Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

I think it is quite relevant considering Iran's stance on such things. Are you saying the ruling to sentence the student to death is a result of "US democracy" or maybe it is fundamental Islam? I will ask you again ... what do YOU, Armenian, think is Iran's stance on this issue?

Who cares what they think about it? What bearing does it have on geopolitics, anyway? How does this change any of what's been going on in the region? Are you foolish enough to believe that if Iran stopped killings foo-foos and criminals and had their women start walking around in miniskirts somehow Washington and Tel Aviv will cancel their plans of attacking Iran? Let Islamic nations live whichever way they know how to live. Anti-Iranian forces are simply using whatever pretext they can find to go ahead with their aggression. With Islamic nations, the pretext is easy to find, most often its sociological issues. In other nations, such as Serbia, they make up bogus BS about genocide of Albanians. Which begs the question, why isn't Washington getting bent out of shape over the killings that go on in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? What about the so-called genocides that are said to be going on in Africa? Is this how simple your mind works?

Long live the Islamic Revolution of Iran!

[Sip]

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

How is this story relevant in this thread? If anything, this story says a lot about how successful (or how disingenuous) the US has been in bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to third world savages. Nevertheless, there is probably more to this story than is being reported.

I think it is quite relevant considering Iran's stance on such things. Are you saying the ruling to sentence the student to death is a result of "US democracy" or maybe it is fundamental Islam? I will ask you again ... what do YOU, Armenian, think is Iran's stance on this issue?

And please don't try to confuse things by how horrible US and Israel are ... the issue at hand is MUCH more fundamental than dirty politics.

[skhara]

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

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10608425

Has Iran won?

WHO would have thought that a friendless theocracy with a Holocaust-denying president, which hangs teenagers in public and stones women to death, could run diplomatic circles around America and its European allies? But Iran is doing just that. And it is doing so largely because of an extraordinary own goal by America's spies, the team behind the duff intelligence that brought you the Iraq war.

It doesn't take a fevered brain to assume that if Iran's ayatollahs get their hands on the bomb, the world could be in for some nasty surprises. Iran's claim that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful is widely disbelieved. That is why Russia and China joined America, Britain, France and Germany at the UN Security Council to try to stop Iran enriching uranium. Until two months ago they seemed ready to support a third and tougher sanctions resolution against Iran. But then America's spies spoke out, and since then five painstaking years of diplomacy have abruptly unravelled (see article).

The intelligence debacle over Iraq has made spies anxious about how their findings are used. That may be why they and the White House felt it right to admit, in a National Intelligence Estimate in December, that they now think Iran halted clandestine work on nuclear warheads five years ago. As it happens, this belief is not yet shared by Israel or some of America's European allies, who see the same data. But no matter: the headline was enough to pull the rug from under the diplomacy. In Berlin last month, the Russians and Chinese made it clear that if there is a third resolution, it will be a mild slap on the wrist, not another turn of the economic screw.

At the same time, Iran is finding an ally in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Its director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, is a Nobel peace-prize winner who is crusading to confound those he calls “the crazies” in Washington by helping Iran to set its nuclear house in order, receive a clean bill of health and so avert the possibility of another disastrous war.

Honest spies, a peace-loving nuclear watchdog. What can be wrong with that? Nothing: unless the honesty of the spies is deliberately misconstrued and the watchdog fails to do its actual job of sniffing out the details of Iran's nuclear activities.
Thanks for letting us off

Beaming like cats at the cream, a posse of Iranians went to January's World Economic Forum in Davos claiming a double vindication. Had not America itself now said that Iran had no weapons programme? Was not Iran about to give the IAEA the answers it needed to “close” its file? In circumstances like these, purred Iran's foreign minister, there was no case for new sanctions, not even the light slap Russia and China prefer.

Yet Iran's argument is a travesty. Although the National Intelligence Estimate does say that Iran probably stopped work on a nuclear warhead in 2003, it also says that Iran was indeed doing such work until then, and nobody knows how far it got. The UN sanctions are anyway aimed not at any warhead Iran may or may not be building in secret, but at what it is doing in full daylight, in defiance of UN resolutions, to enrich uranium and produce plutonium. We need this for electricity, says Iran. But it could fuel a bomb. And once a country can produce such fuel, putting it in a warhead is relatively easy.

Some countries, it is true, are allowed to enrich uranium without any fuss. The reason for depriving Iran of what it calls this “right” is a history of deception that led the IAEA to declare it out of compliance with its nuclear safeguards. So it is essential that Mr ElBaradei's desire to end this confrontation does not now tempt him to gloss over the many unanswered questions. With a lame duck in the White House and sanctions unravelling, Iran really would be home free then.

Would it be so tragic if a tricky Iran were to slip the net of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? North Korea quit the treaty and carried out a bomb test in 2006. Israel never joined, saying coyly only that it won't be the first to “introduce” nuclear weapons into the region—but won't be the second either. India and Pakistan, two other outsiders, have already strutted their stuff. Why should one more gate-crasher spoil the party?

One obvious danger is that a nuclear-armed Iran, or one suspected of being able to weaponise at will, could set off a chain reaction that turns Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, even Turkey rapidly nuclear too. America and the Soviet Union, with mostly only their own cold war to worry about, had plenty of brushes with catastrophe. Multiplying Middle Eastern nuclear rivalries would drive up exponentially the risk that someone could miscalculate—with dreadful consequences.
Time for Plan B

For some this threat alone justifies hitting Iran's nuclear sites before it can build the bomb they fear it is after. But if Iran is bent on having a bomb, deterrence is better. Mr Bush has already said that America will keep Israel from harm. By extending its security umbrella to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, America might stifle further rivalry before the region goes critical.

Much better, however, to avoid a nuclear Iran altogether. Mr Bush says diplomacy can still do this. It is hard to see how. But he does have one card up his sleeve: the offer of a grand bargain to address the gamut of differences between America and Iran, from the future of Iraq to the Middle East peace process. So far Iran's leaders have brushed aside America's offer of talks “anytime, anywhere” and about “anything” by pointing to the condition attached: that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment. Strangely enough, the best way to put pressure on Iran's rulers now is for America to drop that rider.

There would need to be a time limit or Iran could simply enrich on regardless, with what looked like the world's blessing. Similarly Russia and China would need to agree to much tougher sanctions to help concentrate minds. Iran's leaders may still say no. But the ayatollahs would have to explain to ordinary Iranians why they should pay such a high price in prosperity forgone for making a fetish out of not talking, and out of technologies that aren't even needed to keep the lights on. If Iran's leaders cannot be persuaded any other way, perhaps they can be embarrassed out of their bomb plans.

[Armenian]

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

I wonder what Iran's stance is on this bullsh!t.

How is this story relevant in this thread? If anything, this story says a lot about how successful (or how disingenuous) the US has been in bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to third world savages. Nevertheless, there is probably more to this story than is being reported.

[Sip]

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

Afghan Student Sentenced to Death for Downloading Internet Report

Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country's rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after "liberation" and under the democratic rule of the West's ally Hamid Karzai.

Full story ... I wonder what Iran's stance is on this bullsh!t.

[Armenian]

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

U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN WILL CHANGE IF DEMOCRAT ELECTED PRESIDENT

If a Democrat elected the president of the United States, the policy toward Iran will undergo changes, said Richard Holbrooke, an adviser to presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. “We wish to establish direct ties with Tehran, may be with assistance of France. The Bush administration was guided by an absurd idea to fight in Iraq and challenge Iran simultaneously. This is an erroneous idea engendered mostly by variance between Republicans and Democrats. The talks with Iran should focus not only on the nuclear program but also on Hamas and Hezbollah,” he said. “The data provided by the U.S. intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities has cardinally changed the situation. This was a real outbreak of the secret services which openly refused the role of puppets as it was in case with Iraq. That was a real revanche! The reports shocked everyone and the president, first of all. Under the circumstances, the Bush administration will never dare to attack Iran,” Mr Holbrooke said in an interview with Le Monde.

Crusader, nothing will change in America regardless of who is elected. Republican, Democrat - they are simply two branches of one party. Not much different from the Soviet system. The only difference between the Soviets and the US is that Americans had a higher standard of living and a superbly well maintained national myth. Nevertheless, public officials in America are merely spokespersons and representatives of special interest and the corporate elite. Politics in America today is a well oiled, well operated close circuit machine. There is no such thing as "democracy" or "elections," its all a dazzling circus, a form of public display. Once in a while, we get see real American patriots like Ron Paul running for the presidency. However, the chances for men like Ron Paul getting elected as American president is as high as your chances for getting elected.

[crusader1492]

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

U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN WILL CHANGE IF DEMOCRAT ELECTED PRESIDENT

If a Democrat elected the president of the United States, the policy toward Iran will undergo changes, said Richard Holbrooke, an adviser to presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. “We wish to establish direct ties with Tehran, may be with assistance of France. The Bush administration was guided by an absurd idea to fight in Iraq and challenge Iran simultaneously. This is an erroneous idea engendered mostly by variance between Republicans and Democrats. The talks with Iran should focus not only on the nuclear program but also on Hamas and Hezbollah,” he said. “The data provided by the U.S. intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities has cardinally changed the situation. This was a real outbreak of the secret services which openly refused the role of puppets as it was in case with Iraq. That was a real revanche! The reports shocked everyone and the president, first of all. Under the circumstances, the Bush administration will never dare to attack Iran,” Mr Holbrooke said in an interview with Le Monde.

[Armenian]

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

[Armenian]

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

Iran Says It Could Attack US Bases

Iran's top military commander said Saturday that his forces would retaliate against American military bases in the Persian Gulf if they are involved in any possible future attack on Iran. General Mohammad Ali Jaafari, commander of the Iran's Revolutionary Guards, told Al-Jazeera television that it is Iran's "natural right to respond" if attacked by land or air. But he assured Arab Gulf countries — some of whom are home to U.S. military bases — that only American forces would come under counterattack. "We realize that there is worry among neighboring countries — Muslim countries whose lands host U.S. military stations," Jaafari said. He spoke in Farsi, which the network dubbed over in Arabic. "However, if the U.S. launches a war against us, and if it uses these stations to attack Iran with missiles, then through the strength and precision of our own missiles, we are capable of targeting only the U.S. military forces who attack us," he told the station. On a recent visit to the Gulf countries, President Bush branded Iran the leading state sponsor of terror, and said "all options" against Tehran remain on the table. Many of the Gulf's Sunni Arab states want Washington to keep Shiite Iran's ambitions in check, but are nervous about the impact of any military confrontation. The U.S. military has several bases in Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Yemen. Many Gulf Arabs have expressed concern that those bases make them vulnerable to attack.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...bb95gD8UDRED80

[Armenian]

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

Israel may have to take military action against Iran: Bolton

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said on Monday that Israel may have to take military action to prevent its archfoe Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb. Bolton also said that further UN sanctions against the Islamic republic will be ineffective in stopping Iran's controversial nuclear programme which Israel and the US believe is aimed at developing a bomb -- a claim denied by Tehran. One can say with some assurance that in the next year the use of force by the United States is highly unlikely," Bolton told AFP on the sidelines of the Herzliya conference on the balance of Israel's national security. "That increases the pressure on Israel in that period of time... if it feels Iran is on the verge of acquiring that capability, it brings the decision point home to use force," he said.

The hawkish former diplomat said that after a US intelligence report published late last year that claimed Iran had suspended a nuclear weapons programme in 2003, the US was unlikely to take military action against it. "The pressure is on Israel now after the National Intelligence Estimate because, I think, the likelihood of American use of force has been dramatically reduced," he said. Widely considered the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, Israel considers Iran its number one enemy following repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the xxxish state to be wiped off the map.

Bolton said that military action against Iran should be taken before Tehran acquires a bomb. "The calculus in the region changes dramatically once Iran has nuclear capability, meaning the preemptive use of force or the overthrow of the Iranian regime has to come before they get the weapon," Bolton said. "If you are worried about an Iran with nuclear weapons and an extreme theological regime in power, the time to take the plan of action is before Iran acquires the weapons.

"Once it acquires the weapons there is a risk of retaliation with nuclear capability and that's why Israel is in danger -- it is a very small country and two or three nuclear weapons (and) there is no more country. The pressure to act is intensive and the window of time available is narrow." Bolton also said that despite Iranian threats to hit hard if it is attacked, "their response will be a lot more measured than people think." Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week said that all options were on the table to prevent an Iranian bomb. The Israeli military last week also successfully test-fired a ballistic missile said to be able to carry a non-conventional warhead.

Bolton said that a new round of United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran was "unlikely" and that Tehran would not be deterred by further diplomatic sanctions. "Maybe there will be another resolution but it will be even more toothless than the previous two sanction resolutions... International pressure through diplomacy of sanction has no chance of shifting Iran's policies over the next year." A senior Israeli security official said in reaction that "one should listen very closely to what Bolton has to say."

Source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...0MaLy1mhuH3N1g

ANALYSIS: New Israeli spy satellite sends Iran a message

The pre-dawn launch Monday of a new reconnaissance satellite further establishes Israel as one of the world's superpowers in space, and grants it an important further intelligence advantage over its rivals. The primary intelligence contribution of the TECSAR satellite, manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries, lies in improving capabilities of intelligence gathering and coverage over Iran. Although planned several years ago and delayed a number of times of late, the launch sends anew a message to Iran that Israel continues to maintain its superiority in the field of intelligence in space. The message coincidentally accompanies last week's high-profile launch of an Israeli Jericho ballistic missile, also intended as a signal to the leaders of Iran.

The launch of an Israeli satellite atop an Indian missile from a launch site in India bears a number of additional advantages. First, it enables Israel to establish a new point of view in space, allowing it photographic angles which were unavailable in prior satellite launches. The direction of the launch, from the east and opposite to the earth's rotation, allows Israel increased coverage of sites in Iran. TECSAR's optical capability is based on SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) technology and on its cameras, which are more advanced than those employed by the Ofek intelligence satellites developed and used by Israel. Image resolution will be better, sharper, and of higher overall quality. The radar technology aboard TECSAR renders its photo abilities usable under all earth weather conditions, including dense clouds, rain, and storms, and at night as well as during the daylight hours.

One of the world's space superpowers

Even before the Monday launch, Israel could take pride in being one of the world's superpowers in space, along with the United States, Russia, France, Britain, China and India. At the moment, Israel has three reconnaissance satellites in space, Ofek 5, launched in May, 2002, Ofek 7, sent into orbit last July, and TECSAR. It also has three communications satellites of the Amos and EROS series. This satellite system furnishes visual intelligence from radar. The launch is also an expression of the growing cooperation between Israel and India in the security sphere as a whole, and in particular in the fields of missiles, radar, and satellites. India is currently the most important export market for Israeli weapons systems, hardware, know-how, and technology. Although command, control, and supervision of the TECSAR will be in Israel's hands, The Times of India has reported that Israel will allow India access to some of the data sent back to ground stations. This is a sensitive issue for Israel, because it may spark anger in Pakistan. On the other hand, Iran, which has close ties with India, which in the past supplied Tehran with materials and equipment for developing chemical weaponry, would be expected to be angry with India over the launch of an Israeli satellite.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/946765.html

Iran defiant after Israeli missile test

Israel tested a missile on Thursday, prompting Iran to vow retaliation if the xxxish state carried out recent veiled threats to launch strikes, possibly atomic, against Tehran's nuclear facilities. Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear warheads and missiles able to hit Iran. It gave no details of the trial. A defence official said it was "not just flexing its muscles", three days after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert pledged to consider "all options" to prevent Iran building nuclear weapons. As oil prices rose almost 1 percent on the new Middle East tension, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who says his country wants only atomic energy, said Israel would hold off: "The Zionist regime ... would not dare attack Iran," he said. "The Iranian response would make them regret it. They know this," he told Al Jazeera in remarks translated into Arabic.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni urged the West to work harder to prevent "the appearance of a nuclear Iran", a message Olmert and his team rammed home to George W. Bush when the U.S. president visited Jerusalem a week ago on a regional tour aimed partly at rallying Arab states against Tehran. Israel, Washington's closest Middle East ally, says Iran could have a bomb by 2010 that would threaten its existence. Iran has also carried out tests of long-range missiles. Israel was dismayed by a recent U.S. intelligence report that said Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. The report fuelled speculation Israel might attack Iran on its own if U.S. public opinion prevented Bush from doing so.

Israel bombed a site in Syria in September, an attack that recalled its 1981 strike on Saddam Hussein's Iraqi nuclear reactor. But many analysts say Olmert's political weakness makes a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Iran unlikely. Israel's Defence Ministry said: "A successful missile launch was carried out within the framework of examining rocket propulsion." It gave no other details and one former official in Israeli missile defence said the timing might be coincidence. Israel Radio said the missile tested was able to carry an "unconventional payload" -- an apparent reference to the nuclear warheads Israel is assumed to possess.

Israel Radio, which operates under military censorship, quoted unidentified foreign reports as saying Israel was developing a long-range surface-to-surface missile, Jericho III. Amateur photographs posted on Israeli news Web sites showed a white plume in the sky above central Israel -- suggesting a test of a large missile rather than of smaller, anti-missile defensive rockets that Israel is also believed to be developing. Analysts say that Israel's Jericho II missile, based on a rocket it uses to launch satellites into space, can take nuclear warheads and has long had a range of at least 1,300 km (800 miles) -- enough to reach Tehran. Defence experts said Israel is probably trying to improve its missiles' range and accuracy.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed two rounds of sanctions on Iran for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment -- a process that can be used for both electricity and bombs. But the five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- and Germany are split over how to proceed after the U.S. estimate that said Tehran halted nuclear weapons efforts four years ago. Foreign ministers from the six countries will meet in Berlin on Tuesday to debate Iran strategy.

"There are open questions Iran urgently needs to resolve to re-establish lost trust," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters in Vienna before meeting head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei. Israel's Livni said in Moscow that Russia's first shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran's first power plant in Bushehr "may serve military goals". Livni said sanctions had put "certain pressure" on Tehran, but their effect "has not been critical". "Those taking decisions on Iran are being watched by everyone in our region," she said. "We expect the world will not allow the appearance of a nuclear Iran."

But Russia and China appear reluctant to support a third round of sanctions on Iran after the U.S. report. China hinted at continued distaste for steps to isolate Iran, a major source of oil for Beijing. "We hope Iran will be able to abide by the relevant Security Council resolutions (demanding an enrichment halt) and continue to show flexibility and fully cooperate with the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said. Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili is in Beijing for talks and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is also visiting China for discussions that will feature Iran.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...23222920080117