Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[crusader1492]

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?

Does anyone else see the irony of Sip's statement?

[Sip]

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?

[crusader1492]

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?

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?

[Armenian]

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)?

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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?).

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.

Thus, long Live the Islamic Revolution...

Furthermore, does being anti-US or anti-Israel automatically mean one HAS to be pro fundamental Islamic Iran?

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.

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?

That is how politics work, that is how its always been, I suggest you wake up and grow up.

Long Live the Islamic Revolution...

[Armenian]

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=8611200431

[Armenian]

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.html

[Armenian]

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=351020103

[crusader1492]

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)

http://www.opednews.com

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]

[crusader1492]

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

...continued

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S ‘SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP’ WITH TURKEY.

The former German Foreign Affairs Minister Joschka Fischer made the following statement in October 2006: Turkey should be a security pillar for the European community, and the efforts to derail that relationship are impossibly short-sighted. [18] Researcher Darius Mahdi Nazemroaya argues that:
[The German] Chancellor Angela Merkel intensified her calls for the inclusion of Turkey within the framework of the E.U. through a ‘special relationship,’ but not as part of the actual European bloc. This also foreshadowed what Nicolas Sarkozy would later propose to the Turks. [18] Columnist Umur Talu explains what this ‘special relationship’ entails: French Prime Minister Sarkozy, who ‘doesn't want Turkey in the EU’, but clings to the USA and Israel and ‘wants an attack on Iran’ will adopt a ‘carrots and sticks policy’ towards Turkey.

In other words, he will use the EU as bait for our territory, airspace and bases. [19] In fact, that Turkey became a NATO member in 1952, yet has been denied E.U. membership since the creation of the European Union is quite telling. The US and the leading EU countries have a common policy towards Turkey: They are using the PKK, accession to the EU, resolutions on the 1915 Armenian Genocide as trump cards to bring Turkish public opinion into line with the US and EU foreign policy goals. The following statement by US Democrat Brad Sherman is rather odd given the joint US-Turkish complicity in the ongoing Afghan and Iraq genocides as well as the prospect of another genocide in Iran: For if we hope to stop future genocides we need to admit to those horrific acts of the past. [20] After all, the world’s leading powers are quite adept at using past genocides/mass murders as an excuse to carry out their own genocides. [21]

TURKISH GLADIO STILL AT WORK.

Daniele Ganser, the author of ‘NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe’ (I) , explains an ongoing pattern across the NATO member countries: During the last 50 years the United States have organized bombings in Western Europe, [Greece and Turkey] that they have falsely been attributed to the left and the extreme left with the purpose of discrediting them in the eyes of their voters. This strategy is still present today, inspiring fear of Islam and justifying wars over oil. [22] Since the beginning of 2007, bombings, assassinations, murders, foiled plots, ultimatums to the government by the armed forces, constant speculation of an imminent coup, inland and cross-border warfare with the PKK, ‘colour revolutions’ (II) style staged democracy demonstrations, high-profile police operations, new anti-terror legislation have dominated Turkish public opinion. The detention in Istanbul [in late January] of alleged members of a shadowy Turkish ultranationalist group has revived charges that elements within the Turkish security apparatus have long tried to destabilize the country through a campaign of bombings and assassinations.

These allegedly include false flag operations [III] that have been attributed to Kurdish separatists and violent Islamists [sic] . [23] The assassination of the leftist investigative journalist and columnist Ugur Mumcu in 1993 was seen by Turkey's secular establishment, media and armed forces as an opportunity to galvanize anti-Islamic feelings in general and anti-Iranian feelings in particular. The assassination was blamed on Iran, who allegedly used the (Turkish) Hezbollah as a pawn. In reality, the (Turkish) Sunni Hezbollah has very little in common with its namesake in Lebanon and it is an established fact that this group was created and used by Turkey's paramilitary establishment against the PKK during the 1990s.

In fact, on the 15th anniversary of the assassination last month, Mumcu’s solicitor brother Ceyhan Mumcu made the following call to the public: Let's be careful from now on and do not claim that Ugur Mumcu was murdered by Iran. Although I've been reiterating this point frequently, unfortunately some people are still giving statements to the contrary to the press. According to my research, US took the decision to murder him in May 1992. [24] Recently, news items on (Turkish) Hezbollah have once again started appearing in the Turkish media. There are grounds to interpret this as part of a subtle psychological operation to set Turkish public opinion against Iran.

AL QAEDA-MONGERING.

In the last two months there has also been an increase in Al Qaeda related news reports: The security establishment has received specific intelligence information according to which al-Qaeda cells that have infiltrated Turkey and are planning to carry out terror attacks on Israeli targets and sites affiliated with the United States… Fresh security guidelines have been relayed to Israeli government agencies and businesses operating throughout Turkey in light of the threat. [25] These were followed by anti-terror operations throughout the country. [26] The threat was echoed by US Attorney General Michael Mukasey in the wake of his visit to Ankara this month: We are watching Al Qaeda closely. And we have seen in the recent period that they have increased their activities in Turkey… It appeared as though Al Qaeda may have chosen Turkey as a base. [27] Back in November 2003, researcher Michel Chossudovsky wrote that the bomb attacks on the British consulate and the HSBC bank headquarters in Istanbul coincided with President George Bush’s visit to London, which took place the day following the completion of the annual Turkish-US Joint Defense Group meeting in Williamsburg, US.

The attacks have created conditions for a more active role of Turkey in the Iraqi war theatre. The Istanbul bombings also serve to uphold the shaky legitimacy of Prime Minister Tony Blair in the face of mounting political opposition to Britain's' participation in the US led war. [28] It looks like a similar strategy is at work in the face of another threat of war. As in the case of (Turkish) Hezbollah, it doesn’t really matter whether Al Qaeda has any connection whatsoever with Iran. This is all conflated Islamophobia and racism stoking the fire for war.

[crusader1492]

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

...continued

IRANOPHOBIA OF THE TURKISH MEDIA.

Titled PKK’s tank or Iran’s atomic bomb?’, Kadri Gursel’s article gives a perfect example of the anti-Iranian propaganda of the Turkish media: Iran provided the PKK with shelter and logistical support in the 1990's, which was a period when Turkey had a close regional cooperation with the US; it fomented terrorism by using a wing of Hezbollah and openly supported Islamic movements through its diplomatic representatives. Murderers trained by Iran killed our intellectuals. Iran did all that to destabilize Turkey, whom it sees as a natural opponent. Once Iran conducts its first nuclear test, it will become a super-power on the scale of the range of its missiles. Then it is expected to behave even more recklessly as it will have the ability to back its aggressive foreign policy with a shield of nuclear deterrence. [29] It is worth bearing in mind that there has been no war between the two countries since the signing of the Qasr-e-Shirin Peace Treaty in 1639.

In a recent newspaper interview, former Turkish President Suleyman Demirel mentions another typical argument against Iran: They keep asking me: What is happening to us? Are we becoming like Iran? Where are we heading towards? Will these individual changes eventually turn us into an Iran? That’s the concern. The nation is anxious and frightened of the prospect of a counter-revolution. [30] In her open letter published in the Turkish daily Milliyet, Handan Haktanir, wife of Turkey’s ambassador to Tehran in 1991-94, gives a dire warning to Turkish women: against certain regulations adopted in the name of freedom in an extremely innocent manner, but then pave the way for a much more repressive regime. According to my Iranian female friends, starting with the introduction of a compulsory wearing of hijab in schools, it took three years for this insidious and gradual process to be completed and then it was too late. [31] The ad-nauseam debate on the wearing of head-scarves in public and the secular nature of the Turkish state seem to have an underlying motive of stoking hostility against Iran. In fact, barring some exceptions, even the religious extra-parliamentary opposition and media are at best ignoring the threat against Iran and at worst raising concern about Iran’s increasing sphere of influence in Iraq/the Middle East and its threat against Turkey’s national interests. Sunni prejudices against the predominantly Shia Iran certainly play a role too.

As for the various shades of the left-wing extra-parliamentary opposition and media, exceptions apart, they don’t do much other than paying lip service to Iraq, Palestine and Guantanamo Bay. So, what is the impact of all these manipulations of Turkish citizens? The whole society is extremely polarised along ethnic, sectarian and class identities, showing excessive intolerance and mistrust to each other, in a state of fear and confusion, largely desensitised to the ongoing wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan (let alone anywhere else) and oblivious to the approaching threat against its two other neighbours, namely Iran and Syria.

In short, Operation Gladio’s age-old ‘strategy of tension’ (IV) has proved to be quite effective.


NEXT BIG STEP TOWARDS THE WAR: CHENEY’S VISIT IN MARCH.

The Turkish daily Hurriyet reported xxxx Cheney’s forthcoming visit with the title ‘Cheney will come for the Mullahs’: Iran’s ‘nuclear’ threat is the reason behind the US Vice President xxxx Cheney’s plans to visit Turkey. During his visit in March, xxxx Cheney will be giving ‘serious’ messages on Iran. He will say: ‘Iran is a very serious threat. Help us and support us’. [32] The Turkish daily Aksam’s columnist Nagehan Alci expresses concern about this visit: Cheney’s last visit was in 2002 in the run up to the Iraq war to ask support from Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit for the war. He was on a big tour in the Middle East to test the mood about the war. If this visit materialises, then Cheney will be discussing the support provided by Turkish troops in Afghanistan and the situation in Iraq.

But the main issue will be Iran. Cheney might give the signal that the option of a military intervention in Iran is on the table, but will not be talking openly about these plans. Instead, he will mention the sanctions that they want to pass at the UN Security Council. He will emphasize the need to isolate Iran and warn that Iran’s nuclear power threatens Turkey as well. (He gave a similar warning [against Iraq] in 2002). [33] In the run up to the Iraq war, there was overwhelming unity in Turkey against the war, estimated to encompass 90-95 % of Turkish citizens.

A war against Iran will probably be very unpopular as well, but this time it appears that the Turkish citizens appear to be too distracted and divided to take the threat seriously until the last minute, while the parliament indulges in a conspiracy of silence. Hence this paper is an attempt to redress the information deficit and highlight especially the psychological operations being directed at Turkey to pave the way for conflict with Iran, so that the Turkish and world public perceive the danger and act in time to avert it. Circulation to all interested and concerned parties is encouraged.
GLOSSARY
(I) Operation Gladio: Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.
(II) colour revolutions: Burma’s “Saffron Revolution,” like the Ukraine “Orange Revolution” or the Georgia “Rose Revolution” and the various colour revolutions instigated in recent years against strategic states surrounding Russia, is a well-orchestrated exercise in Washington-run regime change, down to the details of “hit-and-run” protests with “swarming” mobs of Buddhists in saffron, internet blogs, mobile SMS links between protest groups, well-organized protest cells which disperse and reform.
(III) false flag operations: Covert opeartions conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colours; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.
(IV) strategy of tension: A way to control and manipulate public opinion by using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, as well as false flag terrorist actions. According to historian Daniele Ganser, “It is a tactic which consists in committing bombings and attributing them to others. By the term 'tension' one refers to emotional tension, to what creates a sentiment of fear. By the term 'strategy' one refers to what feeds the fear of the people towards one particular group". -----------------------------------