Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Lucin]

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

Well, that great. So now now Iran can defend itself against Zionist terrorist regime of Israel.
But Barack Obama is not happy:

No surprise. What were you expecting, North Pole? He is just another hypocrite desperately in need of Jews' approval to be a president. Why didn't he react in any way to a similar military rehearsal held by the Israelis that took place just a week ago???

And I just don't know how many times American-Armenians should be fooled...

[North Pole]

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

Iran successfully tests long-range missile
Source:http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020101

Well, that great. So now now Iran can defend itself against Zionist terrorist regime of Israel.
But Barack Obama is not happy:

Obama: Iran missile test calls for new US policy

Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama says the US must adopt a 'coherent policy with respect to Iran' after Tehran's missile test.

"(Iran) must suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy. We have to have a kind of aggressive diplomacy which unfortunately has been absent over the last several years," Senator Obama said Wednesday on NBC's Today morning talk show.
The Illinois senator then called for tougher economic sanctions to counter the 'great threat' of Iran.

READ MORE -- http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?i...tionid=3510203

News from Iran - www.presstv.com ~~~

[Lucin]

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

Iran successfully tests long-range missile



Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps has successfully test-fired new long and mid-range missiles in response to threats coming from US and Israel.

The IRGC tested the Shahab 3 missile, which can hit any targets within a range of 2,000 kilometers on the second day of a military exercise dubbed The Great Prophet III.

Shahab 3 is equipped with a one-ton conventional warhead.

Nine highly advanced missiles with improved accuracy were simultaneously tested including the Zelzal and Fateh missiles with ranges of 400km and 170km respectively .

The Great Prophet III is a joint maneuver carried out by the IRGC naval and ground forces in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz region.

Press TV correspondent reporting from the site of the maneuver says the missiles could strike any target within the specified range regardless of climate conditions or the time.

IRGC Naval Commander Morteza Saffari said various missile, rocket and torpedo launchers as well as military vessels and land-to-sea missiles were tested during the exercise.

"The IRGC Navy is carrying out this maneuver to show it is fully prepared to counter any possible enemy aggression or adventurism," said Saffari.

"The maneuver also sends out a reassuring message to regional countries that together we can secure the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz without the presence of foreign forces," he added.

Meanwhile, IRGC Air Force Commander Hossein Salami told Press TV that the aim of the exercise was to demonstrate 'just how strong-willed the Islamic Republic is in defending its sovereignty against any challenges by those enemies that have used harsh and threatening words against Iran in recent weeks.'

The IRGC is conducting the maneuver amid growing speculation about a possible Israeli military strike against Iran.

Israeli military conducted a Mediterranean maneuver last month -- an apparent rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran's nuclear sites.

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

***********

Iran: Attack us and US interests will 'burn'

Aide to top cleric warns 0that Tel Aviv, American ships will also be targeted

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran will hit Tel Aviv, U.S. shipping in the Gulf and American interests around the world if it is attacked over its disputed nuclear activities, an aide to Iran's Supreme Leader was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

"The first bullet fired by America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests around the globe," the students news agency ISNA quoted Ali Shirazi as saying in a speech to Revolutionary Guards.

"The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned," Shirazi was quoted as saying

Shirazi, a mid-level cleric, is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative to the Revolutionary Guards.

'Jihad and martyrdom'

"The Iranian nation will never accept bullying. The Iranian nation is a nation of believers which believes in jihad and martyrdom. No army in the world can confront it," he added.


In Jerusalem, Arye Mekel, Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman, declined to comment on Shirazi's remarks.

Israel, believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power, has vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb.

The United States says it wants to resolve the dispute by diplomacy but has not ruled out military action.

Iran says its nuclear activities are only to produce energy for civil use, not to make bombs.


Meanwhile, Iran started war games on Monday and its president rejected a demand by major powers that it stop enriching uranium as "illegitimate".

Missile units of the elite Revolutionary Guards' naval and air forces began war games, Iranian news agencies said, hours after the U.S. Navy said it had begun exercises in the Gulf.

Speculation about an attack on the world's fourth-biggest oil exporter over its nuclear program rose after a report last month said Israel had practiced such a strike. Fears of military confrontation helped send world oil prices to record highs.

Covert weapons program?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday his country would not stop enriching uranium, work which Tehran says is aimed at generating power but which the West fears may be part of a covert nuclear weapons program.

It was Ahmadinejad's first comment on the dispute since Iran delivered its response on Friday to a package of incentives offered by world powers seeking to curb its nuclear activities. Details of the response were not made public.

"They offer to hold talks but at the same time they threaten us and say we should accept their illegitimate demand to halt (enrichment work)," Ahmadinejad told reporters in Malaysia, where he was attending a summit of eight developing countries.

"They want us to abandon our right (to nuclear technology)," the president said.

'New environment'

By contrast, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spoke during the weekend of a "new environment" for diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program.

The United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany demand that Iran suspend its enrichment work before formal talks can start on their revised package of incentives, which includes help to develop a civilian nuclear program.

Tehran has repeatedly refused to stop producing enriched uranium, which can be used as fuel for power plants, or, if refined much more, can provide material for nuclear weapons.

The offer of trade and other incentives proposed by the world powers was presented last month by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.

Iran has put forward its own bundle of proposals aimed at resolving the dispute and has said it was encouraged by common points between the two separate packages.

So far the Iranian government's formal response to the latest offer has not been made public and there have been mixed signals in statements by its senior officials.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25580681/

[Armanen]

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

...

The economic and financial dislocations resulting from the hikes in the prices of crude oil and food staples are the source of financial gains by a handful of global actors. Speculators are not concerned with the far-reaching consequences of a broader Middle East war, which could evolve into a World War Three scenario.

The pro-Israeli lobby in the US indirectly serves these powerful financial interests. In the current context, Israel is an ally with significant military capabilities which serves America's broader objective in the Middle East. Washington, however, has little concern for the security of Israel, which in the case of a war on Iran would be the first target of retaliatory military action by Tehran.

The broader US objective consists in establishing, through military and economic means, an exclusive US sphere of influence throughout the Middle East.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9501

[Armanen]

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

Iran: War or Privatization: All Out War or "Economic Conquest"?


By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 4, 2008


Is the war against Iran on hold?

Tehran is to allow foreign investors, in what might be interpreted as an overture to the West, to acquire full ownership of Iran's State enterprises in the context of a far-reaching "free market" style privatization program.

With the price of crude oil at 140 dollars a barrel, the Iranian State is not in a financial straightjacket as in the case of most indebted developing countries, obliged by their creditors to sell their State assets to pay off a mounting external debt.

What are the political motivations behind this measure? And why Now?

Several Western companies have already been approached. Tehran will allow foreign capital "to purchase unlimited shares of state-run enterprises which are in the process of being sold off".

While Iran's privatization program was launched during the government of Mohammed Khatami in the late 1990s, the recent sell-off of shares in key state enterprises points to a new economic design. The underlying measure is far-reaching. It goes beyond the prevailing privatization framework applied in several developing countries within America's sphere of influence:

"The move is designed to attract greater foreign investment and is part of the country's sweeping economic liberalization program.

Iran will no longer make a distinction between domestic and foreign firms that wish to purchase state-run companies as long as the combined foreign ownership in any particular industry does not exceed 35%. ... As an example, a foreign firm may purchase an Iranian steel company but it would not be allowed to buy every business enterprise in Iran's steel industry.

Among the new incentive measures announced, foreign firms may also transfer their annual profit from their Iranian company out of the country in any currency they wish." (Iran to Allow 100% Foreign Ownership, Press TV, June 30, 2008)

It is important to carefully analyze this decision. The timing of the announcement by Iran's Privatization Organization (IPO) coincides with mounting US-Israeli threats to wage an all out war against Iran.

Moreover, the divestment program is compliant with the demands of the "Washington Consensus". The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has confirmed, with some reservations, that Tehran is committed to a "continued transition toward a viable and efficient market economy" while also implying .that the building of "investor confidence" requires an acceleration of the privatization program.

In its May 2008 Review (Art. 4 Consultations), the IMF praised Tehran for its divestment program, which essentially transfers the ownership of State assets into private hands, while also underscoring that the program was being carried out in a speedily and efficient fashion.

Under the threat of war, is this renewed initiative by Tehran to privatize key industries intended to meet the demands of the Bush Administration?

The Bretton Woods institutions are known to directly serve US interests. They are not only in liaison with Wall Street and the US Treasury, they are also in contact with the US State Department, the Pentagon and NATO. The IMF-World Bank are often consulted prior to the onslaught of a major war. In the war's aftermath, they are involved in providing "post conflict reconstruction" loans. In this regard, the World Bank is a key player in channelling "foreign aid" to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The privatization measures suggest that Iran is prepared to allow foreign capital to gain control over important key sectors of the Iranian economy.

According to the chairman of the Iranian Privatization Organization (IPO) Gholamreza Kord-Zanganeh some 230 state-run companies are slated to be privatized by end of the Iranian year (March 2009). The shares of some 177 State companies were offered on the Tehran Stock Exchange in the last Iranian year (ending March 2008).

Already the state-owned Telecommunication Company of Iran (TCI) has indicated that "a number of foreign telcos have expressed an interest in acquiring its shares when the government sells off part of its interest in a month’s time. Local press reports did not name the potential investors. TCI has a monopoly in Iran’s fixed line market and is also the country’s largest cellular operator via its subsidiary MCI." France's Alcatel, the MTN Group of South Africa and Germany's Siemens already have sizeable interests in Iran's telecom industry.

Other key sectors of the economy including aluminum, copper, the iron and steel industry have recently been put up for privatization, with the shares of State companies floated on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE)

More than Meets the Eye

Is this decision by Tehran to implement a far-reaching privatization program, in any way connected with continuous US saber rattling and diplomatic arm twisting?

At first sight it appears that Tehran is caving into Washington's demands so as to avoid an all out war.

Iran's assets would be handed over on a silver platter to Western foreign investors, without the need for America to conquer new economic frontiers through military means?

But there is more than meets the eye.

Washington has no interest in the imposition of a privatization program on Iran, as an "alternative" to an all out war. In fact quite the opposite. There are indications that the Bush adminstration's main objective is to stall the privatization program.

Rather than being applauded by Washington as a move in the right direction, Tehran's privatization program coincides with the launching (May 2008) of a far-reaching resolution in the US Congress (H.CON. RES 362), calling for the imposition of Worldwide financial sanctions directed against Iran:

"[H. CON. RES. 362] urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, ... international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks; ... energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." (See full text of H.CON RES 362) (emphasis added)

The resolution further demands that "the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran .... prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."(emphasis added)

Were these economic sanctions to be carried out and enforced, they would paralyze trade and monetary transactions. Needless to say they would also undermine Iran's privatization program and foreclose the transfer of Iranian State assets into foreign hands.

Economic Warfare

Now why on earth would the Bush administration be opposed to the adoption of a neoliberal-style divestment program, which would strip the Islamic Republic of some of its most profitable assets?

If "economic conquest" is the ultimate objective of a profit driven military agenda, what then is the purpose of bombing Iran, when Iran actually accepts to hand over its assets at rock-bottom prices to foreign investors, in much the same way as in other compliant developing countries including Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil, etc?

The largest foreign investors in Iran are China and Russia.

While US companies are notoriously absent from the list of foreign direct investors, Germany, Italy and Japan have significant investment interests in oil and gas, the petrochemical industry, power generation and construction as well as in banking. Together with China and Russia, they are the main beneficiaries of the privatization program.

One of the main objectives of the proposed economic sanctions under H. RES CON 362 is to prevent foreign companies (including those from the European Union and Japan) , from acquiring a greater stake in the Iranian economy under Tehran's divestment program.

Other countries with major foreign investment interests in Iran include France, India, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and Switzerland. Sweden's Svedala Industri has major interests in Iran’s copper mines.

France, Japan and Korea have interests in the automobile industry, in the form of licensing agreements with Iranian auto manufacturers.

Italy's ENI Oil Company is involved in the development of phases 4 and 5 of the South Pars oil field amounting to 3.8 billion dollars.(See Iranian Privatisation Organization, 2008 report) Total and the Anglo-Dutch conglomerate Shell are involved in natural gas.

While the privatization process does not allow for the divestment of Iran's State oil company, it creates an environment which favors foreign investment by a number of countries including China, Russia, Italy, Malaysia, etc. in oil refinery, the petrochemical industry, the oil services economy as well as oil and gas infrastructure including exploration and oil-gas pipelines.

While several US corporations are (unofficially) conducting business in Iran, the US trade sanctions regime (renewed under the Bush adminstration) outlaws US citizens and companies from doing business in Iran. In other words, US corporations would not be allowed to acquire Iranian State assets under the privatisation program unless the US trade sanctions regime were to be lifted.

Moreover, all foreign firms are treated on an equal footing. There is no preferential treatment for US companies, no corrupt colonial style arrangement as in war-torn Iraq, which favors the outright transfer of ownership and control of entire sectors of the national economy to a handful of US corporations.

In other words, Tehran's privatization program does not serve US economic and strategic interests. It tends to favor countries which have longstanding trade and investment relations with the Islamic Republic.

It favors Chinese, Russian, European and Japanese investors at the expense of the USA.

It undermines and weakens American hegemony. It goes against Washington's design to foster a "unipolar" New World Order through both economic and military means.

And that is why Washington wants to shunt this program through a Worldwide economic sanctions regime which would, if implemented, paralyze trade, investment and monetary flows with Iran.

The proposed economic sanctions' regime under H. CON 362 is intended to isolate Iran and prevent the transfer of Iranian assets into the hands of competing economic powers including China, Russia, the European Union and Japan. It is tantamount to a declaration of war.

In a bitter irony, H CON 362 serves to undermine the economic interests of several of America's allies. The Resolution would prevent them from positioning themselves in the Middle East, despite the fact that these allies (e.g. France and Germany) are also involved through NATO in the planning of the war on Iran.

War and Financial Manipulation

The Bush administration has opted for an all out war on Iran in alliance with Israel, with a view to establishing an exclusive American sphere of influence in the Middle East.

A US-Israel sponsored military operation directed against Iran, would largely backlash on the economic and financial interests of several of America's allies, including Germany, Italy, France, and Japan.

More generally, a war on Iran would hit corporate interests involved in the civilian economy as opposed to those more directly linked to the military industrial complex and the war economy. It would undermine local and regional economies, the consumer manufacturing and services economy, the automobile industry, the airlines, the tourist and leisure economy, etc.

Moreover, an all out war feeds the profit driven agenda of global banking, including the institutional speculators in the energy market, the powerful Anglo-American oil giants and America's weapons producers, the big five defense contractors plus British Aerospace Systems Corporation, which play a major role in the formulation of US foreign policy and the Pentagon's military agenda, not to mention the gamut of mercenary companies and military contractors.

A small number of global corporations and financial institutions feed on war and destruction to the detriment of important sectors of economic activity, Broadly speaking, the bulk of the civilian economy is threatened.

What we are dealing with are conflicts and rivalries within the upper echelons of the global capitalist system, largely opposing those corporate players which have a direct interest in the war to the broader capitalist economy which ultimately depends on the continued development of civilian consumer and investment demand.

These vested interests in a profit driven war also feed on economic recession and financial dislocation. The process of economic collapse which results, for instance, from the speculative hikes in oil and food prices, triggers bankruptcies on a large scale, which ultimately enable a handful of global corporations and financial institutions to "pick up the pieces" and consolidate their global control over the real economy as well as over the international monetary system.

Financial manipulation is intimately related to military decision-making. Major banks and financial institutions have links to the military and intelligence apparatus. Advanced knowledge or inside information by these institutional speculators regarding specific "false flag" terrorist attacks, or military operations in the Middle East is the source of tremendous speculative gains.

Both the war agenda and the proposed economic sanctions regime trigger, quite deliberately, a global atmosphere of insecurity and economic chaos.

In turn, the institutional speculators in London, Chicago and New York not only feed on economic chaos and uncertainty, their manipulative actions in the energy and commodity markets contribute to spearheading large sectors of the civilian economy into bankruptcy.


...

[Armenian]

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

US army would find 'third front' hard if Israel attacks Iran

Opening up a third front would pose a challenge for the US military already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a top US military chief said Wednesday amid concerns Israel may attack Iran. "From the US military perspective, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us," the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen told a press conference. "That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve. But that would really be very challenging and also the consequences of that sometimes are very difficult to predict." Israel has said it will stop Tehran developing a nuclear bomb at all costs, amid speculation that it is seeking Washington's tacit approval for a strike against the Islamic Republic's atomic program. Israel is a key US ally in the volatile Middle East, with the two countries enjoying privileged ties, meaning that any conflict between Iran and the xxxish state would inevitably involve the United States. But the US Army is already stretched with thousands of troops committed to fighting insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Mullen, who has just returned from a visit to Israel, refused to comment on what the US ally might be planning. "But I'm convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, include diplomatic, financial and international pressure. "There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level." US President George W. Bush on Wednesday again said he had not ruled out using force in the nuclear stand-off with Iran, but emphasized that his top choice was for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. "I have always said that all options are on the table but the first option for the United States is to solve this problem diplomatically," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden.

Source: http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008...acks_iran/afp/

OPEC couldn't replace Iran oil output: chief

OPEC could not replace lost Iranian output should Tehran carry out its threat to stop oil exports if attacked, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said on Tuesday. "It's obvious that if you curtail 4 million barrels per day (bpd) from the market, you are going to have a big problem. I don't see who can replace that, including OPEC," Khelil told a news conference in Madrid. Khelil said the perceived threat of conflict had helped to drive oil prices higher, although he said the main reason for crude near $143 a barrel was the weakness of the U.S. dollar. "Unless we address those causes we're not going to see low oil prices ... We need to do something about geopolitics. We need to do something about the dollar," Khelil, who is also Algeria's oil minister, said. Fears that Iran, OPEC's second largest producer and the world's fourth biggest producer, could retaliate by disrupting oil exports if attacked by Israel or the United States over its nuclear program have weighed on the oil market for months. The depreciation of the U.S. dollar was another big factor, Khelil said, adding that its impact on the oil price was even greater. Oil, like most commodities, is priced in dollars and most commodity prices have rallied to make up for the drop in the value of the currency used to price them. The dollar has fallen sharply against the euro and a basket of currencies as the U.S. Federal Reserve has slashed interest rates this year to shore up the financial system and the wider economy from a credit crunch triggered by crisis involving sub-prime mortgages. Khelil said oil prices would probably rise again if the European Central Bank raised interest rates on Thursday because the euro would strengthen against the U.S. A Reuters poll of 81 economists last week showed 77 respondents expecting a rise in rates. A rise in rates would depress the dollar, pushing oil prices still higher. "One of the major issues right now is whether we are going to have another devaluation (of the dollar) in July," he said. Khelil said he expected continuing volatility and uncertainty in the oil market. "Prospects for oil prices are extremely uncertain and highly volatile. We don't know if they will stabilise or come down," he said. Khelil said he expected world oil demand to rise by 1 million barrels per day (bpd) a year and that supplies would need to keep pace with this increase over the next five years. The OPEC president said he expected OPEC's crude production capacity to increase by 4 million barrels in the next four years and added that while the world had enough reserves to last for decades, the main worry was in delivering it to the market.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/busine...LA572420080702

[Lernakan]

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

Annals of National Security: Preparing the Battlefield

The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.

“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)
Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.

A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President xxxx Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”

The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”


You can read the rest of the 7 page article here:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=1

[Armenian]

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

Iran ready to strike at Israel’s nuclear heart

Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week. The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons. The sources said Iran was preparing to retaliate for any onslaught by firing missiles at Dimona, where Israel’s own nuclear weapons are believed to be made. Major-General Mohammad Jafari, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, told a Tehran daily: “This country [Israel] is completely within the range of the Islamic Republic’s missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime – despite all its abilities – cannot confront it.” An editorial in a government newspaper, Jomhouri Eslami, said: “Our response will hit right at their temple.” The sabre-rattling coincided with a visit to Israel yesterday by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, for talks with his Israeli opposite number, Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi. This intensified speculation that Israel was seeking US approval for a possible attack on Iran. “Although the visit had been planned well in advance, we got the feeling he was coming to make sure we’ll obey the strict timetable agreed with the US,” said an Israeli defence source. He refused to elaborate. President George Bush has approved the linking of Israel to a US infrared satellite detection system that could spot Shahab missile launches within seconds. This should enable the Israeli air force to destroy such missiles in the booster stage. The system will also give the Israelis about 15 minutes to seek shelter before any warhead hits.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4232021.ece

Iran says Gulf oil route at risk if attacked

The Revolutionary Guards said Iran would impose controls on shipping in the vital Gulf oil route if Iran was attacked and warned regional states of reprisals if they took part, a newspaper reported on Saturday. Fear of an escalation in the standoff between the West and Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, have been one factor propping up sky-high oil prices. Crude hit a record level on international markets near $143 a barrel on Friday. Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its disputed nuclear ambitions has risen since a report this month said Israel had practiced such a strike, prompting increasingly tough talk of retaliation, if pushed, from Tehran. "Naturally every country under attack by an enemy uses all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy," Guards commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari told Jam-e Jam newspaper in some of the toughest language Iran has used so far. Analysts say Iran may not match the firepower of U.S. forces but could still cause havoc in the region using unconventional tactics, such as deploying small craft to attack ships, or using allies in the area to strike at U.S. or Israeli interests. "Regarding the main route for exiting energy, Iran will definitely act to impose control on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz," Jafari said of the Gulf waterway through which about two-fifths of all globally traded oil passes. Iranian officials have in the past sent mixed signals about whether Iran would use oil as a weapon. But such threats, when made, have sent jitters through the crude market for fear of disrupting supplies from big OPEC producers in the Gulf. The Islamic Republic insists its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity. But the West and Israel fear Iran is seeking to build atomic bombs. Israel is believed to be the only Middle East state with nuclear arms. Washington has said it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but has not ruled out military action should that fail.

'RIGHT TO RESPOND'

"If there is a confrontation between us and the enemy from outside the region, definitely the scope (of the confrontation) will reach the oil issue," Jafari said. The Revolutionary Guards are the ideologically driven wing of Iran's military with air, sea and land capabilities, and a separate command structure to regular units. "After this action (of Iran imposing controls on the Gulf waterway), the oil price will rise very considerably and this is among the factors deterring the enemies," Jafari said. He said any military action might "be able to delay Iran's nuclear activities but this delay will certainly be very short". Jafari warned neighbors not to let their territory be used. "If the attack takes place from the soil of another country ... the country attacked has the right to respond to the enemy's military action from where the operation started," he said. Kuwait, the launchpad for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and Iraq itself, where U.S. troops are now stationed, have both said they would not let their land be used for a strike on Iran. The U.S. military has bases in other Gulf states and Afghanistan. Jafari said U.S. forces were "more vulnerable than Israelis" because of their troops in the area. Iran's top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has in the past said Iran would target U.S. interests if attacked. "Iran can in different ways harm American interests even far away," the Guards commander said. Jafari suggested Iran's allies in the region, who include Lebanon's Shi'ite militia Hezbollah, could also retaliate. He referred to Iran's ties with those living in Lebanon's Shi'ite heartland of south Lebanon but did not refer to any group. "Israelis know if they take military action against Iran ... the abilities of the Islamic and Shi'ite world, especially in the region, will deliver fatal blows," Jafari said, adding that Israel was in range of Iranian missiles. He also hinted that Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that receives Iranian funding and which has sent suicide bombers into Israel, might act. But, again, he did not name the group.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMos...82623620080628

[Armenian]

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

Iran dismisses 'attack by Israel'

Iran has said it considers a military attack on its nuclear facilities by Israel as "impossible". "Such audacity to embark on an assault against the interests and territorial integrity of our country is impossible, said spokesman Gholam Hoseyn Elham. The statement follows reports in the US media that Israeli aerial manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean were a possible test-run for a strike on Iran. Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. It has repeatedly rejected demands to halt enriching uranium, which can be used as fuel for power plants or material for weapons if refined to a greater degree. The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Mohammed ElBaradei, meanwhile said an attack would put Iran on a "crash course" to building nuclear weapons and would turn the region "into a fireball". He said he did not believe there was any "imminent risk" of proliferation by Iran given the current status of its nuclear programme. In an interview with Al Arabiya television, Mr ElBaradei said that if any military action was taken against Iran he would find it impossible to continue as the head of the IAEA.

Israeli 'rehearsal'

Iran's defiant message follows a report in the New York Times on Friday. The newspaper cited US Pentagon officials as saying that the Israeli exercise - involving more than 100 Israeli fighter jets - was intended to demonstrate the seriousness of Israel's concern over Iran's nuclear activities, and its willingness to act unilaterally. It said helicopters and refuelling tankers flew more than 1,400km (870 miles), roughly the distance between Israel and Iran's main uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. The New York Times reported that Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. The US state department would not comment on the Israeli exercise.

Offer on table

Iran is said to be considering an offer from six world powers of preliminary talks, which would be used to agree a framework for formal negotiations and incentives. The talks are on the condition that Iran freeze its current levels of enrichment for six weeks in exchange for the powers putting a halt on their push for new sanctions. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana put forward the proposal - made by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council the US, China, Russia, France, Britain plus Germany - during talks in Tehran last week. He said the six powers were ready to fully recognise Iran's right to have a civilian nuclear energy programme.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7467164.stm

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Lavrov warns against attack on Iran

Israel Rehearses Iran Attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6xApA38InA

Russia's foreign minister on Friday warned against the use of force on Iran, saying there is no proof it is trying to build nuclear weapons. Sergey Lavrov said Iran should be engaged in dialogue and encouraged to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency. Lavrov made the statement when asked to comment on an Israeli Cabinet member's statement earlier this month that Israel could attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program. "I hope the actual actions would be based on international law," Lavrov said. "And international law clearly protects Iran's and anyone else's territorial integrity." Israel's military refused to confirm or deny a report Friday that its warplanes staged a major rehearsal this month for a possible attack on Iran.

The New York Times report quoted U.S. officials as saying more than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s staged the maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June. It said the aircraft flew more than 900 miles (1,450 kilometers), roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, and that the exercise included refueling tankers and helicopters capable of rescuing downed pilots. Lavrov said Russia had asked both the United States and Israel to provide factual information to back their claims that Iran was working to build atomic weapons. "So far we have seen none, and the same conclusion was made by the International Atomic Energy Agency," he said. "It's absolutely not right to speak matter-of-factly that Iran continues building nuclear weapons," Lavrov added. Iran insists its enrichment program is meant only to generate electricity. But because of its past clandestine activities, including some that could have applications for weapons research, the international community is concerned that Tehran wants to enrich uranium to a purity suitable for use in atomic bombs. The IAEA suggested in a report to the U.N. Security Council last month that Iran was stonewalling investigators and possibly withholding information crucial to determining whether it conducted research on nuclear weapons. Lavrov insisted that Iran must be encouraged to continue its cooperation with the U.N. monitoring agency.

"As long as the IAEA reports to us progress in its relations with Iran, as long as Iran closes the issues which were of concern to the IAEA and this process continues, we should avoid any steps which could undermine this very important process," he said, speaking in English. Russia has maintained close ties with Iran and is building its first nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr, which is expected to go on line later this year. It has backed limited U.N. sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, but has opposed the U.S. push for harsher measures. "The key to resolving the Iranian issue is involvement," Lavrov said. "We must involve Iran, engage Iran in resolving the Iranian nuclear program, ... but also engage Iran in constructive, respectful, serious dialogue on Iraq and Afghanistan, on the Middle East in general."

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...Ei5OgD91DQ8U80

Bush May End Term With Iran Issue Unsettled

For more than five years now, President Bush and Vice President xxxx Cheney have made clear that they did not want to leave office with Iran any closer to possessing nuclear weapons than when they took office. “The nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons,” Mr. Bush said in February 2006. The United States is prepared to use its naval power “to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region,” Mr. Cheney said in 2007 from a Navy carrier in the Persian Gulf. But with seven months left in this administration, Iran appears ascendant, its political and economic influence growing, its historic foes in Iraq and Afghanistan weakened, and its nuclear program continuing to move forward. So the question now is: Are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney resigned to leaving Iran more powerful than they found it when they came to office? The evidence is mixed. For all the talk to the contrary, Bush administration officials appear to have concluded that diplomatic efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions will not yield any breakthroughs this year.

Despite a recent flurry of efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran, top officials on both sides of the Atlantic, in recent interviews, had no expectations that Iran’s rulers would make any concessions, particularly on the critical issue of suspending the enrichment of uranium, while Mr. Bush remained in office. On the military front, the picture is fuzzier. Two senior administration officials said that barring a move by Israel, which one characterized as “the wild card” on the Iranian issue, this administration would not be likely to pursue military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Mr. Bush himself seemed to signal as much at the start of his European tour last week in Slovenia, when he said of Iran that he expected to “leave behind a multilateral framework to work on this issue,” a statement that seemed to suggest that military action against Iran may no longer be on the table. But there remains the possibility that Israel could force the hand of the Bush administration, foreign policy analysts and diplomats said. Israel carried out a three-day military exercise this month that American intelligence officials say appeared to have been a rehearsal for a potential strike on nuclear targets in Iran.

Israeli officials have tried to put pressure in recent months on the Bush administration to consider such a strike if Iran did not abandon its nuclear program, and the exercise may have been intended as a new signal that Israel might be willing to act alone if the United States did not. “Israel prefers this threat be dealt with peacefully, by dramatically increasing sanctions and maintaining a credible resolve to keep all options on the table,” said Sallai Meridor, the Israeli ambassador to the United States. “But time is running out." Iran, he said, “should understand that under no circumstances will the world allow it to obtain a nuclear capability.” Mohamad ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Al Arabiya television that he would quit his job in the event of a military strike on Iran. “It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said in an interview broadcast Friday, according to Reuters.

Israeli officials have expressed fear to the Bush administration that a new administration would take months, if not years, to decide on its approach to Iran. The consensus in the United States and Europe is that Iran is still at least two years away from a nuclear weapon. Israeli officials say they believe the threshold is closer to a year. An Israeli military strike on Iran would almost certainly require American help. For one thing, Pentagon officials say, it would take hundreds of sorties to take out a big swath of Iranian air defense. For another, the United States controls much of the airspace around Iran. Beyond that, Iran would hold the United States accountable for an Israeli strike, and could retaliate against American troops in Iraq. In Moscow on Friday, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov urged dialogue rather than confrontation with Iran and said that the United States and Israel had not offered any proof that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. “So far we have not seen any,” Mr. Lavrov said, according to Interfax news agency.

A trip to Tehran last weekend by European diplomats with a new package of incentives was largely for Iranian public consumption, and to appease Russia and China by appearing to be still trying to woo Iran, European and American diplomats said. But European diplomats have been loath to acknowledge publicly that diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear development is in a holding pattern for the next eight months because they fear that Iran will only use that time to make progress on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. “One should not talk about keeping the status quo because that would be dangerous,” one European diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules. “We can’t say the clock has stopped and we will begin work again after Jan. 1; that is not a good recipe for success.”

Administration efforts to convey a sense of urgency about stopping Iran’s nuclear program were dealt a blow late last year with the release of a National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had stopped work on a nuclear weapons program in 2003. In recent months, Bush administration officials have tried to walk back from that report, repeating often that Iran’s nuclear program remains a threat. Many foreign policy experts are now looking to the next administration for a possible new approach to the standoff with Iran. “The Europeans all understand that the carrots-and-sticks approach is not working, and the entire Iran diplomatic policy has to be rethought,” said Vali R. Nasr, an Iran expert at Tufts University. Until a new administration takes over, he said, “we’re stuck in a process where the ball is kicked to the bureaucrats.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/wa...a66&ei=5087%0A