Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[freakyfreaky]

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

U.S. capitulates on its position about negotiating with terrorists and negotiating with Iran only after the unconditionally cease uranium enrichment, intends to send special envoy William Burns to Switzerland this weekend to participate in negotiations in Switzerland between Iran and EU over Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/autocodes/countries/switzerland/us-envoy-meet-iranian-nuclear-negotiator-$1231934.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/16/ST2008071602550.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-iran-nuclear,0,3175992.story

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43214

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/world/article/84713

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN16294339

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ps-869732.html (Burns only there to listen, will not talk, submit brief consist with policy and in line with UN demands that Iran cease enrichment before any settlement ---umm, what's left to settle after they cease enrichment.)

Either the U.S. is being sincere or they are doing this as a pre-text to explain later that they attempted to resolve the issue mano y mano but it failed and we had to pre-emptive strike for national security and our own national interests in protecting Israel. As they have already indicated that this is a one-time thing, I think the latter may be more likely than the former as W's time is running down. In the end, W may be afraid of being told that he is "all hat and no cattle".

[Armenian]

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

Britain must act to prevent an attack on Iran

All the evidence suggests that an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites would be a dis- aster for the greater Middle East, for the world economy and for western security. It would not even benefit Israel, which is adequately protected by its own nuclear deterrent. On the contrary, by creating new links between Sunni and Shia extremism, it would worsen Israel's long-term chances of survival. Finally, as last week's remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, indicated, an attack is strongly opposed by the US military. They would bear the first brunt of Iranian reprisals, since the US would rightly be held jointly responsible by Iran, and US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are far more open to Iranian-sponsored attack than is Israel itself. The British government can stop this nonsense. All that it needs to do is make clear to the US administration, initially in private but in public if necessary, that the consequence of an attack would be complete British military withdrawal, not only from Iraq but from Afghanistan as well.

Israel must have US acquiescence to launch an attack since by far the easiest route for one lies over US-controlled Iraq. By starting the withdrawal of most of the Nato forces from Afghanistan, British withdrawal would throw an immense new burden on the US military, strip the Afghan operation of its international legitimacy and almost certainly wreck it altogether. For these reasons, this is not a step that, as a friend of Afghanistan, I would ever advocate, were it not for one blindingly obvious fact: that a US-backed Israeli attack on Iran will in any case doom our enterprise in Afghanistan to irretrievable failure. From the moment that Israeli munitions fall on Iran, all hope of stabilising Afghanistan on western terms will be lost. From then on, every British soldier who dies in Afghanistan will die for nothing.

Or rather, they will die for nothing in terms of achievable policy objectives. They will die as British regular soldiers have always died, for pride of service and loyalty to comrades and to regiment, and for this they will deserve the highest honour. A British government that leaves them to die in a hopeless cause would, on the other hand, deserve no honour at all. All this stems from the simple truth that Afghanistan is not an island and cannot be saved in isolation. To east and south it is bordered by Pakistan, whose government is deeply equivocal towards the western military presence and the administration of President Hamid Karzai. The Pashtun population of Pakistan along the border is hostile to the western military and prov--ides not just safe havens for the Taliban but a considerable share of its manpower.

To the west, Afghanistan is bordered by Iran, its most important trading partner. In failing to enlist active Iranian help in Afghanistan, the west has already lost its best chance of success in developing that country. If Iran's present watchful attitude becomes outright hostility and full Iranian support for the Taliban, then western-backed Afghanistan will be surrounded on three sides by enemies, as Soviet Afghanistan was in the 1980s. At present, according to informed western sources, Iran's strategy towards the Taliban has been to open lines of communication but provide only symbolic amounts of aid. After all, so hostile were relations between Taliban Afghanistan and Iran that the countries almost went to war in 1998, and Iran supported the US overthrow of the Taliban after 9/11. Today, however, Iran has positioned itself so as to increase its help to the Taliban greatly if it is attacked by Israel and the US.

The Karzai administration is aware of all this, which is why all its leading elements are opposed to an attack on Iran and have done their utmost to improve relations with Tehran. This is also the strategy of the government of Iraq. If the US not only sweeps aside these views but allows Israel to cross Iraqi airspace, it will have ripped away even the façade of Afghan and Iraqi national sovereignty. The British establishment supports the "special relationship" in large part because it believes that closeness to Washington allows Britain to "punch above its weight" in the world. Much of this belief is mythical. The issue of an Israeli attack on Iran, however, is one where a British government really can have a decisive effect and has a categorical duty to do so.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66c20e96-4...077b07658.html

US top defence official opposed attack on Iran privately

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates had once privately expressed his reservations over an attack on Iran, saying such a move "will create generations of jihadists", a media report said on Saturday. The remark, according to the latest issue of New Yorker magazine, was made at an off-the-record lunch meeting with Democratic Senators late last year. "We will create generations of jihadists and our grand children will be battling our enemies here in America," Gates is quoted as saying in the magazine. The article, by investigative journalist Seymour M Hersh, said the remarks stunned the Democrats and one of them asked whether Gates was speaking for President George Bush or Vice President xxxx Cheney. "Let's just say that I am here speaking for myself," Gates is quoted as replying.

The magazine also said that a spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed consequences of a strike at the meeting, but refused to give details. The 6000-word article said US has been funding Iranian dissident terrorist groups Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdish separatist Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) and, according to some sources, the Jundallah, or Iranian People's Resistance Movement. It said the US Congress had last year acceded to a USD 400 million request from Bush "to fund major escalation of covert operations against Iran designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership." "The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Ara and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations," Hersh wrote, adding, "clandestine operations against Iran are not new and Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year."

Source: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus...0807051551.htm

[Armenian]

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

Iran's Missile Test: A Clear Reminder That an Attack Would Be Disastrous

There can no longer be any doubt about the consequences of any U.S. and/or Israeli military action against Iran. Armchair warriors, pundits and blustering politicians alike have been advocating a pre-emptive military strike against Iran for the purpose of neutralizing its nuclear-related infrastructure as well as retarding its ability to train and equip "terrorist" forces on Iranian soil before dispatching them to Iraq or parts unknown. Some, including me, have warned of the folly of such action, and now Iran itself has demonstrated why an attack would be insane. I've always pointed out that no plan survives initial contact with the enemy, and furthermore one can never forget that, in war, the enemy gets to vote. On the issue of an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran, the Iranian military has demonstrated exactly how it would cast its vote. Iran recently fired off medium- and long-range missiles and rockets in a clear demonstration of capability and intent. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, regional oil production capability and U.S. military concentrations, along with Israeli cities, would all be subjected to an Iranian military response if Iran were attacked.

The Bush administration has shrugged off the Iranian military display as yet another example of how irresponsible the government in Tehran is. But the Pentagon for one has had to sit up and pay attention. For some time now, the admirals commanding the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf have maintained that they have the ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. But the fact is, the only way the United States could guarantee that the strait remained open would be to launch a massive pre-emptive military strike that swept the Iranian coast clear of the deadly Chinese-made surface-to-surface missiles that Iran would otherwise use to sink cargo ships in the strategic lane. This strike would involve hundreds of tactical aircraft backed up by limited ground action by Marines and U.S. Special Operations forces, which would involve "boots on the ground" for several days, if not weeks. Such a strike is not envisioned in any "limited" military action being planned by the United States. But now that it is clear what the Iranian response would entail, there can no longer be any talk of a "limited" military attack on Iran.

The moment the United States makes a move to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will unleash a massive bombardment of the military and industrial facilities of the United States and its allies, including the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. American military bases in Iraq and Kuwait -- large, fixed and well known -- would be smothered by rockets and missiles carrying deadly cluster bombs. The damage done would run into the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars; and hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. military personnel would be killed and wounded.

To prevent or retard any Iranian missile attack, the United States would have to commit hundreds of combat sorties, combined with Special Operations forces, to a counter-missile fight that would need to span the considerable depth of the Persian landmass from which missiles might reach potential targets. While there has been some improvement in the U.S. military's counter-missile capability, one must never forget that in 1991 not a single Iraqi Scud missile was successfully interdicted by any aspect of American military action -- air strike, ground action or antiballistic missile -- and in 2003 the U.S. military had mixed results against the far-less-capable Al-Samoud missiles. Israel was unable to prevent Hezbollah from firing large salvos of rockets into northern Israel during the summer 2006 conflict. There is no reason for optimism that the United States and Israel have suddenly found the solution to the Iranian missile threat.

There is virtually no chance the U.S. Navy would be able to prevent Iran from interfering with shipping through the strait. There is every chance the Navy would take significant casualties, in both ships lost and personnel killed or wounded, as it struggled to secure the strait. There would be a need for a significant commitment of ground forces to guarantee safe passage for all shipping, civilian and military alike. The longer ground forces operated on Iranian soil, the better the chances Iranian missiles would not be able to effectively interdict shipping. Conversely, the longer ground forces operated on Iranian soil, the greater likelihood there would be of decisive ground engagement. With U.S. air power expected to be fully committed to the missile interdiction mission, any large-scale ground engagement would create a situation in which air power would have to be redirected into tactical support and away from missile interdiction, creating a window of vulnerability that the Iranians would very likely exploit.

Iran has promised to strike targets in Israel as well, especially if Israel is a participant in any military action. Such Israeli involvement is highly unlikely, since to do so in any meaningful fashion Israel would need to fly in Iraqi airspace, a violation of sovereignty the Iraqi government will never tolerate. The anti-American backlash that would be generated in Iraq would be immediate and severe. In short, virtually every operation involving the training of Iraqi forces would be terminated as the U.S. military trainers would need to be withdrawn to the safety of the fortified U.S. bases to protect them from attack. U.S. civilian contractors would likewise need to be either withdrawn completely from Iraq or restricted to the fortified bases. All gains alleged to have been made in the "surge" would be wiped away instantly. Worse, the Iraqi countryside would become a seething mass of anti-American activity, which would require a huge effort to reverse, if it ever could be. Iraq as we now know it would be lost, and what would emerge in its stead would not only be unsympathetic to the United States but actually a breeding ground for anti-American action that could very well expand beyond the boundaries of Iraq and the Middle East.

The chances of preventing an Iranian-Israeli clash in the event of a U.S. strike against Iran are slim to none. Even if Iran initially showed restraint, Hezbollah would undoubtedly join the fray, prompting an Israeli counterstrike in Lebanon and Iran that would in turn bring long-range Iranian missiles raining down on Israeli cities. Neither the Israeli nor the American (and for that reason, European and Asian) economy would emerge intact from a U.S. attack on Iran. Oil would almost instantly break the $300-per-barrel mark, and because the resulting conflict would more than likely be longer and more violent that most are predicting, there is a good chance that oil would top $500 or even more within days or weeks. Hyperinflation would almost certainly strike every market-based economy, and the markets themselves would collapse under the strain.

The good news is that the military planners in the Pentagon are cognizant of this reality. They know the limitations of American power, and what they can and cannot achieve. When it was uncertain how Iran would respond to a limited attack, either on their nuclear facilities or on bases associated with the Revolutionary Guard Command, some planners might have thought that the United States could actually pull off a quick and relatively bloodless attack. Now that Iran has made it crystal clear that even a limited U.S. attack would bring about a massive Iranian response, all military planners now understand that any U.S. military attack would have to be massive. Simply put, the United States does not now have the military capacity in the Middle East to launch such a strike, and any redeployment of U.S. forces into the region could not go undetected, either by Iran, which would in turn redeploy its forces, or the rest of the world. Because a U.S. attack against Iran would have such a horrific, detrimental impact on the entire world, it is hard to imagine the international community remaining mute as American military might is assembled.

Likewise, despite the disposition of Congress to either remain silent on the issue or actively facilitate military action against Iran, it would become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to ignore the consequences of a military strike on Iran, economically and politically. The same can be said of both major presidential candidates. The decision by Iran to show its hand on how it would respond to any American aggression has cleared the air, so to speak, about what is actually being discussed when one speaks of military action against Iran. In many ways, the Iranian missile tests have made it less likely that there will be a war with Iran, simply because the stakes of any such action are so plainly obvious to all parties involved.

Iran continues, based upon all available intelligence information, to pursue a nuclear program that is exclusively intended for peaceful energy purposes. Any concerns that may exist about the dual-use potential of Iran's uranium enrichment programs can be mitigated through viable nuclear inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA inspections should be improved upon by getting Iran to go along with an additional inspection protocol, rather than pursuing military action that would destroy the inspection process and remove the very verification processes that provide the international community with the confidence that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The reality is that Iran's nuclear program is here to stay. Iran has every right under international law to pursue this program, and regional and global tensions would be greatly reduced (along with the price of oil) if American policies, and in related fashion U.N. Security Council mandates, were adjusted accordingly. Israeli paranoia -- derived not so much from any genuine Iranian threat but rather from an affront to Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East -- must in turn be subdued. This can be done through a mixture of international pressure designed to punish Israel diplomatically and economically for any failure to adhere to international norms when it comes to peaceful coexistence with its neighbors, and international assurances that Israel's sovereignty and viability as a nation-state will forever be respected and defended.

Of course, there can be no meaningful international pressure brought to bear on Israel without American participation, and herein lies the crux of the problem. Until the U.S. Congress segregates legitimate national security concerns from narrow Israeli-only issues, the pro-Israel lobby will have considerable control over American national security policy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee's continued push for congressional action concerning the implementation of what is tantamount to a naval blockade of Iran (and as such, an act of war) by pushing House Resolution 362 and Senate Resolution 580 is mind-boggling given the reality of the situation. Congress must stop talking blockade and start discussing stability and confidence-building measures.

There has never been a more pressing time than now for Congress to conduct serious hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran. Such hearings must not replicate the rubber-stamp hearings held by the U.S. Senate and House in the summer of 2002. Those hearings were simply a facilitating vehicle for war with Iraq. New hearings must expand the body of witnesses beyond administration officials and those who would mirror their policy positions, and include experts and specialists who could articulate a counter point of view, exposing Congress to information and analysis that might prompt a fuller debate. This is the last thing the AIPAC and the Bush administration want to see. But it is the one thing the American people should be demanding.

Only an irrational person or organization could continue to discuss as viable a military strike against Iran. Sadly, based upon past and current policy articulations, neither AIPAC nor the Bush administration can be considered rational when it comes to the issue of Iran. It is up to the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, to inject a modicum of sanity into a situation that continues to be in danger of spinning out of control.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/audits/91452...c9043050f87e10

[Armenian]

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

Iran's Air Force to stage large-scale war games

Iran's military will hold a major air exercise soon to demonstrate its military and defense capabilities, the commander of Iran's Air Force said on Tuesday. Ahmad Mighani said the war games, dubbed Protectors of Velayat Air, "will demonstrate our strength and will send the message to our enemies that if they contemplate an attack, they will meet a powerful blow." He said the Air Force was operating at full combat readiness and claimed that Iran had developed aircraft that were capable of evading radar detection, which "would increase the country's air strength." Iran successfully launched last week an upgraded Shahab-3 ballistic missile as part of the Great Prophet III military exercise in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, drawing a new wave of international criticism. The Iranian missile tests came after the Israeli Air Force conducted military exercises involving over 100 fighters in early June. The exercises were widely seen as a 'dress rehearsal' for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The United States has also not ruled out a military strike against Iran if the Islamic Republic refuses to halt its nuclear program, which Western countries believe is a cover for a weapons program. Iran says it needs the program to produce electricity. Iran has reacted to rumors of an imminent attack by Israel and/or the U.S. by promising to deliver a "powerful blow" to any aggressor. A senior military official said on Saturday Iran's armed forces would launch devastating strikes against Israel and 32 American bases in the Middle East if those countries dared to attack.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080715/114045924.html

[Armenian]

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

Living forever by bombardment

So what is the "great plan"? As things look now, this is the way Israel is planning its future: Every time some Middle Eastern country tries to obtain nuclear weapons, Israel will bomb it. Bomb - and bombard. Beyond the problematic assumption that we are allowed to do what others are not allowed, and what is secure in our hands is dangerous in the hands of others, this kind of conduct will lead to disaster. We tried twice, in Iraq and in Syria, and it worked; it is doubtful it was essential. Now it seems we are going to try a third time against Iran. It may even be successful, but nothing lasts forever. It will end in catastrophe. From bombardment to bombardment, that is not the way for Israel to establish itself in the Middle East in the long term. But no one discusses the long term beyond tomorrow. We could and should now discuss the chances, and especially the risks, of an attack on Iran. We usually hold such a discussion, if at all, under impossible conditions: either retrospectively, when it is too late, lacking information or after receiving disinformation. Those in on the secrets are also the ones to make the decision. But those in on secrets always lean in a belligerent direction; war is the only doctrine and craft they know. So it is very dangerous to depend solely on them.
Advertisement

We could and should now consider an attack on Iran, but not only by consulting our own security experts. We should, for example, also listen to the impressive and knowledgeable Hans Blix, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who had reasonable things to say in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth; things that are missing from our warped public discourse. Blix warned that if Israel acts against Iran the whole region will go up in flames, that Syria's nuclear capabilities are primitive, that the attack on the reactor in Iraq was unnecessary, and above all, that the government in Iran can be made to give up the bomb, but not by force. The Swedish diplomat believes that if the international community offers guarantees of Iran's security and accepts it as a member in good standing as was done with North Korea, perhaps there will be no bomb. This has not been tried. The international community is making do with threats and sanctions that do not deter Iran, and the Israel Air Force is already conducting drills, it is believed, for the next dangerous adventure. The assumption that the window of opportunity is about to close because of the changing of the guard at the White House is distorted: Might not Barack Obama, if elected, talk to Iran and prevent it from developing the bomb without bombardment? Could anything be better?

But talking about an action against Iran is not our main problem. For or against bombardment, Israel never thinks in terms of beyond tomorrow. It acts like a person who puts buckets in a house with a leaky roof instead of thoroughly fixing the roof. So we bombard Iran, and even if it is successful and we do not have to pay a heavy price for it - a dubious scenario - what happens then? What will happen when Egypt wants a bomb? Will we bomb again? And Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iraq? And perhaps Hezbollah has some "dirty bomb" or other? And will we "allow" Turkey to go nuclear? Will we bombard and bombard, and live forever by bombardment? Israel can fix the holes in the roof only if it seriously tries to be accepted in the region. Such acceptance will be the only guarantee of its existence beyond the next bombardment. A real chance for this was created in the Arab peace initiative that Israel is ignoring in intolerable arrogance. Our national effort continues to be aimed only toward expanding the range of the F-15 and options for in-flight refueling. Nothing has been done in the opposite direction - grounding the planes and refueling diplomatically.

Imagine peace with the Palestinians, the Syrians and most of the Arab world. Would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dare threaten Israel then, too? On what pretext? Imagine that Israel announces it will not attack Iran until all other means have been exhausted, simultaneously calling on the West to talk to Iran about security guarantees. Does it sound unreal? Will we not contribute more this way to reduce the danger? After all, Iran has so far shown itself to be a rational country, not insane. We refuse to pay the price of peace; we continue to prefer the price of bombardment. But this time the price might be a particularly heavy one. Israel's pyromania may now have reached the most dangerous point in its history, in the face of Iranian pyromania, just when an alternative track has opened up. The dread of the implications of an attack on Iran may be exaggerated. We might succeed again. And what if we do not? But then again, what if we do?

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999126.html

[Armenian]

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

Iran says Shahab-3 missile has longer than reported range

Iran's Shahab-3 missiles have a range greater than the reported 2,000 km (1,240 miles), Iran's Fars news agency said on Monday, quoting the country's deputy defense minister. Iran successfully launched last week an upgraded Shahab-3 ballistic missile as part of the Great Prophet III military exercises in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, drawing a new wave of international criticism. "The recently tested Shahab-3 ballistic missile has a flight range of over 2,000 kilometers and features a high kill probability," Brig.-Gen. Nasrollah Ezzati said. "Our rockets could be a factor in preventing possible aggression from Iran's enemies, and also level out the balance of power in the region," he added. He did not specify the range of the rocket. The earlier reported 2,000 km would mean that Iran could strike at Israel, and U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian missile tests came after the Israeli Air Force conducted military exercises involving over 100 fighters in early June. The exercises were widely seen as a 'dress rehearsal' for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The United States has not also ruled out a military strike against Iran if the Islamic Republic refuses to halt its nuclear program, which Western countries believe is a cover for a weapons program. Iran says it needs the program to produce electricity. Iran has reacted to rumors of an imminent attack by Israel and/or the U.S. by promising to deliver a "powerful blow" to any aggressor.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080714/113971547.html

Iran warns it would destroy Israel, 32 U.S. bases if attacked

Iran's armed forces would launch devastating strikes against Israel and 32 American bases in the Mideast if these countries were to attack, a senior military official said on Saturday. Iran carried out a series of missile tests this week in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, prompting the United States to issue a warning that it would defend Israel in the event of an Iranian attack. Israel's Air Force last month conducted drills seen as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. If the U.S. and Israel were to attack Iran, "before the dust from these attacks settles on the ground, our armed forces will strike the very heart of Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the region," the Iranian Supreme Leader's representative in the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, Mujtaba Zolnur, said. "If our enemies take such a misguided step and attack Iran, our armed forces will give a devastating response," he was quoted by the Fars news agency as saying. Iran test-fired on Friday several missiles with a range of 350 kilometers (217 miles). The tests came on the fourth day of the Great Prophet III military maneuvers involving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval and air units. Iranian state media said earlier this week that the IRGC had successfully test-fired various classes of missiles including shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles. The Shahab-3 missile, launched on Wednesday, has a range of 2,000 km (1,240 miles) and would enable Iran to strike at Israel, as well as U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf region. The exercises provoked harsh criticism from the West, particularly the U.S., which demanded that Tehran cease work to develop ballistic missiles as potential vehicles for the delivery of nuclear weapons. Iran is currently under three sets of relatively mild UN Security Council sanctions for defying demands to halt uranium enrichment, which it says it needs purely for electricity generation. The U.S. and other Western states have claimed that the program is geared toward the creation of nuclear weapons.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080712/113838305.html

[Armenian]

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

Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 -Israel

Iran is set to receive an advanced Russian-made anti-aircraft system by year-end that could help fend off any preemptive strikes against its nuclear facilities, senior Israeli defence sources said on Wednesday. First delivery of the S-300 missile batteries was expected as soon as early September, one source said, though it could take six to 12 months for them to be deployed and operable -- a possible reprieve for Israeli and American military planners. Iran, which already has TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia, announced last December that an unspecified number of S-300s were on order. But Moscow denied there was any such deal. Washington has led a diplomatic drive to deny Iran access to nuclear technologies with bomb-making potential, while hinting that force could be a last resort. Israel, whose warplanes have been training for long-range missions, has made similar threats.

But the allies appear to differ on when Iran, which denies seeking atomic arms, might get the S-300. The most sophisticated version of the system can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes 120 km (75 miles) away. "Based on what I know, it's highly unlikely that those air defence missiles would be in Iranian hands any time soon," U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates said in a July 9 briefing when asked about the S-300 -- also known in the West as the SA-20. An Israeli defence official said Iran's contract with Russia required that the S-300s be delivered by the end of 2008. A second source said first units would arrive in early September. The official agreed with the assessments of independent experts that the S-300 would compound the challenges that Iran -- whose nuclear sites are numerous, distant, and fortified -- would already pose for any future air strike campaign by Israel.

TIME TO LEARN

Israel does not have strategic "stealth" bombers like the United States, though the Israeli air force is believed to have developed its own radar-evading and jamming technologies. "There's no doubt that the S-300s would make an air attack more difficult," said the official, who declined to be named. "But there's an answer for every counter-measure, and as far as we're concerned, the sooner the Iranians get the new system, the more time we will have to inspect the deployments and tactical doctrines. There's a learning curve." Israel, which is assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, carried out a large-scale air force drill over the Mediterranean last month which was widely seen as a "dress rehearsal" for a possible raid on Iran. Some analysts also described it as a bid to pressure the West to step up sanctions.

The exercise involved overflying parts of Greece, which is among a handful of countries to have bought and deployed S-300s. But Greek media quoted Athens officials as saying that the system's radars were "turned off" during the Israeli presence. According to the Israeli official, it would take a year for Iran to deploy the S-300s and man them with trained operators. Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, said: "The minimum work-up time to be comfortable with the system is six months, but more time is preferable." Hewson said the Iranian S-300 deal was being conducted via Belarus to afford discretion for Russia, which is already under Western scrutiny for helping Iran build a major atomic reactor. "Belarus is the proxy route whenever Russia wants to deny it is doing the sale. But nothing happens along that route without Moscow saying so," he said.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/lates.../idUSL21512727

[Armenian]

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

Russia will support Tehran in case of U.S. attack

The U.S. is dependent on Israel, which pushes it to attack Iran, a Russian expert said. “The strong Jewish lobby is concerned about Israel’s security but not the U.S. interests. However, other forces in Washington exclude any possibility of strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. No one knows how a war can end. The U.S. is not ready for it. Moreover, the international community will not keep silent as it was in case with Iraq. The oil price is going up. True, President Bush can “make a final pas” before leaving the office but it will do no good,” Mikhail Alexandrov, head of the Caucasus department at the Institute of CIS Studies, said in an interview with PanARMENIAN.Net. Asked whose part Russia and Armenia will take in case of hostilities, Mr Alexandrov said, “Russia has always supported Iran. As to Armenia, I think these two states have much in common; they carry out constructive cooperation. Moreover, if a refinery is built in the Armenian territory, the republic will have huge economic dividends. Iran has much oil but needs refineries badly.”

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=26683

[freakyfreaky]

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

Ahmadenijad announces Iran has accumulated 6,000 centrifuges for enrichment of uranium. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080726/D925PJJG0.html

Ahmadenijad to be interviewed by Brian Williams on NBC in Tehran on July 28, 2008. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_115027.html (by the Ahmadenijad will be interviewing Brian and Brian won't know what to say)

[freakyfreaky]

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

Ahmadenijad welcomes U.S.'s potential conciliatory change of position; and, foreshadows that positive advances by US in its dealings with Iran will be reciprocated with positive response from Iran. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080728...eZpilyH.lSw60A