Iran

Iran

Postby admin » Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:12 pm

All the news about Iran.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:51 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:27 pm

.


who’s threatening who ?


The Nuclear threat from Iran.jpg
The Nuclear threat from Iran.jpg (80.27 KiB) Viewed 2584 times



.

Iran, Israel and the US : who’s threatening who ?


In this interview, Iranian political analyst Shirin Shafaie answers questions on Iran following the IAEA’s November Report and the latest developments leading to an increase of tensions and failure of diplomacy between Iran and the West.

__________________________________________________________________________________

By David J. Franco

InPEC has conducted this interview with Shirin Shafaie at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. Shirin Shafaie is an Iranian researcher and PhD candidate at SOAS. She was educated in Iran (BA in Philosophy and MA in Philosophy of Art) and in the UK (MSc in Middle East Politics). The core of her research is critical war studies in general and the Iran-Iraq War in particular. The links in the answers are added by Shafaie.

Franco: Good morning Miss Shafaie and welcome to a conversation with InPEC. In an interview conceded to Iranicum[1] in August 2011 you stated that ‘the IAEA has confirmed time and again that Iran is enriching uranium only to the levels it has stated and more importantly that no declared nuclear material has ever been diverted to military use in Iran’. The latest report released by the IAEA on 8 November 2011 seems to challenge this statement (we will call this the November Report). What is your position following the release of the November Report?

Shafaie: The IAEA has issued 35 reports on Iran since June 2003. What remains well-founded, credible and accurate in all of these reports, including the November Report, is the fact that “the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs [Locations Outside Facilities, meaning in hospitals] declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement”.[2]

This is the most decisive and accurate finding of hundreds of hours of inspection by IAEA inspectors and 24/7 surveillance by IAEA cameras. The allegation remains as always that “the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran”; while Iran continues to categorically deny any undeclared nuclear sites on its soil. There has never been any evidence of such sites until today.

There are some other, old and new, allegations in the November Report which have become worthy of attention thanks to the media hype, for example the allegations of Research & Development for nuclear weapons based on data from a mystery laptop. Gareth Porter, the investigative journalist, has best dealt with this issue and discounted the intelligence documents that have been used to indict Iran as plotting to build nuclear weapons as fabrications by a self-interested party, namely Israel’s Mossad. Others have also argued that the US has once again used fake intelligence to build a justification to wage war. Muhammad Sahimi, an Iranian professor and commentator, has also provided a critical analysis of the issue which you can listen to here. Or you can read Iran’s own assessment of the so-called alleged studies here. With regard to the nuclear facilities in Iran near Qom, Daniel Joyner writing for the Jurist has explained in legal terms why Iran was not obliged under its Safeguards Agreement to declare a facility which was not yet introduced to nuclear material. Perhaps the newest and most exciting allegation in the November Report is that of the involvement of a former-Soviet “nuclear scientist” in Iran’s nuclear program. The Ukrainian scientist in nanotechnology, Danilenko, has rebuffed the manipulation of his identity and expertise in the November Report. Porter has also provided a sober analysis of the new allegations here.

Moreover, Iran submitted a 117-page clarification document to the IAEA in May 2008 clarifying most of the above allegations in full detail. Although the November Report does not add anything new in terms of substance and concern to the issue, Iran has provided the 118 Members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) with answers to twenty key questions regarding its nuclear program. Moreover the NAM has issued a statement criticising the biased and unprofessional behaviour of the IAEA against Iran.

In a nutshell, there is still no shred of evidence indicating that Iran has an intention for developing nuclear weapons, let alone having a military nuclear program already.

Franco: The IAEA claims to have verified most of the evidence provided by member states but some claim that the UN nuclear watchdog is as a much a technical organisation as it is a political body. Is the IAEA as independent as it purports to be? What should we make of their November Report?

Shafaie: The November Report does not contain any evidence of nuclear weaponisation in Iran, only some allegations, both old and new. The corresponding data to these allegations has been fed to the IAEA mainly by one unnamed “Member State”. Experts of all sides agree that the concerned Member State is in fact Israel: a member state to the IAEA (along with 150 other countries), but not a signatory to the NPT (along with only 3 other countries). Therefore, legally speaking, the whole report lacks credibility and legitimacy.

To use a court case analogy, this is what has happened: Iran has been accused of having an intention to develop nuclear weapons (guilty until proven innocent), the Agency (prosecutor and the jury) cannot guarantee that Iran does not have a military nuclear agenda (double negative case), the enemy of Iran, Israel, itself very much guilty of having actually committed the same crime (nuclear weaponisation) provides the jury with the so-called evidence. Important documents and information were withheld from the jury (former IAEA head, ElBaradei) and the defendant (Iran). Meanwhile the new head of the jury (current IAEA head, Amano) is himself under the influence of another arch enemy of Iran and best friends of Israel, namely the US. The US is itself guilty of not only having the largest number of nuclear arsenal in the world throughout the history, but also guilty of being the only country which has actually used nuclear bombs against civilian population, not once but twice. When the jury-prosecutor receives these readymade allegations and fabricated evidence supporting those allegations, it sends Iran’s nuclear file to the Supreme Court which is the Security Council here. There again you find the US sitting comfortably along with its European allies and opportunist powers to decide if Iran should be punished for a crime it has not committed. It won’t be hard to guess what such a verdict would be, without even having seen or verified the evidence.

Franco: Talking of Israel, the Economist published on November 12th that ‘The Israelis’ anxiety is understandable. They fear a theocratic regime that embraces the Shia tradition of martyrdom may not be deterred by a nuclear balance of terror’. Is this what the West truly fears or is there something else at stake?

Shafaie: I don’t fully understand why Israel fears Iran so much, yet I don’t think that their fear is unreal. Israel has been active in acts of sabotage and terror against Iran ranging from cyber attacks and most notoriously assassination of Iranian scientists. So it may be the case that Israel really thinks that Iran wants to make nuclear bombs. But the Israeli fear is not proof for an Iranian crime. There is a Persian expression which says that master thieves always have many locks on their own doors.

Some argue that the source of Israeli paranoia against Iran is the antagonistic language of Iranian leaders, most notably the current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and also the late leader of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini. They both said that Zionism will disappear from the page of time and I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t. The Apartheid regime vanished from the page of time without South Africa being wiped off the map. The problem may be that Israeli leaders see the existence of their political party and particular ideology as identical with the existence of the Jewish people and their country. This is a false portrayal of reality. Israel and the Jewish people do not need Zionism but the other way round. Moreover, Iran’s military doctrine is fundamentally defensive and it has been like that for more than two centuries. Unlike Israel or the US, Iran does not follow its political aspirations through aggressive military means. With regard to Israel, Iran insists that it is up to the people of the Occupied Territories to decide their own future.

I agree with Avner Cohen, an expert on Israeli nuclear arsenal and a professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, who said that “Ultimately this is a fight over the Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region”; meaning that Israel, but also the US and the IAEA, are not really concerned with the nature of Iranian nuclear program, but more so with Israel’s status as the sole nuclear-armed state in the region. Keeping the Israeli nuclear weapons monopoly has become the most important issue on the IAEA and Security Council agenda, whereas it should be really the issue of creating a WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East.

Franco: Let’s now move to the issue of sanctions. In your interview with Iranicum you stated that sanctions are counter-productive and a direct attack on Iran’s population. You also claimed that diplomacy and negotiation are the only way forward. On the other hand, many believe Iran is just buying time to develop a break-out capability and the US and the EU have strengthened sanctions against Tehran. Against this background, how can diplomacy continue to serve international and regional peace and security?

Shafaie: Sanctions are confrontational and destructive. The question is what have they achieved anywhere in the world at any point in time? What did a decade of sanctions against Iraq achieve? Did it help the oppressed people of Iraq? No, more than 500,000 Iraqi children died as a direct result of sanctions. What did sanctions achieve in Libya? Did they bring about democracy, prosperity or a bright future? What about Syria? Why should anyone think that Iran is or will be any different? Sanctions are not just a prelude to war, but in fact they are an act of war because like wars they destroy economies and lead to death and destruction. Sanctions are proving to be detrimental not only for the enemy’s economy (or the receiving people) but also for the sending countries. Moreover such sanctions in the case of Iran also “impact companies from third countries cooperating with Iran in the oil and oil-refining industry, and in the banking sector”, a fact reiterated by Russia which “views such extra-territorial measures as unacceptable and against international law” and as “a tool for regime change”.

The current system imposed on international relations by the West creates lose-lose situations. Even lose-win situations should be considered obsolete in our globalised world. The West should drop its extra-legal demand for suspension of nuclear enrichment in Iran. Negotiations should instead take place in order to expand cooperation in the field of nuclear energy production and research. An interesting option would be the revival of the nuclear deal involving Russia, Iran, France and the IAEA (originally devised in October 2009). Based on this deal Iran would ship most of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia for further enrichment and then to France for processing into fuel rods which are needed for medical purposes in Tehran Research Reactor. There is also the Iran-Brazil-Turkey deal which was concluded with initial support from the Obama Administration but later dismissed by the US in the Security Council.

I think that the revival of the Russian deal is a better option at the moment because Turkey seems to have slightly tilted towards the West, especially through its NATO membership. Turkey’s decision to host American anti-missile shields has bothered Iran and Russia alike, while pleasing Israel. Now it may be time that Iran reconsiders the Russian proposal of 2009. This will be a win-win situation for all the parties who choose to be involved.

Franco: Let’s talk a bit more about nuclear deals. In a September 2011 interview with the Washington Post (later reproduced in similar terms with the New York Times) President Ahmadinejad reiterated his offer to stop enriching Uranium to 20% level in exchange for fuel rods. Why has the offer fallen on deaf ears and do you think the November Report is having any influence in the US decision not to consider Ahmadinejad’s offer seriously?

Shafaie: The reason President Ahmadinejad is offering to halt uranium enrichment up to 20% is that Iran urgently needs the nuclear fuel rods for its Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). More than 800,000 patients of cancer and other complicated diseases are dependent on medical radioisotopes produced by the TRR for diagnosis and treatment. Unfortunately the significant humanitarian aspect of Iran’s nuclear program has been wilfully neglected by the US and the IAEA. Iran’s nuclear program is politicised by the West at the expense of these patients who are turned away from hospitals on a daily basis because the TRR has almost ran out of fuel.

The recent proposal by President Ahmadinejad is not unique in kind. Iran had previously agreed to other deals, such as the Iran-Brazil-Turkey deal that I just mentioned to solve this diplomatic and humanitarian deadlock. In 2008 Iran proposed to establish an international consortium to enrich uranium on its soil as a way of defusing tensions over its nuclear program. The proposal was again dismissed by the West because the US and its European allies want Iran to completely abandon its nuclear enrichment program or in other words give up some of its national sovereignty. President Ahmadinejad’s offer to halt uranium enrichment up to 20% indicates efforts towards reaching a win-win solution. Iran refuses to be put in such an immoral position where it has to choose between its national sovereignty and the well-being of its hundreds of thousands of patients. Moreover, there is no guarantee from the West to safeguard either side should Iran choose to pick one.

I think that the West is using the issue of Iranian urgent humanitarian need for nuclear fuel as a bargaining chip and that is why Iran’s continuous offers for suspension of uranium enrichment to 20% seem to be falling upon deaf ears in the West.

Franco: One last question, Miss Shafaie. Recent developments seem to have elevated tensions to levels similar to those experienced in the prelude to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Speaking of Iran’s nuclear program, President Obama’s National Security Adviser Thomas E. Donilon reiterated recently that ‘the United States would take no options off the table in dealing with Tehran’. Is this mere rhetoric or is it reflective of views in the Obama administration that see war with Iran inevitable?

Shafaie: There is a horrific fact about the now cliché American phrase “All options are on the table” against Iran. All options here include the following measures: extra-legal economic and diplomatic sanctions for example against Iran’s civilian aviation industry, various acts of sabotage including cyber attacks, espionage operations involving anti-Iranian terrorist groups and unmanned drones, assassination of Iranian scientists inside Iran, and most recently sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank and talks of an oil embargo against Iran; but most notoriously this phrase implies the possibility of an unprovoked nuclear attack by the US against Iran. President Obama spelled out this possibility in his 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. The gravity of such horrific threat by the US against non-nuclear-armed Iran is reflected in the text of Iran’s complaint to the Security Council. However, Iran’s complaint was rather in vain because the aggressor, namely the US is itself dominating the Security Council.

So does this mean that the US will use its nuclear weapons again, this time against Iran? I’m not so sure. Because the Western military-industrial complex is currently benefitting from the status quo that the US and Israel have created in the region through Iranophobia. The American arms sales to the region amount to billions of dollars. Moreover, the US military-industrial complex is benefiting from its European missile shield deals. However, there is always the risk of saturation of the arms market in the region and by extension the risk of an all-out war. Yet, there are a number of actors which would by no means benefit from such a scenario and it is possible that they would prevent such a war.

The biggest loser of such a war with Iran would be the people of the world. The anti-war movement has become much stronger in the West than it was in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Moreover, the global economic crisis has made people rethink the trust and power that they have invested in their regimes. The other actors who would not benefit from yet another American-made war in the Middle East are China and Russia. Unlike the US, Chinese economy is not based on arms sales and China has a lot to lose from rising oil prices. The Russian situation is quite similar, so is the situation of Brazil, India, and South Africa (i.e. BRICS countries). In fact the deputy foreign ministers of the BRICS countries stated their deep concerns in a meeting in November 2011 “about security and stability in the Gulf region” and called “for political dialogue in resolving differences” and “rejected the use and threat of force”. In their Joint Communiqué “the Participants stressed the necessity to build a system of relations in the Gulf region that would guarantee equal and reliable security for all States of the sub-region.” This is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa agreeing on an urgent matter, all currently members of the Security Council.

There is a lot of tension and horrific threats of war, but there is also hope that at least some in the international community have maintained their sanity and are increasingly calling for diplomacy and negotiations in place of wars and confrontation.

Franco: Miss Shafaie, thank you very much for finding the time to answer our questions.

.



.
AzariLoveIran
 

Happy New Year

Postby AzariLoveIran » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:22 am

AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby YMix » Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:11 am

Post moved from new thread.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
User avatar
YMix
 
Posts: 4342
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:46 am




Dezfull air base

Iranian F-5 lands without nose wheel


AeroSpaceTalk.ir .. forum of Iranian Pilots



.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:48 am

To: Ahmadinejad
Fr: Ahmadinejad

Note to self: Have Air Force add nose wheel to all F-5's. :D
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:04 am

AzariLoveIran
 

Re: Happy New Year

Postby Azrael » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:37 am

AzariLoveIran wrote:

Sometimes, overconfidence and dumb drone jocks with too many pep pills and energy drinks is the best gift.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby Azrael » Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:45 am

AzariLoveIran wrote:

Here's a guy with common sense. He was needed and appreciated during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War we got soft, and got neoconned.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Breaking News

Postby AzariLoveIran » Sun Jan 01, 2012 2:48 pm

.


This is a thread that news out of ordinary can be posted .. for any subject


TEHRAN, Iran—Iranian scientists have produced the nation's first nuclear fuel rod, a feat of engineering the West has doubted Tehran capable of


.

The announcement marks another step in Tehran's efforts to achieve proficiency in the entire nuclear fuel cycle—from exploring uranium ore to producing nuclear fuel . .

Tehran has long said it is forced to seek a way to manufacture the fuel rods on its own, since the sanctions ban it from buying them on foreign markets. Nuclear fuel rods are tubes containing pellets of enriched uranium that provide fuel for nuclear reactors.

Iran's atomic energy agency's website said the first domestically made rod has already been inserted into the core of Tehran's research nuclear reactor. But it was unclear if the rod contained pellets or was inserted empty, as part of a test.

"Scientists and researchers at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran have succeeded in producing and testing the first sample of a nuclear fuel rod," said the announcement.

the program is for peaceful purposes only and is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.

Tehran focused on domestic production of nuclear fuel rods and pellets in 2010, after talks with the West on a nuclear fuel swap deal ended in failure as Iran backed down on shipping a major part of its stock of enriched uranium abroad in return for fuel.

.



Ellen , you have the mike


.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby YMix » Sun Jan 01, 2012 4:39 pm

This is a thread that news out of ordinary can be posted .. for any subject


That is the purpose of the entire Current Events subforum. We don't need a special thread.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
User avatar
YMix
 
Posts: 4342
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby planctom » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:32 pm

The black market Rial exchange rate is going up,maybe showing that people are not trusting the government.
Any comments on that?
planctom
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:41 pm
Location: Southern Atlantic Ocean

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:52 pm

.

“Iran advises, recommends and warns them [the US] not to move its carrier back to the previous area in the Gulf because Iran is not used to repeating its warnings and warns just once,”


Basically Iran says no Aircraft carrier in Persian Golf :)


.
FT

January 3, 2012 1:19 pm

Iran threatens US over aircraft carrier

By Monavar Khalaj in Tehran and Jack Farchy in London

Tehran ratcheted up tension with the west on Tuesday after the country’s army chief threatened a US aircraft carrier, sending oil prices to the highest level in three weeks.

The threat by Major General Ataollah Salehi follows 10 days of naval exercises by Iran in the Gulf and a warning last week to that the country could block the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-third of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes, should the west expand its oil sanctions on Tehran.

“Iran advises, recommends and warns them [the US] not to move its carrier back to the previous area in the Gulf because Iran is not used to repeating its warnings and warns just once,” the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Maj Gen Salehi as saying.

It added that Maj Gen Salehi said Tehran was not going to take “any unreasonable” action, but was “ready to counter any threat”.

The US Navy’s 5th Fleet has said that USS John C. Stennis and another vessel left the Gulf last Tuesday after a visit to Dubai’s Jebel Ali port. The Fleet did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Maj Gen Salehi’s threat.

The possibility of a confrontation between Iran and the west has unnerved oil traders, since the Middle Eastern country is the world’s third-largest oil exporter and accounts for about 4 per cent of global output.

A closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel which is the conduit for 17m barrels a day of oil, would bring Iran into conflict with the US navy which patrols the waterway.

The US Department of Energy describes the Strait as “the world’s most important oil chokepoint”, with an average of 14 supertankers passing through the strait every day, most of them heading towards Japan, South Korea, India and China.

However, analysts believe that Iran would not be able to shut it down. But even a brief closure of the strait would have a dramatic impact on oil prices, traders believe, predicting a spike towards $150 a barrel – or beyond, if the disruption is prolonged.

Nonetheless, “the ever-growing frequency of intense sabre-rattling and muscle flexing between Iran and the US should keep the markets jittery and vulnerable to sudden price jumps,” said JBC Energy, a Vienna-based consultancy.

The latest comments from Tehran sent Brent crude, the global benchmark, nearly 3 per cent higher to $110 for the first time in three weeks.

Rostam Ghasemi, the oil minister, added to the tension after warning that international sanctions on Iran’s crude trade would significantly disrupt the world oil market.

“The world will not impose sanctions on Iran’s oil … because [this] will cause the international market to face turmoil,” Mr Ghasemi said late on Monday.

Iranian analysts believe the Islamic Republic’s recent show of military muscle is an attempt to prevent the European Union from extending sanctions on oil sales and the country’s central bank.

Mr Ghasemi predicted in an exclusive interview with an Iranian weekly newspaper last week that such sanctions would push up the price of oil to more than $200 a barrel.

The minister added that Tehran was not facing any problem with its oil trade with “many” countries willing to buy its oil, the oil ministry’s official news site Shana reported on Tuesday.

Iran has remained defiant against sanctions and has repeatedly denied that their impact on the economy would be significant.

However, President Barack Obama’s signing into US law last week a bill imposing sanctions on institutions dealing with Iran’s central bank caused the rial, the country’s currency, to tumble more than 11 per cent in the past few days.

A spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry said in his weekly press conference on Tuesday that the currency market fluctuations had “definitely” nothing to do with “sanctions and Iranian foreign policy”.

He also doubted that oil sanctions would be imposed on Tehran because “the world energy situation is not in a position to be able to delete Iran”.

.



If war with west, Iranians will be solidly behind the rulers

reason for that is, Iranians have a grudge with west meddling in Iranian affairs since few 100 yrs .. all Iranians, without exception, consider west is hampering Iran's progress, as Brits and Russians and later Americans did in the past .. so, this will be a nationalist/patriot war to push west out of Middle East and central Asia and north Africa and and and

if Iran succeeds pushing west out of that space .. Rhubarb will shake hand with Iran, am sure, it will come to this .. Rhubarb and Iranians friends since long long time .. Iran the cultural and Spiritual heartland of Judaism and not Israel, they know it .. Judaism has a lot from Iran

Berzinski says it very clearly and he right @ the money


planctom wrote:.

The black market Rial exchange rate is going up, maybe showing that people are not trusting the government.
Any comments on that ?

.



Rial exchange rate is controlled by government, all big money changers are agents of government .. meaning realignment of Rial is government policy .. things past the stage of people trusting (or not) the government, seems, people preparing for war with the west .. that is why things escalating so fast


.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:54 pm

.

Braking news


“ We warn this ship, which is considered a threat to us, not to come back, and we do not repeat our words twice ”


.
Iran warns U.S. carrier not to return to Persian Gulf
By Thomas Erdbrink, Updated: Tuesday, January 3, 8:25 AM

TEHRAN — Iran’s army chief on Tuesday warned a nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf, as Iran’s navy ended 10 days of tense war games in the Persian Gulf.

The U.S. Defense Department promptly rejected the warning.

Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the commander of the Iranian armed forces, lauded Iran’s defensive skills and lashed out against the USS John C. Stennis and its battle group. The carrier and its accompanying ships left the strategic Persian Gulf last Thursday, their departure filmed by Iranian drones.

“We warn this ship, which is considered a threat to us, not to come back, and we do not repeat our words twice,” Salehi said, according to the Iranian Students’ News Agency.

The United States has pledged to ensure freedom of navigation through the Persian Gulf and the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which about a third of the world’s crude oil shipments pass. The U.S. Navy maintains a base in Bahrain to support as many as three aircraft carriers and a fleet of support ships plying the shallow waters of the gulf.

Following Western threats to impose an embargo on Iranian oil, Iran threatened to close off the Persian Gulf during the war games but refrained from doing so. Officials have given contradictory statements on whether Iran would make such a move in the future.

Pentagon spokesman George Little said Tuesday: “The deployment of U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades. These are regularly scheduled movements in accordance with our longstanding commitments to the security and stability of the region and in support of ongoing operations.”

Little said the carrier strike group deployments “are necessary to maintain the continuity and operational support to ongoing missions in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.” He added: “The U.S. Navy operates under international maritime conventions to maintain a constant state of high vigilance in order to ensure the continued, safe flow of maritime traffic in waterways critical to global commerce. Our transits of the Strait of Hormuz continue to be in compliance with international law, which guarantees our vessels the right of transit passage. We are committed to protecting maritime freedoms that are the basis for global prosperity.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s central bank, which was placed under U.S. sanctions Saturday, intervened to flood the local market with dollars, helping the national currency to appreciate a bit following a steep slide. The currency, the rial, had slipped to unprecedented lows against the dollar after the U.S. move.

But Iranian officials stressed that their own economic policies — rather than the sanctions — were to blame for the rial’s loss of nearly 20 percent of its value in two days, the latest of several currency shocks in recent weeks.

“Sanctions have not created any obstacles for the country, and the enemy is only hoping for psychological tensions,” embattled central bank director Mahmoud Bahmani told the semiofficial Fars News Agency on Tuesday.

Experts said the government is awash in dollars from record oil revenues in the past five years but cannot change them into rials because no one in Iran has funds of that magnitude.

“The government needs around $1 billion a week to pay salaries and costs,” said one influential middleman who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said he was seeking domestic buyers for huge amounts of government dollars in order to get rials.

“But even the banks don’t have enough funds to buy them at a discount,” he said. The sanctions, he said, were the engines driving the wider public to start changing their money into foreign currencies.

A bold commentary Tuesday in the Shargh news paper, which is critical of the government, broke a taboo by openly warning Iranian officials of economic disaster and war in a front-page piece that painted a grim scenario for the coming months.

“The rial will devalue even more, and a chain reaction will take place if Europe sanctions Iranian oil,” wrote Reza Zandi, a leading journalist. “The whole world will feel the consequences.”

France on Monday urged other European nations to support the boycott. A meeting on the subject is scheduled for the end of January.

On Tehran’s streets, the mood was grim.

“This means less new clothes, less cinema visits and less coffee shops for me,” said Javad, a civil engineering student who did not want to give his full name. He stressed that he had to pay for his studies himself and that his parents could not support him. “When I see these rates, I am shocked and worried for the future,” he said.
.



.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:08 pm

.

Iran and Historical Forgetting


.

It’s historic fact that the United States in the 1940s and early ‘50s joined with Britain in making Iran a servile colony [1] for the extraction of oil. Mohammad Mossadegh rose to office as a popular Prime Minister devoted to Iranian dignity and independence vis-a-vis the West. Mossadegh was so troubling to the West he was put on the cover of Time magazine twice and was even named Man Of The Year in 1951 -- as in boogie-man of the year. According to the highly disrespectful story [2] in that issue, “The fact that Iranians accept Mossadegh’s suicidal policy is a measure of the hatred of the West.” In other words, the un-modern Iranians had to be delusional to find resonance with Mossadegh’s life-long dream of independence from the West.

Mossadegh went on to nationalize the British oilfields in 1953, whereupon he was overthrown by a joint US/British coup. As we have done in many other places, we bamboozled the Iranians, wrecked things and installed a friend, in this case the notorious Shah of Iran, who cleaned the place up with a ruthless, brutal secret police force. That police force – the dreaded Savak [3] -- was organized and advised by Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr, a tough mob gangbuster in the US and father of the famed Gulf War general. (In an interesting note, in the current film J. Edgar, gangbuster Schwarzkopf is disdainful of the more dandy J. Edgar Hoover.)

Norman Schwarzkopf senior, Mohammad Mossedegh, the Shah and his wife, and Ayatollah Khomeini arriving in Teheran in 1979.Norman Schwarzkopf senior, Mohammad Mossedegh, the Shah and his wife, and Ayatollah Khomeini arriving in Teheran in 1979.

As a friend formerly married to an Iranian told me the other night, as bad as the Shah was, he greatly modernized Iran. And no doubt there is some truth to that. The same can be said for Hitler and Stalin. But a great many Iranians don’t think modernization efforts outweigh the atrocities of the Shah’s oppression. And, furthermore, as the consumer, ecological and sustainability movements have made clear, much that goes under the rubric “modernization” can be quite problematic for the Earth and the sense of community needed for a Middle Eastern society to flourish. Also, much of the benefits of that modernization ended up in the hands of westerners and the rich cronies of the Shah.

Western historians like Samuel P. Huntington and Bernard Lewis have made esteemed careers with the argument that the Middle Eastern and Arab world has failed to modernize at a pace consistent with Western standards. The trouble is the Huntington/Lewis argument comes with a history of voracious Western designs on those nations’ resources and of demands for fealty to our military might. In response, places like Iran have turned to Shia Islam for cultural strength. The same goes for the Sunni Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. The Iranian government may be alien and not our cultural cup of tea, but it’s unfortunately for us a logical response to the historic hostility to independence Iran has faced from the west, including Israel.

Personally, I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. It's a terrible idea. But I also don’t want Israel to have nuclear weapons. The same goes for China, India, Pakistan, England, France, Russia, North Korea and the United States. If I have missed anyone, I would include them too.

History makes it tragically clear why Iran wants nuclear weapons. They want them for the same reason we have them, as an emblem of their power and a check on others who have historically shown very real hostility towards them.

History also suggests that if Iran were to design and manufacture a nuclear weapon, there is no evidence they would be crazy enough to use one preemptively in a world full of nations with vastly superior nuclear arsenals and delivery systems. The fact the Iranian President may spout hatred of the United States and Israel is not evidence; just listen to the identical hatred spouted here in the US and in Israel about the Iranians. Iran would seem to have a lot to live for; suicide is not a trait they exhibit.

This has certainly been the case with North Korea, another regime we pillory with charges of insanity. It has a number of nuclear weapons it could deliver to South Korea easily. Why aren’t we threatening North Korea with bombings? Why are we instead offering them shipments of food?

Because the real reason Iran is in the sights of the United States and, especially, Israel is clear. As a tax-paying American citizen who did his small part to make the unnecessary historic debacle known as the Vietnam War what it was, I submit the problem is that both the United States and Israel operate on mythic fuel that deludes their citizens into believing they are exceptional and the chosen people, respectfully. They have been hookwinked by politicos and holy men with inadequate and distorted historical thinking into believing Iran is the devil inherent intent on menacing the poor, innocent West.

This irrational, mythic bunk is how we tend to see the rest of the world, and it has gotten so out of hand these days that instead of questioning the utility of these myths our political and cultural leaders actually nurture and reinforce them, making the situation even worse. And since the mainstream media and both political parties are complicit, the smart American voter who might on his or her own see the utility of breaking this doomed cycle is presented with no political choice at all.

Sure, one of the candidates will be better than the other on something (for this reason, I always vote), but when it comes to the really big issues of Militarism and the growth of Police State Tyranny, there’s no choice at all. The American citizen is stuck on a runaway train.

Because he doesn’t play by this book, former Member of British Parliament George Galloway has the temerity to ask, "What has Iran ever done to us?" On a recent radio show [4] Galloway debated a caller who gave the middle-brow line about the need to attack Iran. Galloway pointed out that Iranians are very capable and sophisticated and that they will take a strategic bombing campaign as a declaration of war and act accordingly by retaliating against us with bombs wherever and whenever they can.

People who think a strategic bombing attack on Iran will be like the Israeli attack on Saddam’s plant back in the 1980s or the Israeli attack on a Syrian plant a couple years ago are delusional. Galloway says it clearly: “If we bomb Iran, Iran will bomb us back.” The listener absurdly responds by saying that’s why we need to bomb them. Galloway throws up his hands: "There are people listening to this who will not know whether to laugh or cry." The listener doesn't grasp any of the history and is operating purely on fear and the delusion that somehow bombing Iran will lessen the danger that nation poses to the United States, Israel and the West. It’s like never having heard of the concepts of overconfidence and unforeseen consequences. I'm a member of Veterans For Peace and we like to say, "Wars are easy to start but very difficult to stop." So the idea is to not start them and to work out problems another way.

No one in power listened to this kind of thing back in 2003 as the war drums were being beaten for the invasion of Iraq. The basic message of the antiwar movement – that invasion would lead to disaster and was not necessary to contain Saddam -- was ignored and ridiculed by both the government and the mainstream media. A government that had not even been properly elected relied on delusion, secrecy and outright lies to scare the American people into passivity so it could have its invasion. The antiwar movement was like Cassandra, the Greek prophetess the gods cursed with the exasperating dilemma of speaking truth that would not be heeded.

The creeping police-state the Bush regime created still exists and continues to grow at a fearsome pace, feeding on itself and becoming more stealthy and sophisticated every year. Too many of our leaders seem to feel comfortable with this situation and with the idea of going to war with Iran.

The best thing the citizens of the United States could do for the nation's future is find the courage to undertake a major historical reality check. It’s not that the narrative information is not out there in volume after volume of respected history. It’s that our “official story” is perennially sanitized and linked to forward-looking, blind power, which leads us to repeat the same power-hungry debacles over and over.

Humility is hard to achieve when people have been brainwashed into believing they are “exceptional” or “the chosen people” on this Earth. But that’s the kind of hard work that’s needed.

.




.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:07 pm

.

CIA in retreat


.

Information from a wide range of Iranian media and Asia Times Online sources in Tehran suggest a complex operation by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to introduce Amir Hekmati as a trusted source to the MOIS.

With previous combat experience in Afghanistan, Hekmati worked for a number of contractors with suspected CIA connections following his departure from the marines.

It is believed that he contacted the MOIS before he flew to Iran in late summer ostensibly to visit his extended family. While Hekmati's approach was unoriginal, his information was sufficiently strong to attract the attention of Iranian intelligence. Nevertheless, it appears that he was suspected of being an American intelligence asset from the outset.

It seems that the information supplied by Hekmati to the MOIS is a clever mix of genuine intelligence, half-truths and bogus intelligence. Most of this information centers on US military, intelligence and political operations in Afghanistan.

While Iranian media, quoting intelligence sources, have identified Hekmati's core mission as one centered on gaining the trust of the MOIS with a view to setting up a penetration operation, the truth is likely much more complex.

For a start, "penetrating" the MOIS or even its most peripheral parts is virtually an impossible task in view of the ministry's multiple layers of robust defenses designed to defeat the most resourceful and deceptive of unfriendly operatives, let alone an American citizen and a former marine.

From a purely conjectural point of view, it is more likely that the CIA was attempting to identify - and subsequently manipulate - Iranian intelligence collection priorities in Afghanistan. Hekmati's clever mix of genuine and bogus intelligence, with the probable promise of a pipeline delivering the same type of material over a prolonged period, points to that conjectural conclusion.

Hekmati's arrest follows a string of MOIS counter-intelligence successes at the expense of the CIA and the wider American intelligence community. The ministry's ability to repeatedly defeat the CIA's ever-innovative methods is indicative of steadily improving counter-intelligence capabilities and reinforces the MOIS's reputation as one of the major intelligence organizations on the world stage.

The capture of the RQ-170 Sentinel, operated by the US Air Force on behalf of the CIA, significantly adds to US woes by painting a credible picture of Iran as a major counter-espionage, electronic and cyber-warfare hub.

The dramatic blow to US prestige was underscored by US President Barack Obama's humiliating request for the return of the drone. In view of the circumstances surrounding the drone's capture, this was a truly extraordinary request and one that was gleefully dismissed by the Iranians.

Economic warfare

The dramatic spike in CIA activity inside Iran in 2011 has reinforced the Iranian leadership's conviction that the Western powers are set on a confrontation and a possible military showdown with the Islamic Republic.

By the same token, the Iranian leadership is likely to use the recent counter-intelligence victories to achieve three short- to medium-term objectives. First and foremost, the political leadership in Tehran will direct the MOIS to confront the CIA and other Western agencies with a view to withstanding and ultimately defeating the strict sanctions regime imposed on Iran.

The dominant view in Tehran is that the sanctions regime will become even harsher in 2012, possibly to the point of developing into an economic siege by the end of the year. This scenario becomes likelier if the West decides to boycott Iranian oil and gas exports.

Second, the Iranian leadership is keen to deny Western intelligence services the opportunity to meddle in the March parliamentary elections. There is a fear in Tehran that Western agencies - working directly and indirectly with radical opposition elements - will try to incite riots and disorder, similar in style if not scope to the ones that rocked the Iranian capital in June 2009 following the disputed presidential elections.

The attack on the British embassy was likely partly motivated by this concern. The British mission in Tehran has long been recognized as the most active hub of Western intelligence-gathering inside Iran. Its closure denies the UK and the US governments of a wide range of material, including street-level intelligence.

Third, the Islamic Republic is likely to use the MOIS's stunning intelligence and counter-intelligence successes to escalate the security environment that was imposed following the disputed presidential elections of June 2009 and the riots and disorders that followed.

While widely acknowledged as only a temporary solution, it is also felt across every level of the Islamic Republic that the security climate is needed to prepare the country for what increasingly looks like an inevitable confrontation with the West.

.



:)



.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby Azrael » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:43 am

planctom wrote:The black market Rial exchange rate is going up,maybe showing that people are not trusting the government.
Any comments on that?

The drop in the value of the Rial is mainly due to economic sanctions, making it harder to spend Rials outside of Iran, lowering their value.

Ironically, the difference between the official exchange rate and the black market exchange rate provides a profit opportunity for those with regime connections.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby Azrael » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:48 am

Even if the Iranian regime is replaced with a more liberal, less anti-western one, I would still expect Iran to develop nuclear technology.

Even if they had no interest in nuclear weapons, they would develop nuclear technology for scientific, medical and energy purposes, especially since the more energy they produce without using oil, the more oil they can export. The higher the price of oil, the more attractive nuclear energy (and solar energy, etc.) becomes.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Azrael
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby Alexis » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:45 pm

Is War Imminent in the Straits of Hormuz?

Since 24 December the Iranian Navy has been holding its ten-day Velayat 90 naval exercises, covering an area in the Arabian Sea stretching from east of the Strait of Hormuz entrance to the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden. The day the maneuvers opened Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told a press conference that the exercises were intended to show "Iran's military prowess and defense capabilities in international waters, convey a message of peace and friendship to regional countries, and test the newest military equipment."

(...)

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies' The Military Balance 2011, Iran has 23 submarines, 100+ "coastal and combat" patrol craft, 5 mine warfare and anti-mine craft, 13 amphibious landing vessels and 26 "logistics and support" ships. Add to that the fact that Iran has emphasized that it has developed indigenous "asymmetrical warfare" naval doctrines, and it is anything but clear what form Iran's naval response to sanctions or attack could take. The only certainty is that it is unlikely to resemble anything taught at the U.S. Naval Academy.

(...)

Iran has earlier warned that if either the U.S. or Israel attack, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the Strait of Hormuz. On 28 December Iranian Navy commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari observed, "Closing the Strait of Hormuz for the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran is very easy. It is a capability that has been built from the outset into our naval forces' abilities."


I don't believe, like the author of this piece, that the risk of imminent war is substantial.

In spite of the temporary havoc it would play with global economy, an Iranian attack on Hormuz oil shipments would be a NeoCon's / American imperialist's wet dream, because of its many mid-term positive consequences on the US strategic / financial position, nefarious consequences for Europeans and Asians alike, and disastrous ones for Iranians no matter whether supportive of the Mullahs or not.

I think therefore that this is kabuki. Taking the initiative of aggression when one is by far the weakest militarily-wise, even when one has good tactics and devoted soldiers, was already tried by Japan 1941, and the results are well known.

The Iranian leadership won't take that risk, even if American leadership persists in its (wrongheaded) attempt to organize restrictions to Iranian oil exports.
User avatar
Alexis
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:10 pm

.

Obama to distance his administration from an Israeli attack on Iran


.

Obama distances US from Iran attack

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - United States President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are engaged in intense maneuvering over Netanyahu's aim of entangling the United States in an Israeli war against Iran.

Netanyahu is exploiting the extraordinary influence his right-wing Likud Party exercises over the Republican Party and the US Congress on matters related to Israel in order to maximize the likelihood that the US would participate in an attack on Iran.

Obama, meanwhile, appears to be hoping that he can avoid being caught up in a regional war started by Israel if he distances the United States from any Israeli attack.

New evidence surfaced in 2011 that Netanyahu had been serious about dealing a military blow to the Iranian nuclear program, which is suspected in some circles of being designed to produce nuclear weapons - something Tehran denies.

Former Mossad (Israeli intelligence) chief Meir Dagan, who left his job in September 2010, revealed in his first public appearance after Mossad on June 2 that he, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) chief Gabi Ashkenazi and Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin had been able to "block any dangerous adventure" by Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

The Hebrew language daily Maariv reported that those three, along with President Shimon Peres and IDF senior commander Gadi Eisenkrot, had vetoed a 2010 proposal by Netanyahu to attack Iran.

Dagan said he was going public because he was "afraid there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak". Dagan also said an Israeli attack on Iran could trigger a war that would "endanger the [Israeli] state's existence", indicating that his revelation was not part of a psy-war campaign.

It is generally agreed that an Israeli attack could only temporarily set back the Iranian nuclear program, at significant risk to Israel. But Netanyahu and Barak hope to draw the US into the war to create much greater destruction and perhaps the overthrow of the Islamic regime.

In a sign that the Obama administration is worried that Netanyahu is contemplating an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tried and failed in early October to get a commitment from Netanyahu and Barak that Israel would not launch an attack on Iran without consulting Washington first, according to both Israeli and US sources cited by The Telegraph and by veteran intelligence reporter Richard Sale.

At a meeting with Obama a few weeks later, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and the new head of CENTCOM, General James N Mattis, expressed their disappointment that he had not been firm enough in opposing an Israeli attack, according to Sale.

Obama responded that he "had no say over Israel" because "it is a sovereign country".

Obama's remark seemed to indicate a desire to distance his administration from an Israeli attack on Iran. But it also made it clear that he was not going to tell Netanyahu that he would not countenance such an attack.

Trita Parsi, executive director of the National Iranian American Council, who has analyzed the history of the triangular relationship involving the United States, Israel and Iran in his book Treacherous Alliance, says knowledgeable sources tell him Obama believes he can credibly distance himself from an Israeli attack.

In a December 2 talk at the Brookings Institution, while discussing the dangers of the regional conflict that would result from such an attack, Panetta said the US "would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases".

Panetta's statement could be interpreted as an effort to convince Iran that the Obama administration is opposed to an Israeli strike and should not be targeted by Iran in retaliation if Israel does launch an attack.

Parsi believes Obama's calculation that he can convince Iran that the US has no leverage on Israel without being much tougher with Israel is not realistic.

"Iran most likely would decide not to target US forces in the region in retaliation for an Israeli strike only if the damage from the strike were relatively limited," Parsi told Inter Press Service (IPS) in an e-mail.

The Obama administration considers the newest phase of sanctions against Iran, aimed at reducing global imports of Iranian crude oil, as an alternative to an unprovoked attack by Israel. But what Netanyahu had in mind in proposing such an initiative was much more radical than the Obama administration or the European Union (EU) could accept.

When Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is closely aligned with Netanyahu's Likud Party, pushed the idea of sanctions against any financial institution that did business with Iran's central bank, the aim was to make it impossible for countries that import Iranian crude to continue to be able to make payments for the oil.

Dubowitz wanted virtually every country importing Iranian crude except China and India to cut off their imports. He argued that reducing the number of buyers to mainly China and India would not result in a rise in the price of oil, because Iran would have to offer discounted prices to the remaining buyers.

Global oil analysts warned, however, that such a sanctions regime could not avoid creating a spike in oil prices.

United States officials told Reuters on November 8 that sanctions on Iran's central bank were "not on the table". The Obama administration was warning that such sanctions would risk a steep rise in oil prices worldwide and a worsening global recession, while actually increasing Iranian oil revenues.

But Netanyahu used the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee over congressional action related to Israel to override Obama's opposition. The senate unanimously passed an amendment representing Netanyahu's position on sanctions focused on Iran's oil sector and the central bank, despite a letter from Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner opposing it. A similar amendment was passed by the House on December 15.

The Obama administration acquiesced and entered into negotiations with its European allies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on reducing imports of Iranian crude oil while trying to fill the gaps with other sources. But a number of countries, including Japan and Korea, are begging off, and the EU is insisting on protecting Greece and other vulnerable economies.

The result is likely to be a sanctions regime that reduces Iranian exports only marginally - not the "crippling sanctions" demanded by Netanyahu and Barak. Any hike in oil prices generated by sanctions against Iran's oil sector, moreover, would only hurt Obama's re- election chances.

In an interview with CNN in November, Barak warned the international community that Israel might have to make a decision on war within as little as six months, because Iran's efforts to "disperse and fortify" its nuclear facilities would soon render a strike against facilities ineffective.

Barak said he "couldn't predict" whether that point would be reached in "two quarters or three quarters or a year". The new Israeli "red line" would place the timing of an Israeli decision on whether to strike Iran right in the middle of the US presidential election campaign.

Netanyahu, who makes no secret of his dislike and distrust of Obama, may hope to put Obama under maximum pressure to support Israel militarily in a war with Iran by striking during a campaign in which the Republican candidate would be accusing him of being soft on the Iranian nuclear threat.

If the Republican candidate is in a strong position to win the election, on the other hand, Netanyahu would want to wait for a new administration aligned with his belligerent posture toward Iran.

Meanwhile, the end of US Air Force control over Iraqi airspace with the final US military withdrawal from Iraq has eliminated what had long been regarded as a significant deterrent to an Israeli attack on Iran using the shortest route.

.



.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby Ibrahim » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:40 pm

An out-and-out US "war" with Iran is inconceivable to me at this point in time, but the US is certainly turning up the pressure on them to surprising levels. I don't see any benefit to it.
Ibrahim
 
Posts: 6362
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:41 am

.

carrier may face problems if returns

.
US carrier may face problems if returns to Persian Gulf: IRGC general
TEHRAN, Jan. 4 (MNA) – IRGC Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri warned on Wednesday that if the U.S. aircraft carrier, which had left the Persian Gulf because of Iran’s naval war games, returns to the sea, it may face problems.

“We tell the Americans that now that you have left (the Persian Gulf), you had better not return. In case of your return, you will be responsible for possible problems in the future,”Jazayeri told the Press TV.

He added that U.S. forces should leave the region to prevent undesirable consequences.
.


.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:51 am

.



Norwegian queen visits Iranian family in Norway









.
AzariLoveIran
 

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby Alexis » Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:04 am

AzariLoveIran wrote:US carrier may face problems if returns to Persian Gulf: IRGC general
TEHRAN, Jan. 4 (MNA) – IRGC Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri warned on Wednesday that if the U.S. aircraft carrier, which had left the Persian Gulf because of Iran’s naval war games, returns to the sea, it may face problems.

“We tell the Americans that now that you have left (the Persian Gulf), you had better not return. In case of your return, you will be responsible for possible problems in the future,”Jazayeri told the Press TV.

He added that U.S. forces should leave the region to prevent undesirable consequences.


:roflmao: !

This is quite stupid comment actually. When a US carrier returns to that base, without anything bad happening to it, this Iranian general will have the egg all over his face.
User avatar
Alexis
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Iran Thread

Postby AzariLoveIran » Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:29 am

Alexis wrote:.

AzariLoveIran wrote:.

US carrier may face problems if returns to Persian Gulf: IRGC general

TEHRAN, Jan. 4 (MNA) – IRGC Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri warned on Wednesday that if the U.S. aircraft carrier, which had left the Persian Gulf because of Iran’s naval war games, returns to the sea, it may face problems.

“We tell the Americans that now that you have left (the Persian Gulf), you had better not return. In case of your return, you will be responsible for possible problems in the future,”Jazayeri told the Press TV.

He added that U.S. forces should leave the region to prevent undesirable consequences.


This is quite stupid comment actually. When a US carrier returns to that base, without anything bad happening to it, this Iranian general will have the egg all over his face.

.


True, quite stupid until actually something happens

American 5th fleet in Bahrain a sitting Duck .. if Hormuz is closed for yr or two, 5th fleet will be trapped

goal would not be to militarily defeat America, but demonstrate to Persian Golf Arab cronies that America can not protect them, and, they should move under Iranian umbrella if they want to last

to do this, things must be maneuvered into a "between a rock and a hard place"

like this



a situation America would find bad enough but not worth slashing back

am sure, Iran has Russian (probably Chinese) backing, military backing .. signs indicate to this

.
AzariLoveIran
 

Next

Return to The Muslim World | The Middle East

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest