Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

12 Consequences of Attacking Iran

The murdered Israeli leader Gen. Yitzhak Rabin opposed the First Gulf War in 1990, warning that one never knows when starting a war where it will lead. As Bush and the neocons are reportedly planning to attack Iran, we should all think of the likely consequences.

Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him "right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also explain Bush's aversion to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil. Various reports state that Iran is years away from the ability to produce a single nuke. In a few years' time the government in Iran could easily change or modify its positions; indeed, already President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is losing power. But time is running out for Bush (although not for America).

An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the Gulf. U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S. loses when we expect enemies to play by American rules.

Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an American attack:

1. Iran wouldblockade the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has new, "state of the art" Russian anti-aircraft defenses as well as powerful Sunburn anti-ship missiles purchased from the Ukraine, Chinese mines, and also itself manufactures other missiles. Anti-ship mines may already be in place, able to be activated from shore.

U.S. strategy calls for destroying all the anti-ship missile emplacements and small missile and mine-laying boats long deployed along Iran's coastline. Obviously, a surprise U.S. attack may miss some Iranian weaponry, or U.S. Navy anti-missile systems may not work to defend all ships in the Gulf. Probably Iran would try to sink tankers (see a projected scenario) to set off a worldwide panic for oil rather than just aim at U.S. Navy ships. Even the threat of this would cause insurance rates to skyrocket and possibly shut down the straits. Just the risk of all this happening should be cause of great concern for America and the whole world.


2. War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-aircraft and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying Iran's oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more millions of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney hadn't shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a plan of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere. Jim Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war would quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

The far greater risk is that Iran would then retaliate against the hopelessly exposed Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Gulf states oil facilities. Iran has already warned Qatar, where the U.S. has CENTCOM, that its vast gas compression facilities would be targeted if it allows a U.S. attack. Washington announced that it was sending Patriot missiles to defend our "allies," but there is no assurance that these would all work. After all, only one Iranian missile (or ground attack from sympathetic Shias) would need to get through. Also, the Bush administration has made secret the publication of test results for the U.S. anti-missile program. This could easily cover up corruption and incompetence. We already now are finding out that some of our largest defense contractors have designed ships for the Coast Guard that aren't even seaworthy.


3. The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow again quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World buying power.


4. American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under threat of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply our terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks in America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting wars. The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow finite. But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of reprisals inside the U.S.


5. The attack would make America even more suspect and hated in the whole Islamic world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large."


6. War would greatly increase Russian power vis-à-vis Europe as the latter would become even more dependent upon Russian energy supplies. Already a majority of Europeans think that Washington is the greatest threat to world peace. War would severely strain the American alliance.
In Latin America, new, higher oil prices would further strengthen President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, giving him more money to subsidize further damage against American interests all over the continent.

7. We don't know the effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese weapons that have been sold to Iran. There is a risk that they might be very effective.


8. We might even lose an aircraft carrier. Bush's plan may be to provoke Iran to attack first by putting ships in harm's way in the narrow Gulf. He may be thinking that after such an attack he would have all Americans behind him in retaliating against Iran. It is hard to know what is in his (and Cheney's) mind, but we do know that they are ignorant and full of wishful thinking.


9. American forces in Iraq would be very vulnerable to modern war supplies from Iran, for example, effective anti-tank weaponry such as that used by Hezbollah to destroy dozens of Israeli tanks. The long U.S. supply convoys from Kuwait would be subject to much greater attacks. A sustained Iranian missile attack on the Green Zone in Baghdad or the Doha base camp in Kuwait could kill many Americans.


10. War would curtail the great influence of the religious Right in Washington. Christian fundamentalists are the backbone of support for continuing wars and chaos in the Middle East (see Armageddon Lobby). Their power would finally backfire as more Americans become wary of leaders who claim a direct line to God. The fundamentalists' passion for war, callousness towards the death of foreigners, fear and (almost total) ignorance of the outside world, and unstinting support for police state measures out of Washington have already discredited them among many Americans. Their fomenting another war would be a final blow.


11. The disasters for America could also weaken and challenge the power of the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC. At least that is the concern of writers at the major xxxish newspaper The Forward. The writers note concern for the perceptions that Israeli interests fomented the attack on Iraq. The antiwar and anti-empire movement is also heavily xxxish, but without "the New York money people" pushing America into war with Iran, as warned by Gen. Wesley Clark.

12. Finally, another war might be the final nail in the Republican coffin for a generation. The party would fracture. Republicans may be the "Daddy Party," which once was thought to provide masculinity to foreign policy, but as James Pinkerton says, "If dad keeps wrecking the car, then there may be reason to change."

News Source: http://www.antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=10477

[Armenian]

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

'Bring It On': Why Dr. Ahmadinejad Is Not Worrying

The Iranians are contemplating two developments. First, to create a new oil exchange in March 2006, which will sell Iranian oil for euros. Second, to develop the nation's nuclear technology capabilities, possibly for producing nuclear weapons, but officially for the generation of electricity.

Officially, the Bush Administration is deeply concerned about the second development. I have no doubt that it is deeply concerned in a surrogate sort of way, because politicians in the State of Israel are deeply concerned. They resent the fact that an Islamic country that is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (1970) is taking steps that might conceivably lead to a deliberate violation of that treaty – a treaty that the State of Israel never signed, so as not to interfere with the production of hundreds of nuclear weapons.

In contrast to its official concern over Iran's nuclear developments, the Bush Administration says not a word publicly about the first development, strictly peaceful, which would create new international demand for euros in place of dollars. This could break apart the lock-step decision of OPEC governments to accept payment only in dollars, a possibility welcomed by the Islamic press.

In an era when the dollar is the world's reserve currency, held by central banks as a legal reserve for their nations' domestic currencies, central bankers inflate their domestic currencies in order to purchase dollar-denominated, low-return investment assets. This is part of the mercantilism of central banking: an indirect subsidy to the domestic export sectors at the expense of monetary stability and also consumer sovereignty at home.

The introduction of a new oil market transacted in euros is a significant symbolic challenge to U.S. economic leadership. Symbols are important, which is why political leaders adopt them. After all, President Bush did not have to be flown in a naval jet from San Diego's Naval Air Station to the Abraham Lincoln, which was floating just far enough away from San Diego to make a helicopter flight plausibly unacceptable. The carrier could have come a few miles closer to shore on the day before the famous "Mission Accomplished" photo-op and speech, which remains on the White House website: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended. But, as the title of that speech reveals, symbols are not a politically safe substitute for reality.

How safe is Iran? To answer this crucial question, consider how it might be answered by Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

THE DOCTOR IS IN!

The President of Iran holds a Ph.D. in engineering. Presumably, he has a working concept of cause and effect. He rules in a Shi'ite-dominated nation that is sitting on top of what are the second-largest oil reserves in the world: 126 billion barrels. Iraq, commonly cited as number two, is probably number three, and given its present pipeline infrastructure and delivery problems, not a major factor.

He has replaced rule by the mullahs, who have been unable to persuade Iran's youth to give up Western fashions, music, and dreams of economic prosperity. Yet toned-down attacks on Khomeini's "Great Satan" still have a political market. The President regards himself as what the American political tradition designates as a populist. He still lives in a small house in a working class neighborhood. Symbols do count for something. From what we can tell from his language, he is a certifiable apocalyptic. He has said publicly that his work must prepare the way for the return of the Mahdi, Islam's long-expected messianic deliverer.

In December 2005, after the crash of an ancient C-130 military plane in which 108 people died, he made : "But what is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow." This was a calculated political statement that was aimed at the hearts of tens of millions of Shi'ite voters. He who assumes otherwise does not understand the rhetoric of successful politicians. They know their market.

Why would this man fear an air attack by the United States? What has he got to lose?

HEADS, HE WINS

Consider his situation. He presides over a country whose majority regards Iran as a working political and spiritual model for the rest of Islam. Iran has oil. It is modernizing. It is Shi'ite. Shi'ites have now seen the defeat of their long-time Sunni enemy, Iraq. The elected government in Iraq is predominantly Shi'ite. He has positioned himself as the Middle East's preeminent nose-tweaker of the United States. In his November 17, 2005 speech before the United Nations General Assembly, he challenged the moral authority of the United States government to oppose Iran's development of nuclear power. He did not mention the United States by name. He did not need to. His audience understood.

Thousands of nuclear warheads that are stockpiled in various locations coupled with programs to further develop these inhuman weapons have created a new atmosphere of repression and the rule of the machines of war, threatening the international community and even the citizens of the countries that possess them.

Ironically, those who have actually used nuclear weapons, continue to produce, stockpile and extensively test such weapons, have used depleted uranium bombs and bullets against tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Kuwaitis, and even their own soldiers and those of their allies, afflicting them with incurable diseases, blatantly violate their obligations under the NPT, have refrained from signing the CTBT and have armed the Zionist occupation regime with WMDs, are not only refusing to remedy their past deeds, but in clear breech of the NPT, are trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.

All these problems emanate from the fact that justice and spirituality are missing in the way powerful governments conduct their affairs with other nations. He was killing two birds with one rhetorical stone, linking the Great Satan with the Middle East's universally hated nation, and then blaming the United States for that pariah nation's nuclear weapons capabilities.

How could this speech hurt him back home? How could it hurt him in Islamic streets? What if the United States drops assorted non-nuclear weapons on Iran before the bourse opens? The potential targets are many; the underground facilities will be hard to destroy. But what if all of them are taken out?

Iran instantly wins the legitimacy sweepstakes. Dr. Ahmadinejad becomes the first universally respected Shi'ite political leader in the Sunni- and Wahhabi-dominated Middle East. All across the Middle East, restive Muslims in the streets will start murmuring: "Where is our leader? Why doesn't he stand up to the United States?" The answer is obvious: because he has long been bought off by the United States. Because, in the immortal words of Lyndon Johnson, the United States has his pecker in its pocket.

There will soon be a lot of newly exposed members at risk. An unprovoked American attack on Iran will instantly and permanently de-legitimize every American client state in the Middle East. If the United States bombs Iran, the Bush Administration might as well send that "Mission Accomplished" banner to Al Qaeda headquarters.

The crucial issue here is political legitimacy of the nation-state. This is the supreme political issue of our day, as the great Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld has argued in his book, The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge University Press, 1999). It is also the supreme strategic issue of fourth-generation warfare, the warfare of the rest of this century. The day the bombs begin to fall, the mullahs will join ranks with teenagers in the streets of Tehran. Dr. Ahmadinejad will become as politically immune from public criticism as Mr. Bush was on September 12, 2001.

TAILS, WE LOSE

The day after the bombs begin to fall on Iran, clandestine weapons will begin to flow westward across the Iran-Iraq border. The Shi'ites in Iraq will instantly become the long-lost cousins of the Sunni resistance movement. There is an old Muslim saying,

"My brother and I against our cousin. We and our cousin against the world."

The United States' troops on the ground will discover the deadly power of that alliance. All co-operation from the Shi'ites will cease. There will be a unified anti-American front south of the Kurdish region. The United States will be told to get out. If the government of Iraq does not issue this order immediately, its members had better be sure to renew their life insurance policies. The Iraqi army will melt into the countryside. Anyone who stands up will be shot down.

HEAP BIG SMOKE, BUT NO FIRE

President Bush can issue warnings. The Administration can talk tough. But what is the point? The President of Iran can call the President of the United States's bluff, if it is a bluff. He is doing this, day by day. He is not going to cooperate with the United Nations. There is no need to. If it is not a bluff, and the bombs fall, the United States' client regimes in the Middle East are as good as gone. We will then be driven out of Iraq. This message will be fully understood by every Muslim in the street. The Great Satan can be whipped. No better reason exists to start looking for a local client to whip.

CONCLUSION

Iran cannot be occupied by U.S. troops. As retired four-star general and NBC commentator Barry McCaffrey said in mid-2005, the wheels are already close to coming off the Army's machine in Iraq. So, the enforcement of any anti-nuclear technology development program is a bluff.

Iran's program can be delayed a few years by bombing, but only at the price of solidifying Dr. Ahmadinejad's rule in Iran and making him a regional symbol of Islamic defiance. In this non-elected office, he will replace Osama bin Laden. The difference is, Ahmadinejad is a legitimately elected President of a nation with a lot of oil.

This is about oil, political power, currencies, and above all, legitimacy. It is about the ability of the United States to change regimes its way and then preserve these new regimes from replacement by domestic enemies. The United States and its client state regimes will be replaced in the Middle East. It is only a matter of time. If the United States bombs Iran, the timetable will speed up.

You may have heard of the catbird seat. Dr. Ahmadinejad is sitting in it.

Link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north429.html

[Armenian]

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

The Sunburn Missile System

Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile The Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf



A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didn't want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Don't be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions history makes fools of those who claim to know the future but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. --MG

Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to "show the flag" or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power? The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: "Saber Rattling Unnerves China", and: "Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese." But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat in the particular case of China, because of Peking's newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

"Nonsense!" you are probably thinking. That's impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?" Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve "an asymmetric advantage" over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein's Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal missile in the world today."

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy's largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

The Sunburn's combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat. Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy's only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy's approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes "see" everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War termed "the great Scud hunt" and for similar reasons.

Link:
Source: http://www.rense.com/general59/theSu...ansawesome.htm

[Armenian]

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



Iran test fires missile capable of evading radar.

Iran successfully test-fired a new locally produced missile capable of evading radar detection and hitting several targets at the same time, the Iranian military announced on Friday, according to Reuters.

"Today we have successfully tested a new-generation missile capable of hitting different targets at the same time," the commander of the Revolutionary Guards air force, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, told state television. The missile which Salami described as a “defensive weapon”, can evade radar and anti-missile missiles. It was tested on the first day of week-long military exercises in the Gulf, that involve ground and air forces to show Iran's "defensive capabilities," the official IRNA news agency reported.

"This technology is completely new, without copying any other missile systems that may exist in other countries," he said, adding that the missile could carry multiple warheads. Television said the new missile was called “Fajr-3” and that it is a “long-range missile”, but Salami didn’t name the weapon or give its range, saying it depended on the warhead weight. Iran already has medium-range Shahab-3 missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers.

Israeli analysts say that the Shahabs can reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East. The U.S.-based military affairs Web site globalsecurity.org describes the new Iranian missile as a 240 mm artillery rocket with a 25-mile range. It also says that Iran has been working on another missile, called the Kosar, also capable of avoiding radar and sinking ships in the Gulf. Western states have been watching developments in Iran’s missile capabilities with concern amid a standoff over the Iranian nuclear program.

[...]

Link: http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10794

[Armenian]

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

Missile exports to Iran alarm US

Washington has asked Moscow to reconsider selling Iran anti-aircraft missiles as the crisis over its nuclear programme continues. Russia plans to sell Tehran 29 TOR M1 mobile surface-to-air missile defence systems in a deal said to be worth about US $700 million (£392m).

"This is not time for business as usual with the Iranian government," a top US state department official said. The US also urged other states like China to review defence sales to Iran.

'Wrong time'

"There are a lot of countries that allow the export of dual-use technologies, and the position of the United States is that should be prohibited," said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. "All countries should refrain from military sales and arm sales." Speaking about the Russian missiles, he said:

"We hope and we trust that that deal will not go forward because this is not time for business as usual with the Iranian government."

Russia and China are both strongly resisting attempts to impose United Nations sanctions on Iran, which the US and other Western states believes is pursuing nuclear weapons. The US arms appeal is a sign of increasing concern in Washington at the speed with which Iran is pursuing its programme, the BBC's Jonathan Beale reports from Washington.

New report

Russia says it has to see concrete proof that Iran's nuclear programme - which it is supplying with technology - is not peaceful.

[...]

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/4932814.stm

Further Information on Tor M-1 SAMs:

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm

[Armenian]

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

Iran will hit Israel first if US attacks

Rear Admiral says Iran is capable of responding to American long-range heavy bomber aircraft.

TEHRAN - A senior Iranian military official warned Tuesday that the Islamic republic would target Israel if it came under US attack over its nuclear programme. "We have announced that if America gets up to mischief, Israel will be our first target to hit," said the spokesman for the Iranian war games held in April, Rear Admiral Mohammad Ebrahim Dehqani, quoted by the student news agency ISNA.

When asked about Iran's ability to respond to American long-range heavy bomber aircraft, Dehqani said: "We will definitely resist against the US B-52." In early April, Iran, whose hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, launched a military manoeuvre used as much to rally support on the domestic front as to send a message to critics of its controversial nuclear programme.

It unveiled a wide range of weaponry such as multiple-head missiles, high-speed torpedoes and radar-evading anti-ship missiles, in a week of military exercises in the strategic Gulf waters. Tehran has been under international pressure to suspend its nuclear activities, which it insists is for civilian energy purposes but which some Western countries fear is aimed at manufacturing an atomic bomb.

US and European officials are pushing for a tough, binding UN resolution for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which makes the fuel for civilian reactors but what can also be the explosive core of bombs. "The Security Council has no option but to proceed with the Chapter 7," US State Department number three Nicholas Burns said Tuesday, referring to an article in the UN charter that could lead to sanctions or even military action.

Source: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=16366

[Armenian]

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

Peking-Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow "quartet"

The total cost of Iran's military agreement including 2000-2005 is $7 billion. One of the items of these agreements, article 8 consists of Moscow's nuclear assistance to Tehran. (for religous purposes). Moscow renders this assistance easily through the third territory. According to our investigations, this territory is Karabakh, its border areas with Iran. The Armenians called the occupied Azerbaijan, territories a transit zone or base for Russians. In this zone Armenians in Karabakh have fulfilled easily the tasks of the Russians.

We can't understand for what purposes Armenia has allocated 280 tons of preparations paralysing nerve system, viruses prohibited and not ending … also computers controlling missiles. According to our investigations, Peking has given to Tehran a protection system from most modern missiles. This system "Cey-UAY-14" was constructed for Armenia's FG in July (2001). This protection system (in Turkey direction) was constructed by Tehran specialists themselves (?). The USA diplomat Lenn Devis reminds: "…It's a danger. We must feel the danger covering oil companies in the Caspian region and separate diplomatic corps"…

According to our investigations, China's relations with Armenia extended after "Taiwan affair" and this stage was called a new stage. Russian Federation, CPR and Iran's role in changing Armenia's military potential is a strategical step. And Yerevan's military assistance to Beirut "patriots" (against Israel) is interesting. Thus it became clear that Yerevan is not only a good base for nuclear technology carried from the Russian Federation to Iran, and also main bridge of ammunition assistance rendered from Tehran to Beirut.

Armenia regarding China defended "United and Great China" principle, called Taiwvan being a part of it "historical right". According to our investigations, in the former times, i.e. in 1990-94 there were a lot of men of Armenian nationality in microbiology, physics, semi-conductor,Quantum physics and oil-chemical processes centres, scientific-research laboratories of Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan. For instance, Robert Aslanovich (?) Ovanesyan occupied with electro-physics and electro-physical problems of energy in the Institute of Physics carried out scientific researches in Dubna nuclear centre till 1996, in Bushir APS since 1997. I'd like to direct qour attention to another fact.

In 1992 Babayan Sarvar (probably) Server Bagramovich, the collaborator of Mathematics and Mechanics Institute solemnly defended a thesis (in technology) field … went to Yerevan after he got academic degree and now carries out his researches on nuclear technology there. While at that time those whose scientific work or defense of thesis were unfinished or who were prevented to carry out scientific researches left or were removed from Oil Chemical Processes Institute, Physiology Institute, Molecular and Biology Institute, Cybernetics Institute … on various pretexts. Generally 28 specialists (directly occupied with nuclear technology), who were occupied with Quantum physics, mathematics and mechanics, cybernetics … i.e. directly nuclear researches, gained scientific achievements in this field left Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, according to the information, 2 of them work with doctor S.Ter-Avestesyan's group in "Ashtarak-2" (Institute of Physical Researches) (?).

On June 4, 1999 at the meeting of the heads of Yerevan and Tehran security forces (this meeting is shortly called "Khudaferin meeting") Iran's "ETTELAAT" leaders (a special service organ) demanded from their colleagues the list of those of Armenian nationality working in former times in Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, its institutes (especially, in physics, chemistry, math field). They discussed there Azerbaijan's project bureaus occupied with nuclear physics, cybernetics, special mathematical calculations, the last achievements of "Crystal" metal bureau on corrosion, researches on Genetics and selection, scientific work on chemistry and microbiology. At the result they decided that Yerevan Security Service would work out "special program" in order to extend the relations in this field by the half of 2002.

36 men of Armenian nationality work in Iran special service organs (only in Ardabil, Tabriz, Astara, Parsabag) (2 of them work in military-counter intelligence agencies, 9 in "Ettelaat", 8 in military intelligence, 8 in "confidential information and news bureaus" of Islamic propaganda centres). Iran began to carry out scientific researches on a new nuclear engine "The World". (After Ayatulla Khamineyi's address to security forces) on June 16, 2001. It was planned to carry out these researches on this engine about 45 km away from the capital (northern direction) in SRC in Karaj territory. Scientists carrying out scientific nuclear researches on nuclear prospecting in Byelorussia were invited.

At the result an agreement of 48 million cost was signed between Minsk - Tehran in this direction (August II, 2001) Also it was determined that a new nuclear engine would work with uranium- 235. This project was investigated for military purposes and its power was 40 Mg Vt. It was possible to get or produce plutonium by scientific - research laboratory during test period of this engine, i.e. in its working hours. On August 19 of that year the members of "Special Researches group" formed on Sep. 28, 2000 in Armenia's AF submitted their plans, exactly "military-strategical programs" for discussion in security council.

The program suggested that Yerevan (according to our investigations) (the first nuclear weapon will be applied against Israel in Near East zone. Tel-Aviv would be aware that this attack will be carried on by Palestine Arabian groupings, "Jerusalem's power" radical proislamists. Besides this Tehran would better to review its "strategical, national security concept" for Tel-Aviv remaining as capital at least. Because on March 4, 2001 "International United Islamic Security System" against Israel was worked out) had to sign new agreements on scientific researches in military and also military-industrial field with Moscow, China, Tehran, Northern Korea, Lebanon, Syria, Irak, Brazil (?).

If it is possible Yerevan will do a lot supported by these regions that have nuclear potential and war arsenal, comprehensive terror schools. This is its result that today there're shippers "Barret M81-A1" and "Barret M 82 A1" with nuclear warhead and calibre of 50 mm, mines against tanks with chemical - toxic components (these mines were tested in Khojali), and round bullets with the compound of bacteriological weapons" … artillery shells with nuclear warheads in Armenia's AF. Moreover, Construction of a new oil refining plant in Yerevan is put forward since August, 2002 (?).

According to the information we got, already 60 men known with their nuclear researches scientific researches in atom bomb field were "recruited" with high salary from Kazakhystan, Azerbaijan, Russian Federation, Byelorussia, Ukraine, Armenia…by India, Pakistan, Irak, Iran and Brazil, Northern Korea, China. On February, 2000 an agreement was signed among Armenia's "Razdanmash" Iran's "scientific-technical researches Centre" and Switzerland's "Alshneks-Asada" in Guge city dealing in technological equipments and here.

Tehran signed an agreement of $210 million cost with Yerevan, Switzerland - an agreement of $347 million with Tehran. It means "serious and dangerous" weapons, nuclear materials. It includes "electromagnet" installations and mechanisms in splitting isotopes. It realizes its plan on construction of "electromagnet separators" in Ahvaz and Isphahan with assistance of Russian Federation and Byelorussia. At the result program "Nuclear program and strategic researches of Iran Islamic Republic for 2001-2005" was worked out in Iran. In Armenia this program is called so: "Special projects in nuclear researches field" (for 2002-2005)…

Source: http://www.karabakh-terror.com//wmview.php?ArtID=122

[Armenian]

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

Ahmadinejad letter attacks Bush

Details have emerged of the surprise letter written by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to US President George W Bush.

In it, Mr Ahmadinejad criticises the US invasion of Iraq and urges Mr Bush to return to religious principles. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has dismissed the letter, saying it contained nothing new. The letter was issued as foreign ministers met in New York for talks on the Iranian nuclear crisis. But after three hours, the ministers failed to agree on a unified position on how to tackle the problem of Iran's atomic programme.

Iraq 'lies'

The letter - thought to be the first from an Iranian president to a US leader since Iran's 1979 revolution - sparked intense interest, coming at a time of acutely tense relations between Washington and Tehran. The 18-page document has not yet been made public, but according to leaks, Mr Ahmadinejad spoke of the invasion of Iraq, a US cover-up over the 11 September 2001 attacks, the issue of Israel's right to exist and the role of religion in the world.

"On the pretext of the existence of WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], this great tragedy [the US invasion of Iraq] came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country.

"Lies were told in the Iraqi matter," Reuters news agency quoted the letter as saying. "What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to," Mr Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying. The president also questioned the creation of Israel, asking "how can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?", Reuters reported.

In an apparent allusion to Iran's nuclear programme, Mr Ahmadinejad is quoted by the Associated Press as asking: "Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a 'threat to the Zionist [Israel] regime'? Is not scientific R&D [research and development] one of the basic rights of nations?"

In another part of the letter, Mr Ahmadinejad suggests Washington has concealed elements of the truth about the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, Reuters reports.

"Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities?" he asks.

The president ends the letter by appealing to Mr Bush to return to religion.

"We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God.

"My question for you is, 'Do you not want to join them?'"

Divisions exposed

Washington swiftly dismissed the letter as a ploy, saying it contributed nothing towards helping resolve the stand-off over Iran's nuclear programme.

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," Ms Rice told AP.

"It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way."

Hours after the letter was sent, Ms Rice held an inconclusive meeting with her UN Security Council counterparts and the German foreign minister on what action to take over Iran. BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says that far from drawing the key powers at the UN towards agreement on how to confront Iran, the meeting seems to have exposed the scale of division.

The UK's newly-appointed foreign minister, Margaret Beckett, acknowledged the meeting had been important but difficult. She refused to repeat her predecessor Jack Straw's insistence that military action against Iran was inconceivable. Mrs Beckett said she preferred to make clear that no-one was discussing military action. This language, our correspondent says, was far more welcome to the Americans.

After the meeting, an unnamed senior US state department official said prospects for an agreement this week on a UN Security Council resolution were "not substantially good". However, the official said the US was "very satisfied and confident" at this stage. Washington has pushed for any resolution to be adopted under the terms of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter.

These are binding on all UN members, but do not automatically lead to sanctions or military action. Further decisions would be needed for such measures. But China and Russia have resisted such a move, fearing it could lead to a new war.

Source Link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4752831.stm

[Armenian]

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

Armenian President Kocharian Arrives In Tehran

Armenian President Robert Kocharian arrived in Tehran Wednesday to hold talks on Iran's natural gas supply to Armenia. Kocharian will hold talks with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the two-day-visit. Apart from discussions on gas supply, agreements are expected to be signed in areas including customs, road building, science, education, culture and environment. Kocharian will also meet officials of the Armenian community in Iran. There are about 200,000 Armenians living in Iran.

In 2005, Iran and Armenia started building a 124-million-dollar gas pipeline - 100 kilometers in Iran and 41 in Armenia - capable of carrying 1.5 million cubic meters of gas per day from Iran to Armenia. Tehran and Yerevan also have - together with Greece – a tripartite military accord which is regarded very critically by Armenia's arch-foe Azerbaijan and its main ally Turkey. The two countries established diplomatic ties in 1992 and Tehran considers Yerevan to be one of the most advanced technological members of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Source Link: http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...1C0C513A2F.ASP

[Armenian]

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

IRAN AND SYRIA TO FORM A NEW ANTI-AMERICAN-ISRAELI AXIS

DAMASCUS-TEHRAN 8 Oct. (IPS) Iranian President Mohammad Khatami and his Syrian host Bashar Asad discussed best ways and means to form a new anti-American-Israeli axis to take off pressures Washington and Tel Aviv are putting on them.

The embattled Iranian President confirmed on Friday that the two countries would expand their cooperation in the face of mounting pressures from the United States and Israel as well as foster peace in the troubled region of Middle East. The Iranian embattled President arrived in Damascus early Thursday morning at the end of an official visit to the neighbouring kingdom of Muscat and Oman, the last leg of a weeklong trip to African Arab nations of Algeria and Sudan.

The unscheduled visit came at a time that both countries, staunch opponents of the United States and Israel, are under increased international pressures, accused of derailing peace efforts by providing military, logistic and financial assistance to Palestinian and Arab radical groups opposed to peace with the xxxish State. While the Iranian ruling ayatollahs are suspected of leaving no stone unturned in order to become a nuclear power, Syria, for its part, is under international pressure because of its “satellisation” of Lebanon.

"These pressures have always existed and we have to neutralize them through our cooperation", the official news agencies of both countries reported Khatami as saying in Damascus at the start of his visit to Syria.

Both Tehran and Damascus are also suspected by Washington of being behind Iraq’s insurgency by leaving their porous borders open to Arab and Muslim fighters, known as “jihadis” the remnants of Osama Ben Laden’s “Al-Qa’eda” network that masterminded the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C. According to Mr. Patrick Seale, a well-known British journalist based in Paris, under the auspices of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a new and “much dangerous” alliance is taking shape uniting for the first time Sunni and Shi’a Muslims in the one hand and Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah with hard line Palestinian groups assisted by Damascus.

“A new high command is taking shape, formed by Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’a movement that booted out Israel from southern Lebanon, HAMAS, the Palestinian resistance movement that has overshadowed the Palestinian Authority of Yaser Arafat as a spearhead of resistance to Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood, represented in the occupied territories by the Islamic Jihad and last but not least, the Islamic Republic of Iran”, Mr. Seale, author of a biography of the former Syrian strongman Hafez Asad wrote in the last edition of “Jeune Afrique-L’Intelligent” dated 3 to 9 October 2004.

“The particularity of this new alliance is that first of all, it abolishes the Shi’a-Sunni division among Muslims and also reunites Arab nationalists and islamists under one common flag. There is no more differences between resistance and jihadis”, he added, quoting one western intelligence source.

Khatami-Bashar talks also focused on ways of maintaining stability in the Middle East in view of escalated Israeli violence and developments in neighbouring Iraq, where both Syria and Iran strongly oppose the presence of American forces. "In our meetings we will try to cooperate toward ensuring calm and stability in the crisis-ridden Middle East region", Khatami said. "The situation is getting more perilous because of the inhuman and violent actions of the Zionist regime", he added.

“The visit took place at a time when great pressure is being exerted on Syria, as a significant regional country, by the US, Zionist regime and some Western countries”, the official Iranian news agency IRNA commented, referring to a recent UN-based measure, sponsored by Washington and Paris, urging Syria to pull its 40.000 strong troops out of neighbouring Lebanon. Bowing to the move, Syria returned around 10.000 soldiers from around Beirut. Syria's support for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups and allegations Damascus was pursuing weapons of mass destruction were among key reasons behind U.S. economic sanctions in May.

“Political experts call Khatami’s visit to Syria as being “important”, believing that it would consolidate Syrian position in this critical situation”, the agency added, failing to mention Iran’s growing troubles with the United States, European Union’s so-called Big trio of Britain, France and Germany and the the International Atomic Energy Agency over its nuclear projects as well as Iran’s isolation in both the international community and the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the past two decades, Iran and Syria have been enjoying close strategic relations based on their bilateral interests, as Damascus ruled by a rival faction of the Ba'th Party, was the only Arab nation that sided with non Arab Iran when the now toppled Saddam Hussein attacked it on September 1980.This is Khatami’s fourth trip to Syria.

Both presidents condemned the massacre of innocent Muslims in the occupied Palestine and called on the international community to react against the Zionist regime’s crimes, IRNA reported, as Mr. Khatami returned to Tehran on Friday. This was Khatami's fourth official visit to Syria. The younger Asad came to Tehran three times. According to Mr. Seale, American unilateral and systematic backing of Israel’s hard line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in crushing the Palestinians in the one hand and American-Israeli’s menaces against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear ambitions are among major factors “explaining” the new mobilisation, “better organised and more determined.