Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[retro]

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

Oil in the Eastern Mediterranean (Israel, Cyprus, Lebanon Egypt) could easily force changes
in allegiances due to individual countries interest.

Israel may not rely and support Azerbaijan due to it becoming more energy sufficient.

Turkey may also lose some of its geographic importance vis a vi Israel (energy route) and cause
a more independent and hopefully hostile relationship towards it.

The Turks have never had any legitimacy in Cyprus and Israel does seem to be increasingly acting, as a counter to Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean.

It's also intresting to note that Turkey influence upon it's Arabs neighbours isn't what it once was. As until recently, Iraq did not have a direct freight link with Syria and the two nations where forced to transit via Turkey.

Iraq-Syria rail link to begin operations in 2012

A railway connecting Syria and Iraq will begin operations next year, Kuwait’s news agency KUNA has reported. In addition, a direct line connecting Syria’s eastern Deir Al-Zor-Al-Bukamal station to Iraq has been completed, the director general of the General Establishment of Syrian Railways, George Al-Maqabary, said.

“The rail link is a direct line that will guarantee smooth transport of commodities from Syria toward Iraq,” Maqabary said, adding that continuing work in building the Deir Al-Zor-Al-Bukamal station is a part of the project.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/20...23/173308.html

Syria and Iraq also have an old Kirkuk-Banias oil pipeline, which needs to be repaired and reopened.

[Mher]

Israel's Peres warns attack on Iran getting 'closer'

Israeli President Shimon Peres warned on Sunday that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely, days before a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear programme is due.

"The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option," Peres told the Israel Hayom daily.

"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.

"I don't think that any decision has already been made, but there is an impression that Iran is getting closer to nuclear weapons."

His comments came after he warned in an interview aired by Israel's privately-owned Channel Two television on Saturday that an attack on Iran was becoming "more and more likely."

"The intelligence services of the different countries that are keeping an eye on (Iran) are worried and putting pressure on their leaders to warn that Iran is ready to obtain the nuclear weapon," he said.

In France meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe warned that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.

"We have imposed sanctions that continue to expand, we can toughen them to put pressure on Iran," Juppe told Europe 1 radio.

"We will continue on this path because a military intervention could create a situation that completely destabilises the region," he said.

"Everything must be done to avoid the irreversible."

In recent days, speculation in Israel has grown about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, with Haaretz newspaper reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak were seeking cabinet support for an attack.

And the military last week carried out what Israeli media called a "ballistic missile" test, as well as a large-scale civil defence drill simulating the response to conventional and non-conventional missile attacks.

Officials said both events were long-planned, but they drove talk here about whether Israel is ramping up plans for an attack.

On Sunday, Haaretz reported that US officials had failed to secure a commitment from Israel that it would coordinate any attack plans with Washington.

Still, media reports suggested no final decision has been taken and that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear watchdog on November 8 or 9 would have a "decisive effect" on decision-making.

Previous IAEA assessments have centred on Iran's efforts to produce fissile material -- uranium and plutonium -- that can be used for power generation and other peaceful uses, but also for the core of a nuclear warhead.

However the new update, which diplomats say will be circulated among envoys on Tuesday or Wednesday, will focus on Iran's alleged efforts to put the fissile material in a warhead and develop missiles to carry them to a target.

On Monday, Barak denied reports that he and Netanyahu had already decided to attack Iran over the opposition of military and intelligence chiefs.

But he said "situations could arise in the Middle East under which Israel must defend its vital interests independently, without having to rely on regional or other forces."

Haaretz said a majority of the 15 members of Israel's security cabinet were still against an attack on Iran, and a poll published by the newspaper found Israeli public opinion divided, with 41 percent in favour, 39 percent opposed and 20 percent undecided.

Israel has consistently warned all options remain on the table when it comes to Iran's nuclear programme, which the xxxish state and Western governments fear masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

Iran denies any such ambition and insists its nuclear programme is for power generation and medical purposes only.

In comments published on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi accused the IAEA of "political" behaviour and said its report would be "baseless."

"I believe that these documents lack authenticity. But if they insist, they should go ahead and publish. Better to face danger once than be always in danger," several Iranian dailies quoted Salehi as saying.

"We have said repeatedly that their documents are baseless. For example one can counterfeit money, but it remains counterfeit. These documents are like that," Salehi said.

http://news.yahoo.com/israels-peres-says-iran-attack-more-more-likely-022212256.html

[Serjik]

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

I somehow dont think they gonna attack Iran. they cant be that stupid. Iranian are aryan and Armenians ancient cousins and they can kick butt.

[KanadaHye]

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

This is a map from 2001

Take a look at the US bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan and note how 2/3 of IRAN is surrounded by US-Allied military:



In late 2001, IRAN, Iraq and Afghanistan were the only Asian-Mideast nations who refused to pledge any kind of support for Bush's purported "War on Terrorism" and we know how the Bush administration took care of that little problem.

It's not whether IF Iran is going to be invaded, but WHEN. Unless, of course if there is a political solution (i.e. Iran's leaders sells out)

[arakeretzig]

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

USA figures if the mullahs fall, hizbullah and assad fall too. 3 birds in one stone. Maybe hamas goes too, who knows what will happen.

[londontsi]

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

Iran is part of the Central Asian and therefore Russian underbelly.

Russia has always opposed any attack on Iran.
It would be interesting how Russia would take things in case of attack if its wishes/interests were ignored.

[arakeretzig]

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

USA's recent wars are consistent with the policy of surrounding Russia from all sides,the only real obstical to that is Iran and China, North korea. Maybe this time Russia will say, enough is enough?

[retro]

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

Iran is part of the Central Asian and therefore Russian underbelly.

Russia has always opposed any attack on Iran.
It would be interesting how Russia would take things in case of attack if its wishes/interests were ignored.

Whilst Iran is within Russia's sphere and it's hard to know what the consequences would be. The Israelis are certainly pushing this and they could even elect to go alone.

Russia warns against Israeli air strike on Iran

Russia�s foreign minister Sergei Lavov has warned that a military strike on Iran would be a �very serious mistake� with �unpredictable consequences�, after Israel�s president Shimon Peres said that an attack was increasingly likely.

In comments published in the Israeli daily Hayom, Mr Peres said that �the possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option�.

"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.

The drumbeat of war is expected to grow louder this week when United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, issues its most detailed report to date on nuclear research in Iran.

It will provide what Western officials and experts regard as irrefutable evidence that Tehran is compiling the capacity and skills to build a bomb. It will be used as leverage for a fifth round of sanctions at the UN, but could also provide Israel, with the tacit support of Washington, to finalise plans for an air strike.

Among its findings are that Tehran was helped by nuclear experts from two countries, believed to be Russia and Pakistan. The Washington Post reported that key assistance was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist, hired by Iran's Physics Research Centre.

Documents handed over to UN officials showed that he had worked for the Iranians for at least five years, giving lectures and sharing his expertise on developing and testing an explosives package that the Iranians have now succeeded in making part of their blueprint for a nuclear warhead.

Moscow, the closest thing Iran has to a big power ally, is deeply opposed to any military action against the Islamic republic, though Moscow has supported UN Security Council sanctions against Tehran.

"This would be a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences," said Mr Lavrov, addressing reporters in Moscow. "Military intervention only leads to a multiple rise in casualties and human suffering."

A raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would be likely to provoke Tehran into disruptive retaliatory measures in the Gulf that would sever shipping routes and disrupt the flow of oil and gas to export markets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-on-Iran.html

[KanadaHye]

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

What exactly is Israel's goal? It wouldn't start and end with a couple attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran having nuclear technology isn't the reason for so many wealthy investors being against Iran's policies. Israel knows it would force Iran to counter strike and pull the U.S. military into that battle as the troops are already strategically in the region. The result would be a large spike in oil prices (prices that have already been rigged by future contracts)

[londontsi]

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

Russia in an odd way is “allowing” Israel/USA to attack Iran by refusing to honour an agreement it made to supply Iran with S-300s.

This must have been under pressure from the US.

What political “chips” did they get for breaking the agreement.
Maybe Russia is more vulnerable to pressure than it appears on the surface.