Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Lucin]

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

Zionists pushing for an attack on Iran
By Paul J. Balles

Those who follow what's going on in the world know that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were based on a myth created by the neo-conservatives in America, trumpeted by George W. Bush and spread by a Zionist-controlled media.

That myth, a fictionalized account of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's non-existent arsenal was created by "dual loyalists" in the American administration who wanted to eliminate any possibility of Iraq developing a destructive force that could endanger Israel.

Now, a new assault orchestrated by the Zionists is moving forward on the basis of another myth: that Iran is developing a nuclear arsenal and wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

The invasion of Lebanon was part of that myth. When Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers on Lebanese territory, the Israelis leapt at the opportunity to use that as an excuse to attack Lebanon, provoking Hezbollah to retaliate.

The Israelis knew that if they provoked them, Hezbollah would respond in kind. While destroying Lebanon's infrastructure and murdering its civilians, the Zionist propaganda machine blathered its usual line about self-defense. The conclusion of the deceptive argument was that Hezbollah's attacks on Israel prove that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map.

The next part of the sham argument holds that since Iran wants to eliminate Israel, according to its president, and because it insists on its right to develop a nuclear capability, and as they're lying about wanting nuclear power for peaceful purposes, Iran must be attacked.

However, Iran's president did not say that Israel should be wiped off the map. That interpretation of what Ahmedinejad said was based on a fraudulent translation of his speech. His comment was "Imam [Khomeini] said “This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

Carrying the myth forward, G.W. Bush said, based entirely on the misinterpretation of Ahmadinejad's speech:

The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.

The truth was that Iran advocated a regime change in Israel. As Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann observed, "To commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of Israel is serious deception and dangerous demagogy."

The myth that Iran would be a nuclear threat to Israel is the most ludicrous part of the Zionist propaganda campaign and the most dangerous part of the neo-conservatives' deception. Iran could not conceivably consider a nuclear attack on Israel as long as they occupy what Ahmadinejad referred to as "our dear Palestinians".

The only conceivable danger to Israel from Iran - even if Iran had nuclear weapons - would be (1) if the Palestinians were eliminated from Palestine, and (2) if Israel then attacked Iran.

If Israelis keep harping on the myth about the potential danger from Iran, knowing that the Iranians would never target Palestinians, the only logical deduction is that Israel plans to rid occupied Palestine of the Palestinians.

Zionist lackey US Senator Joe Lieberman has already urged America to bomb Iran. How many more lunatics will fall in line?

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...tionid=3510303

[Armenian]

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

Iran warns U.S. not to launch military attack


(Iranian kilo class submarine at sea)

TEHRAN, Sept. 4 (Xinhua) -- An Iranian top official warned the United States on Tuesday to beware of the possible results if it launch a military action against the Islamic Republic, the semi-official ISNA news agency reported. If the United States attacks Iran, they may face three problems: they can not predict "the volume of our response"; they don't know what would happen to Israel and Washington will not know what will the oil flow look like at that time, General Rahim Yahya Safavi was quoted as saying. Safavi stepped down last week as chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards and now serves as senior military advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He made the remarks just days after the U.S. President George W.


(Chinese manifactured C-802 anti-ship missile, the type Hizbollah used to severely damage the Israeli Navy Ship Hanit in 2006)

Bush said Iran's continued nuclear program may lead to a "nuclear holocaust" in the Middle East. The United States has never ruled out the possibility to launch a military attack against Tehran's nuclear facilities. A Western media recently reported the United States had made a plan to destroy Iran's military capability in three days if Tehran doesn't comply, drawing great attentions from the international community. Iran has repeatedly vowed to fight back any outside aggression. After years of development, Iranian forces now has the Shahab-3 missile which could cover Israel and U.S. bases on the Arabian Peninsula with a range of 2,000 km. Tehran also has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a vital channel for the transport of the region's oil to the world.

Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_6664104.htm

Related news from the past:

Israeli nuclear munitions within Iran's missile range: commander


(Missile exercise in Iran)

TEHRAN (AFP) Aug 15, 2004: A senior commander in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards Corps said that all Israeli military and nuclear sites are now within the range of the Islamic Republic's missiles, a news agency reported Sunday. "The entire Zionist territory including its nuclear establishments and atomic munitions are now within the range of Iran's advanced missiles," the students news agency ISNA quoted Yadollah Javani as saying. Javani said neither the United States nor "the Zionist regime" will carry out their threats against Iran considering the high cost of a possible attack. Such an attack "could only happen out of anger and stupidity, thus the Islamic regime officials must always maintain their promptness to tackle probable military threats," he added.


(Shahab-3B ballistic missile with guided reentry warhead capable of reaching targets in Israel)

Iran on Wednesday tested an upgraded version of its conventional medium-range Shahab-3 missile, two weeks after Israel tested its Arrow II anti-missile system. Tehran fears Israel could strike its controversial nuclear program, which Washington suspects is being used to covertly develop weapons. The missile is considered the mainstay of Iran's military technology and portrayed as purely defensive and dissuasive, but specifically as a weapon against Israel. In the July 28 test of Israel's Arrow II missile, the xxxish state made it clear the improved anti-missile system was aimed squarely at fending off any attack by arch-foe Iran. The Revolutionary Guards, or Sepah-e Pasdaran, to whom the Shahab-3 was entrusted, exist in parallel to the regular armed forces. They also have their own naval and air forces, and are largely deployed to protect Iran's borders. Israel refuses to confirm it has a nuclear arsenal but is estimated to possess some 200 warheads.

Source: http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040815100907.y21m2umi.html

[Armenian]

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

The following news report from CNN is over ten years old. We can clearly see how the battle lines of today were being gradually drawn back then. Even at that time they were blaming Iran for terrorism that was clearly associated with the so-called Al-Qaeda group. Even at that time they acknowledged that Iran was a serious threat merely because it could potentially control the flow of oil coming out of the Persian Gulf region. Even at the time US military planner realized that Iran was more of a military threat than Iraq. Even at that time it was quite obvious that the whole mess in the region is merely about controlling the oil flow to the west and not much else.

We can also see back then that Iran was preparing for a defensive battle against US forces in the region. The major difference back then, however, was the inability of the Russian Federation to intervene, for Moscow was not a serious factor in the region and Iran was being supported militarily by China and by North Korea. In my opinion, pentagon military planners back then naturally thought that by taking Iraq and/or Afghanistan, they could strategically prepare the region for the eventual war against Iran, a war that Tel Aviv had also been calling for many years. Therefore, keeping a tight military noose around Iraq in the 90s was simply a pretext to build up forces in the region for the eventual bigger geostrategic target - Iran.

In short: US Forces have had over tens years to prepare for the upcoming battle against Iran. Tehran has had over ten years to prepare for its defense. US forces are now hopelessly bogged down in the bloody conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington DC has more-or-less enlisted Arab Gulf states and Israel for its aggression against Iran. And Iran has more-or-less secured the political and military backing of the Russian Federation and China.

Armenian

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

Iran builds up military strength at mouth of Gulf


(Map of the Persian Gulf region)

WASHINGTON (CNN) August 6, 1996 -- Defense Secretary William Perry on Tuesday labeled Iran "a growing threat" to stability in the Persian Gulf region. Pentagon sources say Iran is building up its military strength around the mouth of the Gulf, thereby increasing its capability of shutting off one-fifth of the world's oil supply. "The threat from Iran has increased and is still growing," Perry told a convention of lawyers in Orlando, Florida. "To counter these threats, we maintain strong military forces ... in the Gulf region." Last week, Perry hinted that Iran may have been behind the June 25 attack on U.S. military housing near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that killed 19 American airmen. However, on Tuesday, Iran said in a letter that the U.S. claim that Tehran may have been behind the truck bombing is "disinformation," and threats of retaliation against those involved are "state terrorism." U.S. threats have "potentially dangerous repercussions to international peace," Iran's foreign minister wrote U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, calling on the United Nations to help prevent any escalation of conflict. On Monday, President Clinton authorized sanctions against Iran and Libya that would punish international firms doing business with the two nations, which Washington has accused of sponsoring international terrorism.

Worrisome location

Pentagon planners see Iran as a more dangerous adversary than either Iraq or Libya, because of its geographic position. If the United States were to consider launching a Tomahawk cruise-missile strike against Iran in retaliation for international terrorism, military sources say the first sign would be the quiet exodus of U.S. Navy ships from the Gulf. The reason: Unless the United States neutralized Iran in a large-scale attack, Iran's military could effectively block off the mouth of the Gulf, trapping U.S. warships inside. In the past two years, Iran has obtained two Russian kilo-class diesel submarines, and a third is to be delivered in a month or two. Iran also has taken delivery of 10 Chinese fast-attack boats equipped with C802 anti-ship missiles with a 60-mile range. And sources say Iran continues to build up its forces on three key islands -- Abu Musa, Tunb and Sirri -- near the Strait of Hormuz, gateway to the Persian Gulf. Iran is adding Hawk anti-aircraft and Silkworm anti-ship missiles to the strategic islands.

"I can tell you that their activities and buildup in the Gulf seem to go far beyond their defensive need, particularly on those three little islands," Defense Department spokesman Ken Bacon said. However, Bacon played down the notion of Iran seeking to disrupt oil supplies. He said in Washington on Tuesday that Tehran used the Gulf for most of its oil exports, and "they would be the first victim" of any cutoff. But sources say Iran's formidable shore defenses could pose a threat to U.S. warships if Iran were provoked. There's no question the U.S. military forces in the Gulf region are far superior to Iran's, but Iran is not defenseless. As one senior officer explained, "Unlike Iraq and Libya, the United States can't just whack Iran and walk away."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/06/iran.threat/

[Armenian]

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

Europeans Oppose Attack on Iran, Tire of Afghan War, Poll Says



Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Europeans are overwhelmingly against a potential U.S. military attack to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions and are tiring of the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, a survey showed. Americans are more willing to contemplate the use of force against Iran and remain in favor of the Afghan war, according to a poll released today by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Italian foundation Compagnia di San Paolo. "Europeans are very skittish about the possibility of even maintaining the option of using military force,'' John K. Glenn, director of foreign policy at the German Marshall Fund, said in an interview from Washington.

While blaming President George W. Bush and the Iraq war for much of the foreign-policy discord between the U.S. and Europe, the survey's authors concluded that the gulf is likely to persist after Bush leaves the White House in 2009. Europeans, led by Germans, are increasingly worried about terrorism and the menace of Islamic radicalism -- sharing many of the preoccupations Americans confronted in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Views diverge when it comes to dealing with threats. Only 18 percent of Europeans would back possible use of force against Iran in case diplomacy fails to dismantle the Islamic republic's nuclear program, compared to 47 percent of Americans. Bush has refused to take the military option off the table, as the U.S. presses for stiffer United Nations sanctions to force Iran to halt uranium enrichment. The nuclear activities continue, though at a slower pace, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said last month.

European Skepticism

Europeans voiced skepticism about Afghanistan, where European and American forces are fighting side-by-side under NATO's mantle to beat back the resurgent Taliban, the radical Islamic movement chased from power by the U.S. in 2001. U.S., British, Canadian and Dutch troops are doing the bulk of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's fighting against the Taliban, which is relying increasingly on suicide attacks in population centers. Only 31 percent of Europeans back the military campaign against the Taliban, with opposition highest in France, Germany, Italy and Spain -- four countries that are keeping their troops in quieter sectors of Afghanistan. "What it shows is just how cautious the European publics are today, after the last four years, after what we've seen in Iraq, after what we've seen in Afghanistan,'' Glenn said. Only Britain, with 6,500 troops in active combat in southern Afghanistan, generated a bare majority in favor of the war, with 51 percent approval. Support in the Netherlands, the second European country in a frontline role, was at 45 percent.

Broad U.S. Support

While Bush and Democrats in Congress clash over how long to keep American forces in Iraq, the U.S. role in Afghanistan commands broad public support. Some 68 percent of Americans back the fight against the Taliban. The U.S. has 23,000 troops in Afghanistan, out of total allied forces of close to 50,000. Europeans warmed to the Afghan mission when asked whether they favored putting troops in a non-combat role. Sixty-six percent endorsed using the military to help with economic rebuilding. Germans are at the forefront in doubting the intentions of Russia under President Vladimir Putin, expressing concern about the weakening of democracy in Russia and Putin's attempt to assert greater influence over former Soviet satellites in eastern Europe.

Baltic Gas Pipeline

The trigger, Glenn said, was a German-Russian natural-gas pipeline being built under the Baltic Sea, bypassing Poland and the Baltic republics. Co-managed by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the pipeline stirred anxiety that Germany is mortgaging its energy future to Russia. Some 73 percent of Germans are "concerned'' about Russia's role as an energy provider, higher than the European average of 63 percent. German concern about Russia's treatment of its neighbors ran to 67 percent, compared to a European average of 59 percent. Schroeder's pipeline diplomacy really woke Germans up to the fact that Russia was asserting itself on the world stage in ways that directly affect the Germans,'' Glenn said. In judging the future of trans-Atlantic relations, only 36 percent of Europeans regard U.S. leadership as desirable,'' down from 37 percent last year and 64 percent in 2002. The U.S. appetite for world leadership remains undiminished by the Iraq and Afghan wars, with 84 percent of Americans calling it desirable,'' compared to 83 percent in 2002.

Europeans Blame Bush

Bush's foreign policy attracted disapproval ratings of 77 percent from Europeans and 60 percent of Americans. Some 34 percent of Europeans blamed Bush himself and 38 percent blamed the U.S. management of the Iraq war for the deterioration in the trans-Atlantic climate. Only 4 percent named the treatment of terrorism suspects at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The mainstream European view -- echoed by 46 percent of people polled -- is that the 2008 presidential election will have little impact on U.S.-European ties. Europeans are starting to wonder whether the factors that are driving the drift apart in relations are more enduring than personality,'' Glenn said. The survey of 13,000 people was conducted in the U.S., Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Poland, Turkey and six other European countries between June 4 and June 23. The margin of error is 3 percentage points.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...&refer=germany

[Armenian]

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

Iran-Armenia gas pipeline to be launched in 2008

RBC, 07.09.2007, Yerevan 17:14:02.The Iran-Armenia gas pipeline will be launched in late 2008, Armenia's Energy Minister Armen Movsisian said during the government's meeting on the budget performance in 2006, the ARKA news agency reported today. He pointed out that all construction works would be completed in mid- or late 2008 if the weather conditions in the mountain regions were favorable. Therefore, the second 141 kilometer stretch of the gas pipeline would be ready for use. Movsisian also said that the first stretch of the gas pipeline had been completed, and another 120 kilometers of the second stretch. This gas pipeline would provide Armenia's domestic market with enough gas.

Source: http://www.rbcnews.com/free/20070907171402.shtml

[Armenian]

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

Questions Cloud Alleged Israeli Flyover



JERUSALEM (AP) — Syria's announcement that it opened fire on Israeli aircraft invading its airspace has raised the question of why Israel would want to heighten tensions just days after stating that war with its enemy to the north was unlikely. Israel refuses to comment on Syria's claim. But the xxxish state would have reason to fly over northern Syria: to collect information about long-range missiles pointed at Israel, to test Syrian air defense, or to try out a possible air route to its archenemy Iran.

The official Syrian Arab News Agency on Thursday quoted a military official as saying that Israeli jets broke the sound barrier flying over northern Syria earlier in the day, then "dropped munitions" onto deserted areas after being shot at by Syria's air defenses. And a Syrian government newspaper warned Friday that the country "possesses the means to respond ... so that it will deter Israel against proceeding with such unpredictable adventures."

The charge was the latest episode in tensions between the decades-old enemies that grew with Israel's war against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer. Frictions between the two countries had abated slightly in recent weeks with announcements by Israeli and Syrian leaders that they were not interested in hostilities. Last month, Israel's army said it had determined that war with Syria is unlikely after Syria began rotating forces out of the contested Golan Heights. But Israel sees Syria as one of its greatest foes, and watches it closely. Israel is wary of Syria's warming ties with Iran, an even bigger enemy in Israeli eyes, and its support for Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Israel's air force may have been testing an air path to Iran, in case it decides to carry out an attack against that country's nuclear facilities, analysts said. The corridor of northern Syria where the aircraft allegedly flew over is the closest straight line from the Mediterranean Sea, where Israel has easy access, to Iran. The area is separated from Iran only by Iraqi Kurdistan, a region whose rulers would almost surely allow either Israel or the U.S. to fly over.

Such a route is far from the safest, however, as Israel could also reach Iran through the friendly air space of Turkey or Jordan, if they agreed. Even so, analysts said Israel would want to consider all options. Israel says it prefers to let the international community confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, but a lone Israeli attack is not out of the question. The country sees Iran, whose president has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, as an existential threat. Iran insists its nuclear program is for energy, not weapons.

"Of course Israel wants to let the Americans do that," said Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. "But if we are left alone, the Israeli army is preparing to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat — if the political level allows it to — and this could have been a part of that."

Israel's air force does carry out reconnaissance flights over Syria, but is usually undetected, Inbar said. Israeli Science Minister Ghaleb Majadleh told an Israeli Arab newspaper A Ssennara Friday that he did not believe the incident would lead to war, saying Israeli incursions into Syrian air space are common.

"This may have been a reconnaissance flight, which Israel conducts time to time, to check out Syrian ports where Iranian and Russian ships are carrying advanced weapons," said Eyal Zisser, director of Tel Aviv University's Dayan Center. If Israeli aircraft did fly over Syria, the goal was probably not to send a warning signal to Syria since tensions have dropped in recent weeks. Israel has during times of friction sent warplanes to fly over Syria as a type of threat. Last year it flew over the Syrian president's palace in Damascus after Syrian-backed Hamas militants kidnapped an Israeli soldier, and in 2003 it bombed an Islamic Jihad installation in Syria.

"It is hoped ... that the two countries will agree to contain this incident, if indeed it took place, and it appears they will do so," Inbar said. "But the status quo between the two countries has been cracked."

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...uXUuVXEtA2oBnw

[Armenian]

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

France warning of war with Iran



French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme. "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.

He was speaking ahead of a visit to Russia on Monday, during which Iran is likely to feature prominently. Iran's nuclear programme will also be one of the main issues for the UN nuclear watchdog's annual conference, starting in Vienna on Monday. Iran denies it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and says it only wants nuclear power to generate electricity for civilian purposes. But it has repeatedly rejected UN demands to give up the enrichment of uranium, which the US and other Western states fear is being diverted to a nuclear weapons project.

Tougher approach

Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world". He said a number of large French companies had been asked not to tender for business in Iran. "We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies." "But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."

Mr Kouchner will seek agreement with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over tighter UN sanctions to try to force Iran to give up enrichment, the French foreign ministry says. Russia has a UN Security Council veto over any new sanctions, and its support is seen as vital for any new approach. It also has perhaps the greatest leverage over Tehran, as the supplier of fuel for its nuclear reactor. But Mr Kouchner said even in the absence of UN action, the European Union should prepare its own sanctions against Iran. "We have decided while negotiations are continuing, to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.

'Playing for time'

Iran has warned that any new punishments could push it to stop co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA's members meet this week in Austria, with Iran likely to top the agenda. The director of the organisation, Mohamed ElBaradei, has been criticised in the West over a new deal with Iran to clear up questions about its past nuclear activities. The US and its allies believe the deal just gives Iran more time, during which they fear it will advance its nuclear programme. Since becoming foreign minister earlier this year, Mr Kouchner has not shied away from controversy. Last month he was quoted as saying the Iraqi government was "not functioning" and seemed to hint that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki should resign, provoking an angry reaction from Baghdad.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says France has changed its approach to world affairs under its new President Nicolas Sarkozy, adopting a harder line on several issues, and seeking to improve relations with the United States. But it is the tougher rhetoric aimed at Tehran which will please Washington the most, he says. Until now the UN Security Council has imposed economic sanctions on Iran, but did not allow for military action. The United States has not ruled out a military attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6997935.stm

[Armenian]

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

Russia warns against Iran war

Russia expressed worry Tuesday over the possibility of war with Iran as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner pressed for tougher sanctions against the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov emphasised Russia's "concern" over "multiple reports that military sanctions against Iran are being seriously considered. It's hard to imagine what that could do to the region."

Kouchner called for "working on precise sanctions" and added that France and Russia had differences on the issue. However, the French foreign minister also said that "everything should be done to avoid war." "War is the worst that could happen," he said. "Everything should be done to avoid war. We have to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate -- without cease, without rebuff."

His comments appeared aimed at quieting an uproar over his statement Sunday that the world should prepare for a possible war with Iran -- a warning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed Tuesday as fanciful. The Russian and French ministers met ahead of a UN Security Council meeting on Friday that may impose new sanctions against Tehran for its controversial uranium enrichment activity.

Pressure on Iran has escalated in the runup to the meeting, including Kouchner's statement on Sunday: "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war." Ahmadinejad told journalists in Tehran on Tuesday: "We do not take these declarations seriously. Comments to the media are different to the real positions."

Tehran vehemently denies US accusations it is seeking an atomic weapon, saying its nuclear drive is aimed at generating electricity. Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear reactor in the southern Russian city of Bushehr, has consistently warned against attacking the Islamic republic. In an interview published just ahead of the Kouchner-Lavrov meeting, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov warned that a "bombing of Iran would be a bad move that would end with catastrophic consequences."

The United States has never ruled out using military strikes to punish Iran for defying UN Security Council demands that it halt its enrichment activity. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday that "all options are on the table."

Iran has said it would never initiate an attack but would respond with crushing force if the United States launched a strike on its territory. Kouchner is set to fly to Washington on Wednesday to take up the issue with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Fearing possible military action, Moscow has drawn up plans to evacuate its nuclear experts from Bushehr in the event of a conflict, deputy foreign minister Losyukov said. He stressed in an interview with daily Vremya Novostei that the use of force would only "worsen the situation in the Middle East" and "bring a very negative reaction from the Muslim world."

On Monday, the UN atomic agency chief warned against the hasty use of force in the Iranian nuclear dispute but dismissed the French comments about possible war as "a lot of hype." "We need always to remember that use of force could only be resorted to when ... every other option has been exhausted. I don't think we are at all there," ElBaradei told reporters at a conference of his International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"There is a UN charter and there are rules for the international use of force," ElBaradei said. Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh told the general conference of the IAEA's 144 member states that Western countries "have always chosen the path of confrontation instead of the path of understanding and cordial relations toward the great nation of Iran."

Source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...EX-uWs_OEW7RHQ

[skhara]

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

The rhetoric from jooz outlined bellow just makes me laugh. For 4 years now, they have been threatening Iran -- Iran states retaliatory plans and this is "hateful talk"?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20872507/page/2

Iran: We have plans to bomb Israel if attacked

EHRAN, Iran - The deputy commander of Iran's air force said Wednesday that plans have been drawn up to bomb Israel if the xxxish state attacks Iran, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

The announcement came amid rising tensions in the region, with the United States calling for a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program and Israeli planes having recently overflown, and perhaps even attacked, Iranian ally Syria.

On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the international community should prepare for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons, although he later appeared to soften that statement.

"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," Gen. Mohammad Alavi was quoted as telling Fars in an interview.

Fars confirmed the quotes when contacted by The Associated Press, but would not provide a tape of the interview. The Iranian air force had no immediate comment.

Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammed Najjar told the official IRNA news agency Wednesday that "we keep various options open to respond to threats. ... We will make use of them if required."

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards released a statement that the nation was ready for a military confrontation.

"Iran, having passed through crises ... has prepared its people for a possible confrontation against any aggression," IRNA quoted the statement as saying.

U.S., Israeli reaction
White House press secretary Dana Perino called Alavi's comment "unhelpful."

"It is not constructive and it almost seems provocative," she said. "Israel doesn't seek a war with its neighbors. And we all are seeking, under the U.N. Security Council resolutions, for Iran to comply with its obligations."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States is committed to diplomacy. But she said "it can't be business as usual" with a country whose president has spoken of wiping Israel off the map.

For diplomacy to work, Rice said during a visit to Jerusalem, "it has to have both a way for Iran to pursue a peaceful resolution of this issue and it has to have teeth, and the U.N. Security Council and other measures are providing teeth."

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said, "Unfortunately we are all too accustomed to this kind of bellicose, extremist and hateful language coming from Iran."

"We take the threat very seriously and so does the international community," he added.

Iran has said in the past that Israel would be Iran's first retaliatory target if attacked by the United States, but Alavi's comments were the first word of specific contingency plans for striking back on Israel.

Many in the region fear Israel could launch airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon.

Missiles, fighter bombers cited
Alavi also warned that Israel was within Iran's medium-range missiles and its fighter bombers, while maintaining that Israel was not strong enough to launch an aerial attack against Iran.

"The whole territory of this regime is within the range of our missiles. Moreover, we can attack their territory with our fighter bombers as a response to any attack," the general said.

An upgraded version of Iran's Shahab-3 missile has a range of 1,250 miles, capable of reaching Israel and carrying a nuclear warhead.

Alavi said Iran's radar bases were monitoring activities at the country's borders around the clock and boasted that it had the capability to confront U.S. cruise missiles.

"One of the issues the enemies make publicity about is their cruise missiles. Now, we possess the necessary systems to confront them," Alavi was quoted as saying.

Iran's ambassador to Kuwait said in an interview with the Kuwaiti Al-Rai newspaper that U.S. bases in the Gulf would be targeted if the country was attacked.

"Iran won't immediately strike U.S. bases in the region if it comes under a military strike. It will hit the base from which the strike against it came," Ali Jannati told the newspaper. "But I don't think the Gulf nations would allow that a strike be launched from their territory."

Kuwait has a major U.S. base, which helps supply troops in Iraq. The U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf, is based in Bahrain, and the U.S. forces' Central Command is based in Qatar.

A top Revolutionary Guards commander said this week that Americans could be found all around Iran and that they were legitimate Iranian targets if the U.S. takes military action.

"Today, the United States is within Iran's sight and all around our country, but it doesn't mean we have been encircled. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," Gen. Mohammed Hasan Kousehchi told IRNA, referring to U.S. units in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Ankara, Turkey, on Wednesday, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called for U.N. Security Council members and U.S. allies to help push for a third round of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

[Lucin]

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

The rhetoric from jooz outlined bellow just makes me laugh. For 4 years now, they have been threatening Iran -- Iran states retaliatory plans and this is "hateful talk"?

And it reminds me of Azaris threatening us "for ages", to take back Artsakh.