Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Shahanshah]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

You guys dont seem to understand. What IranianAzeri and I are saying is that there should be no invasion, but the regime must go, whether in the present future or in the near future...

[Iranianazeri]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

You guys dont seem to understand. What IranianAzeri and I are saying is that there should be no invasion, but the regime must go, whether in the present future or in the near future...

... and that hasn't anyhing to do with the iranian independence or the good iran-armenia relations.

[Sip]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

You guys dont seem to understand. What IranianAzeri and I are saying is that there should be no invasion, but the regime must go, whether in the present future or in the near future...

I totally agree with that.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Indo-Iran ties: US State Department raises concerns



Washington, May 04: The US has said it has not seen the letter written by a group of American lawmakers to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on New Delhi`s ties with Tehran and its implications to the civilian nuclear deal but noted that the Bush administration has already raised the matter with the Indian government.

"... We have not seen this letter and I`m not sure whether the Indians have had a chance to look at it and react to it.

"In terms of what we say and while what we have discussed with our Indian counterparts, I know that we have raised congressional concern about their cooperation with Iran and we continue to encourage the Indians to use what influence they have with the Iranians to press them to comply with UN Security council resolutions and to behave responsibly in a wide variety of areas," Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey told reporters in reply to a query. He said when Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon was in town meeting senior officials like the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and others he has had some "fairly strong" views on the subject.

"But certainly this is an issue that we continue to discuss with them in our official contacts as well," he added. The strong-worded letter from capitol hill came from senior law makers like Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen the ranking republican, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman who is the chair of the house middle east and South Asia subcommittee, and others.

"Regarding Iran, we are deeply concerned by India`s increasing co-operation with that country, including the exchange of visits between high-level officials, enhanced military ties, and negotiations of agreements to establish closer economic relations," they said in the letter going on to list the kind of interactions New Delhi has had with Tehran.

"In March, the commander of the Iranian navy, rear admiral Sajjad Koucheki-Badelani, visited India at the Invitation of Admiral Sureesh Mehta, the chief of the staff of the Indian Navy, to discuss the strengthening of military relations.

"A joint defense working group" reportedly will meet later this year in Tehran to pursue broader co-operation in defense, including training Iranian military personnel," the senior law makers pointed out in their letter.

"Such co-operation raises concerns about the possible diversion of sensitive technology to Iran, for which Indian entities have been sanctioned in recent years, including US-origin technology provided to India in the context of civilian nuclear and space co-operation," they said.

"We are also concerned that broadened economic relations between India and Iran are being pursued. Among the most prominent developments is the agreement reached earlier this year for the construction of a major natural gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan and India that will provide the government of Iran with billions of dollars of revenue" the lawmakers said.

"As strong proponents of closer ties between the United States and India, we are deeply concerned that the developments outlined in this letter have a significant potential to negatively affect relationship between the US and India in general and consideration by congress of the 123 agreement in particular," they said.

"Mr. Prime Minister, we urge you to provide assurances that India will cease illicit procurement activities in the US, sever military cooperation with Iran and terminate India`s participation in the development of Iran`s energy sector. By taking these important steps, you can ensure that the positive evolution of our bilateral relationship continues," the law makers said.

In his comments, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon expressed puzzlement as to the origin of the stories on the so-called India-Iran military engagement and argued that what New Delhi did with Teheran was no different from what other countries did. "Nothing that India does with Iran is in any way contravention of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. Much of what we do is normal between states and done with Iran by several other states," he said at a press interaction at the embassy of India on Tuesday.

Source: http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?...&sid=NAT&ssid=

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Officers: Ex-CIA chief Tenet a 'failed' leader



In a letter written Saturday to former CIA Director George Tenet, six former CIA officers described their former boss as "the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community," and called his book "an admission of failed leadership."

The writers said Tenet has "a moral obligation" to return the Medal of Freedom he received from President Bush. They also called on him to give more than half the royalties he gets from book, "At the Center of the Storm," to U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq and families of the dead. The letter, signed by Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael, said Tenet should have resigned in protest rather than take part in the administration's buildup to the war. Johnson is a former CIA intelligence official and registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. McGovern is a former CIA analyst. Cannistraro is former head of the CIA's counterterrorism division and was head of intelligence for the National Security Council in the late 1980s. The writers said they agree that Bush administration officials took the nation to war "for flimsy reasons," and that it has proved "ill-advised and wrong-headed."

But, they added, "your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership.

"You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with xxxx Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq."
Tenet's 'lack of courage'

The writers accused Tenet of having helped send "very mixed signals" to Americans and their legislators prior to the war.

"CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq.

"This intelligence was ignored and later misused."

The letter said CIA officers learned later that month Iraq had no contact with Osama bin Laden and that then-President Saddam Hussein considered the al Qaeda leader to be an enemy. Still, Tenet "went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to al Qaeda.

"You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium.

"You signed off on Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA's most precious asset - credibility."

The letter described Tenet as "one of the bullies."

"You helped set the bar very low for reporting that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president.

"It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community -- a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality."

The letter said Tenet's failure to resist pressures from Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld helped build public support for a war that has cost more than 3,000 American lives and many times that among Iraqis.

"You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

"Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States."

Tenet's memoir, to be published Monday, covers his tenure as director from July 1997 to July 2004. In an interview to air Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," Tenet expressed outrage that senior officials including Vice President xxxx Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have used his "slam dunk" reference in discussing Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq over its weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist.

"They never let it go. I mean, I became campaign talk. I was a talking point. 'Look at the idiot who told us and we decided to go to war.' Well, let's not be so disingenuous ... Let's everybody just get up and tell the truth. Tell the American people what really happened."

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29...ter/index.html

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

'Welcome to Tehran' - how Iran took control of Basra



Britain has failed to stop southern Iraq falling into grip of militias.

[...]

The Iranians

You can't move far in Basra without bumping into some evidence of the Iranian influence on the city. Even inside the British consulate compound visitors are advised not to use mobile phones because, as the security official put it ,"the Iranians next door are listening to everything".

In the Basra market Iranian produce is everywhere, from dairy products to motorcycles and electronic goods. Farsi phrase books are sold in bookshops and posters of Ayatollah Khomeini are on the walls.

But Iranian influence is also found in more sinister places. Abu Mujtaba described the level of cooperation between Iran and his units. His account echoed what several militia men in other parts of Iraq have told me.

Sitting in his house in one of Basra's poorest neighbourhoods, he told me: "We need weapons and Iran is our only outlet. If the Saudis would give us weapons we would stop bringing weapons from Iran."

He went on: "They [the Iranians] don't give us weapons, they sell us weapons: an Iranian bomb costs us $100, nothing comes for free. We know Iran is not interested in the good of Iraq, and we know they are here to fight the Americans and the British on our land, but we need them and they are using us."

Despite this scepticism about Tehran's motives, he said some Mahdi army units were now effectively under Iranian control. "Some of the units are following different commanders, and Iran managed to infiltrate [them], and these units work directly for Iran."

Most of the Shia militias and parties that control politics in Basra today were formed and funded by Tehran, he said.

His assessment was shared by both the general and the intelligence official. "Iran has not only infiltrated the government and security forces through the militias and parties they nurtured in Iran, they managed to infiltrate Moqtada's lot, by providing them with weapons," the general told me. "And some disgruntled and militias were over taken by Iran and provided with money and weapons."

In his office, littered with weapons bearing Iranian markings, Samer showed me footage his men had shot of a weapons smuggling operation after they captured six brand new Katyushas.

"In Basra, Iran has more influence than the government in Baghdad," he said. "It is providing the militias with everything from socks to rockets."

But, like many he was philosophical about Iranian interference. "Unlike the US and the UK, Iran invested better. They knew where to pump their money, into militias and political parties. If a war happens they can take over Basra without even sending their soldiers. They are fighting a war of attrition with the US and UK, bleeding them slowly. We arrest Iranian spies and intelligence networks but they are not spying on the Kalashnikovs of the Iraqi army - they are here to gather intelligence on the coalition forces."

But others cite evidence of Iranian influence being used to pursue less strategic aims. A businessman in Basra, who regularly imports soft drinks from Iran, told me he once had a dispute with his suppler in Iran over price. When he refused to pay, gunmen from a pro-Iranian militia stormed his shop and kidnapped him. He was only released after paying all of what he owed to the Iranian dealer.

Nasaif Jassem, a city councillor for the Fadhila party that controls the governorship and the oil industry in Basra, was critical of Iranian interference. Fadhila, widely seen as backed by the British, split from the main Shia alliance in Baghdad after accusing it of having a sectarian agenda.

"This British occupation will go but the other occupation, that of Iran, will stay for a long time," he said. "They want to have an agent in Iraq that they can move every time they want, just like Hizbullah in Lebanon. Iran is sending a message to the west: don't you dare come close to us because we can burn Basra and its people."

Fear of the Iranians runs through the city. I saw it in the offices of the general as we sat in his office one late one night. His two mobile phones had just rung, each with someone asking for a wrong number. The general's face turned pale and he said: "They have located me - the militia control all the transmission towers for the mobile network and now they have located my position."

Were 'they' the Iranians or a militia, I asked. "They are all the same." He called on his guards to send more men outside and ran to the window to check that the sandbags behind the glass were well stacked. "Do you think I or the British commander can walk freely in Basra?" he asked. "No is the answer, but the Iranian chargé d'affaires runs around freely."

The names of Abu Ammar and Samer have been changed for their safety. Ghaith Abdul- Ahad's second dispatch from Basra on oil smuggling will appear in Monday's newspaper

Competing forces

Several groups vie for power in Basra, Iraq's second largest city

· Mahdi army A loose alliance of Shia militiamen, about half of which are connected to Moqtada al-Sadr's office in the Shia holy city of Najaf. His men control the ports and customs as well as the customs police

· Fadhila party An anti-Iranian Shia militia organisation that controls the oil business in Basra, parts of the security forces and the ports and customs

· Badr brigade The armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Before the 2003 invasion it was based in Iran for 20 years

· Tribes There are at least 20 major tribes in the Basra area. Iraqis often feel the strongest allegiance to their tribe, above nationality. At least one influential tribe in the city runs its own smuggling business. They also support politicians in the city

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Another theater for US-Iran fallout: the South Caucasus

Armenia, an ally of both countries, shows how tensions between the two could upset the region's diplomatic balancing act.

In late March, as the United Nations Security Council debated whether to increase sanctions against Iran over that country's refusal to halt its nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Armenian counterpart met near the border of the two countries to inaugurate a new pipeline bringing Iranian natural gas to fuel Armenian cities. Lighting a symbolic flame, Armenian President Robert Kocharian called the ceremony "evidence of our friendship." But it's a relationship some of Armenia's other friends – particularly the US – wish weren't quite so cozy.

As tensions between Iran and the West approach a boiling point, Armenia is finding it increasingly difficult to negotiate the often conflicting alliances in its complicated neighborhood. Its precarious position illustrates the potentially destabilizing consequences of a Western standoff with Iran on not only the Middle East, but the South Caucasus as well. More than 15 years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the fragile region remains politically volatile. A number of unresolved conflicts – over the breakaway regions of Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia – still poison relations between neighbors. Those local tensions have been amplified by new global focus on the region that has placed the countries at a nexus of competing interests. Russia, the US, the European Union, Turkey, and Iran all claim important economic or political stakes in the region.

Armenia faces a choice: Iran or the US?

Keeping good relations with Iran is vital for Armenia, a small, landlocked country. Its main borders – with Turkey and Azerbaijan – are closed, and the country is still in a state of cold war with neighboring Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, an unrecognized ethnically Armenian state that is still legally part of Muslim Azerbaijan. But the US is Armenia's main donor and the only one which currently funds humanitarian assistance in Karabakh. Over the next five years, Armenia is also slated to receive $235 million in aid through President Bush's flagship international development program, the new Millennium Challenge Account. Armenia's outgoing foreign minister, Vartan Oskanian, says Armenia's allies understand its difficult position. But he also acknowledges that, as tensions rise, there is increasing pressure to choose a side.

"In the case of Iran and the United States, I think we're reaching that point," says Mr. Oskanian, who is Syrian-born and earned a masters degree at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. Analysts say military conflict with Iran would be devastating for the region and many here fear that its effects could spill over into Iran's neighbors in the South Caucasus, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

"God forbid, if there is military action against Iran, Armenia may get involved. And Azerbaijan as well," says Stiopa Safarian, director of research at the Armenian Center for National and International Studies, a think tank connected to the opposition Heritage Party. In the worst-case scenario, Mr. Safarian says, it could reignite conflict between the two countries, which still stare each other down across disputed and heavily militarized cease-fire line near Iran. Armenia spends $250 to $300 million a year on its military, largely because of the unsolved Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan spends more than three times that.

But politicians also worry that even if the current conflict stops short of military intervention, heightened tension between Iran and the West could shatter the delicate diplomatic balancing act in the region. Armenia and Azerbaijan both have close ties to the United States and Iran, although Christian Armenia's ties have been steadier with Iran. Despite Iran's sometimes tense relations with Azerbaijan, many analysts say the country plays a key balancing role in the region. Iran steadies relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and counterbalances the influence of Russia, a key regional power.

So far, a balance

So far, Armenia has been able to steer a middle course between the US and Iran. It has stayed largely silent on Iran's nuclear policy, but kept its economic ties with the country transparent and – along with Azerbaijan – quietly enforced international nonproliferation agreements. But the US is concerned about the growing economic ties between Armenia and its neighbor, particularly the new pipeline, which Armenians see as strategically vital. Armenia has no energy resources of its own and suffered severe energy shortages in the early 1990s as a result of the civil war in neighboring Georgia.

"Armenia was dependent on pipelines that passed through several countries," says Serzh Sarkisian, who recently became Armenia's prime minister. "We remember what the situation was in Armenia when that pipe was out of order. Imagine sitting in Yerevan in January and you have no heat, no water, and it was minus 30 degrees Celsius."

Given Iran's economic importance to Armenia, though, few here believe that Armenia can do anything other than continue to claim neutrality for as long as possible. But beneath Armenia's steady relationship with Iran, there is also wariness in the country about its neighbor's behavior.

"It's very simple. I don't think that anyone in Armenia would be happy if next to their borders they would have weapons of mass destruction," says Mr. Sarkisian.

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0521/p07s02-woeu.htm

[karoaper]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

If we allow ourselves the hope that US would stay clear of the war path, Armenia's warm ties with both Iran and US could actually put us in a good position, as a mediator between the two countries in potential talks. There are others of course, who could fill this position, but maybe our lobby could convince Washington to seek our help in such negotiations, which I think would elevate our status with both countries, especially if our savvy diplomats did well. I don't know if any analysts have pondered this idea.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Yes, in a normal situation what you say would make perfect sense. You would think no one wants a war, especially a major one with a large nation like Iran.

Right?

Wrong!

Look closely at the kind of people you are referring to: Neoconservatives, Mega Corporations, Petrol Industry, Defense Industry, Arms Dealers, Bible Belt Morons and Israelis. The aforementioned want a war, they are actually craving a war. A war with Iran is in their interests and the aforementioned are running this country today and they will be running this country in the foreseeable future. And don't think Democrats will change anything because these types of geopolitical/economic matters are decided above the heads of presidents and/or politicians. If a Democrat becomes president the Democrat will be made to fall in line and support the grand agenda.

Politicians in America are essentially officers serving mega corporations.

Thus, they 'have' to attack Iran because they cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear power in the region. Once Tehran becomes a nuclear power, hence untouchable, the entire balance of power within the region will fall apart. The Saudis don't want this, Israelis don't want this, Europeans don't want this and of course Americans don't want this. Also by attacking Iran they would further isolate Russian influence in the region and they would force China's dependence.

I am sure they would rather see Iran disintegrating from within, instead of waging a costly bloody war. They would love to see a revolution turning violent in Tehran. But it does not seem to be on the horizon as of yet. As a result, the military option is the most probable option as of now. Nonetheless, the intensity of military conflict is yet to be determined. A limited missile strike against Iran is more likely, a massive land invasion of Iran by US forces would be very unlikely now due to the chaos in Iraq. However, a missile strike will not really harm Iran, it may actually help the authorities there gain popularity amongst the general public. And the land invasion option is simple impossible, or suicidal, at this time.

So, there is a serious predicament in Washington DC. The question for them is: How do we do it?

Nonetheless, this is a vast geopolitical game being played for economic/political/military supremacy within the twenty-first century. Within a few generation oil/gas reserves will be running out within the region. He who controls the oil/gas taps before it runs out will control the global economy. This game has been clearly outlined within various documents that were prepared soon after the Soviet collapse. The players of this game are more-or-less United States, Great Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan on one side - Russian, Iran on the other side with China, India and an array of other smaller regional nations riding the middle. And the prospective battlegrounds are the Balkans, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and the entire Caucasus region.

Iran will be attacked it's only a matter of time and method.

If we allow ourselves the hope that US would stay clear of the war path, Armenia's warm ties with both Iran and US could actually put us in a good position, as a mediator between the two countries in potential talks. There are others of course, who could fill this position, but maybe our lobby could convince Washington to seek our help in such negotiations, which I think would elevate our status with both countries, especially if our savvy diplomats did well. I don't know if any analysts have pondered this idea.

[karoaper]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Right, sabotage and few strikes are a likely possibility, I agree. But, as long as complete regime changing invasion is a distant possibility, there will be a time for negotiations and talks. I think Iran has already matured into a tough kid, who is not easy to push around. With such countries, even the neocons would push much more for a "diplomatic" solution, even if after an initial strategic air strikes and sabotage operations. Same with North Korea, not so with Iraq, a perfect target for a bully with an appetite. So, again I hope with this in mind, US might actually see Armenia's close ties with Iran as a possible diplomatic link.