Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[ZORAVAR]

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

Do you have a military background?

I have very limited military background. But ample knowledge of military and strategic matters. I am not an expert, but I know more than most people who claim they are

[Armenian]

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

I have very limited military background.

What does that mean, you held a Kalashnikov as a child in Bourjhamoud?

[ZORAVAR]

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

What does that mean, you held a Kalashnikov as a child in Bourjhamoud?

As a matter of fact, I do hold, own and shoot firearms. And I don't live in Lebanon

Now back to topic. Just wanted to add the following point.

Iran can make life extremely difficult to the US in Iraq (and NATO in Afghanistan) by supplying weaponry that can really hurt them. I am talking about MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System) and portable guided antitank missiles. Iran manufactures these compact weapons. Supplying them to the insurgents through the porous borders is not difficult.

The insurgents/freedomfighters/terrorists (or whatever you would like to label them) lack these kinds of weaponry. So far, and for a variety of reasons, the Iranians have refrained to supply them. But, in case of an attack on Iran of any sorts (even if it is a limited one), gloves will come off...

[yerazhishda]

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

Written by Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Insitute, which supports Israel. When I followed the ideology of Objectivism I never questioned the fact that virtually everyone in positions of power were J'ews...I'm interested to see what others think about this article.

-------------

With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat

by Elan Journo
9 July 2008

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5218

Imagine that your neighborhood is overrun by a gang. These brutes are wielding crowbars, knives, and pistols in a frenzied spree of home break-ins and mugging and murder. Now suppose the police reveal that their grand strategy for dealing with this gang is to block them from getting submachine guns--as if without such weapons, the gang would no longer bother people.

Would you sleep soundly at night?

Or would you be outraged? Of course you would, because this gang--even without more powerful weapons--is already a serious menace that must be stopped.

Now, what would you say if this ridiculous what-if scenario resembled our actual response to the very real threat from Iran?

Ever since taking U.S. embassy staff hostage in 1979, the Islamist regime in Teheran has led an international spree of bombings, hijackings, and other terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners. Now politicians and diplomats, who put up with Iranian aggression for years, are loudly promising to block Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

On the campaign trail, for instance, the candidates debate how (i.e., with or without preconditions) they'd negotiate to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuke--on the idea that without such a weapon in Iranian hands, everything will be hunky-dory.

But the uncomfortable truth is that if the mullahs got a nuke, Iran would not suddenly undergo a Jekyll-and-Hyde transformation from a friendly neighbor into a rabid enemy. Iran long ago proved itself a threat that must be stopped; a nuclear arsenal would only make it a far worse threat.

For three decades the ayatollahs of Iran have been using proxies--such as Hezbollah--to carry out murderous attacks. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps helped create and train Hezbollah, which hijacked a TWA airliner and which kidnapped and tortured to death American citizens. Iran pulled the strings behind the 1983 bomb attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and later the barracks of U.S. Marines, killing 241 Americans. Iran also orchestrated the 1996 car bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died.

There's more: The 9/11 Commission found that "senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives," and that "8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi 'muscle' operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001." During the Afghanistan war, Iran welcomed fleeing al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Today, according to the U.S. military, Iran is running training camps near Teheran for Iraqi insurgents, who return to Iraq to practice and train others in their bomb-making skills. There's also growing evidence that Iraqi insurgents get bomb technology from Iran.

What's going on here?

A rational assessment of Iran would have to recognize that the mullahs in Teheran have been conducting a proxy war against America. The inspiration for this war is Iran's jihadist goal of imposing Islamic totalitarianism globally. Iran is a leading sponsor of jihadists and the self-identified role model for exporting its Islamic revolution to other countries. It is the sworn enemy of the West. We should take seriously its call to bring "Death to America!"--because it has already done so.

But too many American diplomats and commentators refuse to judge Iran. Instead, they regard its past hostility as a string of disconnected crises, unrelated to Iran's ideological agenda. They avoid naming the nature of the regime and behave as if its acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be the decisive event. But that particular weapon--despite its power--cannot be the whole story, since we don't worry about other countries, such as France and Britain, having nukes. The rarely admitted difference is that the regime in Iran would eagerly press the launch button.

This fear-the-weapon-not-the-killer mentality refuses to understand the threat posed by Iran right now. This view holds that only the concrete facts about Iran's arsenal have any practical significance, while its abstract, ideological goals and character can be disregarded with impunity. But whether Iran uses one nuke, or attacks with more conventional weapons, its victims are still dead.

Our leaders' narrow concern with Iran's nuclear capability cannot make the regime's longstanding hostility to America go away. Americans should face the real character and conduct of the Iranian regime, before it is too late.

[Armanen]

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

First of ayn rand was and idiot and her philosophy only contributed to the moral decay of the west. Second, not very "objective", this is an extremely subjective piece of zionist propaganda.

Notice how the idiot author claims that the so called 9/11 hijackers got some training in Iran, when just today the cia front al-qaeda spoke out against Iran, not to mention the idiot further claims Iran gave refuge to these so called terrorists, when he should point out who armed these people in the first place.


The cause of the vast majority of the bloodshed in the middle east is israel and the three stooges of the arab world: egypt, jordan and saudi arabia, not Iran.

[yerazhishda]

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

First of ayn rand was and idiot and her philosophy only contributed to the moral decay of the west. Second, not very "objective", this is an extremely subjective piece of zionist propaganda.

Oh I realize that now! She claimed to be a defender of the West when in actuality the West was not really about laissez-faire capitalism. Even if it was, laissez-faire capitalism would probably be just as bad as full-on communism.

The reason the ARI gives for supporting Israel goes something like this: the Palestinians were a do-nothing tribe that did not develop the land so the Israelis deserve it because they "did" something with it. (In Moral Defense of Israel)

Notice how the idiot author claims that the so called 9/11 hijackers got some training in Iran, when just today the cia front al-qaeda spoke out against Iran, not to mention the idiot further claims Iran gave refuge to these so called terrorists, when he should point out who armed these people in the first place.

Correct.

The cause of the vast majority of the bloodshed in the middle east is israel and the three stooges of the arab world: egypt, jordan and saudi arabia, not Iran.

I agree, with Israel and Saudi-Bushi Arabia being the foremost offenders. Some westerners (including ARI) would also include Syria. Do you agree with this?

[Armanen]

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

Some westerners (including ARI) would also include Syria. Do you agree with this?

During the early years of the arab-israeli conflict, one could say syria was an offensive power and therefore an aggressor, however when the u.s. bought egypt and jordan, and were not able to do the same with syria the latter was portrayed as the local pariah. However, in reality Syria has just tired to stay afloat and protect itself from further israel aggression, especially after iraq was toppled in 2003. The only thing one can point to is syria meddling in Lebanon, but so did israel, the u.s. and even france to a lesser extent, plus the so called 'west' interfers in the sovereign affairs of so many nations that any criticism from them is just laughable.

[Armenian]

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

US to invade Iran any day now?

A few weeks ago the Russian newspaper Izvestia, a well-known and authoritive daily published nationwide and abroad, came forward with something that would have been looked upon as a conspiracy theory if published by a tabloid. The paper suggested that by attacking South Ossetia, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili had badly damaged a planned U.S. military operation against Iran. In the newspaper's opinion Georgia was supposed to play the role of another "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the U.S., i.e. an operational and tactical base for U.S. aircraft that would be making bombing raids into Iran. Something akin to what Thailand was in the Vietnam war. Thailand certainly benefited from the arrangement, and Georgia would have too, insists the paper, if its President hadn't put his ambitions above the US national interest and ended up beaten, disarmed, chewing on his neckties and totally incapable of providing whatever the U.S. needs from him.

That's why, according to Izvestia in yet another article on the matter, the U.S. response to the Russian retaliation was harsh in words but very mild in action. The latest on the issue suggests that Mikhail Saakashvili may be replaced any day now by direct order from Washington. Having read the story in Izvestia I decided to try to figure out the extent of improbability and impossibility of the assumptions. As I was doing that, I remembered that early in August CNN had started showing U.S. generals who cried for more troops and hardware for Afghanistan which, in their opinion, was rapidly becoming a more intensive conflict than Iraq. Shortly after that, a phone call came from a college friend who had just come back from Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he had seen American battle tanks being unloaded from a Ukrainian-registered Antonov-124 "Ruslan", the heaviest and largest cargo airplane in the world. The friend asked if I had any idea what tanks would be good for in Afghanistan, and I said I didn't. It's an established fact from the Soviet war in Afghanistan that tanks are no good for most of the country's mountainous territory. They are good for flatlands, and the main body of flat land in the region is right across the border in Iran.

Later in August there was another bit of unofficial information from a Russian military source: more than a thousand American tanks and armored vehicles had been shipped to Eastern Afghanistan by Ukrainian "Ruslans" flying in three to five shipments a day, and more flights were expected. Somehow all this, together with the series of articles in Izvestia, the information that all U.S. troops in Afghanistan are going to be reassigned and regrouped under unified command, the arrival of NATO naval ships in the Black Sea, the appointment of a man used to command troops in a combat environment as the new commander of the US Central Command and other bits and pieces. To my total astonishment, when they all fell together the Izvestia story started looking slightly more credible than before. Today the U.S. media reported that there had been a leak from the Pentagon about a secret Presidential order in which President Bush authorized his military (most of which is currently on Afghan soil) to conduct operations in Pakistan without the necessity for informing the Pakistani government. The U.S. military in Afghanistan - or shall we say in the whole region neighboring Iran - is getting a freer hand by the day. And it is getting more and more hardware to play with.

Of course it's quite clear now that Georgia has lost its immediate potential as a nearby airfield, but after all, the aircraft carriers in the Gulf are not so far away. Believe me I'm not saying that the U.S. is going to start an all-out war against Iran tomorrow. But aren't there indications that it may happen the day after tomorrow, a month from now, or on any date before the official handover of Presidency in the U.S.? Or, as some suggest, before the election? I'm just asking the questions. But there are some people, like those working for Izvestia, for instance, who answer them with a "yes".

Source: http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/30312

[Armenian]

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

Iran, Armenia and Russia to Investigate New Oil Pipeline Construction Project

Azerbaijan, Baku, 12 September / Trend Capital / According to the Armenian Industry and Energy Ministry, Iran, Armenia and Russia investigate the joint oil pipeline construction project. This was reported by Iranian Isna agency. “At present, the trilateral special commission from Armenia, Iran and Russia on construction of an oil refining in Armenia, has commenced investigation to lay an oil pipeline,” Armen Movsisyan, the Armenian Industry and Energy Minister, said. The oil refining, which is expected to be built in Armenia, will produce 7mln tons oil per year. Construction’s cost is $2.5bln or $3bln.

Source: http://capital.trendaz.com/index.sht...292928&lang=EN

[Armenian]

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

Russia lines up with Syria, Iran against America and the West

Moscow announced renovation had begun on the Syrian port of Tartus to provide Russia with its first long-term naval presence on the Mediterranean. As the two naval chiefs talked in Moscow, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov met Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki in the Russian capital for talks on the completion of the Bushehr nuclear power plant by the end of the year. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the commander of the Russian, Navy Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, and his Syrian counterpart, Gen. Taleb al Barri, spent all Friday working on details for the outfitting of Tartus port to accommodated increased Russian fleet Mediterranean missions not far from Israel’s shores. Mottaki’s unannounced visit to the Russian capital focused on the timetable for Atomstroiexport to finish work on the Bushehr reactor after five years of delays. Moscow has sharpened its tone in comments aimed at the West and the US in particular. President Dmitiry Medvedev said Friday that Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia was the equivalent for Russia of the 9/11 attack on America. Even if Georgia had become a NATO member, he said, he would not have thought twice about ordering the Russian army to go in. Prime minister Vladimir Putin, after putting Moscow’s case on Georgia to the Western media, warned the US that stationing a missile defense shield near Russia’s borders would start an arms race in Europe. There was no basis for a new Cold War, he said. DEBKAfile’s sources interpret Friday’s events as indicating that Russia’s leaders have determined not to declare a Cold War in Europe but to open a second anti-Western front in the Middle East. In the second half of August, DEBKA file and DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s analysts discussed this re-orientation at length (Russia’s Second Front: Iran-Syria), disclosing that Moscow had decided to use its ties with Tehran and Damascus to challenge the United State and the West in the Middle East as well as the Caucasian, the Black Sea and the Caspian region. The traumatic impact of the Georgia conflict on Russia’s rulers came through in the remarks of an unnamed Kremlin official quoted by the Russian media this week: “Everything has changed since the war with Georgia. What seemed impossible before is more than possible now when our friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends. Russia will respond. A number of possibilities are being considered, including hitting America where it hurts most – Iran and Syria.” In aligning with Tehran and Damascus, Moscow stands not only against America but also Israel. This volatile world region is undergoing cataclysmic changes at a time when Israel is virtually without a fully competent prime minister and key political and military decision-making by the rest of the government is at a standstill.

Source: http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5577