Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Kevin_B]

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

"Wiped off the Map" - The Rumor of the Century

by Arash Norouzi

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map". Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.



BACKGROUND:



On Wednesday, October 26th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism". Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.



Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office. THE ACTUAL QUOTE:



So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:



"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).



So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".



THE PROOF:



The full quote translated directly to English:



"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".



Word by word translation:



Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).





Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

https://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:



While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.



In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:



(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein



In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.





THE ORIGIN:



One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.



The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'κtre to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.



It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth". In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth", or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth". The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.





THE REACTION:



The mistranslated "wiped off the map" quote attributed to Iran's President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.



Following news of Iran's remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel's destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe Iran off the map. More recently, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is "preparing another holocaust for the xxxish state" is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide.



The artificial quote has also been subject to additional alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the "map" reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has "called for the destruction of Israel", as do senior officials in the United States government.[/QUOTE]

[Kevin_B]

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

President George W. Bush said the comments represented a "specific threat" to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because, "..the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel." Former Presidential advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran "talks openly about destroying Israel", and insists, "The President of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth". In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as "the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, 'It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' ". The consensus is clear.



Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth's Washington Post interview in September 2006:

Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

We need to look at the scene in the Middle East — 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza — what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.



Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.



You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?

What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago...



So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.

The exchange is typical of Ahmadinejad's interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN's Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter's face with his standard "Don't the Palestinians have rights?, etc." retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he never confirms the "map" comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial break and lying, "as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map".



Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled Words of Hate: Iran's Escalating Threats released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, "Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel." These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran.



As Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to The Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:

It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."

The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world. "They speak proudly and openly of their desire to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world." Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: "We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"





MEDIA IRRESPONSIBILITY:



On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post's headline was Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out', while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will 'soon be wiped out'.



Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter's Paul Hughes [Iran president says Israel's days are numbered], and the AP's Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel Will be wiped out].

The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to "Haaretz Service and Agencies", are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed "the xxxish state" to "Israel" in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical.



The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: ["Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.

He said elections should be held among "xxxs, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except "He called for elections" became "He said elections should be held..".



It gets more interesting.



The quote used in the original AP article and copied in The Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked. Care to find out? Go to:

https://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0612134902101231.htm

There you will discover the actual IRNA quote was:

"As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated".

Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom".

In the IRNA's actual report, the Zionist regime will vanish just as the Soviet Union disappeared. Vanish. Disappear. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be "wiped out". And how will it be wiped out? "The same way the Soviet Union was". Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements.



What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors' words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.

This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq's much larger and more formidable neighbor, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumor of the century.



Iran's President has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that "History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive". With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise "vanish from the page of time".



Arash Norouzi is an artist and co-founder of The Mossadegh Project.[/QUOTE]
The zionist at Memri flouted this lie!

[Armenian]

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

They are "displeased"

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

U.S. State Department displeased with Armenia-Iran cooperation development

The Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State has issued Country Reports on Terrorism 2007. The Armenia Report says:

“Armenia’s counterterrorism contribution included its continued commitment to overflight and landing rights of U.S. military aircraft, additional security support to U.S. facilities in Armenia during times of terrorist alert, and the renewed deployment of peacekeeping forces in Iraq. In addition, Armenia joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and expressed interest in joining the Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

In September, a delegation of inspectors from the UN Counterterrorism Committee Executive Directorate visited Armenia to ascertain its progress in complying with UNSCR 1372, and found that 12 of the 13 legal counterterrorism instruments had already been implemented or were soon to be implemented. And in July, the Armenian government succeeded in adapting the EU export control list of “dual-use” commodities to its own national control list.

The Financial Monitoring Center (FMC), a U.S.-supported financial intelligence unit within the Central Bank of Armenia (CBA), continued to make investigative strides against money-laundering. During the first nine months of the year, the FMC received twenty-four suspicious transaction reports (STRs), compared to twenty-three STRs during the same period in 2006, and six STRs in 2005. Under its current mandate, the CBA can freeze temporarily financial assets while referring the STRs to the competent authorities for further investigation. However, it must rely on private financial institutions to self-monitor and lacked an integrated IT system to store information on financial entities or individuals of concern. At the end of the year, no cases involving terrorist financing were uncovered or prosecuted. The FMC received Egmont Group membership this year.

Armenia improved border security by maintaining an automated Border Management Information System (BMIS) that documented and stored the names of travelers at nearly all official points of entry, and contained criminal and terrorist watchlists as updated by the Republic of Armenia Police (RAP) and National Security Service (NSS). While Armenia has no bilateral agreement with the United States governing the sharing of information on travelers, the NSS and RAP shared information with the U.S. Embassy when they discovered fraudulent U.S. visas or other documents of interest to the United States.

Armenia’s warming relations with neighboring Iran continued, with Armenia hosting official visits by Iranian President Ahmadinejad (October) and Iranian Defense Minister Najjar (November). In addition to fostering closer diplomatic ties, these visits served to solidify previous bilateral commitments to develop joint energy and transportation projects. This closer cooperation has made Armenia more reluctant to criticize publicly objectionable Iranian conduct or join other UN member states in advocating for sanctions on the Iranian regime.

Although Armenia continued to strengthen its counterterrorism capabilities and enhanced its counterterrorism cooperation with the United States and other international security organizations, its geographic location, porous borders, and loose visa regime still provided ample opportunities for traffickers of illicit materials, persons, and finances. Furthermore, endemic governmental corruption, a significant organized crime presence, and a large shadow economy made the country potentially vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing schemes.”

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25971

In related news:

Armenian oil refinery project to cost USD 2 billion

The construction of a new oil refinery in Armenia will cost USD 2 billion, according to Armenian Energy Minister Armen Movsesyan. The refinery, which will be built in Megri, on the Iranian border, will process 7.5 million tons of oil annually, the news agency Regnum reports. The project is being jointly undertaken by Armenia, Iran and Russia and will process Iranian oil.

Source: http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1..._econ_one.html

Iran praises Armenia’s restraint against neighbor’s warlike statements

Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan met Wednesday with Iran’s Ambassador Seyed Ali Saghaiyan, the RA leader’s press office reported. Emphasizing the strategic importance of bilateral relations, the parties expressed satisfaction with the rapid development of the Armenian-Iranian cooperation. The Armenian President pointed out to the necessity of implementation of regional programs in the energy field and increase of the commodity turnover between the two countries. Amid regional issues, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement was discussed. In this view, Ambassador Saghaiyan said that Iran appreciates Armenia’s reserved reaction to regular bellicose statements by one of the states of the region. For his part, President Sargsyan welcomed Iran’s balanced stand on the Karabakh conflict, noting Armenia’s adherence to a solution observing the nations’ right to self-determination in the framework of the international law.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25952

[skhara]

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

They are "displeased"

I saw the article earlier but can't find the specific statement related to "displeasure".

[jgk3]

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

haha, Robert De Kochariano

[Armenian]

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

I saw the article earlier but can't find the specific statement related to "displeasure".

You are right. There is no direct "displeasure" or attack thrown against the Armenian Republic. In my opinion, due to the complex peculiarities of the geopolitical situation in the region today, they are choosing to balance their criticism of Armenia, at this time. Washington does not want to push away Armenia completely. They want Armenia stable and friendly towards the West. Also don't forget, without any one of the three Transcaucasian republics, no plan in the region, be it Russian or Western, can survive. Transcaucasia is like a three-legged chair - take away one leg and the chair may topple over. Thus, when it comes to Armenia they are still hopeful, especially now that western officials have realized that there is a cancer in the country called "Levon Ter Petrosian" supporters.

Nonetheless, what Pan-Armenian posted was just a fragment of the US government report in question. Still, American displeasure with Armenia was 'indirectly' insinuated several times.

For instance:

This closer cooperation (with Iran) has made Armenia more reluctant to criticize publicly objectionable Iranian conduct or join other UN member states (the US specifically) in advocating for sanctions on (threatening war against) the Iranian regime.

And the following is American paranoia laced with subtle insults:

Although Armenia continued to strengthen its counterterrorism capabilities and enhanced its counterterrorism cooperation with the United States and other international security organizations, its geographic location, porous borders, and loose visa regime still provided ample opportunities for traffickers of illicit materials, persons, and finances. Furthermore, endemic governmental corruption, a significant organized crime presence, and a large shadow economy made the country potentially vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing schemes.”

In the past, US officials have expressed their displeasure directly at Armenia's close relations with Iran and also Russia. However, they have always added that they - "understand."

Here is how the US government funded Armenialiberty reported on the report in question:

Armenia ‘Potentially Vulnerable’ To Terror Schemes

[...]

The report at the same time indicated U.S. unease over Armenia’s growing ties with neighboring Iran, which Washington accuses of sponsoring international terrorism and seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It said last year’s visits to Yerevan by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “served to solidify previous bilateral commitments to develop joint energy and transportation projects.” “This closer cooperation has made Armenia more reluctant to criticize publicly objectionable Iranian conduct or join other UN member states in advocating for sanctions on the Iranian regime,” added the report.

Source: http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...64FE3F03E3.ASP

Here's an excellent analysis of the report by Azg:

ARMENIA AND TERRORISM ACCORDING TO US DEPARTMENT OF STATE

On May 1 the US Department of State published its annual report on terrorism. In these reports, published regularly since 2004, are being figured out the statistics for anti-terror actions in the world and US cooperation with other states. Naturally, we are first of all interested in the statistics about struggle against terrorism in Armenia and its neighbors, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Comparing the conclusions about Armenia and Azerbaijan, at once we noticed that a great number of people were arrested in Azerbaijan under suspicion of being involved in terrorist organizations. The report says that 15 civilians, calling themselves "North Army of Mahdee" were detained and accused for being in contact with the Iranian Revolution Guardians’ Corpse. Another terrorist group, lead by some Arab, Abu Jafar, was caught in Sumgayit. 11 people were arrested in September. It is said they were preparing a terrorist attack against the US Embassy in Baku.

However, the report on Azerbaijan, so rich with arrests and terrorist organizations, lacks the most important part – the conclusion. It is uncertain, whether the United States are concerned with the large number of terrorists in Azerbaijan, or not. On the contrary, the report on Armenia, where not a single incident however linked with terrorism was recorded, is full of conclusions of the American "experts". It turns out that the USA is troubled with the intensive Armenian-Iranian relations. The "experts" elaborated in details, how last year the President and the Defense Minister of Iran visited Armenia and how close the diplomatic relations between Yerevan and Teheran are. By the way, the President and the Defense Minister of Iran also visited Azerbaijan in 2007, but nothing is said about that in the report.

At the same time Department of State report says that although Armenia cooperates with the USA the in struggle against terrorism, the corruption in the Government, shadow economy and high level of criminal may permit illegal transfer of arms, terrorists and money through the territory of Armenia.

Our conclusion is simple and obvious:

the Department of State had nothing to write about Armenia and all the absurd was written in order to write just something. The report on Armenia has no legal or juristic grounding and is only aimed at stating that there are "certain criminal elements" in Armenia, which may possibly cooperate with terrorist financial structures. This sounds absurd, when at the very same time there are dozens of such criminals in Azerbaijan, which are already cooperating both with financial and militant terrorist structures. The report clearly shows that the United States, having nothing to say against Armenia, but minding to equalize Armenia and Azerbaijan, invented inconsistent and fake "accusations" (if this word is suitable here).

Source: http://www.azg.am/EN/2008050301

[Armenian]

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

haha, Robert De Kochariano

You talkin to me?

[Armanen]

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

haha, Robert De Kochariano

LOL, I always thought he looked like de niro too!

[Armenian]

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

Iran's influence in Latin America worries U.S.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is making allies in Latin America to counter Washington's traditional influence in the region and could use them to threaten U.S. security, a top U.S. diplomat said on Wednesday. "We are worried that in the event of a conflict with Iran, that it would attempt to use its presence in the region to conduct such activities against us," Thomas Shannon, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, told Reuters. Left-wing governments in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia have all become allies of Iran in recent years, and other countries in Latin America have diplomatic ties with the Islamic republic. Shannon said Iran wants to ease its international isolation by showing it is able to win friends in Latin America, which has been historically in the United States' "sphere of influence". Washington accuses Iran of supporting terrorist groups and secretly trying to produce nuclear bombs, and is concerned by its courting of allies in Latin America. Shannon urged the region's governments to respect U.N.-backed sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program and recalled accusations that Iran was involved in attacks on the Israeli embassy and a xxxish community center in Argentina's capital Buenos Aires during the 1990s. "We urge our friends and partners in the region to be vigilant," he said, adding that those attacks show Iran is able "to conduct terrorist operations within the Americas". Iran has denied any involvement in the Buenos Aires attacks, which killed well over 100 people.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...29088020080507

[Armenian]

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

Robert Fisk: Hizbollah rules west Beirut in Iran's proxy war with US

Another American humiliation. The Shia gunmen who drove past my apartment in west Beirut yesterday afternoon were hooting their horns, making V-signs, leaning out of the windows of SUVs with their rifles in the air, proving to the Muslims of the capital that the elected government of Lebanon has lost. And it has. The national army still patrols the streets, but solely to prevent sectarian killings or massacres. Far from dismantling the pro-Iranian Hizbollah's secret telecommunications system – and disarming the Hizbollah itself – the cabinet of Fouad Siniora sits in the old Turkish serail in Beirut, denouncing violence with the same authority as the Iraqi government in Baghdad's green zone. The Lebanese army watches the Hizbollah road-blocks. And does nothing.

As a Tehran versus Washington conflict, Iran has won, at least for now. Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader and MP and a pro-American supporter of Mr Siniora's government, is isolated in his home in west Beirut, but has not been harmed. The same applies to Saad Hariri, one of the most prominent government MPs and the son of the murdered former prime minister Rafik Hariri. He remains in his west Beirut palace in Koreitem, guarded by police and soldiers but unable to move without Hizbollah's approval. The symbolism is everything. When Hamas became part of the Palestinian government, the West rejected it. So Hamas took over Gaza. When the Hizbollah became part of the Lebanese government, the Americans rejected it. Now Hizbollah has taken over west Beirut. The parallels are not exact, of course. Hamas won a convincing electoral victory. Hizbollah was a minority in the Lebanese government; its withdrawal from cabinet seats with other Shias was occasioned by Mr Siniora's American-defined policies and by their own electoral inability to change these. The Lebanese don't want an Islamic republic any more than the Palestinians. But when Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah chairman, told a press conference that this was a "new era" for Lebanon, he meant what he said.

Mr Hariri's Future Television offices were invested by the army after Hizbollah surrounded it on Thursday night, its staff evacuated and the station switched off. When I turned up there yesterday morning, I joined a queue for manouche – Lebanon's hot cheese breakfast sandwiches – at Eyman's bakery in Watwat Street. I patiently waited behind four black-hooded gunmen from Hizbollah's allied (but highly venal) Amal movement only to find uniformed Lebanese soldiers representing the government patiently queuing at the next window. Law and disorder, it seems, both have to eat. But I found far more powerful symbolism in Hamra Street, one of west Beirut's two main commercial thoroughfares. More than 100 Hizbollah men were standing or patrolling the highway, clad in new camouflage fatigues, wearing new black flak jackets and new black, peaked, American-style baseball caps and – more to the point – what appeared to be equally new American sniper rifles..

No, this is not a revolution. No, this is not a "hijacking" of west Beirut or the airport, which remains cut off by burning tyres on roads guarded by Hizbollah militiamen. But the government's supporters deserve some space. Several pointed out that the Israelis closed Beirut airport in 2006. So what right did Hizbollah have to do the same to the Lebanese now? And, according to Saad Hariri, Mr Nasrallah – when he called Mr Jumblatt "a thief and a killer" – was "authorising his murder and clearly stating that, 'I am the state and the state is me'." No wonder, then, that Mr Jumblatt fears for his life and that Mr Hariri claims the Hizbollah's coup de folie is a form of fitna, the Arabic for chaos. "I invite you, Sayed Nasrallah, to take back your fighters from the streets and to lift the siege of Beirut to protect the unity of Muslims," he said. "Israel will be rejoicing at the blockade of the country and the collapse of its economy."

Marwan Hamade, Mr Siniora's Telecommunications Minister – and victim of an attempted assassination in 2004 – admitted he had turned a blind eye to Hizbollah's underground phone system but could no longer when he realised that Hizbollah now maintains 99,000 numbered lines. Mr Nasrallah also insisted on the reinstallation of Brigadier General Wafiq Chucair as head of security at Beirut airport, since he was not a member of Hizbollah. General Chucair was suspended after Mr Jumblatt claimed he worked for Mr Nasrallah's outfit, a demand which prompted Mr Jumblatt to say he did not know General Chucair was so important to Mr Nasrallah that it was worth closing the international airport.

And so it goes on. There was an unusually good editorial in the French-language daily L'Orient Le Jour, which asked how the Hizbollah – literally "the party of God" in Arabic – could have war as its raison d'etre yet be a factor of stability and security in Lebanese domestic affairs. "And this party, can it really call itself the 'Party of God' without creating, in the long term, the distrust of all those other children who count themselves to be from the same unique and one God?" No, this is not a civil war. Nor is it a coup d'etat, though it meets some of the criteria. It is part of the war against America in the Middle East. The Hizbollah "must stop sowing trouble," the White House said rather meekly. Yes, like the Taliban. And al-Qa'ida. And the Iraqi insurgents. And Hamas. And who else?

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fi...us-825430.html