against Iran would have a negative outcome. "We can't afford to lose wars here," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli analyst who directs the Middle East Economic and Political Analysis Co.

According to Javedanfar, the Israeli military knows that an effective strike would be difficult and could lead to a large Iranian retaliation against Israel and US troops stationed in the region.

Tel Aviv, Middle East's sole nuclear-armed power, claims that Tehran's nuclear program poses a threat to its existence. The UN nuclear watchdog, however, has found nothing to justify alleged Israeli fears, despite conducting 17 surprise inspections of Iran's nuclear sites.

MJ/RA

--

source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74169&sectionid=351020101

[skyfind]

'Israel thirsty for new Mideast war'
Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:13:07 GMT


Lebanon's former president Emile Lahoud

Israel strives to spark military conflict in the Middle East, according to a stark warning from former Lebanese president Emile Lahoud.

"Israel is trying to create war and conflict in the region with fresh schemes, but the Lebanese nation is alert to the new threat and is able to counter it," said Lahoud in a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran on Sunday.

"We have to stand united as the future belongs to those nations who fight against oppression and aim for justice," he told the Iranian president.

His remarks come after the release of reports that Tel Aviv has intensified preparations to launch a third war against Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad responded by praising the Lebanese people for their resistance during the 33-day war Israel waged against the country in the summer of 2006.

"Lebanon's enemies are weaker than before, and its people are capable of countering Israeli plots," said Ahmadinejad.


Emile Lahoud (L) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (R), Tehran, Oct 2

Emil Lahoud and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met amid growing speculation about a possible Israeli military attack against both countries.

On Saturday, 12 Israeli warplanes again violated Lebanese airspace, flying over northern and southern areas of the country.

Israeli warplanes have repeatedly violated Lebanon's airspace since UN Security Council Resolution 1701 put an end to the July 2006 war.

The Israeli air force has also been preparing for a possible military attack against Iranian nuclear sites.

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

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

Western countries allege that Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) poses an existential threat to Israel, despite an unprecedented number of UN nuclear watchdog inspections having found no evidence to support claims that Tehran seeks nuclear weaponry.

MJ/CW/AA/DT

--

source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74146&sectionid=351020101

[Optimus]

Iran equips navy with stealth submarine
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74288&sectionid=351020101
Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:54:02 GMT
 

Iran's stealth-capable Ghadir submarine
 
Iran successfully manufactures new stealth military equipment after the Leader of the Islamic Revolution urged a military breakthrough.

Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar said Tuesday that Iranian experts had produced new stealth micro submarines, vessels, and lightweight aircraft.

Brig. Gen. Mohammad-Najjar said the new military developments come in line with the Leader's command, ordering exclusively developed equipment to enhance the country's defense industry in the face of possible threats.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for the production of exclusive military hardware for the country, asserting that in order to counter a potential attack, Iran should employ weapons the enemy is unfamiliar with.

“Militarily-empowered countries can easily maintain their stability and independence,” said Brig. Gen. Mohammad-Najjar.

He stressed that strategic intelligence is of utmost importance in enhancing the country's military awareness and vigilance.

In response to the West's war rhetoric, Iran has taken steps to improve its defense capabilities and has introduced some 109 types of innovative military equipment over the past two years.

Washington echelons --who accuse Tehran, a victim of terrorism, of supporting terror--, say they should have the right to attack states they consider terrorist havens.

Iran has warned that it is unlike any other country in the Middle East and that the recent US raids on Syria and Pakistan cannot be staged against the Islamic Republic. 

[Optimus]

Iran army warns US forces to steer clear of borders
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ji9dlT-E3M0_CwBZ4WW6siSGc-6Q
8 hours ago

TEHRAN (AFP) — Tehran's military on Wednesday urged US forces to steer clear of Iran's borders with neighbouring Iraq and warned it would respond "to any invasion," the official IRNA news agency reported.

Iran will "take down" any overflying aircraft which fails to respond to warnings, a high-ranking Iranian air force commander was quoted by Fars newsagency as saying.

The armed forces headquarters said in a statement carried by IRNA: "Recently US army helicopters have been spotted flying close to the borders of Iraq with the Islamic republic.

"Given the risk of their invasion... the Islamic republic's defence forces will respond to any invasion."

The statement also urged US commanders in Iraq to keep their forces a secure distance from the borders to avoid any risks.

The unidentified air force commander said his country's reaction to any incursion would go beyond warnings.

"If something happens, we will carry out all the steps from giving a warning to taking down the detected (foreign) airplanes according to regulations," the commander told Fars.

"Due to the threats posed by enemies in recent months, the armed forces are at the highest level of preparation and all of our warnings will be definitely doable," he said.

The commander also said that in the past month the country's forces have dealt with two foreign aircraft that entered Iran's air space without permission.

On October 7, Iran said it had forced down in its territory a Hungarian aid plane, contradicting earlier reports it was carrying US soldiers.

US forces launched a helicopter raid on a Syrian border village with Iraq on October 26 in which according to Damascus eight civilians including children were killed.

A US official in Washington has said the operation targeted a top militant who smuggled arms and fighters into Iraq but officially the State Department and Pentagon declined to comment.

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Monday during a visit to the Syrian capital denounced the raid and expressed "the solidarity of the Iranian people with the Syrian people after the American raid."

The US accuses Tehran of training and arming so-called "special groups" who then launch attacks on American troops inside Iraq.

Iran vehemently denies the allegations and says ongoing violence in its war-torn neighbour is due to the presence of American forces.

In October, General Ray Odierno, who commands US forces in Iraq, accused Iran of trying to bribe Iraqi lawmakers in the hope of undermining an agreement that would allow US troops to remain in Iraq after the end of this year.

[Optimus]

Iran sees US choppers near its frontiers
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/05/news/ML-Iran-US-Helicopters.php
The Associated Press Published: November 5, 2008

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran's military says U.S. helicopters have been flying too close to its border with Iraq and may even have crossed the frontier.

The statement, carried by the state news agency Wednesday, says the helicopters were seen in Iraq and are "likely to violate Iranian airspace".

The Iranian military said it would respond to any violation of its borders and warned the U.S. military to keep its distance.

The U.S. military has over 150,000 troops in Iraq who make extensive use of helicopters to transport forces and carry out patrols.

Iraq-based U.S. forces carried out a raid on neighboring Syria on Oct. 26, killing eight people.

[skyfind]

November 6, 2008

Army warns U.S. not to violate Iranian airspace

 TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran warned U.S. forces in Iraq on Wednesday that it would respond to any violation of Iranian airspace.

The Iranian army statement, reported by radio, followed a cross-border raid last month by U.S. forces into Syria, a move that was condemned by Damascus and Tehran.

""Recently it has been seen that American army helicopters were flying a small distance from Iraq's border with Iran and, because of the closeness to the border, the danger of them violating Iran's border is possible,"" the radio reported.

""Iran's armed forces will respond to any violation,"" radio said, citing a statement from Iran's army headquarters.

Iran has warned it would respond to any attack on its territory by targeting U.S. interests and America's ally Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and vital route for world oil supplies.

--
source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=181771

[skyfind]

 
NATO doubts Iran can close oil route
Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:57:05 GMT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74401&sectionid=351020101

...

then  :
Iran: We can block off PG in blink of an eye
Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:32:43 GMT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74449&sectionid=351020101

A senior Iranian official has brushed aside the remarks made by a NATO official that Iran is incapable of blocking the Persian Gulf.


An Iranian navy vessel

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

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

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

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

MGH/RE

[skyfind]

more illegal sanctions and propaganda 

US Imposes Banking Sanctions on Iran
http://voanews.com/english/2008-11-06-voa62.cfm

Iran nuclear threat is real, expert says
http://www.stljewishlight.com/topstories/339049053258828.php
---

yep, it will be the same thing 
Israel Warns Obama About Iran Talks
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-11-06-voa36.cfm

Israel's foreign minister says any U.S. talks with Iran may be seen as a sign of weakness.

--

meanwhile... 
Iran calls for anti-nuclear weapons movement 
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74484&sectionid=351020104ç

PD: don´t get me wrong, i don´t think that Iran is the country where is true liberty and justice, but in this case of who really is a threat with nuclear weapons (-->israel<--) i´m with Iran

[bigron]

Last Updated: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 12:03
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1106/breaking17.htm


Israel warns Obama against dialogue with Iran

Israel said today US president-elect Barack Obama's stated readiness to talk to Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of weakness in efforts to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear programme.

"We live in a neighbourhood in which sometimes dialogue -- in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and you then shift to dialogue -- is liable to be interpreted as weakness," foreign minister Tzipi Livni said, asked on Israel Radio about policy change toward Tehran in an Obama administration.

Her remarks sounded the first note of dissonance with Mr Obama by a senior member of the Israeli government since the Democrat's sweeping victory over Republican candidate John McCain in the US presidential election on Tuesday.

Asked if she supported any US dialogue with Iran, Ms Livni replied: "The answer is no."

Ms Livni, leading the centrist Kadima party into Israel's February 10th parliamentary election, also said "the bottom line" was that the United States, under Obama, "is also not willing to accept a nuclear Iran".

A senior Iranian official today called on Mr Obama to show goodwill and remove sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Mr Obama has said he would harden sanctions but has also held out the possibility of direct talks with the United States to solve problems, including the dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

"Through the lifting of the past government's cruel sanctions against Iran, Barack Obama can demonstrate his goodwill to the Iranian people," Prosecutor-General Ayatollah Qorban-Ali Dori-Najafabadi said.

"Calling for forgiveness and remorse for the past U.S. government's deeds by the new government can bring about the great Iranian nation's forgiveness," he was quoted as saying in the northwestern city of Tabriz.

The United States cut diplomatic ties with Iran after its Islamic Revolution in 1979 and is spearheading a drive to isolate the country over its nuclear activities.

Mr Obama, like current US President George W. Bush, has not ruled out military action although he has criticised the outgoing administration for not pushing diplomacy and engagement with Iran.

Iranian officials have said his election victory on Tuesday showed the American people's desire for fundamental change in domestic and foreign policy from the policies of Mr Bush, who labelled Iran part of an "axis of evil".

The head of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy commission said any change in Iran's strategy towards Washington would depend on a change in the US approach, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"As long as the US policy toward Iran stays the way it currently is, negotiations with that country will have no meaning," Alaeddin Boroujerdi said in the city of Mashad.

The West believes Iran's nuclear enrichment programme is aimed at building atomic weapons, an allegation the Islamic Republic denies.

Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has said Iran's nuclear programme is a threat to its existence and that it was keeping all options on the table to stop it.

Reuters

[Optimus]

Obama--fresh face for war on Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74672&sectionid=3510203
Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:21:43 GMT

Barack Obama's top advisers are setting the stage for a military action against Iran over its nuclear program, new reports have revealed.

The emerging consensus on Iran in US foreign policy circles underscores the fact that the differences between Obama and John McCain were purely tactical, according to the World Socialist Website.

While millions of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia-including the use of military force against Iran.

The report points to Obama's top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, as one of the key figures promoting a military action against Iran.

Ross is a key member of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, which declared in a report in September that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”.

The report said that the US needs to immediately boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf.

“This should commence the first day the new president enters office, especially as the Islamic Republic and its proxies might seek to test the new administration. It would involve pre-positioning US and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, [and] emplacing other war materiel in the region,” it stated
 

[Optimus]

Powell said Obama will face a major crisis a day or two after taking office. Could this be the crisis Powell was talking about? The article I posted just before this states that Obama should prepare for war with Iran the very first day he takes office.

'Israel war on Iran on the radar'
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74727&sectionid=351020104
Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:36:36 GMT
 
A senior European Union diplomat says the perfect time for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear installations 'is between now and January 20'.

"A possible Israeli strike against Iran is not completely off the radar," Turkish paper Hurriyet quoted the diplomat as saying.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday that Tel Aviv is 'convinced that Iran continues to try to build a nuclear weapon'.

"We don't rule out any option. We recommend others don't rule out any option either," added Barak, in regards to Obama's plans for Iran.

Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), denies the Israeli claim, insisting that its enrichment program is solely directed at the civilian applications of the technology.

Israel, meanwhile, argues that the use of military force is a legitimate option in halting Iran's nuclear progress.

"Israelis would consider a move such as this before Bush and Cheney leave," said the EU diplomat, adding that once Obama takes office, Israel's chances of striking Iran would be off the agenda.

President-elect of the United States Barack Obama will replace George W. Bush on January 20. While campaigning for the White House, Obama vowed to engage Iran with direct diplomacy in order to resolve the disputed nuclear issue.

In his first post-election press conference on Friday, Senator Obama said the international community has to mount an effort to prevent 'Iran's development of a nuclear weapon'.

The UN nuclear watchdog, which has extensively monitored Iran's nuclear activities since 2003, concedes that it is not in a position to fully clarify the nature of the Iranian nuclear program.

The agency, however, announced in its latest Iran report that its inspectors have not found any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' in the country.



Colin Powell warns of crisis in January
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=65952.msg344483#msg344483

[bigron]

Arabs lament lack of dialogue on Iran nuclear crisis
AFP

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m48642&hd=&size=1&l=e

November 9, 2008

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (AFP) — Arab diplomats complained on Sunday about a lack of dialogue with the West over Iran's nuclear ambitions during a briefing on the crisis by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attended the meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh alongside French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and their counterparts from Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.

"The Arab countries wanted to be informed of the state of negotiations" between Iran and six major world powers -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- said an official who attended the talks.

Another participant said the Arab diplomats expressed "deep concerns" at the meeting and complained of "insufficient dialogue" between Arab countries and the six world powers on the standoff over Iran's nuclear drive.

Western nations led by the United States accuse Tehran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons but Iran vehemently denies the charges, saying its programme is solely aimed at generating electricity.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Salah Bashir told the meeting that "the nuclear crisis became a crisis (for the West) but for us the Iranian surge for hegemony has become a crisis," according to the participant who asked not to be named.

Sunni Arab governments like Egypt, Jordan and the six oil-rich Gulf monarchies have repeatedly expressed concerns over what they see as the growing influence of Shiite Iran in the region, namely in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Iran is under three sets of UN sanctions for failing to heed international demands to halt uranium enrichment but the major powers have offered Tehran technological, economic and political incentives if it suspends the process.





 

[bigron]

Documents linking Iran to nuclear weapons push may have been fabricated


11/10/2008 @ 10:30 am
Filed by Gareth Porter
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/IAEA_suspects_fraud_in_evidence_for_1109.html


The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has obtained evidence suggesting that documents which have been described as technical studies for a secret Iranian nuclear weapons-related research program may have been fabricated.

The documents in question were acquired by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from a still unknown source -- most of them in the form of electronic files allegedly stolen from a laptop computer belonging to an Iranian researcher. The US has based much of its push for sanctions against Iran on these documents.

The new evidence of possible fraud has increased pressure within the IAEA secretariat to distance the agency from the laptop documents, according to a Vienna-based diplomatic source close to the IAEA, who spoke to RAW STORY on condition of anonymity.

The laptop documents include what the IAEA has described in a published report as technical drawings of efforts to redesign the nosecone of the Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missile “to accommodate a nuclear warhead.” The documents are also said to include studies on the use of a high explosive detonation system, drawings of a shaft apparently to be used for nuclear tests, and studies on a bench-scale uranium conversion facility.

These technical papers, along with some correspondence related to the alleged secret Iranian program -- referred to by the IAEA as “alleged studies” -- have been the primary basis during 2008 for the insistence by the US-led international coalition pushing for sanctions against Iran that the Iranian case must be kept going in the United Nations Security Council.

Handwritten Notes
At the center of the internal IAEA struggle is an Iranian firm named Kimia Maadan, which is portrayed in the documents as responsible for studies on a uranium conversion facility, called the “green salt” project, as part of the alleged nuclear weapons program under the Iranian Ministry of Defense.

According to a February 2006 Washington Post article, the United States and its allies believe that Kimia Maadan is a front for the Iranian military.

One of the communications included in the laptop documents – a letter allegedly sent to Kimia Maadan from an unnamed Iranian engineering firm in May 2003 – is at the center of the authenticity argument.

This letter is described in the May 26, 2008 IAEA report as “a one page annotated letter of May 2003 in Farsi.” According to a US source who has been briefed on the matter, the letter has handwritten notes on it which refer to studies on the redesign of a missile reentry vehicle.

Last January, however, Iran turned over to the IAEA a copy of the same May 2003 letter with no handwritten notes on it. This was confirmed by the director of the IAEA Safeguards Department, Olli Heinonen, during a February briefing for member states. Heinonen referred to “correspondence” related to Kimia Maadan that is “identical to that provided by Iran, with the addition of handwritten notes.”

Notes on the Heinonen briefing, compiled by unnamed diplomats who attended it, were posted on the website of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.

The copy of the letter without the handwritten notes was part of a larger collection of documentation concerning Kimia Maadan provided to IAEA by Iran in response to a request for an explanation of that firm’s role in the management of the Iranian Gchine uranium mine.

After the IAEA received the copy of the letter without notes from Iran, some officials began pushing for an acknowledgment by the Agency that there were serious questions about the whether the laptop documents were fabricated, according to the Vienna-based source close to the IAEA.

“There was an effort to point out that the Agency isn’t in a position to authenticate the documents,” said the source.

Heinonen and other IAEA Safeguards Department officials have continued, however, to defend the credibility of the document in question.

According to an American source briefed on the dispute, the defenders of the authenticity of the version of the letter with the handwritten notes say that the appearance of the clean copy can be attributed to Kimia Maadan making multiple copies of the original which have been circulated to various staff members.

Only an Ore-processing Plant
Further evidence damaging to the credibility of the letter and the handwritten notes was provided to the atomic energy watchdog last January by the Iranian government. According to Iran, Kimia Maadan was not working for the Defense Ministry but for the civilian Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI).

The new Iranian documentation, described in the February 22, 2008 IAEA report, proved to IAEA’s satisfaction that the Kimia Maadan Company had been created in May 2000 solely to carry out a project to design, procure and install equipment for an ore processing plant.

The documents also showed that the core staff of Kimia Maadan was able to undertake the work on ore processing only because the nuclear agency had provided it with the technical drawings and reports as the basis for the contract.

“Information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the agency,” the IAEA concluded.

Marie Harff, a spokesperson for the CIA, declined to comment.

Additional Doubts About the Letter
Other questions surround the letter with the handwritten notes. The subject of the letter was Kimia Maadan's inquiry to the engineering firm about procurement of a programmable logic control (PLC) system, according to the IAEA's May 26 report.

A PLC system is one of many types of technology that the United States has long sought to deny to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Iran had informed the IAEA even before 2006 that Kimia Maadan had assisted the AEOI in getting around that denial strategy by procuring various technologies for the planned uranium conversion facility at Esfahan.

Given that Kimia Maadan’s role in procurement for the conversion facility was both unrelated to its technical work for the AEOI and part of a covert effort to get around U.S. restrictions, it seems unlikely that they would have made multiple copies of the letter. Even if multiple copies were made, the firm would certainly have taken normal security precautions for a document of that type, marking each copy with a number or name.

A security procedure of that kind would have identified any missing copies. However, this was not the case with the 2003 letter. The United States, as its reason for refusing to provide a copy of the document to Iran, has argued that it would allow Iranian security personnel to identify the person who wrote the notes from their handwriting, according to the US source who has been briefed on the matter.

Another problem with the handwritten letter is the absence of any logical link between the subject of the letter and the alleged work on redesign of the missile. PLC systems, which are used for automation of industrial processes, such as control of machinery on factory assembly lines, would have been irrelevant to the technical studies on redesigning the Shahab-3 missile.

Other Documents Also Under Suspicion
Other documents from the laptop collection, allegedly showing that Kimia Maadan was working closely with the team trying to redesigning the Shahab-3 missile, have also come under suspicion of fraud.

The IAEA’s May 2008 report describes a flowsheet under Kimia Maadan’s name, showing a “process for bench scale conversion of uranium oxide” to UF4 (uranium tetraflouride), also known as “green salt.” The project number shown in the disputed documents for the “green salt” subproject is 5.13.

However, Heinonen stated that the number given to the Gchine subproject was 5.15. According to the documents obtained by the IAEA from Iran last January, this was the number of the uranium ore processing project that was assigned in 1999 by the civilian AEOI, not by the Iranian Defense Ministry. This would mean that the author of the document used the project number 5.13 for the “green salt” subproject based on their knowledge of the AEOI numbering system and not on a military designation.

In his February 25 briefing, Heinonen additionally referred to an alleged letter sent by Kimia Maadan – as manager of three subprojects – to the “missile re-entry vehicle” project, asking for a “technical opinion” on the plans for equipment for a proposed “green salt” conversion facility.

However, it is difficult to understand why the team working on redesigning the missile would be asked for a “technical opinion” on equipment for a uranium conversion facility.

A spokesperson for the State Department’s Office of Arms Control and International Security, which is responsible for IAEA affairs, said in an e-mail that specialists in the office “aren’t able to comment” on the subject of the intelligence documents now being considered by the IAEA.

The IAEA also declined to comment.

Toward a Showdown on the Contradictions
As the contradictions between the new Iranian evidence and the laptop documents relating to Kimia Maadan became apparent, some IAEA officials argued that the Agency should distance itself from what they now suspect are forgeries. Despite that argument, the May 2008 report contained no reference to the issue.

The next IAEA report, due out in mid-November, will include the first response by the Agency to a confidential 117-page Iranian critique of the laptop documents, according to the Vienna-based source.

In the past, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has shown an ability to face off with the United States when evidence has been called into doubt. The infamous “Niger forgeries” – documents that purported to show an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the purchase of uranium oxide – were used by the White House as part of its case for war against Iraq.

In response, ElBaradei sent a letter to the White House and the National Security Council in December 2002, over three months before the US launched the Iraq War, warning that he believed the documents were forgeries and should not be cited as evidence of Iraqi intention to obtain nuclear weapons.

When ElBaradei received no response from the Bush administration, he went public to debunk the Niger forgeries. In a speech at the United Nations in March 2003, he declared that the IAEA, after “thorough analysis,” had concluded that the documents alleging the purchase of uranium by Iraqi from Niger “are in fact not authentic.”

The anomalies that have been revealed by the Iranian documents obtained from Iran last January may not be as obvious as the ones that made it clear the Niger documents were fabrications. Nevertheless, they appear to be red flags for IAEA analysts concerned with the issue.

Suspicion has surrounded the “alleged studies” documents from the beginning, because the United States has refused to say who brought the collection to US intelligence four years ago.

Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian who has authored numerous foreign policy analyses and is the author of the book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. In a 2006 article in the American Prospect, he revealed Iran's spurned diplomatic outreach to the Bush Administration in 2003.

[Optimus]

Iran Test-Fires Newly-Designed Missile
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8708211020

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran successfully test-fired a new domestically-designed and -manufactured missile in a further move to boost its combat capabilities.
 
The Samen missile was launched Monday during an Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) military drill in the border city of Marivan in the Western province of Kurdistan, Iran.

According to press tv, no further detail on Samen missiles has been disclosed so far.

The missile test comes shortly after a Nov. 3 ballistic missile test in the San Diego-based US Third Fleet, which according to the head of the US Missile Defense Agency was a test for the proposed-US missile shield.

Lieutenant General Henry Obering III said that along with missile interceptors based in Poland, the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) is intended for providing defense against Iranian missiles.

Iran says its ballistic missiles, such as the advanced Shahab-3 capable of hitting targets within a range of 2,000 kilometers, are intended for defensive purposes.

During the Monday maneuver, Iranian forces also put to the test IRGC's heavy and semi-heavy artillery and rocket launchers.

The Iranian Armed Forces have been holding military exercises on a regular basis after Israel conducted a massive air maneuver over the Eastern Mediterranean and Greece in early June, which according to Pentagon officials, appeared to be a 'dress rehearsal' for a potential bombing attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israel, the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, accuses Iran - a signatory to the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - of making efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.

Iran's advanced Shahab-3 missiles, equipped with a one-ton conventional warhead, are capable of hitting targets within a 2,000-kilometer range.
Tehran denies the Israeli claim, insisting that its enrichment program is solely directed at the civilian applications of the technology.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday that Tel Aviv is 'convinced that Iran continues to try to build a nuclear weapon'.

"We don't rule out any option. We recommend others don't rule out any option either," added Barak, in regards to US president-elect Barack Obama's plans to engage Iran with direct diplomacy.

Israel has long argued that the use of military force is a legitimate option in halting Iran's nuclear progress.

An unnamed senior European Union diplomat said last week that a possible Israeli strike against Iran "is not completely off the radar".

"Israelis would consider a move such as this before Bush and Cheney leave," said the EU diplomat, adding that once Obama takes office, Israel's chances of striking Iran would become meager.

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

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

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

Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormoz.

An estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the waterway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[skyfind]

Iran builds solid barrier against raids
Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:20:49 GMT

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75079&sectionid=351020101


Iranian fighter jets

A top Iranian commander says the Islamic Republic Air Force will make use of its modern equipment to defend the country's airspace.

Iran's Air Force chief Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani said on Tuesday that the army would remain vigilant to defend the country's airspace in case of any attack.

"The [army's] air force has built up a solid barrier against any kind of strike, using up-to-date equipment as well as unique military tactics," Miqani added.

Iran test-fired the Shahab-3 missile that is capable of hitting targets within a range of 2,000 km (1,245 miles). Iran says its missile capabilities are a 'defensive tool against invasions'.

Iran's maneuvers come in response to Israel's military exercise in early June in what Pentagon officials have suggested was in preparation for aerial strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s partook in the exercise.

The US and Israel, both possessors of nuclear weapons, accuse Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of pursuing a military nuclear program.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, Iran enriches uranium to 3 percent, a rate consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant.

AR/SME/MMN

[skyfind]

IAEA 'doubts anti-Iran files authenticity'
Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:53:56 GMT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75077&sectionid=351020104

--

'Iran will never suspend enrichment'
Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:35:59 GMT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75103&sectionid=351020104



Iran will never suspend its uranium enrichment under Western pressure, an Iranian Foreign Ministry official declared on Tuesday.

“Iran's nuclear stance has always been based on opposition to the suspension of nuclear enrichment,” said Seyyed Rasoul Mousavi, the director of the Institute for Political and International Studies, IRNA reported.

Western powers have proposed a so-called “package of incentives” to Tehran in a move meant to halt the country's uranium enrichment program.

Tehran has repeatedly declared that it will not review any proposals that call for suspension of its uranium enrichment, which is Iran's right as an NPT signatory and IAEA member.

The 5+1 group - the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany - is scheduled to discuss new developments in Iran's nuclear program in Paris on Thursday.

MGH/HGL

--

PD - may be it will start here¿?: Olmert: Attack on Hamas matter of time Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:19:35 GMT   http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75083&sectionid=351020202

[bigron]

Obama dashes Iranians’ hope for change

 
12/11/2008 05:00:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=182749
 
 Obama's remarks about Ahmadinejad's congratulatory message "signals a continuation of the erroneous policies of the past... Change has to be strategic, not just cosmetic."


By Ahmed Abdullah


Ahmadinejad has been criticised for stretching out his hand to the American president-elect.


Many Iranians have hailed Obama’s election victory, viewing it as a step towards change in the U.S. foreign policy that would open a new chapter in Washington’s relations with the Islamic Republic.
 
Washington and Tehran cut their diplomatic ties after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Relations have been further strained by Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. claims is aimed at developing atomic arms, despite Tehran’s denial.

According to an article on the BBC, one reason behind the excitement of many Iranians about Obama’s election was his support for unconditional dialogue with Iran. That excitement even led President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to send a congratulatory message to the U.S. president-elect.

But political problems soon began to emerge on both sides.

In Iran, Ahmadinejad's warm message and Obama's cold response drew harsh criticism from political circles, heating up an already tense atmosphere ahead of the presidential election next June.

In the U.S., Obama, who personally responded to messages of congratulations from other world leaders, held back from doing so with Ahmadinejad, saying that he’d review the Iranian president's letter and respond appropriately, rather than reacting in a "knee-jerk fashion".

But Obama made it clear that he won’t be soft when it comes to Tehran.

"Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. We have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening," he said.

"Iran's support of terrorist organisations, I think, is something that has to cease."

“Erroneous policies”
The Speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani described Mr Obama's remarks as a step in the wrong direction.

"It signals a continuation of the erroneous policies of the past," he said. "Change has to be strategic, not just cosmetic."

Several Iranian newspapers also stated that Obama’s response signalled a continuation of the U.S. hostility toward Iran. Some commentators also criticised Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel – a Jewish congressman of Israeli origin – as the White House chief of staff. Others slammed President Ahmadinejad for stretching out his hand to the American president-elect.

If Ahmadinejad’s initiative was a prelude to reopening a dialogue with Washington, such issues were of a magnitude which only Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was qualified to address, the Iranian daily Jumhouri Islami said.

Although Ayatollah Khamenei’s speeches are often very tough on the United States, Iranian officials say he is not against unconditional direct dialogue, if Iran's dignity is respected.

Ironically, the main voices that expressed support to Ahmadinjad’s initiative came from the reformist camp, which is normally at loggerheads with the president.

Analysts say opening dialogue with Iran wouldn’t be an easy ride. The Iranians insist that it’s their absolute right to pursue their peaceful nuclear program.

The Americans - apparently including Obama - are convinced that Tehran is seeking to develop nuclear arms, and insist it must stop uranium enrichment.

It remains to be seen whether the new U.S. president would follow through on his promises and open dialogue with Tehran or continue the failed policy of the Bush administration which didn’t generate any fruitful outcomes.




-- AJP

 

[bigron]

Iran raises bar for Obama, his promises 


14/11/2008 05:00:00 PM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=183536
 
 A top Iranian official says the U.S. president-elect is unlikely to bring fundamental change to Washington's 'arrogant', broken policies.


(AFP) A top Iranian official says Obama is unlikely to bring fundamental change to the U.S. policies


Senator Barack Obama based his presidential campaign on the slogan of 'change', pledging to fix the ailing US economy and restore America's damaged reputation in the world.

Tehran's interim Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khatami, however, believes the 'change' slogan was dictated by America's current standing in the international arena.

"Under the presidency of George W. Bush, the US has been driven into an economic quagmire... The 'war on terror' now advocates reconciliation with the Taliban because the American war machine has been broken to pieces," said Ayatollah Khatami, a member of Iran's Assembly of Experts.

"The promise of change did not originate a political party, it was the watchword (in Washington)," the Iranian cleric added.

In regards to US-Iran relations, Khatami said as long as an 'arrogant' attitude is held toward Iran, there will be no reconciliation between the two governments.

Washington severed ties with Tehran in the aftermath of the US embassy takeover in Iran, shortly after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

"The 47-year-old successor should know that should he follow the path of Bush, he will have the same destiny," Khatami continued.

According to a CNN opinion poll released on November 10, President George W. Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of only 16 percent.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey found that 83 percent of Americans believe the country is going in the wrong direction.

"A big 'no' to Bush and his policies was the obvious message that has come from the US presidential elections," Ayatollah Khatami said.

The president-elect has vowed to engage Iran in direct negotiations over the country's nuclear program, but his promise has been met with the stark opposition of upper Israeli echelons.




-- Press TV

 

[bigron]

With Iran, Obama Needs More Carrot, Less Stick

By Scott Ritter

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/20081113_with_iran_obama_needs_more_carrot_less_stick/

November 14, 2008 "Truthdig" -- November 13, 2008 -- The American people have spoken, and the next president of the United States will be Barack Obama. Running on a platform of change, the president-elect will be severely tested early in his administration by a host of challenges, be they economic, military, environmental or diplomatic in nature. How Obama handles these issues will define his tenure as America’s chief executive, and there will not—nor should there be—a honeymoon period. The challenges of these times do not permit such a luxury, something the president-elect had to know and comprehend when he chose to run for office. John McCain and Hillary Clinton, Obama’s defeated rivals, were both correct when they noted that the next president would need to be ready to govern on day one. Barack Obama has until the 20th of January to get his policies in order, because at one minute past noon on that day, he becomes the most powerful man in a volatile world. While the problems he will face are many, I will focus on what I believe are the four most critical issues that will need to be addressed in the first weeks and months of the Obama administration: Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Russia. This will be done in a series of articles, the first of which will deal with Iran.

Barack Obama, the candidate, said many things about Iran, some of which were inherently contradictory. In this he is not unique, since the reality of the rough-and-tumble world of American presidential politics requires any given candidate to show extreme flexibility in defining solutions to complex problems, oftentimes based not on the facts as they exist, but rather the fiction of domestic political imperative. Sometimes initial positions are staked out based upon fact-based analysis, only to be corrected as a given domestic constituency expresses unease and imposes its own fantasy-based worldview on the candidate. Nowhere is this process of the fictionalization of fact more prevalent than on the issue of Iran and its nuclear program. One year ago, in an interview with The New York Times, Obama demonstrated a level-headed approach toward Iran, expressing “serious concern” over the country’s nuclear program and its support for what he termed “terrorist organizations.” He grounded his comments in an appreciation for the cause-and-effect relationship between Iran’s involvement in Iraq and the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of that country. Obama also expressed the need for “aggressive diplomacy” with Iran at the highest levels and emphasized the importance of economic incentives and security assurances when it came to compelling Iran to change course on its nuclear program.

But many months on the campaign trail, fighting a determined Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, and a critical Republican Party, compelled the thoughtful Harvard-educated foreign policy neophyte to buckle under the pressure of needing to be seen as “strong” and “determined” in the face of continued Iranian intransigence. In July of 2008, following a series of Iranian ballistic missile tests, which included the Shahib-3 long-range missile, Obama seemed to retreat from diplomacy, noting aggressively that “Iran is a great threat.” Instead of trying to balance the Iranian decision to test its missiles with ongoing militaristic rhetoric from both the United States and Israel (including a large-scale Israeli air force exercise that simulated a strike on Iran), Obama undertook a single-dimension approach toward the problem and predictably came up with an equally simplistic solution: “We have to make sure we are working with our allies to apply tightened pressure on Iran,” including tighter economic sanctions. Obama noted that there was a “need for us to create a kind of policy that is putting the burden on Iran to change behavior, and frankly we just have not been able to do that over the last several years.” Gone was any notion of understanding the cause-and-effect relationships that may have influenced Iran’s actions, or the notion that wrongheaded American policy (such as continued economic sanctions) may in fact have contributed to Iran’s behavior.

If one was hoping that Obama’s sweeping electoral victory in the 2008 presidential election might have liberated him from the need to assume a “tough guy” pose, the recent press conference given by the president-elect set the record straight. “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon,” Obama stated, “ … is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.” Perhaps Obama received some new insight into Iran from his recent access to top-secret CIA intelligence briefings that prompted him to unilaterally declare as fact the existence of an Iranian program to develop nuclear weapons. There is, of course, no substantive data to sustain such an assertion. As a critic of the U.S. intelligence failure concerning Iraq’s WMD programs in the lead-up to the invasion and occupation of that country, as well as the Bush administration’s politicization of intelligence for ideological motives, Obama would do well to take any intelligence briefing on Iran, void of incontrovertible evidence, with much-warranted skepticism.

The president-elect went on to state, “Iran’s support of terrorist organizations I think is something that has to cease.” It would be nice to know more about how he defines “terrorist organizations.” Is he speaking about Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine or Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Iraq? The last time I looked, Hezbollah was democratically elected to Lebanon’s parliament, representing a significant percentage of the Shiite population of southern Lebanon. And Hamas became a significant player in Palestine’s budding democracy by appealing to the legitimate needs and desires of a growing number of Palestinians unimpressed by the corruption and undemocratic principles of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.

If Obama wants to resolve the ongoing debacle that is Iraq, he would be well advised to recognize that Sadr controls more Iraqi citizens than does the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. In fact, if he’s serious about ending the violence and establishing long-term stability, Obama would do well to exploit Iran’s deep and meaningful contacts with these three organizations with an eye toward integrating them into the mainstream of their respective domestic political environments. Referring to these organizations as being “terrorist” in nature is not only factually simplistic, but also counterproductive when it comes to establishing and maintaining the kind of dialogue that can result in the diplomatic breakthroughs Barack Obama claims to be seeking. Perhaps the president-elect should take his own counsel: He went on to state, “Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee-jerk fashion. I think we’ve got to think it through.”

Thinking through the complexity of the Iranian issue is exactly what needs to be done. Developing policies based on American political pressure rather than the reality of the Iranian “problem” will solve nothing. Now that the presidential election has liberated Obama from the need to play to the fickle whim of domestic politics, he should consider more far-reaching policy options on Iran.

To begin with, Obama should return to a policy more in line with the original October 2003 “Tehran Declaration,” negotiated between the European Union and Iran, which permitted Iran to engage in uranium enrichment so long as an adequate safeguards inspection regime was in place. The original suspension, which Iran had agreed to and implemented, was intended to be temporary, in effect until the International Atomic Energy Agency could get an adequate inspection regime up and running. However, the United States pressured Europe to alter the terms of the declaration, insisting on a permanent suspension of uranium enrichment, something the Iranians refuse to do to this day. According to the IAEA’s director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, the watchdog today has in place a safeguards inspection regime that is operating smoothly and in a manner that allows for not only an accounting of the totality of Iran’s nuclear material stockpile, but a full and comprehensive understanding of the scope and scale of Iran’s centrifuge-based enrichment effort as well. There is, therefore, no legitimate reason for continuing to deny Iran its right to enrich uranium in accordance with the terms of the nonproliferation treaty.

It would be ideal for a more intrusive inspection regime, based on what the IAEA calls an “additional protocol,” to be formalized and implemented. This should not be an insurmountable hurdle for progress. Iran has already indicated a willingness to engage in such an expanded inspection regime, contingent upon international recognition of its rights under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium. Obama has spoken of a need for an effective global nonproliferation regime, but this can never happen if the United States shows disrespect for international law and past agreements. The United States’ hypocritical indifference toward the military nuclear programs of non-NPT nations such as Israel, India and Pakistan undermines the administration’s current stance concerning the NPT-compliant Iran.

Rather than focusing on Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts, Obama would do well to shift his attention to Iran’s long-range ballistic missile program, especially the Shahib-3, which has been cited as the principal delivery system for any nuclear weapon Iran might be developing, real or imagined. The Shahib-3 missile is also used by the United States to justify the installation of a ballistic missile defense shield in Europe (with a missile interceptor facility planned for Poland, and an associated radar facility planned for the Czech Republic), an activity that destabilizes arms control and the West’s already fragile relations with Russia. By focusing on any potential delivery system, the United States would de-escalate international concerns over Iran’s uranium enrichment program and increase the likelihood for a diplomatic resolution agreeable to all parties.

While the specifics of any ballistic missile-based negotiation would have to be worked out between the involved parties, a reasonable starting point would be a one-year moratorium on all ballistic missile tests of a given range (for instance, over 500 kilometers), in exchange for which the United States would support and sponsor a regional multilateral Middle Eastern disarmament conference, the goal of which would be a treaty for the elimination of all long-range ballistic missiles in the Middle East. This would be complicated, especially since such a treaty would by necessity need to include Israel. However, given the alternative (continued confrontation with Iran, and the global instability that would result), the difficulties associated with any such disarmament effort are far outweighed by the consequences of doing nothing. Furthermore, a Middle East ballistic missile disarmament effort could serve as the framework around which other regional disarmament efforts could be shaped, including those related to Pakistan and India, and even the United States, Russia and China. It would require the leadership of the United States to pull off any such effort. This should be the kind of leadership challenge an Obama administration should be seeking to embrace.

By minimizing, or eliminating, the problems associated with any potential nuclear weapons delivery system, such as the Shahib-3 missile, the Obama administration could then focus on resolving the standoff over Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. In this, Obama will be able to turn to a new initiative from a close American ally in the Persian Gulf region, the United Arab Emirates, for some “framework” around which new policies might be constructed. I recently attended a NATO conference held in Abu Dhabi, where the UAE government spoke in some detail about its new policy concerning the evaluation and potential development of nuclear energy. Three major items emerged from this policy announcement: first and foremost, the legitimacy of an oil- and natural gas-rich Middle Eastern nation requiring an alternative means of energy production to offset the demands placed on its energy exportation by increasing domestic demands for energy. The UAE decision was driven by economic analysis which showed a cumulative annual growth rate in energy consumption from 2007 through 2020 of some 9 percent, resulting in increased demands for upwards of 40,000 megawatts, which the UAE is not in a position to provide through traditional energy supplies. Iran, of course, made a similar analysis in the mid-1970s when it decided to embark on an ambitious nuclear energy program. Iran’s logic for pursuing nuclear energy has been derided by many who view Tehran’s ambitions as merely a front for a military program. The analysis of the UAE demonstrates the legitimacy of the Iranian nuclear energy need, and should lay to rest any logic-driven analysis that defines Iran’s nuclear ambition as being military in nature simply because Iran is deemed to be a nation “awash in a sea of oil,” to quote past and current Bush administration officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The UAE noted that it was committed to the “highest standards of nonproliferation” when it came to pursuing any potential nuclear energy program, renouncing any intention to develop domestic enrichment and reprocessing capability. On the surface, the UAE’s approach seems to stand as a contrast to the position taken by Iran, which has committed to an indigenous mastery of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, inclusive of enrichment and reprocessing. However, the UAE’s commitment to nonproliferation is contingent upon two pillars. The first is the ability of the UAE to source nuclear fuel from “reliable and responsible foreign suppliers.” The UAE has also expressed an interest in creating a regional nuclear fuel bank that would guarantee the program access to nuclear fuel in times of regional and/or global unrest and uncertainty. In reviewing the Iranian program, one finds the same need for a guaranteed source of nuclear fuel as the driving force behind Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The vagaries of economic embargoes and sanctions make any Iranian nuclear energy program linked to outside sources of supply futile indeed. The continued American insistence on using economic sanctions and threatening economic embargoes as a means to compel Iran to back down from its position on uranium enrichment is illogical and counterproductive given these realities. Instead, the United States should be seeking to combine Iran’s need for reliable sources of economic-sanction resistant nuclear fuel with that of the UAE (and, looking down the road, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq), so that a regional nuclear fuel bank would indeed be just that—regional, inclusive of Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbors.

The second pillar of the UAE nonproliferation commitment was more reality-driven: The small size of any future UAE nuclear reactor program makes the expense of an indigenous uranium enrichment program infeasible. As such, the UAE is well positioned to take a high-minded stance when it comes to adhering to “concerns from the international community regarding spent fuel reprocessing and enrichment plants in developing countries, and the dual-use nature of components employed in fuel fabrication and processing.” Simply put, it can’t afford not to. Iran, on the other hand, doesn’t have that luxury. There is no comparison between the scope and scale of the UAE’s nascent nuclear program with that of Iran. Unlike the UAE, the Iranian program is of a size that could justify an indigenous uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing effort, just as the nuclear energy programs of France, Japan and Germany justify their national fuel-cycle programs.

Establishing a policy that accepts the right of Iran to pursue indigenous enrichment of uranium is actually the soundest approach toward getting Iran to back away from the hard-line position it has taken, because when push comes to shove, Iran cannot afford the uranium enrichment program it has embarked on. This, however, is a conclusion that Iran needs to make, free of international pressure. By respecting Iran’s legal right to enrich uranium, the Obama administration would liberate Iran to make reasoned, rational decisions about its economic future, decisions that would take into account the overall economic health of the country, void of the conservative, nationalistic inputs generated in response to outside pressure.

In the end, Iran will probably have three choices to consider: continue its indigenous enrichment program despite the severe economic burden; drop its uranium enrichment program in favor of a secure, reliable international source of nuclear fuel; or seek to integrate its uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing capabilities into a larger regional and global framework, one that not only provides economic relief for the Iranian effort, but also brings with it greater international scrutiny and inspection, adherence to international practices and procedures on the handling and accountability of nuclear material, and viability to any regional nuclear fuel bank that would incorporate the product of Iran’s enrichment programs. The integration of Iran more fully into the Persian Gulf economy is by far the best guarantor of long-term stability in that region. Iran’s nuclear program should be seen as an opportunity in this regard, not an obstacle.

As Iran heads toward a presidential election in the coming year, the United States—and the Obama administration—would achieve better and longer-lasting results by seeking solutions geared toward resolving the legitimate issues at play in the region, rather than creating short-term sound bites here at home. A clean break with the neoconservative policies of the Bush administration is a prerequisite for success, and achieving this requires great imagination and courage. President-elect Barack Obama has demonstrated the potential for both of those qualities. I hope that promise is realized.

Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector and military intelligence officer. He is the author of numerous books, including “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change.”

Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

[bigron]

Obama presidency and Iran: We have a dream 


15/11/2008 09:14:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=183061
 
 In 1953, Iranians had their dream shattered when a CIA-backed coup removed the democratically-elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq.


By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich


(AFP) 'Speak out now and tell the American people that the Iranians dream of sovereignty'

President-elect Obama: On November 4, 2008, you fulfilled the dream of a nation. A dream that continued to be nurtured and protected ever since that August day in 1963 when Dr. Martin Luther King marched on Washington DC and said “I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

A decade earlier, another man’s struggles for his nation’s dream were abruptly brought to an end. In August 1953, Iranians had their dream shattered when a CIA-backed coup removed the democratically-elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq. But souls awake, they continued to hope and nurse their dream….independence. A dream rooted in a belief that all men are born equal even though veiled by different cultures.

President-elect Obama: Dr. Mossadeq and Dr. King, legends who reshaped history, have said much which must be heeded. Dr. Mossadeq said: “If I remain silent, I have sinned” and Dr. King believed that “there comes a time when silence is betrayal”.

Sir, this is not the time to keep your silence from the people who enabled you to make history. Speak out now and tell the American people that the Iranians dream of sovereignty. They dream of breaking scientific barriers within the framework of the law, and yet find that it is the illegal maneuvering of the law that is attempting to break them and crush their hope.

President-elect Obama: Your election came as a ‘beacon light of hope’ to millions of Iranians; a chance for peace and reconciliation. There was certainty that you would never become that which you oppose: the injustice, the status quo. Yet already, the beacon light of hope has been dimmed.

Mr. Obama, killing hope is not the American way - it is an insult to the legacy of the woman who waited 106 years to vote for you; to the man who marched so that you could be elected president. Today, as Iran fights to maintain its independence, it embraces hardship but resists bondage. It pursues its dream. President-elect Obama, turning your back on the dreams of those who seek freedom, dignity, and pursuit of happiness, is putting yourself back in shackles.

President-elect Obama: You were elected, not selected. You have the mandate of the people to do what is right. As a constitutional law scholar you must surely empathize with George Washington’s celebrated Farewell Address to the American people in which he urged Americans to avoid taking sides in foreign disputes. The first of many presidents to do so, he urged Americans to be in impartial in commercial relations with the world but "have with them as little political connection as possible."

President John Adams was a non-interventionist also. Thomas Jefferson called for "peace, commerce, and honest friendships with all nations, entangling alliances with none". Sir, in the spirit of these great presidents, I ask you to call for peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Sir, let the White House that you occupy be free of foreign influence and hostilities.

President-elect Obama: Freedom comes from the conscience. I pray that you live free.

-- Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master of Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication. She is an independent researcher with a focus on US foreign policy and the influence of lobby groups.





-- AJP

 

[skyfind]

Iran Claims Successful Test of a New Solid Fuel Missile
http://www.defense-update.com/analysis/151108_iranian_missiles.html#more

Iran claims its newly demonstrated solid-fuel powered ballistic missile has a range of 2,000 km. What benefits Iran can have with the new solid-fuel technology?

-David Eshel

According to reports, Iran has apparently test-fired a new generation of surface-to-surface missile on November 12, 2008. The Iranians claimed the missile called 'Sejil' represents a new generation of surface-to-surface missiles developed by the country's missile industry.

 Iranian defense minister said the the two-stage missile uses combined solid fuel contributing to accelerated launch procedurewith a range of about 2,000 kilometers (The oputer ring in the map shown above depicts the reach of the new missile).

If true, such claims would signify meaningful developments in Tehran’s missile program and could impact U.S. ballistic missile defense efforts in Europe. While the Shahab-3 can already reach parts of southern Europe, it poses the greatest threat to points in the Middle East including Israel, US military bases in the region, Turkey and Russia (the missile could hit almost as far as Moscow and Warsaw). A solid fuel missile could reach out much further, endangering larger areas in Europe than the former missile could attain. The claim itself, however, could also have ramifications for U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) efforts in Europe as U.S. President-elect Barack Obama considers his options. The Russian president has already opened his gambit on election day, when he warned to deploy his Iskander-M ballistic missiles to the Kaliningrad Region, in response to the planned US anti-missile defense in nearby Poland.

In the past, Iran has often boasted of developing new weapons systems only to be met with skepticism from Western defense analysts. Iran has been making claims about solid propellant for years, which always proved fabricated. During a high profile military parade in Tehran, last year, Iran claimed to have developed the "Ashura" , a 2000km range missile using solid fuel technology. They never repeated this claim, however.

But Uzi Rubin, an expert on missiles who used to be among the Israeli Defense Ministry's senior most authorities in the missile field, said the new weapons could attest to the existence of "an impressive technological capability" in Iran.

The Iranian missile program has long centered on the medium-range Shahab-3, a single-stage, liquid-propellant ballistic missile. A multistage solid fueled balistic missile needs highly sophisticated technology, compared to the liquid propelled system. Thus, if defense minister Najjar’s claims about the latest test will prove legitimate, it could indicate that Iran has made significant advances in both staging and the application of solid propellant to strategic missile technology.

Liquid fuelled missiles

Basically, chemical rockets and missiles are of two primary types: those that use liquid fuels and those that use solid fuels. The most familiar type of liquid rocket is one in which liquid oxygen is used to oxidize liquid hydrogen. In this reaction, water vapor at very high temperatures (about 2700°C, or 4,900°F) is produced. The water vapor is expelled from the rear of the rocket, pushing the rocket itself forward. The liquid oxygen/hydrogen rocket requires an external source of energy, such as an electric spark, to initiate the chemical reaction. Some combinations of fuel and oxidizer, however, ignite as soon as they are brought into contact. Preparing liquid fueled missiles for launching presents a highly dangerous, life-threatening process. The launching process alone takes about 90 minutes to fire the first missile, which is crucial, if the location is under constant satellite surveillance. Moreover, the entire process must be performed outside the underground shelter, as the fuel liquid is highly toxic to the handling crew, which must also wear cumbersome protective gear. An example is the liquid combination of nitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine. These two compounds react with each other spontaneously to produce a temperature of about 2,900°C (5,200°F).

From a tactical point of view, liquid-fuel rockets have a number of clear advantages. First, they can be turned on and off rather simply (at least in concept) by opening and closing the valves that feed the two components to each other. Also, they tend to provide more power than do solid rockets. Finally, when problems develop in a liquid-fuel rocket, they tend to be less serious than those in a solid-fuel rocket.

A serious disadvantage is that the liquid components often require very special care and that liquid fuels must be added to a rocket just before its actual ignition since the components cannot be stored in the rocket body for long periods of time. Finally, the mechanical demands needed for the proper operation of a liquid-fuel system can be very complex and, therefore, subject to a number of possible failures. As mentioned, the prime disadvantage of the liquid fueled missile is it's vulnerability to attack, before it is actually launched. Modern satellite surveillance and rapid reaction pre-emptive attack by loitering unmanned aerial vehicles can destroy the missile during it's preparatory process, which can become disastrous, if non conventional warheads are used.

SOlid Fuelled Rocket Propulsion

In a solid-fuel rocket, or missile, the fuel and oxidizer exist in the solid, rather than the liquid, state. The combination of fuel and oxidizer, along with a binder to hold them together, is called the grain. The grain usually has a claylike texture. When ignition occurs, the oxidizer reacts with the fuel to produce hot gases that propel the rocket in the same way as with liquid rockets.

Many combinations of materials have been used for the grain in a solid-fuel rocket. One common mixture consists of powdered aluminum metal as the fuel and ammonium perchlorate or ammonium nitrate as the oxidizer. The flame produced by the reaction between these two substances has a temperature of at least 3,000°C (5,400°F). Nitroglycerine in combination with easily oxidizable organic compounds is also widely used. Such combinations have flame temperatures of about 2,250°C (4,100°F).

A major advantage is of course it's higher survivability against pre-emptive attack, as it does not require the long-period pre-launch preparation outside the underground shelter. Moreover, a solid-fuel rocket can be fueled a long time in advance of a launch without much danger of the fuel's deteriorating or damaging the rocket body. It can therefore be stored in well protected and obscure subterranean concrete shelters evading satellite surveillance. Finally, the fuels themselves in a solid-fuel rocket tend to be safer and easier to work with than those in a liquid-fuel rocket.

Still, solid-fuel rockets also have their own drawbacks. Once the fuel in a solid-fuel begins to burn, there is no way to slow it down or turn it off. That means that some of the most serious accidents that can occur with a rocket are those that involve solid-fuel combustion getting out of control. Whatever the case may be, if Tehran has indeed mastered multi-stage and solid fuel technology for its missile arsenal, than this would certainly mark an impressive advantage and issue a clear warning to the West to prepare an effective countermeasure in time.

[skyfind]

Sejjil crème de la crème of Iran arsenal 
Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:43:19 GMT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75702&sectionid=351020101

Iran says its new Sejjil missile has a longer range and greater precision than other models in the country's arsenal.

Iran says its newly-developed surface-to-surface Sejjil missile has a longer range and greater precision than earlier models in its arsenal.

--

yay, more propaganda and fake info 
'Iran will have nukes within two years'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404760225&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

this video says it all 
Fox News Propaganda: Iraq 2003=Iran 2007
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq9Dmoiwxo

the results
Americans Support Israel, Fear Nuclear Iran
http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=2/a/ix/171120081

--

not everyone seems to follow isreal 
Swiss attack on Israeli policy escalates ‘cold war’
Switzerland is refusing to toe the West’s line on sanctions against Iran – and Israel is up in arms
FIRST POSTED NOVEMBER 17, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45911,features,swiss-attack-on-israeli-policy-escalates-cold-war-by-neil-clark

--

Iran backs Lebanon sincerely: Ahmadinejad
http://www.isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1236585&Lang=E

--

Iran opens new naval base in Persian Gulf port
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/17/news/ML-Iran-Naval-Base.php

[skyfind]

Israel hopes war would topple Iran gov't 
Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:53 GMT 
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=75826&sectionid=351020101


Over 100 Israeli F-16s (seen here) and F-15s partook in an extensive early July exercise -- a 'dress rehearsal' for bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

A former top Israeli military official says an attack on Iran would be in line with efforts aimed at overthrowing the Tehran government.

Israel alleges that Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has plans 'to build a nuclear weapon'. Under the allegation, Israeli echelons have long argued that the use of military force is a legitimate option in retarding Iran's nuclear progress.

Moshe Ya'alon, a former Israeli Defense Force chief of staff, said Tuesday that the Israeli armed forces have the 'right capabilities' to successfully strike Iran.

His remarks come shortly after Russia and China, two veto-wielding Security Council members, declared their opposition to adopting any new anti-Iran UNSC sanctions.

The controversial Israeli general, who claimed Tehran 'could be stopped through military means', did not stop short of suggesting that Tel Aviv should concentrate on targeting the Iranian government's assets 'with an eye to regime change', Haaretz reported.

"[A strike] is not the end of the game. Then, we should follow it up with a viable, sustainable Military operation to target the facilities [serving] the regime's interests, and not allow the regime to rehabilitate itself," said Ya'alon, who is believed to seek a Likud parliament seat in the next election.

"And, of course, a follow-up of political and diplomatic elements, to convince, first of all, the Iranian people, to go a different way," the Israeli general continued.

By explicating one of the starkest pro-war visions toward Iran among Israeli echelons, Ya'alon echoed a plan believed to have originated from the US vice president's office.

In line with the Bush Doctrine of preemption, Dick Cheney is said to believe that 'regime change' in Iran could not be accomplished without the use of military force.


Iran says if struck by either Israel or the US, its ballistic missiles will target 32 American bases in the region as well as the heart of Tel Aviv.

Under such scheme, a war waged by Tel Aviv -- which claims a nuclear Tehran would pose an existential threat to Israel -- could be beneficial to the two staunch allies.

Earlier on Tuesday, a former senior Iranian diplomat warned that the White House was making strenuous efforts to orchestrate a 'Velvet Revolution' in Iran.

An unnamed senior European Union diplomat said in early November that the bloc is concerned that 'a possible Israeli strike against Iran is not completely off the radar'.

The official suggested that the perfect time for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear installations 'is between now and January 20' -- when US President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

The President-elect has vowed to directly and diplomatically engage Iranian leaders in order to resolve the nuclear dispute, causing Tel Aviv's first dissonance with an Obama administration.

CS/MD/HGH

[skyfind]

'IAF is ready for Iran's nuclear sites'
Nov 18, 2008 23:10 | Updated Nov 18, 2008 23:49
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404771120&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

*IAF: Israel Air Force

"We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us" in order to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, IAF commander Maj. -Gen. Ido Nehushtan told German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview published Tuesday.

Nehushtan told the magazine that whether a military strike is eventually decided upon is a political question and not an issue of Israel's military capabilities.

A strike against Iran's nuclear facilities "is a political decision," the IAF commander said, "but if I understand it correctly, all options are on the table… The Air Force is a very robust and flexible force. We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us."

When asked by the paper whether the Israeli military was able to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, which are spread around the country and partly located underground, Nehushtan said, "Please understand that I do not want to get into details. I can only say this: It is not a technical or logistical question."

Nehushtan said the cutting edge capabilities of the IAF in the region were not only a derivative of the advanced technologies it uses.

"Modern technology is one thing, but the biggest advantage we have is our soldiers and officers. Israel is a small country. We neither have a big population nor natural resources. Our biggest asset is our human resources. And it is the Air Force that makes best use of it," he said.

Nehushtan then addressed the new reality in Lebanon since the integration of Hizbullah into the government in Beirut several months ago.

"Hizbullah has been part of the Lebanese government since this spring. It is not a fringe terror organization - it is supported by the state. Militarily, Hizbullah is stronger than the regular Lebanese army. If they attack us, we might react differently [to how we did in the 2006 Second Lebanon War]," he said.

Asked about deploying missile defense systems to protect Israelis from the Kassam rockets and mortar shells fired from Gaza, as well as the Iranian threat of ballistic missiles, the IAF commander described Israel's huge investments in missile defense as an "insurance policy."

"Each type of rocket requires a different defense system. Up until today, only the Arrow System, is functioning. It can intercept ballistic missiles. In order to defend ourselves against the short-range rockets of Hamas and Hizbullah, we are building the Iron Dome system. In response to the threat of medium-range rockets, we are developing a system called David's Sling. This is all very expensive. It is like an insurance policy: You pay a lot, even if nothing happens. But if something then does happen, then you are satisfied with the investment," he explained.

[bigron]

Iran navy tightens grip on Persian Gulf

 
18/11/2008 11:54:00 AM GMT
http://aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=184786

 
(wikimedia.org) Tehran is reinforcing its naval presence in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran upgrades a Persian Gulf naval base in order to tighten its grip on the strategic gulf, amid military threats against the country.

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has upgraded the Asalouyeh Naval Base to a naval region, inaugurating its fourth naval region along the waterway.

The IRGC is responsible for providing security in the strategic gulf as well as defending the country's Persian Gulf coast.

The Asalouyeh Naval Region will control a 190-mile (300-kilometer) stretch of coastline west of the strait between Kish Island and the port of Dayyer, according to the Associated Press.

IRGC senior naval commander Admiral Morteza Saffari said Monday that the Asalouyeh base would be equipped with a series of 'torpedo boats, fast attack missile boats, and land based anti-ship missiles'.

The measure comes as Iran's armed forces prepare for a potential new military conflict in the region.

Israel alleges that Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has plans 'to build a nuclear weapon', claiming a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Tel Aviv.

Israeli echelons, meanwhile, argue that the use of military force is a legitimate option in retarding Iran's nuclear progress.

"We don't rule out any option. We recommend others don't rule out any option either," said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Nov. 7.

Tehran insists that its nuclear enrichment program is solely directed at the civilian applications of the technology, while maintaining that it would not hesitate to take all crucial measures in protecting itself - including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

NATO, meanwhile, has raised doubts whether in time of war Iran is capable of effectively closing down the strait -- through which as much as 40 percent of the world's sea-transited oil supplies pass.

Vice Admiral Maurizio Gemignani, the commander of NATO's naval forces, said in early November that the threat of closing down the Persian Gulf waterway is merely a 'fantasy'.

Iran argues that it can fully shut down the strategic waterway with its anti-ship missiles capable of targeting any vessel within a range of 185 miles (300 kilometer) from Iranian shores.

In late October, the IRGC inaugurated a new naval base in the port of Jask located in the Sea of Oman - the eastern part of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Jask Naval Base and the Asalouyeh Naval Region, situated in the west of the strait, will enable the IRGC to provide logistics and support for its forces in the strategic waterway.

At the Monday address, Admiral Saffari said the Iranian naval forces will remain 'fully prepared to confront any possible threat' against the country.




-- Press TV

 

[bigron]

Obama’s "Coalition of the Willing" Against Iran?

Continuity rather than Change in US Foreign Policy




By Ali Fathollah-Nejad
 
Global Research, November 20, 2008


A Mere Atmospheric Change in Obama’s Foreign Policy: U.S. London-Based Pundits See Rather Continuity Than Change

LONDON – After Barack Obama’s victory in the U.S. presidential elections last week, discussions about what direction an Obama/Biden Administration is likely to follow are gaining momentum.

Invited by the London Middle East Institute (LMEI) on 11 November to speak about the foreign policy of the next U.S. administration, the London-based American analyst Jonathan Paris anticipated an Obama foreign policy much in line with the one of the current Bush administration.

The main areas of concern, he asserted, would be Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Focusing extensively on the latter, Paris said that sanctions will be kept up with even the aim of aggravating those. Meanwhile, one should not "beg" Russia to join the efforts by the P5+1 – i.e. the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany – to increase pressure on Iran. Rather would it suffice to wait for Russia to join an anti-Iran "coalition of the willing." Moscow has so far been reluctant to Washington’s insistence to impose further sanctions on Tehran. According to Paris, who like Norman Podhoretz is an adjunct fellow at the neoconservative U.S. think-tank Hudson Institute, Washington’s overall goal would be to "win over" Russia so to avoid any opposition to its preferred policies.

Drawing on Obama’s campaign announcement to enter into direct negotiations with Iran, Paris stressed that this would test the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s willingness to come along. Although proponents of a thus-designed "overture" vis-à-vis Tehran expect the Iranian leadership to repudiate, other experts point out that such an outcome is far from obvious with the Iranians being seriously interested in normalizing ties with the United States. Paris reiterated that Israel could only attack Iran with U.S. support.

Paris, a Middle East fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations in New York from 1995 to 2000, stated that other spotlights would be Pakistan – which he described as constituting the "prize" –, "the most pivotal state in the Middle East," Egypt, with President Hosni Mubarak’s succession pending, and Iraq where "corruption" of the Baghdad government would be the core problem without mentioning Obama’s promise to withdraw occupation forces there. While tackling the so-called "rogue states," of course China would be a central focal point for Washington’s foreign policies, Paris added.

Multilateralism "Yes," Multipolarity "Not So Fast"!

Paris, who is also a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London, classified a future president Obama opting for "cooptation" rather than confrontation, a characteristic attributed to the Bush Administration. While he approved multilateralism, he cautioned against multipolarity whose dawn he commented with occurring "not so fast."

He described the decision-making process of the forthcoming administration to be "bottom-up," implying that Obama will be very much acting upon advise given to him. Paris conceded that only "atmospheric change" would come during an Obama presidency.

A few days earlier on 5 November, Mark Fitzpatrick, at a panel on "nuclear futures after the U.S. elections" at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, stated that establishing a weapons-of-mass-destruction free zone in the Middle East could not be found among the top-ten list of an Obama administration. Fitzpatrick, an American senior fellow for non-proliferation at the IISS, said that the main obstacle to launching a regional conference to such an end would be the lack of "mutual recognition" between Israel and Iran. However, he did not mention Iran’s "grand bargain" offer of spring 2003 to the U.S. which inter alia included a de facto recognition of the state of Israel. Washington at that time ignored this remarkable Iranian overture that included Tehran’s willingness to settle all controversial issues in U.S.–Iran relations.[1]

Fitzpatrick presaged that a future president Obama would command U.S. marines in the Persian Gulf to start communicating with the Iranian navy in order to avoid any confrontation provoked by misperceptions. In terms of nuclear disarmament, he proposed that in the first 100 days of the new administration, the U.S. could de-alert the status of its nuclear arsenal, but preferably doing so only when Russia acts likewise.

In sum, both London-based U.S. analysts did not signal any change of an Obama administration’s foreign policy stance especially when compared to the Bush administration’s second term. Their remarks implied that the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) of 2002 and 2005 which formed the basis of President George W. Bush’ s foreign policy agenda and which included the Bush/Wolfowitz preventive strike doctrine would not be revised. According to veteran U.S. Middle East expert William R. Polk the removal of the George W. Bush’s NSS, which "threatens Iran with destruction," would be an absolute prerequisite for any serious change in Washington’s world policy.[2] The American pundits rather upheld the belief that there will be continuity in Washington’s strategic outlines and actual policies with Obama and that the only change that could be expected will occur in terms of rhetoric.

Notes

[1] See Gareth Porter (2006) "Burnt Offering. How a 2003 secret overture from Tehran might have led to a deal on Iran’s nuclear capacity—if the Bush administration hadn’t rebuffed it," The American Prospect, Vol. 17, No. 6 (June), pp. 20—25.

[2] See Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2008) "Iran Falling into the "Net" of a "Worldwide Policy": On the U.S. Foreign Policy Doctrine and Its Present Dangers – Exclusive Interview with William R. Polk," Global Research, 16 October.





Ali Fathollah-Nejad (M.Sc. cum laude, M.A., B.Sc., B.A.) was educated in bi-national study programs in France (Sciences-Po Lille), Germany (U Münster) and the Netherlands (U Twente) covering the fields of political science, sociology, law, history, and economics.  His current main areas of research are U.S. and EU policies vis-à-vis Iran and the new geography of power in the 21st century.