CONTENTS
1. NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
2. BACKGROUND AND NEWS
3. **NEW WAR SCENARIO **
4. AIR STRIKES
5. SEA WAR 
6. GROUND ATTACK
7. PREPARATIONS FOR WAR
8. THE UNITED NATIONS
9. WAR SCENARIOS
=======================================================================================================1. NUCLEAR NON-POLIFERATION TREATY and Iran's position against nuclear weapons Shahab 3
"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."
2. BACKGROUND AND NEWS (in reverse chronological order, latest to earliest)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 5, 2008: US-allied naval strength in the Persian Gulf is now at the highest
level since late 2003, including: Two US carrier strike groups, two US Marine
expeditionary units and one British carrier strike group. On May 4th another
MEU departed San Diego. Speculation is that there will not be a strike on
Iranian nucleafacilities but perhaps on Revolutionary Guard training bases
(which no doubt will be evacuated by then). The possibility of three MEUs
on station in the Gulf has led some to further speculate on their use in capturing
islands in and around the Strait of Hormuz, some of which may have Iranian
Revolutionary Guard bases, including Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb.
For a historical look at these islands go here.
William S. Lind tells us how it might all come about, with disasrous results for America, in Operation Cassandra.
Here's roughly how it might play out. In response to American air and missile strikes on military targets inside Iran, Iran moves to cut the supply lines coming up from the south through the Persian Gulf (can anyone in the Pentagon guess why it's called that?) and Kuwait on which most U.S. Army units in Iraq depend (the Marines get most of their stuff through Jordan). It does so by hitting shipping in the Gulf, mining key choke points, and destroying the port facilities we depend on, mostly through sabotage. It also hits oil production and export facilities in the Gulf region, as a decoy: we focus most of our response on protecting the oil, not guarding our Army's supply lines.
Simultaneously, Iran activates the Shi'ite militias to cut the roads that lead from Kuwait to Baghdad. Both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades – the latter now supposedly our allies – enter the war against us with their full strength. Ayatollah Sistani, an Iranian, calls on all Iraqi Shi'ites to fight the Americans wherever they find them. Instead of fighting the 20 percent of Iraq's population that is Sunni, we find ourselves battling the 60 percent that is Shi'ite. Worse, the Shi'ites' logistics lie directly across those logistics lines coming up from Kuwait.
U.S. Army forces in Iraq begin to run out of supplies, especially POL (petroleum, oil, lubricants), of which they consume a vast amount. Once they are largely immobilized by lack of fuel, and the region gets some bad weather that keeps our aircraft grounded or at least blind, Iran sends two to four regular army armor and mech divisions across the border. Their objective is to pocket American forces in and around Baghdad. etc.
March 21, 2008: Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers has written an article -- "Bush misstates Iran's position on desire for nuclear weapons" -- in which he correctly takes George Bush, the Liar-in-Chief, to task for claims against Iran. But then Landay reverts to the same old false rhetoric that encourages war.
"Bush misstates Iran's position on desire for nuclear weapons"
Landay did get that part right.
Iran's position: "The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons."
Ahmadinejad: "We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings. For that reason, last year in my address to the U.N. General Assembly, I suggested that a committee should be set up in order to disarm all the countries that possess nuclear weapons."
'Israel must be wiped off the map,' although some experts disputed the translation"
The translation has only been "disputed" by Zionist sympathizers. The meaning is clear.
Juan Cole: "Ahmadinejad made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan. The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad). Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."
Leading the misinformation campaign, as it did on Iraq, was the New York Times. Jonathan Steele: "The New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came out on Sunday with a defensive piece attempting to justify its reporter's original "wiped off the map" translation.
"Iran kept its program hidden for 18 years until its disclosure by an Iranian opposition group in 2002"
If Iran really had a nuclear weapons program until 2003 as the new report claims, then why has the IAEA found no evidence of it? Why should we believe that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program at all? Some details of that alleged program, obtained from the hard-drive of a laptop computer, allegedly stolen in Iran in 2004, had been supplied to us a few months later, apparently by the same wonderful folks who had earlier supplied us the "intelligence" on Iraq, obtained by them from "Curveball."
"Tehran has refused to comply with three U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that it suspend the program while the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency completes an investigation"
The resolutions are illegal, and the IAEA doesn't need to "complete an investigation" -- Landay made that up.
ElBaradei: "The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities."
Finally, Landay parroted Bush without comment: "The president reiterated his view that Iran has a right to civilian nuclear power. But, he said, the low-enriched uranium fuel for its reactors should be supplied by Russia."
Bush's view is irrelevant. Landay should know, and should have reported, that Iran has an absolute right to nuclear energy and is not bound to obtain fuel from anyone else.
NPT: "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty."
Iran’s Sisyphean
Task by Gordon Prather
The new IEA report is out (pdf).
from Farideh Farhi: In this report the Agency once again states unambiguously that it “has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.” It also states that on the issues of Polonium-210 experiments and Gchine mine, contamination at a technical university and procurement of a former head of Iran’s Physics Research Center (PHRC). Hence, the conclusion: “the Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage,” repeated by ElBaradei’s in different words . . .“we have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran’s enrichment program."
more from Farhi: The report also suggests that Iran has effectively and voluntarily implemented the Additional Protocol in the past few months, allowing the IAEA extensive inspections and access. But as discussed by Mohammad ElBaradei in the IAEA video, as well as in the report, this voluntarily implementation on a short terms basis is not sufficient for IAEA’s purposes of monitoring Iran’s present declared program. IAEA wants Iran to sign the Additional Protocol. Iran has said that its previous offer of signing the protocol is no longer on the table so long as Iran’s case at the UN Security Council. In short, Iran’s position is that it cannot be forced to sign an international agreement but it may consider doing so if the Western countries begin treating Iran’s nuclear program in the same way they treat other country’s nuclear programs. This position will be maintained even more steadfastly now that almost all the outstanding issues about Iran’s declared program have been resolved.
Iran announced December 25th (2007) that Russia would supply S-300 air missile defense systems to the Islamic republic. Earlier this year Moscow frustrated Washington by delivering to Tehran 29 TOR-M1 air defense missile systems, in a deal estimated to be worth 700 million dollars. Iranian state media touted the S-300 as an even more sophisticated system than the TOR-M1, saying it could hit incoming enemy targets at a greater altitude. Iran said in January it had successfully test fired the TOR-M1./// UPDATE: Denial from Russia.
The new National Intelligence Estimate on the Iran nuclear program. "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.".
from Iran Affairs: Iran NIE report - Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
If the 2005 NIE report was wrong when it claimed with "high confidence" that Iran had a active nuclear weapons program, why should the 2007 NIE be any more credible when it claims that Iran had a nuclear weapons program until 2003? If Iran really had a nuclear weapons program until 2003 as the new report claims, then why has the IAEA found no evidence of it? Why should we believe that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program at all?
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council prepared a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Irans nuclear program entitled, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities.
The previous NIE report issued in 2005 stated with "high confidence" that Iran had an active and on-going nuclear weapons program - but no actual evidence of that ever turned up. So now, the 2007 NIE report disowns that claim, and instead asserts that Iran used to have a nuclear weapons program until 2003, and could decide to restart it someday.
So here's my obvious question to the Director of National Intelligence: were you lying then, or are you lying now? If you were so wrong in the last report, why should anyone believe your latest report?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From ThinkProgress, some of the Bush administration false claims about Iran:
“So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.” [Bush, 10/17/07]
“Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. … The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences.” [Cheney, 10/21/07]
“The problem is Iran, and Iran has not stepped back from trying to pursue a nuclear weapon, and — or reprocessing and enriching uranium, which would lead to a nuclear weapon.” [White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, 10/26/07]
“We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace.” [Bush, 11/7/07]
“We’re in a position now, clearly, especially when we look at Iran, where it’s very, very important we succeed in our efforts, our national security efforts, to discourage the Iranians from enriching uranium and producing nuclear weapons.” [Cheney, 11/9/07]
“We are convinced that they are developing nuclear weapons.” [Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, 11/13/07]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US presidential candidates on Iran.
McClatchy Q & A forum on Iran.
The November 15th IAEA Report is out.
According to the report, "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities.” The IAEA report also states that “since early 2006 [this is when Iran suspended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol due to UN Security Council initiated sanctions against Iran], the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, pursuant the Additional Protocol and as a transparency measure. As result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current programme is diminishing.”
On the remaining major issues relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclear program, however, the report paints a cooperative picture of Iran and states: “The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided on the declared past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programmes are consistent with its findings. The Agency will, however, continue to seek corroboration and is continuing to verify the completeness of Iran’s declarations.”
Also positively reported is Iran’s level of cooperation. The report explicitly states that “Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on issues raised in the context of the work plan. However its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive.”
Finally, the IAEA is also quite explicit that “the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities.”
Farideh Farhi (Global Affairs Blog) notes that the US media has slanted the news in favor of war (again). Farhi:
The New York Times, in a piece entitled “Report Raises New Doubts on Iran’s Nuclear Program,” reports that the Agency “said in a report on Thursday that Iran had made new but incomplete disclosures about its past nuclear activities, missing a critical deadline under an agreement with the agency and virtually assuring a new push by the United States to impose stricter international sanctions.” No where in text of this piece, however, there is anything about what these “new doubts” are or where exactly the report has said that a critical deadline has been passed. Also not referred to are the explicit statements about non-diversion of nuclear material and consistency with the Agency’s findings.
The piece goes on to say, “the report made clear that even while providing some answers, Iran has continued to shield many aspects of its nuclear program.” The report says no such thing but the NYT piece takes the report’s reference to Iran’s “reactive rather than proactive” cooperation, mentioned in the paragraph about Iran’s “sufficient” and “timely” cooperation with the work plan, along with the suspension of the Additional Protocol (calling it instead “restrictions Iran has placed on inspectors”) as the reasons for why the “agency’s understanding of the full scope of Iran’s nuclear program is diminishing” and represents this as a "shielding" by Iran.
The Associated Press’ heading is “IAEA: Iran Not Open About Nuke Program,” while the opening of the piece is: “The U.S. called for new sanctions against Iran after a U.N. report Thursday that said the Tehran regime has been generally truthful about key aspects of its past nuclear activities, but is continuing to enrich uranium.”
After several changes in the Internet versions, the Washington Post’s heading ended up slightly less provocative (“U.S. to Seek New Sanctions against Iran: UN Report Faults Tehran’s Input on Nuclear Program”). But the text begins by saying “The Bush administration plans to push for new sanctions against Iran after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported yesterday that Tehran is providing "diminishing" information about its controversial nuclear program, U.S. officials said. In a critically timed assessment, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran provided "timely" and helpful new information on a secret program that became public in 2002, but that it did not fully answer questions or allow full access to Iranian personnel. Iran is even less cooperative on its current program, the IAEA reported.” This reporting is not only flatly wrong regarding what the report said about full access to Iranian personnel but also completely mum, like the reporting from AP and NYT, about the reasons for the “diminishing” information (the suspension of the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol which was instigated by the Security Council action).
end of Farhi report
----------------------------------
US naval vulnerability in the Persian Gulf
Putin: An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.
M.J. Rosenberg: In 2002-2003, the Bush administration had the opportunity
to settle our differences with the Iranians and, almost simultaneously,
to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rice and Powell were interested
(why wouldn't they be?). But then the neocons got wind of what was happening
and prevailed on Bush to rebuff both peace overtures.It's an incredible
story.--
The Secret History
of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to
Know--Esquire
Iran and Syria on U.S. Nuclear Hit List
The Lieberman-Kyle amendment has just passed the Senate overwhelmingly. In a 76-22 vote Wednesday [Sep 26], senators approved a non-binding amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill that called for the administration of President George W. Bush to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) "a foreign terrorist organization." It endorses a set of "findings" that are fundamentally false and which are being used by the administration to lay the groundwork for a more aggressive policy toward Iran.
Tehran, Sept 20, IRNA & Press TV - Two fighter planes from the Azarakhsh (Thunder) fighter generation were successfully tested in Tehran at the presence of Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar Thursday morning. The fighter planes, named Saeqeh (Thunderbolt), are the second type of Azarakhsh fighters. They were tested by pilots of the Army's air force during a ceremony at Tehran Mehrabad International Airport.
Iran has unveiled a new long-range missile among an array of armaments displayed in an annual military parade commemorating the country's 1980-88 war with Iraq. The missile, known as the Ghadr - meaning power - has a 1,800km range, officials say, putting US military bases in the Gulf within range. Experts say the missile appears to be an upgrade of Iran's existing long-range missile, the Shahab-3, which has a 1,300km range, according to Tehran.
"I would not talk about any use of force," said Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in an indirect response to French warnings that the world had to be prepared for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons. Saying only the UN Security Council could authorize the use of force, ElBaradei urged the world to remember Iraq before considering any similar action against Teheran. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons," he told reporters.
, Mohamed
ElBaradei .... . . . . .Shahab 3 missile
"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the
Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only
be the first reaction." According to the report, dozens of locations
throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.
The Shihab missile has a range of 1,300 km, and can reach anywhere in Israel.
However, DEBKAfile’s military sources assert that Iran does not have
as many as 600 Shehab-3 missiles capable of a simultaneous barrage - as
threatened on an Iranian Web site Monday - nor sufficient launchers to fire
that number. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that what Iran does
have is several dozen Shehab-3 missiles fitted with new warheads containing
thousands of tiny cluster bombs. Since early summer, they have been pointed
at Israel’s Negev desert nuclear reactor at Dimona and US military
targets in the Gulf and Iraq, in the hope of deterring the US and Israel
from attacking Iran and Syria. The US and Israel have since upgraded their
defenses for intercepting the new Iranian missiles. The Iranians also have
Scud-C missiles. The range of the Scud-C would enable it to hit the main
population centers of the Gulf Arab states and Iraq.
Was Israeli raid on Syria a dry run for attack on Iran? Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Operation Orchard can be seen as a dry run, a raid using the same heavily modified long-range aircraft, procured specifically from the US with Iran's nuclear sites in mind.
It's all about domination of the Midle East: "If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened . . .Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region."--President Bush, Sep 13, 2007
Israel's Jewish Problem in Tehran--So why hasn't Iran started by wiping its own Jews off the map?
The B-2 bomber is being modified to carry bunker-buster bombs.
Did Iran threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map"? Or commit genocide, as the recent House bill charges? Go here, here, here, and here for some answers.
"We in Iran don't need this quarrel."--Javad Zarif , Iran ambassador to the United States
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Some history on Iran's fruitless diplomatic attempts:
(1) In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue
(2) 2003 Memo Says Iranian Leaders Backed Talks
(3) Sideshows on Iran's frogmarch to the UN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From Defense Tech (May 3, 2007):
The IAF vs Iran's Nuke Complex
Some of the good folks at MIT have just figured how many bombs it would take for the Israeli Air Force to blow up Iran's entire nuclear weapons infrastructure. Apparently, it isn't so hard after all.
For those keeping score at home, here's what the Israelis would need:
(24) 5,000-pound BLU-113 penetrator warheads to collapse the underground centrifuge halls at Natanz
(2) 2,000-pound bombs to destroy the above ground pilot production plant at Natanz
(12) 2,000-pound BLU-109 penetrator warheads to blow up the underground uranium conversion facility at Esfahan
(10) 2,000-pound GBU-10 laser guided bombs to hit the heavy water production plant and reactor site at Arak
But, according to the MIT report, there is one major catch: the air strike on Natanz could fail if Iran's air defenses succeed in downing only two of the IAF's strike package of 24 F-15Is if each is loaded with a single BLU-113.
MIT concludes, however:
"The foregoing assessment is far from definitive in its evaluation of Israeli military potential. However it does seem to indicate that the IAF, after years of modernization, now possesses the capability to destroy even well-hardened targets in Iran with some degree of confidence. The operation appears to be no more risky than the earlier attack on Osirak and provides at least as much benefit in terms of delaying Iranian development of nuclear weapons."
(You can read the entire study here.)
Comment: Thanks to the "good folks at MIT" for going the extra mile. That's what government-subsidized universities are for, isn't it?
-------------------------------------------------------
DefenseNews.com, March 5: The initial strike could come from stealth Air Force fighters and bombers and cruise missiles launched from B-52Hs, Navy submarines and surface warships. The attacks could center on command-and-control centers, anti-aircraft sites and other targets that pose a threat to follow-on strikes by nonstealth bombers and fighters. The Air Force bombers could fly nonstop from their home bases in the United States, while Air Force fighters would have to be launched from bases within the region. The Air Force already has fighters based in Iraq, Afghanistan and along the western Arabian Gulf. The Air Force and Navy bombs, like the cruise missiles, would all be precision-guided in an effort to minimize unnecessary deaths and collateral damage at dual-use facilities or those located amid civilian populations. . . . more.
ElBaradei 2/28: Iran is still fuve to ten years away from developing a weapon.
NewUS intel chief McConnell 2/27/07: "While our information is incomplete, we estimate that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon by early to mid next decade."
IAEA releases report on Iran's nuclear program--February 23, 2007
Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei sent his report on Iran's compliance with demands that it halt sensitive nuclear fuel work, to the 35-nation Board of Governors as well as to the UN Security Council, diplomats at IAEA told Xinhua on Thursday.
ElBaradei said in his report that Iran had refused to suspend its uranium-enrichment related activities as demanded by the UN Security Council.
In the eagerly awaited report, ElBaradei also said that due to the Islamic republic's lack of cooperation, IAEA was still unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify fully the past development of Iran's nuclear program.
Furthermore, the report confirmed that Iran had already installed two cascades of 164 centrifuges in its Natanz enrichment plant, to expand research-level enrichment into industrial scale, and it is said another two cascades were close to completion in Iran.
"It has also continued with the construction of the Fuel Enrichment Plant, including installation of cascades, and has transferred UF-6 to the plant," said the report.
And it also said that without more cooperation and transparency from the Islamic republic, the IAEA will be unlikely to realize the peaceful goal in the future.
Iran reiterates refusal to halt enrichment despite IAEA report, U.S. warning
Iran reiterated its refusal to halt uranium enrichment on Thursday [Feb 22, 2007], a day after the deadline set by the United Nations (UN), regardless of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei's report on its defiance and Washington's warning of further punishment.
"Iran considers that a suspension of uranium is contradictory to its rights, the (Nuclear) Non-Proliferation Treaty and to international regulations," said deputy chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Mohammad Saeedi, the official IRNA news agency reported.
Therefore Iran can not accept UN Security Council Resolution 1737 that demands a suspension of uranium enrichment by Wednesday, he said.
--------------------------From Antiwar.com (16 Feb 07):
Last week, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC) naval and air forces staged a military maneuver in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman near the Hormuz Strait to test-fire the newly acquired, Russian-made TOR M-1 surface-to-air defense shield, claimed to be short-range by the manufacturer.
The military exercise held by IRGC's air wing and code-named "Saeqeh" (Thunderbolt) was designed to boost air defense and counterattack "any possible" offensive against the Iranian airspace, Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami, the commander, was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.
The TOR M-1 air defense shield has a 12 km range which could be increased to 20 km, Salami said and added that it is capable of rapidly tracking down 48 targets and engaging with eight, including cruise missiles simultaneously. The system, capable of tracing modern Cruise missiles, was successfully test-fired on the first of the two-day maneuvers, Salami said.
----------------------------Tehran, Feb 8, IRNA
The IRGC's Naval Force deputy commander pointed out that during the special sea war game of Ra'd, the tactical missiles of FL6 and FL10 missiles with the shooting range of 15-40 kilometers, HY2 missiles carrying a strong warhead with the range of 85 km, Noor missiles with the range of 120-180 km, and the strategic SSN4 missiles with the range of 350 km were all successfully experimented nd the strategic defensive power and readiness were put on display once more.
--------------------------------
Press Releases 2007/01-- Statement by IAEA Spokesperson, Melissa Fleming on Iran
22 January 2007 | "Details of inspector designation is a confidential matter between the IAEA and the country concerned. In this case, we are discussing with Iran its request for withdrawing the designation of certain safeguards inspectors.
It should be noted however, that there are a sufficient number of inspectors designated for Iran and the IAEA is able to perform its inspection activities in accordance with Iran´s Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement."
Dr. ElBaradei Calls for "Timeout" on Iran Nuclear Issue
In an interview with CNN among other international media in Davos 26 January, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei called for a "timeout regarding the Iranian nuclear issue", saying he hoped talks could resume on the matter. He said the timeout would apply to both Iran´s nuclear programme and the UN Security Council sanctions that took effect last month.
"I call on all parties to take a simultaneous timeout," Dr. ElBaradei said. "Iran should take a timeout from its enrichment activity, the international community a timeout from the application of sanctions, and parties should go immediately to the negotiating table."
The United States and European allies have dismissed the proposal as well-meaning but superfluous. . . Tehran now says -- and IAEA inspectors confirm -- that it is poised to ramp up enrichment from an experimental stage -- some 330 centrifuges -- to "industrial scale" by rigging up 3,000 in a vast hall at its flagship Natanz nuclear plant. . . If run in unison nonstop for long periods, 3,000 could enrich enough uranium for at least one warhead within a year. The United States and Israel have voiced concern that 3,000 centrifuges will bring Iran to the nuclear "point of no return". . . "Everyone (except U.S. hawks) is concerned that the lack of negotiation, the U.S. (force) surge in Iraq and the policy of basically targeting Iranians in Iraq give us all the ingredients of a hell of a war in the near future," said Trita Parsi, a U.S.-based Iranian political analyst and author. http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_20440.shtml
The United States is dispatching a second carrier task force to the Gulf -- the USS John C. Stennis -- to back up the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. It will be the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 that the United States has two carrier battle groups in the Gulf region. . .President George W. Bush authorized American forces in Iraq to pursue Iranian operatives involved in aiding Iraqi insurgents involved in hostile actions against American forces in Iraq. And earlier this week the Bush administration said it would prevent Iran from acquiring spare parts for its ageing U.S.-made F-14 fighter planes, the backbone of the Iranian air force. http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_20451.shtml
Professor Juan Cole: The danger of Bush's anti-Iran Fatwa
Analysis: Iran's growing array of missiles
COMMENT: Read "The March to War," take a look at #5. SEA WAR and then imagine the consequences of one or more US ships being sunk attendant to an air strike on Iran.
Meet the "Whack Iran" Lobby-- News: Exiles peddling shaky intelligence, advocacy groups pressing for regime change, neocons bent on remaking the Middle East. Sound familiar?
Iran is China's key to the Middle East China's decision to send 1,000 soldiers to southern Lebanon with the United Nations peacekeeping mission is the latest example of Beijing's increased involvement in the Middle East. The overall importance of the broader Middle East for China's geostrategy is growing. China is searching for new regional allies because it wants to pursue strategic aims such as gaining privileged access to crude-oil reserves, finding new markets for its products and technology, and competing with the United States.
Oh, goody: accidental nuclear war.
HOW AN ATTACK WOULD UNFOLD according to a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer
U.S.: Iran navy not prepping for war
The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Iran announces the mass production of a new artillery gun. Also in this article is information on other new Iranian armament and weapons.
The propaganda elevates: "Iranian Government Behind Shipping Weapons to Iraq" says a US Major General, without offering any proof. This follows statements from a Pentagon Brigadier General last month. “Iran is definitely a destabilizing force in Iraq,” General Barbero said during an Aug. 23 Pentagon news conference. “I think it's irrefutable that Iran is responsible for training, funding and equipping some of these Shiia extremist groups and also providing advanced (improvised explosive device) technology to them, and there's clear evidence of that.” But of course this evidence, like that showing that the Iran government is shipping weapons to Iraq, was only clear to the warmongers as it was not offered to anyone else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------BUSH ON IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM
Worldwide diplomatic efforts are concentrating on getting Iran to end its nuclear program, Bush said. "Our strategy is to present and hold together a united front to say to the Iranians, 'Your designs to have a nuclear weapon or your desire to have the capability of making a nuclear weapon is unacceptable,'" he said. Bush said the world's message to Iran is to become part of the family of nations and give up nuclear weapons ambitions. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/20060130_4048.html
THE WORLD'S MESSAGE, HE SAID? BUSH'S WORLD: THE UK, GERMANY AND MAYBE FRANCE.
THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is a permanent intergovernmental international organisation proclaimed in Shanghai on June 15, 2001 by six countries - People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Tajikistan and Republic of Uzbekistan. It was established on the basis of the "Shanghai Five" mechanism. The main purposes of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are: strengthening mutual trust and good-neighborly relations among member states; promoting their effective cooperation in political affairs, economy and trade, scientific-technical, cultural, and educational spheres as well as in energy, transportation, tourism, and environment protection fields; joint safeguarding and presenting regional peace, security and stability; striving towards creation of democratic, just, reasonable new international political and economic order. . . The total area occupied by the SCO member states is about 30 million 189 thousand square kilometres, or about three fifth the territory of Eurasia, with a population of 1.455 billion people, or about a quarter of total population of the world. http://www.sectsco.org
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which maintained it had no plans for expansion, is now changing course. Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan, which previously had observer status, will become full members. SCO's decision to welcome Iran into its fold constitutes a political statement. Conceivably, SCO would now proceed to adopt a common position on the Iran nuclear issue at its summit meeting June 15. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD18Ad02.html
RUSSIA
Russia's nuclear chief said Monday that a Russian-built nuclear plant in Iran would be commissioned in the autumn of 2007, a news agency reported. Federal Nuclear Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko told reporters in Vienna that the "physical launch" of the nuclear reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant would take place in September 2007, and that the plant would come online in November 2007, the Interfax news agency reported. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913654227&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
CHINA
With Iran's nuclear enrichment program at the center of high-stakes multinational negotiations, China is in the awkward position of passing judgment in the U.N. Security Council on the very technology it helped the Islamic republic accumulate.For more than a decade, starting in 1984, China aided Iran with its fledgling nuclear program. Although Beijing no longer is providing such assistance, Tehran's weapons program would be far less sophisticated had it not received significant Chinese help. That assistance included training Iranian scientists, helping to build facilities, and direct military aid and hardware sales, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based research group. China also supplied Iran's first nuclear reactor in 1991, in addition to hardware and support. . . In the past five years, China and Iran have significantly deepened and expanded their economic ties. That two-way trade totaled $6 billion in the first half of 2006, more than double the annual trade just five years ago. China, a burgeoning economic superpower whose 10.9 percent growth last year made it the world's fourth-largest economy, has an unceasing appetite for energy. In part thanks to major deals reached in the past three years, Iran now supplies 11 to 13 percent of China's oil, according to government and analyst estimates. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/18/MNGJPL7MQ41.DTL
INDIA
On his discussions with Iranian President Ahmedinejad, Dr. Singh said the two countries had centuries-old civilisational ties. There had arisen some misunderstanding over one vote, but that was now a thing of the past. Iran was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and had all the rights as a member to the peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy as well as the obligations under the treaty. If doubts arose whether the obligations had been fulfilled, they had to be resolved through a dialogue and discussion. http://www.hindu.com/2006/09/19/stories/2006091909251000.htm
THE NONALIGNED MOVEMENT
Composed of 115 states, including: Egypt, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan. Syria, Kuwait, Palestine, Pakistan and South Africa. http://www.nam.gov.za/background/members.htm
- A summit of the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) has ended in the Cuban capital, Havana, with Iran winning solid support in its nuclear row with the West. The document also opposes terrorism and urges reform of the United Nations to give poor countries' greater power. Perhaps most topically, the 92-page final declaration adopted unanimously by leaders from 118 states supports Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. . . Bilateral discussions continued after the summit, with two of its most prominent participants, Iran's President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's President Chavez, meeting in Caracas. Among 20 commercial agreements to be signed during the meeting are plans to set up a joint petrochemical company; to produce bricks, cement, bicycles, and cars; and for Iran to help train Venezuelan metallurgical workers. Chavez and Ahmadinejad have already agreed to explore for oil and natural gas in Venezuela, and the two presidents are due on September 18 to visit an oil field for a ceremony marking the start of joint drilling. Venezuela and Iran have agreed to set up a $200 million investment fund and Iran has agreed to build 10,000 homes in Venezuela. The two countries' efforts to forge closer ties reflect their frosty relations with Washington. Chavez has defended Iran's nuclear program, a point he again underlined at the NAM summit. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/09/13c06751-5872-4ec2-8aac-a1e738b11c29.html
-------------------------------------------------------------Exclusive Time Magazine interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Hoekstra-Harman Hoax ". . . the 'weapons grade' enrichment described by [Reps.] Hoekstra-Harman as occurring at Natanz is a complete fabrication."
August 31: Examining Iran's Nuclear Progress
News: President inaugurates Arak heavy water plant Arak, Markazi Prov, Aug 26--President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday inaugurated a heavy water plant in this central provincial capital. The president inspected various units of the plant and unveiled a memorial tablet. Except for Iran, only eight countries have mastered the technology for producing a product of this kind. Construction work on the plant began in 1998. The plant can function for various purposes including treatment of cancer and AIDS. The heavy water produced can also be used as a cooling fluid for nuclear reactors. Heavy water is 10 percent heavier than ordinary water.
Noam Chomsky with a short history of US/Iran nuclear relations.
Michael Klare: Iran is the immediate US objective in the larger struggle against Russia and China.
The Pentagon has established an Iran Directorate.
According to an Israeli general who planned the demolition of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981: "One U.S. stealth plane, an F-117 or a B-2, can "drop its bombs (and) accurately destroy the targets the planners decided it should destroy... (It could) enter Iran, leave Iran, and the Iranians won't know it is there."
According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the use of "bunker busting" nuclear weapons would affect millions of people.(pdf)
Again--could bird flu be a cause for war?
It is often said that Ahmadinejad is more dangerous because he is a millenarian, i.e. he believes in the near advent of the messianic Twelfth Imam, the promised one of the Shiites. But in fact, most millenarians are fatalists, and are willing to wait passively for God's will to intervene in history. So, his belief in the near advent of the last days may actually make him less dangerous than a practical, hardnosed secularist might be. Besides, he cannot be dangerous if he is not a commander of the armed forces, which the president in Iran is not.
Although Peres says that Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel, he did not in fact menace Israel with a military attack. Ahmadinejad views Israel the way President Gerald Ford viewed the Soviet Union. He wishes it would vanish as a regime, but he is not prepared to launch a military attack to accomplish that goal. Since Iran sits in the United Nations with Israel, Ahmadinejad is in contravention of the UN charter in rejecting Israel's legitimacy. But wishing a regime would fall is not the same thing as militarily attacking it.
Comments by Juan Cole, May 11: "Israel's military chief of staff, General Dan Halutz, told Deputy PM Shimon Peres to cool it with the threats against Iran. He appears to be worried that belligerant talk from Israel will harm attempts by the Europeans to get Iran to give up its civilian nuclear research program.
Attack Iran because of "nukes," oil or natural gas?
Strikes on Iran too risky, US General Says
April 29th: In the face of U.S. counter-requests, Russia will proceed with its sale to Iran of anti-aircraft missile systems.(more below)
April 28th: The IAEA sends its report to the UN Security Council. Unfortunately the report is confidential and is not posted at the IAEA website. The best we have is a BBC report that includes excerpts. They indicate that Iran has done nothing wrong and was providing more access to its program than required by law until the United States starting threatening Iran with military action in February 2006. "All the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. . . Iran continues to facilitate the implementation of the Safeguards Agreement and had, until February 2006, acted on a voluntary basis as if the Additional Protocol were in force. Until February 2006, Iran had also agreed to some transparency measures requested by the Agency, including access to certain military sites. . . .Additional transparency measures, including access to documentation, dual use equipment and relevant individuals, are, however, still needed for the Agency to be able to verify the scope and nature of Iran's enrichment program, the purpose and use of the dual use equipment and materials purchased by the PHRC [Physics Research Centre], and the alleged studies which could have a military nuclear dimension."
April 26th: The House passes the Iran Freedom Support Act 297-21 (roll call here) advocating regime change in Iran (memories of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act). This is a lot of nonsense including the following: "It is the sense of Congress that, upon publication of a list in the relevant Federal Register under subsection (b), there should be, to the extent consistent with the legal and fiduciary duties otherwise imposed on them, no future investment in any entity included on the list by managers of United States Government pension plans or thrift savings plans, managers of pension plans maintained in the private sector by plan sponsors in the United States, and managers of mutual funds sold or distributed in the United States. . . . United States investors have a great deal at stake in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." Go here to see the bill--you need to enter the bill's name and click on the bill that was passed by the house.
US Intel Chief Says Iran still years Away from having nukes.
Also: From Wikipedia: 'The Middle East Media Research Institute, abbreviated MEMRI [...] is a nonprofit organization located in Washington DC, with branch offices in Jerusalem, Berlin, Brussels, Moscow, and London, and a Media Center in Jerusalem. MEMRI provides English translations of Arabic, Persian or Farsi, and Hebrew media as well as original analyses of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. MEMRI was founded in February 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser. The organisation became more prominent after the September 11, 2001 attacks, due to increased Western public interest in Arab and Iranian affairs. At that time, it expanded its staff considerably, setting up new branches abroad in early 2002. More growth and expansion of focus was experienced during the Iraq war, as media activity increased in that area. MEMRI is one of the few free sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian or Farsi. MEMRI publishes their translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on their Web site. They also distribute them, "free of charge, by fax and email" to anyone who asks for them. MEMRI is regularly quoted by major American newspapers, and has both supporters and detractors in the international press.' Isn't there a saying, something like: 'Beware what is free (of charge)'? About Yigal Carmon (also from Wikipedia): 'During his time in Military Intelligence, he became a senior officer of its Unit 504, a small secret unit dedicated to human intelligence which was particularly active in Lebanon and administers Facility 1391, a prison described by critics as "Israel's Guantanamo".'
William M. Arkin reports: The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been conducting theater campaign analysis for a full scale war with Iran since at least May 2003, responding to Pentagon directions to prepare for potential operations in the "near term." The campaign analysis, called TIRANNT [get it?], for "theater Iran near term," posits an Iraq-like maneuver war between U.S. and Iranian ground forces and incorporates lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition to the TIRANNT effort and the Marine Corps Karona invasion scenario I discussed yesterday, the military has also completed an analysis of Iran's missile force (the "BMD-I" study), the Defense Intelligence Agency has updated "threat data" for Iranian forces, and Air Force planners have modeled attacks against "real world" Iranian air defenses and targets to establish new metrics. What is more, the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran.
Various comments on why there are NO good military options in Iran.
Seymour Hersh: Planning for War to include the nuclear option. Perhaps a new variation of the Madman Theory?
NEWS ITEM (April 8): The U.S. is refusing to talk to Iran.
NEWS ITEM: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei said here Thursday (April 6, 2006) his agency has not seen any indication that nuclear material in Iran has been diverted or is being diverted to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran To Stage Massive Gulf Military Maneuver
U.N. Atomic Energy chief Mohammed ElBaradei urged the international community Thursday to steer away from threats of sanctions against Iran to prevent the dispute over the country's nuclear intentions from spiraling out of control. ElBaradei, speaking in Doha, emphasized that Iran is not "an imminent threat" and urged countries to "lower the pitch" in their effort to stop Iran's nuclear work.
quotes here
29 March 2006 -- Expressing serious concern that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran, the United Nations Security Council today called upon that country to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, in a manner that is verified by the agency. To monitor Iranian compliance with its requirements, the Council requested a report from the IAEA in 30 days.
Could Bird Flu be a reason for war?
UN Security Council calls on Iran to suspend enrichment-related activities:
Prather on failed diplomacy.
Iran and Irrational Security Strategy by Jeff Huber
Good overview of Iran situation
http://www.lewrockwell.com/featherstone/featherstone53.html
Charles Featherstone: "Well, it seems we are truly slouching -- stumbling drunkenly, actually -- toward war with Iran. While I've hemmed and hawed on the subject, it seems at this point that Team Bush will, sometime before the fall (and possibly as soon as the summer), attack Iran. It appears as inevitable as the coming of spring or the raising of the federal debt limit. The war, if it comes, will not be fought because Iran is trying to create a euro-denominated spot and futures market for oil. Nor will it come because Iran is allegedly pursuing nuclear weapons, though that will be the excuse given at forums in New York, in salons across Europe, and at angry, hectoring press conferences here in Mordor-on-the-Potomac. No, the real reason the United States will wage war on Iran is because the Bush Jong Il régime will decide the only way to save face and withdraw from Iraq with some "dignity" in fact is to bomb Iran."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060313_fishing_for_a_pretext_in_iran/
The United States geo-political ojectives apparently are to: (1) bring India, a former leader of non-aligned nations, under the US empire umbrella, as a counter-balance to China, and (2) isolate and dominate Iran, while controlling the output of the second largest producing oilfields in the world, a prime supplier of China and Japan. Thus the nuclear issue becomes a cover for geo-political objectives.
Juan Cole: "A U.S.-installed regime in Iran would hold out the promise of returning to the halcyon 1960s, when the shah was an American puppet in the region. The nuclear issue is for the most part a pretext for the Americans to exert pressure on the regime in Tehran. This is not to say that proliferation is not a worrisome issue, or that it can be ruled out that Iran wants a bomb. It is to say that the situation simply has not reached the point of crisis."
NEWS ITEM: US President George W Bush has used India's so-called untarnished non-proliferation record as a basis for sealing a civilian nuclear deal with New Delhi last week. But the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a private group in Washington, said in a report yesterday it "has uncovered a well-developed, active, and secret Indian program to outfit its uranium enrichment program and circumvent other countries' export control efforts". Uranium enrichment is used as fuel for nuclear reactors but can - in highly refined form - be the fissile core of an atom bomb. "Indian procurement methods for its nuclear program leak sensitive nuclear technology," said the report, co-authored by ISIS President David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18427581-401,00.html?from=rss
http://www.voltairenet.org/article135371.html
The Bush administration recently has twice unilaterally repealed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), first by offering valuable nuclear technology to India (an NPT non-signer) despite its illegal nuclear weapons development, and secondly by demanding that Iran (an NPT signer) cease all uranium enrichment. This action toward Iran overturns the central principle of the treaty which provides states with the "inalienable right" (NPT phrase) to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Two years of intrusive inspections by the UN watchdog agency (IAEA) have never produced "any evidence of nuclear weapons programs" or any diversion of nuclear material. Nevertheless, the US insists that Iran be deprived of the same right that is afforded to every other signatory of the NPT and even to favored non-signatorys like India and Israel.
Iran today aims at becoming the driving force of the Movement of Non Aligned Countries, which is currently in a revitalization stage. Iran wants to share its current demand with others and to succeed in exercising their right to develop a civil nuclear industry, not only for its own people but also for all the others. Thus, far from being exclusively linked to Iran’s future, the current political game has to do with international balance and US ambitions, confirmed during President Bush’s most recent speech on the State of the Union, to control the world.
========================================================================================================3. NEW WAR SCENARIO
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
IranFlashPoints
4. AIR STRIKES
The German news agency DDP cited German media: U.S. prepares Iran strike
"Western security sources" to claim that CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkey's premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. Goss, who visited Ankara and met Erdogan on Dec. 12, was also reported to have to have asked for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...0-112208-8968r
Target Iran - Air Strikes
One potential military option that would be available to the United States includes the use of air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and missile stes. In all, there are perhaps two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran. The 1000-megawatt nuclear plant Bushehr would likely be the target of such strikes. According to the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, the spent fuel from this facility would be capable of producing 50 to 75 bombs. Also, the suspected nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak will likely be targets of an air attack.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey. Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... " In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."
Joint Functional Component Command for Space and Global Strike (JFCC-SGS) Established in January 2005, JFCC SGS optimizes operational-level planning, execution, and force management for the USSTRATCOM mission of deterring attacks against the United States. When directed, JFCC SGS integrates all elements of military power in collaboration with all STRATCOM components, National Agencies, and other Combatant Commanders to support or execute Space and Global Strike operations.
http://www.stratcom.mil/fact_sheets/fact_sgs.html
CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022 JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea. The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.' 'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)
The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran. The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.
Pentagon air chiefs have helped set up an air warfare centre in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where Gulf nations are training their fighter pilots and America has big bases. It is modelled on the US Air Force warfare centre at Nellis air force base in Nevada. Jordan and the UAE have both taken part in combined exercises designed to make sure their air forces can fly, and fight, together and with American jets.
Suggested reading: http://www.rense.com/general69/nuke.htm
IRANIAN AIR FORCE
There are reports of a pending sale of large numbers of advanced Russian fighters and tanker aircraft to Iran. The arms deal between the Rosoboronexport arms group and the Iranian government is said to provide for the sale of 250 Su-30MKM Flanker multi-role “fighters” and 20 Il-78MKI Midas aerial tankers. If these numbers are correct, this would be the largest Russian arms deal in about three decades, amounting to several tens of billions of dollars. (Aug 5, 2007) photo
The Su-30 is now flown by the air forces of China, India, Malaysia, Russia, and Vietnam. In February 2004, U.S. Air Force pilots flying the F-15C Eagle fought against Indian pilots in an exercise with several types of fighter aircraft participating, including the Su-30. The U.S. pilots lost the exercise, named "Cope India." However, the U.S. pilots did fight against odds of 3:1 and the F-15s did not use their AN/APG-63(V)2 electronically scanned array radars nor did they simulate using the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. Still, the effectiveness of the Indian Su-30s did surprise many American observers.
As Western military officers plot the potential strike ranges for Su-30s based in Iran, they note that the aircraft could reach targets throughout the Middle East, including Israel. In-flight refueling, of course, would permit heavier weapons loads as well as greater ranges.
The web site MilitaryPeriscope.com shows that the Iranian Air Force currently flies about 285 fighter and attack aircraft:
65 F-4D/E Phantom fighter-attack
60+ F-5E Tiger II fighter
25 F-14A Tomcat fighter
24 Shenyang F-7M attack/trainer
24 F-7 (Chinese MiG-19 Farmer type) fighter
29 MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter-attack
30 Su-24MK Fencer fighter-attack
7 Su-25 Frogfoot attack
24 Mirage F1EQ fighter
The Su-30 acquisition would probably lead to the United States selling more advanced fighter-type aircraft as well as air defense systems to its allies in the region, especially Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
SAM SYSTEMS--The Iranian air defense network relies on a mixture of Soviet and Western SAM systems. This relatively unusual mix stems from both pre- and post-1979 acquisitions from the West and the Soviet Union, respectively. The following SAM systems are currently in service as part of the fixed air defense network: HQ-2 GUIDELINE (a Chinese-produced SA-2 derivative, employing the TIGER SONG engagement radar), HAWK, and SA-5 GAMMON. Currently, there are 19 active SAM sites inside of Iran. Site locations here.
5. SEA WAR
In the event of an attack the United States will have more responsibilities than just attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. It will have to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, international oil traffic running, and defend against Iranian missile attacks from land, air and sea. The U.S. military should be worried. During a 2002 war game called Millennium Challenge, the opposing force, using a low-tech strategy of suicide planes and boats, was able to sink 16 U.S. Navy ships, 'killing' thousands of U.S. sailors. Iran could try to launch as much retaliation as possible from the mainland and islands near the Strait of Hormuz before its assets are crippled. This would seem especially likely if America's allies in the region facilitate the U.S. action. Given that U.S. forces are based in Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, and using docking facilities in Dubai and Muscat, there is a good chance Iran might respond with attacks against these targets.
For more than a decade, Iran has lavished a considerable share of its defense budget on its naval forces (which consist of both regular and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units), believing that the Persian Gulf will be its front line in the event of a confrontation with the United States. Following a naval war-fighting doctrine that suits its revolutionary ethos, Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies. Iran has expanded its naval presence in the Straits of Hormuz, the passage for an estimated 40 percent of global crude oil shipments. The U.S. Navy has determined that Iran has amassed a fleet of fast patrol boats in the 43-kilometer straits. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responsible for strategic programs, leads the effort. At this point, officials said, IRGC has deployed more than 1,000 FPBs in and around the straits. The vessels, armed with cruise missiles, mines, torpedoes and rocket-propelled grenades, are up to 23 meters in long and can reach a speed of 100 kilometers per hour.
Iran has been going through a naval buildup in the last decade and has
a fleet of Iranian- and Russian-manufactured submarines, a hovercraft
fleet that was once the largest in the world, naval airborne units that
include several helicopter squadrons, minesweepers and a large arsenal
of anti-ship missiles. The submarine fleet also includes mini-submarines
manufactured domestically in Iran.
The Iranian naval warfare doctrine includes swarming tactics which focus on surprising and isolating the enemy’s forces and preventing their reinforcement or resupply, thereby shattering the enemy’s morale and will to fight. Iran has practiced both mass and dispersed swarming tactics. The former employs mass formations of hundreds of lightly armed and agile small boats that set off from different bases, then converge from different directions to attack a target or group of targets. The latter uses a small number of highly agile missile or torpedo attack craft that set off on their own, from geographically dispersed and concealed locations, and then converge to attack a single target or set of targets (such as a tanker convoy). The dispersed swarming tactic is much more difficult to detect and repel because the attacker never operates in mass formations.
Iran has three Kilo class subs. The recently completed naval station on the Gulf of Oman port of Chahbahar can house all three submarines. With access to open water in the Gulf of Oman, the 3 kilo class submarines which would be difficult to use effectively in the Persian Gulf would be more effective in searching for deeper water targets on the eastern side of the Strait of Hormuz. They are currently refitted to carried the Club-S sub launched anti-shipping missiles. The missiles are a direct threat to U.S. aircraft carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea. Iran claims to fire world's fastest underwater torpedo--221 mph, but the threat is questionable. While the Kilo class submarines are not likely in good condition, they are an effective weapon, and their presence alone will force major adjustments in tactics by the US Navy. Iran has tested a series of "submarine-to-surface" anti-ship missiles. These seem to have raised some concern that Iran could disrupt the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf in the event of an attack. The US Navy will likely be forced to keep carriers much further away than they normally would in the Gulf of Oman. It would also require a number of submarines to be dedicated to the location and neutralization of the Kilo threat. The Kilo's, while potentially capable of firing anti-ship cruise missiles, would be less effective in this role. As a mine layer the Kilo's could deploy around 36 mines per sortie, and if mated with a merchant ship supplied with mines would be able to conduct 2-3 mine laying sorties per week. This scenario has not only been envisioned by US Navy planners, but is expected.
Iran is currently known to have at least 3 different classes of mini-submarines, and at least 2 strange single class prototypes for utilization in the Gulf. These submarines are for the most part considered troublesome to operate, but would still likely be effective in limited roles for strike and mine laying, and would be very difficult to detect while submerged. Iran is reported to have 2 Nahang (whale) class mini-submarines. These submarines, an interesting design for those with a sense of mini-submarine history, are noteworthy because they are the vehicle many experts believe is armed with the Shkval supercavitating torpedoes. Operated by the IRGC, the role is largely a guess, although some observers have questioned whether it would be used for extended surveillance and reconnaissance roles. Iran is reported to have 5 Ghadir class mini-submarines. The Ghadir appears to be based on the Italian designed MG110 class mini-submarines in use by Pakistan. This class could probably operate close to an oil platform for an extended period of time, supported by a dive team, and conduct mine laying sorties that would be very difficult to detect up to 20nms from the platform. Additionally Iran has recently received delivery of 4 mini-submarines from North Korea. There has been no mention as to class of submarine, but the smaller mini-submarines are supposedly for commando operation. Iran also operates several strange prototypes that may or may not be in service, but photography exists to their existence.
Over the past several years, Iran has purchased Sunburn, C-801 and C-802 Silkworm antiship cruise missiles, fast attack missile boats and naval mine warfare capabilities. Iran is thought to have missile batteries at underground storage bunkers on the southwest of Abu Musa with HY-2 anti-ship missiles -- an advanced version of the Chinese Silkworm -- and Scud-C's. If the HY-2 is deployed on Abu Musa, it could hit any of the United Arab Emirates' ports, and U.S. naval forces do use Dubai's Jebel Ali port.
The Sunburn anti-ship missile can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or a 750-pound conventional warhead within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution -- not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time." Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake’s only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=2439
The C-801 anti-ship cruise missile is a Chinese version of the popular French made EXOCET anti-ship cruise missile, the second generation of antiship missiles developed by China. The C-801 can be air-launched and is carried on missile speedboats, submarines, escort boats, and destroyers, and is used to attack destroyers or escort boats. Iran may have imported as many as 100 C-801s and eight launchers in 1987-88, and by 1994 it was claimed that Iran had about 200 C-801 missiles as well as the ability to produce the C-801 indigenously [under the designation "Tondar"]. Other reports in 1996 suggest that China was assisting Iran with a new antiship cruise missile -- the "Karus" -- which believed to be based on the C-801 and/or C-802. The Iranian Air Forces test fired the C-801 from U.S. built Phantom aircraft during their 1997 "Road To Jerusalem" wargames.
The C-802 “Silkworm” missile was used against the United States escort vessel U.S.S. Stark, causing the death of 37 sailors. It was recently used in the Israeli-Lebanon war to cripple the high-tech Israeli Sa'ar missile corvette Hanit in the Meditarranean Sea. The high-tech, anti-ship missile is tough to shoot down, partly because it flies only 20 feet above the water, making it hard to spot by radar. The The C-802 land attack and anti-ship cruise missile is an improved version of the C-801 which employs a small turbojet engine in place of the original solid rocket engine to extend its range while keeping the warhead, airframe and avionics from the C-801.. The weight of the subsonic (0.9 Mach) C-802 is reduced from 815 kilograms to 715 kilograms, but its range is increased from 42 kilometers to 120 kilometers. The 165 kg. (363 lb.) warhead is just as powerful as the earlier version. The C-802 most likely uses an active radar homing system to find targets in a pre-programmed area and may use a combination of Infra-red and SAR radar imaging for final targeting. The combination of I/R and radar imaging would render standard anti-radar defenses such as chaff ineffective.Since the missile has a small radar reflectivity and is only about five to seven meters above the sea surface when it attacks the target, and since its guidance equipment has strong anti-jamming capability, target ships have a very low success rate in intercepting the missile. The hit probability of the Yingji-802 is estimated to be as high as 98 percent. The C-802 can be launched from airplanes, ships, submarines and land-based vehicles, and is considered along with the US "Harpoon" as among the best anti-ship missiles of the present-day world. Iran has deployed Silkworm anti-ship cruise missiles along the Iranian coast of the Persian Gulf, on Abu Musa island, on Qeshm Island and on Sirri Island. Bandar Abbas is the site of a Chinese-built cruise missile production facility for the manufacture and upgrade of Silkworm cruise missiles.
The Iranian arsenal also includes anti-ship missiles like the Kowsar. These are basically land-to-sea anti-ship missiles that can dodge electronic jamming systems. These missiles could be used to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Indeed, Iran could fire missiles at oil and gas tankers, commercial cargo vessels, and U.S. and Gulf Cooperation Council naval vessels. Iran could also strike these targets by using fast patrol and fast attack naval craft that can also fire the C-801 and C-802. These craft, carrying these missiles, have been brought to the islands during Iranian patrols and naval exercises.
Iran has sophisticated EM-53 bottom-tethered mines, which it purchased from China in the 1990s. The EM-53 presents a serious threat to major U.S. surface vessels, since its rocket-propelled charge is capable of hitting the hull of its target at speeds in excess of 70 miles per hour. As a bottom dwelling rocket-propelled mine, up to 4 can be laid by a single small boat or dhow, and dispersed properly could heavily influence the channels in and out of the Persian Gulf. . Lost in the shuffle of the Kilo class submarine purchase was the revelation in 2000 that Russia also sold Iran 1800 mines in the same purchase. Mines are a major concern for U.S. warships operating in forward littoral waters, such as the Persian Gulf. Beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1961, three U.S. Navy ships have been severely damaged by mines in the Gulf-a helicopter carrier, an Aegis missile cruiser, and a guided missile frigates. Mine are cheap, readily available, and can be clandestinely emplaced.
While Kilo class submarines, mini-submarines, and mines represent the
threats underwater from a technology perspective, Iran has a number
of specialized commando diving teams (including specially trained mammals)
that could potentially be very dangerous as well. There is a traditionally
disproportionate effect of mines and submarines in any theater of naval
combat. Even if not a single ship hits a single mine, insurance costs
for shipping in areas where minefields exist will skyrocket in the future,
threat alone is all it takes.
=========================================================================================================
6. GROUND ATTACK INTO KHUZESTAN OPLAN 1002-04
OPLAN 1002-04 has probably been revised to reflect the American occupation of Iraq, and the power projection opportunities this provides against Iran. The Zagros Mountains form a natural pallisade defending Iran from incursions from Iraq. The Iranian province of Khuzestan is the one large piece of flat Iranian terrain to the west of the Zagros Mountains. American heavy forces could swiftly occupy Khuzestan, and in doing so seize control of most of Iran's oil resources, and non-trivial portions of the country's water supply and electrical generating capacity.
Khuzestan [Khouzestan] is the most important pivot of Iran's economy. The existence of such huge resources as oil, gas and water in Khuzestan have changed the economic appearance of Iran. Oil first erupted from a well in the Massjed e Soleyman area, located in the southern Khuzestan province.
The two principal mountain ranges, the Zagros and the Elburz, diverge from a point of intersection in the Caucasus mountains; the former crosses Iran in a south-easterly direction toward the Persian Gulf.
Abadan is a large (pop. 308,000) oil-refinery boomtown, located at the junction of the Karun and Arvandrud rivers. It was largely destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War. Before the war, Abadan had a fairly good museum, but little else worth seeing; now it has even less. It is located 420 mi/675 km south-southwest of Tehran. Like Abadan, Ahvaz is a commercial city (pop. 580,000) that was heavily bombed during the Iran-Iraq War. The city's main attraction is its proximity to several historic sites: Choga Zambil (Elamite ruins and well-preserved ziggerat), Haft Tappe (ruins) and Shush 70 mi/115 km north of Abadan. Once Iran's largest port, Khorramshahr was almost destroyed during the Iran-Iraq War and is being rebuilt. The port, which lies near the Iraqi border on the Karun waterway, dates from ancient times (Alexander the Great founded a city nearby).
The vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. Iran has 32 producing oil fields, of which 25 are onshore and 7 offshore. Major onshore fields include the following: Ahwaz-Asmari (700,000 bbl/d); Bangestan (around 245,000 bbl/d current production, with plans to increase to 550,000 bbl/d), Marun (520,000 bbl/d), Gachsaran (560,000 bbl/d), Agha Jari (200,000 bbl/d), Karanj-Parsi (200,000 bbl/d); Rag-e-Safid (180,000 bbl/d); Bibi Hakimeh (130,000 bbl/d), and Pazanan (70,000 bbl/d). Major offshore fields include: Dorood (130,000 bbl/d); Salman (130,000 bbl/d); Abuzar (125,000 bbl/d); Sirri A&E (95,000 bbl/d); and Soroush/Nowruz (60,000 bbl/d).
According to the Oil and Gas Journal (1/1/04), Iran holds 125.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, roughly 10% of the world's total, up from 90 billion barrels in 2003. In October 1999, Iran announced that it had made its biggest oil discovery in 30 years, a giant onshore field called Azadegan located in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, a few miles east of the border with Iraq. Reportedly, the Azadegan field contains proven crude oil reserves of 26 billion barrels. In July 2004, Iran's oil minister stated that the country's proven oil reserves had increased again, to 132 billion barrels, following new discoveries in the Kushk and Hosseineih fields in Khuzestan province.
Iran's energy generation capacity has risen to about 26,000 megawatts. The share of Khuzestan in total amount of energy produced in the country was 3,800 mega watts. The figure is expected to increase following operationing of three dams in Khuzestan province. Water resources are unevenly spread; 30 percent of surface water resources are concentrated in one province (Khuzestan), while many other populated provinces fully exploit their scarce available resources.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-1002.htm
==========================================================================================================7. PREPARATIONS FOR WAR
The Role of Israel
Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html Late April 2005.
Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs
Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions." The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground.
Israel launches a spy satellite over Iran.
Israel has nuclear warheads pointed toward Iran.
Israel Buys Upgraded Subs To Counter Iran Threat-- Thu, August 24th, 2006-- In a bid to boost its military arsenal against a perceived threat from archfoe Iran, Israel has signed a contract with Germany to buy two submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons, a newspaper report said Wednesday. . . The navy already has three German submarines -- the most expensive weapon platforms in Israel's arsenal that are also thought to be able to carry nuclear weapons. Israel has never acknowledged possessing a nuclear arsenal although it is widely believed to have one. Germany donated the first two submarines after the 1991 Gulf War and split the cost of the third with the Jewish state.
US preparations
Fighters deploy: Coinciding with increased tensions with Iran over the resumption of illicit uranium enrichment, the U.S. Air Force has dispatched additional warplanes to the region in a not-so-subtle sign, military sources say. An entire wing of F-16s, the Air National Guard's 122nd Fighter Wing based in Fort Wayne, Ind., left for a base in southwest Asia on Tuesday [Jan 10, 2006]. A wing is usually about 72 aircraft and several hundred support personnel. F-16s and support personnel from the 4th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, also deployed recently to Iraq. The squadron has 12 F-16s. Both units' F-16s could be used in any military operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.
Russian Involvement
More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In December 2005 Iran entered into a contract to purchase 29 TOR M1 [SA-15 GAUNTLET] mobile surface-to-air missile defence systems from Russia worth more than USD 700 million (EUR 600 million). The TOR-M1 is a mobile system designed for operation at medium- and low-altitude levels against aircraft and guided missiles. Each unit consists of a vehicle armed with eight missiles and a radar that can track 48 targets and engage two simultaneously. The TOR-M1 systems have medium-range capabilities for intercepting planes and missiles and are not designed for ground operations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm
The Achilles heel of the [Iranian air defense] system remains its inability to generate effective real-time early warning and acting as a fully integrated system. . . Yet, the potential existence of two newly arrived batteries of Almaz S-300PMU, could dramatically change the situation and pose a significant challenge to any aggressor, especially if coordinated with low-altitude Tor systems functioning as "anti-PGM" elements.
http://www.defense-update.com/2005/12/irans-point-defense-upgraded.html
The US and the EU attempted through diplomatic efforts to pressure Russia not to proceed with delivery of the air-defense systems, but on Feb. 8 (2006), the Russian government decided to continue the program and will deliver all of the systems to Iran by the end of this year (2006). Russia said it deems the transaction acceptable because the systems are purely defensive weapons that cannot be used for an attack against another country.
http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=02_22_2006_OM_01
To the annoyance of the United States and European Union, Russia has made it clear it is willing to sell small-scale defensive missiles to Iran. Late last year, Moscow agreed to sell Iran tactical surface-to-air missiles that could be used to shoot down low-flying aircraft or guided missiles. Russian dealers have been selling Iran other medium- and long-range missile technology as well, according to European and other Western intelligence sources.
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005410.php
In October, with Moscow`s collaboration, a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit. The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months. Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah’s beard. What’s more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)
China involvement
China is the number one oil and gas importer from Iran. The two countries are bound by energy deals reaching a total value of $120 billion and growing. While the U.S. and EU were forging a diplomatic strategy to halt Iran’s nuclear program, China signed in October 2004 its largest energy deal with Iran ever and promised to block any American attempt to refer Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council. This may indicate not only that China is interested in a militarily strong, even nuclear Iran that dominates the Gulf but also that for China, energy security considerations trump international cooperation on critical global security issues. China also provides conventional weapons that could threaten U.S. military forces securing the Persian Gulf. Of particular concern are China's sales to Iran of anti-ship cruise missiles, which pose a threat to oil tanker traffic and American naval vessels operating there.
Turkish Involvement
In recent developments, Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government.
Iran preparations
Iran says it can confront any attack.
Iran tests "flying boat" and land-to-sea missile.
Iran says it can handle any invasion.
A Pentagon spokesman on Iran's military: "We know that the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons systems by both foreign and indigenous measures," he said. "It's possible that they are increasing their capability and making strides in radar absorbing materials and targeting. However, the Iranians have been known also to boast and exaggerate their statements about greater technical and tactical capabilities." Whitman says ballistic missiles have long been an important part of Iran's military strategy, and that the country has the largest inventory of such missiles in the Middle East. The Pentagon spokesman said Iran's war games and his comments on them have nothing to do with the effort by the United States and several other world powers to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. He also went on to say that the sun rises in the west and the sky is green.
Iran has received missiles from North Korea which are capable of reaching Europe.
Ground War
While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war. Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria. It would be very difficult to neutralize Iran's army in a very short time. The terrain of western Iran is not like the flat featureless desert of Iraq. many part of it is mountainous, negating the advantages of fast moving armour column. Even if its regular army of 540,000 men is defeated, then its 9,000,000 men militia would probably launched a protracted guerilla warfare against any invasion force.
Iran Tests Tactical Missile During War Games Monday, August 21st, 2006-- Iran test-fired a short-range missile on Sunday during the second day of nationwide military exercises in a demonstration of its readiness to "respond to any threat," state television reported. The surface-to-surface missile, called Saegheh or lightning in Farsi, has a range of between 80 and 250 kilometers (50 and 155 miles). "The upgraded Saegheh missiles have been tested today," Iranian Brigadier General Kiumars Heydari was quoted as saying. "Surface-to-surface as well as surface-to-sea missiles built by domestic defence industries with considerable range, high precision and large production numbers, will enable us to prevent any type of threat." The missile was test-fired from Kashan, 200 kilometers (120 miles) south of the capital Tehran as part of the massive war games which began Saturday with the aim of testing new weapons and tactics against a potential enemy. Twelve army divisions along with air and naval forces and missile units are involved in the military operation, named "Zolfaghar Blow" after the two-point sword of Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed. Iran has two bodies of armed forces, the traditional army and the elite Revolutionary Guards, an ideological army, equipped with terrestrial, naval and air units. All are under the command of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Extension of the War
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war. At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region. Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
===================================================================8. THE UNITED NATIONS
For Immediate Release--Office of the IAEA Press Secretary--February 4, 2006
President Bush's Statement on IAEA Board Vote to Report Iran to U.N. Security Council [as corrected and amended]
NOTE: Throughout this statement President Bush refers to the IAEA Board of Governors, with nary a mention of IAEA Director General ElBaradei, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Today in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors voted to [transmit a] report [on]Iran to the United Nations Security Council. This important step sends a clear message to the regime in Iran that the world will not permit the Iranian regime [regime: a term reserved for those countries that don't toe the US line] to gain nuclear weapons [no such wording in report].
The Security Council will now address the IAEA Board's finding of "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply" with its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement [also in the report: there remain 34 States party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that have not yet fulfilled their Article III obligation to bring into force comprehensive safeguards agreements with the Agency, and 118 States that do not have additional protocols in force.]. We expect the Security Council to add its weight to the IAEA Board's calls for the Iranian regime to: return to the Paris Agreement suspending all enrichment and reprocessing activity ; cooperate fully with the IAEA; and return to negotiations with the EU-3 of Great Britain, France, and Germany. Those steps are necessary for the regime to begin to restore any confidence that it is not seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program.
Today's vote by the IAEA Board is not the end of diplomacy or the IAEA's role. Instead, it is the beginning of an intensified diplomatic effort to prevent the Iranian regime from developing nuclear weapons. We will continue working with our international partners to achieve that common objective. The path chosen by Iran's new leaders -- threats [Iran has been threatened by the US, going back to the CIA-led overthrow of their government in 1953, US support of Iraq in the invasion of Iran, and now with threats by Rice, Bolton and Cheney], concealment [nuclear secrecy is not unknown in the uS, and Israel, Pakistan and India--recent recipient of an NPT-breaking offer fromm the US--have all developed nuclear weapons in secrecy], and breaking international agreements [they have complied with all agreements and have even agreed to additional ones] and IAEA seals [because of US threats]-- will not succeed and will not be tolerated by the international community. The regime's continued defiance [in doing what they are legally allowed to do--promote nuclear power AND enrich uranium] only further isolates Iran from the rest of the world [Iran is not isolated from Russia, China, India and Pakistan, to name a few "minor" world players} and undermines the Iranian people's aspirations for a better life [such concern for Iranians--how about Katrina victims, Bush?].
I end with a message to the Iranian people. The action today by the IAEA Board of Governors is not about denying the Iranian people the benefits of civilian nuclear power. The EU-3 and Russia, with the support of the United States, have made the Iranian regime offers that would enable Iran to have a civil nuclear energy program. The international community's sole purpose in this vote is to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the regime. Iran's true interests lie in working with the international community to enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy, not in isolating Iran by continuing to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060204-2.html
---------------------------------------------------------------IAEA Board of Governors--Implementation of the NPT Safeguards--Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Resolution adopted on 4 February 2006
(excerpts)
Underlines that outstanding questions can best be resolved and confidence built in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's programme by Iran responding positively to the calls for confidence building measures which the Board has made on Iran, and in this context deems it necessary for Iran to:
*re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency;
*reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water;
*ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional Protocol;
*pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol which Iran signed on 18 December 2003;
*implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations;
http://72.14.207.104/u/IaeaORG?q=cache:BKwZSKSkAtEJ:www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf+iran+npt+safeguards&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8
-------------------------------------------------------------------Statements of the Director General
6 March 2006 | Vienna, Austria
IAEA Board of Governors
Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
(excerpts--NOTE: no mention of Iranian uranium enrichment by Dr. ElBaradei)
Nuclear Verification
Status of Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols
Nuclear non-proliferation continues to face a number of challenges. In this regard, I should mention the continuing failure of some countries to fulfil their legal obligations to conclude and bring into force safeguards agreements. I should note also the slow progress on the conclusion and entry into force of additional protocols. I am, however, pleased to report, since the last regular meeting of the Board, the entry into force of comprehensive safeguards agreements with Turkmenistan and Uganda, and additional protocols with Estonia, Slovakia, Turkmenistan, Uganda and Ukraine. The Board also has before it a comprehensive safeguards agreement, with a modified Small Quantities Protocol, and an additional protocol for the Central African Republic.
Despite these welcome developments, there remain 34 States party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that have not yet fulfilled their Article III obligation to bring into force comprehensive safeguards agreements with the Agency, and 118 States that do not have additional protocols in force.
I would point out that, since the last regular Board meeting, the Agency has written to all States with Small Quantities Protocols (SQP), proposing to amend those protocols as directed by the Board at its September 2005 session.
Implementation of Safeguards in the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
Since the end of 2002, when at the request of the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK) the Agency´s verification activities were terminated, the Agency has been unable to verify the DPRK´s nuclear activities.
As I have reported before, the Agency stands ready to work with the DPRK - and other concerned parties - towards a comprehensive solution that addresses the security and other needs of the DPRK, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the needs of the international community to ensure that all nuclear activities in the DPRK are exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran
The report on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran is before you. As you are aware, the Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a
