• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Sizing Up Iran?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jimv1 said:
Sorry. I may be misunderstanding the subtle nuance of international politic but isn't it just bad news if Chris De Burgh is playing anywhere?
Click to expand...

Not if you're a nanny it's not.
 
Some more stories from Iran.

Iran: The 20th anniversary of 1988 "prison massacre"
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88822

Iran: Riot police attack Shiraz telecom workers
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88814

Ex-spy chief says Ahmadinejad is 'gift' to Israel
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88810

Iran's war on trade unions
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88749

Iran: Stop the execution of Farzad Kamangar
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88740

Iran: Kobra Najjar To Be Stoned To Death for Prostitution
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88623

Iran: Latest negotiations: war by other means
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/731/latest.html

Iran: Sanctions hit workers, not theocratic regime
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/729/sanctions.html
Click to expand...
 
This seems a strange one. Army Radio in Israel seems to have an interesting record of unverified reports although quite what they would gain from some of these claims I'm not sure. I suppose they might want a McCain presidency but will it really make much difference if Biden and - more importantly - Obama are on-board with Israel's plans?

Biden camp denies Iran nuke comment

JERUSALEM, Sept. 1 (UPI) -- U.S. Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden never said Israel would have to accept Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, his spokesman said Monday.

Army Radio in Israel reported Biden, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Jerusalem officials three years ago he opposed an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and Israel would likely have to come to grips with a nuclear-armed Iran, The Jerusalem Post reported.

"This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators (Barack) Obama and Biden and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden's 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel," Biden press secretary David Wade said in a statement. "Senator Biden has consistently stated -- publicly and privately -- that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel and the United States and that we must prevent a nuclear Iran."

Israel's Army Radio, which provided no sources for its report and did not name the Jerusalem officials to whom Biden allegedly spoke, contended the Delaware senator had expressed doubt about the effectiveness of economic sanctions against Iran.

Link
 
More stories on Iran:

Hands off People of Iran – Iranian and Israeli dissidents visit Dublin 13-15 November‏
HOPI has therefore organised a series of events in Dublin from 13-15 November to draw attention to the situation and to build support for the campaign. We will have two important speakers attending:

Yassamine Mather, leading Iranian political activist who is in touch with students and other oppositional groups in Iran

Moshe Machover, Israeli socialist and opponent of the Israel government with a long history in the anti-Zionist movement
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89675

No attack on Iran
Yassamine Mather writes on the danger of a US/Israeli military strike on Iran over the next 3 months. She also criticises those on the "left" who criticise Iran but who fail to condemn US/Israeli Imperialism. Full text at link.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89538

Women’s Liberation-Iran: Issue 40
Women’s Liberation-Iran: Issue 40 is now available online. This is the journal of The Organisation for Women’s Liberation-Iran

Articles include:
The 5th European Social Forum
New legal curbs on female students rights in iran
Conference in London, 8 March 2009: Why is Secularism essential?
Against Gender Apartheid in Iran.
http://www.womensliberation.net/english ... /saz40.pdf

Iran: Nothing in common with those who excuse war
Ben Lewis interviews a leading member of Iranian Students for Freedom and Equality who makes clear the Iranian students opposition to both US Imperialism and the Iranian Regime.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89053

A ‘pre-emptive’ strike on Iran would kill thousands
Jim Moody of the CPGB writes on the likely effects of a ‘pre-emptive’ strike on Irans Natanz fuel enrichment plant.

No nuclear explosion, when delivered by bomb or missile, could be contained underground - especially one so large as to ensure complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities within mountain tunnels, as well as its earth and concrete protected structures below ground. This is not akin to an underground nuclear test, where containment can be achieved.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88963
 
Hillary's New Role Puts Iranian Moderates on Edge
By Soheila Vahdati - WeNews commentator

(WOMENSENEWS)--The making of the new U.S. cabinet is being followedclosely not only by Americans, but by people the world over, includingIranians. For many of us, President-elect Barack Obama's willingness todirectly talk with Iran without preconditions brings hope of moreinternational contact and moderating influences over everything inIran, including the cultural attitude toward women.

But last week, his pick for secretary of state, Sen. Hillary Clinton,gave pause after what we heard from her as a presidential candidate.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we willattack Iran," Clinton said in an interview in April 2008 when askedwhat she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. "Inthe next 10 years, during which they might foolishly considerlaunching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliteratethem."

For Clinton's Iranian female spectators--many of us who had fondfeelings toward her from her days as first lady--being subject to thisthreatened obliteration was a nasty jolt. While we are well aware of the furor caused by Iran's enricheduranium program--and the weight of opinion behind the suspicion of itbeing for nuclear weapons--we were nonetheless shocked by the recklessand violent threat.

Remembering the Rights Activist

This, after all, was a person we knew from far less bellicose days.This was the same person who emphasized women's rights as human rightsin her speech at the World's Fourth Conference on Women in Beijing in1995. This was the person who initiated Vital Voices DemocracyInitiative in 1997, along with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, to promote women to leading national political roles. Whenyou support international women's rights, you implicitly support theright for women in those countries to live and pursue their work.

But since those earlier days Clinton, as a presidential candidate,has become an alarming figure for Iranians struggling to put theircountry back on the path to moderation. In 2006 she called for UnitedNations economic sanctions against Iran, which only hardened supportfor the anti-U.S. posture. In September 2007 Clinton voted in favor of a Senate measuredeclaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps--a part of Iran'smilitary--a terrorist organization. Terrorism, by definition, pertains to non-state actors, so the measure undermined Iran's sovereignty andcould be interpreted to give Bush authority to use military actionagainst Iran.

Clinton also persistently called on Bush to keep "all options"--opencode for including nuclear retaliation--on the table with respect toIran. Obama has spoken encouragingly of joining a revived push to disarmthe world of nuclear weapons, but Clinton's rhetoric casts a chillover that crucial quest for global security.

Mistaking a Deep Failure

In May a CNN-Opinion Research survey found George. W. Bush's approvalrating down to 28 percent and CNN's polling director called it anall-time low for any U.S. president. His militaristic foreign policycertainly must have factored into that rating, but Clinton did notseem to grasp the depth of this failure. Now, the question is, can she take a different tack? The answer willcertainly affect her old allies in the international women's movement.

Women's rights activism in Iran is thriving as a stronghold for humanrights and an essential component of the movement for democracy. Itforms an important opposition to the ruling fundamentalist faction andits "sacred" religious laws and regulations. The regime is trying to confine women to their homes by glorifyingmotherhood as women's first and foremost god-given duty, and imposingharsh restrictions on women, from gender segregation to lawful discrimination in employment.

Yet, women continue to demand theirrights as equal citizens, increasing their high rate of educationenrollment and penetrating into all corners of the job market. Iranian reform advocates and women's rights activists know that amilitary attack on Iran could endanger not only their achievements,but also their species, as it has in Iraq.

The Islamic constitution of Iraq and the comeback of the Taliban in Afghanistan are living proof that religious fundamentalism grows tremendously in areas of tension and conflict and the presence of U.S.troops. This volatile combination takes women's rights as its firstvictim.

The 1970 Iraqi constitution gave women equity and liberty unmatched in the Muslim world. But the new Iraqi constitution identified Islam as a fundamental source of legislation, which has had the effect ofmaking polygamy legal. Women's organizations are practicallynon-existent today. Some women's rights activists, including membersof the parliament, have been shot.

Clearly, the United States may not be quick to invade another countryafter the protracted war in Iraq. Most observers predict it wouldinstead choose to launch an aerial attack on Iran. Such an attack--or even serious threat of it--will strengthen thefundamentalist faction within the regime, which in turn will take aharder stance not only against the United States but also against democratic values, civil liberties and women's rights.

Iran Is Pivotal Nation Iran is a key state in the region and Clinton's way of dealing withthe nation perhaps will be pivotal to a new U.S. policy in the Middle East. Iran has great potential to move in two opposite directions. If civil-society factions can be encouraged, they could move itforward as a model for Muslim democracy, allowing women to continuetheir struggle for their rights and achieve them step by step.

This would help the United States stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan and pavethe road for a stronger women's movement in those countries as well.This would provide a real opportunity for women's rights movements inthe Middle East to gradually grow into a critical mass.

On the other hand, Iran could become the political leader andideological headquarters of Islamic fundamentalism in the world and,hence, the strongest threat to women's rights in the region.

Now the question for many women's rights defenders is which wayHillary Clinton as the secretary of state will push one of those twodirections. Will she bolster moderate factions and bolster theprospect of hope for women's rights and democracy? Or will she insiston tough rhetoric, military force and fostering a reactionary societyin Iran?

In Iran, women watch and wait.

Dr. Soheila Vahdati is an Iranian-American human rights activist anda freelancer based in California who writes about the death penalty,Iranian women's human rights and gender issues.
Click to expand...
 
Full text at link.

Dangers facing the anti-war movement

The transcript of a speech given by Torab Saleth at the 2nd HOPI Conference in December 2008

Torab Saleth is an Iranian Socialist who was a member of the International Executive Committee of the USFI (United Secretariat of the Fourth International) at the time of the Iranian Revolution and the National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party of Iran. He was very critical of the USFI's line on Iran and left that organisation in 1984. In exile he was the editor of the journal 'Socialism and Revolution', he is currently on the editorial board of the journal Critique and a prominent member of Workers Left Unity Iran.

On the occasion of the 2nd Conference of HOPI, maybe the first thing we must do is to take stock of what we ourselves have said and done since the 1st one. It is particularly important to go over this now as the recent election of a new president in the USA promising a change of policy in the Middle East has altered public expectations. To be more specific, at this conference we need to go over our own analysis of the threat of war and decide what if any modifications are necessary in relation to our last conference. It is probably fortunate that we are having this conference soon after these elections so that we have a rare chance to organise this timely discussion at a conference where the broad range of views of HOPI members and their differing experiences of last year are so well represented.

I believe on the question of “what should be the attitude of the anti-war movement in relation to the US military threats against Iran”, whatever you may think about the stand HOPI took, you must admit it was always a very straight forward and frank position and clearly distinct in its insistence on the need for a principled political stand. And before I explain what it was, I have to say that our own experience of last year proves this insistence on principles was not in the least a hindrance but a major help. I do not want to dwell too much about this point, but when because of our insistence HOPI was falsely accused of wanting a “narrow” campaign, it is cheerful to report that, on the contrary, the vast majority of HOPI activists have seen and felt it themselves how important it is for the anti-war movement to be clear and frank about its principles. My own experience shows - and I have seen it and heard it so many times that it is probably the same for every one - that most of the anti-war activists out there already believe and accept this principled approach and one of the main reasons why a lot more of them do not organise active anti-war coalitions locally is precisely because of the confusion about these principles.

Let us go over our basic argument. This is the same issue that differentiates us from certain other positions within the anti-war movement. Say, for example, some (i.e., by no means all) supporters of SWP/CPB (or, to a lesser degree of influence, AWL). This is precisely the same issue that forced some of these groups in the last Conference of the StWC to enter a holly alliance and resort to the discredited method of block votes to refuse us affiliation and to try and silence us. Let me remind the organisers of that Conference, whilst HOPI and Communist Students were being censored, the friends of the organisers from the Iranian government financed Press TV were filming the proceedings and at least one chunk of the block votes to behead us belonged to a group called CASMII which has been setup by pro Islamic Republic lobbies abroad and its representative here in the UK also moonlights as a darling of the Iranian regime and has represented them at many international gatherings or conferences.

So what was this sin of ours that brought about such a tragi-comic alliance? Of course a lot of falsehood has been spread by our opponents, but contrary to what they have tried to make you believe, our differences were neither over who wanted to build a broader campaign nor about who underestimated the threat of US imperialism. Look who is talking! Most decent anti-war activists are ashamed of being seen together with some of the friends of our accusers, but they still accuse us of not being broad enough! They have vanished from the anti-war scene altogether and still accuse us of underestimating the threat of imperialism! Allow me to repeat again. We welcome as broad an anti-war movement as possible and with the sole and central aim of opposing imperialist sanctions and military aggression against Iran. So this is not what our difference is about; the issue is a lot more basic. In fact it is precisely its basic nature which has so much angered the leadership of the StWC. It is always the most basic question which catches out those with no principles.
What we said and should continue saying is very simple: to build an effective and broad campaign opposing US war against Iran means we can neither align ourselves with those who in the name of support for the Iranian people are actually supporting and aiding the plans of US Imperialism to control and dominate the Greater Middle East, nor with those who in the name of anti-imperialism and anti-US militarism, are actually supporting and apologising for the Iranian mullahs’ theocratic hold on power in Iran. To this day, not one of these opponents has given a straight answer to why they oppose this statement.

But despite the fact that the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition in Britain finds this basic principle too complicated to comprehend, inside Iran itself it is now a common slogan, accepted and repeated in countless demonstrations and statements, that No! We do not want a US war; and No! We do not want a US regime change; and No! Not only do we not accept or support the current Iranian regime either but are in fact already actively involved in overthrowing it. Why is it so difficult for the StWC leadership to understand that the majority of Iranian people have already rejected both sides? It was reported just a week ago, a high school student in Tehran, when asked “so who do you want to win in this conflict”, answered: “Neither! One will lead to military occupation and many deaths and the other will prolong the rule of thugs who are already occupying our schools and killing us”.

If any one those workers, students or women who have to constantly defend themselves against the atrocities of the Iranian regime were as lucky as the British SWP/CPB leadership with access to Press TV, even if only as a caller, I am sure the first question they will ask these champions of anti-imperialism would be: “you say you are against this war because of the death and destruction it will bring upon the Iranian people, then how come you do not defend the very same people against the death and destruction currently being meted out by the Iranian regime itself?”

Let’s face it; despite all the subterfuge and all the slanderous comments they have used over the last year, every one knows they cannot answer this simple question because even to pose the question itself is too embarrassing for them. How can you discuss if a certain alliance is good or bad for any cause if you have already forged it yourself and are already too ashamed to even admit it? This is precisely where our difference with these currents lies. All the subterfuge is designed to cover up the simple truth that within the anti-war movement they represent those who believe that against US Imperialism it is not only perfectly legitimate but even beneficial to form alliances with the active supporters of the Iranian regime. In other words, they are telling us it is OK for them to form a united front with a semi-fascistic regime which was helped to power by the same USA to crush the Iranian revolution, the same regime which has been continuously massacring all progressive elements in Iranian society for 30 years, and the same regime which is right now collaborating with the same US imperialism in the occupation of two of its neighbours, but it is not OK for us to question or criticise this!

If you follow the arguments or all the excuses offered at the last StWC Conference to justify their policy of exclusion you will see what they were in fact doing amounted to nothing but a crude attempt at gagging all of those who oppose the Iranian regime. Not only do they expect us to accept this latest rehash of the crudest forms of class collaborationist popular fronts of the 30s, but also keep quiet about it because even its discussion will “confuse” the anti-war campaign!

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/90394
Click to expand...
 
Some more Iranian Stories.


In Iran The Reformists offer no alternative
by Darya Homan

Members and supporters of Hands Off the People of Iran will be leafleting a meeting organised by The Guardian Public Forum on the evening of Tuesday May 19 in the reading room of the British Museum. Amongst the speakers will be Ata’ollah Mohajerani, an adviser to ayatollah Mehdi Karroubi, who is one of the reformist candidates in the June 12 presidential elections in Iran; and Elaheh Rostami-Povey, a member of the Socialist Workers Party.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/92345
Click to expand...

Iran- Statement Number 2 on attacks on May Day Celebrations

Workers and freedom loving people!

This is a follow up statement to the May Day Organizing Committee’s first report on the violent attack by police and intelligence forces at the May Day rally in Laleh Park, Tehran, May 1st, 2009, during which more than 150 workers and their families as well as activists of women’s and students’ movements were arrested. The updates for public information and appropriate actions, as of today, are as follows:

Four days after the May Day police crackdown, about 130 women and men are still incarcerated. They are detained in unacceptable conditions in section 204 of Tehran’s Evin Prison.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/92217
Click to expand...

Iran: Delara Darabi, Juvenile Offender, Executed.
by Aaron Rhodes

Delara Darabi, who was charged at the age of 17 with murder, was executed today in Rasht. Darabi was 22 years old. Authorities did not inform her lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, that her execution was being carried out. According to Iranian law, lawyers must be given 48 hours notice of impending executions. “The execution of Delara Darabi is an affront to human rights values and is in bold violation of Iran’s obligations with respect to international rights standards and covenants,” said Aaron Rhodes, a spokesperson for the Campaign. “What is more, her rights were trampled in an unfair trial.”
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/92169
Click to expand...

Iran: Barack Obama’s ‘diplomacy’ is War by another name.

Barack Obama’s Newroz message, which is supposed to represent a “new beginning” for relations between the US and the Islamic Republic has been greeted in many quarters. But we should more closely examine Obama's project in the Middle East and what he he wants to gain from Iran. This is no new beginning. The speech is just a continuation of the gunpoint diplomacy initiated by Dubya and continued by Obama. Bush himself gave out numerous messages of a similar nature during his presidency. The only difference is that Obama actually addresses the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic directly.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/91750
Click to expand...

Support the Iranian people, oppose Tehran’s clerical fascism

Peter Tatchell writes on the need for principled solidarity with Iran: Support the People of Iran against US Imperialism. But also against the Theocratic Regime. Full text at link.

Principled, consistent left-wingers do not base their politics on the unprincipled, inconsistent geo-political manoeuvres of western powers. We stand with the oppressed against their oppressors, regardless of what the west (or anyone else) demands or threatens. US sabre-rattling against Iran is worrying. A military attack must be resisted. However, opposition to Washington’s war-mongering and neo-imperial designs is no reason for socialists, greens and other progressives to go soft on Tehran.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/91386
Click to expand...

Iran: Two Women Labor Activists Flogged; Their Crime: Celebrating May Day
by Hadi Ghaemi - International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran

Two Iranian women labor activists, convicted for participating in May Day celebrations, have been punished by flogging, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran reported today.

According to local sources, on 18 February, Sussan Razani and Shiva Kheirabadi were flogged inside the central prison in Sanandaj, capital of the Iranian Kurdistan province. Razani was flogged 70 lashes and Kheirabadi received 15 lashes.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/91217
Click to expand...
 
Well, I thought I'd stick this onto this thread:

Allegations fly over Iranian scientist's assassination

Tehran claims west was behind killing of nuclear physicist who was a supporter of Iranian opposition


Mohammadi was blown up outside his home in an smart northern suburb of Tehran by a remote-control bomb that had been attached to a motorcycle parked on the street. As his stunned neighbours cleared up the rubble they struggled to understand why a little-known ­academic would have fallen victim to such a highly professional assassination.

The answer may lie in Mohammadi's profession and political inclinations. He was a particle physicist and a supporter of the Iranian opposition movement, raising the possibility he had become the latest victim in a covert war over Iran's nuclear aspirations. It is a war in which scientists find themselves potential soft targets.

Over the past three years, another nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, and a third vanished without trace while visiting Saudi Arabia last June. In the same period, a former deputy defence minister and general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards also disappeared while on a visit to Istanbul.

The regime in Tehran has alleged the west is behind the disappearances, and was quick to blame the US and Israel for Mohammadi's death. "Given the fact that Massoud Ali Mohammadi was a nuclear scientist, the CIA and Mossad services and agents most likely have had a hand in it," Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, Tehran's chief prosecutor, told a state news agency.
Click to expand...

So, is it Israel quickly dispatching nuclear scientists in order to sabotage Iran's nuclear industry? Or did the Iranians no longer trust him?

We'll probably never know.

Source and much more info: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... ation-west
 
This is nuts. You have to keep remembering that the speaker is a Republican member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; a representative.

Sue Myrick's Latest Conspiracy Theory Is Like The Plot Of A Bad Movie

Anyone remember the terrible 1997 movie The Jackal, in which Bruce Willis played an international assassin with a secret identity and the propensity for dreaming up the craziest, most super-complicated ways of doing the simplest things? Here, let's allow the great Roger Ebert to remind you:

"The Jackal" is a glum, curiously flat thriller about a man who goes to a great deal of trouble in order to create a crime that anyone in the audience could commit more quickly and efficiently. An example: Can you think, faithful reader, of an easier way to sneak from Canada into the United States than buying a sailboat and entering it in the Mackinaw to Chicago race? Surely there must be an entry point somewhere along the famous 3,000-mile border that would attract less attention than the finish line of a regatta.
Click to expand...

There was never a moment in "The Jackal" where I had the slightest confidence in the expertise of the characters. The Jackal strikes me as the kind of overachiever who, assigned to kill a mosquito, would purchase contraband insecticides from Iraq and bring them into the United States by hot air balloon, distilling his drinking water from clouds and shooting birds for food.

I immediately thought of this movie, and this review, when I heard this latest nutlog conspiracy theory from the utterly zany Representative Sue Myrick

MYRICK: Well the thing that concerns me, and you mentioned this briefly, Iran is working with Venezuela. And they're transiting through Venezuela, taking Spanish for maybe six months. They're getting the false documents that they need, coming up through Mexico and if they're stopped, they just say well I'm Spanish. And it, oh I mean Mexican, and it only takes a smart border agent who knows the difference in the accents. He can tell, but if he doesn't have that, there's no way to know.

And the other thing that we're seeing, and we're seeing it in your state in particular in the prisons is Farsi tattoos. Farsi is basically a Persian language, which Iran is, and we know we've seen Arabic tattoos in our prisons for a long time, but we havent seen Farsi tattoos in a long time. That's a pretty good indication that these people coming across our border are not just coming from Mexico and other countries that are looking for work. And that's what scares me. Being on Intelligence, we know there are people who are are here who do want to do us harm who are already in the country and it's not a matter of will they get in anymore, it's a matter of they're already here because of our lax border laws.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would Iranian agents provocateurs need to travel to Venezuela to learn Spanish ("for maybe six months!") when they receive foreign language education in their own schools, beginning in the seventh grade? Why do they need to learn Spanish, at all? Is it so they can make a perilous border crossing from Mexico, as opposed to entering the country in any number of easier ways? Why not just learn to patter like a French-Canadian and cross from the north?

And what's with the tattoos? Is this some secret tactic that allows Iranian agents to recognize one another? Are they training special tattoo artists? Why can't these Iranian agents just communicate with each other in any one of a myriad of less complicated ways that have sustained humanity for centuries? (I'm guessing they don't because these agents from Iran are either stupid or crazy, based upon their crack plan to infiltrate the country through Venezuela's distance-learning programs.)

Also: prison tattoos. Aren't they commonly found on people who are already locked up in jail?

To paraphrase Ebert, there was never a moment in the above clip where I had the slightest confidence in the expertise of the people who appeared in it. And she sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is precisely the sort of thing that encourages terrorists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/1 ... 46093.html
Click to expand...

It's like unified field theory. She wants to unite her two pet paranoias into one fundamental problem so she can employ a blunt object or two to deal with it.
 
A very strange story emerged today:

'Abducted' Iranian Amiri denies being nuclear scientist

TEHRAN — An Iranian who claimed he was "abducted" by US spies last year denied on Thursday that he was a nuclear scientist, but claimed he was interrogated by Israelis during his captivity.

Shahram Amiri, who vanished from Saudi Arabia in June 2009, arrived in Tehran on Thursday after surfacing in Washington two days ago.

Upon his arrival he immediately told reporters that he was just a "simple researcher".

"I had nothing to do with Natanz and Fordo sites," Amiri said referring to Iran's two uranium enrichment sites.

"It was a tool the US government brought up for political pressure. I have done no research on nuclear. I am a simple researcher who works in a university which is open to all and there is no secret work happening there."

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Ghashghavi, who welcomed Amiri at the airport, also denied that the Iranian was a nuclear scientist. Iranian officials have previously claimed that Amiri was a nuclear scientist.

Amiri insisted that he was abducted and during the initial two months of captivity was put through "harshest mental and physical torture".

He said his kidnapping was a "psychological warfare against Iran and proving those lies that the US wanted to tell other countries about Iran".

Amiri said that during his interrogations, "there were interrogators from Israel present in some sessions and it was evident that they had planned of moving me to Israel". etc
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... BOVynA9eRA

I doubt we'll ever find out what really went on. Though he looks rather too chubby for someone who has just been released from intense US / Israeli "interrogation"...
 
Very likely a set up to give him more excuses for a crackdown.

Iran president 'survives attack'
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shakes hands with supporters as he is welcomed to Hamadan today. Photograph: Reuters/STRIranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shakes hands with supporters as he is welcomed to Hamadan today. Photograph: Reuters/STR

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre ... ing23.html

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad survived an attack with a homemade explosive device on his motorcade during a visit to the western city of Hamadan today, a source in his office said.
The source said Mr Ahmadinejad's convoy was targeted as he was travelling from Hamadan's airport to give a speech in a local sports arena. The president was unhurt but others had been injured in the explosion. One person was arrested.
"There was an attack this morning. Nothing happened to the president's car," the source told Reuters. "Investigations continue . . . to find out who was behind it."
Mr Ahmadinejad, who has cracked down on opposition since a disputed June 2009 presidential election, appeared on live Iranian television at the sports stadium in Hamadan. He was apparently well and made no mention of any assault.
The populist, hardline Mr Ahmadinejad has accumulated enemies in conservative and reformist circles in the Islamic Republic as well as abroad.
Al Arabiya television said an attacker had thrown a bomb at Mr Ahmadinejad's convoy before being detained. Dubai-based Al Arabiya cited its own sources as saying the bomb had hit a car carrying journalists and presidential staff.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility.
On Monday, during a speech to a conference of expatriate Iranians in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad said he believed he was the target of an assassination plot by Israel. "The stupid Zionists have hired mercenaries to assassinate me," he said.
Mr Ahmadinejad's government is facing economic pain as new foreign sanctions imposed over Iran's disputed nuclear energy programme bite on the world's fifth biggest oil exporter.
One of Mr Ahmadinejad's trademarks has been constant travel around his vast country to deliver provocative speeches before outwardly adoring crowds who shout "death" to Iran's foes.
The oil market initially reacted calmly to reports of the attempted attack.
Meanwhile, Baqer Moin, a London-based Iran expert, said Hamadan was a stable area without any notable ethnic or local tension. "Let's wait and see who they accuse, an internal or an external enemy," Mr Moin said.
Several armed groups opposed to the government are active in Iran, mostly fighting in the name of ethnic Kurds in the northwest, Baluch in the southeast and Arabs in the southwest.
The banned Mujahideen Khalq, listed by the United States as a terrorist group, carried out several anti-government attacks after the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was blamed for two 1981 bombings that killed dozens of senior officials in Tehran, including the president and prime minister.
Shahin Gobadi, French-based spokesman for the Mujahideen, now part of an opposition coalition known as National Council of Resistance of Iran, denied involvement.
Mr Ahmadinejad recently sought to isolate rival political factions by declaring that "the regime has only one party, which is the velayat" - a reference to Shia Islam's hidden Imam, for now represented by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Just as combative towards external pressure, the president derided sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme as "pathetic" and vowed to pursue what Iran says is a quest for nuclear energy, not weapons as the West believes.
On Monday, Mr Ahmadinejad called on US president Barack Obama to face him in a televised one-on-one debate to see who has the best solutions for the world's problems.
Mr Ahmadinejad, backed by the elite Revolutionary Guards, crushed street protests that greeted his disputed re-election in June 2009, although he has yet to silence losing reformist candidates Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi.
The president, first elected in 2005, also seems bent on displacing an older layer of conservative leaders and clerics whose influence dates back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Many of them resent the rising economic and political power of Mr Ahmadinejad's allies in the Revolutionary Guards and are disconcerted by his mystical devotion to the hidden Imam.
Conservatives such as parliament speaker Ali Larijani, a fierce critic of Mr Ahmadinejad's economic policies, have tacitly urged Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's ultimate authority, to rein in the fiery president - but to little visible effect.
Reformists have blamed state "discrimination" for creating discontent that has emboldened a Sunni Muslim rebel group behind two suicide bombings that killed at least 28 people in a Shia mosque in southeastern Iran last month.
Click to expand...
 
Different stories are emerging from the different Iranian State and Religious propaganda organisations.

State-run Press TV said "no such attack had happened", and officials said the blast was caused by a firework.


"It was a firecracker, and a statement will be released soon," an official in the president's media office told the Agence France-Presse news agency.


Al Alam, a state-run Arabic-language TV channel, reported that the firecracker was set off to cheer the president.

The Khabaronline website said the president's car was about 100 metres (330ft) away from the explosion, which "caused a lot of smoke", but later removed the article from its website.

The semi-official Fars news agency first said the device was a homemade grenade, but later said the explosion was caused by a firecracker.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10865085
 
Arab TV stations reported wounding of bystanders. Do fireworks 'wound' - who knows? All down to translation...
 
Most interesting report I've read in months on Iran. Small facts, big implications:

Final destination Iran?

Exclusive: Rob Edwards
14 Mar 2010

Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.

Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.

A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.

Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.

For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”

The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.

About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.

The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/worl ... -1.1013151
Click to expand...

From this I infer that US strategic planning has reached a stage where the military have told Obama that these assets are needed on site to make effective military action or reaction an option. This in itself allows us to infer more. The shipping itself would probably take a month or two, so making the move now reduces the amount of time required between an 'on your marks' and the pistol shot that may be triggered should the political situation deteriorate, Iran reach a critical stage in nuclear development, or a local flare-up come about. It doesn't, of course, mean any decisions have been made, but it does suggest that military action remains an option, that H.M. Government has been consulted, and that detailed plans for an assault - or more likely - a variety of attack scenarios - from retaliatory strikes to invasion support and bombardment - exist. Otherwise, they wouldn't know which assets are required and in what quantity. Fascinating and scary all at once.

Can any detective recall, from all we have learnt through the UK enquiries, how far before the commencement of hostilities HM Armed forces were asked on board for the Iraq invasion. I recall reading an article about the chronology which explained that when British generals first saw maps and projections, the plans were quite well-advanced, but I forget how many years and months this was before the war itself. It could well be a valuable clue as to how long we should be thinking ahead now.

edit: note the dates. These reports are from March. Weapons will now be in place.
Here's a second non-report of the foreign office declining to comment:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/poli ... -1.1014932
 
This is not good, I'd say...

Israel Is Getting Ready to Bomb Iran

But none of these things—least of all the notion that Barack Obama, for whom initiating new wars in the Middle East is not a foreign-policy goal, will soon order the American military into action against Iran—seems, at this moment, terribly likely. What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)

When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israel—regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear program—they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of [b[creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973[/b]; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.
Click to expand...

Only a small part of a much longer article, but well worth a read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... turn/8186/
 
There certainly feels like there is some kind of momentum, at least in the media:

Nothing short of nukes will work
By Gwynne Dyer
5:30 AM Saturday Aug 7, 2010

When Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking American officer, was asked recently on NBC's Meet The Press show whether the United States has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied simply: "We do".

General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, the US maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada - and the Canadian military made plans to pre-empt the invasion.

But what the planning process will have shown, in this case, is that there is no way for the US to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.

The US could "win" by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran's military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centres (cities) and killing five to 10 million people. But short of that, nothing works.

On this we have the word of Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.

In the early 1990s, Clarke said in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton Administration had considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.

"After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the US," he said. The Pentagon's planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran and they just can't make it come out as a US victory.

It's not the fear of Iranian nuclear weapons that makes the US Joint Chiefs of Staff so reluctant to get involved in a war with Iran. Those weapons don't exist and the whole justification for the war would be to make sure that they never do.

The problem is that there's nothing the US can do to Iran, short of nuking the place, that would really force Tehran to kneel and beg for mercy.

It can bomb Iran's nuclear sites and military installations to its heart's content, but everything it destroys can be rebuilt in a few years.

And there is no way that the US could actually invade Iran.

There are some 80 million people in Iran and, although many of them don't like the present regime, they are almost all fervent patriots who would resist a foreign invasion.

Iran is a mountainous country and big: four times the size of Iraq.

The Iranian army currently numbers about 450,000 men, slightly smaller than the US Army - but unlike the US Army, it does not have its troops scattered across literally dozens of countries.

If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran's south coast, senior American generals would resign in protest.

Without the option of a land war, the only lever the US would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs - but if they aren't nuclear, then they aren't very persuasive. Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on the US.

Just stopping Iran's oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market. Iran accounts for about 7 per cent of internationally traded oil.

But it could also block another 40 per cent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.

The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 200km range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just metres above the sea's surface and has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 per cent.

Iran's mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf and these missiles have easily concealed mobile launchers. They would sink tankers with ease and, in a few days, insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region's oil exports completely.

Meanwhile, Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air missiles to the Taleban in Afghanistan and that would soon shut down the US military effort there. (It was the arrival of US-supplied Stinger missiles in Afghanistan in the late 1980s that drove Russian helicopters from the sky and ultimately doomed the whole Soviet intervention there.)

Iranian ballistic missiles would strike US bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf and Iran's Hizbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel.

The US would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the world's industries and transport ground to a halt.

The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the US and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every war-game the Pentagon played and Mike Mullen knows it.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=10664122
Click to expand...

The irony of a nuclear attack on another nation on the grounds that nuclear weapons are bad and they can't be trusted with them - would be supreme.
 
but after killing 5-10 milion people, would you tell them?

that really is grotesque beyond belief :(
 
Looks like some Americans are telling the Israelis to, eh, go ahead and make their day... :shock:

John Bolton Says Three Days Left to Attack Iran

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told Israel Radio today that there are only three days left for Israel to attack Iran if it wants to stop the Islamic Republic from manufacturing nuclear weapons.

On Friday, Russia announced that on August 21st, it will start loading nuclear fuel into the Bushehr reactor. Bushehr is Iran's first atomic power station. Bolton said that once the reactor, also built by Russia, becomes operational on Friday, it will be too late to attack, because the attacking it would result in fallout of radioactive material as far as the Persian Gulf and hurt Iranian civilians.

Bolton also expressed pessimism [!] that the U.S. administration would lead an attack against Iran, saying, "I would be very surprised if there are any circumstances in which the Obama administration would use force against Iran's nuclear program."

Earlier in the week, Bolton said, "If Israel wants to do something against the reactor in Bushehr, it must do so in the following eight days." Today he revised his estimate to even less time. He said that in the absence of an Israeli attack, Iran would complete its goal of the establishment of a functioning nuclear reactor
Click to expand...

So the "optimisitc" view would be a US lead nuclear war in the middle east. Sometimes I have to scratch myself to convince myself these people are real.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139171
 
Israeli-US cyber attack on Iran's nuclear facilities heads off US strike
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 79713.html
EWEN MacASKILL in Washington

Mon, Jan 17, 2011

THE CHANCES of a military strike against Iran this year are receding because of the success of a joint Israeli-US cyber attack on the country’s nuclear facilities, according to officials and analysts with knowledge of the clandestine operation.

The New York Times reported yesterday that Israel, with US help, had set up a model of the Iranian nuclear process at Dimona, the Israeli nuclear arms development centre in the Negev desert, to test a sophisticated destructive programme.

A computer worm, Stuxnet, was known last year to have been inserted into the Iranian nuclear operation and Iran admitted its programme had been delayed.

What is new is the role of Dimona, where the Israelis are reported to have been spinning nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s nuclear plant at Natanz, and the extent of involvement by US researchers and intelligence agencies. The centrifuges are used to enrich uranium.

Last year, rumours of military action began to be heard louder around Washington, with diplomats and officials warning that this year would be the year of decision on whether to launch a military strike. But the mood has changed.

An official said that the military option is now less likely, citing not only the cyber attack, but also the synchronised assassination last year of two Iranian nuclear scientists, attributed to Israel.

A leading analyst, Avner Cohen, the Washington-based author of Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb, said yesterday: “In the short term, it surely makes military action less likely. I do not see any military action against Iran anytime soon. It takes the pressure off. It does not mean military action is off the table, but it is not a short-term concern.”

Mr Cohen, from the Monterey Institute of International Studies, said he believed reports about testing the Stuxnet on centrifuges at Dimona and the involvement of the US were largely accurate. The work at Dimona was carried out over the last two years.
Click to expand...
 
Nuclear dangers and capabilities

Moshé Machover writes on the Wikileaks revalations, the emerging Arab revolutions and his fears that Israel could launch an attack on Iran. Full article at link.

For nearly 50 years I have been talking and writing about the prospect of an Arab revolution and only last year I said that, while I am confident this is going to happen, “don’t hold your breath”. What has been taking place has been a nice dress rehearsal, but we can see that the Arab revolution is not such a distant prospect. It is difficult to exaggerate its significance - not only for the region, but also for the whole world and for human history.

It is against this background that I would like to discuss the Wikileaks revelations. One whole section of Wikileaks has to do with the Middle East, and specifically with Israel and Iran

There have also been other significant leaks. One came from Palestine: someone in the Palestinian Authority, obviously exasperated by the PA’s abject stance, released a lot of documents, revealing what everyone knew about the role of the Palestinian Authority. The other set of leaks has been less publicised in Britain and in Israel as well. These were released by a woman who worked in the Israeli military and released a whole lot of documents to an Israeli journalist (who fled to the UK in order to avoid arrest). The woman is now on trial.

The main conclusion that I draw from these multiple leaks on what has been happening supposedly in secret is that there is nothing in them that we did not already know, nor anything that would make us change our position. What these revelations do confirm, however, is that a guerrilla or terrorist war against Iran has been conducted for a number of years by the US and Israel. Mainly using Israeli agents, it has employed espionage, sabotage and even assassinations directed specifically against the nuclear enterprise of the Iranian regime.
Related Link: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004289
Click to expand...
 
This story seems to be doing the rounds at the moment. That said, it does sound a little like it was a rash statement, but has been jumped on by conspiratorial types...

Top CIA officer: Israel will probably attack Iran in Sept

At first I was going to ignore this story as too speculative, but I changed my mind.

I saw Gen Amidror speak in December at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ conference on Iran. What struck me at the time was that he was very clear that Israel would strike Iran as a last resort. One of the panelists from the AEI as I recall, wasn’t buying all his bluster. This offended him and he came back with something to the effect “I don’t bluster”. He wasn’t in the empty gestures business. A few months later, Dagan resigned and went pub;lic with his misgivings about attacking Iran. See: Dagan: Israeli airstrike on Iran nuclear plant ‘foolish’

Then Amidror replaced him as the Israel National Security Advisor. The question of where Amidror stood on the question was analysed in the article Is Netanyahu’s New Adviser In The “Attack Iran” Camp?. The answer is becoming obvious. Ted Belman

JPOST and YNET

Israel will probably attack Iran in September, Robert Baer, a veteran CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East including in Lebanon and Syria, told a Los Angeles radio show on Tuesday.

While the CIA officer didn’t reveal the sources behind his prediction, he referred to former Mossad chief Meir Dagan’s warnings of an Israeli attack on

Baer told the KPFK Los Angeles show Background Briefing that previous comments made by Dagan that an Israeli attack on Iran could lead to a regional war “tell us with near certainty that Netanyahu is planning an attack, and in as much as I can guess when it’s going to be, it’s probably going to be in September before a vote on the Palestinian state.”

Baer added that Netanyahu is “also hoping to draw the United States into the conflict, and in fact there’s a warning order inside the Pentagon to prepare for conflict with Iran.”

The senior CIA officer predicted a scenario in which Israel would attack the Natanz nuclear facility as well as “a couple of others to degrade their capabilities.”

“The Iranians will strike back were they can and that will be in Basra and in Baghdad,” where the US has a diminished troop presence, Baer said, adding “we’ve started to look at Iran’s targets in Iraq and across the border.”

Baer, however, diffused predictions of regional war, saying “What we’re facing here is an escalation, not a planned all-out war.”

Source
 
Last time I saw anything about this a highly regarded economic forecaster was mentioned as saying something similar, and there were suspicious US Navy ship movements too.
Not entirely beyond the realms of possibility.
 
Well, it depends on whether Baer's words have any clout, which is debatable. As to the Pentagon warning, that doesn't have to mean that a US military operation is at hand; rather just one by an allied nation. Even an Israeli strike will be quite limited in it's impact - and assumes they know where all of the relevant nuclear sites are.
 
UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears

British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran's capability

Nick Hopkins
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 November 2011 15.21 GMT

Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election.

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.

In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.

Up to half of Iran's centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.

Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.

The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding "material and capability" inside the base.

Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain's military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK's planning being taken to a new level.

"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't.

"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.

"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

Another source added there was "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change". Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.

The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but "a small number of special forces" may be needed on the ground, too.

The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.

An MoD spokesman said: "The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution – but all options should be kept on the table."

The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.

One official said: "I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning."

Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.

Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.

It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.

Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.

British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran's new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.

"There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington," said one.

Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.

It also said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.

At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.

According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... ck-nuclear

seems a tad more likely than before, military chiefs will be desperate to keep the wars happening to justify "defence" spending. Perhaps we'll see more money being pumped into democratic reform groups and encouragement of street protests. but my money atm is in turning over Syria before they go after Iran.
 
Israel, US & UK Beat The Drums Of War As They Threaten Iran

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100853

War preparations against Iran continue. In the US, legislation, which includes sanctions against Iran's Central Bank and strict curbs on official diplomatic contacts between Washington and Tehran, was approved unanimously by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.

The first bill, the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act, would impose penalties against any individual or company – foreign as well as domestic – that has facilitated the transfer of equipment that could be used in Iran's nuclear programme. It also would bar access to the U.S. of any vessels that have visited ports of any of the three countries in the last two years.

Among other provisions,the second bill would sharply reduce the president's authority to waive existing sanctions against any individual, company or country doing business with Iran; expand existing sanctions against companies that sell Iran refined petroleum to include any barter transactions; and impose sanctions against any individual, company or country that conducts a transaction with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is believed to control as much as 40 percent of the Iran's national economy.

Sanctions are war by other means.
The UK is also preparing for War against Iran.

Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... ck-nuclear

Israel has successfully tested a new long range missile, the Jericho 3, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The Israeli military also announced that air force jets recently concluded a lengthy exercise over Sardinia, Italy, which included long-distance attacks and mid-air refuelling. The exercise involved 17 Israeli jet fighters, and was conducted together with Italian and Dutch planes. The destination enabled the jets to drill a 2,400km flight, including mid-air refuelling; impossible in Israel’s limited air space. This looks to be a dress rehearsal for attacks on Iranian targets.

However Iran has not been cowed by this display of Isreakli arrogance. Iran’s chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Hassan Fairouz Abadi warned that Tehran would retaliate with a “surprising punishment” if Israel “pursued such a mistake”. He said Iran was taking the threat seriously, even though the likelihood of such an attack was low, and he warned their retaliation would target the US as well as Israel.
Click to expand...
 
Iran & US: Strange political symbiosis
http://www.hopi-ireland.org/c/iran-us-s ... -symbiosis


The US and the Iranian regime need each other, argues Yassamine Mather
The familiar pattern of fraught United States-Iran relations has been repeated once again by the furore around the alleged plot of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to bomb the Saudi embassy in Washington and kill the ambassador. The renewed threats of military attack by the US in retaliation for this should also come as no surprise.

Those who possibly had a hand in initiating this (probably a rogue faction of the Revolutionary Guards) and those who have seized on it (the Obama administration) clearly have a keen shared interest in keeping the threat of war and conflict very much alive.

A week after the US attorney accused Iran of this dastardly plot, the threat of US retaliation continues to dominate the Iranian press and media, as the various factions of the Islamic regime contend with their different interpretations of the accusations and the motivations of the accusers. Last week, almost every trend in the religious state from the ‘reformists’ to the conservatives denied the allegations. The one significant exception was the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his allies in a section of the Revolutionary Guards.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top