Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

Jerusalem worried by Iranian owned anti-ship missile


(Yakhont Anti-Ship Missile on Ground Next to SU-33)

THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 28, 2007

The recent delivery of an advanced Russian-made anti-ship missile to Iran has defense officials concerned it will be transferred to Syria and Hizbullah and used against the Israel Navy in a future conflict. Called the SSN-X-26 Yakhont, the supersonic cruise missile can be launched from the coast and hit sea-borne targets up to 300 kilometers away. The missile carries a 200-kilogram warhead and flies a meter-and-a-half above sea level, making it extremely difficult to intercept. Its closest Western counterpart is the US-made Tomahawk and Harpoon.

The missile homes in on its target using an advanced radar guidance system that is said to make it resistant to electronic jamming. The Yakhont is an operational and tactical missile and can be used against both a medium-sized destroyer and an aircraft carrier. It would pose a serious threat to the Israel Navy, according to defense officials. "This is certainly a threat to the Navy," one defense official said. "There is a real fear that if this missile is in Iran it will also be in Syria and Lebanon."

During the Second Lebanon War, the IDF was surprised when the INS Hanit was struck by a Chinese-made ground-to-sea missile, which was not known to have been in Hizbullah hands. At the time, the IDF suspected Iran had assisted Hizbullah in the attack, which killed four sailors. While officials could not confirm that the missile had reached Syria or Hizbullah, the growing assumption is that any weapons system or missile that can be taken apart and fit into a shipping container can easily be transferred.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...icle%2FPrinter

Officials worried Iran will give their Russian anti-ship missile to terrorists

By Israel Insider staff August 28, 2007

Defense officials have expressed concern about the recent delivery of an advanced Russian-made anti-ship missile to Iran, saying they will likely be transferred to Syria and Hezbollah, the Jerusalem Post reported. If they fall into the hands of Syria and Hezbollah, they will be used against the Israeli navy in a future conflict.

"This is certainly a threat to the Navy," one defense official said. "There is a real fear that if this missile is in Iran it will also be in Syria and Lebanon."

The defense establishment's fears are in part due to the IDF's surprise during the Second Lebanon War last summer at the content of Hezbollah's arsenal. The INS Hanit was struck by a Chinese-made ground-to-sea missile, which was not known to have been in Hizbullah hands. At the time, the IDF suspected Iran had assisted Hezbollah in the attack, in which four sailors died. Although officials could not confirm that the missile had reached Syria or Hizbullah, the general assumption now is that any weapons system or missile that can be taken apart and fit into a shipping container can easily be smuggled to Hezbollah or Syria. Meanwhile, Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman said Monday "the Iranian leadership with Ahmadinejad at its helm is temporary."

Lieberman called the Iranian administration "a band of crooks jeopardizing the security of Iran and the entire world," he said. "Instead of investing in the economy, [they] are investing in terror and Hizbullah, and I hope the Iranian people will remember this the next time they line up to vote." Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Liberman advocated economic sanctions over military action, saying that sanctions have been successful in frustrating such programs in Libya and North Korea.

Source: http://web.israelinsider.com/Article...rity/11948.htm

[Armenian]

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

Iran says ready to fill vacuum in Iraq left by US



Aug 28, 2007

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is ready to fill a vacuum in Iraq caused by the collapsing power of the United States, its president said on Tuesday. "The political power of the occupiers (of Iraq) is being destroyed rapidly and very soon we will be witnessing a great power vacuum in the region," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.

"We, with the help of regional friends and the Iraqi nation, are ready to fill this void." Saudi Arabia was one of the countries Iran was ready to work with, he said. The U.S. military accuses the Islamic Republic of arming and training militias behind some of the violence in Iraq. Iran rejects the charge and blames the presence of U.S. forces, numbering about 162,000, for the violence. In a two-hour news conference, Ahmadinejad also rejected reports Iran had slowed nuclear work, which the West fears is aimed at making atom bombs, and said it would respond if Washington branded its Revolutionary Guards a terrorist force.

Iran, which like Iraq is majority Shi'ite Muslim, has often called on fellow Gulf states to reach a regional security pact. But Gulf Arab states, most of which are predominantly Sunnis, are suspicious of Tehran's intentions in Iraq and the region. With Shi'ite Muslims now in power in Baghdad, ties have strengthened between Iran and Iraq since 2003, when U.S.-led forces toppled Iraq's Sunni president, Saddam Hussein, who had waged an eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s. The region did not need countries from "thousands of kilometres away" to provide security, Ahmadinejad said, and U.S. and other forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had run out of solutions.

"TRAPPED IN A SWAMP"

"They are trapped in the swamp of their own crimes," Ahmadinejad said. "If you stay in Iraq for another 50 years nothing will improve, it will just worsen." President George W. Bush, in a speech in Reno, Nevada, said extremist forces would be emboldened if the United States were driven out, and Iran would be left to pursue a nuclear weapon and set off an arms race. "We will confront this danger before it is too late," Bush said, referring to attempts to isolate Iran and the imposition of economic sanctions.

"I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities." A U.S. commander said on Sunday that Iraqi Shi'ite group have received more weapons, funding and training from Iran in the past two months. U.S. and Iranian officials have held several rounds of talks on security in Iraq since May, the most high-profile meetings since Washington cut ties with Tehran after students took U.S. diplomats hostage following the 1979 revolution.

Washington is also leading efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear programme, which it says is an attempt to build bombs under cover of a civilian programme. Tehran denies the charge and says it is seeking only nuclear-generated electricity. The U.N. Security Council has imposed two sets of sanctions on Tehran since December. Diplomats say Iran's sensitive atomic work seems to have slowed, either for fear of new steps or because of technical hitches. But Ahmadinejad dismissed reports it was not making such fast nuclear progress. "These (reports) are not true," he said.

"I want to officially announce to you that from our viewpoint the issue of Iran's nuclear case has been closed. Today Iran is a nuclear Iran, meaning that it has the complete cycle for fuel production." U.S. officials said this month Washington might soon name the Revolutionary Guards a foreign terrorist group, a move that would enable the United States to target the force's finances. "It would be a joke I guess," said Ahmadinejad, himself a former Guards commander.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...85955120070828

[Armenian]

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

Iran/Iraq: Tensions Rise As Bush, Ahmadinejad Trade Jabs



Iran -- President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, speaking to reporters in Tehran, August 29, 2007 (RFE /RL) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said in a speech yesterday that what he called Iran's "murderous activities" in Iraq must stop. In a speech to U.S. war veterans in Reno, Nevada, Bush added that he has authorized the U.S. military in Iraq to confront alleged Iranian attempts to destabilize that country. But he repeated charges that Iran -- which he called the world's biggest state backer of terrorism -- is behind much of the violence in Iraq. "Shi'a extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people," Bush said. "Members of the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are supplying extremist groups with funding and weapons, including sophisticated IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. And with the assistance of Hizballah, they've provided training for these violent forces inside of Iraq." Bush warned that the United States has no intention of backing away from the turmoil in Iraq. "America does not give in to thugs and assassins," Bush said. "And America will not abandon Iraq in its hour of need."

Iranians Detained In Baghdad

Shortly before Bush spoke, U.S. troops in Baghdad detained the seven members of an Iranian delegation at the Sheraton Hotel and took them away blindfolded and handcuffed to an undisclosed destination. The incident is reminiscent of the U.S. seizure of five Iranians in January in the northern Iraq city of Irbil. Washington accuses those of being members of the Quds Force and has not released them. Reports say the seven Iranians picked up on August 28 were released in the morning. Media reports describe them as officials from Iran's Energy Ministry in Baghdad to negotiate contracts on power stations. President Bush speaking in Reno on August 28 (official photo)Bush's criticism of Iran appeared to leave little room for compromise. But comments from the U.S. State Department, indicate that Washington has some flexibility.

"We very much hope to see that [the Iranian] government plays a positive role in Iraq," State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said. "And as you know, we have had conversations involving Iranian officials, not only between [U.S.] Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker and his counterpart in Iraq, but also through the broader group setting of the neighbors' conferences -- because we do believe it's important that all of Iraq's neighbors play a positive role in that country. But the way to do that isn't with this kind of rhetoric or with any kind of rhetoric, but through real concrete steps to help the Iraqi people and help the Iraqi government achieve stability and security and ultimately see that country move forward."

Iran Ready 'To Fill The Gap'

Bush and Casey's comments came the same day that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad played an unusually bold card, confirming that Iran wants major influence in a future Iraq. He told journalists that U.S. political power in Iraq is "collapsing," and that there will soon be a power vacuum in that country. He said Iran is "prepared to fill the gap," along with its "friend" Saudi Arabia and other neighbors, and with the help of the Iraqi people. Ahmadinejad likely singled out Saudi Arabia because it is a key Sunni Muslim state, whereas Iran is a Shi'ite power. The Iraqi population is largely divided between these two branches of Islam.

Source: http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...84B2E190E.html

[Armenian]

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

Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran


(US Navy Aircraft Carrier Battle Group at Sea)

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis. The paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.

"We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many well resourced Institutes in the United States," wrote Plesch in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion. The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

* Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

* US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

* US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

* Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

* Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

* Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

* The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

* The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not." Yet, he added that "Iran certainly has missiles and probably some chemical capability."

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:

This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.

However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous. Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons, with some exceptions.

"My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn't be used unless there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks," notes Butcher. "However, the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all other means failed."

Military Strategy

The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities, and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment of nuclear weapons. In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as Global Strike – the capability to project military power from the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December 2005. It is the that capacity that could provide strategic bombers and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.

Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air attack. British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" from March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. Global Strike could be combined with already-existing "regional operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04, for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan 1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the US economy."

The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq. Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating an advert for combat training software. Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines within Iraq:

A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so. However it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional force.

Experts question the report's conclusions

Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security, Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson, does not agree with the report’s findings.

"The report seems to accept without question that US air force and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport capabilities," said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on the study had been lifted.

"But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing what those risks are."

There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “"firepower is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected."

"However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favoured by Sistani may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them."

John Pike, Director of Global Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.

"The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard," wrote Pike in an email.

Political Considerations

Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context within the United States:

This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show their strong national security bona fides. ...

The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle East to understand. A context that may seem to some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters perhaps above all else. ...

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.

Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point out, however, "One key caution is that regardless of the realities of Iran’s programme, the British public and elite may simply refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge for the Iraq deceit."

And they conclude that even "if the attack is 'successful' and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed."

Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_...tack_0828.html

[Armenian]

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

Analysis: Would Iran retaliate to bombing?



Although U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and military would likely overwhelm their forces, Tehran could still rely on a host of weapons, from covert terror campaigns to long-range missiles, to retaliate against an American attack. While Iran’s aging conventional military forces have little hope of successfully maintaining combat against U.S. forces in the Gulf in the case of U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, a quick attack by Tehran on ships in the Persian Gulf, and support of anti-American militias in Iraq and Afghanistan, could prove a real threat.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday warned that an attack on Iran would be a catastrophe, but reports on Aug. 14 that the Bush administration may designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group renewed fears that Washington may be seriously considering military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The guard is a military group within the Iranian government, but separate from the regular armed forces, and is widely believed to control Tehran’s nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and Tehran recently agreed to a timeline for more negotiations on convincing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but the Bush administration dismissed the agreement as nothing more than further delay by Iran. The United States, as well as its allies in the United Nations, feels Iran is trying to develop nuclear technology and know-how in order to build a nuclear bomb, but Iran denies this, saying it only wants peaceful but independent nuclear power.

Some analysts see bombing as a possible approach if negotiations fail, but many think it would do little to eliminate the threat of Iran’s nuclear program, and at worst could rally support behind Tehran at a time when government economic policies are blamed for high unemployment and fuel shortages have led to violent protest. But if Iran is attacked, Tehran has a wide variety of options to use in retaliating against the United States, analysts say.

Iran has “a whole host of things, from the conventional, to the irregular, to missiles to terrorism, that they could use to retaliate,” according to Peter Brookes, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation who has written extensively on U.S. relations with Iran, as well as Iran’s ambitions in the region. “We could see some attacks against our forces in the Persian Gulf. They have anti-ship cruise missiles, highly capable Chinese anti-tank cruise missiles; they also could do suicide attacks against our ships,” Brookes said.

Not only could Iran act against naval forces, but its 1,500-kilometer-range Shahab-3 missile is within striking distance of Israel’s largest city, Tel-Aviv. Anthony Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic & International Studies who wrote several reports earlier this year about Iran’s military and its capacity to retaliate against the United States, also concluded that Iran could attack the United States with anti-ship missiles and mines.

Aside from attacks on U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, both analysts suggested Iran would likely pursue unconventional attacks on the United States and its interests in the Middle East, whether by attacking U.S. territory through Hezbollah sympathizers in the United States or through increased support of insurgent activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Iran has close relations with many Iraqi Shiites, particularly Shiite political parties and militias. Some Iraqi groups have warned against U.S. military strikes against their neighbors,” Cordesman wrote in a March report. The Strait of Hormuz, at the base of the Persian Gulf and through which one-fifth of the world’s oil flows, has also been mentioned as a possible target of Iran, although Iran’s dependency on oil revenue would make that a problem for the country.

“The economy is in terrible shape in Iran, so if they don’t mind cutting their nose off to spite their face, they could certainly try. I don’t think they could cut off the Strait of Hormuz, but they could certainly sink a tanker,” Brookes said. Cordesman’s assessment falls along the same lines. “It could not close the Strait of Hormuz, or halt tanker traffic, but it could threaten and disrupt it,” and it “can create a high-risk premium and potential panic in oil markets,” he said. Despite how it chooses to retaliate if attacked, Brookes does not doubt Iran would act.

“I believe there would be some retaliation against U.S. forces in the region, U.S. interests in the region, and potentially the United States, and I think potentially Israel as well. And anybody who supported them probably would also become targets as well,” he said. Iran’s outdated conventional military would likely pose little long-term threat to American forces, although it is currently modernizing its forces in an attempt to gain regional clout.

“They are trying to increase the capability of their conventional forces. Iran sees itself as a rising power in the region, it wants to be the most powerful country in the region, and it wants to be the regional hegemon, and to do that, it’s going to have to improve its military strength,” Brookes said.

Source: http://www.upi.com/International_Sec..._bombing/4133/

[Armenian]

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

According to this article, while the top level leadership of the American Neocons, in other words American Joos and their Christian Zionist backers, were planning for an Iraqi invasion Israeli officials were encouraging Americans to plan for an Iranian invasion instead. What these silly Israelis don't realize is that before Iran could be successfully attacked, Afghanistan and Iraq, two seemingly easy targets at the time, had to be invaded first. So, essentially, this is a dispute between American Joos and Israeli Joos over how to implement an Israeli agenda in the region by the use of American blood and money.

Armenian

************************************************** ************************

Israel warned us against Iraq invasion, US official says


American Soldier in Iraq

Ynetnews Sept 01, 2007

Chief of staff of former secretary of state reveals that large number of senior Israeli officials warned Bush administration that invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to region. 'The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy,' he says

WASHINGTON – A senior official at the US State Department has said that political, diplomatic and military officials in Israel warned the United States against invading Iraq even before the American forces entered the country, the Inter Press Service news agency reported over the weekend. According to the official, Israel tried to convince the Bush administration that the main problem in the region was Iran, not Iraq.

The man, Lawrence Wilkerson, was a member of the US State Department's policy planning staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell. In an interview with the news agency, he said that "the Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy." According to Wilkerson, different sources in Israel explained to senior US officials that "if you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy." Wilkerson noted that the main point of their communications was not that the US should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein" from a focus on the threat from Iran.


Iran: The Real Enemy

The message was conveyed by a large number of senior Israeli officials to their American counterparts, including political figures and intelligence sources. According to Wilkerson, the Israeli advice was apparently triggered by reports reaching Israeli officials in December 2001 that the Bush administration was beginning serious planning for an attack on Iraq. Journalist Bob Woodward revealed in Plan of Attack that on December 1, 2001, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had ordered the Central Command chief, General Tommy Franks, to come up with the first formal briefing on a new war plan for Iraq on December 4.

Soon after Israeli officials got wind of that planning, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked for a meeting with Bush primarily to discuss US intentions to invade Iraq. In the weeks preceding Sharon's meeting with Bush on February 7, 2002, a procession of Israeli officials conveyed the message to the US administration that Iran represented a greater threat, according to a Washington Post report on the eve of the meeting. This is the first confirmation of the issue on the part of such a senior American official, following many hints heard on the Israeli side. The remarks were made in contrast to attempts by Israel's opposers in the US to blame Jerusalem for the American invasion of Iraq.

Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Art...444393,00.html

[Armenian]

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

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran



Timesonline, September 2, 200

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert. Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said. Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said – to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power. Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down. Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. “A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA,” he said. “They’re giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq. The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”.

Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months – “despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq”. It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2369001.ece

[skhara]

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

What exactly can Israel do to Iran?

By the way, exactly how does Washington plan to cripple the entire Iranian military in 3 days, when after 2 months of bombing Serbia, they weren't even even able to put a dent militarily speaking? I think these reports are aiming at trying to intimidate the Iranians and trying to force an advantage.

[Armenian]

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

What exactly can Israel do to Iran?

Israel, minus its nuclear arsenal, is not a serious military threat to Iran. Its warplanes may be able to drop a few bombs or fire a few missiles but that's about it. And getting their warplanes over their targets in Iran will most probably be just as difficult, if not more, than actual combat.

By the way, exactly how does Washington plan to cripple the entire Iranian military in 3 days, when after 2 months of bombing Serbia, they weren't even even able to put a dent militarily speaking?

Foremost, you must realize that these types of news report are essentially psychological warfare meant to scare the Iranian authorities at the same time alleviate fears amongst US citizens that there will not be a land invasion of Iran. At this time, the American citizenry will accept an air war but not a land war.

However, your comparison with the situation in Serbia does not apply in this case. The NATO air campaign against Serbia was not militarily successful because of two main factors - topography and preparedness:

In the Spring of 1999, US forces had not had years of preparation for the war in question as they have had with Iran. And unlike Iran the topography of Serbia is heavily forested/mountainous which heavily favors defenders. Washington DC today realizes that it can not militarily force the surrender of Iran, although it would be absolutely ecstatic if that occurred as a result of hostilities. Consequently, Washington DC wants to severely cripple Iran's nuclear facilities and various other strategic military/government targets. And as far as military capabilities of US forces in the region are concerned - theoretically, they can do it. It will only require very good organization, very good intelligence and very good execution. The only question here is what will the Iranian retaliation look like and what will the American reaction be to the Iranian reaction, and so forth...

I think these reports are aiming at trying to intimidate the Iranians and trying to force an advantage.

Yes, these reports could also be diversionary tactics. Perhaps they are planning something altogether different. Time will tell. Nevertheless, Iran is preparing for the inevitable war, whatever form it may be. Just yesterday they replaced the commander of the Revolutionary Guards with a seasoned veteran of the Iraq Iran war:

Iran Replaces Revolutionary Guards' Head

Forbes.com 09.01.07

In a surprise and unexplained move, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appointed Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari as the new head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, state-run television reported Saturday. He replaces General Yahya Rahim Safavi who has led the elite force for the past ten years. Safavi will become senior military advisor to Khamenei. The switch comes two weeks after U.S. officials said that President George W. Bush was set to issue an executive order blacklisting the force as a terror group in order to block its assets. There is mounting tension with the West over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington argues is aimed at making a nuclear weapon but which Tehran insists is peaceful. The Guards are an ideological force that operates in parallel with the Iranian army and whose influence has extended beyond the military into politics and the economy. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fought for the Revolutionary Guards during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq. After taking office in 2005 he promoted five former Guards into cabinet posts.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/...901guards.html

[Armenian]

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

Iran Reaffirms Its Defiance of the West


(Iranian president in a meeting with Revolutionary Guards officials)

TEHRAN, Iran Sept. 2 — Iran’s leaders maintained their defiant position to the West today, with the president announcing the nation had 3,000 active centrifuges to enrich uranium and the nation’s supreme leader appointing a war veteran and ideological hard-liner as the new commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. While the details of each announcement did not signal any significant change of course for Iranian policy, the pairing of the messages appeared intended to reaffirm Iran’s refusal to back down in the face of stepped-up pressure from the United States over its nuclear program and its role in Iraq, political analysts in Iran said.

The White House has threatened to declare the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which could open the way for far-reaching economic sanctions against Iran since the Guards are involved in nearly every aspect of the state-controlled economy, diplomats here said. At the same time, Iran faces the prospect of being sanctioned a third time by the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear program. “What is important is the spirit that dominates the system and that has not changed,” said Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst and former government official in Tehran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that Iran had finally reached its stated goal of developing 3,000 centrifuges, but his message seemed more of a challenge to the United States and Europe than it did a statement of a technological breakthrough.

“The West thought the Iranian nation would give in after just a resolution, but now we have taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines, installing a new cascade every week,” state television quoted the president as saying. It was impossible to verify the accuracy of the president’s claim of reaching 3000 centrifuges. A report released Thursday by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna said that there were nearly 2,000 centrifuges running in the bunker-like facility in Natanz, with about 650 centrifuges being tested or under construction. The report also raised questions about the expertise of the Iranian enrichment program, noting that the product was “well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design.”

Iran insists that it is pursing a peaceful nuclear program, but Western officials have said they believe Iran wants to develop a weapons program. Iran’s leaders, while increasingly unified behind a confrontational strategy, have also expressed a desire to have its nuclear case moved out of the Security Council and back to the I.A.E.A. in Vienna. Iran has reached an agreement with the agency to answer questions about many years of past nuclear activities that have fueled suspicions in the West that it secretly was trying to develop a weapons program. The agreement was dismissed by the United States as a half-step that ignored Washington’s and Europe’s primary demand that it stop enrichment. But the news that most surprised Iranians was the sudden announcement that Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi was being replaced after heading the Revolutionary Guards for a decade.

In his place, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei named Brig. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari to head the Revolutionary Guards, which controls a force of about 200,000 and has a stake in every significant corner of Iran’s economy and its civil system of governance. President Ahmadinejad was a member of the Guards during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq and has placed dozens of former members in leadership positions around the country and in the central government in Tehran. Political analysts in Tehran said they believed that Mr. Safavi was not a strong supporter of the president because of his economic policies, which have been widely criticized by conservatives as well as reformers for causing inflation and other economic problems around the country.

Mr. Jafari now heads a force that was founded in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to serve as the guardian of Islamic revolution. It is by design the most economic and politically independent body in the country, outside of the supreme leader’s office. Mr. Jafari has an established record of support for the theocratic system of government, and its hard-line policies. In 1999, he showed a willingness to use the Guard’s military force to quell student riots. In a letter to then-President Mohammad Khatami, he wrote: “We have reached the end of our rope and can no longer tolerate if the situation is not confronted.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/wo...d-iran.html?hp