Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

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

Bush to Karzai: Will You Just Shut Up About Iran?



Things got a little testy at the Camp David Summit between Afghan President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and American President George Bush. Karzai, who when he is in the U.S. is expected to act as a puppet of the Bush administration, made the mistake of actually speaking his mind. In a CNN interview broadcast Sunday, the Afghan president said terrorism in Afghanistan is getting worse, that the hunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is at a standstill and, then, he described Iran as a positive player -- "a helper and a solution" -- in the region.

All of these statements are objectively true. But George Bush does not deal in the realm of truth. And he certainly does not like his puppet presidents getting off their strings. On the eve of the summit, Karzai told CNN that:

1. "The security situation in Afghanistan over the past two years has definitely deteriorated. The Afghan people have suffered. Terrorists have killed our schoolchildren. They have burned our schools. They have killed international helpers."

2. "We are not closer (to catching bin Laden), we are not further away from it. We are where we were a few years ago."

3. "So far, Iran has been a helper (in the fight against terrorism)."

All of those statements, made by Karzai in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on the eve of his trip to Camp David, were corrected by Bush upon the Afghan president's arrival. On the security situation, Bush told Karzai not to believe what he was seeing on the ground in Afghanistan. "There is still work to be done, don't get me wrong," Bush said. "But progress is being made."

On the bin Laden search, Bush spoke of how the hunt is progressing and declared that, "With real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done." On Iran's positive role in the region, Bush again told Karzai not to believe his own experience but instead to accept the neoconservative version of events. "I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence there in Afghanistan is a positive force," the American president pointedly told the Afghan president. So there you have it, a meeting of the minds Bush-style.

A foreign leader from a region of supreme interest to the United States comes to Camp David to brief the American president on what is going on. The foreign leader speaks his mind, offering his best assessment of the experience he is living. Then the president tells the visitor from abroad that he is wrong. As Bush famously declared at a policy session in 2005, "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

And it is just so damned inconvenient when a puppet who is supposed to help spread the propaganda instead messes everything up by talking about what is really happening.

Source: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=220487

[Lucin]

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

Siamanto,
My sole intent was (is) to speak my mind...
However, you gave me such a big lesson in honesty, humility, humanity and… but, please let the others be the judge who is unfair, honest or hypocrite... And I am not the kind to blow hot and cold; that's my nature…

For the record, I did not say that everything has been done by Dashnaks but clearly you were unfairly attempting to undermine their role, thus the reason of my intervention. I don't like to make things hostile so let's put an end to this silly argument, please...

[Artsakh]

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

Dear Moderators, all these irrelevant posts having to do with completely unrelated topics should be deleted or moved to a new thread because they detract from the main topic.

[Armenian]

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

Iran president to visit Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan



The president of Iran will set off on a foreign tour Tuesday, visiting Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, Iranian media reported Monday. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will first visit Afghanistan where he will have negotiations with his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, to discuss current international issues, the situation in the region and bilateral relations. It will be Ahmadinejad's first visit to Afghanistan since his election win in the summer of 2005. Tuesday afternoon, the Afghan president will arrive in Ashgabat where he will have talks with Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov. A number of bilateral trade and economic agreements are expected to be signed.

Ahmadinejad's final destination will be Kyrgyzstan, where he will participate in the seventh session of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). On August 16, ten heads of state will meet in Bishkek, including the presidents of Kazakhstan, China, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Pakistan's foreign minister and India's oil and gas minister will attend along with Mongolia and Iran which have SCO observer status. The president of Iran will address the SCO meeting and meet with a number of SCO heads of state. Iran has been at the center of international concerns over its nuclear program, which some countries, particularly the United States, suspect is geared toward nuclear weapons development. Tehran has consistently denied the claims, saying it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes.

Iran has come under pressure for rejecting three consecutive UN resolutions against its nuclear program since last year. The six countries negotiating the dispute - the UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany - have demanded that Tehran suspend all uranium enrichment before negotiating a solution to the nuclear program. Iran insists that it needs nuclear power purely to generate electricity. Ahmadinejad announced early April the start of uranium enrichment on an industrial level.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20070813/71215526.html

[Armenian]

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

President/Dictator of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf finally admits what has been common knowledge since the mid 90s, namely that Pakistanis have supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. What he did not admit, however, is also a well known fact that the Pakistani intelligence apparatus the ISI, along with the CIA, set up and financed the Taliban movement in Afghanistan during the mid 90s.

Was it done to fight the Soviets? Obviously no, for the Soviets were comprehensively defeated and withdrew several years prior, and by the mid 90s the Soviet Union did not even exists anymore. Nevertheless, upon expelling the Soviets in the late 80s Afghanistan had a chance to build a nation once again. This chance was destroyed when Pakistan, along with several intelligence agencies, decided to set-up Al-Qaeda type institutions within Afghanistan's political vacuum. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan that had cultural/tribal ties with Pakistan were used towards that purpose. Today, the average Afghan, especially the Tadjiks of Afghanistan's north, hate and fear Pakistan with a passion.

The legendary Tadjik leader the late Ahmad Masood, a staunch Afghan nationalist known as the lion of Panshir, knew of the depth and severity of Pakistan's involvement in the Taliban movement and in the so-called "AL-Qaeda" organization. The Masood lead Tadjiks of the Northern Alliance were the only opposition the Taliban/Al-Qaeda had in Afghanistan. What's more, during the early part of the year 2001 Masood traveled to Western Europe and the United States to express his deep concerns about the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Pakistan's involvement within the two, he attempted to warn officials of an impending disaster. However, he was ignored by the main-stream media and politicians alike. It is interesting to note here that Masood was assassinated in northern Afghanistan just two days prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US. It is also interesting to note that Masood was at the time moving closer to the Russian Federation, whom he had asked for direct support in fighting the Taliban.

Nevertheless, Afghan Tadjiks to this day claim that the assassination of the great nationalist leader was an operation conducted by Pakistani intelligence. It is also claimed that Massood was taken out so that he would not pose a challenge to what was to come, the invasion several months later of Afghanistan by the "Forces of Freedom."

Armenian

************************************************** ***************************

Taliban backed in Pakistan



General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, made a rare admission that Taliban fighters in Afghanistan were benefiting from support inside his country as Afghanistan and Pakistan on Sunday vowed to work harder to tackle extremism. The pledges came at the end of a four-day, US-backed meeting of Pashtun leaders from both countries. Dubbed the “Peace Jirga” after the name given to traditional meetings by the Pashtun tribes who live on both sides of the border, the meeting was conceived and pushed for by Washington as a way to secure better co-operation between Kabul and Islamabad. Gen Musharraf struck a blow to the meeting last week when at the last minute he abandoned plans to attend opening ceremonies. He and Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, have also had testy exchanges in the past about what some see as Taliban safe havens in Pakistan’s frontier provinces.

But Gen Musharraf – under increasing political pressure from Islamists at home – said yesterday the countries needed to do more to fight terrorism.

“There is no other option for both countries other than peace and unity, trust and co-operation,” he told the closing session of the jirga. Pakistan has in the past denied Taliban fighters were finding safe haven in its tribal areas. But Gen Musharraf said yesterday: “There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil. The problem that you have in your region is because support is provided from our side.”

The two governments have made similar pledges to work together in the past. However, supporters of the jirga said the difference this time lay in the involvement of elected and civil society representatives including tribal leaders and community elders. The governments’ promise to refuse to allow sanctuaries to terrorists was also endorsed by jirga representatives who recommended tribal communities in the affected areas become responsible for ensuring this. A joint declaration adopted by the jirga earlier recognised terrorism as a common threat, emphasised the need for a war on terror and pledged: “[The] government and people of Afghanistan and Pakistan will not allow sanctuaries/training centres for terrorists in their respective countries.”

The declaration emphasised mutual respect, non-interference and peaceful co-existence and called for a war against drug trafficking as well as for economic development of the affected areas.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2b8a8cd6-48e...0779fd2ac.html

[Siamanto]

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

Siamanto,
My sole intent was (is) to speak my mind...
However, you gave me such a big lesson in honesty, humility, humanity and… but, please let the others be the judge who is unfair, honest or hypocrite... And I am not the kind to blow hot and cold; that's my nature…

Not only I don't mind people speaking their mind, I also encourage them to do so; however, you should expect that others
1. May perceive your views as one sided, hypocritical etc.
2. To speak their mind, in a reply

The following is not meant to be a lesson, but don't you think that it may be perceived as hypocritical and unfair to allow oneself to judge a person without providing any reference (to what the person have said) yet, describe the person's reply that includes explanations and references (to what you said) as "giving a lesson?"
"I suggest that you open your eyes" - as you have said - and read your previous post with fairness and honesty to to see the nature of it.

For the record, I did not say that everything has been done by Dashnaks

For the record, I did not say that you said that "everything has been done by Dashnaks." If anything in my reply gave that impression, please quote it. Thanks! Limiting oneself to what is said, usually, helps.

but clearly you were unfairly attempting to undermine their role, thus the reason of my intervention.

You are repeating the same accusation - and again - without any references or explanation; I'm afraid that repeating would not make it clearer or more credible.
I have already replied to the above; if your intent is to dialogue, please refer to my reply.

I don't like to make things hostile

I did not perceive it as a hostility, so you should not worry and continue to speak your mind...That's one of the main reasons why forums are put in place????

so let's put an end to this silly argument, please...

I have already answered to the above in a reply to a post by shkara.
I will simply add that it is unfortunate, but not necessarily silly; the issue is of relevance and I'm glad that it was raised...and, probably, will be raised again as long as the pointless false party propaganda continues

[Armenian]

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

Iran's disruptive hold over Afghanistan is rising



The guardians of the Islamic republican system in Iran are continuing their quest to ensure the existence of Iran's clerical regime. To eliminate potential existential threats, these guardians have gradually entered yet another arena in which to confront their adversaries: Afghanistan.

Iran has played a positive role in increasing Afghanistan's economic and political development. However, its underhanded and multidimensional meddling in Afghanistan's internal affairs is increasing. A brief look at key recent events provides insight into the motivations behind the Islamic Republic's current support, as well as the unspoken threat of further support, for the myriad insurgent groups - the neo-Taliban - opposing the current state of affairs in Afghanistan.

The appearance of traceable sophisticated weapons and Iranian-produced assault rifles, mortars and plastic explosives in Afghanistan provides evidence of Iran's direct support to the neo-Taliban. Until recently, the explosively-formed penetrators had primarily been seen in Iraq. These weapons, capable of piercing armor, are now being used against NATO forces in Afghanistan, compliments of Iran. If Iran did not want its involvement known it could have supplied untraceable weapons. The introduction of marked weapons into the Afghan theater was purposeful, sending a message of Iran's ability to destabilize western Afghanistan.

Reports of territorial violations also began surfacing earlier this year. Afghan officials accuse their western neighbor of repeatedly violating Afghan airspace as well as of conducting armed incursions into Afghan territory. Furthermore, a former Afghan provincial governor alleges that the Islamic Republic has been hosting a training camp, identified as Shamsabad, for opponents of the Afghan government. These infringements on Afghan sovereignty challenge the efficacy of the central authority in Kabul and its international backers.

These two examples provide insight into the hold Iran has over Afghanistan and why it has sought this position of influence. While most consider Pakistan to be Afghanistan's most troublesome neighbor, one would be remiss if Iran did not enter into the equation. Amid persistent claims of Pakistan's fingerprints all over the neo-Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai could hardly afford another blow to his central authority. Yet Iran, the "exemplary" neighbor, removed any subtlety in its message to both the Karzai administration and the international community by revealing its hand in arms shipments and territorial violations. Although Iran has denied all allegations and lamented the "unfortunate" resurgence of the Taliban, it knows the value of its actions.

One must remember that Iran's hold on Afghanistan is much stronger than Pakistan's. Iran has infiltrated much of the current power structure. In the 1980s, Iran cultivated strong political and military alliances with several fronts inside Afghanistan as well as with Afghan resistance groups based in Iran and Pakistan. Some of Iran's key Afghan assets hold principal posts in Karzai's administration, Afghanistan's Parliament and the intelligence community. Because of this, Iran is capable of exerting pressure when it suits its needs. The expulsion of approximately 100,000 Afghan refugees from Iran is an example of Iran's ability to apply political pressure. Iran claimed that it had the legal right to expel what it considered illegal refugees. This triggered a humanitarian nightmare for Afghanistan and prompted the Parliament to sack two of Karzai's loyal Cabinet ministers. After Karzai requested leniency, the Iranian authorities agreed to slow down repatriation efforts.

The refugee expulsion gave Iran three advantages. First, Tehran was able to demonstrate to Kabul that it could wreak havoc within reasonably legal grounds if it so desired; second, Iran was able to portray the refugee crisis as reflecting the inadequacy of Western-sponsored democracy in Afghanistan. And third and perhaps most dangerous in tactical calculations, Iran may have slipped any number of its own agents into the throngs of returning refugees. These refugees lacked identity papers because, as some Afghan refugees have claimed, the Iranian authorities ripped up their documents even though some had identity cards that allowed them to stay in Iran legally. The sea of refugees without identity cards constituted the perfect cover for Iranian agents to penetrate into Afghanistan.

Iran's actions in Afghanistan appear to be part of a calculated plan to give Tehran an advantage in its efforts to safeguard the regime and its aspirations. As international pressure has mounted against the regime's nuclear ambitions, Iran has ramped up its campaign in Afghanistan, selecting a strange bedfellow - the staunchly Sunni neo-Taliban. Yet Shiite Iran has frequently established political alliances based on expediency. Consider its relationships with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Ahmad Shah Massoud. These have proved useful in Iran's efforts to control its environment. The airspace violations, dispatch of traceable light weapons and EPFs to the neo-Taliban and possible presence of covert agents inside Afghanistan are further reminders to NATO and other international forces stationed in Afghanistan of Iran's ability to create instability. If Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked or if the country is brought under severe economic and political pressure because of its nuclear activities or other misdeeds, Iran can and will make life difficult for the foreign forces in Afghanistan.

In Iran's calculation, the current regime's security rests in having a nuclear capability. Until that time, Tehran has created pressure points to dissuade Western powers, especially the United States, and other perceived enemies from challenging the authority of the regime. Iran is using Afghanistan to showcase its might and its ability to create a scenario worse than Iraq for the US and others. If we are not careful, Afghanistan may once again find itself the pawn in a "great game."

Amin Tarzi is director of Middle East studies at the Marine Corps University, Quantico, Virginia. The opinions and conclusions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of either the Marine Corps University or any other governmental agency. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.

Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....icle_id=84504#

[Armenian]

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

How Neo-Cons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al Qaeda



After the Sep. 11 attacks, U.S. officials responsible for preparing for war in Afghanistan needed Iran's help to unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had organised resistance by the "Northern Alliance" and had provided arms and funding, at a time when the United States had been unwilling to do so. "The Iranians had real contacts with important players in Afghanistan and were prepared to use their influence in constructive ways in coordination with the United States," recalls Flynt Leverett, then senior director for Middle East affairs in the National Security Council (NSC), in an interview with IPS.

In October 2001, as the United States was just beginning its military operations in Afghanistan, State Department and NSC officials began meeting secretly with Iranian diplomats in Paris and Geneva, under the sponsorship of Lakhdar Brahimi, head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Leverett says these discussions focused on "how to effectively unseat the Taliban and once the Taliban was gone, how to stand up an Afghan government". It was thanks to the Northern Alliance Afghan troops, which were supported primarily by the Iranians, that the Taliban was driven out of Kabul in mid-November. Two weeks later, the Afghan opposition groups were convened in Bonn under United Nations auspices to agree on a successor regime.

At that meeting, the Northern Alliance was demanding 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government, which was blocking agreement by other opposition groups. According to U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins, Iran played a "decisive role" in persuading the Northern Alliance delegate to compromise. Dobbins also recalls how the Iranians insisted on including language in the Bonn agreement on the war on terrorism. The bureaucracy recognised that there was an opportunity to work with Iran not only on stabilising Afghanistan but on al Qaeda as well. As reported by the Washington Post on Oct. 22, 2004, the State Department's policy planning staff had written a paper in late November 2001 suggesting that the United States should propose more formal arrangements for cooperation with Iran on fighting al Qaeda.

That would have involved exchanging intelligence information with Tehran as well as coordinating border sweeps to capture al Qaeda fighters and leaders who were already beginning to move across the border into Pakistan and Iran. The CIA agreed with the proposal, according to the Post's sources, as did the head of the White House Office for Combating Terrorism, Ret. Gen. Wayne A. Downing. But the cooperation against al Qaeda was not the priority for the anti-Iranian interests in the White House and the Pentagon. Investigative journalist Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" recounts that Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, who chaired an inter-agency committee on Iran policy dealing with issues surrounding Afghanistan, learned that the White House intended to include Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in Bush's State of the Union message in January.

Hadley expressed reservations about that plan at one point, but was told by Bush directly that Iran had to stay in. By the end of December, Hadley had decided, against the recommendations of the State Department, CIA and White House counter-terrorism office, that the United States would not share any information with Iran on al Qaeda, even though it would press the Iranians for such intelligence, as well as to turn over any al Qaeda members it captured to the appropriate home country. Soon after that decision, hardliners presented Iranian policy to Bush and the public as hostile to U.S. aims in Afghanistan and refusing to cooperate with the war on terror -- the opposite of what officials directly involved had witnessed.

On Jan. 11, 2002, the New York Times quoted Pentagon and intelligence officials as saying that Iran had given "safe haven" to fleeing al Qaeda fighters in order to use them against the United States in post-Taliban Afghanistan. That same day, Bush declared "Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror." "Our nation, in our fight against terrorism, will uphold the doctrine of 'either you're with us or against us'," he said. Officials who were familiar with the intelligence at that point agree that the "safe haven for al Qaeda" charge was not based on any genuine analysis by the intelligence community.

"I wasn't aware of any intelligence support that charge," recalls Dobbins, who was still the primary point of contact with Iranian officials about cooperation on Afghanistan. "I certainly would have seen it had there been any such intelligence. Nobody told me they were harbouring al Qaeda."

Iran had already increased its troop strength on the Afghan border in response to U.S. requests. As the Washington Post reported in 2004, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Javad Zarif brought a dossier to U.N Secretary-General Kofi Annan in early February with the photos of 290 men believed to be al Qaeda members who already been detained fleeing from Afghanistan. Later hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees were repatriated to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other Arab and European countries, according to news reports. The hardliners would complain that the Iranians did not turn over any top al Qaeda leaders. But the United States had just rejected any exchange of information with the very officials with whom it needed to discuss the question of al Qaeda -- the Iranian intelligence and security ministry.

The same administration officials told the Times that Iran was seeking to exert its influence in border regions in western Afghanistan by shipping arms to its Afghan allies in the war against the Taliban and that this could undermine the interim government and Washington's long-term interests in Afghanistan. But in March 2002, Iranian official met with Dobbins in Geneva during a U.N. conference on Afghanistan's security needs. Dobbins recalls that the Iranian delegation brought with it the general who had been responsible for military assistance to the Northern Alliance during the long fight against the Taliban.

The general offered to provide training, uniforms, equipment and barracks for as many as 20,000 new recruits for the nascent Afghan military. All this was to be done under U.S. leadership, Dobbins recalls, not as part of a separate programme under exclusive Iranian control. "The Iranians later confirmed that they did this as a gesture to the United States," says Dobbins. Dobbins returned to Washington to inform key administration officials of what he regarded as an opportunity for a new level of cooperation in Afghanistan. He briefed then Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Rumsfeld personally. "To my knowledge, there was never a response," he says.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0222-07.htm

[Armenian]

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

Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned

The US government is on a ‘burning platform’ of unsustainable policies and practices with fiscal deficits, chronic healthcare underfunding, immigration and overseas military commitments threatening a crisis if action is not taken soon, the country’s top government inspector has warned. David Walker, comptroller general of the US, issued the unusually downbeat assessment of his country’s future in a report that lays out what he called “chilling long-term simulations”.

These include “dramatic” tax rises, slashed government services and the large-scale dumping by foreign governments of holdings of US debt. Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government”.

“Sound familiar?” Mr Walker said. “In my view, it’s time to learn from history and take steps to ensure the American Republic is the first to stand the test of time.”

Mr Walker’s views carry weight because he is a non-partisan figure in charge of the Government Accountability Office, often described as the investigative arm of the US Congress. While most of its studies are commissioned by legislators, about 10 per cent – such as the one containing his latest warnings – are initiated by the comptroller general himself. In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Walker said he had mentioned some of the issues before but now wanted to “turn up the volume”. Some of them were too sensitive for others in government to “have their name associated with”.

“I’m trying to sound an alarm and issue a wake-up call,” he said. “As comptroller general I’ve got an ability to look longer-range and take on issues that others may be hesitant, and in many cases may not be in a position, to take on.

“One of the concerns is obviously we are a great country but we face major sustainability challenges that we are not taking seriously enough,” said Mr Walker, who was appointed during the Clinton administration to the post, which carries a 15-year term. The fiscal imbalance meant the US was “on a path toward an explosion of debt”.

“With the looming retirement of baby boomers, spiralling healthcare costs, plummeting savings rates and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks,” said Mr Walker, a former senior executive at PwC auditing firm.

Current US policy on education, energy, the environment, immigration and Iraq also was on an “unsustainable path”.

“Our very prosperity is placing greater demands on our physical infrastructure. Billions of dollars will be needed to modernise everything from highways and airports to water and sewage systems. The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a sobering wake-up call.”

Mr Walker said he would offer to brief the would-be presidential candidates next spring.

“They need to make fiscal responsibility and inter-generational equity one of their top priorities. If they do, I think we have a chance to turn this around but if they don’t, I think the risk of a serious crisis rises considerably”.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49e...0779fd2ac.html

[skhara]

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6947616.stm

If the United States designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist" organisation, the question will be whether it is an extension of its current efforts to isolate Iran economically or a step towards military action.

According to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press, the Bush administration is moving towards such a designation. It would probably cover the Revolutionary Guards as a whole though there have been discussions about limiting it to the so-called Quds (Jerusalem) Force that the US accuses of helping to arm Shia militias in Iraq.

Although Iran itself is labelled a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the US State Department, this would be the first time that a national military force had been described as a "terrorist" group.

Financial squeeze

The aim would be to squeeze the international operations of the Guards' many commercial activities. Among these are roles in managing Tehran's airport and underground transport systems.

Two UN Security Council resolutions, in December and March, sought to target Iranian trade in material and equipment connected with its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and also named three aviation companies run by the Revolutionary Guards as well as seven of its officers.

This new American order would widen that. It would add to the pressure on US allies and business partners to restrict their dealings with Iran.

The US will also continue to try to get a further Security Council resolution tightening and extending sanctions on Iran. Discussions are expected to be taken up in New York in September but China, for one, has been reluctant to go too far.

The US Treasury Under-Secretary Stuart Levey, in charge of an economic counter-terrorism unit, has been touring Europe this summer asking governments and business, especially banks, to cut Iran off.

Nicholas Burns, Under-Secretary at the Department of State told a Senate committee earlier this year: "We have used our influence to convince leading European banks to stop all lending to Iran. We have convinced European governments and Japan to begin reducing export credits."

However, this pressure has clearly not been enough. Iran is still defying the Security Council demand for it to suspend uranium enrichment to allow talks about its future nuclear plans to be discussed.

In the meantime, the drumbeat of American accusations against Iran for allegedly interfering in Iraq is growing. President George W Bush said at a news conference last week: "The American people should be concerned about Iran. They should be concerned about Iran's activity in Iraq, and they ought to be concerned about Iran's activity around the world."

The unanswered question is whether the new American move would be another step on a path to a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. There have been reports that Vice-President xxxx Cheney does not want such an attack ruled out. Others suggest that the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice prefers toughening up the diplomatic approach, which is why she is supporting this "terrorist" designation.

Role

The Revolutionary Guard Corps (known as the Pasdaran) was formed after the Iranian revolution in 1979 and then took a major role during the war launched against Iran by Saddam Hussein, during which it developed the concept of the human-wave attack.

It forms a significant but separate part of the Iranian armed forces, with internal security and border protection duties (its forces captured the 15 British sailors and marines in the Gulf earlier this year). But it also operates Iran's ballistic missiles and is believed to have a role in the nuclear field as well.

The US and Israel accuse it of arming Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the Shias in Iraq.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was once a member, so a move against the Guards as a whole would also be seen as a move against him.

It would also highlight differences about Iran between the US and two of its allies in the region - the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which maintain close ties to Iran.