Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

Iran test-fires new sea missiles Tells U.S. to cease manoeuvres in Gulf

TEHRAN, Iran - The test-firing of three new models of sea missiles in the Persian Gulf should send a strong message to the United States to cease military manoeuvres in the zone, an Iranian navy chief said Friday. “Our enemies should keep their hostility off the Persian Gulf,” said Admiral Sardar Fadavi, deputy navy chief of the elite Revolutionary Guard, hours after the new missiles were tested. “They should not initiate any move that would make the region tense,” he said.

The Iranian military chief was answering a question on Iran’s state-run radio about whether the new manoeuvres were a response to a US-led military exercise in the zone earlier this week. The two-day U.S.-led naval exercise that finished Monday focused on surveillance, with warships from six countries tracking a vessel suspected of carrying nuclear components or illegal weapons. The countries that took part were Australia, Bahrain, Britain, France, Italy and the United States. The U.S. military would not comment Friday on the Iranian military statement, but said they had monitored the missile test-firing. “Countries throughout the region perform exercises on a regular basis, including Iran,” said Capt. Gary Arasin by telephone from the U.S. Central Command in Florida. “It’s something that we monitor.”

Iranian state television on Friday showed footage of Revolutionary Guards firing the missiles from mobile launching pads on the shore, and from warships. Iranian forces have previously test-fired missiles in the crowed Gulf waters, but the new manoeuvres, which began on Thursday, appeared to be geared at showing Iran’s discontent that U.S. and western warships had held an exercise so close to its territorial waters. “The manoeuvres are not a threat to any neighbouring country,” said Gen. Ali Fazli, the spokesman for the Iranian war-games, dubbed “Great Prophet.”

Iran nonetheless insisted the new sea missiles enhanced its military muscle in the Gulf, where a large proportion of the world’s oil is extracted. The weapons are “suitable for covering all the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian gulf and the sea of Oman” said Fadavi, the deputy navy chief. Some 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply passes every day through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. The three new types of missiles, named Noor, Kowsar, and Nasr, have a range of about 170 kilometres and were built for naval warfare, Iranian TV reported.

Earlier Iranian sea missiles had a range of 120 kilometres, Fadavi was quoted as saying. “The test-fired missiles are among the weapons whose capacities were improved by our domestic technology,” said Fadavi, implying that the weapons had first been acquired abroad. He said Iranian forces also intended to test air-to-ground missiles later Friday. The missiles will be fired from the first locally designed fighter plane, the bomber Saegheh, which is similar to the American F-18 fighter plane, he said.

While U.S. officials have suggested that Iran is exaggerating the capabilities of its newly developed weapons, Washington and its allies have been watching the country’s progress in missile technology with concern. The Iranian manoeuvres come as the UN Security Council is considering imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic, which has ignored demands that it cease uranium enrichment, a process that can produce the fuel for nuclear reactors or material for atomic bombs. Russia, a veto yielding power at the Security Council, said it opposed the UN sanctions in their current form.

[Armenian]

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

The spectacular swarm of sophisticated missiles fired in Iran’s surprise military exercise stuns military planners in the US, Israel and Europe

Our sources reveal that scores of surface missiles – a record for any war games anywhere - were tested simultaneously at a desert testing site some two hours drive from Tehran Thursday, Nov. 2. Precisely planned, the testing went smoothly. Input has not yet come in about the accuracy of their targeting.

A senior American missile expert told DEBKAfile that the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess. They also displayed unfamiliar warheads. But their most startling feat was the successful first test-fire of the long-range Shehab-3 with its cluster of tens of small bomblets, as DEBKAfile revealed Oct. 31. The entire range bore the imprint of new purchases from China.

This Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach - may be more than a match for any anti-missile missile system in American, Israeli or European arsenals – depending critically on the point of its fragmentation. Some of its features are still an enigma in the West. If the Shehab-3’s cluster separates close to target, the Israel-US Arrow has a chance to intercept it, but the Americans and Israelis have no defense against the multiple warhead if it separates at a distance.

Another point made by DEBKAfile’s sources is that the spectacular missile show may have been designed for European consumption as much as to impress the US and Israel. Rather than making a secret of the display, General Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, which staged the exercise, bragged that Iran had proved its ability to strike targets outside the Middle East. Europe, which Tehran sees as susceptible to such threats, was being warned that it would be first in line for a backlash from a US or Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran announced its war game Wednesday night, Nov. 1, in response to the to the US-led naval movements and buildup in the in the Red Sea (see separate item). Some of the other missiles tested in the exercise were the Shehab-2, Aolfaqar-73, Fateh-110, Scud B and Zelzal-2.

[Armenian]

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

Iran vows retaliation if Israel strikes

Iran's military will retaliate swiftly and strongly if Israel attacks any Iranian nuclear sites, the Foreign Ministry said Sunday. The warning came two days after Israel's deputy defense minister suggested Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's disputed nuclear program as "a last resort."

"If the Zionist regime commits such stupidity, the response by the Iranian military will be swift, strong and crushing," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said. "Iran will take no longer than a second to respond."

The comments by Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh were the clearest yet from a high-ranking official of possible military action against Iran. However, the Israeli government later said the comments did not necessarily reflect its views or those of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. While Israel neither acknowledges nor denies possessing nuclear arms, it is thought to have about 100-200 nuclear warheads, according to a 2006 report by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

Hosseini downplayed the possibility of an Israeli attack. "The situation and capability of the Zionist regime are far too small to threaten Iran," he said. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, again criticized the U.N. Security Council over its efforts to impose sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program. Iran says its program is for peaceful energy purposes, but the United States and other Western countries fear its a cover for developing weapons.

"It is most embarrassing that the U.N Security Council, which should be the defender of nations' security and rights, threatens countries pursuing nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes under the law," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the general assembly of Asian Parliaments Association for Peace in the capital, Tehran. He accused the U.N. of applying a double standard, saying it was pursuing Iran "while those countries, armed with nuclear weapons, deny the rights of other countries to produce nuclear fuel and exploit it for peaceful purposes."

The Iranian president also criticized the United Nations for what he described as its lack of concern for the Palestinians. He condemned the United States for vetoing a U.N. Security Council draft resolution that criticized an Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip, including an artillery barrage that killed 19 civilians last week.

"While this fake regime commits crimes, the U.N. has not taken a single positive and operative step to restore the rights of the Palestinian nation," he said. Hosseini, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, also said Iran began installing an additional 3,000 centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz with the knowledge of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

In October, Iran injected uranium gas into a second network of 164 centrifuges. Injecting gas into centrifuges can either yield nuclear fuel or material for a warhead, but does not represent a major technological breakthrough and is unlikely to bring Iran within grasp of a weapon. Iran produced a small batch of low-enriched uranium — suitable as nuclear fuel but not weapons grade — in February, using its initial cascade of 164 centrifuges at Natanz. Earlier this year, Tehran said it planned to install 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz by year's end, but it would take 54,000 centrifuges to fuel a reactor.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/...ea/iran_israel

[Armenian]

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

Iran TV broadcasts 'US ship spy plane footage'

Iran's Arabic language television station broadcast footage it claimed showed a US aircraft carrier cruising in Gulf waters it said was taken by an unmanned Iranian drone.

The brief minute-long film, which was shown on Al-Alam television's evening news bulletin, showed wobbly aerial footage of an aircraft carrier stacked with war planes as it sailed. The television's anchor said the film, the property of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard, showed a vessel from "the US fleet in the Persian Gulf". "A source in the Revolutionary Guard said the drone carried out its mission without US fighter pilots reaching it," the television said. It said there were 10 such films taken by the drone which showed "more precise information and details about military equipment, foreign forces, and their activities in the Persian Gulf." The station did not name the vessel nor did it say when the footage was shot. The broadcast comes near the end of Iran's latest 10-day war games, "Great Prophet II", which military chiefs have said were aimed at showing off Iran's defensive prowess and testing new military hardware. The war games coincided with US-led naval manoeuvres in the Gulf off Iran aimed at halting arms-trafficking, the first time such an exercise has been held in the area.

[Armenian]

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

Iran strengthens ties with Afghanistan

HERAT, Afghanistan - From cheap ice cream to 24-hour electricity, Iran is strengthening economic ties with western Afghanistan that could undermine support for U.S. and NATO forces. Western Afghanistan has a newly paved 75-mile stretch of highway between the Iranian border and its main city, Herat, courtesy of the Islamic republic. Iran is also considering building a rail line on the busy route, and has pledged another $560 million to help rebuild Afghan infrastructure and businesses.

"Iran is not going away from here," a Herat-based Western diplomat said. "The question is whether we can coexist in this region together and realize that some of our aims might even be the same when it comes to Afghanistan."

Tehran has built 10 schools and built several clinics in western Afghanistan, and paid for the equipment to provide electricity 24 hours a day in Herat, unlike in most other parts of the country, including the capital, Kabul. Iranian influence here dates back to ancient times and, while dependent on U.S. military and financial support, the Afghan government tries not to antagonize Iran, which currently houses about 2 million Afghan refugees.

"Our hope is for Afghanistan to be peaceful and stable because that would be good for the region," said an Iranian diplomat in Kabul, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the media. "Everyone wants a stable neighbor."

If Iran and the United States are at odds, Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Zahir Azimi said, "we will stay out of it."

[...]

Source: http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...printstory.jsp

[Armenian]

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

Beirut protest swells 800,000 to 1 million Lebanese echo Shiite group's call for end to U.S.-backed control

BEIRUT, Lebanon -- Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese heeded Hezbollah's call Friday, flooding downtown Beirut to pressure the U.S.-supported government to resign. But Prime Minister Fuad Saniora showed no signs of backing down in a confrontation that could tear the country apart. The protesters raised a deafening noise of chants and revolutionary and nationalist songs just outside the main government offices. Barbed wire and armored vehicles separated the demonstrators from the buildings where Saniora and some of his ministers were holed up.

The loud but peaceful rally was far larger than last week's pro-government demonstration that followed the assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. Friday's crowd was estimated at 800,000 to 1 million people, who formed a sea of red-and-white Lebanese flags with the green cedar emblem. The protest was the opening volley in the Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah's campaign of open-ended demonstrations. The event could be a watershed for the future of Lebanese politics, torn between anti-Syrian politicians who control the government and pro-Syrian forces led by Hezbollah.

Hezbollah and its allies demand a third of the seats in Saniora's Cabinet -- enough to veto its decisions -- and have vowed to continue their campaign until the government falls. They cite Lebanon's constitution, which says the Cabinet is to represent all communities in the country. Saniora and supporters call the campaign a coup attempt led by Syria and its ally Iran, a stance echoed by Washington. Hezbollah and its allies say the real fight is against American influence, and that the U.S. dominates Lebanon in the interests of Israel.

Lebanon is one of a number of areas in the Middle East where the United States and Iran are vying for influence. It now faces a dangerous, protracted battle of nerves that could last for days and turn violent. Saniora and his allies appear determined to hunker down until Hezbollah abandons its protests. The pro-Syrian camp aims to paralyze the country until Saniora is forced to resign and form a new government.

[...]

Source: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...462/-1/ZONES04

[Armenian]

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

Iran lays down a challenge to Arab leaders

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki

On a recent trip to Bahrain, a self-assured Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister, professed to have the answer to the Gulf’s troubles. Speaking to a largely Arab and western audience, he suggested Gulf stability was best achieved by removing American forces, well entrenched across the region, and setting up, with Tehran, a regional security alliance. The call for more self-reliance in the Gulf has some appeal among ordinary Arabs, resentful of the US and frustrated by their own governments’ over-dependence on American security. But official circles, in both the Gulf and the US, see his suggestions as a reflection of Iran’s suspected ambition for regional superpower status.

“It’s amusing,” says one American official. “Iran is saying, ‘Get rid of foreign forces and take us as the regional power.’”

The events of the past year have underlined Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East and its determination to become a nuclear power. But they have also reinforced the perception of Shia Iran as the biggest strategic threat to Washington’s Sunni allies in the Gulf, home to two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves.

Tehran’s regional strategy has been to back militant groups that confront Israel, positioning itself as a stronger defender of Arab and Palestinian rights than its Arab neighbours. This approach worked remarkably well in the summer, when the Iranian-backed Hizbollah group in Lebanon stood its ground against a month-long Israeli offensive. Arab leaders who had criticised Hizbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, the act that sparked the war, emerged from the conflict weakened while Iran was emboldened.

What now alarms the Sunni Arab regimes most, however, is that an American failure to rescue Iraq from sectarian conflict could shift the balance of power in the region even more in favour of Iran. Arab leaders largely back the minority Sunni in Iraq. Iranian officials say they support the central Iraqi government, dominated by the Shia majority. But according to senior Iraqi officials, Tehran’s strategy is more complex, and involves support for individual Shia groups, with the apparent aim of building separate links to Tehran.

Arab officials say Iran’s resurgence should not be exaggerated: its pursuit of a nuclear programme will bring greater international isolation, and this carries economic costs that will gradually become more apparent. But the Arab Gulf states have yet to formulate a coherent or common approach to address the perceived Iranian challenge. Reluctant to throw their lot even more decisively behind a weakened and seemingly confused America, most are also worried about a potential dialogue between Washington and Tehran, fearing it could affect their own interests.

Saudi Arabia has been holding its own bilateral talks with senior Iranian officials but people close to its government say little progress has been made on easing regional tensions. In an unusually bold move the Arab Gulf states announced this month they would study the possible development of nuclear technology, insisting – as Iran does – that the purpose would be energy production, not atomic weapons. Seen as a message to Tehran, the announcement also raised concerns about proliferation in the region.

The US, for its part, has been seeking to underline that its commitment to the Gulf is unwavering, whatever happens in Iraq. Washington has launched a security initiative designed to strengthen security and defence ties with the Arab Gulf states, while the US has increased its naval presence in the region. But Washington’s ultimate ambition to create a multi-lateral security system has received a cool response. Wary of each other, the Arab countries prefer to focus on deepening their bilateral defence ties with the US.

“The Gulf knows it needs to beef up its defences. But for the set-up that the US wants, which is to deal with the region as one institution, Gulf countries need to have a different relationship between each other,” says one senior Arab official. US officials acknowledge that some of the smaller Gulf states are also weighing their military relationship with the US against the risk of alienating Tehran.

The Bush administration has been particularly concerned about gas-rich Qatar, where the US maintains its largest military base in the region. One US official says Washington has been seeking explanations from the Qatari government about recent decisions at the UN and the Arab League that have appeared more supportive of Iran’s regional interests rather than those of the pro-western Arab states.

Arab regimes, meanwhile, have been pleading with Washington to press for progress on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, hoping moves towards the creation of a viable Palestinian state will help tip the strategic balance in the region back in their favour. Some Iraqi officials argue that the Arab states’ best strategy to check Iran’s influence is to build bridges with Iraq’s Shia majority.

“The Shia in Iraq are Arabs [not Persians] and they feel the Arabs have rejected them,” says an Iraqi official. “What the Arabs should do is embrace the Shia government of Iraq and try to make it a counterbalance to Iran.”

Officials in Baghdad say this message, regularly relayed to Arab rulers, is only now starting to sink in.

Link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f9580972-99b...0779e2340.html

[Armenian]

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

Saddam’s execution was a sectarian reprisal, local media

London (KurdishMedia.com) 02 January 2007: A number of media outlets have noticed that the execution of Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president, was a result of a sectarian revenge which carried out by Muqtada al-Sadir group. The full video of the execution which was released on the internet and which appears to be recorded on a mobile phone reveals some important points which are contrary to the Iraqi officials’ claims.

The video reveals that Saddam Hussein was not a broken man and he was smiling while waiting for his death. This was also noticed by the Kurdish online media outlet Hawlati, which stated that Saddam’s execution video proved contrary to the Iraqi official claims. For example, the Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie told the BBC that Saddam Hussein went to the gallows quietly: "We took him to the gallows and he was saying some few slogans. He was very, very, very, broken."

The video shows that Saddam did not chant any slogans; he was smiling and only repeated this twice: "I believe that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger."

According to some sources, 20 people were present during the execution including five hangmen. Whether al-Ruabaie was present during the execution, it is for him to answer, but he cannot be seen in the video. The fact that mobile phones were taken to the execution ceremony, it shows the informal and unofficial nature of the execution.

The video clearly reveals that the execution carried out in a Shiia sectarian religious ritual. This was also noticed by Hawlati. From the video one can hear guards chanting, "Long live Muhammad Baqir al-Sadir." Muhammad al-Sadir was Muqtada al-Sadir’s father who was executed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Another one chants, "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada", which is reference to Muqtada al-Sadir, the head of al-Mahdi Army which is responsible of killing hundreds of Sunnis in Iraq.

The sectarian nature of the execution can also be noticed in the timing of the execution. Saddam was executed on the first day of the holy Ed of Adha, which millions of Sunni Muslims perceived it as an insult to their faith. Furthermore, according to Article 290 (No 23 of 1971) of the "Iraqi definitions of punishments for crimes", Saddam’s execution during Ed, as it was reported by online Awene, was illegal. This article states, "No verdict should implemented during the official holidays or religious festivals." Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim by faith; therefore, according to this article, he should have not been executed during Ed, which is also a Sunni holy occasion.

The place of the execution may also add to this claim. Saddam was executed in the "Section 5" of the his "Military Intelligence" building. This was the place were members of the pro-Iranian Shiia group, al-Dawa, were executed by Saddam Hussein’s regime. Al-Dawa is one of the ruling Shiia groups in Iraq today. Whether Saddam was kidnapped by Muqtada al-Sadir gangs remains as a question; nonetheless it should be a matter of an investigation.

Link: http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m29475&s1=h1

[Armenian]

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

US ex-generals reject Iran strike

Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran. They said such action would have "disastrous consequences" for security in the Middle East and also for coalition forces in Iraq. They said the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme must be resolved through diplomacy, urging Washington to start direct talks with Iran. The letter was published in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.

It was signed by:

* Lt Gen Robert Gard, a former military assistant to the US defence secretary

* Gen Joseph Hoar, a former commander-in-chief, US Central Command

* Vice Adm Jack Shanahan, a former director of the Center for Defense Information

"As former US military leaders, we strongly caution against the use of military force against Iran," the authors said. They said such action would further exacerbate regional and global tensions. "A strategy of diplomatic engagement with Iran would serve the interests of the US and the UK and potentially could enhance regional and international security," the letter said. It also said that "the British government has a vital role play in securing a renewed diplomatic push and making it clear that it will oppose any recourse to military force". The US and its Western allies suspect Iran of using its nuclear programme as a cover to produce nuclear weapons, a claim denied by Tehran. Washington has so far refused to rule out military action if Iran does not halt its nuclear activities. The US has also recently beefed up its military presence in the Gulf.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/6328801.stm


A harsh commentary about our commander-in-chief within main stream news media: http://www.olbermann.org/ko/video_detail.cfm?id=2088

[Armenian]

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

Iran Not Only Rejects Nuclear Offer But Vows To Expand Nuclear Program.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator said Sunday that Iran will expand uranium enrichment, in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution giving the Islamic Republic until Aug. 31 to halt the activity or face the threat of political and economic sanctions. Ali Larijani called the U.N. Security Council resolution issued last week illegal and said Iran won't respect the deadline. "We reject this resolution," he told reporters.

"We will expand nuclear activities where required. It includes all nuclear technology including the string of centrifuges," Larijani said, referring to the centrifuges Iran uses to enrich uranium. He said Iran had not violated any of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and that the U.N. had no right to require it suspend enrichment. "We won't accept suspension," he said: http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap2929910.html