I R A N

[elle]

You could read about Rice/Gates visit to Turkey in the Turkish Daily News.

The Russian visit was on CNN and reported by intern. news.

 

The Azery skirmishes were all over in the Armenian and Azery news. Feeling the gounds of the Armenian resistance?

It is in the wests'/Israeli interests to secure Azery oil pipelines.

 

It is interesting an ex Democrat/Independent/Republican that might grab vice presidency... if McCain gets elected.

It did not work with Gore...

You can draw your own conclusions as to whom all the above scenarios will give security in the long run.

 

I mentioned this in one of the posts...I was saying that the new Artsax war is not in the interest of anyone right now because of the oil pipeline that's running not too far away from where the Armenian troops are stationed in the buffer-zone.

If there's a war that breaks out, there's no protection of the Israeli oil pipeline.

Also, because of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) that Armenia is part of, if it gets attacked by a non-member state (Azerbaijan is a non-member state...it's part of the GUAM instead), there will be a collective resistance in the NK war. I found this article in a Russian newspaper, so I translated the whole thing on goodle language tools, so you might see some grammar mistakes, but that's because the program translates things word by word, so few things might not make sense.

I think that these trainings are semi-related to what we discussed above.

 

 

 

 

Salvation Army to CSTO

Military Organization took chrezvychaykoy

 

In Moscow, the first meeting of the Coordinating Board for Emergency Situations States - members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Participants agreed to jointly monitor the situation on the common space in terms of not only war-risk insurance, but the environmental, technological, humanitarian. In order to confront and prevent possible disasters.

 

The objectives of the establishment of a system of collective emergency response Coordinating Council of State members - members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization of Emergency Situations (KSCHS) identified increased levels of national and collective security, as well as the adaptation of the CSTO in world processes to counter threats and challenges, emergency prevention and response.

 

The basic blocks the formation of a system of collective emergency response mechanism are environmental monitoring, and assessment of situations and forecasting their development, as well as emergency humanitarian response unit. For the creation of such a mechanism were in the heads of all departments on emergency States - members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In doing so, they noted that the monitoring is needed for all possible types of threats: technogenic and natural, Epidemiology.

 

Regarding the humanitarian emergency response units, the formation of CSTO see the type of six years in the format of the Organization of collective rapid deployment forces (CSIS). Each State shall make available to CSIS permanent readiness units, which in times of peace are in the territory of their countries and subject to national commands. Last meet, and for their equipment, training, logistics. But while weapons, communications equipment from units assigned to the coalition group must be sopryagaemy and training has on the same programme. In the event of an emergency by the Board of formation of collective security they pass under the command group and propounded in the area within their area of responsibility.

 

The scheme not only exists on paper. Within the organization rehearse international agreements regulating the diversion of emergency units CSIS with weapons in any region of the area of responsibility of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. This means that in an emergency situation would not spend time on the harmonization of the many associated with border crossings troops. By the way, and the issue developed. CSTO has already conducted five joint exercises with CSIS redeployment of units in different States - members of the organization: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

 

On LiveJournal Place in a similar principle and the establishment of planned "Salvation Army CSTO." So its legal base to allow for emergencies produce instant lift brigade rescuers (planned that the collective forces of each State will provide specialized units: rescue workers, epidemiologists, experts in the elimination of technological catastrophes, disasters at nuclear power plants, etc.), equipment needed and goods, with regular exercise, with a unified system of training, logistics and even scientific approaches. By the way, the collective response to disaster in a format CSTO Develop began even before the formal establishment of the Coordinating Council. In April 2007, for example, in Belarus, with the participation of representatives of the States - members of the organization were held exercises to eliminate the effects of man-made disaster caused by the terrorist attack. According to the head of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, now need to focus on training, harmonization of legislation and creation of a pool of logistics.

 

 

 

 

[elle]

You could read about Rice/Gates visit to Turkey in the Turkish Daily News.

The Russian visit was on CNN and reported by intern. news.

 

The Azery skirmishes were all over in the Armenian and Azery news. Feeling the gounds of the Armenian resistance?

It is in the wests'/Israeli interests to secure Azery oil pipelines.

 

It is interesting an ex Democrat/Independent/Republican that might grab vice presidency... if McCain gets elected.

It did not work with Gore...

You can draw your own conclusions as to whom all the above scenarios will give security in the long run.

 

I read an article before, which I will try to find again, which stated that Hilary will be a more desirable candidate to win the Democratic primaries because she's not as tough as Obama, so the chances of McCain getting elected as the new president will be higher than if it was Obama who won the primaries. The elite will try to do everything possible to make sure that it is McCain who gets elected because he will go into war with Iran in no time once elected. That's obviously what the few elite would like to see and the whole US foreign policy nowdays is directed at that. It's interesting that you mentioned how Gora got ousted back in 2000 elections. Looks like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were planned before, so they needed a Republican, more specifically the puppet named GWB to direct the war, but it's clear that Dick Cheney and the rest are more in control of the situation than GWB will ever dream of.

[elle]

This isn't the article I was telling you about, but close enough....

 

 

McCain win would mean war with Iran

 

by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

 

"More wars" could prove to be the oddest of all presidential campaign slogans. Especially if it works.

 

Presidential candidate John McCain shocked observers on Sunday when he told a crowd of supporters, "There's going to be other wars. ... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

 

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked old-line conservative Pat Buchanan about McCain's remarks, saying, "He talked about promising that more wars were coming. ... Is he so desperate to get off the economic issue?"

 

Pat Buchanan replied that McCain never used the word "promise" but simply said there would be more wars, and that from McCain's point of view, "that is straight talk. ... You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran."

 

"That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him," Buchanan went on.

 

"There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. ... His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years."

 

"So when he says more war," Scarborough commented, "he is promising you, if he gets in the White House, we'll not only be fighting this war but starting new wars. Is that what conservative Republicans want?

 

"I don't say he's starting them," Buchanan answered. "He expects more wars. ... I think he's talking straight, because if you take a look at the McCain foreign policy, he is in everybody's face. Did you see Thad Cochran's comment when he endorsed Romney? He said, look, John McCain is a bellicose, red-faced, angry guy, who constantly explodes."

 

"Not a happy message," commented Scarborough. "Not Reaganesque."

 

 

[Takoush]

I will make sure I won't elect John McCain for president. What is he, war happy? Another trigger happy idiot.

 

No thanks, I'll stick with Obama. Hopefully he'll be the winner.

[ED]

I will make sure I won't elect John McCain for president. What is he, war happy? Another trigger happy idiot.

 

No thanks, I'll stick with Obama. Hopefully he'll be the winner.

 

 

Taqushik yete yes president uzem linel dzaynet ktas indz?

[Ashot]

Ed jan, menak dzayne? Yete du prezident lines yes kyanqnel k@n@viri qez... Takoushik@ aytpes lav axchika!!!

[Takoush]

Taqushik yete yes president uzem linel dzaynet ktas indz?

Edo jan, yes voch te kez presidenti tzaynes goudam ayl ge djaraxosem kou masit vor shad shadernal kez dzayn dan yev inchbes vor Ashote esav yes gyankes al goudam kez hamar.

[Takoush]

Ed jan, menak dzayne? Yete du prezident lines yev kyanqnel k@n@viri qez... Takoushik@ aytpes lav axchika!!!

 

 

Edited March 22, 2008 by Takoush

[Takoush]

Եդուարդ ջան, վայրկեան մը, գէթ վայրկեան մը միայն արտօնեցէք որ երեվակայութեանս երազներուն մէջ ապրիմ հայրենասիրականօրէն, եւ ուրեմն երեվակայենք պահ մը թէ ի՞նչ անախննթաց վիճակի պիտի ենթարկուէր մեր Հայրենիքը եթէ դուն իրապէս Միացեալ Նահանգներու նախագահ ընտրուէիր մի հոյակապ արեւալից օր ի նպաստ մեր սիրելի հայրենիքին։

 

Եթէ Իզրաէլը հսկայական պատերազմներ կը մղէ Միացեալ Նահանգներուն մի միայն Իզրաէլի օգտին ի նպաստ; ապա քու միջոցաւդ մեր Արցախի հարցը պիտի լուծուէր ի նպաստ մեզի եւ Հայաստանի պիտի կցուէր. ինչպէս նաեւ մեր Նախիջեվանը, Արարատեան շրջանն ու մեր Էրզրումը։

 

Հայաստանը նաեւ պիտի կցէինք առ նուազն Սեւ Ծովու որ մնացեալ աշխարհի հետ կապ կարենար ունենալ եւ այդպէսով մեր հայրենիքն ու Հայաստանը հոյակապօրէն պիտի բարգաւաճէր ու հսկայանար աննախնթացօրէն։ Ա՜՜հ այն երազելի երազելի օրը։

 

 

Edited March 22, 2008 by Takoush

[Aratta-Kingdom]

The Coming Uncertain War against Iran

 

Published on Saturday, March 22, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

by Ramzy Baroud

 

When Admiral William J `Fox' Fallon was chosen to replace General John

Abizaid as chief of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in March 2007, many

analysts didn't shy from reaching a seemingly clear-cut conclusion: the

Bush administration was preparing for war with Iran and had selected

the most suitable man for this job. Almost exactly a year later, as

Fallon abruptly resigned over a controversial interview with Esquire

magazine, we are left with a less certain analysis.

 

Fallon was the first man from the navy to head CENTCOM. With the US

army fighting two difficult and lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

and considering the highly exaggerated Iranian threat, a war with Iran

was apparently inevitable, albeit one that had to be conducted

differently. Echoing the year-old speculation, Arnaud de Borchgrave of

UPI wrote on 14 March 2007 that an attack against Iran `would fall on

the US Navy's battle carrier groups and its cruise missiles and Air

Force B-2 bombers based in Diego Garcia'.

 

Fallon is a man of immense experience, having served equally

high-profiled positions in the past (he was commander of US Pacific

Command from February 2005 to March 2007). The Bush administration

probably saw him further as a conformist, in contrast to his

predecessor Abizaid who promoted a diplomatic rather than military

approach and who went as far as suggesting that the US might have to

learn to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb.

 

Fallon's recent resignation may have seemed abrupt to many, but it was

a well-orchestrated move. His interview in Esquire depicted him as

highly critical of the Bush administration's policy on Iran; the

magazine described him as the only thing standing between the

administration and their newest war plan. Further, his resignation and

`Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's handling of [it] is the greatest

and most public break in the Bush team's handling of preparations for

war against Iran that we are ever likely to see,' wrote respected

commentators and former CIA analysts Bill and Kathy Christison on 12

March. `Gates has in fact publicly associated himself with the

resignation by saying it was the right thing for Fallon to do, and

Gates said he had accepted the resignation without telling Bush first.'

 

Fallon's resignation represents a bittersweet moment. On the one hand

it's an indication of the continued fading enthusiasm for the militant

culture espoused by the neo-conservatives. On the other, it's an

ominous sign of the Bush administration's probable intentions during

the last year of the president's term. Sixty-three-year-old Admiral

Fallon would not have embarked on such a momentous decision after

decades of service were it not for the fact that he knew a war was

looming, and - having considered the historic implications for such a

war - chose not to pull the trigger.

 

Unlike the political atmosphere in the US prior to the Iraq war -

shaped by fear, manipulation and demonisation - the US political

environment is now much more accustomed to war opposition, which is

largely encouraged and validated by the fact that leading army brass

are themselves speaking out with increasing resolve. Indeed pressure

and resistance are mounting on all sides; those rooting for another war

are meeting stiff resistance by those who can foresee its disastrous

repercussions.

 

The push and pull in the coming months will probably determine the

timing and level of US military adventure against Iran, or even whether

such an adventure will be able to actualise (one cannot discount the

possibility that as a token for Israel, the US might provide a middle

way solution by intervening in Lebanon, alongside Israel, to destroy

Hizbullah. Many options are on the table, and another Bush-infused

crisis is still very much possible).

 

In an atmosphere of hyped militancy, Fallon's resignation might be

viewed as a positive sign, showing that the cards are not all stacked

in favour of the war party. Nonetheless, it is premature to indulge in

optimism. Prior signs have indicated a serious rift among those who

once believed that war is the answer to every conflict. Yet that didn't

necessary hamper the war cheerleaders' efforts.

 

Last December, the National Intelligence Estimate - an assessment

composed by all American intelligence agencies - concluded that Iran

halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, and that any such

programme remained frozen. Meanwhile the

`bomb-first-ask-questions-later' crowd suggested that such an

assessment is pure nonsense. Republican presidential nominee Senator

John McCain has since then sung the tune of `bomb Iran', - literally -

and Israel's friends continue to speak of an `existential' threat

Israel faces due to Iran's `weapons' - never mind that Israel is itself

a formidable nuclear power.

 

According to Borchgrave, `McCain's close friend Senator Joe Lieberman¦

invoking clandestine Iranian explosives smuggled into Iraq, has called

for retaliatory military action against Tehran. He and many others warn

that Israel faces an existential crisis. One Iranian nuclear-tipped

missile on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv could destroy Israel, they argue.'

 

In fact, Lieberman, and other Israel supporters need no justification

for war, neither against Iran nor any of Israel's foes in the Middle

East. They have promoted conflicts on behalf of that country for many

years and will likely continue doing so, until enough Americans push

hard enough to restack their government's priorities.

 

An attack on Iran doesn't seem as certain as the war against Iraq

always did. Public pressure, combined with courageous stances taken by

high officials, could create the tidal wave needed to reverse seemingly

determined war efforts. Americans can either allow those who continue

to speak of `existential threats' and wars of a hundred years to

determine and undermine the future of their country, and subsequently

world security, or they can reclaim America, tend to its needy and

ailing economy, and make up for the many sins committed in their name

and in the name of freedom and democracy.

 

Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His

latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a

People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

 

[Aratta-Kingdom]

AZERBAIJAN IS TRYING TO IMPOSE ITS CONDITIONS ON IRAN AND RUSSIA

 

PanARMENIAN.Net

29.04.2008 GMT+04:00

 

It is not clear, why a country having a lot of unsolved political

and economic matters needs another problem.

 

Lately in the relationship between Azerbaijan and Russia some kind

of tension regarding Iran, or to be more exact, regarding the nuclear

power-station equipment supply. Thermal equipment for the first Iranian

nuclear power-station coming from Russia was detained in Azerbaijan

about a month ago. On March 29 Russian road-train carrying thermal

equipment, destined for "Busher" nuclear power-station in Iran was

detained in "Astara". The negotiations of the representatives of

"Rosatom" with Azerbaijan about the equipment have been no success

so far.

 

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ At first Tehran decided not to interfere in the

process, declaring that problem should be solved by the general

contractor of the construction of the station; the Russian company

"Atomstroiexport". According to the official representative of the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohamed Ali Hussein, the Russian

party is trying to solve the problem as soon as possible. "In our turn

we demanded from the Azerbaijani Ambassador in Tehran also to take

some steps for the equipment to be in Iran as soon as possible. This

equipment is transported to Iran in the frames of international norms

and there should be no obstacle for that," said the Iranian diplomat.

 

The Azeri Ambassador in Iran Abbasali Hasanov is called to the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs of Iran regarding the detention of the Russian

road-train on the Azerbaijani border. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs

of Iran expressed his protest to the Ambassador regarding the created

situation. Tehran demanded from Baku to allow the transportation of

the equipment through Azeri-Iranian border.

 

The Azeri party confirms that Russia has not presented all the

necessary documents describing the character of the special equipment

intended for the construction of "Busher" nuclear power-station. The

Russian party in its turn says that the load has completed the

process of export control and the UN sanctions do not apply to

it. Earlier Russian sources in Moscow, which are familiar with the

created situation, said to RIA Novosti, that the road-train detained

in Azerbaijan is nothing but a political decision of the authorities

of the country.

 

After the detention of the equipment "Atomstroiexport" did not receive

any official inquiry from Azerbaijan concerning this load. Later the

Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan

Khazar Ibrahim announced that the republic has made inquiry about

the load to Russia.

 

"Azerbaijan calls upon Iran to keep from abrupt announcements

contradicting the diplomatic norms. No country has the right to talk to

Azerbaijan with ultimatum. This contradicts the relations between Iran

and Azerbaijan, as well as all diplomatic and ethnic norms. Azerbaijan

takes measures only in the frames of its legislation and international

regulations," said the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. He

also mentioned that Azerbaijan will take a decision after receiving

an answer from the Russian party on the inquiry about the character

of the load.

 

The scandal definitely gains more and more attention and even had the

interference of the Department of States of the USA. According to

the Head of the Press-Service of the US Department of States Shown

McCormack, the question of the load for the nuclear power-station

construction in Iran, detained on March 29 on the border of

Azerbaijan and Iran must be solved by the governments of Russia and

Azerbaijan. "The USA has no reasons to suspect that the transportation

of load was against the UN Security Council," he said.

 

The measures of the official Baku are totally based on the policy

of Ilham Aliyev, who thinks that his country is so independent,

that it can impose its conditions on if not on the entire world,

at least on Russia and Iran. Of course realizing that the detention

of the Russian load will not bring to any success, Baku immediately

started to justify itself saying the Russian party does not provide

with all the necessary documents. On the other hand one can understand

Aliyev; he wants to get support from the USA in case of the attack on

Iran. However, Baku has missed one important factor, the international

laws are necessary for every country and no military budget or oil will

be able to solve the problem. It is not clear, why a country having

a lot of unsolved political and economic matters needs another problem.

 

No matter how much the Azeri press tries to convince everybody,

it is very hard to live in a country rich with oil and gas. It is

very unlikely that offcial Baku is happy with the situation of the

country, but trying to shake the fist won't do any harm. And also,

making a base out of Azerbaijan for the US attacks on Iran will have

a negative response in the entire Islamic world, and first of all in

Turkey and Iran, with which spoiling the relations would not be of

any good for Aliyev.

 

[Zoolal]

It really depends on what the big multinational, mostly oil companies have plans for the future of Iran and that whole region. Together with US intelligence agencies, they decide on the socio-economic/political map of the Middle East. It's really not in the hands of Rice/Bush/Cheney and Co. Must read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.

[MosJan]

 

US to invade Iran any day now?

 

http://www.russiatoday.com/media/news/9/48c94edf2ae77.jpg

 

 

 

 

A few weeks ago the Russian newspaper Izvestia, a well-known and authoritive daily published nationwide and abroad, came forward with something that would have been looked upon as a conspiracy theory if published by a tabloid. The paper suggested that by attacking South Ossetia, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili had badly damaged a planned U.S. military operation against Iran. In the newspaper's opinion Georgia was supposed to play the role of another "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the U.S., i.e. an operational and tactical base for U.S.

aircraft that would be making bombing raids into Iran. Something akin to what Thailand was in the Vietnam war.

 

Thailand certainly benefited from the arrangement, and Georgia would have too, insists the paper, if its President hadn't put his ambitions above the US national interest and ended up beaten, disarmed, chewing on his neckties and totally incapable of providing whatever the U.S. needs from him.

 

That's why, according to Izvestia in yet another article on the matter, the U.S. response to the Russian retaliation was harsh in words but very mild in action. The latest on the issue suggests that Mikhail Saakashvili may be replaced any day now by direct order from Washington.

 

Having read the story in Izvestia I decided to try to figure out the extent of improbability and impossibility of the assumptions. As I was doing that, I remembered that early in August CNN had started showing U.S. generals who cried for more troops and hardware for Afghanistan which, in their opinion, was rapidly becoming a more intensive conflict than Iraq.

 

Shortly after that, a phone call came from a college friend who had just come back from Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he had seen American battle tanks being unloaded from a Ukrainian-registered Antonov-124 "Ruslan", the heaviest and largest cargo airplane in the world. The friend asked if I had any idea what tanks would be good for in Afghanistan, and I said I didn't. It's an established fact from the Soviet war in Afghanistan that tanks are no good for most of the country's mountainous territory. They are good for flatlands, and the main body of flat land in the region is right across the border in Iran.

 

Later in August there was another bit of unofficial information from a Russian military source: more than a thousand American tanks and armored vehicles had been shipped to Eastern Afghanistan by Ukrainian "Ruslans" flying in three to five shipments a day, and more flights were expected.

 

Somehow all this, together with the series of articles in Izvestia, the information that all U.S. troops in Afghanistan are going to be reassigned and regrouped under unified command, the arrival of NATO naval ships in the Black Sea, the appointment of a man used to command troops in a combat environment as the new commander of the US Central Command and other bits and pieces. To my total astonishment, when they all fell together the Izvestia story started looking slightly more credible than before.

 

Today the U.S. media reported that there had been a leak from the Pentagon about a secret Presidential order in which President Bush authorized his military (most of which is currently on Afghan soil) to conduct operations in Pakistan without the necessity for informing the Pakistani government. The U.S. military in Afghanistan - or shall we say in the whole region neighboring Iran - is getting a freer hand by the day. And it is getting more and more hardware to play with.

 

Of course it's quite clear now that Georgia has lost its immediate potential as a nearby airfield, but after all, the aircraft carriers in the Gulf are not so far away.

 

Believe me I'm not saying that the U.S. is going to start an all-out war against Iran tomorrow. But aren't there indications that it may happen the day after tomorrow, a month from now, or on any date before the official handover of Presidency in the U.S.? Or, as some suggest, before the election?

 

I'm just asking the questions. But there are some people, like those working for Izvestia, for instance, who answer them with a "yes".

 

Evgeny Belenkiy, RT.

[MosJan]

U.S. USES ISRAEL TO ATTACK IRAN

• http://www.armtown.com/img/photo/pan_en_27025.jpgIsraeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert summoned Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for an urgent consultation on Iran Wed. Sept. 10, as the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier headed out to the Mediterranean for missions “in support of maritime security.” Its arrival will bring the number of US aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea to four, compared with two Russian warships. Most of the Russian fleet in the region is concentrated in the Black Sea whence it has easy and rapid access to Middle East waters. The Roosevelt will be followed by its strike force, which includes the guided missile cruiser Monterey, the guided missile destroyers Mason and Nitze, with 7,300 sailors and marines aboard, and the attack submarine Springfield. Sources report that the USS Ronald Reagan carrier and its strike group began engaging in assault and support missions for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan on Aug. 28. The Iwo Jima carrier group, whose decks carry 6,000 sailors, air crews and marines, supports the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and Fifth Fleet in the Gulf with a massive amphibious capability. The USS San Antonio amphibious transport dock ship is the first vessel of its class to be deployed in the region as a platform for supporting Marine movements and operations ashore. The USS Peleliu carrier patrols the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. It is escorted by vessels carrying a large Marine contingent. Monday, Iran launched a three-day naval-air-missile exercise to practice defense tactics for its nuclear sites, DEBKAfile reports. Meanwhile, Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin told ABC News that nuclear weapons under the control of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be "extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe." She called for a hands-off approach to Israel if it decided to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. "We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself," she said.

[MosJan]

 

New UN nuclear report on Iran 'to be presented Sept. 15'

18:31 | 12/ 09/ 2008 http://img.rian.ru/i/b_print.gif TEHRAN, September 12 (RIA Novosti) - The UN nuclear watchdog will present a new report on Iran's controversial nuclear program on September 15 in Vienna, the country's official IRNA news agency said Friday, quoting an informed source.

 

The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general "will very likely be presented to the 35 members of the IAEA Board of Governors on Monday," the source said.

 

IAEA General Director Mohamed ElBaradei, in his previous report on Iran, presented to the Board of Governors in May, noted progress in clearing up the remaining issues on Iran's past nuclear activities, but said several questions remained unanswered.

 

In August Tehran hosted several rounds of talks between Iran's Atomic Energy Organization and the IAEA.

 

Iran has consistently rejected Western allegations that its nuclear program has military goals, saying it needs atomic power for electricity. Russia has almost finished building the country's first nuclear power plant in Bushehr.

 

 

[Aratta-Kingdom]

US-Israeli Attack Against Iran Imminent

 

 

en.fondsk.ruÐ?rbis Terrarum

14.03.2010

Yuri BARANCHIK (Belarus)

 

The statement that the US and Israel are bracing for an invasion of

Iran made by Israeli envoy to the UN G. Shalev shows that - after

failing to drum up international support for the offensive -

Washington and Tel-Aviv decided to act on their own.

 

Iran's civilian nuclear program is used as a pretext for the

aggression. The actual motivation behind it is that Iran's economic

and political integration into Eurasia, the space stretching from

France and Germany to China, would undercut the US influence over the

continent. It is not Iran's nuclear program, but its oil and gas

reserves that are important in the context as they can serve as the

basis of the economic development of China and the EU.

 

Under the current circumstances in international politics, France is

ready to sell military ships to Russia, Germany suggests integrating

Russia into the European armed forces, and the EU is looking into the

possibility of establishing its separate analog of the IMF.

Consequently, the US is no longer needed as a global moderator.

America's last resort in the struggle over retaining the role of the

global policeman is war. It does not matter that much what war and

against whom - making inroads into Eurasia is Washington's priority

and all it takes is not necessarily a serious humanitarian pretext.

 

Therefore, the imminent US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and

the accompanying embarrassment will be followed by destabilization in

Iran, which will for years arrest the socioeconomic development of

Eurasian countries, or by US seizure of control of Iran's oil and gas

reserves. This would allow the US to go on acting as the global

moderator.

 

The US is invoking as the ideological basis the myth of the Russian

military threat to Europe - a successor to the Soviet threat myth - as

a pretext for intervening into the dialog between Europe and Russia.

The picture Washington is trying to paint is that Europe is

defenseless unless the powerful US patronizes it.

 

Similarly, the US is securing its presence in other parts of the world

by spreading appropriate myths like the ethnic cleansing in the former

Yugoslavia allegedly perpetrated by Serbs, the nonexistent WMD

stockpiles in Iraq, the alleged organization of the 9/11 terrorist

attack by the Talibs, Iran's nuclear bomb, etc. Provocation is

Washington's traditional instrument in the struggle for global

dominance.

 

Accordingly, any warming between Eurasian countries that is not

brokered by the US tends to met with Washington's resistance (the

story of the organization of Russia's gas supplies to West Germany

being an example). The key conclusion to be drawn from the above is

that the US is the number one opponent of peace and of Eurasia's

steady development who provokes armed conflicts to derail progress in

international relations. Without conflicts, the US would see its

influence contract to the proportions of just one continent, its six

navies and countless military bases across the world - turn into

useless assets, and its nuclear arsenal - into a burden.

 

There is yet another reason why the US has to launch an aggression

against Iran - it is rooted in the US dollar's role of the global

currency. At the moment, the economic situation the US is finding

itself in is no better than in the epoch of the great depression. At

that distant time the US was dragged out of trouble by the

unprecedented war in Europe, not by Roosevelt's remarkable economic

endeavors. The US got out of the crisis at the cost of millions of

lives of Russians, Germans, Belorussians, Frenchmen, Poles, etc.

 

The present-day situation is similar - without a major war, the US

economy is doomed to either a dollar default or hyperinflation. The

same logic applies to Israel. Having lost the US superpower backing,

Tel-Aviv is forced to negotiate peace with the Palestinians more or

less on their terms. Such development can jeopardize the very

existence of Israel in its current shape, not due to the Arab threat

but rather due to mass out-migration of its own population.

 

No doubt, the US would readily blow up the world to safeguard its

global leadership and therefore, the US and Israeli war against Iran

is imminent. The key question is not when the war is going to erupt

but what other major countries are prepared to do to prevent a global

catastrophe.

 

All military conflicts involving the US were sparked by provocations,

and the priority at the moment is to focus on neutralizing the

consequences of the provocation that the world is about to encounter.

The logical hypothesis is that the likely provocation to trigger an

attack against Iran is a detonation of a «dirty» nuclear bomb by the

US and Israeli intelligence services (or a blow-up of a nuclear power

plant) in Israel or somewhere in West Europe.

[MosJan]

 

Iran to officially launch Bushehr nuke plant within hours

http://media.panarmenian.net/media/issue/77853/photo/77853.jpgSeptember 12, 2011 - 13:27 AMTPanARMENIAN.Net - Iran will officially launch Bushehr nuclear power plant within hours, ending the countdown for the inauguration of the first atomic plant in the country, Press TV reported.

 

The nuclear power plant is expected to be launched later on Monday, September 12.

 

In a joint press conference in the capital Tehran on Sunday, Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko both reassured the international community on the safety of the Bushehr power plant.

 

“It has always been said that Iran is a member of the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. Iran is committed to all the international commitments existing within the framework of the NPT and the [international Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA's charter,” Salehi said.

 

The Russian energy minister, for his part, said that the plant meets all the international standards.

 

“The Bushehr nuclear power plant has been built, meeting all the international standards and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Shmatko said.

 

 

[Johannes]

Truth should be said

[Johannes]

 

 

Syrian Truth l Press TV l Breaking News l

 

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps has captured a US ScanEagle drone over the Arab Gulf waters upon its intrusion into the Iranian airspace.

[Johannes]

http://www.armtown.com/news/am/has/20121218/4490138247/

[MosJan]

Հայ գործարարները կարող են օգտվել Իրանի դեմ պատժամիջոցների նվազեցումից

 

 

Հայաստանի արդյունաբերողների և գործարարների միության նախագահ Արսեն Ղազարյանի կարծիքով, հայ գործարարները պետք է ողջունեն վեցյակի երկրների և Իրանի միջև Ժնևում տեղի ունեցած բանակցությունների արդյունքները:

[man]

A bad deal is a bad deal is a bad deal

Analysis made by MAN

 

In regard to Armenia and Russia, if this deal leads to peace and security in the area, and among all nations of the area, then it would benefit them greatly; since Armenia will be linked with Russia and others in CU in the near future, Armenia's economic role will be enhanced as a passage route or hayway to the Gulf and the Far East by way of Armenia>Iran. Those countries of CU all will benefit from this new access route via Armenia into the Middle East and the far Orient.

 

Locally Armenia & Iran will be able to go ahead with the construction of a hydro-power plant in Meghri, at their borders; but mostly Armenia will go ahead and finish the construction of the railway system linking it with Iran's well-developed railway system. Rail-cars filled with merchandize will go both ways: up & down, in a modern version of the Silk Road. They will pass through Georgia in sealed railroad cars or containers without being opened as per agreement with Georgia.

 

However, a bad deal is a bad deal is a bad deal is a bad deal...because Israel's interest has not been taken into consideration. The majority of nations on earth import their uranium to run their nuclear power plants, Iran refuses to import and rather is working to produce its own nuclear fuel, this puts Iran under suspicion for wanting to use the nuclear fuel it produces and enriches to build nuclear bombs and join the very exclusive league of nations with nuclear weaponry.

 

Any deal with Iran should have required the end of Iran’s enriching of uranium projects and demolition of its plutonium reactor under construction. Like many other nations Iran is able to import its enriched uranium for peaceful energy production; Iran has the right to use nuclear energy but does not have the right to enrich plutonium because its ambitions are very clear in regard of its role in the Middle East. Iran may not use the would be nukes for war purposes but the mere possession of them gives Iran a strong voice, position and leverage in the affairs of the Middle East. And that is what Iran is after mainly.

 

Israel now, in isolation and driven by fear for its security, would consider launching in the near future, or sometime in the next decade, a preemptive strike on Iran to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons or enriching plutonium, and who knows Israel may be thinking it will save the world from a nuclear Armageddon started by the Muslims, a WW3, in the same way that Germany or its Hitler did in 1939. All premonitions indicate that Iran will have its ways and be a winner, a win that would eventually end by failure and own destruction.

[Yervant1]

Jack can have the bomb, but not Jill because Jack is a man (No pun intended) and of course Jill is a woman. I wish the real life was this simple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MosJan]

Welcome Back Yervand jan good to see you

[Yervant1]

Welcome Back Yervand jan good to see you

Yeah, life is good.