Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

Iran: Pipeline to Armenia may be extended



Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has said he thinks the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline might be extended to Europe. "The Europe option is a very good idea and we welcome it,” he said. “We need to carry out a feasibility study, and if the results are positive, I see no problem.” The comments, which were made Wednesday, were reported by Public Television of Armenia. Ahmadinejad also said talks between Armenia and Iran on the construction of an oil refinery in Armenia were ongoing. "I assess the negotiations very positively," he said. "Let us wait for their result, and afterwards an agreement could be signed. This is a successful field for trilateral Armenia-Iran-Russia cooperation."

Source: http://www.upi.com/International_Sec...xtended_/7991/

[skhara]

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

If Turks go in full force they can destroy the fledgling Kurdish state. Yes, the Turkish army will suffer much losses but, in my opinion, they would eventually be able to crush Kurdish forces.

They'll destroy the fledgling Kurdish state, but I doubt they'll be able to crush Kurdish forces. I suspect the PKK stepped their activity as a provocation. Even their language is provocative. Turks threaten to invade Iraq, and PKK answers they'll go make attacks because of these threats. Maybe they are pushing for a wider war -- perhaps they are encouraged by the fact that the peshmerga did say they would fight if turks invaded.

By the way, do you know what kind of armour the turks deploy. They don't look very intimidating at all - certainly nothing massive like the Abramhs or the Merkava.

[Otto3]

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

modernised M60 and leopard 1 tanks. question is tanks are worthless on mountains. maybe they are there to be deployed to north iraq plains after the border mountains. or they are there to give the image of a large scale assault to scare the barzani.

[skhara]

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

modernised M60 and leopard 1 tanks.

Ok yeah, 1960s vintage tanks. That's why they don't look very intimidating.

question is tanks are worthless on mountains.

They are also easy pray to the simple RPG-7 the likes of which are a dime a dozen in Iraq.

[Armenian]

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

Iran, Armenia eye $1b trade volume

The head of the Iran-Armenia Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industries announced here on Wednesday said that the two sides’ trade volume will soar to one billion dollars. Talking to MNA, Leon Aharonian put the current trade volume at over $200 million, of which $160 million is related to Iran’s exports and $40 million to Armenia’s exports. Referring to Iran’s gas exports and energy transmission to the neighboring country, he noted that Iran will export three million cubic meters of gas to the country per day, naming the project a proper way to transmit Iran’s gas to Europe. Armenia is among those states that alongside other regional states play an effective role in the North-South Corridor that has been established between India, Iran, and Russia and is considered one of the important trade routes linking Europe, East and West Asia

Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=156238

[Artsakh]

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

I am speechless...

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

AJC Condemns Armenian University for Honoring Iranian President

October 24, 2007 – New York – The American xxxish Committee fully supports the position of the Armenian xxxish community in condemning Yerevan State University for honoring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Earlier this week, the university presented the Iranian leader with an honorary doctorate and a gold medal. “It is simply astonishing that a university, where the search for truth and peaceful coexistence ought to be cherished ideals, would honor the head of a country who is a leading denier of the Holocaust and calls for the elimination of a UN member state, Israel,” said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris. “Moreover, as president of Iran, Ahmadinejad has xxxxxled on the rights of many Iranian citizens, including students on university campuses who have protested his, in their words, dictatorial and suffocating leadership,” said Harris. “Many of those students have been imprisoned and reportedly tortured.” “Yerevan State University should have honored the students and not those who clamp down on their right to speak out and protest,” Harris said.

Source: http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/cont...241&ct=4552745

Ahmadinejad honor outrages Armenian [Jooz]

The Eurasian xxxish Congress condemned Armenia for honoring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president was presented with an honorary doctorate Monday at Yerevan State University, as well as a gold medal. Ahmadinejad was visiting Armenia for a two-day state visit. In an interview with the Rosbalt news agency, Eurasian xxxish Congress representative and Armenian xxxish community President Rima Varzhepetyan expressed outrage at the decision to honor Ahmadinejad. "The constant anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli rhetoric of the president of Iran, as well as the regularly organized statements in denial of the Holocaust, place Ahmadinejad in line with theories not unlike those of Dr. Goebbels, one of the chief ideologues of Nazi ideology in Germany," Varzhepetyan said.

Source: http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104831.html

Then hold on to your seat, because this might pop your eyes out:

http://www.xxxishtimes.com/News/7116.stm

Armenian Groups Slam University For Honoring Ahmadinejad

Ben Harris
JTA Wire Service

OCTOBER 29, 2007
New York

Armenian Americans slammed the decision by a university in the Armenian capital of Yerevan to honor Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad during a state visit to Armenia last week was presented with a gold medal and an honorary doctorate Monday from Yerevan State University.

An editorial in the Armenian weekly, the house organ of the Armenian National Committee of America, condemned the university, noting that Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier who has disregarded historical research.

"The university's decision to bestow an honorary doctorate is simply unacceptable," the editorial said. "We are surprised that as the officials in charge of the alma mater of a nation that rose from the ashes of another genocide, they did not take this fact into consideration before deciding to award the honorary degree."

Ahmadinejad's visit came as Armenian Americans and their supporters continued to press for a resolution in Congress recognizing the World War I-era killings of Armenians by Turkey as genocide.

Part of their campaign has focused on the Anti-Defamation League, which initially refused to use the word genocide to describe the killings but backtracked amid opposition from its leadership in the Boston area -- home to one of the highest concentrations of Armenians in the country. The ADL called the massacre of Armenians "tantamount to genocide."

Despite the shift the ADL, along with other major U.S. xxxish groups, continue to oppose a congressional resolution out of concern for its impact on Turkish ties with Israel and the United States. Consequently, the Armenian activists' campaign against the ADL has not eased.

A Web site, No Place For Denial, continues to accuse the ADL of genocide denial, alleging that its statements on the subject have been ambiguous, a charge the ADL denies. The continuing momentum has led several communities in the Boston area to end their partnerships with a highly regarded anti-bigotry program sponsored by the ADL.

Dikran Kaligian, chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America's Eastern Region, rejected the suggestion to mount a similar campaign against Yerevan State University, asserting that such a comparison was "apples and oranges."

The proper analogue to the ADL, Kaligian said, is not Yerevan State but ANCA, which is the largest Armenian grass-roots organization in the United States. The organization is an affiliate of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, an international political party founded in 1890.

Kaligian said ANCA has never taken an ambiguous position on the Holocaust. The ADL, by contrast, has endorsed a proposal for Armenia and Turkey to form a joint commission to arrive at a resolution of the issue, a step Armenians adamantly reject.

"The ANCA has never called for further study of the Holocaust," Kaligian said. "That's the analogy you have to make, and I think we've been very clear on it."

Both Kaligian and Sevag Arzoumanian, who runs No Place for Denial, agree that it was appropriate for Ahmadinejad to be invited to Armenia, a landlocked country that depends on good relations with its neighbors for trade and energy. But they said bestowing an academic honor was one step too far.

In an e-mail to JTA, Arzoumanian wrote, "How can Yerevan State University give an academic degree, however symbolic, to someone who takes the intellectually dishonest position that there needs to be further research and academic conferences to determine if the Holocaust occurred? What were they thinking? I think the YSU made a terrible error of judgment, both academically and morally."

[Armenian]

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

A geopolitical essay resurrected from the pre-9/11 world. The article below, concerning Russian-Iranian relations, was featured within a Neocon website, the Think Tank called - The Heritage Foundation: Leadership For America. This essay come to us from a time period when the terms "Neocon" and "War on Terror" were still unknown to the public. As the essay clearly highlights, however, even before it all began in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the grand agenda of the special interest groups working within Washington DC was there for all to see.

Armenian

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

Countering Russian-Iranian Military Cooperation



Iranian President Mohammed Khatami's recent visit to Russia resulted in expanded strategic cooperation between the two states, particularly in the areas of weapons and nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Iran already is the third largest importer of Russian arms after China and India.1 A new de facto alliance between Russia and Iran that increases Tehran's military capabilities will make this sponsor of terrorism more of a threat to vital U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf as well as to the security of America's allies in the Middle East. Moreover, by gaining nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other advanced weapons systems, Iran could one day threaten the United States directly.

Nevertheless, Moscow has ignored Washington's repeated protests over the proliferation of its advanced weaponry and technology to Iran, particularly technology that could be used in producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). For these reasons, Khatami's visit to Moscow on March 12-15 and the agreement by Iranian officials to buy state-of-the-art Russian surface-to-air missile defense systems have greatly increased concerns in Washington over this close relationship. On March 19, Secretary of State Colin Powell issued a warning to both Russia and Iran that the United States would closely watch their military cooperation and would take unspecified action if their activities threatened to destabilize the Middle East.2

Rhetoric alone will not be enough to deter cooperation between Iran and Russia. The Bush Administration will need to employ an array of military, diplomatic, and economic measures to slow Iran's strategic buildup of weapons, deal with its radical Islamic regime, and prevent further deterioration of U.S. relations with Russia. The Administration should proceed cautiously but deliberately to:

* Maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf to deter and defend against Iranian aggression or terrorism;

* Ensure that no U.S. enterprises or government credits contribute to Iran's buildup of missiles or development of weapons of mass destruction;

* Prevent American investors from subsidizing Russian projects that generate revenue for the Iranian government that could be used to purchase advanced military technology;

* Task the interagency WMD working group at the National Security Council with designing a strategy for sanctioning Russia and Iran because of their proliferation activities;

* Support the rescheduling of Russia's $150 billion debt to the Paris Club only in exchange for Moscow's active cooperation in cutting the flow of advanced military technology to Iran and other states;

* Accelerate the development of sea-based missile defense systems to be deployed in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf;

* Strengthen U.S. military ties to the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and encourage the council's members to form a more effective military alliance; and

* Assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve genuine democracy.

HOW RUSSIA HAS CONTRIBUTED TO IRAN'S MILITARY BUILDUP

Concerns over Russia's increasing military ties with Iran, especially in the area of weapons proliferation, have grown since 1994 when senior Iranian officials first took steps to establish relations with Russian bureaucrats in charge of nuclear and missile programs in the post-Soviet military-industrial complex. Up to $25 million changed hands to facilitate Tehran's access to Russian advanced technology.3

After intensive consultations, Vice President Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin on June 30, 1995, signed a confidential agreement that was supposed to limit Moscow's sales of arms to Iran. Russia agreed to supply only weapons specified under the 1989 Soviet-Iranian military agreements and promised not to deliver advanced conventional or "destabilizing" weapons to Iran. Finally, Russia agreed not to sell any weapons to Iran beyond December 31, 1999.4

With sales exceeding $4 billion between 1992 and 2000, however, Iran is now the third largest customer for Russian weapons. Among the systems Russia supplied to Iran in the 1990s are three Kilo-class attack submarines, which could be used to disrupt shipping in the Gulf; eight MiG-29 fighter bombers; 10 Su-24 fighter bombers; and hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers.5

In addition, the Russian Ministry of Nuclear Industry and affiliated firms may have transferred uranium enrichment technology to Iran while building a civilian nuclear reactor slated for completion in 2003 in the Gulf port of Bushehr.6 This technology is necessary in the development of nuclear bombs. Moscow has facilitated the sale of technology to Iran that is used in the manufacture of the Soviet-era SS-4 intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and has helped Iran to develop its Shahab-3 IRBM, which has a range of 1,200 kilometers and is capable of hitting targets throughout the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Israel.7

Cooperation between Moscow and Tehran increased after the election of President Vladimir Putin last spring and Moscow's November 2000 renunciation of the 1995 Gore-Chernomyrdin Agreement.8 Anticipating lucrative arms sales, a large number of Russian hard-line politicians and generals have endorsed Russia's rapprochement with the Islamic Republic.9 For its part, Tehran sees Russia as a valuable source of military technology that Western states have declined to provide since Iran's 1979 revolution.10

A Boost from Official State Visits

Khatami's state visit to Moscow reciprocated the visit of Russian Defense Minister Marshal Igor Sergeev to Tehran in December 2000. Sergeev's visit, in addition to being a major breakthrough in the military relationship between the two governments, was the first visit by a Russian defense minister to the Islamic Republic since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power in 1979.

During his visit to Iran, the former commander of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces toured Iranian aerospace, electronics, and missile facilities and consulted with top Iranian leaders on strategic cooperation in the Middle East and Central Asia.11 Sergeev and his Iranian counterpart discussed a 10-year arms and military technology program worth over $3 billion that would include training for Iranian military officers and engineers at Russian military academies. The representatives agreed that their governments would consult each other on "military doctrines, common challenges and threats," effectively bringing the status of their bilateral ties to that of an informal alliance.12 Sergeev bluntly rejected U.S. concerns about the relationship, telling the Iranian media upon his arrival in that state that "Russia...intends to pursue its own ends."13

During President Khatami's visit to Russia last month, Putin reiterated that stance, stating that Russia has the right to defend itself.14 Iranian officials toured a Russian missile factory and agreed to buy Osa and TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles, which have missile defense capabilities. Khatami also toured a nuclear reactor plant in St. Petersburg and signaled that his country would buy another reactor from Russia. Since Iran already controls some of the world's largest natural gas reserves, the need for two nuclear reactors--at a cost of $1.8 billion--is questionable at best. The reactors could provide cover for a clandestine nuclear weapons program, which could make use of Iranian scientists who currently are studying nuclear physics and ballistic rocketry in Russia and the more than 500 Russian experts currently working in Iran on supposedly peaceful applications of nuclear science.

WHY RUSSIA IS DEALING WITH IRAN

Moscow has two strategic goals in pursuing a military relationship with Iran: keeping its own military-industrial complex solvent and building a coalition in Eurasia to counterbalance U.S. military superiority. Russia has found in Iran a large, oil-rich customer for its military-industrial complex, which supports over 2 million jobs. Russian leaders hoped the export revenues would allow them to save the research and development capabilities and technology base they inherited from the Soviet Union that could be used to develop new major weapons systems for the Russian armed forces and foreign customers. To achieve economies of scale, however, Russia needs access to large arms markets, such as China, India, and Iran.

The state-owned arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, is pursuing such former Soviet clients in the Middle East as Algeria, Libya, and Syria and is developing markets for arms in Latin America and East Asia, from Malaysia to Vietnam. Senior Russian officials reportedly have taken bribes from foreign customers anxious to gain access to Russia's sensitive technologies.15 Moreover, direct payments from foreign customers are often put in offshore bank accounts, from which some funds find their way into private pockets.

More worrisome for U.S. policy planners is the geopolitical dimension of Russian-Iranian rapprochement. In early 1997, then-Foreign Minister Evgeny Primakov and his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Velayati, issued a joint statement calling the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf "totally unacceptable." Primakov sought to build a Eurasian counterbalance to the Euro-Atlantic alliance, which would be based on a coalition that included Russia, China, India, and Iran.16 Such efforts make it likely that the United States and its allies will be the target of Russian-Iranian military cooperation in the future.

The Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic cooperate over a broad range of policy issues, with military ties being an important aspect of relations between the two countries. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran has refrained from actively promoting its brand of Islamic radicalism in the former Soviet republics. Despite fashioning itself as defender of all Muslims, Tehran did little when the Russian military slaughtered tens of thousands of Muslim civilians in the first Chechen war (1994-1996), and it put forth only weak protestations against Moscow's excessive use of force in the second Chechen war (1999-2001). Moscow and Tehran also have cooperated against Afghanistan's radical Taliban regime by supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance opposition coalition; support Armenia rather than the pro-Turkish, pro-Western Azerbaijan; and oppose a "western" route for exporting oil from the Caspian Sea basin through Georgia to Turkey.

Some Russian officials, however, recognize that cooperation with Iran has its limits. As arms control expert Alexei Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee, has warned, technology transfers to Iran may backfire. Within 10 to 15 years, he predicts, Russian technology could be used by radical Islamic terrorists or in Iranian, Algerian, Saudi, Egyptian, and Libyan missiles and other weapons aimed at Russia.17

THE THREAT TO U.S. INTERESTS

Iran's military buildup poses direct threats to U.S. interests in the Middle East.18 Iran has long aspired to play a dominant role in the Middle East and the Islamic world. Under the late Shah as well as the current radical Islamic leadership, Iran has sought to build its military capabilities and its ability to defend itself against Iraq. However, its aspirations go beyond legitimate self-defense. Islamic militants in Iran make little effort to hide the fact that they want to destroy the United States and its ally, Israel.

For example, senior Iranian officials, including the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, repeatedly have denied Israel's right to exist. In a 1998 parade in Tehran, a Shahab-3 missile carrier prominently displayed an inscription that read, "Israel should be wiped off the map."19 By opposing Arab-Israeli peace negotiations and maintaining a militant anti-Israeli posture, Tehran hopes to build support for its leadership role in the Arab and Muslim world. Iran also backs the Hezballah (Party of God) terrorist organization that is based in Lebanon.

A more aggressive, nuclear Iran would cause further political instability that could lead to high oil prices, which would benefit both Russia and Iran as oil exporters. Moreover, a nuclear- and missile-armed Iran could well present a serious challenge to America's allies and major oil exporters in the Gulf. Iran could use its missile capabilities to blackmail the West, deter the United States and its allies from deploying forces to defend oil shipping routes, or deny the U.S. Navy access to the Gulf itself.

According to Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Tehran is "not unlikely" to re-export the sensitive Russian technology for weapons of mass destruction it obtains to militant Muslim regimes or terrorist groups in other countries, from Algeria to Sudan.20 If America's efforts to limit the proliferation of weapons and weapons technologies from China, Russia, and other countries to Iran fail, the United States will have little recourse but to impose sanctions on the violators and take other measures to punish countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

[...]

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rus...sia/BG1425.cfm

[Armenian]

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

Iran's defense minister to visit Armenia



Iran's Defense Minister, Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, is to visit Armenia to discuss the latest developments in the world and region. The Iranian minister, who will head a high-ranking defense delegation, is scheduled to hold talks with Armenian President Robert Kocharian, Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan, and Minister of Defense Michael Harutyunyan. The Defense Ministry said on Sunday that Brigadier General Mohammad-Najjar will also discuss Tehran-Yerevan bilateral ties. The Iranian official's visit that is scheduled for November 6, is taking place at the invitation of his Armenian counterpart.

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

Iran and Armenia defense ministers call for more military ties

Iran defense minister and his Armenian counterpart emphasized on broadening military, industrial and technical ties in a meeting in Yerevan. Brigadier General, Mustafa Mohammad Najar said the geopolitical situation of Iran and Armenia in this region and the positive record of cooperation in the past among many other factors, prepare the ground for further expansion of relations. Strengthening multilateral ties with neighboring countries is one of the principles of Iran's foreign policy, he said while reminding that bilateral ties between Iran and each of the regional countries are in favor of peace and stability of the region. "Expansion of constructive talks whether at regional or international level is the common need of countries which are after preserving their identity and independency within the framework of pursuing localization of regional security," he added. The Armenian defense minister, Mikayel Harutyunyan for his part while appreciating Iran for its influential role in restoring peace and stability in Caucasus region said strengthening Tehran-Yerevan relations supports both countries and the region's interests.

Source: http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.asp...1029891&Lang=E

Iran, Armenia discuss promotion of ties in various fields

Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad- Najjar held talks with his Armenian counterpart Michael Harutyunyan on issues of mutual interest in Yerevan on Wednesday. According to the Defense Ministry, the two sides underlined the need for expansion of ties in all fields, particularly in defense, technical and industrial fields as a symbol of efforts for consolidation of friendship and stability in the region. In the meeting, Mohammad-Najjar referred to historical relations of both countries and their joint ancient civilization, saying that this is considered a strong backup for their bilateral relations. The geopolitical situation of both countries in the region, Armenians living in Iran, Iranians engaged in business activities in Armenia, good neighborliness, and positive cooperation between the two countries have paved the way for expansion of mutual ties more than ever, he noted. He added that Iran's relations with every regional country help strengthen peace and stability in the region. The expansion of interactions and constructive negotiations at regional and international levels are in line with requirements of regional states, which seek to strengthen regional security and peace, the minister said. Harutyunyan, for his part, appreciated Iran's distinguished role in establishing peace and security in the Caucasus region, saying that the expansion of Iran-Armenia relations would help secure mutual interests and consolidate peace and friendship in the region. Expressing satisfaction with the level of bilateral ties, he noted that Armenia calls for broadening of relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran in various fields. he Iranian minister arrived in Armenia on Tuesday and is scheduled to hold talks with Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan Wednesday afternoon.

Source: http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/men...6461164149.htm

[Armenian]

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

Armenia and Iran sign a memorandum on defense cooperation

A memorandum on defense cooperation was signed by the Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar and his Armenian counterpart Micheal Harutunyan in Yerevan on Thursday.

""The consistent policy on defense cooperation between Armenia and Iran will strengthen the atmosphere of trust which has been shaped during centuries and this will become a base for cooperation in favor of peace in both countries,"" Harutunyan said. The defense ministers agreed to take practical steps in near future on issues discussed in the meeting. ""We talked about trade cooperation and we planed to implement our agreements,"" Mohammad-Najjar said. He believed that Armenian-Iranian cooperation would contribute to regional peace and stability. He once again reminded that regional conflicts may be resolved through peaceful methods and Iran is ready to utilize all its capacities for that.

Najjar, who has been on a three-day visit to Armenia since Tuesday, said that the relations between Armenia and Iran can serve as a good example of warm and friendly relations between two nations. Najjar also held a separate meeting with Armenian President Robert Kocharian on Thursday on expansion of cooperation between the two countries. In this meeting, the Armenian president welcomed the recent visit of the Iranian defense minister and expressed hope that it would bear fruitful results for both sides. Supporting the agreement signed by the two countries' defense ministries, he called for implementation of the agreements endorsed by the two sides' presidents in joint statement.

Najjar, for his part, called his meetings with Armenian military officials as fruitful and promising. Iran believes in good neighborliness and establishment of mutual understanding with regional countries and is to do its utmost to consolidate peace in the Caucuses region, Persian Gulf and other parts, he said. It is vital to defuse crisis and security threats in order to prevent unilateralism which would disrupt the world order, he said, adding that comprehensive security would be established through collective cooperation and understanding among regional countries.

Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=156705


Military Protocol Signed between Iran and Armenia an Open Betrayal towards Azerbaijan –Iranian Political Scientist

The military agreement signed between Iran and Armenia when the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh was raging is not good for Tehran. “The military protocol signed between Iran and Armenia is an open betrayal against Azerbaijan,” Alireza Nourizadeh, the Iranian political scientist, said. The military agreement between Iran and Armenia was signed during the visit of the Iranian Defence Minister, General Mustafa Najar, to Armenia on 7. The military protocol, signed without regard to the continued Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, will damage the Iranian-Azerbaijani relations. The agreement is not good for Iran, Nourizadeh said to Trend news agency by the telephone from London on 9 November. Iran does not differ with professional games among diplomatic ones.

Iran needs in Azerbaijani support in its pro-west policy. The Iranian President’s visit to Armenia on 22 October was not a deliberate action. As a result the President had to stop visit and return his country,” the political scientist said. According to Nourizadeh, the United States deputy Defence Minister’s visit to Azerbaijan intended to calm Azerbaijan in its relation to Iran. During the United States deputy Defence Minister’s visit to Azerbaijan he promised defence to Azerbaijan and submitted a security project. The project was ratified by the Milli Majlis (Azerbaijani Parliament) after signing the protocol between Iran and Armenia.

“ Iran keeps isolating itself unsuccessful and betrayal diplomacy. Iran as an older brother can settle the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. However, Iran supports Armenia stirring up the situation,” the Iranian political scientist said.

Source: http://news.trendaz.com/cgi-bin/read...073372&lang=EN

[Armenian]

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

The Neoconservative Agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet – The New Pearl Harbor


Yakhont, supersonic anti-ship missile adjacent to Russian Su-33 Flanker. Note centerline Moskit/Sunburn

The Bush administation has covered up and ignored dissenting Pentagon war games analysis that suggests an attack on Iran’s nuclear or military facilities will lead directly to the annihilation of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet now stationed in the Persian Gulf. Lt. General Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge wargames that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. His experience and conclusions regarding the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to an assymetrical military conflict and the implications for a war against Iran have been ignored. Neoconservatives within the Bush administration are currently aggressively promoting a range of military actions against Iran that will culminate in it attacking the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet with sophisticated cruise anti-ship missiles. They are ignoring Van Riper’s experiences in the Millennium Challenge and how it applies to the current nuclear conflict with Iran.

Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran’s mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration is deliberately downplaying the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to Iran’s advanced missile technology which has been purchased from Russia and China since the late 1990’s. The most sophisticated of Iran’s cruise missiles are the ‘Sunburn’ and ‘Yakhonts’. These are missiles against which U.S. military experts conclude modern warships have no effective defense. By deliberately provoking an Iranian retaliation to U.S. military actions, the neoconservatives will knowingly sacrifice much or all of the Fifth Fleet. This will culminate in a new Pearl Harbor that will create the right political environment for total war against Iran, and expanded military actions in the Persian Gulf region.

The Fifth Fleet’s Vulnerability to Iran’s Anti-Ship Missile Arsenal

The U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet is headquartered in the Gulf State of Bahrain which is responsible for patrolling the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Suez Canal and parts of the Indian Ocean. The Fifth Fleet currently comprises a carrier group and two helicopter carrier ships. Its size peaked at five aircraft carrier groups and six helicopter carriers in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. Presently, it is led by the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier commissioned in 1961, and on November 2, began participating in a Naval exercise in the Persian Gulf .

The Fifth Fleet’s base in Bahrain, is only 150 miles away from the Iranian coast, and would itself be in range of Iran’s new generation of anti-ship cruise missiles. Also, any Naval ships in the confined terrain of the Persian Gulf would have difficulty in maneuvering and would be within range of Iran’s rugged coastline which extends all along the Persian Gulf to the Arabian sea. Iran began purchasing advanced military technology from Russia soon after the latter pulled out in 2000 from the Gore-Chernomyrdin Protocol, which limited Russia’s sales of military equipment to Iran. . Russia subsequently began selling Iran military technology that could be used in any military conflict with the U.S. This included air defense systems and anti-ship cruise missiles in which Russia specialized to offset the U.S. large naval superiority.

Moskit/Sunburn, supersonic anti-ship missile

The SS-N-22 or ‘Sunburn” has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. It contains a conventional warhead of 750 lbs that can destroy most ships. Of even greater concern is Russia’s SSN-X-26 or ‘Yakhonts’ cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles which makes all US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable to attack. More importantly the Yakhonts has been specifically developed for use against Carrier groups, and has been sold by Russia on the international arms trade.

Both the Yakhonts and the Sunburn missiles are designed to defeat the Aegis radar defense currently used on U.S. Navy ships by using stealth technology and low ground hugging flying maneuvers. In their final approaches these missiles take evasive maneuvers to defeat anti-ship missile defenses. So great is the threat posed by the Sunburn, Yakhonts and other advanced anti-ship missiles being developed by Russia and sold to China, Iran and other countries, that the Pentagon’s weapons testing office in 2007 moved to halt production on further aircraft carriers until an effective defense was developed. Iran has purchased sufficient quantities of both the Sunbeam and Yakhonts to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet anywhere in the Persian Gulf from its mountainous coastal terrain.

Millennium Challenge Wargames

The “Millennium Challenge” was one of the largest wargames ever conducted and wargames involved 13,500 troops spread out at over 17 locations. The wargames involved heavy usage of computer simulations, extended over a three week period and cost $250 million. Millennium Challenge involved asymmetrical warfare between the U.S military forces, led by General William Kernan, and an unnamed state in the Persian Gulf. According to General Kernan, the wargames “would test a series of new war-fighting concepts recently developed by the Pentagon.” Using a range of asymmetrical attack strategies using disguised civilian boats for launching attacks, planes in Kamikaze attacks, and Silkworm cruise missiles, much of the Fifth Fleet was sunk. The games revealed how asymmetrical strategies could exploit the Fifth Fleet’s vulnerability against anti-ship cruise missiles in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf.

In a controversial decision, the Pentagon decided to simply ‘refloat’ the Fifth Fleet to continue the exercise which led to the eventual defeat of the Persian Gulf state. The sinking of the Fifth Fleet was ignored and the wargames declared a success for the “new war-fighting concepts” adopted by Gen. Kernan. This led to Lt General Paul Van Riper, the commander of the mythical Gulf State, calling the official results “empty sloganeering”. In a later television interview, General Riper declared “when the concepts that the command was testing failed to live up to their expectations, the command at that point began to script the exercise in order to prove these concepts. This was my critical complaint.”

Chinese manufactured C-802 anti-ship missile

Most significant was General Riper’s claims of the effectiveness of the older Cruise missile technology, the Silkworm missile which were used to sink an aircraft carrier and two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines in the total of 16 ships sunk. When asked to confirm Riper’s claims, General Kernar replied: “Well, I don’t know. To be honest with you. I haven’t had an opportunity to assess what happened. But that’s a possibility… The specifics of the cruise-missile piece… I really can’t answer that question. We’ll have to get back to you”

The Millennium Challenge wargames clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of the US Fifth Fleet to Silkworm cruise missile attacks. This replicated the experience of the British during the 1980 Falklands war where two ships were sunk by three Exocet missiles. Both the Exocet and Silkworm cruise missiles were an older generation of anti-ship missile technology that were far surpassed by the Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. If the Millennium Challenge was a guide to an asymmetrical war with Iran, much of the U.S Fifth Fleet would be destroyed. It is not surprising Millennium Challenge was eventually scripted so that this embarrassing fact was hidden. To date, there has been little public awareness of the vulnerability of the US Fifth Fleet while stationed in the Persian Gulf. It appears that the Bush administration had scripted an outcome to the wargames that would promote its neoconservative agenda for the Middle East.

The Neo-Conservative Strategy to Attack Iran

Neoconservatives share a political philosophy that US dominance of the international system as the world’s sole superpower needs to be extended indefinitely into the 21st century. In early 2006 neoconservatives within the Bush administration began vigorously promoting a new war against Iran due to the alleged threat posed by its nuclear development program. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear development is lawful and in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Since 2004, The Bush administration has been citing intelligence data that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons and must under no circumstances be allowed to do this.

Much of Iran’s nuclear development has occurred in underground facilities built at a depth of 70 feet with hardened concrete overhead that protect them from any known conventional attack. This led to the Bush administration arguing in early 2006 that tactical nuclear weapons would need to be used to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. This culminated in a fierce debate between leading neo-conservatives such as xxxx Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff which remained adamantly opposed. Seymour Hersh in May 2006, reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.'

Subsequent efforts by the neo-conservatives to justify a conventional military attack have been handicapped by widespread public skepticism by the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, and Iran’s compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty according to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA. ElBaradei cites U.S. military assessments that Iran is a few years away from developing weapons grade nuclear fuel that could be used for nuclear weapons. The Bush administration, frustrated by the determined opposition both within the U.S bureaucracy, military and the international community to its plans has adopted a three pronged track strategy for its goal of ‘taking out’ Iran.

[...]

Consequences of Iran being Attacked

In an effort to intimidate Iran, the Bush administration has regularly placed two aircraft carrier group formations in the Persian Gulf . The size and timing of possible U.S. military attacks on Iran’s nuclear and/or military facilities, will influence the speed and scale of an Iranian response. Iran’s response will predictably result in a military escalation that culminates in Iran using its arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles on the U.S. Fifth Fleet and closing off the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping. Iran’s ability to hide and launch cruise missiles from mountainous positions all along the Persian Gulf will make all Fifth Fleet ships in the Persian Gulf vulnerable. The Fifth Fleet would be trapped and unable to escape to safer waters. The Millennium Challenge wargames in 2002 witnessed the sinking of most of the Fifth fleet.

If an attack on Iran were to occur before the end of 2007, it would lead to the destruction of the USS Enterprise with its complement of 5000 personnel on board. Further losses in terms of support ships and other Fifth Fleet naval forces in the Persian Gulf would be catastrophic. An Iranian cruise missile attack would replicate losses at Pearl Harbor where the sinking of five ships, destruction of 188 aircraft and deaths of 2,333 quickly led to a declaration of total war against Imperial Japan by the U.S. Congress.

The declaration of total war against Iran by the U.S. Congress would lead to a sustained bombing campaign and eventual military invasion to bring about regime change in Iran. Military conscription would occur in order to provide personnel for the invasion of Iran, and to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that would come under greater pressure. Tensions would rapidly escalate with other major powers such as Russia and China who have supplied Iran with sophisticated weapons systems that could be used against U.S. military assets. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping and total war conditions in the U.S. would lead to a collapse of the world economy, and further erosion of civil liberties in a U.S. engaged in total war.

Conclusions

The above scenario is very plausible given the military capacities of Iran’s anti-ship cruise missiles and the U.S. Navy’s vulnerability to these while operating in the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration has hidden from the American public the full extent of the Fifth Fleet’s vulnerability, and how it could be trapped and destroyed in a full scale conflict with Iran. This is best evidenced by the controversial decision to downplay the real results of the Millennium Challenge wargames and the dissenting views of Lt. General Van Riper over the lessons to be learned. This culminated in General Van Riper joining a group of retired generals in calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

Neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are fully aware of the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet, yet have at times tried to place up to three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf which would only augment U.S. losses in any war with Iran. Yet the Bush administration has still attempted to move forward with plans for nuclear, conventional and/or covert attacks on Iran which would precipitate much of the terrible scenario described above.

A reasonable conclusion to draw is that neoconservatives within the Bush administration are willing to sacrifice much or all of the U.S. Fifth Fleet by militarily provoking Iran to launch its anti-ship cruise missile arsenal in order to justify ‘total war’ against Iran, and force regime change. A new Pearl Harbor can be averted by making accountable Bush administration officials willing to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet in pursuit of a neoconservative agenda.

Source: http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/hom.../08/01932.html