In his sharpest comments to date on the Iranian nuclear crisis, President Bush warned Friday that Iran is seeking to produce nuclear weapons and intends to use them to destroy Israel.
Speaking at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush warned:
"I want to remind you that the current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda. And that's unacceptable. And the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems like to me, would make them a step closer to achieving that objective."
The president said that Iran's nuclear ambitions pose a threat, not just to the Jewish state, but to the world.
"Iran armed with a nuclear weapon poses a great threat to the security of the world. Countries such as ours have a great obligation to step up, working together to send a message to the Iranians that their behavior, trying to clandestinely develop a nuclear weapon, or using the guise of a civilian nuclear program to attain a nuclear weapon, is unacceptable."
For her part Chancellor Merkel added, "To Germany, it is totally unacceptable, what Iran said recently, especially regarding Israel and the Holocaust."
Last month, Iranian president Mamoud Ahmadinejad said that historical coverage of the Holocaust had been "exaggerated." In October he urged that Israel be "wiped off the map."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006 ... 0220.shtml
Deadly Cocktail: Bush, Israel, Iran and Nukes
Moderator: Super Moderators
Russian Expert Says Israel Likely to Bomb Iran in Spring
Israel could launch a missile attack on Iran in the upcoming spring, Director of the Russian Political Research Institute Sergei Markov was quoted by Interfax as saying Saturday.
“Israel is in the state of a bitter cold war with Iran and might become the first victim of a nuclear weapon attack: therefore, I deem it very likely that the Israeli Air Force could launch missile strikes on military, nuclear targets in Iran as early as this spring,” Markov told Interfax.
This move, however, would create serious problems for Israel, Markov said. “This would lead to a significant destabilization of the situation in the Middle East, including a dramatic increase in [terrorist] attacks by Islamists on Israel,” he said.
At the same time, the international community will be increasing pressure on Iran, Markov said. In particular, Iran might be subjected to economic sanctions, “which would at first be mild but would then grow tougher and tougher, up to an embargo on purchasing Iranian oil,” he said.
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/15/irkutsk.shtml
Israel could launch a missile attack on Iran in the upcoming spring, Director of the Russian Political Research Institute Sergei Markov was quoted by Interfax as saying Saturday.
“Israel is in the state of a bitter cold war with Iran and might become the first victim of a nuclear weapon attack: therefore, I deem it very likely that the Israeli Air Force could launch missile strikes on military, nuclear targets in Iran as early as this spring,” Markov told Interfax.
This move, however, would create serious problems for Israel, Markov said. “This would lead to a significant destabilization of the situation in the Middle East, including a dramatic increase in [terrorist] attacks by Islamists on Israel,” he said.
At the same time, the international community will be increasing pressure on Iran, Markov said. In particular, Iran might be subjected to economic sanctions, “which would at first be mild but would then grow tougher and tougher, up to an embargo on purchasing Iranian oil,” he said.
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/15/irkutsk.shtml
America will not attack Iran as they don’t have the resources and could not sustain the losses with the American public. Nor could England for all the same reasons and nor could Israel again for the same reasons. But Israel could send a Nuke to demolish the reactor and the world would not respond negatively towards Israel. But Israel would never get a plane with a bomb far into Iranian airspace before it was shot down. If by chance they did and a chance it would be, they would be seen as doing our dirty work. But Israel would be in grave danger from retaliation from Iran. Iran is a formidable force and would be hard for any nation to fight them into submission. After 8 years of war between Iraq and Iran they got nowhere and we the west backed Iraq to the limit with weapons to no avail. The only way forward with this crisis is for the old UN sanctions and at the end of the day that will get us nowhere and only drive the price of oil upwards in the west. Which at the end of the day equates to higher prices at the fuel pumps in America and Europe and higher heating cost.
EDIT
Iran is a good friend of Russia and China we have no chance at fighting them in a war and hoping to win. All we can expect to happen is meaningless empty words and as I said sanctions along with threats from our governments, as they are seen to be doing something about it.
Will this lead to another world war that is the real question here and it is very possible.
Then again Bush is a stupid fellow and maybe he is just stupid enough to attack Iran. If that day should come it would be the worst day in the history of America and make Vietnam look like a picnic in comparison.
END EDIT
Just my thoughts.
EDIT
Iran is a good friend of Russia and China we have no chance at fighting them in a war and hoping to win. All we can expect to happen is meaningless empty words and as I said sanctions along with threats from our governments, as they are seen to be doing something about it.
Will this lead to another world war that is the real question here and it is very possible.
Then again Bush is a stupid fellow and maybe he is just stupid enough to attack Iran. If that day should come it would be the worst day in the history of America and make Vietnam look like a picnic in comparison.
END EDIT
Just my thoughts.
Last edited by Alien_UK on 01-16-2006 07:23 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Deadly Cocktail: Bush, Israel, Iran and Nukes
mudwoman wrote: In his sharpest comments to date on the Iranian nuclear crisis, President Bush warned Friday that Iran is seeking to produce nuclear weapons and intends to use them to destroy Israel.......
Hi MD did we not here the same kind of statement about Iraq before we invaded them and used the same argument to justify an invasion? After all Nukes in my mind class as Weapons of Mass Destruction. But this out come will be like nothing we saw with Iraq as stated in my last post MW.
Except for one thing...
Yes, I agree it's all reasonable... but we are not dealing with reasonable men.....George W. Bush is crazy.... as are his advisors....
Alien_UK wrote:
EDIT
Iran is a good friend of Russia and China we have no chance at fighting them in a war and hoping to win. All we can expect to happen is meaningless empty words and as I said sanctions along with threats from our governments, as they are seen to be doing something about it.
Will this lead to another world war that is the real question here and it is very possible. ..........
END EDIT
Just my thoughts.
Powers disagree over Iran crisis
The UK has taken a hard line on an Iranian offer to continue discussing its nuclear programme, indicating major powers disagree on how to proceed.
Russia says a compromise offer is still on the table, and China has urged all parties to continue negotiations.
But the UK, France, Germany and the US want the UN Security Council to consider punishing Iran.
Iran broke seals on three nuclear facilities last week, but says it does not aim to build nuclear weapons.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says a compromise offer is still on the table which could see Iran sending uranium to Russia for enrichment - which would be an obstacle to Iran developing nuclear weapons of its own.
Iran has also offered to return to talks with the EU-3 of France, Germany and the UK.
'Stalling'
But on Tuesday the UK Foreign Office appeared to reject both that offer and the Russian compromise.
Unnamed Foreign Office officials were quoted by news agencies as saying the Iranians were stalling.
The UK, France and Germany are calling for an urgent meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), next month.
At a meeting in London on Monday that included Russian, Chinese and US officials, world powers failed to reach full agreement on how to proceed.
After the talks, the UK, Germany and France said they would ask the IAEA to meet on 2-3 February.
The IAEA could refer the issue to the UN Security Council, which could in turn decide to impose sanctions, but Russia and China appear wary of imposing an embargo.
The BBC's Steven Rosenberg in Moscow says Russia is concerned that sanctions would damage trade with Iran.
'Peaceful diplomacy'
And China said it would do everything to achieve a diplomatic solution.
"The Chinese side believes resolving the issue through peaceful diplomatic means is the best choice, benefiting all parties," foreign ministry spokesman Kong Quan said.
Mr Lavrov said: "The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse. Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only, way to solve the problem."
He said he supported a resumption of Tehran's talks with the UK, Germany and France, but that this could only happen if it returned to its moratorium on uranium enrichment.
Iran should help the IAEA collect the maximum amount of information, he added.
"Certain progress has been achieved in clarifying dark spots, but more is required of Iran," said Mr Lavrov.
Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, said on Monday that Tehran was still considering the offer to move Iran's uranium enrichment programme to Russia.
Mr Lavrov said the two countries would further discuss that possibility in talks on 16 February.
Israel's acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said his country could not allow a hostile nation to have weapons of mass destruction.
"I believe that there is a way to prevent non-conventional weapons coming into the hands of those who pose a danger to the entire world," he said, speaking as an Israeli delegation headed for Moscow for talks.
Israel is believed to be the only Middle Eastern country that has a nuclear arsenal.
Last edited by Alien_UK on 01-17-2006 05:32 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Again Russia and China will not endorse sanctions against Iran but will not denounce them from the west. Am I the only one that can see this here? They will and are encouraging diplomacy but will not join in on the sanctions. As for striking Iran I don’t see it ever happening. If by some slim chance Vladimir Putin agrees by implementing sanctions on Iran you can bet your last Dollar it will be business as usual by the back door with Iran.
The only way he will agree to sanctions would be great pressure from America in the form of sanctions against his own country and a fret to stop American aid but even that will not stop him going in the back door.
EDIT
I have to agree Iran is up to something that does not equate to any good with its nuclear programme; after all they are sitting on vast amounts of oil to keep them going for another hundred years or so. But do you want to enter a starving Lions cage with blood dripping from your body and a water pistol as your weapon? that’s the way I see it.
END EDIT
The only way he will agree to sanctions would be great pressure from America in the form of sanctions against his own country and a fret to stop American aid but even that will not stop him going in the back door.
EDIT
I have to agree Iran is up to something that does not equate to any good with its nuclear programme; after all they are sitting on vast amounts of oil to keep them going for another hundred years or so. But do you want to enter a starving Lions cage with blood dripping from your body and a water pistol as your weapon? that’s the way I see it.
END EDIT
Last edited by Alien_UK on 01-17-2006 04:14 PM, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jon-Marcus
- Pirate
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: 01-08-2005 09:10 AM
- Location: Bonham, Texas
Alien_UK wrote: Again Russia and China will not endorse sanctions against Iran but will not denounce them from the west. Am I the only one that can see this here? They will and are encouraging diplomacy but will not join in on the sanction. As for striking Iran I don’t see it ever happening. If by some slim chance Vladimir Putin agrees by implementing sanctions on Iran you can bet your last Dollar it will be business as usual by the back door with Iran
I agree with you, Alien, for the most part. The exception is ,I think Iran will be hit. Most likely by Israel. A surgical strike against Iran's Reactor. It's amazing what a cruise missile can do.
Concider ; Iran making nukes. Iran giving/selling nukes to terrorists. Terrorists using nukes against : Tel Aviv or Paris, or London, or Burlin, or Washington DC, Ect, ect, so-forth and so-on.
Terrorists get what they want. Iran gets what they want.
That's called a win-win situation ... for them.
Not good at all for the "Western" world.
"You have forgotten the face of your father." Roland Deschain
Hi Jon-Marcus thanks for the response but I think Iran has the capability to shoot a cruise missile out of the sky. After all they would expect such an act from Israel, and have had decades since Israel blow up the Iraqi plant. According to some so called military experts that could not be repeated again due to new counter strike technology. But in saying that only time will tell.
Edit
After all the Israelis are a crafty breed of earthlings But even they have there limits.
End Edit
Edit
After all the Israelis are a crafty breed of earthlings But even they have there limits.
End Edit
Last edited by Alien_UK on 01-17-2006 04:31 PM, edited 1 time in total.
How Iran Will Fight Back
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi – Asia Times December 16, 2004
TEHRAN - The United States and Israel may be contemplating military operations against Iran, as per recent media reports, yet Iran is not wasting any time in preparing its own counter-operations in the event an attack materializes.
A week-long combined air and ground maneuver has just concluded in five of the southern and western provinces of Iran, mesmerizing foreign observers, who have described as ‘spectacular’ the massive display of high-tech, mobile operations, including rapid-deployment forces relying on squadrons of helicopters, air lifts, missiles, as well as hundreds of tanks and tens of thousands of well-coordinated personnel using live munition. Simultaneously, some 25,000 volunteers have so far signed up at newly established draft centers for "suicide attacks" against any potential intruders in what is commonly termed "asymmetrical warfare".
Behind the strategy vis-a-vis a hypothetical US invasion, Iran is likely to recycle the Iraq war's scenario of overwhelming force, particularly by the US Air Force, aimed at quick victory over and against a much weaker power. Learning from both the 2003 Iraq war and Iran's own precious experiences of the 1980-88 war with Iraq and the 1987-88 confrontation with US forces in the Persian Gulf, Iranians have focused on the merits of a fluid and complex defensive strategy that seeks to take advantage of certain weaknesses in the US military superpower while maximizing the precious few areas where they may have the upper hand, eg, numerical superiority in ground forces, guerrilla tactics, terrain, etc.
According to a much-publicized article on the "Iran war game" in the US-based Atlantic Monthly, the estimated cost of an assault on Iran is a paltry few tens of millions of dollars. This figure is based on a one-time "surgical strike" combining missile attacks, air-to-surface bombardments, and covert operations, without bothering to factor in Iran's strategy, which aims precisely to "extend the theater of operations" in order to exact heavier and heavier costs on the invading enemy, including by targeting America's military command structure in the Persian Gulf.
After this Iranian version of "follow-on" counter-strategy, the US intention of localized warfare seeking to cripple Iran's command system as a prelude to a systematic assault on key military targets would be thwarted by "taking the war to them", in the words of an Iranian military strategist who emphasized America's soft command structure in the southern tips of the Persian Gulf. (Over the past few months, US jet fighters have repeatedly violated Iran's air space over Khuzestan province, testing Iran's air defense system, according to Iranian military officials.)
Iran's proliferation of a highly sophisticated and mobile ballistic-missile system plays a crucial role in its strategy, again relying on lessons learned from the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003: in the earlier war over Kuwait, Iraq's missiles played an important role in extending the warfare to Israel, notwithstanding the failure of America's Patriot missiles to deflect most of Iraq's incoming missiles raining in on Israel and, to a lesser extent, on the US forces in Saudi Arabia. Also, per the admission of the top US commander in the Kuwait conflict, General Norman Schwarzkopf, the hunt for Iraq's mobile Scud missiles consumed a bulk of the coalition's air strategy and was as difficult as searching for "needles in a haystack".
Today, in the evolution of Iran's military doctrine, the country relies on increasingly precise long-range missiles, eg, Shahab-3 and Fateh-110, that can "hit targets in Tel Aviv", to echo Iranian Foreign Minister Kemal Kharrazi.
Chronologically speaking, Iran produced the 50-kilometer-range Oghab artillery rocket in 1985, and developed the 120km- and 160km-range Mushak artillery rockets in 1986-87 and 1988 respectively. Iran began assembling Scud-Bs in 1988, and North Korean technical advisers in Iran converted a missile maintenance facility for missile manufacture in 1991. It does not seem, however, that Iran has embarked on Scud production. Instead, Iran has sought to build Shahab-3 and Shahab-4, having ranges of 1,300km with a 1,600-pound warhead, and 200km with a 220-pound warhead, respectively; the Shahab-3 was test-launched in July 1998 and may soon be upgraded to more than 2,000km, thus capable of reaching the middle of Europe.
Thanks to excess revenue from high oil prices, which constitute more than 80% of the government's annual budget, Iran is not experiencing the budget constraints of the early and mid-1990s, when its military expenditure was outdone nearly one to 10 by its Arab neighbors in the Persian Gulf who are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council; almost all the Arab states possess one or another kind of advanced missile system, eg, Saudi Arabia's CSS-2/DF, Yemen's SS-21, Scud-B, Iraq's Frog-7.
There are several advantages to a ballistic arsenal as far as Iran is concerned: first, it is relatively cheap and manufactured domestically without much external dependency and the related pressure of "missile export control" exerted by the US. Second, the missiles are mobile and can be concealed from the enemy, and third, there are advantages to fighter jets requiring fixed air bases. Fourth, missiles are presumed effective weapons that can be launched without much advance notice by the recipient targets, particularly the "solid fuel" Fatah-110 missiles that require only a few short minutes for installation prior to being fired. Fifth, missiles are weapons of confusion and a unique strike capability that can torpedo the best military plans, recalling how the Iraqi missile attacks in March 2003 at the US military formations assembled at the Iraq-Kuwait border forced a change of plan on the United States' part, thereby forfeiting the initial plan of sustained aerial strikes before engaging the ground forces, as was the case in the Kuwait war, when the latter entered the theater after some 21 days of heavy air strikes inside Iraq as well as Kuwait.
Henceforth, any US attack on Iran will likely be met first and foremost by missile counter-attacks engulfing the southern Persian Gulf states playing host to US forces, as well as any other country, eg, Azerbaijan, Iraq or Turkey, allowing their territory or airspace to be used against Iran. The rationale for this strategy is precisely to pre-warn Iran's neighbors of the dire consequences, with potential debilitating impacts on their economies for a long time, should they become accomplices of foreign invaders of Iran.
Another key element of Iran's strategy is to "increase the arch of crisis" in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, where it has considerable influence, to undermine the United States' foothold in the region, hoping to create a counter-domino effect wherein instead of gaining inside Iran, the US would actually lose territory partly as a result of thinning its forces and military "overstretch".
Continued below
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=2594
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi – Asia Times December 16, 2004
TEHRAN - The United States and Israel may be contemplating military operations against Iran, as per recent media reports, yet Iran is not wasting any time in preparing its own counter-operations in the event an attack materializes.
A week-long combined air and ground maneuver has just concluded in five of the southern and western provinces of Iran, mesmerizing foreign observers, who have described as ‘spectacular’ the massive display of high-tech, mobile operations, including rapid-deployment forces relying on squadrons of helicopters, air lifts, missiles, as well as hundreds of tanks and tens of thousands of well-coordinated personnel using live munition. Simultaneously, some 25,000 volunteers have so far signed up at newly established draft centers for "suicide attacks" against any potential intruders in what is commonly termed "asymmetrical warfare".
Behind the strategy vis-a-vis a hypothetical US invasion, Iran is likely to recycle the Iraq war's scenario of overwhelming force, particularly by the US Air Force, aimed at quick victory over and against a much weaker power. Learning from both the 2003 Iraq war and Iran's own precious experiences of the 1980-88 war with Iraq and the 1987-88 confrontation with US forces in the Persian Gulf, Iranians have focused on the merits of a fluid and complex defensive strategy that seeks to take advantage of certain weaknesses in the US military superpower while maximizing the precious few areas where they may have the upper hand, eg, numerical superiority in ground forces, guerrilla tactics, terrain, etc.
According to a much-publicized article on the "Iran war game" in the US-based Atlantic Monthly, the estimated cost of an assault on Iran is a paltry few tens of millions of dollars. This figure is based on a one-time "surgical strike" combining missile attacks, air-to-surface bombardments, and covert operations, without bothering to factor in Iran's strategy, which aims precisely to "extend the theater of operations" in order to exact heavier and heavier costs on the invading enemy, including by targeting America's military command structure in the Persian Gulf.
After this Iranian version of "follow-on" counter-strategy, the US intention of localized warfare seeking to cripple Iran's command system as a prelude to a systematic assault on key military targets would be thwarted by "taking the war to them", in the words of an Iranian military strategist who emphasized America's soft command structure in the southern tips of the Persian Gulf. (Over the past few months, US jet fighters have repeatedly violated Iran's air space over Khuzestan province, testing Iran's air defense system, according to Iranian military officials.)
Iran's proliferation of a highly sophisticated and mobile ballistic-missile system plays a crucial role in its strategy, again relying on lessons learned from the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003: in the earlier war over Kuwait, Iraq's missiles played an important role in extending the warfare to Israel, notwithstanding the failure of America's Patriot missiles to deflect most of Iraq's incoming missiles raining in on Israel and, to a lesser extent, on the US forces in Saudi Arabia. Also, per the admission of the top US commander in the Kuwait conflict, General Norman Schwarzkopf, the hunt for Iraq's mobile Scud missiles consumed a bulk of the coalition's air strategy and was as difficult as searching for "needles in a haystack".
Today, in the evolution of Iran's military doctrine, the country relies on increasingly precise long-range missiles, eg, Shahab-3 and Fateh-110, that can "hit targets in Tel Aviv", to echo Iranian Foreign Minister Kemal Kharrazi.
Chronologically speaking, Iran produced the 50-kilometer-range Oghab artillery rocket in 1985, and developed the 120km- and 160km-range Mushak artillery rockets in 1986-87 and 1988 respectively. Iran began assembling Scud-Bs in 1988, and North Korean technical advisers in Iran converted a missile maintenance facility for missile manufacture in 1991. It does not seem, however, that Iran has embarked on Scud production. Instead, Iran has sought to build Shahab-3 and Shahab-4, having ranges of 1,300km with a 1,600-pound warhead, and 200km with a 220-pound warhead, respectively; the Shahab-3 was test-launched in July 1998 and may soon be upgraded to more than 2,000km, thus capable of reaching the middle of Europe.
Thanks to excess revenue from high oil prices, which constitute more than 80% of the government's annual budget, Iran is not experiencing the budget constraints of the early and mid-1990s, when its military expenditure was outdone nearly one to 10 by its Arab neighbors in the Persian Gulf who are members of the Gulf Cooperation Council; almost all the Arab states possess one or another kind of advanced missile system, eg, Saudi Arabia's CSS-2/DF, Yemen's SS-21, Scud-B, Iraq's Frog-7.
There are several advantages to a ballistic arsenal as far as Iran is concerned: first, it is relatively cheap and manufactured domestically without much external dependency and the related pressure of "missile export control" exerted by the US. Second, the missiles are mobile and can be concealed from the enemy, and third, there are advantages to fighter jets requiring fixed air bases. Fourth, missiles are presumed effective weapons that can be launched without much advance notice by the recipient targets, particularly the "solid fuel" Fatah-110 missiles that require only a few short minutes for installation prior to being fired. Fifth, missiles are weapons of confusion and a unique strike capability that can torpedo the best military plans, recalling how the Iraqi missile attacks in March 2003 at the US military formations assembled at the Iraq-Kuwait border forced a change of plan on the United States' part, thereby forfeiting the initial plan of sustained aerial strikes before engaging the ground forces, as was the case in the Kuwait war, when the latter entered the theater after some 21 days of heavy air strikes inside Iraq as well as Kuwait.
Henceforth, any US attack on Iran will likely be met first and foremost by missile counter-attacks engulfing the southern Persian Gulf states playing host to US forces, as well as any other country, eg, Azerbaijan, Iraq or Turkey, allowing their territory or airspace to be used against Iran. The rationale for this strategy is precisely to pre-warn Iran's neighbors of the dire consequences, with potential debilitating impacts on their economies for a long time, should they become accomplices of foreign invaders of Iran.
Another key element of Iran's strategy is to "increase the arch of crisis" in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, where it has considerable influence, to undermine the United States' foothold in the region, hoping to create a counter-domino effect wherein instead of gaining inside Iran, the US would actually lose territory partly as a result of thinning its forces and military "overstretch".
Continued below
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=2594
Still another component of Iran's strategy is psychological warfare, an area of considerable attention by the country's military planners nowadays, focusing on the "lessons from Iraq" and how the pre-invasion psychological warfare by the US succeeded in causing a major rift between the top echelons of the Ba'athist army as well as between the regime and the people. The United States' psychological warfare in Iraq also had a political dimension, seeing how the US rallied the United Nations Security Council members and others behind the anti-Iraq measures in the guise of countering Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Iran's counter-psychological warfare, on the other hand, seeks to take advantage of the "death-fearing" American soldiers who typically lack a strong motivation to fight wars not necessarily in defense of the homeland. A war with Iran would definitely require establishing the draft in the US, without which it could not possibly protect its flanks in Afghanistan and Iraq; imposing the draft would mean enlisting many dissatisfied young soldiers amenable to be influenced by Iran's own psychological warfare focusing on the lack of motivation and "cognitive dissonance" of soldiers ill-doctrinated to President George W Bush's "doctrine of preemption", not to mention a proxy war for the sake of Israel.
This aside, already, Iranians today consider themselves subjected to the machinations of similar psychological warfare, whereby, to give an example, the US cleverly seeks to capitalize on the discontent of the (unemployed) youth by officially shedding crocodile tears, as discerned from a recent interview of the outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell. Systematic disinformation typically plays a key role in psychological warfare, and the US has now tripled its radio programs beamed to Iran and, per recent reports from the US Congress, substantially increased its financial support of the various anti-regime TV and Internet programs, this while openly trumpeting the cause of "human intelligence" in a future scenario of conflict with Iran based in part on covert operations.
Consequently, there is a sense of a national-security siege in Iran these days, in light of a tightening "security belt" by the US benefiting from military bases in Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, as well as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the island-turned-garrison of Diego Garcia. From Iran's vantage point, the US, having won the Cold War, has turned into a "leviathan unhinged" capable of manipulating and subverting the rules of international law and the United Nations with impunity, thus requiring a sophisticated Iranian strategy of deterrence that, in the words of certain Iranian media pundits, would even include the use of nuclear weapons.
But such voices are definitely in a minority in Iran today, and by and large there is an elite consensus against the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, partly out of the conviction that short of creating a "second-strike capability" there would be no nuclear deterrence against an overwhelming US power possessing thousands of "tactical nuclear weapons". Still, looking at nuclear asymmetry between India and Pakistan, the latter's first-strike capability has proved a deterrence against the much superior nuclear India, a precious lesson not lost on Iran.
Consequently, while Iran has fully submitted its nuclear program to international inspection and suspended its uranium-enrichment program per a recent Iran-European Union agreement inked in Paris in November, there is nonetheless a nagging concern that Iran may have undermined its deterrence strategy vis-a-vis the US, which has not endorsed the Paris Agreement, reserving the right to dispatch Iran's nuclear issue to the Security Council while occasionally resorting to tough saber-rattling against Tehran.
At times, notwithstanding a media campaign in the US, particularly by the New York Times, through news articles carrying such provocative titles as "US versus a nuclear Iran", the US continues its hard-power pre-campaign against Iran unabated, in turn fueling the national security concern of those groups of Iranians contemplating "nuclear deterrence" as a national survival strategy.
Concerning the latter, there is a growing sentiment in Iran that no matter how compliant Iran is with the demands of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency , much like Iraq in 2002-03, the US, which has lumped Iran into a self-declared "axis of evil", is cleverly sowing the seeds of its next Middle East war, in part by leveling old accusations of terrorism and Iran's complicity in the 1996 Ghobar bombing in Saudi Arabia, irrespective of the Saudi officials' rejection of such allegations totally overlooked in a recent book on Iran, The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth M Pollack (see Asia Times Online, The Persian puzzle, or the CIA's?, December 3.)
Thus there is an emerging "proto-nuclear deterrence" according to which Iran's mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle would make it "nuclear weapon capable" in a relatively short time, as a sort of pre-weapon "threshold capability" that must be taken into account by Iran's enemies contemplating attacks on its nuclear installations. Such attacks would be met by stiff resistance, born of Iran's historic sense of nationalism and patriotism, as well as by a counter-weaponization based on quick conversation of the nuclear technology. Hence the longer the US, and Israel, keep up the military threat, the more powerful and appealing the Iranian yearning for a "proto-nuclear deterrence" will grow.
In fact, the military threat against Iran has proved poison for the Iranian economy, chasing away foreign investment and causing considerable capital flight, an intolerable situation prompting some Iranian economists even to call for filing complaints against the US in international tribunals seeking financial remedies. This is a little far-fetched, no doubt, and the Iranians would have to set a new legal precedent to win their cause in the eyes of international law. Iran cannot possibly allow the poor investment climate caused by the military threats to continue indefinitely, and reciprocating with an extended deterrence strategy that raises the risk value of US allies in the region is meant to offset this rather unhappy situation.
Ironically, to open a parenthesis here, some friends of Israel in the US, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, an avid supporter of "torturing the terrorists", has recently inked a column on a pro-Israel website calling for the revision of international law allowing an Israeli, and US, military assault against Iran. Dershowitz has clearly taken flight of the rule of law, making a mockery of the esteemed institution that is considered a beacon on the hill in the United States; the same Ivy League university is home to the hate discourse of "clashing civilizations", another ornament for its cherished history. Even Harvard's Kennedy School dean, Joseph Nye, a relative dove, has replicated the US obsession with power by churning out books and articles on "soft power" that reifies every facet of American life, including its neutral culture or entertainment industry, into an appendage or "complement" of US "hard power", as if power reification of what Jurgen Habermas calls "lifeworld" (Lebenswelt) is the conditio sine qua non of Pax Americana.
The ruse of power, however, is that it is often blind to the opposite momentum that it generates, as has been the case of the Cuban people's half a century of heroics vis-a-vis a ruthless regime of economic blockade, Algerian nationalists fighting against French colonialism in the 1950s and 1960s, and, at present, the Iranian people finding themselves in the unenviable situation of contemplating how to survive against the coming avalanche of a US power led entirely by hawkish politicians donning the costumes of multilateralism on Iran's nuclear program. Yet few inside Iran actually believe that this is more than pseudo-multilateralism geared to satisfy the United States' unilateralist militarism down the road. One hopes that the road will not wind down any time soon, but just in case, the "Third World" Iranians are doing what they can to prepare for the nightmare scenario.
The whole situation calls for prudent crisis management and security confidence-building by both sides, and, hopefully, the ugly experience of repeated warfare in the oil-rich region can itself act as a deterrent.
Iran's counter-psychological warfare, on the other hand, seeks to take advantage of the "death-fearing" American soldiers who typically lack a strong motivation to fight wars not necessarily in defense of the homeland. A war with Iran would definitely require establishing the draft in the US, without which it could not possibly protect its flanks in Afghanistan and Iraq; imposing the draft would mean enlisting many dissatisfied young soldiers amenable to be influenced by Iran's own psychological warfare focusing on the lack of motivation and "cognitive dissonance" of soldiers ill-doctrinated to President George W Bush's "doctrine of preemption", not to mention a proxy war for the sake of Israel.
This aside, already, Iranians today consider themselves subjected to the machinations of similar psychological warfare, whereby, to give an example, the US cleverly seeks to capitalize on the discontent of the (unemployed) youth by officially shedding crocodile tears, as discerned from a recent interview of the outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell. Systematic disinformation typically plays a key role in psychological warfare, and the US has now tripled its radio programs beamed to Iran and, per recent reports from the US Congress, substantially increased its financial support of the various anti-regime TV and Internet programs, this while openly trumpeting the cause of "human intelligence" in a future scenario of conflict with Iran based in part on covert operations.
Consequently, there is a sense of a national-security siege in Iran these days, in light of a tightening "security belt" by the US benefiting from military bases in Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, as well as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the island-turned-garrison of Diego Garcia. From Iran's vantage point, the US, having won the Cold War, has turned into a "leviathan unhinged" capable of manipulating and subverting the rules of international law and the United Nations with impunity, thus requiring a sophisticated Iranian strategy of deterrence that, in the words of certain Iranian media pundits, would even include the use of nuclear weapons.
But such voices are definitely in a minority in Iran today, and by and large there is an elite consensus against the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, partly out of the conviction that short of creating a "second-strike capability" there would be no nuclear deterrence against an overwhelming US power possessing thousands of "tactical nuclear weapons". Still, looking at nuclear asymmetry between India and Pakistan, the latter's first-strike capability has proved a deterrence against the much superior nuclear India, a precious lesson not lost on Iran.
Consequently, while Iran has fully submitted its nuclear program to international inspection and suspended its uranium-enrichment program per a recent Iran-European Union agreement inked in Paris in November, there is nonetheless a nagging concern that Iran may have undermined its deterrence strategy vis-a-vis the US, which has not endorsed the Paris Agreement, reserving the right to dispatch Iran's nuclear issue to the Security Council while occasionally resorting to tough saber-rattling against Tehran.
At times, notwithstanding a media campaign in the US, particularly by the New York Times, through news articles carrying such provocative titles as "US versus a nuclear Iran", the US continues its hard-power pre-campaign against Iran unabated, in turn fueling the national security concern of those groups of Iranians contemplating "nuclear deterrence" as a national survival strategy.
Concerning the latter, there is a growing sentiment in Iran that no matter how compliant Iran is with the demands of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency , much like Iraq in 2002-03, the US, which has lumped Iran into a self-declared "axis of evil", is cleverly sowing the seeds of its next Middle East war, in part by leveling old accusations of terrorism and Iran's complicity in the 1996 Ghobar bombing in Saudi Arabia, irrespective of the Saudi officials' rejection of such allegations totally overlooked in a recent book on Iran, The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth M Pollack (see Asia Times Online, The Persian puzzle, or the CIA's?, December 3.)
Thus there is an emerging "proto-nuclear deterrence" according to which Iran's mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle would make it "nuclear weapon capable" in a relatively short time, as a sort of pre-weapon "threshold capability" that must be taken into account by Iran's enemies contemplating attacks on its nuclear installations. Such attacks would be met by stiff resistance, born of Iran's historic sense of nationalism and patriotism, as well as by a counter-weaponization based on quick conversation of the nuclear technology. Hence the longer the US, and Israel, keep up the military threat, the more powerful and appealing the Iranian yearning for a "proto-nuclear deterrence" will grow.
In fact, the military threat against Iran has proved poison for the Iranian economy, chasing away foreign investment and causing considerable capital flight, an intolerable situation prompting some Iranian economists even to call for filing complaints against the US in international tribunals seeking financial remedies. This is a little far-fetched, no doubt, and the Iranians would have to set a new legal precedent to win their cause in the eyes of international law. Iran cannot possibly allow the poor investment climate caused by the military threats to continue indefinitely, and reciprocating with an extended deterrence strategy that raises the risk value of US allies in the region is meant to offset this rather unhappy situation.
Ironically, to open a parenthesis here, some friends of Israel in the US, such as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, an avid supporter of "torturing the terrorists", has recently inked a column on a pro-Israel website calling for the revision of international law allowing an Israeli, and US, military assault against Iran. Dershowitz has clearly taken flight of the rule of law, making a mockery of the esteemed institution that is considered a beacon on the hill in the United States; the same Ivy League university is home to the hate discourse of "clashing civilizations", another ornament for its cherished history. Even Harvard's Kennedy School dean, Joseph Nye, a relative dove, has replicated the US obsession with power by churning out books and articles on "soft power" that reifies every facet of American life, including its neutral culture or entertainment industry, into an appendage or "complement" of US "hard power", as if power reification of what Jurgen Habermas calls "lifeworld" (Lebenswelt) is the conditio sine qua non of Pax Americana.
The ruse of power, however, is that it is often blind to the opposite momentum that it generates, as has been the case of the Cuban people's half a century of heroics vis-a-vis a ruthless regime of economic blockade, Algerian nationalists fighting against French colonialism in the 1950s and 1960s, and, at present, the Iranian people finding themselves in the unenviable situation of contemplating how to survive against the coming avalanche of a US power led entirely by hawkish politicians donning the costumes of multilateralism on Iran's nuclear program. Yet few inside Iran actually believe that this is more than pseudo-multilateralism geared to satisfy the United States' unilateralist militarism down the road. One hopes that the road will not wind down any time soon, but just in case, the "Third World" Iranians are doing what they can to prepare for the nightmare scenario.
The whole situation calls for prudent crisis management and security confidence-building by both sides, and, hopefully, the ugly experience of repeated warfare in the oil-rich region can itself act as a deterrent.
Alien_uk " you can bet this found it's way to Iran 
"
The Topol SS 27 is the fastest missile ever
Charles Assisi – The Times of India January 14, 2006
On November 2, a rather staid little story appeared on a ticker powered by Itar-Tass, a Russian News Agency. The tone was decidedly Russian—matter-of-fact and shorn of all hyperbole. It reported the test launch of a ballistic missile called the Topol RS 12 at 8:10 pm Moscow time. After taking off from the Kapustny Yar test range in the Astrakhan region, it hit the intended target at Balkhash in Kazakhstan at 8:34—24 minutes later.
“The target was precisely hit,” said the report, quoting a top-ranking official from the Russian armed forces.
In conclusion, Itar-Tass added some jargon that sounded like regulation copy to most people tracking defense.
“The advanced Topol missile…has three cruise engines and can develop hypersonic speed. The high thrust-to-weight ratio allows the warhead to maneuver on the trajectory and pass through a dense air defense system.”
At that time, not many defense analysts thought much of the report. After all, Kapustny Yar, located on the banks of the Volga River, 75 miles east of Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad), had gone to the dogs and was infrequently used. Whenever the base was lucky to see some action, all it witnessed was small payloads.
But what the mainstream media missed was analyzed in great detail on Internet discussion boards. For starters, something about the time mentioned in the report sounded astounding. For anything to travel from Kapustny to Balkash in 24 minutes, it had to fly at a speed of three miles a second. That’s 180 miles a minute or 10,800 miles an hour. If the reports were indeed true, the Topol RS 12 or the Topol SS 27, as it is known in military circles around the world, had to be the fastest thing man has ever seen. And if you will for a moment excuse the breathlessness, it also represented the pinnacle of modern missile technology. Until this test, the fastest thing known to man was the X43 A. A hypersonic, unmanned plane built by NASA. It flew at 10 times the speed of sound—almost 7,200 miles per hour.
But the Topol isn’t attracting attention for its speed alone. It has got more to do with the sheer viciousness it demonstrates. A conventional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), once deployed, takes off on the back of a booster. After attaining a certain altitude, it follows a set flight path or trajectory. When it reaches the intended target, it lets loose a set of warheads that home in on the target with devastating accuracy. Jon-Marcus Given these dynamics, military establishments build defense systems that can intercept an ICBM before it strikes. Very often, the defense works.
With the Topol, these dynamics simply don’t come into play. To start with, the damn thing can be maneuvered mid-flight. This makes it practically impossible for any radar system in the world to figure out what trajectory it will follow. The other thing is the kind of evasion technology built into the missile. That makes it invulnerable to any kind of radiation and electromagnetic and physical interference.
Then there is the question of ground-based nuclear warheads traditionally deployed to stop ICBMs in their path. Until now, any ICBM can be taken down by detonating a nuclear warhead from as far as 10 kilometers. The Topol doesn’t blink an eyelid until the time a nuclear warhead gets as close as 500 meters. But given the Topol’s remarkable speed and maneuverability, getting a warhead that close is practically impossible.
That leaves defense establishments with only two options. Target the missile at its most vulnerable points—either when it is on the ground or when it is just being deployed (also known as the boost phase). Apparently, the Russians have gotten around that problem too. Unlike virtually every ICBM that exists on some military base or the other, the Topol doesn’t have to be on a static base. All it needs is the back of a truck. And trucks can be driven anywhere, anytime. That makes it practically impossible for any country to monitor how many of these missiles have been deployed and where.
Writes Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer and weapons inspector in the Soviet Union and Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor, “The Bush administration’s dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M…. To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch.”
But when you’re done marveling at the technology, sit back for a moment and consider this. You thought the cold war was over. You thought wrong. Cold War II has just begun. And the world just became a more dangerous place.
"The Topol SS 27 is the fastest missile ever
Charles Assisi – The Times of India January 14, 2006
On November 2, a rather staid little story appeared on a ticker powered by Itar-Tass, a Russian News Agency. The tone was decidedly Russian—matter-of-fact and shorn of all hyperbole. It reported the test launch of a ballistic missile called the Topol RS 12 at 8:10 pm Moscow time. After taking off from the Kapustny Yar test range in the Astrakhan region, it hit the intended target at Balkhash in Kazakhstan at 8:34—24 minutes later.
“The target was precisely hit,” said the report, quoting a top-ranking official from the Russian armed forces.
In conclusion, Itar-Tass added some jargon that sounded like regulation copy to most people tracking defense.
“The advanced Topol missile…has three cruise engines and can develop hypersonic speed. The high thrust-to-weight ratio allows the warhead to maneuver on the trajectory and pass through a dense air defense system.”
At that time, not many defense analysts thought much of the report. After all, Kapustny Yar, located on the banks of the Volga River, 75 miles east of Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad), had gone to the dogs and was infrequently used. Whenever the base was lucky to see some action, all it witnessed was small payloads.
But what the mainstream media missed was analyzed in great detail on Internet discussion boards. For starters, something about the time mentioned in the report sounded astounding. For anything to travel from Kapustny to Balkash in 24 minutes, it had to fly at a speed of three miles a second. That’s 180 miles a minute or 10,800 miles an hour. If the reports were indeed true, the Topol RS 12 or the Topol SS 27, as it is known in military circles around the world, had to be the fastest thing man has ever seen. And if you will for a moment excuse the breathlessness, it also represented the pinnacle of modern missile technology. Until this test, the fastest thing known to man was the X43 A. A hypersonic, unmanned plane built by NASA. It flew at 10 times the speed of sound—almost 7,200 miles per hour.
But the Topol isn’t attracting attention for its speed alone. It has got more to do with the sheer viciousness it demonstrates. A conventional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), once deployed, takes off on the back of a booster. After attaining a certain altitude, it follows a set flight path or trajectory. When it reaches the intended target, it lets loose a set of warheads that home in on the target with devastating accuracy. Jon-Marcus Given these dynamics, military establishments build defense systems that can intercept an ICBM before it strikes. Very often, the defense works.
With the Topol, these dynamics simply don’t come into play. To start with, the damn thing can be maneuvered mid-flight. This makes it practically impossible for any radar system in the world to figure out what trajectory it will follow. The other thing is the kind of evasion technology built into the missile. That makes it invulnerable to any kind of radiation and electromagnetic and physical interference.
Then there is the question of ground-based nuclear warheads traditionally deployed to stop ICBMs in their path. Until now, any ICBM can be taken down by detonating a nuclear warhead from as far as 10 kilometers. The Topol doesn’t blink an eyelid until the time a nuclear warhead gets as close as 500 meters. But given the Topol’s remarkable speed and maneuverability, getting a warhead that close is practically impossible.
That leaves defense establishments with only two options. Target the missile at its most vulnerable points—either when it is on the ground or when it is just being deployed (also known as the boost phase). Apparently, the Russians have gotten around that problem too. Unlike virtually every ICBM that exists on some military base or the other, the Topol doesn’t have to be on a static base. All it needs is the back of a truck. And trucks can be driven anywhere, anytime. That makes it practically impossible for any country to monitor how many of these missiles have been deployed and where.
Writes Scott Ritter, a former intelligence officer and weapons inspector in the Soviet Union and Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor, “The Bush administration’s dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M…. To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch.”
But when you’re done marveling at the technology, sit back for a moment and consider this. You thought the cold war was over. You thought wrong. Cold War II has just begun. And the world just became a more dangerous place.
Last edited by Alien_UK on 01-17-2006 05:14 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Iran Interested in Russian Weapons
Iran is interested in developing military-technical cooperation with Russia, the country’s ambassador to Russia, Gholamreza Ansari, said on Friday.
“Until now, our cooperation has mostly been established in the sphere of trade,” the ambassador was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying. “But the Iranian government now wants to strengthen cooperation with Russia in the field of energy, in particular nuclear energy. We also intend to develop military-technical cooperation.”
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov earlier confirmed Russia’s intention to continue military-technical cooperation with Iran. He said that “Russia is supplying Iran with conventional armaments and military hardware such as armored vehicles and air defense equipment of a limited range. This is ordinary commercial trade and we are not going to end it.”
It was reported in the beginning of December that Russia had struck a deal to sell short-range, surface-to-air missiles to Iran. Ivanov said this did not change the balance of forces in the region.
The European Union has formally protested to Russia about the deal.
=============================================
Iran Signs Deal With Russia on Tactical Surface-to-Air Missiles Purchase
Iran has signed a deal to buy Russian tactical surface-to-air missile systems.
Iran plans to buy 29 TOR-M1 systems designed to bring down aircraft and guided missiles at low altitudes, Reuters reported.
The deal is the biggest sale of Russian defense hardware to Iran for about five years. The sources did not disclose the price of the deal.
Tehran is under intense international pressure after failing to convince the United States and others its nuclear scientists are working on fuel for power stations rather than bombs.
Russia is helping Iran build a nuclear power station at Bushehr.
=============================================
This has been happening in the last two years
Iran is interested in developing military-technical cooperation with Russia, the country’s ambassador to Russia, Gholamreza Ansari, said on Friday.
“Until now, our cooperation has mostly been established in the sphere of trade,” the ambassador was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying. “But the Iranian government now wants to strengthen cooperation with Russia in the field of energy, in particular nuclear energy. We also intend to develop military-technical cooperation.”
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov earlier confirmed Russia’s intention to continue military-technical cooperation with Iran. He said that “Russia is supplying Iran with conventional armaments and military hardware such as armored vehicles and air defense equipment of a limited range. This is ordinary commercial trade and we are not going to end it.”
It was reported in the beginning of December that Russia had struck a deal to sell short-range, surface-to-air missiles to Iran. Ivanov said this did not change the balance of forces in the region.
The European Union has formally protested to Russia about the deal.
=============================================
Iran Signs Deal With Russia on Tactical Surface-to-Air Missiles Purchase
Iran has signed a deal to buy Russian tactical surface-to-air missile systems.
Iran plans to buy 29 TOR-M1 systems designed to bring down aircraft and guided missiles at low altitudes, Reuters reported.
The deal is the biggest sale of Russian defense hardware to Iran for about five years. The sources did not disclose the price of the deal.
Tehran is under intense international pressure after failing to convince the United States and others its nuclear scientists are working on fuel for power stations rather than bombs.
Russia is helping Iran build a nuclear power station at Bushehr.
=============================================
This has been happening in the last two years
Sorry if this post lack a certain emotion, and I have not been ignoring you AK, just distracted by some other issues.
Thanks so much for all your input here. Quite frankly I don't know how this is going to play out. I do understand the CFR, and other of the cabal's planning groups, had stated in the past that Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran (the old Silk Road) needed to be taken out in order to control the oil and pipelines. I agree that this would be a very difficult thing to accomplish, and stupid of course. The whole thing is predicated on long range plans of the globalists. I also think BushCo is 100% committed to the globalist agenda, and is an arrogant, loose cannon. He could do just about any damn fool thing.
From what I understand, Jon, there are multiple sites, and the most sensitive being deep underground. I know we have hardened underground sites in this country that could withstand a nuclear strike. A hardened site needs a direct ground explosion to destroy it (an air burst won't do it). A ground explosion throws tons of dirt and sand high into the air, where it hangs like a thick cloud for a long time. All that sand and grit would be sand blast any further incoming missiles headed for that same target, its skin would be torn off, and it will be destroyed. I may be wrong about this but this is what I understand.
Thanks so much for all your input here. Quite frankly I don't know how this is going to play out. I do understand the CFR, and other of the cabal's planning groups, had stated in the past that Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran (the old Silk Road) needed to be taken out in order to control the oil and pipelines. I agree that this would be a very difficult thing to accomplish, and stupid of course. The whole thing is predicated on long range plans of the globalists. I also think BushCo is 100% committed to the globalist agenda, and is an arrogant, loose cannon. He could do just about any damn fool thing.
From what I understand, Jon, there are multiple sites, and the most sensitive being deep underground. I know we have hardened underground sites in this country that could withstand a nuclear strike. A hardened site needs a direct ground explosion to destroy it (an air burst won't do it). A ground explosion throws tons of dirt and sand high into the air, where it hangs like a thick cloud for a long time. All that sand and grit would be sand blast any further incoming missiles headed for that same target, its skin would be torn off, and it will be destroyed. I may be wrong about this but this is what I understand.
Israel's acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said his country could not allow a hostile nation to have weapons of mass destruction.
Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black
Hi MD i understand I'm just burning off some timeMD Sorry if this post lack a certain emotion, and I have not been ignoring you AK, just distracted by some other issues.