Iran Accuses U.S. of Faking Persian Gulf Video
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
I believe the Iranians: "You are about to blow up"
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
U.S.: Iran boats harassed warships Officials call it 'provocative;' Iran says ships didn't recognize each other
US footage of confrontation in the Gulf - 09 Jan 08: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRbYK...&oe=UTF-8&hl=e
US Navy accuses Iran of provacation - 07 Jan 08 (video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeEsh...gk/default.jpg
Iranian boats harassed and provoked three American Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, threatening to blow up the vessels, U.S. officials said Monday. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Monday the confrontation was “something normal” and was resolved, suggesting the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the Bush administration urges Iranians “to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future.”
Military officials told NBC News that two U.S. Navy destroyers and one frigate were heading into the Persian Gulf through the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz when five armed "fast boats" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard approached at high speed, darting in and out of the formation. At one point a radio message from one of the Iranian boats warned, "You are going to blow up within minutes." The Navy warships went into defensive mode, radioed the usual warnings to steer clear, and in the end no shots were fired. U.S. military warships believe the Revolutionary Guard boats were "testing our defenses," the officials said. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman called it a “serious incident.” Another U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it “the most serious provocation of this sort that we’ve seen yet.”
Bush visiting region next week
The incident raised new tensions between Washington and Tehran as President Bush prepared for his first major trip to the Middle East. A statement issued by the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain said the incident occurred at about 8 a.m. local time Sunday as Navy cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham were on their way into the Persian Gulf and passing through the strait — a major oil shipping route. Five small boats began charging the U.S. ships, dropping boxes in the water in front of the ships and forcing the U.S. ships to take evasive maneuvers, said the Pentagon official. The boxes floated by, and officials said they didn’t know what was in them because U.S. sailors didn’t pick them up. There were no injuries but the official said there could have been, because the Iranian boats turned away “literally at the very moment that U.S. forces were preparing to open fire” in self defense.
The official, who asked to speak on grounds of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly, said he didn’t have the precise transcript of communications that passed between the two forces, but said the Iranians radioed something like “we’re coming at you and you’ll explode in a couple minutes.” At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said he was not aware of any plans to lodge a formal protest. “Without specific reference to this incident in the Strait of Hormuz, the United States will confront Iranian behavior where it seeks to do harm either to us or to our friends and allies in the region,” McCormack told reporters. “There is wide support for that within the region and certainly that’s not going to change.” Whitman said the Pentagon will work with State and National Security Council officials to determine “the appropriate way to address this with the Iranian government.”
Iran's response
But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini played down the incident, suggesting it was an issue of misidentification. He did not comment on the U.S. claims of the Iranian boats’ actions. “That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party, and it (the problem) is settled after identification of the two parties,” he told the state news agency IRNA. The incident was “similar to past ones” that were resolved “once the two sides recognized each other,” he said. An Iranian Revolutionary Guard official also described the incident as nothing unusual. “No unusual confrontation has taken place between the Guard’s patrol vessels and U.S. ships,” state-run television quoted the official as saying. The official was speaking on customary condition of anonymity. The Guard official said the Guard’s vessels were conducting normal patrols in the Strait of Hormuz when they saw three U.S. ships enter the waters of the region. “The Guard’s navy vessels, as usual, asked the ships to identify themselves and they did so and continued their path,” the TV quoted the official as saying.
'Potentially hostile intent'
At the Pentagon, Whitman said the U.S. vessels were in international waters, making a normal transit into the Gulf. He said the Iranian boats were operating at “distances and speeds that showed reckless and dangerous intent — reckless, dangerous and potentially hostile intent.” The episode lasted 15 to 20 minutes, Whitman said, but he wouldn’t say whether officials know for certain whether the were vessels were Iranian Revolutionary Guard or regular Iranian navy. The Revolutionary Guard forces have been known to be more aggressive than the regular navy. “At least some were visibly armed. Small Iranian fast boats made some aggressive maneuvers against our vessels and indicated some hostile intent,” Whitman said.
Historical tensions between the two nations have increased in recent years over Washington’s charge that Tehran has been developing nuclear weapons and supplying and training Iraqi insurgents using roadside bombs — the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq. At about this time last year, Bush announced he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf region in a show of force against Iran. The U.S. Navy quietly scaled back to one carrier group several months later. But while the two were there, they staged two major exercises off Iran’s coast. As one of the world’s most vital chokepoints for oil shipping, the 30-mile-wide Hormuz strait has been the subject of previous armed confrontations between the United States and Iran, most notably during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s.
The United States expressed concern when the Revolutionary Guard forces took over Iranian naval operations in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz from Iran's regular navy more than five months ago. However, Sunday’s incident was the first significant one since then. In another incident off its coast, Iranian Revolutionary Guard sailors last March captured 15 British sailors and held them for nearly two weeks. The 15 sailors, including one woman, were captured on March 23. Iran claims the crew, operating in a small patrol craft, had intruded into Iranian waters — a claim denied by Britain.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22537199/
U.S. Describes Confrontation With Iranian Boats
WASHINGTON — Five armed Iranian speedboats approached three United States Navy warships in international waters in the strategic Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, then maneuvered aggressively as radio threats were issued that the American ships would be blown up, military officials said Monday. The confrontation, which ended after just under 30 minutes without damage, shots fired or any injuries, took place during daylight on Sunday as the three American ships were entering the Persian Gulf. On Monday, the senior Navy officer in the region, Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff, criticized the Iranian actions as “unnecessarily provocative.” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Iranians had acted in a “reckless and dangerous” manner.
Iranian officials played down the significance of the encounter. “This is an ordinary occurrence, which happens every now and then for both sides,” said Muhammad Ali Hosseini, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, as quoted by the state-run news agency IRNA. But several Pentagon officials said the commander of a Navy destroyer involved in the episode had been on the verge of issuing an order to fire on one of the small, high-speed boats sailing near the American naval convoy. The commander of the Hopper, a guided-missile destroyer, was “very close to giving the order to fire,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. “We were perilously close to an incident where we would have taken out at least one of the Iranian small boats.”
The Hopper had trained an M240 machine gun — which fires upward of 10 armor-piercing slugs per second — on one of the Iranian boats that had pulled to within 200 yards of the American vessel, well within the gun’s range, Pentagon officials said. But before the order to fire was issued, the Iranian boat suddenly steered away from the Hopper. The United States has conducted major war games to prepare for just the kind of event that unfolded over the weekend, because Navy officers have expressed concerns that the weaker Iranian fleet might choose to confront American warships by “swarming” with larger numbers of smaller craft. Admiral Cosgriff, commander of the Fifth Fleet, said the episode was “more serious than we have seen,” in particular because it occurred in an important maritime choke point vital to the global economy.
“I am concerned with what I consider unnecessary and irresponsible maneuvering and behavior like this on the part of those patrol boats in, again, international waters in an area that’s traversed by numerous ships of all nations peacefully day in and day out,” he said during a video news conference from his headquarters in Bahrain. In addition to the Hopper, the American ships involved in the episode were the cruiser Port Royal and the Ingraham, a frigate. Commanders and crews sailing in the region are especially mindful of the damage small craft can inflict on American warships. In October 2000, 17 American sailors died when a small boat was detonated next to the destroyer Cole while it was docked for refueling in Yemen.
[...]
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/wa...4e5&ei=5087%0A
Iran Accuses U.S. of Faking Persian Gulf Video
The Revolutionary Guards in Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of fabricating a video showing Iranian speedboats confronting United States Navy warships in the Persian Gulf over the weekend, according to a report carried by the semi-official Fars news agency and state-run television. “Images released by the U.S. Department of Defense about the Navy vessels are from archive, and sounds on it are fabricated,” an unnamed Revolutionary Guards official said, according to Fars. The news agency has close links to the Revolutionary Guards. The comments were Iran’s first on the video, which the Pentagon released Tuesday. The Pentagon immediately dismissed the assertion. Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, told correspondents that Iran’s “allegation is absurd, factually incorrect and reflects the lack of seriousness with which they take this serious incident.” President Bush chastised Iran on Tuesday for committing a “provocative act.” On Wednesday, at the start of a trip with Mr. Bush to the Middle East, Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, again warned Iran, saying that it had “to be very careful about this, because if it happens again, they are going to bear the consequences of that incident.”
The unnamed Revolutionary Guards official asserted that the video had been released to coincide with Mr. Bush’s trip and “was in line with a project of the Western media to create fear.” The official said the sounds and the images on the video did not go together. “It is very clear that they are fake,” the official said. The video and audio were recorded separately and then matched, Naval and Pentagon officials said Tuesday. The episode was first described by American officials on Monday, who said it took place the day before in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. They said five armed Iranian speedboats had approached three United States Navy warships in international waters, then maneuvered aggressively as radio threats were issued that the American ships would be blown up. The confrontation ended without shots fired or injuries.
The video runs just over four minutes and, according to Pentagon officials, was shot from the bridge of the guided missile destroyer Hopper. It supported the American version of events, showing speedboats maneuvering around and among the Navy warships. “I am coming to you,” a heavily accented voice says in English. “You will explode after a few minutes.” Navy officials said the voice was recorded from the internationally recognized bridge-to-bridge radio channel. An American sailor then is heard repeating the threat, stating, “He says, ‘You will explode after a few minutes.’ ” The American is also heard identifying the Navy vessel as a “coalition warship” and announcing: “I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law. I intend no harm.” Bush administration officials say they believe that Iran was trying to provoke the United States on the eve of the president’s visit to the Middle East.
[...]
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/wo...021&ei=5087%0ALeave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
But the scenario you describe cannot be treated as "Israel alone". Israel just flying through Iraq (let alone the refueling), should mean that Iran treats this as joint attack.Originally posted by Armenian View Post
Anyway, Israel has always been pushing the US for an Iran attack. I can't see them being so stupid knowing that they can't really deliver any significant damage to Iran without nuclear weapons -- and not knowing what the consequences will be. They already were humiliated not too long ago.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
What if I showed some rapprochement towards Iran? would the oil rich Arabs feel threatened? Will I make Russia worried? The best thing Washington can do ... is show some rapprochement towards Iran. That will put Israel and the Saudis into submission.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
It will come to the 100$ for the oil barrel.
If I was the "US" what will I do to get rid of my oil nightmare? The $100 barrel that is slowing my economy and killing me like a cancer. What will I do?Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
I would not be too sure. In theory, IAF has the option of flying through Jordan, which is being lead by a petty puppet king, then onto Iraq, with US looking the other way, and then on to Iran. The Israeli warplanes will need areal refueling, which most probably will be provided by the USAF in the region. Even if this theorized plan works out perfectly, Israel would only able to deliver Iran a very limited blow, that is if no nuclear devises are used. In other words, Israel will not be able to perform an extended areal bombardment of Iran. It will have to be a one time surprise attack. In other words, this time, there will not be any shock and awe. And what Iran's reaction will be like in such a case still remains unpredictable.Originally posted by skhara View PostLeave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
They have no flying options then. If US threats are off, and they appear to be -- Israel has no place to fly through.Then again, there is always a chance that Israel might go at it alone.Leave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
I think the threat of an imminent USA attack on Iran is over, for the foreseeable future. More and more it's beginning to seems as if there was a 'deal' made between Washington DC and Tehran. Several months ago there seemed to have been some secret talks held between Americans and Iranians. Soon thereafter, the ten or so high ranking Iranian captives that were held by Americans in Iraq were quietly released, the was then the drastic drop in attacks against Americans, then there was the famous statement in Washington DC that claimed Iran had dropped its nuclear weapons program several years ago. It is most probable that factions within Washington DC that wanted to avoid another disastrous war, especially against a large and powerful nation like Iran, won the battle in the halls of government. Iran has come out as the primary beneficiary of this situation. While US forces can take a breather in Iraq, they are, nevertheless, still stuck a geopolitical swamp without any hopes of getting out. Then again, there is always a chance that Israel might go at it alone. In final analysis, however, Iran has greatly benefited from the destruction of Saddam's power, the rise of Shiites in Iraq, closer relations with Russia, and the weakening of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Armenian
************************************************** ********
Are Iran and the U.S. ready to bite the bullet?
Iranian leaders greatly welcomed the United States' National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program - a report that, contrary to previous Western reports, advises that Iran ended its nuclear weapon program in 2003. While Tehran's government has been portrayed as controlled by religious and ideological fundamentalists, it appears that they have, in fact, taken a very realistic approach. Ahmad Shirzad, former reformist member of the Iranian parliament and one of the critics of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear policy, told me in a phone conversation that Iranian leaders do not want the world to have a picture of them as dangerous. He said, "It also shows, despite the radicals' desire to leave the Non Proliferation Treaty and pursue the North Korean model, which is largely based on intimidation of the international community to achieve their objectives, Iranian leaders have chosen a more realistic and pragmatic path."
In 2005, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa denouncing the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons, claiming that these actions are forbidden by Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire such weapons; hardly anyone in the West paid any attention to the message. He was not only warning the radical elements within the Islamic Republic, who do not hide their desire to have nuclear weapon capabilities, but also assuring the Western world that Iran is not pursuing the development of a nuclear bomb.
Shortly after the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003 and captured Baghdad in less than a month, there were serious rumors among Iranians and officials that Iran was the next target. This coincides with the time that NIE claims Iran stopped its nuclear weapon program.
Consequently, Iran offered its "grand bargain" proposal to the United States via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran; topics discussed ranged from Iran's cooperation with Hamas and Hezbollah, to mutual security concerns, to Iran's nuclear program. Americans refused to respond to this unexpected gesture, and Iranians, disconcerted that their collaborative efforts with the United States in Afghanistan in 2001 resulted in, not cooperation as hoped but nomination to the "axis of evil" club in 2002 by President Bush, knew to avoid the one thing that would provoke Americans - a nuclear bomb.
Despite their official rhetoric, the Iranian regime is flexible and pragmatic; it purchased weapons from Tel Aviv and Washington during the war with Iraq in 1980-1998, helped release American hostages in Lebanon in the late 1980s, collaborated with U.S. commanders to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, and welcomed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Mohammad Ali Abtahi, Iran's former vice president and ranking cleric under Muhammad Khatami, confirmed the regime's stand in a discussion with me last month during a visit to San Francisco. He explained that Iranian leaders fully understand that to attempt to obtain nuclear weapons, at least at this point in time, is suicide for the regime. Thus there is no desire for a nuclear weapons program that would have irreversible consequences - ending in a bloody war and destruction of the country.
Ironically, Iran has ultimately benefited from the U.S. attacks on the Taliban and Iraq because these efforts have weakened Iran's top two enemies; however, Iran has suffered from the animosity between it and the United States since the Islamic Revolution, which has resulted in the loss of economic development opportunities. As a result, Iran's Arab neighbors are enjoying rapid economic growth, while Iranian leaders are facing economic crises, including unemployment, inflation, lack of foreign investments, and are suffering the consequences of the U.N. sanctions, which are undermining Iran's economy.
The NIE has provided common ground for both sides to address their concerns, rather than serving as a vehicle for a regime-change policy from the United States or an opening for hostile, anti-West rhetoric from Iran. Despite mutual concerns to save face, the first step in effective diplomacy is direct talks toward amiable diplomacy. Iran and the United States have never needed each other as much as now.
In 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, accepted the United Nation's Cease-fire Resolution to stop war with Iraq, describing it as "drinking a chalice of poison," which translates as "biting the bullet," that is, making an extremely difficult decision for the benefit of the nations. Now, the question is: Are both Iran and the United States willing to bite the bullet, and enter negotiations? Why not, if this would lead to a more peaceful Middle East?
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../EDO7U7K3O.DTLLeave a comment:
-
Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried
The West takes notice as Russia and Iran get closer
The West appears amazed to see Russian-Iranian strategic partnership surviving and even strengthening. This partnership is quite logical, but the West turned its attention to it only with supplies of Russian long range surface-to-air S-300 missiles. Due to start in January, these supplies were agreed upon a long time ago. Judging by the response of the media, the West is panicky to see Russia stick to the promise.
The Guardian warns that modernized Russian air defense missile systems can hit U.S. and Israeli war aircraft, and S-300 are even better than Patriots at intercepting cruise missiles and IBM. But then, why would Iran need such weapons? Will they come on friendly visits or what? The New York Times regards the upcoming deal as another arbitrary Russian step and reproaches President Bush for his tolerance as Russia starts fuel exports to the Bushehr nuclear plant. The newspaper could have regarded the fuel and missile supplies as an asymmetrical response to the American ABM in Europe. The same logic could also apply to the Kosovo issue.
Besides, the United States is also capable of arbitrary moves. In 2002, it banged the door on the ABM Treaty without giving any thought to Russia's reaction. Now, it is spreading its anti-missile defense to Europe despite the problems it would cause for Russia and, for that matter, to Europe if Russia hit back. But then, why is Moscow to believe Washington that the European ABM system is targeted at Iran and not Russia? Is the U.S. any better than Iran, which is trying to convince the world that it will have no nuclear weapons because they go against Muslim precepts? With a recent shift of policy toward Iran, Russia is now determined to comply with its pledges on the Iranian nuclear program, though within limits set by the IAEA.
Whatever crisis may befall Iran, Russia stands to lose-for instance, if the UN Security Council toughens its sanctions and the United States and the European Union wind down partnership with Iran. The world went through a similar situation when Russia did much to stop the isolation of Iran. No better to Russia would be a limited U.S. missile strike on Iran, which would overthrow its president. Things would be downright disastrous if America unleashed a total war. Russia would not gain, either, with a secret U.S.-Iranian agreement-which appears the least probable option of all. Russia would also lose if Iran obtained nuclear arms. That would be a danger no smaller than the American ABM in Europe.
There is only one wise thing Russia can do: join efforts with its partners to settle the Iranian problem without radical measures. This is what Moscow is trying to do now-suffice it to say that fuel supplies to Bushehr have been coordinated with the White House. Now, is it possible at all to settle the Iranian problem without acting tough? Is Moscow ready to do so? And is Iran gambling on its contacts with Russia? There are no clear answers to those burning questions, and it is hard to say whether S-300s have any bearing on them. Be that as it may, Russia will certainly bring its missiles to Iran.
Source: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071228/94506867.html
Outside View: Russia's Iran nuke role
According to Zalmay Khalilzad, the permanent U.S. representative to the United Nations, the Iranian Six -- the United States, Russia, China and the European trio of Britain, France and Germany -- have at last reached a consensus. The situation around the Iranian nuclear file reads like a crime novel, especially in view of the latest surprise moves by Tehran. Iran has found an original method of protecting its uranium enrichment program and avoiding sanctions for doing so. Or at least of making the sanctions look illegitimate in the eyes of Iran and the world community. Gholamreza Agazade, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, has said that Iran is currently building its own nuclear power plant with a 360 megawatts capacity and intends to produce fuel for that plant itself, at an enrichment center in Natanz. In light of the "natural requirements" of nuclear fuel, Iran will not only lessen the curtailment of its enrichment program, but, on the contrary, possibly increase the number of centrifuges at Natanz from 3,000 to 50,000 units.
According to Agazade, 3,000 centrifuges can supply only one nuclear plant of 100 megawatts. Agazade's timing for his sensational statement was perfect. It came after Moscow and Washington made public their stands on the start of nuclear fuel deliveries to the Bushehr plant from Russia. They said that the deliveries created the necessary conditions for Iran to fulfill the U.N. Security Council resolutions and International Atomic Energy Agency recommendations "to restore confidence in the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program." It was further said that Iran did not need its own enrichment facility, because the Bushehr plant, according to contract terms, would always be provided with Russian fuel. Tehran jumped at the chance offered by such placatory remarks from Washington and said it was building yet another nuclear plant on its own and will produce the fuel for it itself. Iran is formally correct by saying that nuclear fuel deliveries to the Bushehr plant are not connected with its nuclear program. To judge by everything, the Iranian leadership held the nuclear plant at Darkhovin, which is the plant concerned, as an ace in the hole.
It is a different matter if that "formality" will be enough to avoid sanctions. The Persian language has a saying that fits the Darkhovin situation perfectly: A smart duck is trapped twice. The same fate may await Iran. But there is one "but" that Tehran prefers to avoid. In line with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA recommendations, Iran should have informed the agency of the project. Tehran could not have known that. Most likely, the Darkhovin scenario is a little trick. If it is established that Iran did some work secretly, sanctions are unavoidable. Meanwhile, the U.S. response to the Russia-Iran agreement on fuel supplies to Bushehr has been mixed: While the American administration welcomed it, the expert community again accused Moscow of "collusion with Tehran." The New York Times described the first shipment of low-enriched uranium to Bushehr as all but a body blow to U.S. prestige. Journalists said that the American administration, by supporting the Russian deliveries to Bushehr, lost its "long-going battle with Russia." Now, they say, the Iranian Six has no teeth to enforce punishment on Tehran for refusing to freeze its uranium enrichment program.
Why should an influential newspaper start scattering the ashes so soon? It emerges, as diplomats and administration representatives told The New York Times privately, that Russia's decision to supply nuclear fuel means support for Iran. In December of last year Moscow backed sanctions against Iran, and some Russian experts accused it of an anti-Iranian plot with the United States. Now the supplies of nuclear fuel to Iran, especially in agreement with Washington, can be interpreted at will -- including as a well-played spectacle by Russia and Tehran. Given the wish, this scenario can easily fit in both the American missile defense shield in Europe and the Kosovo situation.
Source: http://www.upi.com/International_Sec...uke_role/6652/Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: