Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

Russian Gazprom to invest 200m dollars in Iran-Armenia gas pipeline

Armenia’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Armen Movsisyan has said that by the end of 2009, the Russian gas giant Gazprom will invest more than 200m US dollars in the construction of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, the Armenian news agency Arminfo reported. After the completion of construction work, Armenia will have access to another alternative gas pipeline along with the current one from Russia and based on the prices that are offered, will decide which of them it should use. Currently, Armenia pays Russian Gazprom 110 US dollars per 1,000 cu.m. of gas, however, the price will change from 1 January 2009, the agency quoted Movsisyan as saying. During his press conference, Armen Movsisyan also touched on the construction of an oil refinery outside Yerevan which will cost two or three billion US dollars. The plant, which will be able to process 7.5m tons of Iranian crude oil per year, will produce petrol and diesel, the agency said. Speaking about energy projects with Iran, the minister mentioned that a joint hydroelectric power station will be constructed on the border river Araz. The construction of the station with a capacity of about 140 MW will be financed by Iran and will cost 240-250m US dollars. The construction work may commence in 2008, the minister said. The minister went on to say that the USA and the EU have allocated 10-12m US dollars to update the security of the Armenian nuclear power plant, Arminfo said. Up to now, technical assistance worth 90m US dollars has been allocated to update the security of the plant, the agency quoted the minister as saying. Armen Movsisyan added that it is planned to build a new nuclear block in Armenia in 2016 when the existing energy block of the nuclear plant expires. Even though Armenian legislation allows foreign investors to own 100 per cent of stocks, the government intends to control half of the project stocks, the minister said. “If the government does not take part in the project, then this project has no real significance for us,” Arminfo quoted Movsisyan as saying. However, the operation of the current nuclear block will not be suspended until the new one is built, the minister said. He noted that the technical feasibility of the new plant will be completed by September, the agency said.

Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=170176

[Armenian]

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

World Iranologists to gather in Yerevan

Armenia will host a conference on the unity and diversity of Iran and the Caucasus to examine the country's influence on the region. Iranologists from across the world will gather at the international conference titled Iran and the Caucasus: Unity and Diversity to examine various cultural aspects of the region. The conference will address the main principles of cultural unity, diversity, interaction and the peaceful coexistence of various civilizations in the resion. The Irano-Caucasian geographical region covers contemporary Iran, Iraq, Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Northern Caucasus, Eastern Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and those of the Central Asian countries, all of which have been strongly influenced by Iran in social, cultural and political terms. With its ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity and uniqueness, the Caucasus still preserves many elements of the Iranian cultural heritage.

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020105

[Armenian]

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

Israel to attack Iran unless enrichment stops-minister

An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's deputies said on Friday. "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former army chief who has also been defence minister. It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Olmert's government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should U.N. Security Council sanctions be deemed a dead end. Iran has defied Western pressure to abandon its uranium enrichment projects, which it says are for peaceful electricity generation rather than bomb-building. The leadership in Tehran has also threatened to retaliate against Israel -- believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal -- and U.S. targets in the Gulf for any attack on Iran.

Mofaz also said in the interview that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, "would disappear before Israel does." A spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not address Mofaz's comments directly but said that "all options must remain on the table" and said more could be done to put financial pressure on Tehran. "Israel believes strongly that while the U.N. sanctions are positive, much more needs to be done to pressure the regime in Tehran to cease its aggressive nuclear programme," spokesman Mark Regev said. "We believe the international community should be considering further tangible steps such as embargoing refined petroleum headed for Iran, sanctions against Iraninan buisnessmen travelling abroad, tightening the pressure on Iranian financial institutions and other such steps," he added. Mofaz's remarks came as he and several other senior members of Olmert's Kadima Party prepare for a possible run for top office should a corruption scandal force the Israeli prime minister to step down.

Iranian-born Mofaz has been a main party rival of the Israeli prime minister, particularly following the 2006 elections when Olmert was forced to hand the defence portfolio to Labour, his main coalition partner, at Mofaz's expense. Mofaz, who is also designated as a deputy prime minister, has remained privy to Israel's defence planning. He is a member of Olmert's security cabinet and leads regular strategic coordination talks with the U.S. State Department. Israeli planes destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. A similar Israeli sortie over Syria last September razed what the U.S. administration said was a nascent nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility. Independent analysts have questioned, however, whether Israel's armed forces can take on Iran alone, as its nuclear sites are numerous, distant and well-fortified. (Additional reporting by Ori Lewis; Editing by Dominic Evans)

Source: http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=200782

U.S. Commander: Iran War Would Be 'Disastrous'

U.S. Navy's Persian Gulf Commander Says War With Iran Would Cause 'Aftershocks' in the Region

The top U.S. Navy official in the Persian Gulf warned in an interview with ABC News that war with Iran would be "pretty disastrous," with "echoes and aftershocks" reverberating throughout the region. "Nobody I've spoken to suggests that going to war with Iran is a good thing," Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff told ABC News. "The preferred path by far is the diplomatic path, keep working with the international community to bring the right sort of pressure to bear on the Islamic Republic of Iran." For years, there has been a swirl of speculation about the prospects of war, as the United States has accused Iran of arming militias in Iraq, trying to develop nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism. President Bush and other top U.S. officials have repeatedly stressed diplomacy when it comes to Iran, but say "all options are on the table," including the military option.

If it did come to waging war with Iran, Adm. Cosgriff's forces would likely play a central role. As the head of the Fifth Fleet, he is the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf. "As I look at the landscape, we should just sort of keep the pressure on, the big pressure, diplomatic, economic," he said. "Part of that [pressure] is for military forces, in this case the United States Fifth Fleet, to say we intend to be able to conduct operations in that part of the world in support of our friends and U.S. interests without being harassed or threatened by you, because we are not threatening you," Cosgriff said. "We have been there for decades; we are going to be there for decades." Cosgriff believes "we have years" to deal with Iran's nuclear program because "It's going to take them a while to do all it will take to finish all the work that needs to go into developing a weapon," but he fears that a miscalculation or misunderstanding could lead to military conflict with the United States.

One worrying development being carefully watched by the Navy, he said, is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard says it is training a cadre of suicide bombers capable of attacking U.S. ships. In January, a group of small Iranian speedboats aggressively approached U.S. war ships in the Persian Gulf. After repeated warnings, the boats eventually backed off, but at least one of them, operated by four members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, came close to being fired on by the Navy ships. "The four Iranian Revolutionary Guard people came within 10 seconds of being dead," Cosgriff said. Such an incident could spiral into a larger conflict, which is why Cosgriff says the overarching direction he gives his sailors is "disciplined restraint: Don't allow yourself to be provoked by some local yokel. ln the same breath, I say don't allow yourself to be successfully attacked."

Source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9226

[Azad]

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

This is what I posted in Feb....

Consider it WWIII or what ever shape that will take ... it won't be good.
The guy hates Russians, wants to tame Islam and his favorite azz to kiss is Israel's. Imagine McCain and Lieberman his Vice President. McCain croaks and we end up with a Lieberman for a president.

Seams the ape can not function without his masters.

"June 11 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain might like to give Joseph Lieberman another shot at the vice presidency, this time as a Republican."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080611/pl_bloomberg/ayx3pndtaty

[Eric]

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

Israel to attack Iran unless enrichment stops-minister

An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's deputies said on Friday. "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former army chief who has also been defence minister. It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Olmert's government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should U.N. Security Council sanctions be deemed a dead end. Iran has defied Western pressure to abandon its uranium enrichment projects, which it says are for peaceful electricity generation rather than bomb-building. The leadership in Tehran has also threatened to retaliate against Israel -- believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal -- and U.S. targets in the Gulf for any attack on Iran.

Mofaz also said in the interview that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, "would disappear before Israel does." A spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not address Mofaz's comments directly but said that "all options must remain on the table" and said more could be done to put financial pressure on Tehran. "Israel believes strongly that while the U.N. sanctions are positive, much more needs to be done to pressure the regime in Tehran to cease its aggressive nuclear programme," spokesman Mark Regev said. "We believe the international community should be considering further tangible steps such as embargoing refined petroleum headed for Iran, sanctions against Iraninan buisnessmen travelling abroad, tightening the pressure on Iranian financial institutions and other such steps," he added. Mofaz's remarks came as he and several other senior members of Olmert's Kadima Party prepare for a possible run for top office should a corruption scandal force the Israeli prime minister to step down.

Iranian-born Mofaz has been a main party rival of the Israeli prime minister, particularly following the 2006 elections when Olmert was forced to hand the defence portfolio to Labour, his main coalition partner, at Mofaz's expense. Mofaz, who is also designated as a deputy prime minister, has remained privy to Israel's defence planning. He is a member of Olmert's security cabinet and leads regular strategic coordination talks with the U.S. State Department. Israeli planes destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. A similar Israeli sortie over Syria last September razed what the U.S. administration said was a nascent nuclear reactor built with North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility. Independent analysts have questioned, however, whether Israel's armed forces can take on Iran alone, as its nuclear sites are numerous, distant and well-fortified. (Additional reporting by Ori Lewis; Editing by Dominic Evans)

Source: http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=200782

U.S. Commander: Iran War Would Be 'Disastrous'

U.S. Navy's Persian Gulf Commander Says War With Iran Would Cause 'Aftershocks' in the Region

The top U.S. Navy official in the Persian Gulf warned in an interview with ABC News that war with Iran would be "pretty disastrous," with "echoes and aftershocks" reverberating throughout the region. "Nobody I've spoken to suggests that going to war with Iran is a good thing," Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff told ABC News. "The preferred path by far is the diplomatic path, keep working with the international community to bring the right sort of pressure to bear on the Islamic Republic of Iran." For years, there has been a swirl of speculation about the prospects of war, as the United States has accused Iran of arming militias in Iraq, trying to develop nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism. President Bush and other top U.S. officials have repeatedly stressed diplomacy when it comes to Iran, but say "all options are on the table," including the military option.

If it did come to waging war with Iran, Adm. Cosgriff's forces would likely play a central role. As the head of the Fifth Fleet, he is the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf. "As I look at the landscape, we should just sort of keep the pressure on, the big pressure, diplomatic, economic," he said. "Part of that [pressure] is for military forces, in this case the United States Fifth Fleet, to say we intend to be able to conduct operations in that part of the world in support of our friends and U.S. interests without being harassed or threatened by you, because we are not threatening you," Cosgriff said. "We have been there for decades; we are going to be there for decades." Cosgriff believes "we have years" to deal with Iran's nuclear program because "It's going to take them a while to do all it will take to finish all the work that needs to go into developing a weapon," but he fears that a miscalculation or misunderstanding could lead to military conflict with the United States.

One worrying development being carefully watched by the Navy, he said, is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard says it is training a cadre of suicide bombers capable of attacking U.S. ships. In January, a group of small Iranian speedboats aggressively approached U.S. war ships in the Persian Gulf. After repeated warnings, the boats eventually backed off, but at least one of them, operated by four members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, came close to being fired on by the Navy ships. "The four Iranian Revolutionary Guard people came within 10 seconds of being dead," Cosgriff said. Such an incident could spiral into a larger conflict, which is why Cosgriff says the overarching direction he gives his sailors is "disciplined restraint: Don't allow yourself to be provoked by some local yokel. ln the same breath, I say don't allow yourself to be successfully attacked."

Source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9226

What do you think Armenian is Israel capable of conducting an air strike on the Iranian Nuclear facilities alone, without the help of US troops or Airfields based in Iraq? Could you please tell me where the nuclear sites are located approximately and what kind of arsenal would be used in case of an air strike. Would Iranian air defenses be capable of tracking and/or shooting them down. I know you have some military knowledge, and I would really love to know what you think.

[Armenian]

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

What do you think Armenian is Israel capable of conducting an air strike on the Iranian Nuclear facilities alone, without the help of US troops or Airfields based in Iraq? Could you please tell me where the nuclear sites are located approximately and what kind of arsenal would be used in case of an air strike. Would Iranian air defenses be capable of tracking and/or shooting them down. I know you have some military knowledge, and I would really love to know what you think.

Good question. But a difficult/complex question. I may have attempted to answer a similar question in this thread already. I am not sure. Nevertheless, Israel can not do it alone, they will need support from the US and regional Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Mind you that this support does not necessarily have to be public, it could be clandestine/covert. I believe that Israel will get support from the US, Jordan and Saudi Arabia if and when they decide they will strike Iran.

Naturally, the IAF will use their upgraded F-15s and F-16s. For target acquisition they will rely on CIA and Mossad human intelligence as well as satellite/aircraft reconnaissance information. They will need an air corridor secured over Jordan and Iraq. They will most probably also need the US for aerial refueling if need be. The weapon of choice will be selected from a large array of laser guided bombs and/or missiles. The fundamental tactical problem would be range/fuel considerations and being detected on route, perhaps by Russian intelligence.

Even if the IAF solved the range/fuel problem and reached its target/s undetected there would still be a problem with knocking out all the nuclear sites. This is a serious problem. Based on what I have been reading and hearing, Iran has been spreading its nuclear facilities across the nation in many underground and undisclosed locations. At best, the IAF may be able to knock out a few of these sites, perhaps the most important ones or the biggest ones. However, knocking out the entire nuclear network may prove to be virtually impossible, unless of course they have a high level spy/agent working within Iran's nuclear program. With only a few sites hit, Iran will be able to recover relatively quickly.

Regarding anti-aircraft capabilities: Pardon the pun, but it's still up in the air. The Russian anti-aircraft systems said to be protecting some of the more sensitive sites in Iran are said to be some of the finest in the world. However, they have not been tested in combat. What's more, we don't know what countermeasures the IAF and the USAF are devising. They may have figured out a way to crack the anti-aircraft defense system. Maybe not. We know, however, that they performed a successful trial mission late last year, essentially a live fire exercise using new radar jammers, where they stuck some mysterious site deep inside the Syrian desert.

Nonetheless, with or without a capable anti-aircraft defense in Iran the IAF will have a very difficult tactical task on its hands. Their mission won't succeed because the IAF will not be able to stop Iran nuclear drive. Thus, the strike may be a strategic failure. Moreover, what we are not taking into serious consideration the other strategic aspect of such a strike, the factor of the aftermath. That is where the real problem for Israel, US and the rest lies. They may succeed in hitting and destroying some sites in Iran but what kind of a response will Tehran take is the big question.

Tehran can potentially wreak havoc in the region if is chooses to -

It can shut down the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic, ruining Europe's economy within a couple of days.

It can instigate a major uprising against American troops in Iraq using its strong assets in the majority Shiite population there.

It can hit US and coalition navy ships in the Persian Gulf using various Russian and Chinese made anti-ship missiles.

It can hit various tactical and strategic targets throughout the region by its medium and long range ballistic missiles.

As you can see, it can get very ugly.

In any case, the tactical and strategic advantages lie with Tehran at this point. A strike won't stop their nuclear program and such a strike may cause very nasty repercussions. This is serious. In my opinion, nothing this serious has been faced by the US military since the Second World War. Perhaps that is why the US military as well as Israel are dragging their feet.

[Armenian]

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

600 Iranian companies active in Armenia

Iran’s ambassador to Yerevan announced on Wednesday that 600 Iranian firms have been registered in Armenia so far, IRNA reported on Wednesday. In a meeting with a visiting delegation of merchants and marketing managers from central Yazd led by the province’s Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines, Ali Saqqaeian stated, “The major policy of the country is based on expanding the export of non-oil products and that is why representatives of the Islamic Republic abroad make efforts to promote non-oil exports.” He said that 50-60 Iranian trucks bring consignments to Armenia annually. Saqqaeian criticized the traditional viewpoint regarding export and explained that competition, quality, and marketing were the three pillars of export today. Chairing the delegation, the head of Yazd’s Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines Aslanzadeh announced that Yazd province has exported $236 million worth of products to 30 countries and ranked 11 in the country in the past (Iranian calendar)year (ended March 19,2008).

Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=171128

[Armenian]

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

U.S. Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran

srael carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program. More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said. The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.” But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes. One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter. “They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.” Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent. Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. “If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack,” Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”

But Mr. Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, can hang on to power. Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz’s statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed. Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran. “They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard,” a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.

Any Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the program’s infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel’s ability at this time. But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran’s ability to detect planes flying at low altitude. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel’s attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded. For both the United States and Israel, Iran’s nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran’s work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued.

In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran’s suspected work on nuclear matters was a “matter of serious concern” and that the Iranians owed the agency “substantial explanations.” Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq’s nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein’s program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea. The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria.

Pentagon officials said that Israel’s air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission. Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel’s military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah. “They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they’re ready,” the Pentagon official said. “They’re not taking any options off the table.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/wa...20iran.html?hp

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Lavrov warns against attack on Iran

Israel Rehearses Iran Attack: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6xApA38InA

Russia's foreign minister on Friday warned against the use of force on Iran, saying there is no proof it is trying to build nuclear weapons. Sergey Lavrov said Iran should be engaged in dialogue and encouraged to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency. Lavrov made the statement when asked to comment on an Israeli Cabinet member's statement earlier this month that Israel could attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program. "I hope the actual actions would be based on international law," Lavrov said. "And international law clearly protects Iran's and anyone else's territorial integrity." Israel's military refused to confirm or deny a report Friday that its warplanes staged a major rehearsal this month for a possible attack on Iran.

The New York Times report quoted U.S. officials as saying more than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s staged the maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June. It said the aircraft flew more than 900 miles (1,450 kilometers), roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, and that the exercise included refueling tankers and helicopters capable of rescuing downed pilots. Lavrov said Russia had asked both the United States and Israel to provide factual information to back their claims that Iran was working to build atomic weapons. "So far we have seen none, and the same conclusion was made by the International Atomic Energy Agency," he said. "It's absolutely not right to speak matter-of-factly that Iran continues building nuclear weapons," Lavrov added. Iran insists its enrichment program is meant only to generate electricity. But because of its past clandestine activities, including some that could have applications for weapons research, the international community is concerned that Tehran wants to enrich uranium to a purity suitable for use in atomic bombs. The IAEA suggested in a report to the U.N. Security Council last month that Iran was stonewalling investigators and possibly withholding information crucial to determining whether it conducted research on nuclear weapons. Lavrov insisted that Iran must be encouraged to continue its cooperation with the U.N. monitoring agency.

"As long as the IAEA reports to us progress in its relations with Iran, as long as Iran closes the issues which were of concern to the IAEA and this process continues, we should avoid any steps which could undermine this very important process," he said, speaking in English. Russia has maintained close ties with Iran and is building its first nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr, which is expected to go on line later this year. It has backed limited U.N. sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, but has opposed the U.S. push for harsher measures. "The key to resolving the Iranian issue is involvement," Lavrov said. "We must involve Iran, engage Iran in resolving the Iranian nuclear program, ... but also engage Iran in constructive, respectful, serious dialogue on Iraq and Afghanistan, on the Middle East in general."

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...Ei5OgD91DQ8U80

Bush May End Term With Iran Issue Unsettled

For more than five years now, President Bush and Vice President xxxx Cheney have made clear that they did not want to leave office with Iran any closer to possessing nuclear weapons than when they took office. “The nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons,” Mr. Bush said in February 2006. The United States is prepared to use its naval power “to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region,” Mr. Cheney said in 2007 from a Navy carrier in the Persian Gulf. But with seven months left in this administration, Iran appears ascendant, its political and economic influence growing, its historic foes in Iraq and Afghanistan weakened, and its nuclear program continuing to move forward. So the question now is: Are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney resigned to leaving Iran more powerful than they found it when they came to office? The evidence is mixed. For all the talk to the contrary, Bush administration officials appear to have concluded that diplomatic efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions will not yield any breakthroughs this year.

Despite a recent flurry of efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran, top officials on both sides of the Atlantic, in recent interviews, had no expectations that Iran’s rulers would make any concessions, particularly on the critical issue of suspending the enrichment of uranium, while Mr. Bush remained in office. On the military front, the picture is fuzzier. Two senior administration officials said that barring a move by Israel, which one characterized as “the wild card” on the Iranian issue, this administration would not be likely to pursue military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Mr. Bush himself seemed to signal as much at the start of his European tour last week in Slovenia, when he said of Iran that he expected to “leave behind a multilateral framework to work on this issue,” a statement that seemed to suggest that military action against Iran may no longer be on the table. But there remains the possibility that Israel could force the hand of the Bush administration, foreign policy analysts and diplomats said. Israel carried out a three-day military exercise this month that American intelligence officials say appeared to have been a rehearsal for a potential strike on nuclear targets in Iran.

Israeli officials have tried to put pressure in recent months on the Bush administration to consider such a strike if Iran did not abandon its nuclear program, and the exercise may have been intended as a new signal that Israel might be willing to act alone if the United States did not. “Israel prefers this threat be dealt with peacefully, by dramatically increasing sanctions and maintaining a credible resolve to keep all options on the table,” said Sallai Meridor, the Israeli ambassador to the United States. “But time is running out." Iran, he said, “should understand that under no circumstances will the world allow it to obtain a nuclear capability.” Mohamad ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Al Arabiya television that he would quit his job in the event of a military strike on Iran. “It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said in an interview broadcast Friday, according to Reuters.

Israeli officials have expressed fear to the Bush administration that a new administration would take months, if not years, to decide on its approach to Iran. The consensus in the United States and Europe is that Iran is still at least two years away from a nuclear weapon. Israeli officials say they believe the threshold is closer to a year. An Israeli military strike on Iran would almost certainly require American help. For one thing, Pentagon officials say, it would take hundreds of sorties to take out a big swath of Iranian air defense. For another, the United States controls much of the airspace around Iran. Beyond that, Iran would hold the United States accountable for an Israeli strike, and could retaliate against American troops in Iraq. In Moscow on Friday, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov urged dialogue rather than confrontation with Iran and said that the United States and Israel had not offered any proof that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. “So far we have not seen any,” Mr. Lavrov said, according to Interfax news agency.

A trip to Tehran last weekend by European diplomats with a new package of incentives was largely for Iranian public consumption, and to appease Russia and China by appearing to be still trying to woo Iran, European and American diplomats said. But European diplomats have been loath to acknowledge publicly that diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear development is in a holding pattern for the next eight months because they fear that Iran will only use that time to make progress on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. “One should not talk about keeping the status quo because that would be dangerous,” one European diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules. “We can’t say the clock has stopped and we will begin work again after Jan. 1; that is not a good recipe for success.”

Administration efforts to convey a sense of urgency about stopping Iran’s nuclear program were dealt a blow late last year with the release of a National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had stopped work on a nuclear weapons program in 2003. In recent months, Bush administration officials have tried to walk back from that report, repeating often that Iran’s nuclear program remains a threat. Many foreign policy experts are now looking to the next administration for a possible new approach to the standoff with Iran. “The Europeans all understand that the carrots-and-sticks approach is not working, and the entire Iran diplomatic policy has to be rethought,” said Vali R. Nasr, an Iran expert at Tufts University. Until a new administration takes over, he said, “we’re stuck in a process where the ball is kicked to the bureaucrats.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/wa...a66&ei=5087%0A

[Armenian]

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

Iran dismisses 'attack by Israel'

Iran has said it considers a military attack on its nuclear facilities by Israel as "impossible". "Such audacity to embark on an assault against the interests and territorial integrity of our country is impossible, said spokesman Gholam Hoseyn Elham. The statement follows reports in the US media that Israeli aerial manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean were a possible test-run for a strike on Iran. Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. It has repeatedly rejected demands to halt enriching uranium, which can be used as fuel for power plants or material for weapons if refined to a greater degree. The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Mohammed ElBaradei, meanwhile said an attack would put Iran on a "crash course" to building nuclear weapons and would turn the region "into a fireball". He said he did not believe there was any "imminent risk" of proliferation by Iran given the current status of its nuclear programme. In an interview with Al Arabiya television, Mr ElBaradei said that if any military action was taken against Iran he would find it impossible to continue as the head of the IAEA.

Israeli 'rehearsal'

Iran's defiant message follows a report in the New York Times on Friday. The newspaper cited US Pentagon officials as saying that the Israeli exercise - involving more than 100 Israeli fighter jets - was intended to demonstrate the seriousness of Israel's concern over Iran's nuclear activities, and its willingness to act unilaterally. It said helicopters and refuelling tankers flew more than 1,400km (870 miles), roughly the distance between Israel and Iran's main uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. The New York Times reported that Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. The US state department would not comment on the Israeli exercise.

Offer on table

Iran is said to be considering an offer from six world powers of preliminary talks, which would be used to agree a framework for formal negotiations and incentives. The talks are on the condition that Iran freeze its current levels of enrichment for six weeks in exchange for the powers putting a halt on their push for new sanctions. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana put forward the proposal - made by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council the US, China, Russia, France, Britain plus Germany - during talks in Tehran last week. He said the six powers were ready to fully recognise Iran's right to have a civilian nuclear energy programme.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7467164.stm