Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Will Turkey be complicit in another war against another neighbour?
by Cem Ertür Page 1 of 3 page(s)
Despite the the latest positive report of the IAEA on Iran' nuclear programme [1], efforts to launch a war against Iran are gathering pace [2].
Given the unpopularity of such a war, the big powers are keeping very quiet about it whilst using highly sophisticated methods to psychologically prepare their citizens. At the same time, all we hear about Turkey in the Western European and North American mainstream media is the accession talks with the European Union, the conflict between the religious AKP government and the country’s secular establishment (including the military) and the cross-border operations into Northern Iraq.
Is there no connection between Turkey and this new threat of war? How does psychological preparation work in the case of Turkey? What pressure are the leading NATO countries putting on the Turkish Government? How is the extra-parliamentary opposition reacting to the prospective next stage of the ‘Global War on Terror’?
THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
In 2006, researcher Michel Chossudovsky commented on an alliance that was described earlier by the Middle East Report as ‘probably the greatest strategic move in the Clinton post-Cold War years’: Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This ‘triple alliance’ is … coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. Amply documented, Israel and Turkey are partners in the planned US aerial attacks on Iran, which have been in an advanced state of readiness since mid-2005. [3] The recent state visits by the Israeli President Shimon Peres and the Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak to Turkey were the clearest indication yet of this alliance against Iran.
STATE VISITS BY ISRAELI DEFENCE MINISTER BARAK AND PRESIDENT PERES.
On board his plane on the way to Ankara on February 11, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said that he would present Turkey's top leadership with Israeli intelligence reports on Iran’s nuclear plans: It is important to … try to convince [Turkey] of the facts. [4] In the wake of this visit, the Israeli defence officials have given the following statements: Turkey was interested in acquiring a missile defense system in the face of Iran's continued race toward nuclear power. [5] All of the countries in the region understand that the Iranian threat is not just against Israel. Iran's long-range missiles can reach well beyond Israel. [6] However, Barak had a different attitude towards Syria: Turkey has a natural role in certain mediation and has found a proper way to dialogue with Syria. There is respect for Turkey in both Syria and Lebanon. This respect should be used for blocking the flow of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah through Syria. We respect Syria but we also expect Syria to have respect for Israel's identity as well. You cannot impose peace. … It takes two willing parties. [7] This statement should be seen as part of the divide-and-rule strategy of isolating Iran.
As the leading NATO allies will not be able to attack Iran and Syria simultaneously, they need to break the strategic alliance between these two countries and go one step at a time. Barak’s statements echoed those by the Israeli President Shimon Peres during his visit to Ankara in November last year.Writer Kemal Camurcu analyses Peres’ speech at the Turkish Parliament to a committee with majority from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) parliamentarians: Peres was applauded by the AKP parliamentarians for saying ‘You don't realize and you don't understand, your real enemy is your next-door neighbour Iran!’. The purpose of his visit was to declare to the whole region that ‘There are the two trends in the region: Iran as a sponsor of terrorism and pro-peace Turkey’. He declared it and received applause! Given his interviews, his speech in the Turkish Parliament and the news items on ‘intelligence-sharing’, it is plausible to argue that the sole purpose of Peres' visit was to explain to Ankara the ‘Iranian threat’. [8]
These statements were all the more significant considering that they were made at a time when the US, Israel and their European allies were desperate to get support for the Annapolis Conference in the face of widespread opposition to this initiative across the Arab World. However, this went largely unreported in the mainstream Turkish media. The Deputy Head of the Felicity Party (Saadet Partisi) Mr Sevket Kazan explains the real agenda behind this conference: This war against Iran will be launched by the US and Israel with the support of Turkey. Once the power of these two has proved insufficient, the UK, France and finally NATO forces –including Turkey- will also get involved. [9]
US AND ISRAELI SUPPORT AGAINST THE KURDISH SEPARATIST PKK.
At a joint press conference with his visiting Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak, Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul said: We thank Israel for its support to Turkey in the defense industry. We thank Mr. Barak for sending equipment and devices that Turkey uses in the south-east and in cross border operations [against the PKK]. [10] In the run-up to this visit, alternative website Fikritakip made the following remark: For some time it has been striking that every evening Show TV has introduced at great length the ‘high-tech’ arms and defence systems provided by Israel to Turkey in the latter’s struggle with the PKK.
This shows that the nationalist circles, which are thought to be anti-Israel, are in reality grateful to this country for its support against the PKK. [11] The Turkish media reporting on the US support against the PKK was along the same lines and proved to be instrumental in dissipating the anti-American feelings across the Turkish population. In fact, until the US support began late last year, they were being accused by the Turkish mainstream media and politicians of not only turning a blind eye to the PKK’s use of violence, but also of providing covert support to it. In a newspaper article, former parliamentarian Mehmet Bekaroglu asks the following question: Isn’t it strange that the US declares the PKK ‘a common enemy of Turkey, the United States and Iraq’, while also encouraging, or even arming, training and providing intelligence support to the same PKK under the name of PJAK, against another country in the region, namely Iran? [12]
Actually, this is not all that strange considering the divide-and-rule strategy of the US, the EU and Israel across the Muslim world based on the exploitation of all the existing hostilities and divisions. Until recently, they were simultaneously supporting the Turkish Armed Forces, the PKK and its sister organisation PJAK as well as the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. According to the Firat News Agency, the reason behind the US support is: An agreement made between the US, Turkey and the Federal Administration of South Kurdistan for the construction in South and North Kurdistan [i.e. Northern Iraq and South-eastern Turkey respectively] of two strategic US military bases targeting Iran. [13] The base in Turkey is reportedly located in the Yuksekova district at the Iranian border.
Needless to say, in the event of a war on Iran, the US and its leading NATO allies will be using all the bases on the Turkish territory at their disposal, including the secrets ones. It is important to bear in mind that the notorious US military base in Incirlik (Southern Turkey), which has played a crucial role in all the Anglo-American invasions in the Middle East in the post-cold war period, contains 90 nuclear warheads. In retrospect, the rejection of the March 2003 parliamentary motion to allow US troops to use Turkish soil as a staging ground for an invasion of Iraq didn’t seem to have much of an impact as the US army clandestinely went ahead with its plans anyway.
THE MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM.
Turkey is playing a regional leadership role in the Middle East. Turkey's common borders with Iraq, Iran, and Syria provide an opportunity to advance peace and stability, fight proliferation of nuclear weapons, and defeat terrorists in a region that is now the epicenter of U.S. foreign policy. [14] (US Under Secretary for Political Affairs Richard Burns, in the wake of his visit to Turkey in September 2007) The Head of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency General Henry Obering recently said: The United States hopes to put a third major antimissile component in Europe along with those under negotiation with Poland and the Czech Republic to counter Iran. The previously unannounced third leg in Europe would be placed closer to Iran, which is speeding efforts to build ballistic missiles capable of delivering deadly weapons beyond the Middle East.
The powerful, ‘forward based’ radar system would go in south-eastern Europe, possibly in Turkey, the Caucasus or the Caspian Sea region. [15] Actually, ‘the previously unannounced third leg in Europe’ was announced back in March 2007 by the US Ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland: The defence system against long-range missiles of Iran and other countries will cover most of the territories of the NATO members and there will be no need for a second system within NATO. But the threat of Iran’s short- and medium-range missiles is still present for countries like Turkey. In order to counter that, as USA and Turkey, we are working bilaterally as well as within the NATO framework. [16]
PRESSURE TO CUT ECONOMIC TIES WITH IRAN.
Like Iran’s main trading partners in the EU, Turkey has been under heavy and ongoing US pressure to cut its economic ties with Iran: Turkey's recent conclusion of a memorandum on energy co-operation with Iran is troubling. Now is not the time for business as usual with Iran. We urge all of our friends and allies, including Turkey, to not reward Iran by investing in its oil and gas sector, while Iran continues to defy the United Nations Security Council by continuing its nuclear research for a weapons capability. [14] In January this year, Stuart Levey, US Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, urged Turkey to be vigilant in its financial dealings with Iran: It is essential to share information to discuss risks ... and vigilance that is required in order to make sure that Turkey's financial institutions are not abused by Iranian financial institutions and Iranian state-owned banks. [17]
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Russia to explore for oil, gas in Iran
The Islamic Republic may cooperate with Russia's energy giant Gazprom in oil and gas exploration activities in Iran, news reports say. Iranian Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari and Russian energy giant Gazprom Chief Executive Officer Alexei Miller discussed the issue in Tehran on Tuesday, Shana news agency reported. The two officials discussed cooperation in Caspian Sea oil and gas projects and forming a joint venture to construct an oil refinery in Armenia. Miller also voiced interest in developing Iran's North Pars and South Pars gas fields. Nozari had announced in mid-January that Gazprom would submit its proposals on Iran's oil and gas projects by March 2008.
Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020103Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Russian ruble could be used in oil trade deals in Iran - envoy
The Russian ruble could be used as a payment instrument for deals on an Iranian oil exchange, the Islamic Republic's ambassador to Moscow said on Friday. "Possibly in the future, we'll be able to use the ruble, Russia's national currency, in our operations," Gholamreza Ansari said, adding that the Islamic Republic was currently busy launching a new oil trade exchange. The Islamic Republic's oil minister, Gholam-Hossein Nozari, earlier said that Iran would launch on February 27 a commodities exchange for oil, petrochemicals and natural gas on the Persian Gulf island of Kish and that all financial settlements would be made in Iran's national currency, the rial.
Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080215/99314908.htmlLeave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Iran Nearing N. Victory
A senior presidential advisor, Mojtaba Samareh-Hashemi, stressed that Iran is taking the final steps toward resolving the nuclear issue. "The Iranian nation will traverse these final steps to victory regarding the nuclear issue, meaning that no other power is able to force the Iranian nation to surrender," press tv quoted Samarah-Hashemi as saying during his address to a gathering of the children of Iranian martyrs in Tehran on Thursday. "The nuclear issue has been Iran's biggest challenge after the Islamic Revolution. The most important thing about this matter is that we want to send the message that we will not give into bullying," he insisted. In his speech Samareh-Hashemi said the West must go and try to find a solution to the two previous rounds of sanctions that had been "passed based on a series of accusations". He added that the West had "shamed the Security Council".
The US is at odds with Iran over Tehran's independent and home-grown nuclear technology. Washington has laid much pressure on Iran to make it give up the most sensitive and advanced part of the technology, which is uranium enrichment, a process used for producing nuclear fuel for power plants. Washington's push for additional UN penalties contradicted a recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies that endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's programs. Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and a similar report by the IAEA head in November which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities, Russia and China increased resistance to any further punitive measures by the Security Council. Tehran says it never worked on atomic weapons and wants to enrich uranium merely for civilian purposes, including generation of electricity, a claim substantiated by the NIE and IAEA reports.
Iran has insisted it would continue enriching uranium because it needed to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it was building in the southwestern town of Darkhovin. Last year Iran agreed on a work plan with the Vienna-based IAEA that was intended to clear up all outstanding questions about Tehran's past nuclear activities. Iran has pledged to clear up all remaining questions over the program by late February. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said on Sunday he was making progress in wrapping up his investigation. The report is expected this week, diplomats in Vienna say.
Not only many Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but also many other world nations have called the UN Security Council pressure unjustified, especially in the wake of recent IAEA reports saying Iran had increased cooperation with the agency. US President George W. Bush, who finished a tour of the Middle East earlier this month has called on his Arab allies to unite against Iran. But hosting officials of the regional nations dismissed Bush's allegations, describing Tehran as a good friend of their countries. Bush's attempt to rally international pressure against Iran has lost steam due to the growing international vigilance, specially following the latest IAEA and US intelligence reports.
Source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8611200431Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Incorrect jigar jan, there are many individuals that disagree with me and I don't call them idiot and I have great respect for them. For example: Virgil, Axel, Skhara, Annonymouse, etc.Originally posted by Sip View Post
I call simply idiots, idiot.
Simple as that.
And I don't know how many different ways I am going to explain this to you but the matter concerning Iran is not a sociological matter, it's a geopolitical matter. Frankly, I don't care how they live in Iran, its not any of my business. And it surely isn't the business of Washington DC. If the population in Iran is really that disgusted with their regime let them have a popular uprising and over throw their government themselves, as all other disgruntled nations have done at one time or another throughout history. However, since there are international forces waiting to exploit such a situation in Iran, I wouldn't even support an internal public uprising in Iran at this time.
What you are advocating against Iran is idiotic and horrible at the same time. As bad as the current Iranian regime seems to be, any forceful change of government in Tehran will have catastrophic affects on Iranians. And such a situation is extremely dangerous for the Armenian Republic as well. So, I much rather have public hangings of undesirables once in a while in Iran than have the entire country descend into chaos resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and God know what other unforeseen geopolitical consequences.
Fundamental humans right of people living in nations like Iran, as well as Israel and Turkey, are none of your business. Armenian problems with nations like Turkey and Azerbaijan are geopolitical problems in nature. Even if Turkey and Azerbaijan transform themselves overnight into the most civilized of nations, we will still continue to have geopolitical problems with them. Besides which, when I see Washington DC imposing their lofty ideals on Israelis, Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis and Turks - I would take their rhetoric against Iran much-much more seriously. In essence, this is what you are failing to comprehend for some strange reason.Now back to the main issue at hand .. do you, Crusader, also agree with Armenian that fundamental human rights issues and freedoms are irrelevant when dealing with Iran and other middle eastern countries (yes including Israel, and Turkey .. I am not excluding those)?
The US is not interested in human rights, freedom and/or democracy anywhere on earth. Those catchy phrases are used to manipulate idiots in this country. The US is interested in its national interests, in other words the interests of mega-corporations, the defense industry, the oil lobby, the Israeli lobby.
I think we should do all in our power to forestall any attack on Iran by American or Israeli forces. And if they do get attacked we should pray that they defeat their aggressors. The fall of the current regime in Tehran could have dire consequences for the entire region, not to mention the Armenian Republic.Do you think we should act as cheer leaders to the "great" Islamic Republic of Iran? (and if so, why? What possible logical reason does that serve?).
Thus, long Live the Islamic Revolution...
This a matter of geopolitics, a matter obviously you are very unfamiliar with. I know you want to reduce this serious geopolitical matter to miniskirts, masturbation, public drinking and foo-foos, but it won't work with me and it will only serve to show your utter ignorance. The current state of Iran plays a very important role as a balancing power in the region against Arab Sunni fundamentalism and Zionist forces. When you get your head out of your ass one day you'll realize what I mean.Furthermore, does being anti-US or anti-Israel automatically mean one HAS to be pro fundamental Islamic Iran?
That is how politics work, that is how its always been, I suggest you wake up and grow up.Further furthermore, do you also think that just because Iran has been a somewhat good ally of Armenia, one necessarily has to cheer for, kiss the ass of, and/or agree with all the positions taken by the Mullah's that are currently in charge, on all matters?
Long Live the Islamic Revolution...
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Originally posted by Sip View PostCrusader, weren't you also b!tching to be taken seriously? So what happened? As soon as a serious thing comes up, you want to start calling everyone who disagrees with something you say an idiot too (like Armenian tends to do)?
The irony is exactly that ... seems like you and Armenian only demand seriousness when it suits your needs and as soon as a slightly uncomfortable topic is raised, everyone but yourself somehow ends up being an idiot, childish, stupid, an old self hater, etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Now back to the main issue at hand .. do you, Crusader, also agree with Armenian that fundamental human rights issues and freedoms are irrelevant when dealing with Iran and other middle eastern countries (yes including Israel, and Turkey .. I am not excluding those)? Do you think we should act as cheer leaders to the "great" Islamic Republic of Iran? (and if so, why? What possible logical reason does that serve?). Furthermore, does being anti-US or anti-Israel automatically mean one HAS to be pro fundamental Islamic Iran? (we already know Armenian thinks so). Further furthermore, do you also think that just because Iran has been a somewhat good ally of Armenia, one necessarily has to cheer for, kiss the ass of, and/or agree with all the positions taken by the Mullah's that are currently in charge, on all matters?
How did you say it? "Chillax"?
Anyway Sip, the point I was making about the irony statement is that 99% of your posts are just flip remarks (even when it comes to the subject of the Genocide - which I don't get at all). Moreover, your remarks, at worst, are condesending and at best, signify nothing. In short Sip, either you try to piss the general audiance off or you waste the forums bandwidth.
...so, now that you have something to say, you want to be taken seriously. OK fine, I'm glad there is a serious side to you. Keep it up and gain my respect.
As far as your other questions are concerned, I can sum it up by saying that Iran's internal problems/struggles is of no concern to Armenia at this point. Right now, Armenia should be concentraing on solving its own problems. Also, I think your emotional investment in Iranian civil rights would be better spent in helping Armenia.
It's all about priorities and resources Sip.
Btw, how do we fix Irans civil rights issues in Iran. Should we lobby the USA to start another regime change war? Should Armenia close its border with Iran in protest?Last edited by crusader1492; 02-06-2008, 05:19 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Crusader, weren't you also b!tching to be taken seriously? So what happened? As soon as a serious thing comes up, you want to start calling everyone who disagrees with something you say an idiot too (like Armenian tends to do)?
The irony is exactly that ... seems like you and Armenian only demand seriousness when it suits your needs and as soon as a slightly uncomfortable topic is raised, everyone but yourself somehow ends up being an idiot, childish, stupid, an old self hater, etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Now back to the main issue at hand .. do you, Crusader, also agree with Armenian that fundamental human rights issues and freedoms are irrelevant when dealing with Iran and other middle eastern countries (yes including Israel, and Turkey .. I am not excluding those)? Do you think we should act as cheer leaders to the "great" Islamic Republic of Iran? (and if so, why? What possible logical reason does that serve?). Furthermore, does being anti-US or anti-Israel automatically mean one HAS to be pro fundamental Islamic Iran? (we already know Armenian thinks so). Further furthermore, do you also think that just because Iran has been a somewhat good ally of Armenia, one necessarily has to cheer for, kiss the ass of, and/or agree with all the positions taken by the Mullah's that are currently in charge, on all matters?Last edited by Sip; 02-06-2008, 04:34 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Does anyone else see the irony of Sip's statement?Originally posted by Sip View PostHow can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when you say stupid things like this? I mean is this REALLY how your mind works or are you just pretending to not get it, just so that you don't have to admit you've been an idiot on certain points?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously when you say stupid things like this? I mean is this REALLY how your mind works or are you just pretending to not get it, just so that you don't have to admit you've been an idiot on certain points?Originally posted by Armenian View Post
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
Iran claims launch into 'space' of rocket capable of taking satellites
Iran signalled its ambition to join the elite group of nations in space yesterday by claiming to have reached orbit with a rocket capable of carrying satellites. In a move that drew criticism from the Bush administration, Iranian television beamed footage of the rocket, called Explorer-1, being fired after Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, gave the launch order. Officials in the control room were heard chanting "God is great" as it lifted off. State TV said the rocket had reached "space", generally defined as 62.5miles above earth. The launch is a major landmark for Ahmadinejad, who said during a ceremony opening Iran's first space centre: "We need to have an active and influential presence in space. Building and launching a satellite is a very important achievement."
During his visit, he also donned special glasses to view a 3-D film about space. A White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, condemned the test, saying: "It's unfortunate Iran continues to test ballistic missiles. This regime continues to take steps that only further isolate it and the Iranian people from the international community." The test was a forerunner to the anticipated launch early next year of Iran's first satellite, Omid (Hope), which Iranian scientists have reportedly spent 10 years developing. If it is fired successfully, Iran will become the 11th nation to have its own satellite in orbit since the Soviet Union successfully launched the first in 1957. A satellite jointly developed by Iran and Russia was launched on Russian soil in 2005.
Iran insists the Omid satellite will be used to improve phone and internet services while also monitoring natural disasters. But some analysts say it will also give the Islamic regime the capacity to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are guided using satellite technology. Bhavini Rama, at the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, said Tehran had not released enough detail for observers to assess whether Omid could be used for such purposes. "It's probably going to be an observation satellite and could be used for intelligence purposes," she said. "This is a big step for Iran but it still has a long way to go in terms of catching up with the US and other space powers."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2252546,00.htmlLeave a comment:
Leave a comment: