Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

Iran threat: All of Israel 'within range of our missiles'


(Iranian Ballistic Misile Range)

NICOSIA — Iran announced it has drafted plans to attack Israel after a week of speculation about an Israel Air Force attack on an unspecified target in northeastern Syria along the Euphrates River near the border with Turkey. Iran's military said the plans would be implemented should Iran come under attack from either Israel or the United States, Middle East Newsline reported.

"We can also attack them by our fighter planes and respond to their possible air strikes," Iranian Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations chief Gen. Mohammed Alavi said. "The whole territory of this [Israeli] regime is within the range of our missiles."

In the most detailed threat, Alavi said Israel could be targeted by Iranian medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Citing threats of an Israeli air attack, he said Iran's Russian-origin aircraft could also retaliate against the xxxish state. "Israel's rhetoric about air strike [on Iran] is just psychological warfare, because this regime does not have the power to launch air strikes on Iran," Alavi said on Wednesday. "Israel is not capable of posing a serious threat to Iran because it does not have the actual power and capabilities needed."

Iran was said to have produced 600 Shihab-3 ballistic missiles, with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers. The Iranian Air Force has been overhauling its Soviet-origin MiG-29 fighter-jets as well as the U.S.-origin F-4 and F-5 fighters.

"We are keeping various options open to respond to threats," Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Najar said on Wednesday. "We will make use of them if required."

In an interview to the semi-official Far news agency, Alavi said Iran's operational plans were genuine. But he added that Israel was unlikely to attack Iran.

"Such a plan [by Iran] is not just a hollow threat, and we do everything on the basis of correct and precise planning, and we have gained the needed readiness," Alavi said. "Thus, Israel should give up its foolishness."

Alavi said Iran has deployed advanced radar throughout the country and was capable of blocking any Israeli or U.S. air strike. He said any enemy air fleet would lose 30 percent of its combat aircraft in an attempted invasion of Iran.

"We have gained the required preparedness to confront different plans and strategies, and we would not enable their fighters to launch such easy attacks on our country as they allege," Alavi said. "A majority of our blind [radar] points have been covered and all flying objects are under our control. Our air defense plans are also varied, and use special tactics that have placed us in a unique position."

Alavi said Iranian radars and sensors were operating throughout the day and night. He said Iran was also capable of intercepting or countering cruise missiles. "We have gained the required preparedness to confront these [cruise] missiles," Alavi said. "We have studied their performance and volume and range of fire, and we have the systems required to confront them."

Source: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...iran_09_20.asp

[Armenian]

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

Russia bolsters ties with Iran



Relations between Russia and the United States will be put to the severe test in the coming weeks as there are growing signs that the US has decided, or has almost decided, to launch a military strike against Iran. Russian observers do not rule out that the administration of US President George W Bush is yet to think through its policy on Iran, and the spate of media "leaks" keeps Tehran and the world community guessing. They analyze that a US military intervention would become inevitable unless Iran relented in its regional policy in Iraq. It is inconceivable for the US to leave its Arab allies in the region to face Iran single-handed.

But then, Russian experts do not visualize that the US has reached anywhere near the point where it can claim the security situation has been stabilized and political reconciliation achieved, which would allow a complete withdrawal of troops. On the contrary, they see the situation in Iraq continuing to deteriorate. Moscow would weigh that the real US agenda is aimed at "regime change" in Iran. Washington has more or less ensured that all military equipment (three aircraft-carrier battle groups) necessary for an air and sea strike against Iran are already in position in the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration has launched a concerted campaign for mobilizing domestic opinion in the US for an attack on Iran.

Bush has a new xxxxiness about him, and Moscow wouldn't be the only capital to notice. He has certainly lost his fear of the Democrat-dominated Congress on Capitol Hill. To be sure, he is step-by-step making a case for war. Commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote recently, "Confident of victory this fall on the Hill, Bush is now moving into Phase III in his 'war on terror': first Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran." In Moscow's perception, therefore, the next two to three months will be most critical, even as Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) enters a crucial phase. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to go ahead with his visit to Tehran on October 16, much to the chagrin of Washington. The visit is in connection with the summit of the Caspian states (Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Iran) that is to take place in Iran, but Putin is scheduled to hold "bilaterals" as well with the Iranian leadership. This will be Putin's first visit to Iran.

Russian stance unchanged

At a joint press conference with visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner in Moscow on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov explained the Russian position on the Iran nuclear issue. He made it clear at the outset that Moscow is second to none in insisting on preventing the nuclear non-proliferation regime from being violated by Iran. In other words, Russia wouldn't countenance a "nuclear Iran". But having said that, Lavrov added that the problem has to be solved in accordance with international law. In other words, Moscow will reject any "unilateralism" on the part of Washington. Second, Lavrov argued that the steps taken by the international community so far - in the direction of the IAEA board of governors' decisions and the United Nations Security Council decisions - have proved "effective". This is borne out by the fact that last month Iran and the IAEA agreed to address outstanding issues conclusively; the two sides elaborated their agreement in an appropriate document. Lavrov said that in Moscow's estimation, the implementation of this document is proceeding satisfactorily and "we want this process to conclude unimpeded".

Third, Lavrov spoke in strong support of the IAEA's professional capabilities and asserted, "We will rely upon the professional assessments of the experts from the IAEA." He added a punch line: "We remember well what ignoring the professional opinion of this agency [IAEA] led to in the situation vis-a-vis Iraq four years ago." He virtually anticipated the US strategy, which aims at discrediting the IAEA and sidelining it on the Iran issue, if not elbowing it out of altogether, so that the UN Security Council gets into the driving seat. Fourth, Lavrov spoke emphatically against any military attack on Iran and instead stressed the "necessity to conduct negotiations in a persistent and consistent manner". Fifth, what was most interesting about Lavrov's statement was that he revisited the big-power discussions last year leading to the creation of the so-called Five Plus One format. (This comprises the five permanent members of the Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US - plus Germany.)

He recalled the understanding given by Washington at that time to Moscow and Beijing to the effect that the Security Council's involvement on the Iran issue would be with "a sole objective - to back the IAEA and ensure Iran's compliance with the IAEA". Lavrov's message to the Bush administration was plain: "Do not arbitrarily shift the goalposts now." Lavrov continued, "We remain committed to this original agreement on the understanding that the Security Council will not be forced to go beyond support of the IAEA." And, "The IAEA is now satisfied with the way Iran is implementing the accords on closing the outstanding issues on its nuclear file."

Lavrov in effect said nyet to Washington's latest move for tightening up the sanctions against Iran via yet another Security Council resolution. This echoed the statement attributed to an unnamed "senior Kremlin official in Moscow" a week earlier, who told The Financial Times of London, "As far as Iran's nuclear program is concerned, we have passed resolutions in the UN. So far, it's enough." Finally, Lavrov criticized the move by the US and the European Union to impose unilateral sanctions against Iran. He reminded the Western capitals that the original understanding while forming the Five Plus One was to develop a comprehensive dialogue with Iran "not only resolving all aspects of Iran's nuclear program, but also on economic and commercial affairs and on regional security".

Lavrov added, "It was this kind of comprehensive approach that helped to unlock the situation surrounding the Korean nuclear program." (Under the February agreement, in exchange for North Korea's denuclearization and information on all its nuclear programs, the reclusive state will receive 950,000 tonnes of fuel oil for its thermal power-generating plants in addition to the 50,000 tonnes already delivered by South Korea for the closure of its only operational nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. If Kouchner's visit to Moscow was to persuade Russia to fall in line with the US move to introduce a new Security Council resolution, things didn't quite work that way. (Kouchner was scheduled to arrive in Washington on Friday; French President Nicolas Sarkozy is due to visit Moscow on October 11-12.)

Russia couldn't be unaware that France is playing a double game. On the one hand, Sarkozy is closing ranks with the Bush administration's policies toward Iran. On the other hand, France is using US-French rapprochement to share the spoils of Iraq's oil wealth with US oil interests. France's Total and the United States' Chevron have agreed to collaborate on the Majnoon oilfields in Iraq. The San Francisco Chronicle recently wrote, "The building of a US-French consensus on Iraq is largely the result of the willingness of US oil interests to share the spoils with their European counterparts in exchange for their military and military backing of Washington's foreign policy in the Middle East." In the coming period, Moscow will have to factor the "trans-Atlantic partnership" in dealing with the Iran nuclear issue.

Moscow backs ElBaradei

Moscow is determined not to be party to Washington's attempt to discredit the IAEA's credentials in handling the Iran problem. Washington launched a similar offensive against the IAEA in the run-up to the Iraq war. Lavrov made it clear Russia's sympathy lies with IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday, "The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy. The IAEA is a technical agency ... It is not up to anybody to diminish or to begin to cut back on the obligations that the Iranians have been ordered to take" by the Security Council. In effect, she meant that ElBaradei was freelancing where he didn't belong.

Russia doesn't want to see ElBaradei being bullied. Russia would like the agency's inspectors to report back without fear at the end of the year on the Iran file. Russia finds itself in complete agreement with ElBaradei's approach, which is to encourage Tehran to move forward in terms of the roadmap with the IAEA so that by November or December, a definitive assessment becomes possible as to whether the Iranians would keep their promises, and a peaceful solution emerges. Moscow goes along agrees ElBaradei's view that there are hopeful and positive signs. Moscow would have no quarrels either with ElBaradei's conclusion that "We [IAEA] consistently searched for evidence that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons. We found suspicious signs, but no smoking guns. We could now make some progress in settings aside these suspicions ... It's important to exert pressure. But in addition to sanctions, we must also have incentives to encourage Iran to take a new direction ... If we turn up the heat too high, the pot could explode around our ears."

[...]

Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/II22Ag01.html

[Armenian]

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

Iran displays military might amid warnings to USA, Israel



Threats and economic sanctions will not stop Iran's technological progress, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Saturday at a large parade featuring fighter jets and radar-avoiding missiles designed to show off the country's military might. "Those who assume that decaying methods such as psychological war, political propaganda and the so-called economic sanctions would work and prevent Iran's fast drive toward progress are mistaken," Ahmadinejad said at the parade. "Iran is an influential power in the region and the world should know that this power has always served peace, stability, brotherhood and justice," the Iranian leader declared. The military parade outside the capital Tehran marked the 27th anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Iran that sparked the 1980-88 war. Iran used the parade to display its latest weapons, including radar-avoiding missiles, super-fast torpedoes, unmanned surveillance drones, battle tanks and other domestically produced weapons.



During the event, Iran showed off a new longer-range missile called "Ghadr", saying it had a range of 1,800 kilometres. Some of the trucks carrying Iranian missiles were painted at the back the popular slogans: "Down with the U.S." and "Down with Israel." According to the AP, the parade also featured flights by two of Iran's new domestically manufactured fighter jets, known as the Saegheh. "Those who prevented Iran, at the height of the (1980-88 Iran-Iraq) war from getting even barbed wire must see now that all the equipment on display today has been built by the mighty hands and brain of experts at Iran's armed forces," Ahmadinejad said.



"Learn lessons from your past mistakes. Don't repeat your mistakes," he said. The regional nations do not need presence of foreign forces, he said adding, "Presence of foreign troops is the root cause of all insecurity, disputes and intimidations." Withdrawal from the region of foreign forces would benefit both themselves and the regional states, the president noted stressing that it would also help establish lasting peace and security. Urging foreign military forces "to make a correct decision, bravely admit their defeats and quit the region", he said accusing others would not solve any of their problems.

Source: http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/217118

[Armenian]

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

New missile unveiled at Iran parade



Iran says its long-range missiles could target US interests in the region if it is attacked

Iran has unveiled a new long-range missile among an array of armaments displayed in an annual military parade commemorating the country's 1980-88 war with Iraq. The missile, known as the Ghadr - meaning power - has a 1,800km range, officials say, putting US military bases in the Gulf within range. Experts say the missile appears to be an upgrade of Iran's existing long-range missile, the Shahab-3, which has a 1,300km range, according to Tehran. Addressing the parade, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, said: "Iran is an influential power in the region and the world should know that this power has always served peace, stability, brotherhood and justice. "Those who think, that by using such decayed tools as psychological warfare and economic sanctions, they can stop the Iranian nation's progress are making a mistake,"

Armaments paraded

He reiterated his call on the US and other foreign forces to leave neighbouring Iraq. "The nations throughout the region do not need the presence of the foreigners," he said. As he spoke, troops, tanks, and other military armaments passed by the podium in the parade area near Tehran's tomb of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic. Al Jazeera correspondent Alireza Ronaghi said: "Ahmadinejad was showing that Iranian forces can build any type of weapon that they need on their own. "He was warning the west against any ideas of conflict with Iran."

Nuclear dispute

The full range of Iran's armed forces were on display, with thousands of members of the regular army and the elite Revolutionary Guards saluting Ahmadinejad and top military leaders in a march-past. Iran remains embroiled in a dispute with the West over its nuclear ambitions. The United States, which says Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb, has said it has not ruled out military action if a diplomatic resolution cannot be found. Iran, which insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, has threatened to hit back at US interests in the Middle East if attacked.

'Prepare for war'

Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, last week warned the world should prepare for war against Tehran. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, later played down the comments saying: "It is an extremely difficult affair, but France does not want war. "Iran is trying to get a nuclear bomb. I have said this is unacceptable and I tell the French people that it is unacceptable." The five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany met in Washington on Friday for talks about new sanctions aimed at trying to force Iran to halt its sensitive nuclear programme. The council has imposed two rounds of limited sanctions on Tehran since December. Officials representing the group said they will keep pursuing a "dual track" approach to Iran - trying to persuade it to abandon such atomic work via negotiations while considering new sanctions.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...39239F3507.htm

Iran successfully tests new home-made fighter jet



BEIJING, Sept. 21 -- Iran says it has successfully tested a new model of its home-made fighter jet. Officials say the Defense Ministry and the Air Force carried out the research, design and production of the "Saegheh" warplane. The fighter jet was seen last year during Iran's large-scale military exercises. It is a new generation of the previously tested fighter jet Azarakhsh. The model is said to be similar to the US F-18 fighter plane -- and Iranian experts say it is more powerful. Iranian officials warned that the Saegheh -- which means lightning in Farsi -- should serve as a warning to western countries. Ataollah Salehi, Iranian Army commander, said, "This domestic product (the Saeqeh fighter jet) is a warning to western countries who threaten us. They must know that while they are trying to turn other countries against us with their limited capabilities in the region, we possess unlimited technology (to face them)." Iran says it has begun industrial-scale production of the fighter jet -- as part of Tehran's efforts to become militarily self-sufficient, after decades of relying on foreign weapons.

Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_6765518.htm

[skhara]

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

It seems to me that Iranians have understood just how important self-sufficiency is. I applaud them. I wander if there is more desperation in Washington, since the longer this drags, the more untouchable Iran becomes.

[Armenian]

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

Cheney mulled luring Iran into war with Israel: report



WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Vice President Richard Cheney has considered provoking an exchange of military strikes between Iran and Israel in order to give the United States a pretext to attack Iran, Newsweek magazine reported in its Monday issue. But the weekly said the steady departure of neoconservatives from the administration over the past two years had helped tilt the balance away from war. One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney's Middle East adviser, the report said. A spokeswoman at Cheney's office confirmed to Newsweek that Wurmser left his position last month to "spend more time with his family."

A few months before he quit, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz -- and perhaps other sites -- in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out, the magazine reported, citing two unnamed "knowledgeable sources." The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran, Newsweek reported. When Newsweek attempted to reach Wurmser for comment, his wife, Meyrav, declined to put him on the phone and said the allegations were untrue, the report said. A spokeswoman at Cheney's office told the weekly the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."

Source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...vsbZmxR4QXNQGw

[Armenian]

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

Iran expects no war with USA, but monitors troop movements

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an American television interview aired Sunday night that his country was neither building an atomic bomb nor headed to war with the United States. "Well, you have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What need do we have for a bomb?" Ahmadinejad said in the "60 Minutes" interview, which was taped in Iran on Thursday, the AP reported. "In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union." He also said, "It's wrong to think that Iran and the U.S. are walking toward war. Who says so? Why should we go to war? There is no war in the offing."

Meanwhile, a top Iranian military official said American troop movements are being monitored by Iran using satellites and other technology and would be in range of Iranian missiles if an attack was launched. In comments appeared by Iranian newspapers on Monday, Yahya Rahim Safavi, an advisor to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, added he did not expect any U.S. attack because America's problems in Iraq. "Iran has now a strong intelligence system and missiles. We are closely watching the foreigners' moves in neighbouring countries by highly advanced satellite technology and advanced radars. If they enter our airspace or our territorial waters, they will get a fair response," Rahim Safavi said. "It seems very unlikely that foreign troops in the region could start another attack because they have been busy with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and they should focus on that," he added in comments carried by Iran Daily.

Source: http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/217161

[Armenian]

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

Iran has become an extra-regional power: general



TEHRAN - The United States must acknowledge that Iran is a powerful state, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi said here on Sunday. On the 27th anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Iran, the Mehr News Agency conducted an interview with Safavi, who is currently the Supreme Leader’s senior advisor on military affairs, in which he elaborated on the roots of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, the threats that Iran is currently facing, the missile capabilities of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and the recent restructuring of the country’s defense system.

Following are excerpts of the interview:

“White House officials should know that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not yield to political and economic pressure. “If they think wisely and think about their interests, and if they want energy, political, and economic cooperation with Iran, they must recognize Iran as a power.”

Roots of the Iran-Iraq war

The victory of the Islamic Revolution created a new situation for the U.S., and it soon cut ties with the Islamic Republic, said Safavi, who was the commander of the IRGC for ten years. With the Islamic Revolution, Iran’s geopolitical situation changed since the U.S. lost its main ally in the region, which caused a change in the bipolar world system in favor of the Soviet Union. He cited former Iranian prime minister Mehdi Bazargan’s efforts in the provisional government to reestablish ties with the U.S. and the problems created by former president Abolhassan Banisadr and his connection with the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) as some of the reasons which prepared the ground for the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime. The Western powers, which were worried about the influence of the Islamic Revolution on regional Arab countries, encouraged Saddam to attack Iran, he added.

Saddam, who wanted to replace the shah as the regional power after the Islamic Revolution, attacked Iran under the pretext that the 1975 Algiers Agreement was imposed on Iraq. The former IRGC commander said the Baathists began to modernize the Iraqi army in 1975, five years before Iraq attacked Iran. Between 1975 and 1980, they spent billions of dollars buying arms so that Iraq eventually had the most powerful army in the region, he added. He described the current regional situation as very critical. “This does not mean that the United States wants to begin a new war. They already have over 200,000 troops in the region, but despite this, they face three challenging problems,” he noted.

“First, they do not exactly know how Iran will deal with them. I mean they are incapable of calculating the depth and extent of Iran’s (potential) response to their threatening actions… Their second concern is about the security of Israel, and thirdly, they are extremely worried about the oil and energy problems ahead, both in Iraq and the region. One reason for this could be the dramatic increase in the oil price, which recently hit about 81 U.S. dollars per barrel, and even the price of a barrel of oil for OPEC countries, including Iran, has risen to more than 71 U.S. dollars.

“If there is a little spark in the Persian Gulf area, which contains 65 percent of all the world’s oil reserves, the oil price could easily rise to 100 dollars per barrel. “I think that the rational people in the U.S. Congress and the Democratic Party will not allow the current U.S. administration to declare a new war.” In Iraq, the United States’ political and military situation has greatly diminished, he stated. “Despite all this, the Iranian armed forces will carefully monitor the upgrading of the U.S. military and the enemy’s provocative moves in the entire region.”

Iran’s role in regional peace and security

The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the Persian Gulf and the Middle East region should enjoy lasting peace and security, but unfortunately, U.S. forces came from the other side of the globe and disrupted the region’s security through military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, he noted. Iran desires peace in the region and this can be realized by signing defense treaties with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, he added. The United States destroyed two major enemies of Iran, namely the Taleban in the east and Saddam Hussein in the west, and this benefited Iran, he said, adding that recent developments have increased Iran’s political influence in the region. Pointing out that U.S. officials once thought that they could surround Iran by occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, he said, “Now, the Americans should realize that the 200,000 troops they have deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan are in Iran’s firing range.”

The future of Iraq and Afghanistan

The future of Iraq and Afghanistan is unpredictable, he stated, adding that as a public relations move, the U.S. might reduce troop levels in Iraq, although it actually intends to maintain its military bases in Iraq and the Persian Gulf for years. Although the U.S. has received millions of dollars from the Iraqi government to equip the Iraqi police and armed forces, the objective has still not been realized, he observed. The weapons Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are currently using are far more advanced than the weapons the Iraqi armed forces possess, and U.S. troops will slowly leave Iraq, so Iraqis, and not U.S. forces, will suffer casualties in terrorist attacks, he added.

IRGC ballistic missiles

“Today, one of our means to confront an invasion is the deterrent power of the ballistic missiles of the IRGC Air Force. They are domestically designed and are being mass-produced by the Defense Ministry,” he stated. “Currently, we enjoy a good situation in the missile industry. Our missile capabilities are not what the U.S. thinks,” he said, adding that Iran has made the necessary preparations to protect its missile sites from the enemy. Iran has such great missile capabilities that even if a certain percentage of its arsenal were to be destroyed, the remaining missiles would be devastating for the enemy, he observed.

IRGC’s asymmetrical warfare strategy

“Currently, at a time when we feel the threats of extra-regional powers such as the U.S. against the Islamic Republic of Iran, we have revised the structure of Iran’s armed forces. The training methods, war strategy, and military doctrine of the armed forces, and especially of the three branches of the IRGC, have been revised. We have designed arms and equipment suitable for extra-regional warfare. We have named this strategy comprehensive defense, Alavi battle, and asymmetrical warfare,” Safavi explained. This strategy means that we identify the enemy’s weak and strong points so that we can confront the enemy with the utmost efficiency, he said. “It is true that the enemy has superior weaponry, but we have never put our trust in weapons. Rather, we have adopted a human-centered approach and have courageous, faithful, and wise human forces as well as self-contained, dynamic, fast, and effective units,” he added.

Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=153632

[Armenian]

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

ANALYSIS: The clear loser from Ahmadinejad's visit is Israel



Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University in New York on Monday resulted in one clear loser: Israel. In his speech, Ahmadinejad took aim at Israel. If he managed to convince one person of his views on Israel and Zionism, then he has already gained. If he managed to persuade 50, then he has gained even more. For months, Israel worked fervently to prevent what happened on the podium Monday. For the duration of his speech, Ahmadinejad produced a televised illusion: It is not Iran versus the world, but Iran versus Israel.

If he manages to convince enough people of this, the mirage could become reality and Israel would be isolated, and that is exactly what Ahmadinejad is trying to accomplish. The visiting Iranian even berated his listeners for condemning him before they had given him a chance to speak. He patiently explained that their behavior was impolite. He went on to offer a thorough explanation of his Holocaust denial. All he wanted was to promote research in the field, he said. How could an enlightened university that supports freedom of expression oppose that? The protesters outside only served to reinforce his claims, as many were xxxs wearing skullcaps who carried signs protesting his Holocaust denial and calls to wipe Israel off the map. To many, this serves as further proof that Iran is only a problem for Israel, or at most for the xxxs.

Ahmadinejad aimed precisely for that. "It's the Israelis, stupid" was his primary message. Forget about the "Palestinian problem," Ahmadinejad was telling his listeners. "Instead, we need to solve the Israeli problem - and finally bring peace to the Middle East." While he did not explicitly reiterate his calls for Israel's destruction, in practice, the message could not have been clearer. The pro-Israel camp consoled itself with the knowledge that those who are familiar with the regional complexities, and with Tehran's antics, will surely realize the absurdity of Ahmadinejad's proposal. But the average American is not familiar with the regional complexities. He is tired of the region's fighting. To him, Ahmadinejad's idea may sound tempting.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/r...istSrc=Y&art=1

[Sip]

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

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.” -Ahmadinejad
“women in Iran have the highest level of freedom”. -Ahmadinejad

I love this guy! I thought Bush had the dumbest quotes but I guess stupidity just goes with the territory of being a world leader.