Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

I recently happened to come by a new book that is definitely worth reading. The seemly counterproductive and destructive policies of the Western world, specifically that of the United States, will only make better sense once those policies are placed within a proper political perspective. Many around the world today are utterly perplexed that the US government is pursing policies that are detrimental to the well being of the United States without taking into serious consideration the absolute clout that certain special interest groups have within the halls of power. Books such as the following will help you see American politics is a better light for it will help you will see the driving mechanisms behind the foreign policy making apparatus' of Washington DC.

Armenian

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

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy



The two authors are prominent political scientists with impeccable credentials, hailing from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the University of Chicago. Among other issues they try to prove that a small group of mostly xxxish intellectuals and government members succeeded, to push the U.S. into a disastrous war because they cared more about the security of Israel than the security of their homeland. Since their conclusions about Israel and its negative influence on American foreign policy are in some areas too academic and will awaken much anxiety, resentment and fury in certain quarters, Walt and Mearsheimer have a point.

The book is based on their article, "The Israel Lobby," and was originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory and provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy. Their argument is not exactly new. It is well known in Washington that a "kosher nostra," consisting of the usual suspects like Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, defense expert Richard Perle (who just loves his nickname `Prince of Darkness'), and perhaps two dozens of other neocons, have been twisting facts to overthrow Saddam Hussein since years, reaching back to the Reagan administration.

The basic argument is that the extraordinarily high degree of economic, military and diplomatic support given to Israel by the United States cannot be explained or justified by the notion that Israel functions as a strategic asset to the U.S., or that Israel as the "only democracy" amidst a sea of authoritarian neighbors is deserving the special favors, particularly of gigantic military aid, for its "shared interests and values". In fact, the authors claim, Israel is more a liability than an asset.

There is no question that during the Cold War, there was logic behind the strategic-value argument. In a clever scheme, the Soviets had significantly increased their sea power in the Mediterranean during the Arab-Israeli conflict - the Six Day War in June 1967 - to show their support for the Arab states. During that crisis the Soviet Mediterranean "Eskadra" numbered up to about seventy units, some of which were in Port Said and Alexandria to prevent Israeli attacks. In my opinion (shared by a number of security professionals at the time), the entire war had been provoked by the Soviets in the first place to gain a strategic advantage over the West and to demonstrate on a grand scale their willingness and capability to influence major events in the area. After that war the "Eskadra" had rapidly expanded and in the late 1970s comprised of more than ninety ships, including over a dozen destroyers and nearly two dozen subs - outnumbering NATO's backbone, the American 6th fleet.

However, the Soviet menace has disappeared and the enemy which the U.S. supposedly needs Israel's help to combat, is Islamic terrorism. But the U.S. favor shown to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians only makes us more not less vulnerable to terrorism. So if neither "shared values" nor "strategic assets" can explain the overwhelming U.S. support of Israel, what else is there? The power of the Israel lobby has brought about a situation in which it is impossible for elected officials to question support for Israel. This has led the U.S. to make critical mistakes. The authors argue that the U.S. would not have attacked Iraq, were it not for the influence of the Israel lobby.

What is perhaps most significant and remarkable about this book is that it got published. Could it be that there is still hope for reasonable, open debate about the right courses of action in the Middle East? The authors have been and will continue to be vilified as anti-Semitic or worse. They are owed a debt of gratitude for having the courage to stand up and to refuse to be silenced.

"Now that the cold war is over, Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States. Yet no aspiring politician is going to say so in public or even raise the possibility, because the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful." write Mearsheimer and Walt. Then they go on to credit the lobby with preventing talks with Syria and with moderates in Iran, and inhibiting the United States from denouncing Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon.

"The Israel Lobby" is a brand new welcome addition to the ever increasing controversies of biased U.S. foreign policies. My only disappointment with this book is that the authors haven't interviewed the people who are being lobbied or those doing the lobbying. Although I wouldn't question the meticulous research that has been presented, the fact that there is a missing piece suggests that you should read this book with a "grano salis".

Source: http://www.amazon.de/Israel-Lobby-U-...ews/0374177724

[Armenian]

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

The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating

The drumbeat of war in Washington is growing - and so must public pressure against British involvement in such folly

It seems almost incredible after the catastrophe of the Iraq war, but the signs are growing that the Bush administration wants to do it all over again - this time to Iran. Just as in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Washington air is thick with unsubstantiated claims about weapons of mass destruction; demonisation of the country's president has reached bizarre proportions; intelligence leaks about links with al-Qaida and attacks on US and British targets are now routine; demands for war from the administration's neoconservative outriders are becoming increasingly strident; the pronouncements of George Bush and his vice-president, xxxx Cheney, are turning ever more belligerent - and administration sources claim that the British government is privately ready to play ball.

You might imagine after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq at such huge human and strategic cost, an attack on another Muslim country would be the last thing on the US president's mind. But the drumbeat of war has been unmistakable since the summer, when Bush declared he had "authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities", and the administration let it be known that it was preparing to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organisation". Last month Bernard Kouchner, the hawkish new French foreign minister, insisted that "we must expect the worst" and "the worst is war" - while Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN's chief weapons inspector in charge of overseeing Iran's nuclear programme, warned against the "neo-crazies" pushing for an attack after 700,000 had died in Iraq on "suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons". Meanwhile, Israel's recent air raid on Iran's ally Syria has been widely interpreted as, at least in part, a power play aimed at Tehran.

This week John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, used the Tory conference to call for an attack on Iran, as leaks to the US press about war preparations continued. Newsweek reported that Cheney had been discussing the possibility of encouraging Israel to launch missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site in order to provoke Iran into "lashing out", and open the way to a wider US assault. And in the New Yorker magazine, the investigative writer Seymour Hersh reported that in a videoconference this summer Bush told the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, that he was thinking of attacking targets in Iran, and the British "were on board".

A Downing Street spokesman said yesterday that the "prime minister and president have never had a discussion about an attack on Iran in Iran" and that the government was pursuing a diplomatic solution. "Of course, it's the job of a lot of people to see that contingency planning is done," he added, but denied that any go-ahead had been given. The echoes of similar denials in the runup to the Iraq war, however, cannot be missed. Nor should the reference to an attack on Iran "in Iran". Both the US and British military now regard themselves as already involved in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq, as General Petraeus recently told the US congress.

What is becoming clearer is that the likely pretext for aggression against Iran has shifted from the possibility that Tehran might develop nuclear weapons to its role in supporting and allegedly arming the resistance in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration is increasingly convinced that it will be far easier to convince the American public of the case for war on Iran if it's seen as being about the protection of US troops rather than nuclear scaremongering from the people who brought you Saddam Hussein's WMD. So the focus of the military plans has changed accordingly: from a wide-ranging bombing assault on Iran's known and suspected nuclear sites to "surgical" strikes on the Revolutionary Guards, who the US claims are backing armed attacks on its occupation forces.

In reality, the growing confrontation between Washington and Iran has less to do with nuclear weapons or Iraqi resistance and more with the fact that Iran has emerged as the main strategic beneficiary of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and its allies now offer the only effective challenge to US domination of the Middle East and its resources. It's hardly surprising that the US is alarmed by the increased influence of an avowedly anti-imperialist state sitting astride a sea of oil, now making common cause with other radical, independent regimes in Latin America. But it is of course the direct result of Bush's own policies, which have also provided an object demonstration of the advantages of possessing nuclear weapons - even if there is as yet no evidence that Iran actually intends to acquire them.

Of the three states Bush originally damned as the axis of evil, one - Iraq - had no nuclear weapons and was duly destroyed. The second, North Korea, managed to acquire some nuclear capability and is this week reaping the benefits in aid and negotiation. The third is Iran, a country surrounded by US troops and caught between two nuclear-armed US allies: Pakistan and Israel. And despite the populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ugly remarks about the Holocaust, it is the nuclear states America and Israel that now threaten and have the capacity to attack Iran, not the other way round. What should not be in doubt is that the consequences of an attack on Iran would be devastating, both in the region and beyond. Iran has the reach to deliver an unconventional armed response in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf - as well as on the streets of London. The economic impact could be even greater, given Iran's grip on the 20% of global oil supplies that are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. It would also certainly set back the cause of progressive change in Iran.

Iranian leaders have dismissed the threat of attack as "psychological warfare", and no doubt the US would prefer to bring Iran to heel through political upheaval in Tehran rather than by force. But current destabilisation efforts seem unlikely to succeed, and so, short of a sudden US embrace of genuine negotiation, the chances of war before Bush leaves office look high. The likelihood of a Brown government directly participating in an attack must be small after the debacle of Iraq. But the possibility that logistical or political support might be offered is more serious. The need to step up public pressure to make sure that does not happen could not be clearer.

Source: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/colum...184267,00.html

[Armenian]

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

Iran-China-Russia coalition emerging



A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” which forms the basis of a global counter Anglo-American alliance is emerging, writes Global Research. "America and Britain, the Anglo-American axis, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy resources. As a result of the Anglo-American drive to encircle and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and Beijing have joined ranks and the SCO has slowly evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia as a powerful international body, according to Global Research. Referring to "arrogance of the Bush Administration," Global Research wrote:" The Chinese and Russians also called for the establishment of a more equitable economic and political global order instead of What American leaders and officials called the “New World Order” but the Chinese and Russians consider a “Unipolar World.”

Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all SCO observer members. The observer status of Iran in the SCO is misleading. Iran is a de facto member. The observer status is intended to hide the nature of trilateral cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China so that the SCO cannot be labeled and demonized as an anti-American or anti-Western military grouping, noted Global Research. Also," Iran and the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are also planning on starting the process for creating an Iranian-[Persian] GCC free trade zone in the Persian Gulf. There are also discussion about the eventual creation of a single market between Iran, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. "

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020101

[Armenian]

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

Iran gas export a bonanza for Armenia



Armenian minister of energy says that Iran-Armenia gas pipeline project will bring economic and political prosperity for Yerevan. "Armenia is assigned to transfer three kilowatt-hours electrical energy to Iran in return for one cubic meter gas," Armenia's Minister of Energy Armen Movsisyan told the Armenian '168 Hours' daily. The gas pipeline, which was inaugurated early this year with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharian in attendance, will supply all the natural gas needed by Armenia in two years. According to the schedule, the pipeline is expected to transfer 400 million cm annually in the first phase which will sharply jump up to 2.5 billion cm in the second phase. In a joint venture Iran and Armenia have given a go ahead to the construction of a 140 megawatt power station in Aras River flowing on Iran-Armenia border. Tehran and Yerevan have also signed an agreement to manufacture an oil derivates refinery in Armenia at a cost of 2.5 billion dollars.

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020102

[Armenian]

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

Interesting article appeared in the New York Times today. If true, the article essentially claims that Damascus has begun organizing the armed resistance of Sunnis in Iraq while Tehran continues to manipulate Iraq's majority Shiite population. Thus, according to the article, with Syrians pulling Sunni strings from the west and the Iranians pulling Shiite strings from the east - who gets stuck in the bloody middle are the Zionist forces of America...

Armenian

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

Syria Is Said to Be Strengthening Ties to Opponents of Iraq’s Government



DAMASCUS, Syria, Oct. 6 — Syria is encouraging Sunni Arab insurgent groups and former Iraqi Baathists with ties to the leaders of Saddam Hussein’s government to organize here, diplomats and Syrian political analysts say. By building strong ties to those groups, they say, Syria hopes to gain influence in Iraq before what it sees as the inevitable waning of the American presence there.

“The Syrians feel American power is much weaker in Iraq than in the past,” said Ibrahim Hamidi, the Damascus bureau chief of the pan-Arab daily newspaper Al Hayat. “Now they can take a bold public initiative like helping Iraq’s opposition organize without much fear, especially since President Bush has become a lame duck.”

In July, former Baathists opposed to the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki scheduled a conference for insurgent groups — including two of the most prominent, the 1920s Revolution Brigades and Ansar al Sunna — at the Sahara Resort outside Damascus.

The meeting followed two others in Syria in January that aimed to form an opposition front to the government of Iraq, and an announcement in Damascus in July of the formation of a coalition of seven Sunni Arab insurgent groups with the goal of coordinating and intensifying attacks in Iraq to force an American withdrawal. That coalition has since expanded to incorporate other groups. The July conference was canceled at the last minute, however, indicating the political perils of Syria’s developing strategy. It was called off by the government of President Bashar al-Assad, participants, diplomats and analysts said, primarily because of pressure from Iran.

Iran is Syria’s chief ally and a staunch supporter of Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited Damascus just days before the conference was to have taken place. Still, hundreds turned up for the event, including Harith al-Dari, the leader of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a major Sunni opposition group, and other high-profile figures wanted by the Iraqi government. Several said they hoped to reschedule the conference in Syria in the near future.

“The American project in Iraq is collapsing, and we decided it was important to reach out to fellow Iraqis now,” said Nizar Samari, the spokesman for the conference and a former media director for Mr. Hussein.

Syria, which the United States accuses of channeling Islamic militants into Iraq, denies any role in organizing groups opposed to the Iraqi government. Analysts and diplomats, however, said they strongly doubted that the groups could operate in Syria, a police state, without the approval of the government. Western diplomats and political commentators differed on the extent of influence Damascus could ultimately wield over the opposition groups. But they agreed that Syria had been using them to show the United States and Iran, often described as the big brother in its longstanding alliance with Damascus, that it had the capacity to play a major role in Iraq’s future.

“Iran is the big player in Iraq,” said Mr. Hamidi, of Al Hayat, “but it lacks influence on the Baathists and the Sunnis.”

That would seem to create a natural opening for Syria, a predominantly Sunni country governed by its own version of the Baath Party. But its relations with the Iraqi Baathists have long been strained. Syria backed Iran in its war with Iraq in the 1980s and supported the United States against Mr. Hussein during the Persian Gulf war of 1991. So Syria is walking a fine line, forging an “enemy of my enemy” relationship with the Iraqi Baathists and insurgents while still maintaining an alliance with Tehran. It is a risky strategy that carries the added danger of possibly incurring the wrath of Al Qaeda.

“The conference brought together those people with a stake in Iraq and some of those who have not allied with America’s biggest foe, Al Qaeda,” said one political commentator, who asked not to be identified out of concern for his safety, referring to the canceled July conference. “This was a risky move by Syria, because it could draw attacks.”

After the United States-led invasion of Iraq, which Damascus strongly opposed, Syria became a haven for a number of high-ranking Baathists from Mr. Hussein’s government, many of whom were wanted by the American military. Syrian political analysts say they brought with them millions of dollars stolen from Iraq and were given refuge on condition that they kept a low profile because Syria feared reprisals from American forces in Iraq. The Iraqi government has in the past accused Damascus of harboring Iraqis who are aiding the insurgency. And Syria makes no secret of its sympathy for the insurgents.

“Syria looks to the resistance as freedom fighters, like George Washington fighting the British,” said Mahdi Dahlala, a former Syrian minister of information. “We understand that the rising up against occupation is a natural phenomenon.”

Syrian authorities have on occasion turned over wanted Iraqis when they wished to placate Washington or Baghdad. In 2005, Mr. Hussein’s half brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, who was No. 36 of the 55 Iraqis most wanted by the United States military, and 29 other former Baathist officials hiding in Syria were handed over to the Iraqi government on suspicion of aiding the insurgency. But during his visit to Syria in August, Prime Minister Maliki urged President Assad, to no avail, to hand over more wanted Iraqis widely believed to be hiding in Syria.

“Syria is not going hand over any Iraqis to the Iraqi government unless they produce evidence of wrongdoing,” Mr. Dahlala said.

Officials in the Bush administration say that Syria has had a mixed record recently, taking some steps that American officials see as helpful in Iraq and others that show that Damascus is seeking to build its own influence there. In an interview, a senior Defense Department official praised Damascus for canceling the opposition conference and noted that the Syrians had cracked down to a degree on Islamic militants operating near the border with Iraq, a move long sought by Washington.

An intelligence assessment released in August in Washington said that the Syrian government had gone after Islamic smuggling networks. But it did so not out of a desire to help the United States, the report said, but because it feared that the groups presented a threat to the Syrian government. The report also criticized the Syrians for funneling money to Sunni insurgent groups inside Iraq “in a bid to increase Syrian influence.”

Syria has long had a regional strategy of influencing its neighbors’ politics by harboring their opposition groups. Washington imposed economic sanctions on Syria in 2004 for, among other things, its support of Hamas and several other militant Palestinian groups. Suspected of orchestrating the 2005 assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, Syria has also come under increasing pressure from the United States and France for its support of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia.

Thabet Salem, a Syrian political commentator, said Syria was also exploiting a rift between two former Iraqi Baath Party leaders, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former vice president under Mr. Hussein, and Muhammad Younis al-Ahmed, who is believed to be living in Syria. The two men, accused by Washington and Baghdad of leading and financing terrorist operations in Iraq, have multimillion-dollar bounties on their heads.

“Younis al-Ahmed is trying to go under the umbrella of the Syrians as a way to unite the Baathists,” Mr. Salem said. “And the Syrians quietly support him, because they could have more control over their actions.”

In January, Mr. Ahmed held a conference in the northern Syrian city of Homs to try to revive the Iraqi Baath Party. Some Syrians speculated that he wanted to take a more conciliatory stance with the Iraqi government and the United States. His rival, Mr. Douri, who is suspected of having stronger ties with insurgent groups, rejected the conference.

“Douri deeply distrusts working with the Syrians because he distrusts the Iranians, who are strong allies with Syria,” Mr. Salem said. Mr. Ahmed is believed to be garnering increasing support in Syria from former Iraqi Baathists, at the expense of Mr. Douri and other rivals, by offering cash incentives and Syrian residency permits. Loyalty to his leadership is said to be particularly strong among the poorer, Sunni Arab, segments of Syria’s two million Iraqi refugees.

“Syria could gain tremendous influence in Iraq if it could get control over the Iraqi Baathists,” Mr. Salem said. “It has much more in common, ideologically speaking, with them than it does with the Islamists in Hamas.”

A spokesman for Mr. Douri’s wing of former Baathists living in Syria, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad, condemned Mr. Ahmed and denied suggestions that former Baathists were turning away from Mr. Douri or considering negotiating with Washington.

“We want every American soldier out of Iraq, and we won’t stop fighting until that happens,” Mr. Muhammad said.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/wo...nt&oref=slogin

[Armenian]

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

Iran builds air base near Afghan border



TEHRAN, October 9 (RIA Novosti) - Iran has built an air base not far from its border with Afghanistan, Iranian television reported Tuesday. "The base is designed to enhance the combat readiness of our Armed Forces in standing up to possible aggression against our country," Gen. Ahmad Migani, Air Force commander, said at the base's opening ceremony. The new base, named Gayem al-Mohammad, is located near the city of Birjand, the administrative center of the southern province of South Khorasan. Gen. Migani said Iranian fighters and a modern radar system will be deployed at the base.

"Our enemies must know that if they attempt to attack our country, we will teach them a lesson they will never forget," he said. Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said in mid-September: "We do not consider an attack on Iran to have any sense, but if it takes place, the aggressors will receive a painful lesson, and their actions will cause harm to the entire region," he said. Larijani, in reference to U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, went on to say: "Experience has shown us that they (the U.S.) can start things, but not finish them."

The official also warned the U.S. against building a new military base in Iraq, close to Iran's borders.

"The Americans will suffer from coming closer to Iranian borders, but the Iraqi government's approach is important here, and they openly told us they would not have them (the U.S.) build a military base in Iraq," Larijani said. U.S. military authorities in Iraq said earlier they had plans to build a military base close to the border with Iran, in the Wasit province of southern Iraq. U.S. military representatives say the base would prevent both weapons and fighters from crossing into Iraq from Iran.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20071009/83198933.html

[Lucin]

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

AZERBAIJAN: IS IRAN THE REASON FOR THE CIA DIRECTOR’S RECENT VISIT TO BAKU?
Rovshan Ismayilov 10/04/07


Political analysts in Baku are debating the reasons for an unannounced late September trip to Azerbaijan by Central Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Michael Hayden. US diplomats remain tight-lipped about the visit. Many local experts, however, contend that Hayden’s talks with Azerbaijani leaders likely concerned Iran, Azerbaijan’s neighbor to the south.

Gen. Hayden’s one-day visit on September 28, which included a meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Minister of National Security Eldar Makhmudov, was not publicized in advance, and few details have since been provided. According to informed sources, the CIA director arrived in Baku late on the night of September 27. The Turan news agency has cited "unofficial sources" as saying Hayden stayed in a private downtown hotel at which special security measures were taken. He left Baku in the early evening on September 28.

US Embassy spokesperson Jonathan Henick told EurasiaNet that Hayden’s visit was part of a trip to several countries in the region. Henick would confirm only that Hayden discussed issues related to regional security and international terrorism with President Aliyev and National Security Minister Makhmudov. Azerbaijani officials likewise declined to elaborate on the nature or specifics of the discussions.

Some Azerbaijani analysts, however, see "the Iranian issue" as the most pressing reason for the CIA director’s trip. The trip came five days before an October 3 statement by US President George W. Bush that Washington was prepared, under certain conditions, to negotiate with Tehran on the nuclear issue.

"This is a leader who has made very provocative statements, and we have made it clear, however, in spite of that we are willing to sit down with him so long as he suspends his program, his nuclear weapons program," President Bush said, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "In other words, it’s his choice not mine any more."

"It is obvious that the CIA director would not travel to Baku without a serious reason for discussions," commented expert Rasim Musabekov. "It is clear – most likely Iranian issues were discussed."

Political columnist Rauf Mirkadirov of Baku’s Russian-language Zerkalo (Mirror) daily seconds that view. "[The] CIA director would hardly visit Azerbaijan just for meeting with the president and the national security minister and discussing general issues," he argued. "Most likely, a complex of problems [was] discussed . . . The major issue is no doubt Iran and the potential development of the situation around its nuclear program," Mirkadirov said. Relations between Azerbaijan and Russia and the construction of the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline could also have been raised, he added. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Ilgar Mammadov, an independent Baku-based analyst, drew attention to the fact that Hayden’s visit occurred shortly before the scheduled start of a trial of a pro-Iranian extremist group charged with trying to create a Shar’ia-based religious state in Azerbaijan.

A preliminary hearing for the government’s case against the 15-member group, named after its leader, Said Dadashbeyli, took place at the end of September in Baku, the Turan news agency reported on October 1. Group members are also charged with high treason, illegal arms possession, illegal contact with foreign intelligence services, robbery and other crimes.

The Ministry of National Security alleges that Dadashbeyli, an Azerbaijani citizen, worked with radical Islamic organizations – as yet not publicly named – and Iranian intelligence agents to set up a state with Shar’ia laws. A military group, dubbed the Northern Army of Mehdi, was allegedly formed by several of the defendants, prosecutors allege. Prosecutors also claim that one of the group’s members, Jeihun Aliyev, traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom, where he was offered money by Iranian agents. The money was to be used to mount a propaganda campaign designed to undermine Western and Israeli influence in Azerbaijan.

According to the investigation, group members received training in Iran. In Baku, they carried out physical training routines at the Interior Ministry’s Dinamo sports center and held religious discussions at the Karabakh War Invalids Society, according to media reports. Mob-related contract "hit jobs" were allegedly carried out by Dadashbeyli to raise money for the group’s activities, authorities allege.

Neither the group, nor Tehran is known to have commented on the charges. The group’s trial is scheduled to begin on October 8 in Baku behind closed doors.

"Usually, such issues [security, fighting extremists and terrorist groups] are being discussed at the highest level. Therefore, it is possible that Hayden’s visit is somehow linked with this trial," Mammadov said. "It is possible that Iran has intensified subversive activity against Azerbaijan and the CIA director discussed this issue." An exchange of intelligence information on extremists groups’ activity in the region, he added, is another possibility. [Ilgar Mammadov is a board member of the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation Azerbaijan. EurasiaNet.org is financed by the Open Society Institute’s Central Eurasia Project].

Azerbaijani media and political analysts have long contended that Azerbaijan could be used by US forces as a base for potential military operation against Iran. The US government, however, has repeatedly denied such a possibility. Azerbaijani officials have also stressed that they have no interest in being part of a military campaign against Iran, a country with which Azerbaijan, also a majority Shi’ite society, shares strong cultural and religious ties. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The denials, however, have not convinced all analysts. Musabekov did not exclude that Hayden traveled to Baku "to familiarize the Azerbaijani leadership with some additional intelligence data that may change Baku’s position over the issue of military operation against Iran."

Columnist Mirkadirov takes issue with the claim that Hayden’s trip was part of a larger regional tour. "There was no information that Michael Hayden traveled to any other place in the region except Baku," he said. "I believe it was a targeted visit to Baku and after that he [Hayden] returned to the United States."

Some pro-government political analysts, however, prefer to steer clear of commentary. Political analyst Aydin Mirzazade, a parliamentarian for the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party, commented that he does not want to get lost in guesswork. "The US Embassy provided some information [on the visit] and I have nothing to add," he said.

Editor’s Note: Rovshan Ismayilov is a freelance journalist based in Baku.

URL: http://www.eurasianet.org/department...v100407a.shtml

[Armenian]

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

Politicus: Sarkozy tries charm, but Putin isn't budging on Iran arms question



MOSCOW: One more time, Vladimir Putin has told the world that Iran is not working on a nuclear bomb.

Once again, with Nicolas Sarkozy in a passing role as discomforted foil, Putin has taken this most frightening of planetary issues and said in effect that the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of the mullahs was a delusion, an international fantasy. Indeed, Putin made all this out as a fable that his Russia - Iran's protector and supplier of nuclear wherewithal - could confidently dismiss. Here, in about 20 minutes Wednesday, was a moment of exceptional arrogance and darkness. Sarkozy, who had come to Moscow for two days as a doubter hoping to find something reasonable in Putin (even praising him as courageous, direct and determined), wound up being publicly contradicted as a know-nothing for his stance asserting that Iran is driving hard toward producing nukes.

This excruciating, face-to-face public episode during a news conference in the Kremlin's St. Catherine Hall left Sarkozy dangling in embarrassment, his good intentions xxxxxled by his host. Somberly, and in much more significant terms, Putin was also confirming the basically intractable Russian position on Iran's Islamic extremist nuclear threat. Putin explained, "We do not have any data that says Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. We do not have such objective data. Therefore, we proceed from the position that Iran has no such plans."

This says: since Iran has only peaceful intentions, there is no ultimate problem, or any need to discuss solutions for resolving the nonexistent. And that means: when Western visitors ask Putin what he will do in the end, beyond tactical fiddling, to halt Iran's nuclear drive - a question posed directly to him this year by another European leader - the answer is unclear and unsatisfactory. It has never been, don't worry, I'll help, it won't happen. Rather, the response is a molasses-heavy fudge involving improbable questions and nonassurances about Iran's intentions.

So when Sarkozy told reporters Tuesday night of a "very clear convergence of views" emerging "with Vladimir" on Iran, and said he did not want to say more in light of Putin's visit to Tehran next week, the idea flickered that Putin might be moving on the basics and off his see-no-evil approach. After all, consider the corner where this optimism was coming from: a French president who has been verbally tough on Russia, who twice proclaimed himself to Putin on Tuesday as "a clear ally of the United States" and who has said rather more explicitly than George W. Bush that Iran is working on a nuclear device. As Sarkozy's spokesman put it last month: "Everybody knows this program has military intentions."

Along came the Wednesday news conference. Where at first it had been Vladimir, Vladimir, Vladimir on Sarkozy's side, Putin directed his remarks to Mr. President. French reporters picked up a change from Putin's use of the palsy-walsy "tu" form in addressing Sarkozy to the more distant "vous." And Sarkozy scaled back the "strong rapprochement" talk of the night before to "a certain convergence."

Sarkozy discovered a Putin who decided not to play charmed and ready-for-change on the strength of the arguments of a newcomer eager to portray himself as Europe's go-to leader. Hearing himself rebuffed, the French president, in recovery mode, waded into some murky syntactic waters. As transcribed by Reuters's French-language news service, he said: "So, there can be diverging analyses on 'they (the Iranians) are doing it.' I think everybody is in agreement. Do they want to use it? That's a question of analysis."

Deconstructed, Sarkozy seemed to be saying here that the Russians agree Iran is enriching uranium at a pace that raises questions. But that's hardly new. And neither is what he described as Putin's "will to cooperate" in the United Nations, where Russia has sought to block a new round of sanctions. Or for that matter, Putin's expressed interest in "more transparency" from Iran on a nuclear program they've hidden for decades. Short of a major surprise in Tehran next week, there was no sign that Sarkozy had gotten anything from Putin - remember that France regards an Iran with nukes as intolerable - to be held aloft as an achievement.

Not that Sarkozy caved on his basic take on Russia. With Moscow students, he chided Moscow's interest in re-establishing a clear zone of influence in the countries at its borders. He complained about it using energy supply for political ends, noted the disappearance of democracy, met with activists critical of the regime and said that Europe would recognize Kosovo's independence regardless of Russia's objections. But he offered compliments and got none in return, and insisted on sounding optimistic without demonstrating the specifics. In the end, Sarkozy sought to create the picture of the start of a comfortable relationship with a hard man who hadn't the tiniest of concessions for someone who a few weeks earlier accurately described Russia as "a country which complicates the resolution of the world's greatest problems."

Sarkozy's domestic political method of trying to claim a triumph per day banged into the Kremlin wall and fell flat. A smart and resilient politician, Sarkozy may find instruction here from Putin about the functioning of the wide world. As for Putin himself, he offered a universal lesson.

He will attempt to protect Iran as long as it is useful to him, leveraging the Iranian threat into a role of essential influence for Russia in the Middle East, pushing the United States into inactivity or a military response and calculating that there's advantage to Russia in every possible outcome, even in a nuke or two marked with the insignia of the mullahs' Revolutionary Guards. The answer to this predicament, as it has always been, is direct U.S. talks with the Iranians. They would not only end Russian control of the issue, but raise pressure on the regime in Tehran from its people. It is the Iranians themselves who can best see the danger of Iran becoming a nuclear warrior in the awful equation Sarkozy drew last month that no one wants as an alternative: An Iranian bomb, or the bombing of Iran.

Source: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=7850341

[karoaper]

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

Scary question:

Is the energy cooperation between Turkey and Iran, which has gone up in the last few years, an innocent economic thing or is it a sign that the gap between the two countries could be bridged.

And if it does, how could that affect Armenia? I asked the question and I'll answer it myself. I am afraid that the energy politics will be the deciding policy factor in the next decades. So, it is possible that the Iran and Turkey might become closer. However, I'm pretty sure that this would not affect Armenian negatively in the spheres of economic development and cooperation. At the same time it could mean that we might not be able to count on as high a support from Iran in our struggle against Azero-Turks?

This is related to the recent passing of the Armenian Genocide resolution and potential recognition. Could there be more bad than good from it. Are we going to get lands or reparations? Certainly not immediately, and almost certainly not without applying pressure on the turks.

At the same time, could Turkey lean closer to Iran as a reaction to Western scoffing and rejection and the recognition of the AG by US? I don't know about this last question, but I think it's worth pondering.

[TomServo]

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

HOSPITALITY WITH CAUTION?: MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD TO VISIT YEREVAN

By Richard Giragosian and John Hughes


Controversial Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is set to visit
Armenia by end of this month according to sources at the Embassy of
the Islamic Republic of Iran and in the Armenian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.

It will be Ahmadinejad's first visit to Yerevan (he was in southern
Armenia to mark the opening of a gas pipeline last spring).


The visit to Armenia, believed to be set for October 22, follows
Ahmadinejad's recent provocative visit to New York during which he
inflamed passions with reaffirmation of both his country's commitment
to pursuing a nuclear program as well as his challenge to
the historical veracity of the Holocaust. He was also roundly jeered
and lampooned for his claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran
(Iran has a law forbidding them).

The visit may be seen as indication of Iran's need to break out of its
relative isolation and is tied to the need to secure closer relations
with its neighbors. The president's visit also follows last October's
dispatch of an official Armenian delegation to Iran. That visit,
which included a meeting between Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanian and Ahmadinejad in Tehran, resulted in a pledge by the
Iranian side to further deepen its historically-friendly ties with
Armenia and a promise of Iranian support for the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide.

The Iranian president was first in Armenia last March, participating
in a ceremony with Armenian President Robert Kocharian marking the
finishing of construction of the first-ever pipeline between the two
countries. The pipeline will provide Armenia with an important new
source of energy, as Iran plans to ship large amounts of natural gas
into Armenia.

For Armenia, its southern neighbor is an important partner. With a
strategic significance enhanced by the dual, East-West blockade of
landlocked Armenia by neighboring Turkey and Azerbaijan, Iran offers a
much-needed southern alternative to the country's traditional reliance
on Georgia as its sole export route. From this perspective, Armenia's
developing relations with Iran, especially in the terms of energy
cooperation, will likely be a priority of the visit.

Ties between the countries were strengthened with the opening of the
gas pipeline (later bought by the Russians). The neighboring
countries also have plans to build a hydroelectric power plant on the
Arax River, at the Armenia-Iran border.

In a broader sense, Armenia's move closer to Iran is not without risk.

Politically, Ahmadinejad is at extreme odds with the United States,
over a number of issues, not least of which is the American accusation
that Iran is supplying weapons and training to insurgents in Iraq,
resulting in the deaths of U.S. military personnel.

And even on a smaller, regional scale, there are additional
limitations on how far and how deep Armenian-Iranian relations can be
allowed to develop.

This limitation comes from Russia, which is driven by a need to
maintain Armenia's structural dependence. It was, after all, the
Russians who had the last word on the construction of the new gas
pipeline connecting Armenia and Iran and, again, it is Armenia's
strategic ally Russia that is now moving to make sure that it can hold
the upper hand over plans to both expand hydroelectricity and explore
a possible oil refinery.

For many reasons, the visit of the Iranian president will be of
obvious importance to Armenia, as, under the watchful eye of friendly
superpowers, it hosts a world-figure who has become as much
provocateur as statesman.

http://www.armenianow.com/