Could the attention be focussed on Iran in order to reduce Shia infleunce in the area? After the Iraq elections which will definitely bring the Shias to power (albiet under American tutelege) the Shia power will be greater in the regions. Coupled to this the fact that Eastern KSA which is oil rich is Shia populated the stage is set for a podwer keg of Shia expectations not seen since the Fatimids went away to Egypt. So Iran might be in the sights to prevent the KSA loosing its oil fields and getting back to camel herding. That could explain the Sunni TSP enthusiasm for the enterprise.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Could the attention be focussed on Iran in order to reduce Shia infleunce in the area?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Recent action tells this is main objective. Uncle would not like to repeat same mistake again, when they prefered revolution in place of coup in Iran. New revolution of any kind will lead to uncertainty or anarchy in the region.
Within 5-8 years we may see new boundaries and even new countries.
In the jargon of the pol scientists it is - the Mid-East is not yet ready for Westphalain states. It will be remade to provide stability for the people and the politcal process so that reources can flow smoothly.
01-22-2005, 05:22 AM (This post was last modified: 01-22-2005, 05:53 AM by acharya.)
The next important date in in which Iran saw the election in 1997 of Ayatollah Ali Khameneâi in the election of May. An era of liberalism and reform had begun in Iran apparently.
US saw a chance of improving its relations with Iran now once again upset USA once again when two facts were discovered.
The first that Iran was capable of producing missiles which could attack USA sometime before 2010. In the development of missile technology obtained from North Korea and China, USA saw distinct threat.
The Indian Express (16 Jan 2002) reported it thus "In July 1998, a congressional commission headed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, now US defence secretary, predicted that Iran might be capable of causing ââmajor destructionââ to the United States ââwithin five years.ââ
Then camethe period the seizure by Israeli navy of the Karine A, a Gaza bound freighter with 50 tons of sophisticated Iranian weaponry for which Palestinian Authority had paid fifteen million dollars. "There were 63 rockets with a 20-kilometer range, and 283 rockets with a 6.5-kilometer range."
In suited USA to describe it as Iranâs attempt to destabilize west Asian security instead of an anti-Israeli conspiracy about which Iran has been always talking openly.
Ever since, Iran has become a "rogue state" in the estimation of USA which is now planning to do something both against Iran after having destroyed Saddam of Iraq. Yet, it is clear that Iran is going to be a target of USA through some secretly planned intrigues in the coming period. (September 2004 to September 2005).
By enlarging its list of "rogue states" which have mostly Islamic states like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, two communist states, North Korea and Cuba, USA finds itself in the enigmatic position of a more uncertain world even after the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the end of the cold war.
USA will never call it its war against Islam but it is what it is with Iran as one of its main targets now. And Iran has considerable trouble to face now in its present period.
The nature of this trouble can also be foreseen.
USA which had never hesitated in instigating the Shias of Iraq against Saddam Hussain, will similarly never hesitate in instigating the Sunni minorities of Iran against its Shia regime.
In the present period (February 2002 to September 2004) US conspiracies against Iran will have taken final shape, possibly with the help of Israel which will have cause for worry from a nuclear Iran.
After the Iraq war and removal of Saddam, the American attention must now turn to Iran and Syria. The senior Bush would have wanted to see the destruction of Iran and the junior Bush may want to see the fulfillment of his fatherâs unfulfilled aim. That is the real and sinister politics of USA backed unhesitatingly as ever by UK.
It is not unlikely, if Israel attacks Iranâs nuclear installations in a way similar to its attack on Iraqâs nuclear stations many years ago very successfully. Throughout the period, Iran has to face this danger.
In the next period (September 2004 to September 2005), there can even be some biological weapon used against it which may spread some epidemic disease.
The next period (September 2005 to September 2008 will be its worst period with effective interference causing considerable destruction to Iran. In this period, during the same, the disruption to Iran caused may be quite heavy. All this will be in pursuance of USA undeclared war on Islam, which is has cloaked under the theory of "axis of evil".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Funnily enough, the one country on this side of the ocean that would have elected Bush is not in Europe, but the Middle East: It's Iran, where many young people apparently hunger for Bush to remove their despotic leaders, the way he did in Iraq.
An Oxford student who had just returned from research in Iran told me that young Iranians were "loving anything their government hates," such as Bush, "and hating anything their government loves." Tehran is festooned in "Down With America" graffiti, the student said, but when he tried to take pictures of it, the Iranian students he was with urged him not to. They said it was just put there by their government and was not how most Iranians felt.
Iran, he said, is the ultimate "red state." Go figure.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am appending an incisive analysis by B. Raman on Iran theatre in the ongoing demonstration of US military muscle.
"Strategic WMD threats, including nuclear missile threats, in which (barring significant political or economic changes) Russia, China, most likely North Korea, probably Iran, and possibly Iraq have the capability to strike the United States, and the potential for unconventional delivery of WMD by both states or nonstate actors also will grow...Iran sees its short- and medium-range missiles as deterrents, as force-multiplying weapons of war, primarily with conventional warheads, and as options for delivering biological, chemical, and eventually nuclear weapons. Iran could test an IRBM or land-attack cruise missile by 2004..." http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/globaltre...5/#link13c Global Trends 2015: National Intelligence Council, USA.
Probably Iran, possibly Iraq. Mere possibility was enough to occupy Iraq. And, what will happen where there is a probability of Iran possessing WMD capabilities and possibly nuclear capabilities with Russian assistance?
US think tanks will increasingly lean on Indian security analysis outfits such as ORF (Reliance), Centre for Security Analysis (Lt. Gen. Raghavan) to coordinate the psywar with Uncle Sam.
Why do you think Strobe Talbott of Brookings Institution was in Chennai recently? It is part of the Global Futures 2015 psywar build-up and seeking collaborators: imminent target for destabilisation, Iran. Talbott said, during his speech delivered in Chennai, that India understands Iran better than USA. What he didn't say was that Avesta in Iran was a continuum from the Veda.
Kalyanaraman
Mind Games
The US has already embarked on a PSYWAR campaign to keep Iran on tenterhooks in the hope of thereby breaking its will to resist US pressure to agree to the dismantling of its uranium enrichment capability.
B. RAMAN
To any intelligence analyst, it should be obvious that the US has already embarked on a psychological warfare (PSYWAR) campaign to keep Iran on tenterhooks in the hope of thereby breaking its will to resist US pressure to agree to the dismantling of its uranium enrichment capability.
It is in this context that one has to view the rhetoric of "no option excluded" coming at regular intervals from President Bush, Ms.Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, and other US leaders, orchestrated leaks to the media of Pakistanâs co-operation with the US in a possible covert action against Iranâs military nuclear capability, of increasing Israeli contacts with Pakistan, of US drones (unmanned surveillance planes) flying unhindered over Iranâs nuclear establishments from bases in Iraq and the latest reports of a mysterious blast near the southern port city of Dailam on February 16, 2005.
Iranian leaders would be making a serious miscalculation--- as Saddam Hussein of Iraq did--- if they underestimated the determination of not only the US, but also of Israel to see that Iran did not acquire a capability for the production of nuclear weapons.
It would be a serious mistake on the part of Iranian leaders and policy-makers to think that the disastrous consequences of the US-led military intervention in Iraq and pressure from the rest of the world ---with even the UK reportedly hesitant to go the whole hog with the US in the case of Iran as it did in the case of Iraq--- would deter any US military or para-military action against Iran, despite undoubted difficulties.
In its efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring any capability, which might bring a nuclear weapon within its reach, the US has three options. The first is military--- an open military intervention as in Iraq to bring about a regime change and dismantle Iranâs nuclear capability. The Iraqi experience and the continuing instability in Iraq two years after the US occupation ought to discourage such an adventurist course of action.
The US under-estimation of the sense of patriotism and national pride of the Iraqis is largely responsible for the mess it has created for itself in Iraq. The Iranians have even a much stronger sense of patriotism and national pride than the Iraqis and the US would be landing in another mess if it invaded Iran.
The second option is to do an Osirak in Iran--- destroy its nuclear establishments through clandestine action, either from the air or the ground or both as Israel did to Iraqâs French-aided Osirak reactor in the early 1980s.
Both the USA and Israel have the capability to do so, acting in tandem or independently of each other, but a repeat of Osirak in Iran would be beset with serious difficulties, the like of which Israel did not face in Iraq. Osirak was still under construction when Israel attacked it and it had not yet been commissioned. Hence, Israel did not have to worry about collateral damage to the civilians and the environment in the area due to possible radioactive leakages or other hazards. Moreover, the French engineers working on the construction quietly collaborated with the Israelis, by remaining absent from the construction site at the time of the bombing. This helped minimise, if not avoid, French casualties.
In Iran, the US and Israel face two types of nuclear establishments---those already constructed and possibly already secretly working and those still under construction and yet to be commissioned. In the first category would come the nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz and possibly one other place. Under the second category would come the nuclear power stations at Bushehr under construction by the Russians despite US pressure to stop it.
A clandestine US and/or Israeli strike on the construction sites at Bushehr should be feasible without causing much "collateral damage" to Iranian civilians and the environment. But how about the Russians employed on the construction? Will they co-operate by remaining away from the site at the time of the raid?
A strike against Bushehr, even if successful, would not put an end to US concerns. The real source of concern at present ought to be the uranium enrichment capabilities. They will have the first priority for both the US and Israel. Here, the dangers of incalculable collateral damage to the civilians and the environment could be high. This ought to act as a deterrent, but if the concerns of the US and Israel cross the limits of tolerance, they may not hesitate to organise a raid even at the risk of serious "collateral damage".
The third option is PSYWAR in the hope of breaking the Iranian will so that the other two options become unnecessary, This option has no unacceptable risks, but its ability to produce the expected results is uncertain.
The US has already embarked upon it. The PSYWAR is being waged at two levels--- the political and the para-military. The political PSYWAR, which is democracy-centric, is directed at the Iranian people and is being waged through Iranian dissidents in the US and elsewhere. It aims to keep alive and aggravate the divide between the reformists and the fundamentalist clerics and the liberals and the conservatives in the Iranian civil society. It also seeks to exploit the already existing pockets of alienation inside Iran and create more. Flow of US funds and sophisticated means of propaganda mounted from California and Iraq play an important role in this.
The para-military (covert) PSYWAR, which is nuclear-centric, seeks to convey a message not only to Teheran, but also to Moscow about the consequences of Iran pressing ahead on the nuclear path in disregard of the concerns of the US, other Western countries and Israel. This PSYWAR is being waged from bases in Iraq and Pakistan. Its purpose is to create fears in the minds of Teheran and Moscow about the inevitability of American para-military action against Iranâs nuclear establishments if they do not see reason and give up their present obduracy. The actions mounted by the US also seek to demonstrate its capability for para-military action, if it decides to act.
It is in this context that one has to view the reported mysterious blast at Dailam, which is in the Bushehr province. The place of occurrence of the blast is about 150 Kms from the site where the Russians are constructing the nuclear power stations.
The confusion in Teheran over the incident, which was reportedly spectacular without causing any human casualties, is evident from the contradictory statements emanating from Iran on the cause of the blast.
The Associated Press news agency quoted an Iranian Interior Ministry spokesman Jahanbakhsh Khanjani as saying:: "An airplane flew over Dailam today. Minutes later, there was an explosion. But we have no reason to say it's a hostile attack. There is a big possibility that it was a friendly fire by mistake."
Iranâs state TV Al-Alam, which was the first to break the story, said the explosion was possibly caused by a rocket from an aircraft. Subsequently, it changed its version and said that the blast might have been the result of an aircraft accidentally dropping its fuel tank.
Officials of the Bushehr province, however, said the explosion was connected to "geophysical exploration" in the region, in connection with the construction of a dam.
A spokesperson of Iran's Supreme National Security Council said there was no incident and that people were stirring trouble with such reports. She reportedly said that the Supreme Council declared that reports of a blast near the nuclear plant were just part of an ongoing campaign of psychological warfare against Iran.
Officials at the Russian Embassy in Tehran and at the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy in Moscow -- which is overseeing construction at the Bushehr nuclear plant â reportedly told CNN in a phone interview there had been no explosion at the plant area itself.
Given the normal lack of transparency in Teheran, one may never know what really happened, but it is quite on the cards that the explosion was possibly the result of an American air-mounted para-military (covert) operation, which was meant to demonstrate the US ability to carry out such an operation without being detected and prevented by the Iranians and at the same time convey a message to Teheran and Moscow of the seriousness of the US concerns over the nuclear issue and its determination to put an end to Iranâs clandestine nuclear plans. By making the strike in the same province in which the Russians are constructing the nuclear power stations, but away from the construction site, the Americans could have sought to convey the message without creating any international controversy due to human casualties and other damage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter.
On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 7
million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.
If a US attack on Iran is inevitable, India should join in the festivities, and try to get a share of the oil loot. No Islamic nation should have nuclear weapons anyway.
The Iranian government rejected Europe's proposal for ending the deeply divisive standoff over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme on Saturday, calling it "unacceptable" and not up to Iran's "minimum expectations."
"The European proposals are unacceptable and against the provisions of the Paris agreement. The proposals do not meet Iran's minimum expectations," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said on state radio.
He said the government would send its official rejection to the Europeans within days. The Paris Agreement was reached between Iran and the three European countries, negotiating on behalf of the 25-member European Union.
Under the deal, signed in November in Paris, Iran agreed to continue suspension of uranium enrichment and all related activities incuding uranium conversion until negotiations proceed for a political settlement.
Iran has accused Europeans of wasting time, saying that continued suspension depended on the progress in talks and the European failure to recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium under Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and failure to make progress in talks does not prevent Iran from reopening the Isfahan uranium conversion facility.
European diplomats had on Friday sought to entice Iran into a binding commitment not to build atomic arms by offering to provide fuel and other long-term support to help Iranians generate electricity with nuclear energy. The proposal did not mention the previous agreement that allowed Iran to enrich uranium.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>George "RAMBO" Bush</b>.............................................All Options Open for Iran Nukes By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI, Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM - In a stern warning to   Iran,   President Bush said "all options are on the table" if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, pointedly noting he has already used force to protect U.S. security.
Bush's statement during an interview on Israeli TV late Friday was unusually harsh. He previously said diplomacy should be used to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program and if that failed then the   U.N. Security Council should impose sanctions.
The U.S. government and others fear Iran's nuclear work is secretly designed to produce nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders deny that, saying it is only for the generation of electricity.
In the interview, <b>Bush said the United States and Israel "are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon."</b>
But, he said, if diplomacy fails <b>"all options are on the table."</b>
"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.
Iran's government resumed uranium conversion at its nuclear facility in Isfahan this past week. The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the   International Atomic Energy Agency, responded by issuing a warning to Iran on Thursday that expressed "serious concern" about Iran's intentions.
Bush welcomed the warning, which signaled that the West wanted to give diplomacy time to ease the standoff.
In Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is based, diplomats said Iran faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop uranium conversion or face possible referral to the Security Council, which has the power to impose crippling sanctions. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the IAEA board's proceedings.
Iran, which insists its nuclear program is peaceful, responded with indignation to the IAEA warning.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The latest statement by Iranian President about Israel has indeed put it in a rather isolated spot. Many nations of the EU were earlier reluctant to be very tough with Iran on the nuclear issue. Now the situation has changed, in fact there are very few nations today who are in a position to openly come out in support of Iran. However, in some quarters of the Western media efforts are already on to give the impression that not much significance should be attached to the Iranian President's statement as it is primarily directed towards his domestic audience.
Since the US Presidency is in deep trouble with Grand Jury indictment of one of its senior staff members and other domestic problems, we do not expect any drastic action either by the United States or by Israel. The most important aspect of this development is that none of the Islamic countries including Palestine has cared to endorse the Iranian view. One thing is certain that in the days to come the Iranians will find themselves more and more isolated from the outside world.
India today has very close friendship with Israel and has substantial defense co operation including the supply of many high-tech defense equipment. Therefore, now the Indian diplomacy has to show its real skill in maintaining its principled stand, so that its credibility before the Israel Govt remains intact.
It is understood that Iran has broken the seals put up by IAEA Inspectors and have cecided to go ahead with Nuclear Research. Let us see what happens next.
<b>US goes back to Plan A in Iran nuclear row </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But the patience of US officials with the initiative had clearly worn thin after the Islamic republic announced <b>Tuesday it was resuming sensitive nuclear fuel research suspended for two years.</b>
Washington branded the move a "serious escalation" of the dispute with Iran and said it had begun an intensive round of consultations with its allies and others on the next step.
"If the regime in Iran continues on the current course ... there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the (UN) Security Council," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
US officials had privately made no secret of their skepticism over the "EU-3's" negotiating efforts begun in late 2004 which Washington embraced in March after a European swing by   President George W. Bush.
One senior official, who asked not to be named, acknowledged the support was more of a matter of shoring up trans-Atlantic unity ruptured by the war in   Iraq than a realistic hope the Europeans would succeed.
But the Americans now appear convinced their strategy of letting the talks run their course has borne fruit in highlighting Tehran's intransigence and winning support among countries previously reluctant to act.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said if Tehran had "a lot of diplomatic running room" a year ago, the situation had changed dramatically through "careful diplomacy" by the United States and   European Union.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But even staunch US partners have little stomach for such an operation. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday that "military action is not on our agenda, and I don't believe it's on anyone else's agenda." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think rest of Wetsern world have exhausted every option. New Iran PM is ignoring all pressure. Sharon is very ill.
Now what they are going to do. Sanctions won't work.
<b>US warning after Iran breaks seals at nuclear plant </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Western governments issued stern warnings to Iran to desist from resuming its nuclear research after United Nations monitors in Vienna formally confirmed that the country's scientists had removed seals from materials at its <b>Natanz uranium enrichment plant</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>US sees Iran to Security Council highly likely </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Asked by reporters about Washington's aims in seeking to get Iran referred to the Security Council, McCormack said <b>"we still seek to change Iranian behavior through diplomatic channels."</b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Iran vote against national interest: Fernandes</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"India's vote in IAEA is clearly against our own national interest and breaches the broad national consensus on foreign policy. India has for the first time become a direct party to the designs of the US, to limit the sovereignty of other countries not convenient to it," Fernandes, also NDA Convenor, said in a press conference.
<b>"Iraq was sought to be repeated in Iran and India was this time party to it," </b>he said adding JD(U) would launch a nationwide campaign to oppose the UPA government's decision to vote for taking Iran's nuclear issue to the UN Security Council.
Taking a swipe at the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party in the matter, Fernandes said if their opposition was limited to just making public statements, when they are in a position to reverse the course, the people of India were bound to treat them as <b>"a hypocritical lot trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hound".</b> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
India could have stayed neutral, I don't understand what India will gain?
Left and Congress were against Iraq attack but voted for Iran.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Feb 5 2006, 09:00 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 5 2006, 09:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Iran vote against national interest: Fernandes</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"India's vote in IAEA is clearly against our own national interest and breaches the broad national consensus on foreign policy. India has for the first time become a direct party to the designs of the US, to limit the sovereignty of other countries not convenient to it," Fernandes, also NDA Convenor, said in a press conference.
<b>"Iraq was sought to be repeated in Iran and India was this time party to it," </b>he said adding JD(U) would launch a nationwide campaign to oppose the UPA government's decision to vote for taking Iran's nuclear issue to the UN Security Council.
Taking a swipe at the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party in the matter, Fernandes said if their opposition was limited to just making public statements, when they are in a position to reverse the course, the people of India were bound to treat them as <b>"a hypocritical lot trying to run with the hare and hunt with the hound".</b> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
India could have stayed neutral, I don't understand what India will gain?
Left and Congress were against Iraq attack but voted for Iran.
[right][snapback]46318[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember Mitrokhin reports and pervasive Soviet influence during Indira Gandhi's time.
The history is probably repeating itelf.
Any war has a tremendous cost in lives of innocents i.e children and women. Going to war against a country just because of few lunatics is against humanity. IMO Forced settlements will leave behind seeds for future wars as shown by WWI and WWII.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->