Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

The IDF is becoming big, rich and dumb

Firepower versus brainpower

Two weeks after Israel set out to defeat Hezbollah, its military achievements are pretty limited. A country that stood up to seven Arab nations in the War of Independence, a war of the "few against the many," with an army that pulverized the invading forces of three Arab nations in the span of six days, is now facing an embarrassing role reversal: a war of the "many against the few" in which Israel is on the floorboards.

Who would have believed that a guerrilla organization with a few hundred regular fighters, something like a brigade and a half, could paralyze half a country, firing off hundreds of missiles every day? A total of 2,200 by Sunday morning, says the defense minister. Who would have believed that cities like Safed, Acre, Nahariya, Tiberias and especially Haifa, the capital of the North, would wake up every morning to the sound of sirens and deadly rocket fire that would turn tens of thousands of people into refugees and shut down life in a large part of the country?

And that's even before Hezbollah has tried to use its long-range missiles on Tel Aviv. Who would have believed that the Israel Defense Forces, the army that is prepared for large-scale wars, that Iran fears will attack its nuclear facilities, that can drop 23 tons of bombs in a single night, is incapable of stopping Hezbollah's missile fire? How is that as soon as the IDF announces Hezbollah's TV station has been bombed, Hassan Nasrallah pops up in blooming health to continue his taunts against us?

Israel went to war with the goal of wiping out Hezbollah, a hostile militia operating on its border, in response to provocation and the kidnapping of soldiers made possible by the sluggishness and routine that has become widespread in the IDF in recent months. It did so with international backing, with President Bush leading the pack, and the support of most Israeli citizens. Bush and the public assumed that the army knew what it was doing, and that Israel, with its superiority in manpower, weaponry and technology, would be able to put an end to Hezbollah as a menace to Israel. Little by little, however, a worrying picture has begun to emerge: Instead of an army that is small but smart, we are catching glimpses of an army that is big, rich and dumb.

Take the bizarre appearances of IDF top brass on television: The commander of the Home Front, who stands there handing out high marks to the Israeli public, seemingly unaware that the moment people sense the army is not functioning, they will take to their heels - not only leaving their homes but fleeing the country, following tens of thousands of tourists who have already hightailed it out of here. The chief of staff, who had to say that "we're going to turn Lebanon back into what it was 20 years ago," and now threatens to blow up a 10-floor building for every missile. The district commander who declares: "We don't do body counts in the middle of a war," an improved version of the comment of Benny Gantz, who was a brigadier general in 2001:

"When you chop down trees, splinters fly," totally forgetting that the splinters are human beings. We have a chief of staff who looks like he gets up every morning and agonizes over what to wear - his blue uniform or his khakis. A chief of staff who delivers state-of-the-union addresses that should be the job of the prime minister, and spends whole days touring with Channel 2 correspondent Ronny Daniel. In his observations to the media, Brigadier General (res.) Rafi Noy is right when he says that Hezbollah, with its hidden arsenals, continues to enjoy the upper hand, while the mighty IDF still has far to go to knock it out of commission.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I believe that Israel is fighting a no-choice war that we must do everything possible to win. Air strikes, ground operations - whatever it takes so that Hezbollah, exhausted and beaten, pulls back and a multinational force is deployed along the international border together with the Lebanese Army, in keeping with Security Council Resolution 1559. If Hezbollah does not cooperate with a UN-mediated agreement stipulating that it give up its heavy weapons, and refuses to stay north of the Litani River, the IDF will have no choice but to keep up the attacks and pound away at Hezbollah, crushing it outpost by outpost. The rules of the game dictated by Hezbollah are going to have to change. A status quo ante is out of the question.

The conflict with Hezbollah cannot be allowed to deteriorate into a war of attrition. It must not be expanded beyond its stated goals. And the Israeli public must not be overly put to the test, lest the "wonderful home front" blow up in the government's face. The trouble is that we don't have all the time in the world. Condeleezza Rice is on her way. She will shuttle back and forth, back and forth, until the moment comes for a cease-fire agreement. We can only hope that the army reverts to its old self and has the wisdom and good sense to know what to do and when to do it, to produce the desired outcome.

Link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/742261.html

[Armenian]

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

AHMAD CHALABI

The Zionist-American presence within the Middle East has been a failure on many levels. As a result of American/Jooish actions:

Islamic fundamentalism and nationalism continues to grow unabted; hate and anger towards America and the west continues to grow unabated; more and more people are realizing today that the state of Israel will never be accepted by its regional neighbors; no one knows who or what Al-Qaeda is; Ossama Bin Laden is forgotten; Afghanistan is again being run by primitive warlords; as Iraq gets flattened and American troops bleed, it is being effectively governed by Shiites with close ties with Tehran; Lebanon's fledgling democracy has been delt a death blow; Syria and Tehran have been pushed into a political/economic/military union. Russia and China have begun to pay more attention to the region by moving closer to Iran and Syria.

American/Zionist forces lost the Iraq war from day one, that is, the moment we all realized that American troops were not being greeted by flowers and kisses but by bullettes and grenades. During the year leading up to the war in Iraq, Americans were being promised a short epic battle with "shock and awe" effect that would rid Baghdad of its terrible dictator and liberate its much oppressed people.

Strangely, the goverment of Iran, which obviously had less than warm relations with Washington DC, seemed more than willing to help American forces invade Iraq. According to news reports at the time, Tehran even provided American forces with military intelligence and free passage routes for American aircraft. Moreover, a well known Shiite Iraqi by the name of Ahmad Chalabi was appointed by the US goverment as the political pointman who would lead our forces into Baghdad. Playing his part masterfully, Ahmad Chalabi promised the warlords in Washington DC 'heaven' in Mesopotamia. We were told - the population of Iraq desperately awaited American forces to free them. We were told that anti-Saddam forces within Iraq were being organzied to assist American forces. In short, the American people were promised a lot of wonderful things.

Some of us knew these were all lies, most however, fell victim to these lies. Needless to say, this former wanted criminal Ahmad Chalabi was honored lavishly in Congress by the American/Zionist establishment for his capabilities. Ahmad Chalabi was praded around Washington DC as a hero. However, soon after the "forces of freedom" entered Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi was only able to delivered hell. Soon thereafter, Ahmad Chalabi, was also revealed to have close ties with Tehran. Perhaps Ahmad Chalabi, seen here sitting in Congress ( http://tinypic.com/97s1oy.jpg ), was Iranian agent.

There you have it folks, with brilliant diplomacy and manipulations, Tehran topple its sworn enemy Saddam Hussain, and it did it at the expense of thousands of American casualties and hundreds of billions of American tax payer's Dollars. As many of us predicted, America is now in a bloody quagmire in Iraq with no end in sight. And to top it all off, Tehran today is effectively running the post Saddam Iraq government via the majority Shiite population there. And the current Shiite Prime Minister just shocked Washington DC porniks by his refusal to condemn Hisbollah ( http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-25-voa70.cfm ).

Looking back, it is quite obvious that the American invasion of Iraq was strategic gift for Iran, a gift Tehran was looking forward to since it got attacked by an American backed Sadam Hussain in 1981. Despite the massive American presence within the region today, Iran is setting the political agenda from Afghanistan to Israel.

[Armenian]

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

Shahab-3 ballistic Missile: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...n/shahab-3.htm

Russia and the Development of the Iranian Missile Program

Military-technological cooperation between Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran constitutes a qualitative leap from the previous occasional military liaisons between the USSR and Iran during the era of the Shah, which started at the end of 1967.

Shortly after the Islamic revolution in Iran (February 1979), the USSR tried to arrange military cooperation between the countries. However Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini undermined these attempts in every possible way, as they opposed his concept of an Islamic regime in the country, which affirmed the necessity of struggling against "the Big Satan" (the USA) and "the Small Satan" (the USSR).

In the 1980s and 1990s, the imposition of an embargo on deliveries of arms for the Iranian army by Europe and America compelled Teheran to intensively pursue military purchases from the Soviet Union, and later from Russia.
In 1988 – 1992, Iran procured $2.2 billion worth of Russian weapons and combat equipment. Iran is the only state in the Middle East today whose cooperation in the military sphere allows Russia both to satisfy its economic interests and to strengthen its influence in the region. As for Iran's interests - military cooperation with Russia gives it access to modern arms, outflanking the Western embargo.

Russian Secrets from Pyongyang

Interaction in the spheres of the design, creation and delivery of equipment related to rocket technology is one of the priorities of the military-technological cooperation between Russia and Iran. The military doctrine of the Islamic republic is based on usage of precision missiles such as the "Shahab" and "Fateh" as vehicles for the delivery of chemical, biological and - prospectively - nuclear strikes.

Experts from North Korea, Libya and Russia have cooperated from time to time with Iranian missile scientists on the creation of warhead parts. Creation of the Iranian ballistic missiles began after the start of batch production of artillery rockets such as the "Ogab" and "Mushak" (having a small radius - from 50 to 160 km respectively). With assistance of North Korean experts, in 1988 Iranians started to modernize "Scud" missiles according to the engineering specifications provided to Pyongyang by Russia. However, in 1993 Teheran stopped manufacturing "Scuds" and started creation of its own "Shahab," the main components of which are based on the Russian analogues.

In Spite of Washington

In parallel with establishing its own ability to manufacture missiles, Iran attempted to import missile equipment from Russia. The first contract for delivery of such Russian equipment to Tehran was signed in November 1989 (a half year after Khomeini`s death). Iran received two anti-aircraft S-200VE "Vega" missile systems. The following military agreements signed in the nineties, which included various kinds of missile technologies and equipment, were not fulfilled because of Tehran`s financial difficulties. The next roadblock to the promotion of the Iran-Russia military cooperation was the signing of the Russian-American Memorandum of Gore – Chernomirdin in June 1995. Moscow committed to cease all military deliveries to Teheran by the end of 1999 and also to curtail any cooperation with Islamic Republic in this sphere. However, it took Russia less than a year to go back on its word and to abandon the Memorandum unilaterally. "Common Russian and Iranian geopolitical interests" – such was the thesis explaining the Kremlin's reasoning for the decision. Contracts and agreements on military deliveries, including missile technologies, totaling more than $4 billion, were signed during Russian Minister of Defense Igor Sergeev`s visit to Iran in December 2000.

Missiles for Ayatollas

Russia is considered to be the main partner in the modernization program of the Iranian armed forces. Consequently, the Islamic republic is the world's third largest client of the Russian arms industry, after China and India. Recently, Iran purchased Russian-made anti-aircraft missile complexes of a large radius, S-300PMY and S-300PMY-2 (SA-10 Grumble), and anti-aircraft complexes of a small radius, Tor - Ì1 (SA-15 Gauntlet). Iran has declared readiness to purchase both anti-aircraft complexes Buk- Ì1 (SA-11 Gadfly) and tactical short-range ballistic missiles Iskander-E. Representatives of the Islamic Republic have shown interest also in the surface-to-air gun/missile systems Tunguska-M and Pantsyr (modifications of SA-19 Grison) produced by the Russian military-industrial complex.

The "Shahab" Project

According to the Tehran newspaper "Aftabe Yazd," in May, 2002 Iran began batch production of the "Shahab -3" missile. This missile is capable of reaching any target in Israel and in most countries of the Middle East, having a range of 1500 km and carrying a warhead of up to one ton. Since its completion, Iranians have been modernizing it to increase its range. The " Shahab -3" was publicly shown for the first time during the military parade in honor of the Day of the Iranian Army on April 18, 2003. The fourth generation of "Shahab" entered the final testing stage in 2000, having a range of 2000-2200 km. This missile already constitutes a threat to European targets.

In 2001, the Western military periodical press noted that Iranian missile developers had received an order for the fifth - intercontinental – "Shahab" model, with a range of up to 10 thousand km., capable of hitting the American East Coast.

The sudden unexplained death in July 2003 of the leading Iranian engineer behind the "Shahab" missiles, A. M. Mehmand, hampered the development of the project. The same year Tehran officially announced its suspension of this missile program to demonstrate its "defensive character". However, in April, 2005 the chief of Israeli military intelligence, Aharon Zeevi Farkash, claimed that Iran continues development of the fourth and fifth generations of the "Shahab" ("Ediot Ahronot", 29.04.05).

The CIA has repeatedly produced reports on the full-scale Russian assistance in all stages of the Iranian missile program. Under US pressure, Russia has promised more than once to minimize its involvement. Nevertheless, western and Israeli sources claim that such statements are just empty promises.

Targeting Washington?

The Iranian missile program is considered, first and foremost, to be threatening Israel. This opinion is based on Tehran's proclaimed strategic goal - destruction of the xxxish state. It was literally confirmed most recently by one of the closet colleagues of the religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai - his personal representative at the "Shahids Fund" – Mohammad Hassan Rahimiyan. He declared that Iranian Shahids are ready to continue the struggle for destruction of Israel and America (Iranian news agency " Fars ", April 20, 2005).

At the same time, the head of Israeli military intelligence is convinced that the USA is the main target of the Iranian missiles., This is obvious, in his opinion, because to attack Israel Iran does not need to develop missiles with a range of 10 thousand km. since the distance between the two countries is hardly more than 1000 km.

Thus, participation of Moscow in the Iranian missile program poses the greatest threat not to Israel, but to Russia's traditional geopolitical opponent - the United States of America.

The Russian Shield of Tehran

Iran recently purchased modern anti-aircraft defense complexes in Russia, which are intended for protection of the major Iranian nuclear objects from the American or Israeli attack. Islamic Republic has received several upgraded S-300 complexes and that became a reason for serious American diplomatic demarches. To soften the disagreements, Moscow refused to sell a large batch of portable anti-aircraft missiles "Igla - 1Ì" (SA-18 Grouse) to Tehran. Iran had to buy Chinese "Tzianvay" - made by the Russian license on the basis of the "Igla".

Iranian Future Purchase List

Tehran mulls the procurement in 2005-2006 of several Russian military products:

- anti-ship missiles "Mosquito" of ground and air basing,
- anti-ship missile complexes "Yahont-E" (according to the Russian laws the export variant of both missiles it is not capable to carry nuclear warheads),
- Cruise missiles "Club",
- anti-radar missiles with extended range,
- Guided missiles to increase the efficiency of the Russian-made Sy-24 ÌÊ bombers constituting the basis of the Iranian Air Forces,
- Modern air-to-air missiles for Russian-made MiG-29 delivered to the Iranian Army.

Link: http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=150

[Armenian]

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

Armenian President's Visit to Tehran

ARMENIA DEEPENS TIES WITH EMBATTLED IRAN

Emil Danielyan: 7/28/06

Armenia is deepening what it regards as a strategic relationship with neighboring Iran despite mounting international concern over the Iranian nuclear program and widespread speculation about potential US military action against Tehran. The two countries’ governments have agreed in particular to press ahead with the implementation of more multimillion-dollar energy projects in addition to the ongoing construction of a pipeline that will pump Iranian natural gas to Armenia.

The agreements were announced during and after Armenian President Robert Kocharian’s early July visit to Tehran, which officials said gave a further boost to bilateral cooperation. Kocharian’s Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and reaffirmed the Islamic Republic’s commitment to maintaining close ties with Armenia. “The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes and supports the development of ties with Armenia in various areas, particularly in energy as well as transportation, sports, and tourism,” Iranian media quoted Ahmadinejad as saying after talks with Kocharian. “I hope the Armenian president’s trip to Iran would serve as an important step toward the development of all-out ties between the two countries.”

Kocharian, for his part, reportedly welcomed “noticeable progress” in the development of those ties and said they must be followed up by “new steps.” Some of those steps are presumably contained in several agreements signed during his trip. The most important of them envisages the construction of a third power transmission line that will connect the Armenian and Iranian power grids. Work on the $90 million project is expected to start later this year and take up to three years.

The 312-kilometer-long line is meant to allow for a substantial increase in Armenian electricity supplies to Iran that officials say will follow the completion of the gas pipeline slated for the end of this year. Yerevan had borrowed $34 million from Tehran to finance the construction of the first 40-kilometer Armenian section of the pipeline and will repay the loan with power supplies. The Iranian Mehr news agency reported on July 17 that the two sides also plan to start building a large hydroelectric plant next year on the Arax River marking the Armenian-Iranian border.

In addition, the Armenian government is currently building a second, bigger highway leading to the Iranian border in the hope of boosting trade with Iran. In 2005, Armenia’s trade with Iran totaled a modest $105 million. The European Union, by comparison, accounted for more than a third of Armenia’s $2.6 billion external trade in 2005. Commerce with Iran proved vital for Armenia’s economic survival during the early 1990s, however, when the conflicts in the breakaway enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh and elsewhere in the South Caucasus all but cut off the country from the outside world. Unlike Turkey, the Islamic Republic did not close its border with its Christian neighbor out of solidarity with Muslim Azerbaijan. Observers believe that by supporting Yerevan, Tehran has sought to limit Turkish presence in the region and contain separatist sentiment among Iran’s sizeable ethnic Azeri minority.

“We are building multi-faceted relations with our neighbor and friend Armenia,” Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said during a visit to Yerevan in February. “We are trying to ensure that they have a regional significance.”

Having a warm rapport with Iran has always been a matter of virtual national consensus in Armenia. Many politicians and ordinary people see it as a way of mitigating the effects of the continuing Azerbaijani and Turkish blockades. “Given this geopolitical environment, Armenia has the legitimate right to cooperate with Iran for ensuring its security,” Stepan Safarian of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies, a Yerevan-based think-tank, told EurasiaNet. “Besides, Armenia has an energy surplus and its only major export market at present is Iran,” he said. “So there is also a lot of economic interest involved.”

Not surprisingly, the United States, an equally important partner of Armenia, has followed Armenian-Iranian cooperation with unease. But while openly voicing its opposition to the Iran-Armenia pipeline, the US administration seems to be acquiescing to this and other Armenian-Iranian energy projects. “The United States is very sympathetic to Armenia’s efforts to diversify sources of energy,” Washington’s outgoing ambassador to Yerevan, John Evans, said earlier this year. He also argued that “up to now” the Armenian government has not breached long-standing US sanctions against Iran.

The fact that Kocharian chose to meet Ahmadinejad amidst Tehran’s intensifying nuclear standoff with the West suggests that Armenia is not under strong US pressure to freeze ties with the Iranian regime. Yerevan also makes no secret of its strong opposition to any US military campaign against Iran. “There are hardly any political circles in Armenia that believe the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program must be resolved by military means,” said analyst Safarian.

The Americans may well be happy with the recent controversial settlement of Armenia’s gas dispute with Russia, which is widely seen as a setback for Armenian-Iranian energy cooperation. Under the deal cut last April, the Kocharian administration agreed to hand over a large thermal power plant in the central town of Hrazdan to Russia in exchange for a temporary increase (until 2009) in the price of Russian natural gas delivered to Armenia. Yerevan had pledged late last year to place the incomplete but modern facility under Iranian control. There were reports that Russia’s state-run Gazprom monopoly will also gain ownership of the Armenian section of the gas pipeline from Iran as part of the settlement. Gazprom initially confirmed these reports, but later refuted them, as did the Armenian government.

Still, Gazprom’s deputy chairman, Aleksandr Ryazanov, announced on June 29 that the Russian giant intends to buy the pipeline, a conduit which was supposed to end the Russian monopoly on gas supplies to Armenia. The Russians had already made sure that the pipeline’s diameter is not large enough to allow Iran to export gas to Georgia and other countries through Armenian territory. Analysts believe Ahmadinejad and Kocharian discussed the issue during their July 6 meeting in Tehran. However, neither leader commented on it afterwards.

Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and political analyst - http://www.eurasianet.org/department...av072806.shtml

[Armenian]

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

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites demonstrate for Lebanon

by Ammar Karim Fri Aug 4, 12:09 PM ET

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites thronged the streets of Baghdad chanting "Death to Israel" and "Resistance" in a massive and noisy demonstration of support for Lebanon's Hezbollah militia.

The march was the largest foreign show of support for the Lebanese Shiite guerrillas in the three weeks since Israel launched a devastating ground and air offensive against them. Elsewhere in the country Friday, 33 people died, mostly in the northern province of Nineveh, where insurgent bombers and gunmen killed 19, mostly police officers.

The demonstration passed off largely peacefully and was accompanied by large numbers of black-clad armed fighters from the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mehdi army". But the size and fervour of the rally will raise the temperature in Baghdad, where Sadr's movement has tense relations with the city's Sunni minority, US-led coalition forces and the fragile government of national unity.

The Shiite demonstrators wore white shrouds to demonstrate their willingness to accept martyrdom, marched over US and Israeli flags and waved hundreds of yellow Hezbollah flags in support of the militia's war against Israel. Portraits of the Lebanese Shiite group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, were carried aloft through a massive crowd which packed a kilometre-long street in the teeming Sadr City district of the Iraqi capital.

"This million-man demonstration is to support the resistance in Lebanon," cleric Hazem al-Aariji told worshippers at Friday prayers before the march. "For 22 days the Israelis could not invade Lebanon ... Hezbollah has terrified the Israelis because they do not fear death," he declared.

The rally lasted for an hour before participants dispersed peacefully. Police reported that a Katyusha rocket was fired at the neighborhood but did not land near the march and left no casualties. Security around Sadr City was especially high with police and army units on the outskirts, while Sadr's militiamen searched bystanders and demonstrators.

"We will win by God's help, the Mehdi Army and Hezbollah," chanted the demonstrators. "We are soldiers, ready for Nasrallah's call." The Israeli bombardment of Lebanon has angered both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis, and preachers across the country brought up the issue in Friday sermons, condemning Arab governments for their meagre response to the campaign.

Tensions were raised before the rally by claims from Sadr's movement that US soldiers had fired on a convoy of protesters as it travelled north to Baghdad through the town of Mahmudiyah on Thursday, wounding 16 of them. But the US military said the soldiers had responded only after one of their watchtowers had come under fire from a passing van and that they had killed two "terrorists" in the subsequent exchange.

Sadr's show of force, feeding on the anger of many Iraqis at the actions of US ally Israel, came as coalition commanders in Iraq have been urging the Iraqi government to move against militias. General John Abizaid, the top US commander for the Middle East, said neighbouring Iran was arming Iraqi death squads, that militias have infiltrated the police and that more US troops are needed to bring Baghdad under control.

A senior coalition official, however, cautioned against treating the Mehdi Army as a monolithic entity, as it is a loosely organized body with only parts actively engaged in violent and illegal activities. "We have to careful that we don't demonize Jaish al-Mehdi, because look at the polls -- Moqtada Sadr himself is an enormously popular figure. Why? Because he is thumbing his nose at the coalition," he said.

Baghdad has been battered by a wave of bomb attacks against police patrols and crowded civilian areas, while gunmen from rival Shiite and Sunni factions carry out nightly killings and lob mortar shells across the city. Last week the Pentagon increased the number of US soldiers in Iraq to around 130,000 by extending the tours of some 3,700 combat troops by an extra 120 days to help quell the sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, violence continued outside the capital. Nine police, including a battalion commander were killed by a explosions in Mosul followed by attacks from insurgents. Ten more bodies were found after the fighting. The police commander for the province said the situation was under control and numerous "Al-Qaeda" insurgents had been killed.

South of Mosul, a suicide car bomber drove his booby-trapped vehicle into a soccer match, killing three policemen and seven civilians. A member of one of the former regime's security services was shot dead Friday morning in the southern city of Amara and a bystander was killed just south of the capital by a roadside bomb targeting a police patrol.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060804...q_060804154641

[Armenian]

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

New Syria-Iranian defense treaty opens way for Iran`s Revolutionary Guards to deploy on Israel’s Golan border by summer’s end

Iranian defense minister Gen. Mustafa Najjar said: “Syria’s security is part of Iran’s security,” when he signed a new military treaty with his visiting Syrian counterpart, Gen. Hassan Turkmani (picture) in Tehran last Thursday June 15. Sunday, June 18, Israel’s parliamentary foreign affairs and defense committee inspected its northern border, along with the deputy chief of staff Moshe Kaplinsky and OC Northern command Udi Adam. Both Tehran and Damascus referred to the tour as Israel’s response to their new treaty. DEBKAfile’s military sources add: At the signing ceremony, the Syrian official waved away reporters’ questions on whether Iran would be establishing a military base in Syria – “The language of a (foreign) military base in our country is alien to us. I want to say that it is not on the agenda.”

Nonetheless, military sources note that he rejected the term “bases” - but did not rule out “foreign forces” in which Persian Gulf and Pakistani military sources are certain was agreed secretly between the two countries. They have learned that Iran has offered to deploy Revolutionary Guards on the Golan border with Israel by the end of summer, because as Najjar said at the signing: “We have a common front against Israel’s threats.” DEBKAfile’s Tehran sources disclose the Iranians seek to attain three objectives by deploying RG units to the Golan heights: 1. Another direct front line against Israel. 2. A forward position for an Iranian electronic warning station to sound a timely alarm of the takeoff of American warplanes or missiles from the eastern Mediterranean basin on their way to attack. 3. The station can also keep electronic track of movements on Israeli air and missile bases, covering also Arrow anti-missile missile systems. The Syrian military delegation, which spent five days in Tehran, brought a year of secret negotiations to their conclusion.

The breadth of Syrian-Iranian military relations can be measured by the military treaty’s financial scope of $800 m and the size of the delegation Damascus sent to Tehran - 60 officers representing every branch of the Syrian armed forces, including intelligence and munitions industries. For years, both countries have supported the Lebanese Hezbollah militia and anti-Israeli Palestinian factions including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which maintain headquarters in Damascus

Source: http://www.debka.com/headline_print.php?hid=2682

[Armenian]

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

Venezuela Strengthens Its Relationships in the Middle East

By SIMON ROMERO

CARACAS, Venezuela, Aug. 20 — Venezuela has long cultivated ties with Middle Eastern governments, finding common ground in trying to keep oil prices high, but its recent engagement of Iran has become a defining element in its effort to build an alliance to curb American influence in developing countries.

In a visit late last month to Tehran by President Hugo Chávez and his oil minister, Rafael Ramírez, the two countries agreed to produce jointly nearly a dozen products, including crude oil and medicines. In a further sign that their ties have taken on a new dimension, the two countries are speaking in a more unified voice in their criticism of Israel and the United States.

The strengthening of ties has turned Iran into Venezuela’s closest ally outside Latin America, adding clout to Mr. Chávez’s efforts within OPEC to increase revenue through output limits by oil-exporting countries. Venezuela has also become the most vociferous defender of Iran’s nuclear program at a time when Iran feels increasingly isolated.

“We stand by Iran at every moment, in any situation,” Mr. Chávez said in Tehran, where he received the golden High Medallion of the Islamic Republic from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Venezuela, Syria and Cuba were the only countries to oppose referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council at a meeting in February of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Though Venezuela maintains close economic ties with the United States, relations have been strained by verbal sparring between the Bush administration and Mr. Chávez. Mr. Chávez has also shown recent interest in strengthening ties with Syria, sending his deputy foreign minister, Alcides Rondón, to Damascus last week. Mr. Chávez continues to push for tighter relations with close trading partners of the United States. He is scheduled to arrive in China on Tuesday for a six-day visit aimed at finding ways to ship more Venezuelan oil to Chinese refineries. He is also expected to visit Malaysia and Angola.

Now, with Iranian investment in Venezuela climbing fast, what began as a trickle of ventures has evolved into the most vivid example of Venezuela’s move to reshape its foreign policy and distance itself from the United States by reaching out to countries on the margins of American influence, including Belarus, Zimbabwe and Cuba. Hundreds of Iranian tractors are already rolling off an assembly line at a plant in Venezuela’s interior, and Khodro, the Iranian car manufacturer, plans to produce 5,000 Samand sedans a year at factory near Caracas starting in November.

With Venezuela vying for a nonpermanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, the ties with Iran have led to additional friction with the United States. In testimony last month before the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, Frank Urbancic Jr., the principal deputy coordinator for counterterrorism in the State Department, said Venezuela’s close relations, including intelligence operations, with Iran and Cuba helped illustrate a “near complete lack of cooperation” with American efforts to fight terrorism.

The Bush administration further irked Mr. Chávez last week by appointing J. Patrick Maher, a longtime Central Intelligence Agency official, to oversee intelligence-gathering operations on Venezuela and Cuba. A comparable post had existed previously only for Iran and North Korea. Mr. Chávez ridiculed the move and said he had captured four people accused of spying for the United States, though the American Embassy here said it had no knowledge of such apprehensions.

The Bush administration’s more aggressive stance has drawn sharp rebuttals from officials here, who contend the United States is planning military action against Venezuela with an eye to controlling the country’s petroleum resources, the largest conventional reserves outside the Middle East. Petropars, the Iranian national oil company, said it could invest as much as $4 billion in petroleum ventures in Venezuela to produce crude oil and natural gas. “We want to help them,” said Mohammad Ali Talebi, a Petropars representative in Venezuela and director of a venture that may extract sulfur-laden heavy oil in an eastern region there.

Venezuela has also supported Iran’s effort to price oil in euros instead of dollars, a move aimed at weakening the influence of American investment banks and hedge funds, and the creation of an oil exchange in Iran to trade such contracts. “Geopolitically, the most important front for Chávez in the world at this moment is Iran,” said Alberto Garrido, a historian who is writing a book on Venezuela’s ties to Muslim countries. “Chávez, together with his closest advisers, have defined the strategic alliance with Iran as a means with which to counter American power.”

The ties with Iran have fueled theories among Mr. Chávez’s fractious opponents — though without any substantiation — that Venezuela could be sending uranium from its Amazonas state to Iran in exchange for nuclear technology. There have also been unsubstantiated claims that Mr. Chávez wants eventually to replay the Cuban missile crisis. Venezuela has repeatedly said it has no plans to develop nuclear weapons. Mr. Chávez said in Tehran that he would support an effort to develop a nuclear energy program by Mercosur, the South American trade bloc that Venezuela recently joined.

A strong relationship between Venezuela and Muslim countries is nothing new, dating to the formation of OPEC in Baghdad in 1960, largely the brainchild of a Venezuelan oil minister. An approximation with Iran may have gotten under way in the mid-1990’s by Norberto Ceresole, an Argentine sociologist known for his anti-Semitic views who was a Chávez adviser. Mr. Chávez later distanced himself from Mr. Ceresole, who died in 2003. After Mr. Chávez was elected in 1998, he made relations with Iran a priority in his push for OPEC to raise oil prices.

Recent statements by Mr. Chávez in Iran and other Muslim countries, however, are increasing concern here in Caracas that Mr. Chávez is aligning himself too closely with Muslim leaders who have little in common with Venezuela’s generally inclusive and pluralistic political system. While in Qatar, Mr. Chávez said in an interview with Al Jazeera that Israeli military actions in Lebanon were “being carried out in the style of Hitler, in a fascist fashion.” After the fighting between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia began, Mr. Chávez recalled his highest-ranking diplomat in Israel. Then, in his weekly television program, Mr. Chávez accused Israel of a “new Holocaust.” The authorities in Jerusalem responded by recalling Israel’s ambassador in Venezuela, Shlomo Cohen, for consultations.

“We have to categorically reject the comments for attempting to make the Holocaust banal,” said Fred Pressner, president of the Confederation of xxxish Associations of Venezuela. But some xxxish leaders here also said earlier this year that comments by Mr. Chávez about the “descendants of the same ones who crucified Christ” were too hastily interpreted as anti-Semitic. Political analysts here said the comments about Israel and other recent moves, like the appointment of Nicolas Maduro as foreign minister, were evidence of a radicalization of foreign policy that had stronger ties with Iran at its center. Mr. Maduro, who has stepped down as speaker of the National Assembly to take the post, had traveled to Iran in February to show explicit support for its nuclear program.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/wo...l?ref=americas

[Armenian]

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

"Blow of Zolfaqar" wargames begin in southeastern Iran

Iran Fires Practice Missiles and Affirms Nuclear Stance

By NAZILA FATHI Published: August 21, 2006

TEHRAN, Aug. 20 — As Iran fired 10 short-range missiles on the second day of a large-scale military maneuver, officials on Sunday reiterated Iran’s stance that it did not intend to halt its uranium enrichment program. The statement comes two days before Iran’s self-imposed deadline of Aug. 22 for responding to a package of incentives offered by six Western nations in return for halting the program. The United Nations Security Council has set a deadline of Aug. 31 for Iran to suspend the program or face the possibility of economic sanctions. Statements by officials so far suggest that Iran will neither agree to the incentives deal nor yield to the Security Council.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamidreza Assefi, said during a weekly news conference on Sunday that Iran would not suspend the program. “The issue of suspension means returning to the past,” he said. “Suspension is not on our agenda.’’ The missiles fired on Sunday, called Saegheh — thunder in Persian — had ranges of 50 and 150 miles, the official ISNA news agency reported. In April, Iran unveiled new weaponry, including radar-evading missiles and high-speed torpedoes.

The war games started in the southern province of Sistan-Baluchestan on Saturday and are expected to continue along the eastern and western borders of the country in 14 provinces. The games are named after Zolxxxhar, the sword of Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad. Ali is revered by Shiites as Muhammad’s successor. State television showed helicopters shooting, bombs being dropped in the desert and paratroopers jumping out of helicopters. The report said various types of helicopters, fighter planes, live ammunition and bombs were used.

“This operation was planned in response to the evil intentions of the enemy,” Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi said on state television on Saturday. Brig. Gen. Muhammad Hassan Dadress told the semiofficial FARS news agency that Iran was not displaying “the major part of its military capability.”

“The army of the Islamic Republic has developed its equipment in the shortest period of time according to the most modern techniques and equipment of the enemy so that it can confront any threat,” he said. The military maneuver came during increasing international pressure over Iran’s nuclear program. Uranium enrichment is a process that can lead to making fuel for nuclear reactors or, if the uranium is enriched to high enough levels, nuclear bombs. Iran contends that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes. The United States and Europe contend that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

“We hope America has learned a lesson from the war in Lebanon and refrains from getting involved in another conflict and causing insecurity in our region,” he said in remarks broadcast live on radio. “The problem should be resolved by wise people through negotiations so that we can end this regional and international issue in a good way.’’ Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/21/wo...ref=middleeast

Iran Testing Powerful High Speed Underwater Anti-Ship Missile Capable of Destroying Large Warships and Submarines

Iran flexes military muscle: Islamic republic stages large scale war games in the Gulf, warning West not to ‘play with fire’ over nuclear standoff.

By Hiedeh Farmani - TEHRAN

Iran on Monday extolled its military prowess as it held large scale war games in the Gulf, warning the West not to "play with fire" at a time of mounting tensions over its nuclear program. The Islamic republic said it would test later Monday a "powerful" torpedo developed by its elite ideological army, the Revolutionary Guards, after the successful firing of a high speed underwater missile at the weekend.

The maneuvers, which Iran says were planned long before, coincides with a critical phase in the dispute over its nuclear ambitions, which the United States alleges is cover for a weapons program. Tehran denies the charges. "After weeks of psychological warfare (over the nuclear issue), they (the West) expected that we back down and give up our rights," the head of Iran's Islamist militia, the Basij, General Mohammad Hejazi said on state television. "Not only we did not do that, but we showed our capabilities by these maneuvers," he boasted.

"The security of the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea is everybody's interest; our economic interests depend on the Persian Gulf as the world energy supply depends on this region," Hejazi said. But he added that "if the region is not to be safe, the ones responsible for it will pay a high price... The enemies must know they should not be playing with fire". On the maneuvers' first day, Friday, Iran said it had tested a new missile, which can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. The high-speed underwater missile successfully launched on Saturday was capable of destroying large warships and submarines.

The spokesman for the weeklong military exercise said more missiles would be test-fired within days and that Iranians would have "important news that will make them proud", without specifying what type of missiles would be launched. "One of the messages of the war games for the enemies is that if they slightly violate the Islamic republic's interests in the Persian Gulf, we will firmly confront them," Rear Admiral Mohammad Ebrahim Dehqani was quoted as saying. "These maneuvers have worried the American and British forces in the region and they are on alert," he added.

A vital corridor for the world's oil supplies, the Gulf is where the US Navy's 5th Fleet is based, in the Gulf state of Bahrain. Iran already has medium-range Shahab-3 missiles with the capability of 2,000 kilometers (1,280 miles), able of hitting arch-enemy Israel and US bases across the Middle East. Iran regularly carries out war games and the officials say the one currently held in the southern waters had been planned long ago.

Iran holds the northern side of the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow neck in the Gulf through which two fifths of the world's traded oil passes. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States remained committed to pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear crisis but refused to rule out military action if Iran refuses to bow to international pressure.

The UN Security Council late Wednesday unanimously approved a non-binding statement giving Iran 30 days to abandon sensitive uranium enrichment activities - which Iran promptly refused to comply with. Thousands of Iranian troops are conducting the war games, which involve the Revolutionary Guards Corps navy and air force, Iran's regular army and navy, the volunteer Basij militia, and the Iranian police. They kicked off last Friday and are due to run until Thursday.

Link: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=16149

[Armenian]

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

Russia in bed with Iran and Syria

Gholamreza Aghazadeh left head of Iran Atomic Energy Organization and head of Russia Federal Atomic Energy Agency Alexander Rumyantsev as they sign agreement documents

Regarding the recent Wall Street Journal story titled "Oil and gas empire," by Barry Kasparov:

Once again, Kasparov has provided readers with a valuable insight into present-day Russia and Vladimir Putin's transformation of Russia back into a one-party dictatorship. It is not really surprising that a Western world that is rapidly becoming a progressive secular-socialist entity doesn't seem to see the forest (democracy and freedom) for the trees. After all, isn't that what Putin and the KGB apparatchiks are succeeding in accomplishing before our eyes?

Kasparov says, "Many here would like to believe Mr. Putin is ushering in a return to our Soviet superpower glory -- an illusion supported by images of our president taunting President Bush about Iraqi democracy and mocking Vice President Cheney about his hunting accident." Kasparov's assessment of Putin's relationships with Hugo Chavez, North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas makes the facts seem patently obvious. Yet, we in the West are apparantly oblivious to this unfriendly dance with our enemies.

But the most recent telling and damning evidence noted by Mr. Kasparov was Putin's purposely omitting Hezbollah and Hamas from Russia's list of national and international terrorists. This clearly puts Russia in bed with Iran and Syria and 100 percent in support of Hezbollah and Hamas, their civilian-killing proxies. Aside from a comment by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard on Fox News the other day, and a Fox News crawler the same day, I've seen no reference to this latest astounding development anywhere else, especially in the leftist media. Frankly, I don't see a great difference between Mr. Putin's objectives and those seemingly espoused by our own progressive secular-socialist -- oops -- Democratic Party. The real danger here is that Iran, Syria and their supporters may already be on a path of miscalulation.

Link: http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...608210339/1029

[Armenian]

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

A Chinese link to Middle East conflict

By Abdullah Al Madani, Special to Gulf News

There is no doubt that Iran is the source of Hezbollah's arsenal of missiles, which have recently been used against Israel. But the controversial issue is whether these missiles are genuine Iranian products. Military and intelligence reports have long confirmed that they are one of the fruits of the strategic alliance between Tehran and Beijing. Sino-Iranian ties, initiated in 1971 during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, have strengthened after Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979. In recent years, however, cooperation between the two countries has grown exponentially, primarily because of China's insatiable energy needs and Iran's hunger for technology and consumer goods, as the economies of both states continue to expand.

One of the aspects of the relationship is cooperation in the energy and construction sectors. China is now Iran's third-largest export market for crude oil. Its state-owned oil company Sinopec has a 50 per cent stake in the development of Yadavaran, Iran's largest undeveloped oil field. In April 2005, the two countries decided to set up a joint-venture to build huge tankers capable of ensuring deliveries of Iran's liquefied gas to China. And one month later, China agreed to buy some 110 million metric tons of Iranian gas over 25 years in a contract which may be worth $20 billion. China is also involved in the construction of Iranian dams, airports, steel mills, and roads, including Tehran's metro and a new highway linking Tehran with the Caspian Sea coast. Bilateral trade, on the other hand, hit a new record of $9.5 billion last year, compared with $7.5 billion in 2004.

The most important aspect of the alliance, however, is Tehran's access to the technology being developed by the Chinese People's Army, particularly in the area of cruise and ballistic missiles. This has long been an issue of great concern for the Americans. Washington has repeatedly expressed its dissatisfaction on the grounds that promoting the military capability of Iran's Islamic regime could raise tensions in the Gulf and threaten US interests in the region and the safe passage of oil tankers.

Beijing first began exporting Chinese-made missiles to Tehran in 1985, during the Iran-Iraq war, when it supplied weapons to both sides. At the time, Chinese missile exports were purely driven by commercial considerations. The decline in the domestic military orders in the 1980s, owing to declining defence budgets had forced defence industrial sectors to make up the shortfalls by trying to market military products abroad, particularly in the Third World. But commercial considerations have soon changed to strategic ones under the pressure of a number of developments.

Beijing has realised since the 1990s that it could use the export of missiles and related technology to Iran as a bargaining card with the west regarding issues concerning its own security, such as Taiwan, US military sales to the Taipei regime, US military presence in the neighbouring central Asian republics, and the west's repeated criticism of human rights violation in China. Tehran realised too that Beijing's hunger for energy represented a golden opportunity to connect its oil supplies and concessions to China with the latter's military exports to Iran.

As a result, China continued throughout the 1990s to provide Iran not only with missiles but also with production technology, equipment, training and testing facilities for the indigenous Iranian manufacture of Chinese and North Korean designed missiles. Following US-China summits in 1997 and 1998, however, Beijing decided, under US pressure, to halt its sales of missiles to Iran and pledged not to provide Tehran with missile production technology. This was a significant development as Chinese officials had never before admitted their country's involvement in promoting Iran's missile programme. They had always denied reports on the issue, accusing the west of spreading rumours about China.

But this did not last long. New tensions in US-China relations in 2000 and 2001 in the backdrop of events such as the Nato bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the growing tension in the Taiwan Strait and the EP-3 spy plane incident led Beijing to resume its missile cooperation with Tehran. Despite the improvement in US-China relations in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington and New York and the release by Beijing in 2002 of a set of measures aimed at controlling exports of missile related technology and assistance, Sino-Iranian missile cooperation has continued according to many reliable reports.

Based on these reports and other intelligence information, Washington imposed sanctions on three different occasions between 2002 and 2005 on tens of Chinese state-owned firms for the transfer to Iran of dual-use missile-related items. The Iranians have always asserted that their missiles are indigenous and fully designed and manufactured at missile facilities near Tehran and Esfahan by local scientists and experts.

But the aforementioned evidence and many other indicate otherwise. Iranian missiles such as Zilzal, Raad, Oghab, Nour and Mushak are said to be copies of Chinese missiles, particularly the Silkworm, with the fuselage being lengthened and the engine's place being changed. China, therefore, is indirectly responsible for encouraging Hezbollah to act as a state within the state and drag Lebanon into war.

Link: http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/colu.../10061326.html