Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Alexandros]

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

Israeli general Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam denies Iran is nuclear threat

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv

From The Sunday Times

January 10, 2010

A general who was once in charge of Israel’s nuclear weapons has claimed that Iran is a “very, very, very long way from building a nuclear capability”.

Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam, 75, a war hero and pillar of the defence establishment, believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make nuclear weapons.

The views expressed by the former director-general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission contradict the assessment of Israel’s defence establishment and put him at odds with political leaders.

Major-General Amos Yadlin, head of military intelligence, recently told the defence committee of the Knesset that Iran will probably be able to build a single nuclear device this year.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, has repeatedly said that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Israeli forces have been in training to attack Iranian nuclear installations and some analysts believe airstrikes could be launched this year if international sanctions fail to deter Tehran from pursuing its programme.

Eilam, who is thought to be updated by former colleagues on developments in Iran, calls his country’s official view hysterical. “The intelligence community are spreading frightening voices about Iran,” he said.

He suggested that the “defence establishment is sending out false alarms in order to grab a bigger budget” while some politicians have used Iran to divert attention away from problems at home.

“Those who say that Iran will obtain a bomb within a year’s time, on what basis did they say so?” he asked. “Where is the evidence?”

He has just published Eilam’s Arc, a memoir in which he reveals that he opposed the Israeli attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

According to well-placed defence sources, Israel is speeding up preparations for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. Last week its defence forces released footage that showed training to refuel F-15 jet fighters in mid-air. “This was a warning not to Iran but to the Americans that we’re serious,” said an Israeli defence source.

But Eilam argues “such an attack [against Iran] would be counter-productive”.

“One strike is not practical. In order to delay the Iranian programme for three to four years, one needs an armada of aircraft, which only a super-power can provide. Only America can do it.”

Link

[Eddo211]

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

Pentagon: No evidence that Iran seeking nukes
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:54:08 GMT



DIA chief, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess



The Pentagon's top intelligence official says there is no evidence that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons.

The chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, says the key findings of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear energy program are still valid.

"The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true," he told Voice of America.

The NIE report was a consensus judgment of all US intelligence agencies, which concluded that Iran halted all activities which could have allegedly led to the development of nuclear arms in 2003.

Burgess said the Pentagon had seen no indication that Tehran was planning to resume the program allegedly aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

"We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program. But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know," he said.

Burgess said the Pentagon would continue to work on verifying that Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear activities.

The Islamic Republic insists its nuclear program is solely aimed at civilian purposes and rejects the West's allegations that it intends to pursue military objectives.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports and US National Intelligence Estimates issued so far have attested to the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program.

Tehran has repeatedly called for the removal of all weapons of mass destruction from across the globe.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116141&sectionid=351020104

[Haykakan]

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

Iran starts production of surface-to-air missiles

press tv
Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:30:17 GMT


Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi
Iran has announced starting the production run for new medium-range
surface-to-air missiles with the aim of upgrading its air defense
systems.

Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said the missiles have a range of
more than 40 kilometers.

Ahmad Vahidi added that the smart missiles travel at supersonic speed
before hitting their targeted enemy aircraft.

Vahidi said these technologically advanced missiles are apt in
electronic warfare, adding that the missiles break into small pieces
and act as shrapnel, upon impact.

"The mass production of air defense systems is successfully underway
and these systems will [soon] be delivered [to the armed forces],"
Vahidi informed.

He noted that the new missile system will play a decisive role in
defending the country's airspace.

Over the past few years, Iran has acquired expertise in missile
production at a rapid pace and conducts frequent drills to test-fire
its latest prototypes.

[KanadaHye]

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

'Arrogant powers stuck in cul-de-sac'



Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says arrogant powers have reached an impasse, and much of their threadbare propaganda has been unmasked to the people of the world.

Addressing a host of university professors on Wednesday, the Leader said arrogant powers have lost control of affairs in their campaign against the Islamic movement, and are desperately making their last attempts.

Ayatollah Khamenei further highlighted the growing hatred of and outrage at the US and the Zionist regime of Israel across the world.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Ayatollah Khamenei underlined the need to maintain unity and rapport in the society 'at this sensitive juncture'.

"The most pressing need in the country today is unity and solidarity", said the Leader.

Ayatollah Khamenei then underscored any word or action which might provoke divisions and rifts in the society should be avoided.

The Leader further said a clear line has to be drawn between the sympathizers of the Islamic Revolution and its enemies, highlighting the need to stand up to global arrogance as well as divisive moves.

Also in his remarks, Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated that universities and scientific centers in the country are expected to continue moving full steam ahead on the path to progress, so that the Iranian nation will secure its rightful scientific status.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020101

[londontsi]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10865085

Iran's Ahmadinejad survives 'assassination attempt' Iran's President Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad has survived an attack on his convoy in western Iran, media reports from the region say.

The reports say the blast took place in the city of Hamedan where the president had gone to deliver a speech.

Mr Ahmadinejad was unhurt and went ahead as planned with his speech, which was broadcast live on state TV.

According to Arab TV reports, a number of people were wounded in the attack.

[Federate]

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

No Blank Checks for the GOP — or Likud

High among the blunders of history was the “blank cheque” Kaiser Wilhelm gave Vienna, after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, to deal with the Serbs as they saw fit.

Five weeks later, Vienna cashed the check and declared war, after Belgrade refused to submit to all 10 demands of an ultimatum. Russia mobilized; Germany and France followed. And war came, the bloodiest in all of European history with 9 million soldiers in their graves.

Since June 1914, a “blank check” given by one nation to another for war has been regarded as strategic folly.

Thus it is startling to learn 47 House Republicans just signed on to H.R. 1553 declaring unequivocal “support for Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran … including the use of military force.”

These Republicans have just given Tel Aviv a blank check for a pre-emptive war that Israel, unless it uses its nuclear weapons, can start but not finish. Fighting and finishing that war would fall to the armed forces of the United States.

Who do these Republicans represent?

The Pentagon has made clear that with two wars of nearly a decade’s duration bleeding us, we do not want a third war with Iran. For while easy to predict how such a war begins, with air and missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, no one can know how it ends.

Indeed, how would Israel reach its targets in Iran?

Turkey would not allow Israeli over-flights. The route over Jordan and Iraq would require U.S. military complicity, for we control Iraqi air space. Would Riyadh permit Israel to use its airspace to attack Iran, knowing Tehran could create havoc in the Gulf states and oil patch of northeastern Arabia?

The Israeli air force could destroy the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, the heavy water reactor at Arak and uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. But Israel cannot follow up and destroy all the dispersed nuclear facilities and missile sites of Iran. And no one knows what would follow.

How would Iran retaliate? Missile strikes on Tel Aviv? A missile barrage form Hezbollah igniting another Israeli-Lebanon war? How long could the United States stand by and watch Israel bombarded?

Indeed, the principal purpose and result of an Israeli pre-emptive war on Iran, bringing retaliation on Israel, would be to drag America in to fight and finish a war Israel had begun.

In whose interest is that? And who dreamed this resolution up?

If America joined the attack, we would have to complete the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and destroy its missile sites, coastal defenses, navy, air force and hundreds of speedboats to prevent attacks on U.S. warships and tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

We would have to strike all the Republican Guard bases near Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our troops. We would have to kill thousands of Iranians.

Would Iran retaliate by inciting the Mahdi Army to kill our men in Iraq? Would it set Hezbollah to kidnap or kill Americans in Lebanon? Would Iran retaliate for its civilian dead by activating agents to commit terrorism in the United States? No one knows.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya to retaliate for Qaddafi’s bombing of the Berlin discotheque. In 1989, in retaliation, Qaddafi blew up Pan Am 103. Death toll: 270 men, women and children. It’s called blowback.

The House Republican resolution supports Israel’s use of “all means necessary” to “eliminate nuclear threats” that represent an “immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.”

What “immediate and existential threat” are they talking about?

It is Israel that has hundreds of atomic bombs. Iran has no atom bombs, has tested no atomic device, has diverted none of its low-enriched uranium out of the sight of U.N. inspectors and has offered to ship half of its LEU to Turkey in exchange for fuel rods for a U.S.-built reactor that makes medical isotopes. And half of the centrifuges at Natanz have broken down.

Undeniably, Iran is gaining knowledge of how to build a bomb. But such a decision would seem idiotic from Iran’s standpoint, risking Israeli or U.S. nuclear strikes and provoking Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to follow suit and acquire the bomb, leaving Iran even more isolated and vulnerable,

Three years ago, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that Iran had given up on the project of building a bomb. Do these Republicans have hard evidence Iran is diverting its enriched uranium to such a bomb? If so, where is it?

Have these Republicans forgotten what happened to their colleagues in 2006, who voted Bush that blank check for war on Iraq in 2002?

Why, with all the issues going for them, House Republicans would announce full-throated support for a pre-emptive war on Iran that Americans would have to fight and finish, escapes me.

But if this is where a Republican House would take America, into yet another war, best that we know it before voting this fall.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/08/02/no-blank-checks-for-the-gop-or-likud/

[KanadaHye]

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

The consequences of attacking Iran?

The world as we know it would come to a halt. There would be shortages of nearly every item on the market from gas to food to clothing to water as it would bring an end to shipments of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Global economies would become localized dues to fuel shortages. China would sit back and laugh as the western world creates its own destruction.

[KarotheGreat]

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

The consequences of attacking Iran?

The world as we know it would come to a halt. There would be shortages of nearly every item on the market from gas to food to clothing to water as it would bring an end to shipments of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Global economies would become localized dues to fuel shortages. China would sit back and laugh as the western world creates its own destruction.

China can not survive without the West, China needs oil as much as the West does and China needs also the Western consumer to buy it's product so China would also go down the drain.

[KanadaHye]

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

China can not survive without the West, China needs oil as much as the West does and China needs also the Western consumer to buy it's product so China would also go down the drain.

This is why China buys oil from places like Sudan. China also doesn't stick its nose into others affairs, they buy resources and provide Chinese workers while staying out of local politics. The western consumer which has spent its way into a mound of debt won't be as important once China, India and Brazil rise into the 21st century. However, the western consumer can't be replaced since 1 fat materialistic north american = 3 eastern civilians.

[KarotheGreat]

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

This is why China buys oil from places like Sudan. China also doesn't stick its nose into others affairs, they buy resources and provide Chinese workers while staying out of local politics. The western consumer which has spent its way into a mound of debt won't be as important once China, India and Brazil rise into the 21st century. However, the western consumer can't be replaced since 1 fat materialistic north american = 3 eastern civilians.

China also buys oil from Iran, and when a war starts the prices will rise very very high. And Chinas economy can not grow without the West and without it's economy Chinas power can't grow. China needs peace to prosper and grow, a war will be as costly for China as it would be for the west thanks to globalisation