I R A N

[KGB]

i don't see how's that beneficial. If they're not going to attack iran, it's less likely they'll attack the saudi oil infrastructure. since it'll deprive them of even more oil as the demands are already high.

Sorry, but I wasn't clear in my original post: the threat to the Saudi oil is not from the U.S., but from terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. This threat is very real.

[KGB]

And how's it beneficial to keep the markets threatened?

Keeping the markets threatened benefits oil-rich dissenters such as Iran and Venezuela, two countries who happen to be quite friendly with each other these days. Additionally, the high prices benefit the oil companies, which is under intense media scrutiny currently.

Edited April 30, 2006 by KGB

[KGB]

in either case, i don't see this as an overexaggeration by the media. In fact they're being a little modest. Remember before the war in iraq. Saddam was allowing inspectors. Iran has been more bold but the media coverage is not as intense as you'd expect.

The overexaggeration is that there is no threat and there won't be one for a very long time. Iran is not even close to developing nuclear weapons. If one truly believed the media reports, it would seem that Iran would be able to develope nukes as soon as they finish enriching uranium, which is bogus.

 

So what if Saddam was allowing inspectors? The plan to attack Iraq was made years in advance and it was well known throughtout the world that it was probably going to happen. Iraq and Iran are two different situations and cannot be compared based on the perceived threats they pose/posed and the amount of media coverage each one received/receives.

[KGB]

"Iran's economy is marked by a bloated, inefficient state sector, over reliance on the oil sector, and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state. Private sector activity is typically small-scale - workshops, farming, and services. President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD has continued to follow the market reform plans of former President RAFSANJANI, with limited progress. Relatively high oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass some $40 billion in foreign exchange reserves, but have not eased economic hardships such as high unemployment and inflation."

Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html (it's under "economy overview," about half-way down the page)

 

Can you see why they would want oil prices to remain high?

Edited April 30, 2006 by KGB

[hytga]

The threat can be there in a few years (5 or maybe more). which is reason enough to overexaggerate, but there seems that there's no overexaggeration yet.

 

of course everyone knew that iraq would be attacked. it's been known since the gulf war. It was just a matter of time. The way i see it, an attack on iran (if it ever occurs) will be limited to targetted air strikes (maybe rockets) and that's about it. There will be no large scale military involvement.

 

btw. My bad. i misread your post. I thought you somehow concluded that it benefited certain ppl in oil industry.

[skhara]

The threat can be there in a few years (5 or maybe more). which is reason enough to overexaggerate, but there seems that there's no overexaggeration yet.

 

of course everyone knew that iraq would be attacked. it's been known since the gulf war. It was just a matter of time. The way i see it, an attack on iran (if it ever occurs) will be limited to targetted air strikes (maybe rockets) and that's about it. There will be no large scale military involvement.

 

btw. My bad. i misread your post. I thought you somehow concluded that it benefited certain ppl in oil industry.

 

hytga,

 

I don't think they would even pull that unless they are complete morons. Iran isn't going to take any attack. Iran has an ability to hit back on many targets. Minor strike or major strike, they still risk a major regional war.

[Zartonk]

US Considers Strikes on Iran from Azeri Territory

 

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ UN former nuclear weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated the US Administration considers strikes upon Iran from the territory of Azerbaijan. In his words, after acquainting oneself with military maps, it will be clear that deploying troops in Azerbaijan is extremely important for the US. «US command is extremely interested in deployment of forces in that South Caucasian country. Why is this important? It is Iran's neighbor. The shortest route to Teheran lies below the Caspian, where the army plans an offensive to,» the expert noted.

 

Ritter supposes that the military believe they can fulfill this mission and they plan implementing it. «They got political instructions from the commander-in-chief to fulfill that task. No one should doubt US President, his closest circles and the military prepare to war with Iran,» Scott Ritter emphasized, reports American Patriot.

[Arpa]

Mey be the best news in 4 millennia.

Some people may think they know history, that garbage they learned in Sunday School, yet have not the intellect to read real history when the Persian Empire spanned all the way from the Caspian to the Balkan Sea.

Can they do it again?

Attack Tehran from Baku"

Good!!

A sure way to wipe Baku off the map once and for all!!

[MosJan]

U.S. says it's prepared to talk with Iran

 

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer 2 hours, 33 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON - In a major policy shift, the United States said Wednesday it is prepared to join other nations in holding direct talks with

Iran on its nuclear program if Iran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West fears could lead to a bomb.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

"To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table," Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice said at the State Department.

 

Asked at a news conference whether the United States would be willing to re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran, Rice ruled out a "grand bargain" and cited major disagreements between the two countries on many issues. However, Rice said a negotiated solution to the nuclear dispute could "begin to change the relationship."

 

"We urge Iran to make this choice for peace, to abandon its ambition for nuclear weapons," she said. At the same time, Rice acknowledged Iran has a right to civil nuclear energy.

 

The Swiss ambassador to the United States was called to the State Department earlier Wednesday to receive a copy of Rice's remarks for transmission to Iran, U.S. officials said. The United States has had no diplomatic ties with Iran and few contacts at all with its government since Islamic radicals took over the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held diplomats there for more than a year.

 

In Brussels,

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana welcomed Rice's remarks. "Direct U.S. participation would be the strongest and most positive signal of our common wish to reach an agreement with Iran," Solana added.

 

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said European nations will offer Tehran "a serious and substantial" package to cooperate. "We are all striving to reach a diplomatic solution. The European side's goal is to present a serious and substantial offer of cooperation, which demonstrates to Iran the benefits that would flow from compliance," Beckett said, "rather than the further isolation which would result from their failure to do so."

 

The Bush administration has been deeply suspicious of Iran's intentions and the prime mover for tough

United Nations action against the clerical regime. Until now, the United States has refused repeated calls from European nations, other diplomats and former secretaries of state to join the European talks.

 

For its part, Iran has for months refused to do what the U.S. is now demanding as a first step to talks — suspend its enrichment of uranium, which Tehran claims is for peaceful purposes. Iran did voluntarily suspend those activities while talks were active with the Europeans last year, but resumed and stepped up those activities this spring.

 

Suspending uranium enrichment and related activities in order to talk with the United States would not preclude Iran from later insisting that it be allowed to continue those activities. At that point, the United States and its allies would be expected to move for tough

U.N. Security Council action, possibly including economic or other sanctions.

 

Rice will meet with foreign ministers from the other permanent Security Council members on Thursday in Vienna to finalize a package of incentives and threats to be presented to Tehran.

 

"We hope that in the coming days the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal," Rice said.

 

European diplomats told The Associated Press that the package and the U.S. announcement of a willingness to talk were conditioned on pledges from Russia and China to eventually support tough actions such as sanctions if Iran continued to defy a U.N. call to stop its disputed activities.

 

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States will not enter one-on-one talks with Iran. The European talks included Britain, France and Germany.

 

"There are going to be some changes, but the overall position, which is that Iran needs to take the first step, it needs to suspend enrichment and reprocessing activities, that's still there," Snow said. "That's still the foundation stone for U.S. diplomatic policy on this."

 

Rice also detailed other U.S. complaints with Iran's behavior, including what the U.S. says is Iran's support for terrorism in Lebanon and Palestinian territories. "Nobody is confused about the nature of this regime," she said.

 

In recent weeks, Bush administration officials repeatedly have insisted there were no plans for one-on-one talks with Iran over its nuclear program, while holding open the possibility of such meetings on

Iraq, where Tehran has substantial influence with that country's Shiites.

 

Any U.S. decision to talk directly with Tehran, even as part of a multilateral set of negotiations, reflects pressure by its allies and partners. Government officials from Germany have publicly urged the Americans to engage Tehran directly, and Moscow and Beijing also are believed to support such a move.

 

News of the latest U.S. position comes on the eve of a six-nation meeting focusing on ending months of disagreement between Washington and the Kremlin on how to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. A round of telephone diplomacy Tuesday between

President Bush and the leaders of Russia, France and Germany also focused on the nuclear standoff.

 

___

 

Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna and Barry Schweid and Nedra Pickler in Washington contributed to this report.

[ED]

I dont think this laitest stunt by US is going to produce any positive results, this is just a window dressing for neo-cons,

 

as soon as admistration annaonced they will talk directly with Iran propaganda machine is all over the media calling the president of Iran the antichrist, antisemite and anti Israel

 

 

"you control information and media you control the world"

 

with big letters on CNN "IS IRAN NEXT" fallowed by portraying Iranians as saveges, 1979 hostage crisis, why reniue hostage thing? for one perpose only, to brainwash the public again, just like Iraq has started with WMD

God help the world and especialy USA.....

[MosJan]

Iran welcomes dialogue, rejects condition

 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

 

TEHRAN, Iran -

Iran's foreign minister on Thursday welcomed direct talks with Washington on his country's disputed nuclear program but rebuffed a U.S. proposal that Tehran must suspend uranium enrichment as a condition.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

A prominent hard-liner, however, called the U.S. proposal as "blackmail" and urged the government to reject it.

 

Mottaki's statement was the country's first direct reaction to an announcement by the United States on Wednesday that it is willing to join other countries for face-to-face talks with Iran, as long as Tehran stops enriching uranium.

 

And while Mottaki also criticized Washington's overture, his response marked the first time since 1979 that a top Iranian official welcomed talks with the United States on relations between the two bitter enemies.

 

"Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions but (we) won't give up our (nuclear) rights," state-run television quoted Mottaki as saying.

 

"We won't negotiate about the Iranian nation's natural nuclear rights but we are prepared, within a defined just framework and without any discrimination, to hold a dialogue about (our) common concerns," he added.

 

Hossein Shariatmadari, a senior hard-liner, dismissed Washington's offer.

 

"There is nothing in the offer other than repeating the illegal demand (that Iran halt enrichment) and their blackmail," Shariatmadari said in the daily Kayhan newspaper.

 

Iran's state-run radio also said in a commentary that setting preconditions means the U.S. doesn't believe in dialogue.

 

On Thursday,

President Bush that the standoff over Iran's suspected nuclear program is headed for the

U.N. Security Council if Tehran continues with uranium enrichment.

 

"We'll see whether or not that is the firm position of their government," Bush said at the White House. "If they continue their abstinence, if they continue to say to the world `We really don't care what your opinion is,' then the world is going to act in concert."

 

Bush's comments came as top international officials including Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice prepared to meet in Vienna to discuss a deal offering Iran economic incentives if it gives up nuclear activities that could produce a bomb — or hitting it with penalties if it doesn't.

 

Rice said Wednesday that the United States will come to the negotiating table as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities. She said the United States was taking the move to underscore its commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success.

 

Mottaki criticized Rice's statement, saying it does not give a "new and logical solution to resolve the nuclear issue."

 

The foreign minister also said that there was no evidence that enrichment activity had deviated from peaceful aims, so Iran would continue enriching uranium.

 

Still, Mottaki's comments mean the administration of hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone farther on U.S. relations than his reformist predecessor.

Mohammad Khatami had called for an opening in the wall of mistrust between the two countries through athletic and cultural exchanges but didn't dare to appear willing to hold direct, high-level talks with Washington.

 

Earlier this year, Ahmadinejad's government agreed to hold direct talks with the United States on stabilizing its neighbor

Iraq but not on U.S.-Iranian relations. The status for those talks is still unclear, with Iranian officials saying recently they didn't feel they were necessary.

 

Mottaki's comments also underline a shift in Iran in recent weeks away from tough statements and fiery denunciations of Europe or the United States over their position on Tehran's nuclear program.

 

In April, Ahmadinejad said he didn't care about U.N. Security Council resolutions when the council gave Tehran 30 days to halt its uranium enrichment activities. Since then, his government has taken a lighter tone.

 

The United States and several European countries believe Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program aims to generate electricity, not bombs.

 

Iran has said it will not give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel but it has indicated that it was prepared to suspend large-scale uranium enrichment.

 

Iran announced April 11 that it had enriched uranium for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a warhead — but tens of thousands of centrifuges are needed to do either on a large scale.

 

Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006, and then expand the program to 54,000 centrifuges.

[Iran Forever]

Iran welcomes dialogue, rejects condition

 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

 

TEHRAN, Iran -

Iran's foreign minister on Thursday welcomed direct talks with Washington on his country's disputed nuclear program but rebuffed a U.S. proposal that Tehran must suspend uranium enrichment as a condition.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

A prominent hard-liner, however, called the U.S. proposal as "blackmail" and urged the government to reject it.

 

Mottaki's statement was the country's first direct reaction to an announcement by the United States on Wednesday that it is willing to join other countries for face-to-face talks with Iran, as long as Tehran stops enriching uranium.

 

And while Mottaki also criticized Washington's overture, his response marked the first time since 1979 that a top Iranian official welcomed talks with the United States on relations between the two bitter enemies.

 

"Iran welcomes dialogue under just conditions but (we) won't give up our (nuclear) rights," state-run television quoted Mottaki as saying.

 

"We won't negotiate about the Iranian nation's natural nuclear rights but we are prepared, within a defined just framework and without any discrimination, to hold a dialogue about (our) common concerns," he added.

 

Hossein Shariatmadari, a senior hard-liner, dismissed Washington's offer.

 

"There is nothing in the offer other than repeating the illegal demand (that Iran halt enrichment) and their blackmail," Shariatmadari said in the daily Kayhan newspaper.

 

Iran's state-run radio also said in a commentary that setting preconditions means the U.S. doesn't believe in dialogue.

 

On Thursday,

President Bush that the standoff over Iran's suspected nuclear program is headed for the

U.N. Security Council if Tehran continues with uranium enrichment.

 

"We'll see whether or not that is the firm position of their government," Bush said at the White House. "If they continue their abstinence, if they continue to say to the world `We really don't care what your opinion is,' then the world is going to act in concert."

 

Bush's comments came as top international officials including Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice prepared to meet in Vienna to discuss a deal offering Iran economic incentives if it gives up nuclear activities that could produce a bomb — or hitting it with penalties if it doesn't.

 

Rice said Wednesday that the United States will come to the negotiating table as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities. She said the United States was taking the move to underscore its commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success.

 

Mottaki criticized Rice's statement, saying it does not give a "new and logical solution to resolve the nuclear issue."

 

The foreign minister also said that there was no evidence that enrichment activity had deviated from peaceful aims, so Iran would continue enriching uranium.

 

Still, Mottaki's comments mean the administration of hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone farther on U.S. relations than his reformist predecessor.

Mohammad Khatami had called for an opening in the wall of mistrust between the two countries through athletic and cultural exchanges but didn't dare to appear willing to hold direct, high-level talks with Washington.

 

Earlier this year, Ahmadinejad's government agreed to hold direct talks with the United States on stabilizing its neighbor

Iraq but not on U.S.-Iranian relations. The status for those talks is still unclear, with Iranian officials saying recently they didn't feel they were necessary.

 

Mottaki's comments also underline a shift in Iran in recent weeks away from tough statements and fiery denunciations of Europe or the United States over their position on Tehran's nuclear program.

 

In April, Ahmadinejad said he didn't care about U.N. Security Council resolutions when the council gave Tehran 30 days to halt its uranium enrichment activities. Since then, his government has taken a lighter tone.

 

The United States and several European countries believe Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program aims to generate electricity, not bombs.

 

Iran has said it will not give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel but it has indicated that it was prepared to suspend large-scale uranium enrichment.

 

Iran announced April 11 that it had enriched uranium for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or material for a warhead — but tens of thousands of centrifuges are needed to do either on a large scale.

 

Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006, and then expand the program to 54,000 centrifuges.

 

As they say in Iran, "Bush goh mikhore, ghalate ziyadi mikone".

[Iran Forever]

conventionaly Isreal was able to win every war arabs fought against her yet they posess nukes, has anyone ever raiseda question, has any organization inspected there nuclear program and if not, why not?

why is Iran so pissed? thats why, why state of isreal can posess WMD nd Iran cant? has Iran attacked anybody?

 

this is a ROJECT FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURY bs, syira was not a good target, now its Iran and saudies are pissing in thre pants.

 

I belive some military confrotation will happen soon with Iran, only American poeple can stop this madmans or this idiots are going to drug this country and evantiualy the whole world into a WW3

 

I like your posts Edward....we think alot alike. As for Cuntasleazy Vice, sorry Condomleeza Rice I meant, I call her Ms. Affirmative Action (that's how she became provost at Stanford University which also catapulted her political career)...how impressive! She speaks fluent Russian. Big f--king deal! So does everybody in Armenia for that matter, not to mention all the ex-Soviet republics. Her expertise on U.S.-Soviet relations has no value now that the Cold War is over, and this poor bitch knows NOTHING about the Middle East, its history, or its culture. She caters to the White establishment, and would have made a great loyal slave back in the old pre-Civil war days of slavery. Any White plantation owner would have been lucky to have such a loyal slave. Today that guy is Bush, and Condi does a great job of being his dear personal Black servant. As for Bush, he had to find a loyal dog like her, and also prove to the rest of America that his Republican party does believe in "diversity" and "integration" and the quota system after all...with Condi he achieved 3 things...got himself an obedient slave, met the quota for hiring a woman, and maintained the quota for hiring an African American one.

 

Colin Powell, on the other hand, was not picked because of his skin color, but because of his merits, his military credentials, his gift for diplomacy...but he was too intelligent for Bush, and Bush needed someone less intelligent than himself, and Condi was the right person.

[skhara]

Video clip of Iranian official talking about the nuclear issue:

 

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=...wmv&ak=null

[skhara]

The Ayatolah Speaks!

 

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=...wmv&ak=null

[skhara]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireSt...7836&page=1

 

Iran Vows Retaliation if Israel Strikes

 

By NASSER KARIMI

 

TEHRAN, Iran Nov 12, 2006 (AP)— Iran's military will retaliate swiftly and strongly if Israel attacks any Iranian nuclear sites, the Foreign Ministry said Sunday.

 

The warning came two days after Israel's deputy defense minister suggested Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's disputed nuclear program as "a last resort."

 

"If the Zionist regime commits such stupidity, the response by the Iranian military will be swift, strong and crushing," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini said. "Iran will take no longer than a second to respond."

 

The comments by Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh were the clearest yet from a high-ranking official of possible military action against Iran. However, the Israeli government later said the comments did not necessarily reflect its views or those of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

 

Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. While Israel neither acknowledges nor denies possessing nuclear arms, it is thought to have about 100-200 nuclear warheads, according to a 2006 report by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

 

Hosseini downplayed the possibility of an Israeli attack. "The situation and capability of the Zionist regime are far too small to threaten Iran," he said.

 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, again criticized the U.N. Security Council over its efforts to impose sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program. Iran says its program is for peaceful energy purposes, but the United States and other Western countries fear its a cover for developing weapons.

 

"It is most embarrassing that the U.N Security Council, which should be the defender of nations' security and rights, threatens countries pursuing nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes under the law," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the general assembly of Asian Parliaments Association for Peace in the capital, Tehran.

 

He accused the U.N. of applying a double standard, saying it was pursuing Iran "while those countries, armed with nuclear weapons, deny the rights of other countries to produce nuclear fuel and exploit it for peaceful purposes.

 

......................................

[skhara]

Lebanon Crisis Is a Foreign Tug-Of-War

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireSt...TC-RSSFeeds0312

 

BEIRUT, Lebanon Nov 12, 2006 (AP)— Behind Lebanon's deepening political crisis is a tug-of-war between the United States and its Middle Eastern opponents Iran and Syria a battle with high stakes for America's push for greater democracy in the region.

 

At the center is the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Hezbollah's demands for a larger role in the Lebanese government, now dominated by anti-Syrian politicians with strong backing from the United States and Europe.

 

The crisis deepened Saturday when two Hezbollah Cabinet ministers and three others from an allied Shiite party resigned hours after talks to form a unity government collapsed. Hezbollah and its allies want enough seats in 24-member Cabinet to wield veto power, a prospect that has some Lebanese on edge after the guerrillas' war with Israel last summer.

 

Western-backed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora refused to accept the resignations, but it was unclear whether his weak government had the clout to force the ministers to stay on. Lebanon's pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud insisted Sunday that the Cabinet has lost its legitimacy, arguing the constitution requires the government to be representative of the country's religious sects.

 

Hezbollah, whose popularity among many of Lebanon's majority Shiites rose after its war Israel, has threatened mass street protests to topple the government.

 

The collapse of Lebanon's government would be a major setback to one of the U.S. diplomatic successes in the Middle East.

 

The United States was instrumental in forcing Syria to withdraw its army from Lebanon last year in the wake of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a killing his supporters blamed on Syria.

 

Syria denied involvement, but mass protests in Beirut and international pressure forced Syria to leave, ending its nearly three-decade dominance of its smaller neighbor. Shortly afterward, Lebanon held democratic elections a rarity in the Arab world which brought an anti-Syrian majority to the Parliament and Cabinet.

 

Washington has warned Lebanon's government one of the friendliest to the United States in over two decades is at risk of falling apart. Some in the region have sounded similar warnings, saying giving Hezbollah veto power would bring Lebanon back under the influence of Iran and Syria, the main supporters of the Shiite guerrillas.

[MosJan]

US intelligence service spied upon Iran via Turkish satellite

 

 

USA spied upon Iran via Turkey satellite, APA Eastern Europe bureau reports quoting to Turkey press.

 

US Central Intelligence Agency spied upon Iran via Turkish satellite rented by a false firm. CIA used the satellite to intercept e-mails, control some Iranian communication devices, electronic diversion and carry out psychological operation by broadcasting special transmission. Iran governmental bodies firstly found out that US Intelligence uses Turkish satellite. Having revealed usage of the Turkish satellite by the CIA, Iranian authorities sent note of protest to Ankara via diplomatic channels requesting immediate stoppage of US intelligent service’s carrying out secret operations. According to Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul’s personal order the satellite channel was closed; check of all security codes of all satellites started in order to reveal their possible usage by other false CIA companies. /APA/

[MosJan]

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov)

 

The Bush administration now faces a difficult and extremely unpleasant decision: should it, and can it, involve Iran in the effort to stabilize the Middle East, notably Iraq?

 

This time the issue has been raised by the Americans. According to the much publicized report by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, delivered to George W. Bush last Wednesday, the situation in Iraq may drift into chaos, which will not just result in the toppling of the government and a humanitarian catastrophe: there is a great danger that the bloodshed will spread to other Middle Eastern countries, spawning a regional conflict.

 

The Baker-Hamilton report's verdict is very pessimistic: the U.S.'s international image will be damaged for the foreseeable future, while domestic opinion will polarize even more.

 

What is to be done? The report proposes involving Iran in stopping the violence in Iraq. The advice makes sense, but given the mutual dislike of Tehran and Washington it is not likely to be followed.

 

American-Iranian cooperation in Iraq would require direct bilateral talks, which has so far been unthinkable for the Bush administration for several reasons. The first is the notorious Iranian nuclear dossier. A White House spokesman has already said that they have ruled out bilateral talks with Iran until it stops uranium enrichment and processing.

 

Another reason is even more sensitive for Washington: it is unclear how Iran, which has recently been positioning itself as a new Middle East superpower, will behave. There is no doubt that it will demand a lot, if, of course, it vouchsafes its participation in talks at all.

 

Besides, Iran is the last country to want the U.S. to leave Iraq now. Tehran is perfectly aware of the responsibility it would have to shoulder if it did. But does Iran have the strength, money and capability to prevent the situation in its neighbor from escalating into a war, given the developments in Lebanon and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

 

It does not, of course. Moreover, Iran's aspirations to develop its nuclear program and assume a leading position in the region have been met with hostility in the Persian Gulf states. Evidence of that is their rejection of Tehran's initiative on signing a non-aggression and non-interference pact that would remove tensions around the Iranian nuclear file.

 

So if the U.S. leaves, Iran may be left to face not only all potential problems in the region alone, but an anti-Iranian coalition as well. Nevertheless, Tehran will continue "boycotting" America's presence in the region, without crossing over the line it has drawn. This stance has obvious advantages in indirect bargaining with Washington, both on the nuclear program and on protection of regional priorities.

 

In addition, there is the current Iraqi government, which for obvious reasons does not want to speak too loudly in favor of a U.S. withdrawal, a fact which creates additional difficulties for Iran. This could be seen at the recent Iran-Iraq summit. Tehran positioned Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's visit to Iran as an emerging strategic alliance in the Middle East. The joint statement signed by Talabani and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touches upon many important issues, such as a bilateral agreement and relations between the two countries in general, but it does not say anything about the coalition forces deployed in Iraq.

 

The White House does not rule out that President Bush may announce changes in the strategy in Iraq before the year is out. This will be done after he compares the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group with the recommendations of two other similar reports on Iraq. One of them is being drafted by the National Security Council, and the other by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces.

 

Meanwhile, the Bush administration should probably acknowledge that the U.S. does not have a clear stand on any Middle East developments, whether it is the situation in Lebanon or Israeli-Palestinian relations. Its position on Iraq also needs a major adjustment. The key to many problems might be found in Iran, but this will not be an easy task.

[MosJan]

U.S.-IRAN WAR TO BECOME CALAMITY FOR AZERBAIJAN

 

*

 

article's photo

“Every day hundreds of Iranians cross the Azeri border in search of asylum in the neighbor country. The situation at the checkpoint becomes more tensed hour by hour and can transform into mass protest actions pregnant with unpredictable consequences. Official statements on the developments have not been issued yet. However, Azeri frontier guards say the border was closed by an initiative of the Iranian side, thus forcing the Azeri customs officials to adequate steps. As result, hundreds of Iranian citizens stuck on the Azerbaijani territory. Besides, tension is aggravated by numerous trucks and cars on both sides of the border,” says an article titled “Azerbaijan faces nuclear calamity?” and published in New Russian Word newspaper. The residents of the near-border regions are panic-stricken. Many of them have already gone hungry, since they earned their living by importing food and household articles from Iran, according to the authors. In case of a military campaign followed by an overland operation as in Afghanistan and Iraq, Azerbaijan may be flooded with new refugees, who will huddle in tent camps and face insanitation and epidemics. Mass flows of Iranians to Azerbaijan, where a million of refugees already languish in poverty, threaten with a humanitarian calamity. Besides, U.S. pin-point bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities will inevitably cause radioactive contamination which can reach Baku,” the articles reads.

[MosJan]

PENTAGON PREPARES PROGRAM FOR ATTACKING IRAN

 

*

 

Referring to statements of high-ranked officials, "Jerusalem Post" newspaper informed that Pentagon has already prepared the program for attacking Iran. They are quire sure at the military department that President Bush will take drastic measures for annihilating the nuclear objects of Iran, before his term comes to end.

 

The Pentagon sources also gave certain details about the campaign. They say that the main part in it will play the American air forces and the navy. According to some of the versions, the navy should surround Iran in order to prevent export of oil from this country.

 

The sources state that some of the American legislative figures are also for the abovementioned drastic measures. In particular, senator Joseph Liberman stated that USA should be ready to unfold large-scale military actions against Iran, in order to stop the killing of the American in Iraq.

[MosJan]

U.S. military in Iran is unavoidable, Tehran in its part works out plan of seizing Baku

11.06.2007 15:35 GMT+04:00 Print version Send to mail In Russian In Armenian

 

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ An U.S. military invasion in Iran is unavoidable, political scientist Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan stated to a press conference in Yerevan. He said, the United States has lost too much recently to withdraw. “The American army comes off second-best in Iraq, which is being provided with arms from neighboring countries. And this is a rather forcible argument for launching a war. In this case Armenia must keep neutrality. However, there exists a danger of radioactive infection. There are 4 nuclear power plants in Iran: Bushehr, which is located rather far away from Armenia, two near Tehran and one in Tabriz. Under unfavorable “wind rose” a strike on the plant in Tabriz may seriously affect Armenia. As to Azerbaijan, Iran’s firs return strike will target exactly that country. Based on my information, which are rather precise, Tehran works out a plan of seizing Baku,” Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan underlined.

 

[Shahan Araradian]

The sources state that some of the American legislative figures are also for the abovementioned drastic measures. In particular, senator Joseph Liberman stated that USA should be ready to unfold large-scale military actions against Iran, in order to stop the killing of the American in Iraq.

How does attacking Iran keep the Iraqi people from fighting the American ILLEGAL occupation of Iraq? (This guy [Lieberman] is completely laughable! Does he think we are robots who believe everything he and his company [Zionism] say??? Do we not have minds that can think?)

 

Joseph Lieberman is a Zionist who has HIS OWN interests in attacking Iran, as his company (Zionism) views Iran as a threat to Israel.

 

I don't think attacking Iran (nor Iraq -- but too late) is in the best interests of the American people! Iran should be allowed to use nuclear energy to generate electricity, and YES, even to build nuclear weapons. Iran poses NO danger to the U.S. Iran hasn't threatened the U.S. and has no reason to!!!!

 

The American people don't need to send their men to fight POINTLESS wars that in no way makes the lives of Americans better at home. Indeed, it makes life worse: lost sons and daughters, and the rightful wrath of the Iraqis (and others in the Middle East) who are suffering at the hands of American soldiers, puppeteered by the Zionist politcians such as Joe Lieberman, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Perle.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Shahan Araradian

[Ashot]

Iranian Jews slam 'emigrant stunt'

 

The well-publicized landing of 40 Iranian Jews in Israel on Tuesday spurred glee among some Israelis and the immigrants themselves and drew public scorn from a surprising quarter in Iran -- two officials from its centuries-old Jewish community.

 

One of them described the emigration as a "misinformation" campaign and defended their lives under the government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

The arrival in Israel was publicized as the largest single group to arrive in Israel from Iran since Iran's Islamic Revolution, and the immigrants traveled via an undisclosed third country. Other Iranian Jews have immigrated to Israel over the years.

 

Anti-Semitism has been a worldwide phenomenon for centuries and the state of Israel became a homeland for Jews to escape anti-Semitic persecution.

 

The group that sponsored the immigration is the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, based in Chicago. It says it wants to help Jews flee such persecution. The group receives money from evangelical Christians.

 

Its founder, Rabbi Yehiel Eckstein, believes Iranian Jews face dangers, citing the words of Ahmadinejad, who has urged Israel's destruction but not by military means.

 

There has been great criticism of Ahmadinejad by Jews across the globe for his remarks about Israel, for the government's stance toward Israel, and for the regime's sponsorship of a recent Holocaust denial seminar.

 

Eckstein said immigrants received $10,000 each because they left behind possessions to go to Israel.

 

Noting the evangelical support from his group, Eckstein, in fact, believes it's no "coincidence" that the people came to Israel on Christmas Day, which Eckstein describes as "kind of a Christmas present to these folks from Christians in America who seek to tell Israel and the Jewish people that they're not alone."

 

The immigration comes at a time of great tension between Iran, whose president stoutly rejects the Jewish state's existence, and Israel, which asserts that Iran is funding terrorism, has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, and is intent on destroying the Jewish state.

 

But the account of the mass immigration was vehemently disputed among Jewish officials in Tehran who defend Jewish life there.

 

The man representing Iranian Jews in Iran's parliament on Wednesday disputed the notion of an organized immigration of Iranian Jews to Israel, saying he would have known about such a development.

 

Iranian MP Morris Motamed told CNN that he and Ciamak Morehsadegh, the director of the Tehran Jewish Community, had issued a statement condemning the spread of false news about an evangelical organization facilitating the immigration of 40 Iranian Jews to Israel.

 

Iranian Jews can travel anywhere they want, anytime they want, but like other Iranians they are not allowed to go to Israel, Motamed said.

 

Even with that, some Iranian Jews may decide to travel to and from Israel via a third country to visit their families or to visit for religious reasons.

 

However, Motamed called the news a "misinformation" campaign aimed at creating an atmosphere of distrust between the Muslim and Jewish communities in Iran. He said it is meant to make Iranian Jews feel unsafe and vulnerable in their own country.

 

He said that before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iranian Jews numbered more than 100,000, but like other minorities their numbers diminished because of immigration.

 

He said almost 95 percent of Iranian Jews went to the United States and as a result there is now quite a sizable Iranian Jewish community there. The remaining 5 percent, he said, went to Europe and Israel.

 

There are as many as an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 Jews remaining in Iran, the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside Israel, according to CNN's Shirzad Bozorghmehr.

 

The U.S. State Department's 2007 report on religious freedom says the Iranian government's "rhetoric and actions created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all non-Shi'a religious groups, most notably for Baha'i's," who are based in the Israeli city of Haifa. It also cites "Sufi Muslims, evangelical Christians, and members of the Jewish community."

 

Jews by Iranian constitutional law have the right to practice their religion and "with some exception," there has been scant government restriction and interference with religious practices, the report said.

 

However, "members of these recognized minority religious groups have reported government imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on their religious beliefs."

 

Jewish education has been tougher to carry out, there has been a rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric, and assaults on two synagogues, the report said. Their contact with or support for the state of Israel has been squelched "out of fear of reprisal."

 

"Recent anti-American and anti-Israeli demonstrations included the denunciation of Jews, as opposed to the past practice of denouncing only 'Israel' and "Zionism," adding to the threatening atmosphere for the community," the report said.

 

In the Islamic Republic's Jewish community, there is a different view from voices emerging.

 

Morehsadegh described the Jewish community in Tehran as alive and well, with 20 synagogues, more than eight butcher shops, two restaurants, and four youth groups.

 

"There is no doubt that the Holocaust happened," he said. "But we disagree with the superpowers who have misused this incident to their own benefit."

 

[Ashot]

Iran: Bushehr nuclear plant ready by March, more planned

 

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's first nuclear power plant will be operational within three months, providing electricity to Iran's national power grid by the summer, according to Iranian Energy Minister Parviz Fattah.

 

Russia, which is building the Bushehr plant for Iran, started delivering nuclear fuel to the facility a week ago as part of a compromise effort to alleviate concerns over Iran's nuclear intentions while supporting Iran's right to a nuclear energy program.

 

The United States, several European nations and Israel suspect Tehran has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but Iran denies its nuclear program is for anything but peaceful purposes. A recent U.S. intelligence summary concluded that, contrary to earlier suspicions, Iran halted its nuclear weapons development in 2003.

 

Iran also said Sunday it "will soon announce international tender for construction of 19 new 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants," according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA, citing Kazem Jalali, an official with the parliament's national security and foreign policy commission.

 

Jalali said the measure would be "taken in line with" the parliament's approval "for generating 20,000 megawatt of electricity to meet domestic demands," the IRNA report said.

 

Fattah told reporters Saturday that the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which was previously expected to be completed last September, will become operational on March 21, 2008, according to Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, or IRIB.

 

The plant will deliver 500 megawatts of electricity to the power grid by summer and 1,000 megawatts by March 2009, IRIB reported.

 

Atomstroiexport, Russia's nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly, completed the first stage of nuclear fuel deliveries a week ago, the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency said.

 

The United States, several European nations, and Israel suspect Tehran has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but Iran denies its nuclear program is for anything but peaceful purposes. A recent U.S. intelligence summary concluded that, contrary to earlier suspicions, Iran halted its nuclear weapons development in 2003.

 

Atomstroiexport, the Russian monopoly, is building the $1 billion Bushehr plant under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency. The Russian foreign ministry and nuclear officials said the fuel delivery was under full IAEA safeguards.

 

A statement on the Russian Foreign Ministry's official Web site last week said Iran had provided additional written guarantees that the fuel can only be used at and for the Bushehr plant, and that the spent fuel will be returned to Russia for utilization and storage.

 

The U.N. Security Council has repeatedly demanded that Iran suspend its own enrichment of uranium and has imposed limited sanctions on Tehran for refusing to comply. Russia, France, and China -- all permanent Security Council members -- have voiced concerns about the proposed sanctions.

 

A recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate said Iran stopped work toward a nuclear weapon while under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015.

 

Construction of the plant was expected to be completed in September, but was delayed because of lack of financing and delayed equipment deliveries from other countries, the official Russian news agency Interfax said.