Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

Theoretically at least, the state-of-the-art Russian surface-to-air missile systems supplied to Iran is supposed to work in the following way:

Iranian Air Defense Systems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPelLduhWC0

Detection range of these various missile systems are key factor in the potential engagement between US and Iranian forces. Based upon available information we have concerning Iranian weapons systems and the positioning of US forces within the region, it is quite clear that Iranian radar systems along with their surface-to-air missile arsenal have the range to cover the entire Persian Gulf region. What's more, for defensive purposes Iran is supplied with countermeasures to neutralize anti-radar missiles that will be utilized by US air forces leading up to an air campaign. As a result, US stealth aircraft will be given much of the air campaigns operational burden. Nonetheless, finding the numerous mobile missile systems within Iran's vast and rugged terrain will be a daunting task, to say the least. Obviously, however, the key to Iranian success will be thorough training, troop discipline and organizational preparedness.

Video presentations of Iran's Russian made TOR M1 and S-300 surface to air missile systems:

TOR M1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNVYkYXjxQ

S-300: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njHGGnF8Y8E

[Armenian]

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

Iran test-fires anti-carrier cruise missile in war game

SSN4 Ra'ad Anti-Ship Missile Being Fired

TEHRAN, Feb. 8 (Xinhua) -- Iran's elite Revolution Guard on Thursday successfully test-fired a land-to-sea cruise missile in the second day of its ongoing military maneuver, the state television IRIB reported.

"We have successfully test fired a cruise missile called SSN4,or Ra'ad, hitting targets 300 km (180 miles) away in the Sea of Oman and northern Indian Ocean," deputy Air Force commander Brigadier General Ali Fadavi was quoted as saying.

"This missile has the final range of 350 km and can hit all kinds of big warships in all of the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman and northern Indian Ocean," he said.

"It can carry a 500 kilos (1,100 pounds) warhead and can fly at low altitude, evading radar jammings and immune to electronic measures." the commander added.

Missile units of the air and naval forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards launched a new round of two-day drills on Wednesday, which is being conducted in southern and central parts of the Gulf and the Sea of Oman. The forces also test-fired a new surface-to-air missile defense system Tor-M1 imported from Russia Wednesday. Last month, the Revolutionary Guards also launched a five-day inland war games, in order to examine the fighting capability of Iran's two short range missiles.

That war game was also coincident with the occasion that the United States just deployed its second aircraft carrier to the Gulf region recently. Iran regularly launch large-scale war games since the nuclear issue became the spotlight in the world three years ago. Last November, Iran started a 10-day military maneuvers dubbed "The Great Prophet 2", during which the Revolutionary Guards also test fired ballistic Shahab-3 missiles with a range of more than 2,000 km.

Link: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_5716973.htm

Iran successfully tests Russian TOR-M1 missiles

The Tor-M1 all-weather surface-to-air missile system is designed to protect military and civilian facilities against sudden attacks by cruise missiles, smart bombs, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and unmanned aerial and remotely controlled assault vehicles. The system is capable of performing combat missions in any climatic conditions.Iran has successfully tested the TOR-M1 air defense missile system recently supplied by Russia.

Iran has successfully tested the TOR-M1 air defense missile system recently supplied by Russia, the Iranian news agency ISNA said, citing the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps responsible for national missile forces. The tests were part of military exercises that began in southern Iran Wednesday after Russia completed the delivery of 29 TOR-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran in late January under a $700 million contract signed at the end of 2005.

Russia's weapons supplies alarmed the United States, which imposed new sanctions on the Russian government's official arms dealer Rosoboronexport and on two other companies for the sale of TOR-M1 to the Islamic Republic. Rosoboronexport faced sanctions for arms sale s to Iran and Syria twice last year. Russian authorities responded by saying the contract with Iran on TOR-M1 did not violate any international regulations and pursued purely defensive goals.

"The contract was clinched in accordance with international law," the Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation said. "The contract is for defensive weapons, which cannot be used for offensive purposes a priori."

Russia's Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said last week that Russia did not export weapons that could undermine stability in troubled regions.

"Armaments we export are intended exclusively for defense. This applies to Iran," he said. "These are not offensive weapons, and they neither pose any threat to neighbors nor can they destabilize the situation in the region."

The TOR-M1, developed by the Russian company Almaz-Antei, is a high-precision missile system designed to destroy aircraft, manned or unmanned, and cruise missiles flying at an altitude of up to 10 kilometers (6 miles). It was introduced at the Russian aerospace show MAKS in 2005. Each system is equipped with eight short-range missiles, associated radars, fire control systems and a battery command post.

Link: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070207/60358702.html

[Armenian]

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

Report: Iran almost ready to launch spy satellite into space

Iran has converted a 30-ton ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle that will soon be used to send a reconaissance satellite into space, a move that could have wide security implications, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reported on its Web site on Thursday. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, spoke about the upcoming launch to religious students and clerics in Qom, the industry trade publication said. The launcher is a version of the Shahab-3 missile that has a range of 800 to 1,000 miles (1,285-1,600 kilometers), the magazine said, citing unidentified U.S. agencies. A missile of its kind could reach Saudi Arabia and as far west as Turkey, the report said. Additionally, improvements in space launches could help Iran build an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of almost 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers), according to the magazine. Iran's satellite launch will likely increase Western concern over its strategic capabilities and intentions, the magazine said.

The former head of the Israel Missile Defense Organization, Uzi Rubin, said that, "ultimately, [Iran's] space program aims to orbit reconnaissance satellites like Israel's 'Ofek,' using an Iranian satellite launcher from Iranian territory."

He added, "a reconnaissance satellite of reasonable performance should weigh about 300 kg. [660 lb.] Once Iran learns how to put 300 kg. into earth orbit, it could adapt the satellite launcher into an ICBM that could drop more than 300 kg anywhere in the world."

Iran has long been at odds with the United States and Europe, pushing ahead with plans to enrich uranium as part of what Tehran calls a peaceful energy program. The West has feared that Iran instead is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Source Link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/818236.html

[Armenian]

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

Israel gripped by Syria war fears

A reported Syrian troop build-up near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights has fuelled speculation in Israel about a future conflict, more than three decades after the two enemies last went to war. Syrian armed forces appear to be moving closer to the armistice line as Damascus spearheads an unprecendented armaments drive, shrieked Israel's Haaretz newspaper from its front page Thursday.

"The Syrian armed forces are being strengthened in a way unprecedented in recent memory with the help of generous funding from Iran," wrote military affairs correspondent Zeev Schiff.

Brigadier General Yossi Beidatz, the head of military intelligence research, has also warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is preparing for conflict with Israel, possibly through Hezbollah, which fought a 34-day war with Israel last year. Haaretz said the main thrust of Syria's armaments drive was missiles and long-range rockets, with its navy being bolstered by an Iranian missile similar to one fired by Hezbollah, killing four Israeli sailors last summer. Syria is also close to concluding a deal with Russia to procure thousands of advanced anti-tank missiles, of the sort Hezbollah used to such lethal effect against Israeli armour last year, Haaretz reported.

"It appears that the Syrians have moved forces closer to the border (armistice line) with Israel on the Golan Heights," wrote Schiff, noting similar movements prior to the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Three decades ago, a coordinated Egyptian and Syrian assault caught Israel totally off guard on the holiest day of the xxxish calendar, triggering its deadliest conflict since independence in 1948.

Syria has test-fired ballistic missiles, such as a Scud-D surface-to-surface missile, which would put most of Israel within range, Haaretz reported. Israel is still smarting from its deadly pounding by more than 4,000 Hezbollah rockets that killed some 40 civilians last summer. But Defence Minister Amir Peretz was quoted by journalists as telling military officials to "avoid making unnecessary comments" on Syria and asking officers to steer clear of a "war of words" with Damascus.

"The situation in the field will be examined according to facts and the Israel Defence Force will prepare itself accordingly," he was quoted as saying. One aide, Amos Gilad, said he saw no immediate danger of war but that Syrian weapons purchases highlighted the need for Israel to remain combat-ready.

"The fact that Syria is strengthening its military capabilities does not mean we're going to be attacked tomorrow but certainly we need to be prepared," Gilad told public radio.

"There is no danger of war. There is no deployment of forces indicating that Israel would be threatened by an offensive tomorrow."

A northern command source agreed that Syria had beefed up its troops along the armistice line as Israel did following the outbreak of war in Lebanon. Since the end of the war, tension has remained high on both sides and at a much higher level than it was before the war. There is much more Israeli and Syrian daily military presence along the border today," the official said. But a source in the UN force in the Golan Heights charged with monitoring the armistice denied any Syrian troop build-up and lashed out an "alarmist Israeli media that repeatedly brings up the topic".

On Wednesday, Israel launched war games on the Golan Heights that Peretz flatly denied were connected to fears of a new conflict with Syria. Damascus has repeatedly demanded the return of the Golan, a strategic plateau which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and unilaterally annexed in 1981. It is now home to more than 15,000 settlers. Peace talks between Israel and Syria collapsed in 2000, in part because of disputes over the return of the territory.

News Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070222...conflictisrael

Syria Boosting Arsenal With Russia's, Iran's Help, Report Says

Syria has embarked on an "unprecedented" effort to bolster its armed forces with Iranian and Russian help, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported Thursday.

Damascus has large numbers of surface-based missiles and long-range rockets, including the Scud-D, capable of reaching nearly any target in Israel, the report said, and the Syrian navy has received new Iranian anti-ship missiles. Haaretz also said Russia was about to sell Syria thousands of advanced anti-tank missiles, despite Israeli charges that in the past Syria has transferred those missiles to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. Syrian officials did not immediately comment on the Israeli reports, but President Bashar Assad said in a television interview immediately after the fighting that Syria was preparing to defend itself.

Israeli defense officials confirmed that Syria had ordered new stocks of the anti-tank weapons after noting Hezbollah's successful use of them against Israeli armor in last summer's fighting in south Lebanon. Syria also ordered new supplies of surface-to-sea missiles after Hezbollah used one to hit an Israeli warship, killing four crewmen, off the Lebanese coast last July, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

The officials said Syrian ground forces adjacent to the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights had been reinforced after the outbreak of last year's Israel-Hezbollah conflict and had not yet fully returned to their prewar footing. Israel and Syria are officially at war, though there have been no open hostilities between them for decades. Syria has demanded the return of the Golan, which Israel captured in 1967 and later annexed, as the price for any peace deal. Israel says it will not discuss a formal treaty with its northern neighbor as long as Damascus continues to back Hezbollah and the radical Islamic Hamas group.


New Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253706,00.html

[Armenian]

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

Revealed: The true extent of Britain's failure in Basra

The partial British military withdrawal from southern Iraq announced by Tony Blair this week follows political and military failure, and is not because of any improvement in local security, say specialists on Iraq. In a comment entitled "The British Defeat in Iraq" the pre-eminent American analyst on Iraq, Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, asserts that British forces lost control of the situation in and around Basra by the second half of 2005.

Mr Cordesman says that while the British won some tactical clashes in Basra and Maysan province in 2004, that "did not stop Islamists from taking more local political power and controlling security at the neighbourhood level when British troops were not present". As a result, southern Iraq has, in effect, long been under the control of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) and the so-called "Sadrist" factions. Mr Blair said for three years Britain had worked to create, train and equip Iraqi Security Forces capable of taking on the security of the country themselves. But Mr Cordesman concludes: "The Iraqi forces that Britain helped create in the area were little more than an extension of Shia Islamist control by other means."

The British control of southern Iraq was precarious from the beginning. Its forces had neither experience of the areas in which they were operating nor reliable local allies. Like the Americans in Baghdad, they failed to stop the mass looting of Basra on the fall of Saddam Hussein and never established law and order. American and British officials never appeared to take on board the unpopularity of the occupation among Shia as well as Sunni Iraqis. Mr Blair even denies that the occupation was unpopular or a cause of armed resistance. But from the fall of Saddam Hussein, mounting anger against it provided an environment in which bigoted Sunni insurgents and often criminal Shia militias could flourish.

The British forces had a lesson in the dangers of provoking the heavily armed local population when six British military police were killed in Majar al-Kabir on 24 June 2003. During the uprising of Mehdi Army militia of Muqtada al-Sadr in 2004, British units were victorious in several bloody clashes in Amara, the capital of Maysan province. But in the elections in January 2005, lauded by Mr Blair this week, Sciri became the largest party in Basra followed by Fadhila, followers of the Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, the father of Muqtada al-Sadr. The latter's supporters became the largest party in Maysan.

Mr Cordesman says the British suffered political defeat in the provincial elections of 2005, and lost at the military level in autumn of the same year when increased attacks meant they they could operate only through armoured patrols. Much-lauded military operations, such as "Corrode" in May 2006, did not alter the balance of forces.

Mr Cordesman's gloomy conclusions about British defeat are confirmed by a study called "The Calm before the Storm: The British Experience in Southern Iraq" by Michael Knights and Ed Williams, published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Comparing the original British ambitions with present reality the paper concludes that "instead of a stable, united, law-abiding region with a representative government and police primacy, the deep south is unstable, factionalised, lawless, ruled as a kleptocracy and subject to militia primacy".

Local militias are often not only out of control of the Iraqi government, but of their supposed leaders in Baghdad. The big money earner for local factions is the diversion of oil and oil products, with the profits a continual source of rivalry and a cause of armed clashes. Mr Knights and Mr Williams say that control in the south is with a "well-armed political-criminal Mafiosi [who] have locked both the central government and the people out of power". Could the British Army have pursued a different strategy? It has been accused of caving in to the militias. But it had little alternative because of the lack of any powerful local support. The theme of President Bush and Mr Blair since the invasion has been that they are training Iraqi forces.

Police and army number 265,000, but the problem is not training or equipment but lack of loyalty to the central government. Vicious though the militias and insurgents usually are, they have a legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis which the government's official forces lack. Periodic clean-ups like "Corrode" and "Sinbad" do not change this. There is no doubt the deterioration in the situation is contrary to the rosy picture presented by Downing Street. Messrs Knights and Williams note: "By September 2006, British forces needed to deploy a convoy of Warrior armoured vehicles to ferry police trainers to a single police station and deliver a consignment of toys to a nearby hospital." Some British army positions were being hit by more mortar bombs than anywhere else in Iraq. There was continual friction with local political factions.

Why is the British Army still in south Iraq and what good does it do there? The suspicion grows that Mr Blair did not withdraw them because to do so would be too gross an admission of failure and of soldiers' lives uselessly lost. It would also have left the US embarrassingly bereft of allies. Reidar Visser, an expert on Basra, says after all the publicity about the British "soft" approach in Basra in 2003, local people began to notice that the soldiers were less and less in the streets and the militias were taking over. "This, in turn, created a situation where critics claim the sole remaining objective of the British forces in Iraq is to hold out and maintain a physical presence somewhere within the borders of the governorates in the south formally left under their control, while at the same minimising their own casualties.' Mr Visser said.

In other words, British soldiers have stayed and died in southern Iraq, and will continue to do so, because Mr Blair finds it too embarrassing to end what has become a symbolic presence and withdraw them.

New Soruce: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2296829.ece

[Armenian]

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

US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack

SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President xxxx Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes. Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.

A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”

But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq, forcing Bush on the defensive. Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.

Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.

“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”

Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf. The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.

According to a report in The New Yorker magazine, the Pentagon has already set up a working group to plan airstrikes on Iran. The panel initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and on regime change but has more recently been instructed to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. However, army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.

Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack. One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.

News Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1434540.ece

[Armenian]

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

The following is further evidence regarding the "covert" involvement of American agencies within Pakistan based Islamic "terror" organizations, including that of the Al-Qaeda:

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran



A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials. U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.

Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states. Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan. The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.

"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said.

Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan. Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack. They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.

The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot. A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group. Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President xxxx Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.

A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context. Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

News source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...own_in_th.html

[Armenian]

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

U.S. protects Iranian (terrorist) group in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country. It's a paradox possible only because the United States considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran. Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran.

The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades. And the group is considered an ally to America because of its opposition to Tehran. However, the U.S. State Department officially considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime. The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf...

News Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/me...sts/index.html

[Armenian]

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

THERE ARE A LOT OF INTELLECTUALS IN IRAN WHO CAN LEAD AN EFFECTIVE AND INTELLIGENT WAR



/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "In case of military attack against Iran American
troops can suffer serious and irreplaceable loses. First of all,
we should take into account the large geographical area that Iran
occupies. It will be very difficult to keep under control these
territories," specialist in Persian philology Tadevos Charchyan told
in the interview to the PanARMENIAN.Net. He said, there are more
intellectuals in Iran who can lead an effective, intelligent and
organized war. Iran has a lot of experienced military leaders. "Iran
can put incomparably more means and armaments and of course, military
contingents in the war. And at last, we should not forget about many
Iranians who live in the United States, and, by the way, they are more
patriotic for their historical homeland. Perhaps, they do not agree
with the current regime in Iran. But they love their Iran both in the
context of culture and values, and in the context of nation, that's why
they will not seat quietly and watch how their great country is being
destroyed, how are being destroyed the cultural values by analogy with
ancient Mesopotamia, where first civilizations were born. Also there
are other detail problems, and the U.S.A. understands it very good,"
he said.

As to the Iranian opposition, Charchyan said that it will try to
settle its problems relying on the United States, at the expense
of the country and its own security. "The opposition realizes the
situation very well and generally will try to solve its problems with
the help of domestic means. True, pro-American powers can make use of
it, and this must be taken into account," the specialist in Persian
philology stressed.

[Armenian]

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

Armenia analyst: Iran considers a possibility of capturing Baku

The question of Azerbaijan rendering assistance to the USA in its military campaign against Iran will be soon discussed in Washington, Armenian political analyst, expert Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan announced at a news conference in Yerevan on March 6. According to him, in late March a meeting of Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov and US State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, during which the USA will try to gain Azerbaijan’s support in its campaign against Iran.

The analyst also said that US allies in the Iranian campaign can be Israel, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Armenia in no way will participate in it, as the country’s authorities are not suicidal. If Baku agrees to take part in the Iraqi campaign, the United States will provide dividends to the US not at the expense of settling the Nagorno Karabakh conflict for Azerbaijan’s sake, but at the expense of giving Iranian territories to it. “There is strong Armenian lobby in the United States, and Washington will not dare giving compensation at the expense of Nagorno Karabakh,” the analyst believes.

Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan also noted that Iran has a program that envisages certain steps, if military actions are started against it. Iran is ready not only to strike Azerbaijani strategic facilities, if Baku takes the anti-Iranian position, but Tehran considers a scenario of capturing Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital. Iran recognizes that if Baku is captured, the USA will not run the risk of striking the oil city. However, Iran is ready to strike Georgia as well.

Source: http://regnum.ru/english/792188.html