Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

English board for english discussions.

Moderator: Supermod

Postby Lernakan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:29 pm

Experts: US operation in Iran supposes usage of nuclear weapons
Read it in Russian


“A US military operation in Iran supposes usage of tactical nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, consequences of a US nuclear strike on Iran will affect neighboring territories as well,” First Vice President of the Academy for Geopolitical Issues, Capt. Konstantin Sivkov said at a news conference “When and how will be Iran attacked?” in Moscow, a REGNUM correspondent reports.

“Nuclear weapons will be mostly used against headquarters and nuclear development facilities in Iran, there are 128 of them; besides, administrative facilities will be also attacked,” Vice President of the Academy for Geopolitical Issues Vladimir Anokhin believes.

“Bush and the Republican Party need a fast, short and winnable operation in Iran in order to secure their positions and influence in the USA,” President of Academy for Geopolitical Issues, Gen.-Col. Leonid Ivashov added.

www.regnum.ru
www.ArmenianHighland.com

Yes Tseghakron Em - Yev aha K'yerdnum Vahagni Achi Vrah Yerbek Chmexanchel Ukhtis Dem - Aprel, Gorcel u Mernel Vorpes Tsexamard.
Lernakan
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:29 pm

Postby Lernakan on Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:10 pm

WAR WITH IRAN MAY START APRIL 6?
PanARMENIAN.Net
31.03.2007 14:46 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Russian intelligence has information that the
U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible
military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike April 6,
a security official said. The attack may be explained by the capture
of 15 British sailors.

The source said the U.S. had already compiled a list of possible
targets on Iranian territory and practiced the operation during recent
exercises in the Persian Gulf.

"Russian intelligence has obtained information that the U.S. Armed
Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations
for a missile strike against Iranian territory," the source said.

American commanders will be ready to carry out the attack in early
April, but it will be up to the country's political leadership to
decide if and when to attack, the source said.

Official data says America's military presence in the region has
reached the level of March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

The U.S. has not excluded the military option in negotiations on
Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program. The UN Security
Council passed a new resolution on Iran Saturday toughening economic
sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a
military solution to the crisis.

The source said the Pentagon could decide to conduct ground operations
as well after assessing the damage done to the Iranian forces by its
possible missile strikes and analyzing the political situation in
the country following the attacks.

A senior Russian security official cited military intelligence earlier
as saying U.S. Armed Forces had recently intensified training for
air and ground operations against Iran.

"The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow
the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the
official said.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, from 4 am until 4 pm local
time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran.

In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20
targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment
facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

Russian Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of
Geopolitical Sciences, said last week the Pentagon was planning to
deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in
the near future.

"I have no doubt there will be an operation, or rather an aggressive
action against Iran," Ivashov said, commenting on media reports about
U.S. planned operation against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The
USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing
aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers,
eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the
Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has
been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot
anti-missile systems to the region.

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, was rather optimistic
about the situation and said he ruled out a military resolution of
the Iranian nuclear problem.

"We are constantly working on how to resolve the situation around
the Iranian nuclear program and other conflicts peacefully," Lavrov
said. "This policy is unchanged and we will pursue it in the future."

Russia and the U.S. are two of the six negotiators on Iran's nuclear
program, which Tehran says is aimed at generating energy, RIA Novosti
reports.
www.ArmenianHighland.com

Yes Tseghakron Em - Yev aha K'yerdnum Vahagni Achi Vrah Yerbek Chmexanchel Ukhtis Dem - Aprel, Gorcel u Mernel Vorpes Tsexamard.
Lernakan
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:29 pm

Postby Armenian on Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:15 pm

Guns and bombs will not hurt ZOG controlled America - only the economy will.

The following articles underscore the strategic importance of moving away from the US Dollar. Iran, Venezuela and Russia have gradually begun to implement such measures. If and China joins them in the future, that is precisely when American power and influence - worldwide - will go into remission.

The international danger posed to the US Dollar by Iran, Russia and others today is coming at a time when the US treasury is severely stressed with debt that is running in the many tens of trillions of US Dollars. The US Dollar is also losing ground to the increasingly popular Euro. What's more, Iran's wise move may actually be playing into the hands of politicians in Europe who would like to see the Euro gain further value. I really have to give Iranians allot of credit. I always knew they had a good diplomatic core, but I had never see them in action like this before.

Nonetheless, I am glad they are pro-Armenia.

Image

Iran to stop selling oil in dollars

Iran plans to stop pricing its oil in dollars, the state-run television quoted the Central Bank governor as saying Friday. Ebrahim Sheibani noted, "Iran plans to stop selling its oil in dollars," adding that Iran had reduced its dollar-held assets to 20 percent. The report did not give further details. Iran said in December it would replace the dollar with the euro in foreign transactions and state-held foreign assets, in an apparent response to mounting U.S. pressure on its banking system. Iran is under UN sanctions over its refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment. The sanctions include a freeze on the assets of institutions and individuals involved in the program.

New source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail_iran.aspx? ... =351020102


United Russia backs ban on "dollar", "euro" terms among MPs

MOSCOW, April 14 (RIA Novosti) - The pro-presidential United Russia faction backs a proposal by the head of Russia's Public Chamber to ban MPs and officials from using the terms "dollar" and "euro" in domestic economic debates, a faction top official said Friday. "This is a very timely initiative," Vyacheslav Volodin said commenting on the initiative voiced by academician Yevgeny Velikhov Thursday. "We believe we should use only the word 'ruble'." "If today government members [and] deputies calculate expenses and revenue in foreign currency, speak and think about foreign currency, we will never establish our national currency," he said. "We need to start with ourselves, to convince society that our ruble is the most stable currency, and that it's strengthening," Volodin said. Volodin said the lives of Russians could improve if officials dealing with finance and economics were to begin counting everything in rubles.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060414/46423009.html



Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?

By Emilie Rutledge

Iran's decision to set up an oil and associated derivatives market next year has generated a great deal of interest. This is primarily because of Iran's reported intention to invoice energy contracts in euros rather than dollars. The contention that this could unseat the dollar's dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated, but this has not stopped many commentators from linking America's current political disquiet with Iran to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB). The proposal to set up the IOB was first put forward in Iran's Third Development Plan (2000-2005). Mohammad Javad Assemipour, who heads the project, has said that the exchange will strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and that it should be operational by March 2006.

Geographically Iran is ideally located as it is in close proximity to major oil importers such as China, Europe and India. It is unlikely, in the short term at least, that large numbers of energy traders will decamp and set up shop in Iran; a country which happens to be categorised as a member of the "axis of evil" by the president of the world's largest oil-importing country; the United States. But over time, Iran could take some business away from the two incumbent energy exchanges, the International Petroleum Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange who both invoice sales solely in dollars.

Economic motives

If successful, the IOB will provide Iran with concrete economic benefits especially if it invoices at least some of its energy contracts in euros. Iran has around 126 billion barrels of proven oil reserves about 10% of the world's total, and has the world's second largest proven natural gas reserves.

From an economic perspective, invoicing oil in euros would be logical for Iran as trade with the euro zone countries accounts for 45% of its total trade. More than a third of Iran's oil exports are destined for Europe, while oil exports to the United States are non existent. The IOB could create a new euro denominated crude oil marker, which in turn would enable GCC nations to sell some of their oil for euros. The bourse should lead to greater levels of foreign direct investment in Iran's hydrocarbon sector and if it facilitates futures trading it will give regional investors an alternative to investing in their somewhat overvalued stock markets.

Euro zone countries alone account for almost a third of Iran's imports and currently Iran must exchange dollars earned from hydrocarbon exports into euros which involves exchange rate risk and transaction costs. The decline in the dollar against the euro since 2002 - some 26% to date - has substantially reduced Iran's purchasing power against its main importing partner. If the decline continues, more states will increase the percentage of euros vis-à-vis the dollar they hold in reserve and in turn this will increase calls both in Iran and the GCC to invoice at least some of their oil exports in euros.

A move away from the dollar and a strengthening of the euro would further benefit Iran as according to a member of Iran's Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour, more than half of the country's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund are now euros. It is primarily the US which stands to lose out from any move away from the petrodollar status quo, it is the world's largest importer of oil and a move away from invoicing oil in dollars to euros will undoubtedly have a negative effect on its economy. Fewer nations would be willing to hold the dollar in reserve which would cause a significant devaluation and result in the loss seigniorage revenues. In addition, US energy-related companies stand to lose out as they will be unable to participate in the bourse due to the longstanding American trade embargo on Iran.

Political considerations

In the 1970s, not long after the collapse of the gold standard, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars in effect replacing the gold standard with the oil standard. Since then, consecutive US governments have been able to print dollar bills and treasury bonds in order to paper over huge current account and budgetary deficits, last year's US current account deficit was $646 billion.

Needless to say, the current petrodollar system greatly benefits the US; it enables it to effectively control the world oil market as the dollar has become the fiat currency for international trade. In terms of its own oil imports, the US can print dollar bills without exporting commodities or manufactured goods as these can be paid for by issuing yet more dollars and T-bills. George Perkovich, of the Washington based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has argued that Iran's decision to consider invoicing oil sales in euros is "part of a very intelligent strategy to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilise other actors against the US."

This viewpoint however, ignores Iran's economic motives, just because the decision, if eventually taken, displeases the US does not mean that the rationale is purely political. In light of such sentiments and the US's current insistence that Iran be referred to the UN Security Council Iran must consider and weigh carefully the economic benefits against the potential political costs. Although a matter of conjecture, some observers consider Iran's threat to the petrodollar system so great that it could provoke a US military attack on Iran, most likely under the cover of a preemptive attack on its nuclear facilities, much like the cover of WMD America used against Iraq.

In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros, its Oil For Food account at the UN was also transferred into euros and later it converted its $10 billion UN held reserve fund into euros. At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised and saw it as nothing more than a political statement, which in essence it may have been, but the euro has gained roughly 17% over the dollar between then and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Perhaps unsurprisingly, since the US led occupation of Iraq its oil sales are once again being invoiced in dollars.

The best policy choice for Iran would be to proceed with the IOB as planned as the economic advantages of such a bourse are clear, but in order to mitigate against the potentially greater political "threat" should provide customers with flexibility. It would make it much harder for America to object to the new bourse, overtly or covertly, if Iran allows customers to decide for themselves which currency to use when purchasing oil, such an approach would facilitate for euro purchases without explicitly ruling out the dollar.

Emilie Rutledge is a British economist who is currently based at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 08A6E9.htm


Will Iran’s oil kill the U.S. dollar?

Speculations have begun regarding whether the proposed March 2006 launch of the Iranian oil bourse (IOB), will become the catalyst for a significant blow to the position of the U.S. dollar?

Iran is about to begin pricing its oil in euros. Unfortunately, just about everyone would benefit--except the United States- Without some form of U.S. intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. The U.S. dollar has been the strongest currency of the world for more than half a century, with about 70% of percent of all currency reserves in American dollars. This could be a logical explanation for why the Islamic republic would be the U.S.’s next target. This is closely related to the fact that oil, the most important commodity traded in the world, is mostly priced in U.S. dollars. The majority of countries that are oil importers have to buy their oil in U.S. dollars, which forces them to keep most of their foreign currency in dollars.

The crippling U.S. debt crisis makes its fragile economy mostly dependent on the high demand for its currency in order to remain afloat. There is a move underway by Iran, the world’s second-largest producer of crude oil—and labeled a member of President Bush’s so-called “axis of evil”, that threatens the current dominant position of the American dollar. Tehran has lately confirmed its plan to create a euro-based exchange in oil—to compete with the London and New York dollar-denominated oil exchanges, both American-owned.

If proved successful, the Iranian oil bourse (IOB) is expected to give the euro a foothold in the international oil trade, solidifying its status as an alternative oil transaction currency. This would eventually lead to a major currency flight from the dollar to the euro—and a disaster for America. The IOB will see crude oil, petrochemicals and other commodities of the same kind traded in euros. But the question here is what are Iran’s motives behind such a move?

According to economists, Iran’s move does make sense, especially since the European Union is Iran’s biggest trading partner. Also it will deal a major blow to Iran’s archfoe America, and, by hoping to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region; it will drive the Islamic Republic forward in its quest for regional supremacy.

George Perkovich, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, has made it clear that the move is: “part of a very intelligent, creative Iranian strategy—to go on the offense in every way possible and mobilize other actors against the U.S.” (Christian Science Monitor, August 30). This economic move could be the best and most effective strike against a mighty military foe, the United States. According to a report published recently by Asia Times, “Oil in euros would benefit millions … in the EU and its trading partners …. And it would loosen the grip the U.S. has on OPEC members”

“One of the Federal Reserve’s nightmares may begin to unfold in the spring of 2006,” one expert on the subject stated, “when it appears that international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60 on the NYMEX [New York Mercantile Exchange] and IPE [London’s International Petroleum Exchange] or purchase a barrel of oil for €45 to €50 via the Iranian bourse” (Global Politician, September 2).

The IOB will accelerate the already-existent global trend of shifting foreign currency reserves from dollars to euros would. Thus, “countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the U.S. currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more …. As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the U.S. property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst” (The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, Nov. 15, 2004).

The impact of a reserve currency switch would be catastrophic for the U.S., according to the Global Politician. The U.S. “would simply have to stop importing” (op. cit.). If Iran launched its IOB, the U.S. dollar will weaken and the euro strengthen—helping speed up the economic decline of the U.S. Numerous economists have expressed optimism about Iran’s ambitions, saying that the impact of the Iran oil bourse on the American dollar—and U.S. economy could be worse than Iran launching a “direct nuclear attack.”

Source: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?pag ... le&id=1704


Killing the dollar in Iran

By Toni Straka

Could the proposed Iranian oil bourse (IOB) become the catalyst for a significant blow to the influential position the US dollar enjoys? Manifold supply fears have driven the price of crude oil to its recent high of US$67.10 - only a notch below its highest price in inflation-adjusted dollar terms. With the world facing a daily bill of roughly $5.5 billion for crude oil at current price levels, it becomes apparent that sellers and purchasers of the black gold are looking into all ways that could lead to a financial improvement on their respective sides.

Non-US-dollar holders so far have been the victim of additional transaction costs in the oil trade. The necessary conversion of local currencies into oil-buying greenbacks can be considered a hidden tax, charged and enjoyed by the international banking sector. The IOB, by eliminating this transaction cost, will become a factor that could unsettle the dollar's dominant position. While the worldwide bottleneck of inadequate refining facilities and partly dramatic declines in production - for example in the North Sea - are two factors that cannot be eliminated in the short term, there is one area left which could result in smiling faces of oil producers as well as most buyers.

Oil consumers are entangled in a web of supply fears that span the globe. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez threatens to divert oil supplies from the US to China, which faces severe gasoline and diesel shortages these days. Attacks on Iraqi oil installations have slowed exports there. Ecuador's oil industry is still recovering from a strike, while Nigerian oil companies are in the middle of efforts to avoid a strike there.

Until now, oil has been solely priced, traded and paid for in the greenback on markets in both London and New York. But monthly worldwide oil revenues of over $110 billion (on a 20-trading-day basis) - a third of which ends up with OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) members - raise the question of what happens to these cash mountains. According to the most recent data from the US Treasury Department, OPEC members have parked only a skimpy $120 billion in direct dollar holdings, which are almost equally split between equities and American debt paper. This is a clear indication that oil producers are investing their windfalls elsewhere. The yield spread between US and EU debt papers in favor of the EU is another hint where the petrodollars might be heading.

Especially in the case of Iran, it does not make sense to accept dollars only for its much-desired commodity. Given that Iran is seen as a hostile country by the current US administration for its intention to build its own nuclear reactors, one wonders whether the new IOB will not try to attract buyers other than Americans. Iran has recently announced that the new oil exchange will start up its computers in March 2006.

The proposal to set up a petroleum bourse was first voiced in Iran's development plan for 2000-2005. Last July, Heydar Mostakhdemin-Hosseini, who heads the board of directors of the Iranian Stock Exchange council, said authorities had agreed in principle to the establishment of the IOB, where petrochemicals, crude oil and oil and gas products will be traded. The oil exchange would strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and most deals will be conducted via the Internet. Experts from London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) have reportedly confirmed the feasibility of the project.

The IOB can count on two sharp arrows in its holster. It can - and probably will - lure European buyers with oil prices quoted in euros, saving them dollar transaction costs. And it can strike barter deals with oil-hungry giants like China and India who have a lot of products and commodities to offer. One doubts whether American hamburgers and legal services will be considered adequate collateral for the world's most after-sought resource.

Worse than an Iranian nuclear attack?
Weaned off the almighty commodity, the US dollar can have a deeper impact on the US economy than a direct nuclear attack by Iran. The permanent demand for dollar-denominated paper stems substantially from the fact that until now almost all resources of the world are quoted in it. While this led to the eurodollar (US dollar-denominated deposits at foreign banks or foreign branches of American banks) market in the 1970s, the new terms of trade could ring in the demise of the dollar as the premier reserve currency.

With the world economy depending so much on oil, the black gold itself can be seen as a reserve currency that will be handed out against only the best collateral in the future. Last month, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco published a paper about the progress of the diversification of central banks' reserves around the world. It concluded that the dollar's position is on the decline in many countries. China, the new industrial giant, has officially declared that it will diversify a part of its forex holdings into oil by building a strategic petroleum reserve. Construction of storage tanks has begun this year and will take several years until completion. China has not yet said how many barrels of oil it wants to store. The implications for the oil market can only be guessed as China wants to use its future reserves to smooth out spikes in oil price.

Iran holds a strong hand as the No 2 producer of crude behind Saudi Arabia, pumping 5% of the world's oil demand. Politicians there will also keep in mind that dollar deposits might become a burden in the future, if the US steps up its current war of words to the level of economic sanctions in the attempt to halt construction of Iran's nuclear power plants. Money in the bank does not help when you have no access to it. Substituting Iran's domestic oil demand partly with nuclear power will place the country in a win-win situation. Cheaper nuclear energy and increases in oil exports from the current level of roughly 2.5 million barrels a day will result in a profitable equation for Iran.

Only one major actor stands to lose from a change in the current status quo: the US, which with less than 5% of the global population, consumes roughly one third of global oil production. Oil in euros would benefit millions more in the EU and its trading partners, though. And it would loosen the grip the US has on OPEC members. Thinking of the rapid growth of hostilities between the US and Arab nations in recent years, a renunciation of the dollar appears to be more than just an Arab daydream.

As this development poses a very real danger to the superior status of the greenback and the interests of the US, the "president of war" can be expected to take a strong line against the winds blowing from the Middle East. One may be reminded that Saddam Hussein had entered into discreet talks with the EU, proposing to sell his oil for euros. That was in the year before the first oil war of this century.

The IOB could help the euro to become the interim primary reserve currency before China and India rise to the first two slots in the global economic ranking in the next few decades. A decline of the dollar's position in oil trading might also open the floodgates in other commodity markets where the dollar is the medium of exchange but where the US has only a minority market share. A global economy driven by tough efficiency demands in the light of thin profit margins almost everywhere is a good primer for accounting changes in other commodity markets as well. This process could begin in resources like steel and energy and spread to all other resources that are marketed globally. The world outside the US has a lot to gain from it.

Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Eco ... 6Dj01.html
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

Postby artsakh on Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:06 am

U.S. not going to attack Iran, American diplomat says
02.04.2007 12:45 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The U.S. is not going to attack Iran, said Jonathan Henick, PR Officer U.S. Embassy in Azerbaijan, when commenting on the increased activities of the American armed forces in the Persian Gulf as a preparation for overland and air operation against Iran. Henick said information on alleged attack on Iran is false. The U.S. supports peaceful resolution of the conflict, he underscored.
artsakh
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:47 am

Postby Armenian on Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:24 pm

The absolute brilliance of Tehran:

Image

Brits: "We are grateful for your forgiveness"

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast ... index.html

After some Iranian "diplomats" were abducted by unknown assailants in Iraq several weeks ago, Iran promised at the time that it can retaliate by capturing American or other western personnel. A week ago Tehran made good on its promise by capturing British troops in its territorial waters. Although London and Washington sounded tough and defiant at first, reality set in eventually and they were both made to swallow their pride and give into Iranian demands.

In final analysis. Tehran scored a resounding victory on all fronts - political, diplomatic and military:

Tehran paraded the British Marines and Sailors on international television and made them speak like obedient little servants. Tehran made Blair and Bush look pathetically weak and helpless in the eyes of the international community. Tehran made London promise that they will never again enter Iranian waters. Tehran secured the release of the Iranian official abducted in Baghdad. Britain will soon consider lifting its restrictions on Iran. And now there is talk about America releasing the five abducted Revolutionary Guards officials in norther Iraq as well. Moreover, last two days several British personnel were killed and/or wounded by an unknown "sniper" using new armor piercing bullets in the relatively peaceful city of Basra.

And now, Tehran is proudly returning the captured Brits as a "gift" to the British people for Easter...

This was a resounding victory for Tehran. I can imagine the utter anger at Blair's administration in London by war hungry officials in Washington DC.
Last edited by Armenian on Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

Postby Lernakan on Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:35 pm

Armenian wrote:Tehran secured the release of the Iranian official abducted in Baghdad.


That Iranian official was abducted in Constantinople. I think he was a leading member in the security service or the defence ministry, I don´t exactly remember.
www.ArmenianHighland.com

Yes Tseghakron Em - Yev aha K'yerdnum Vahagni Achi Vrah Yerbek Chmexanchel Ukhtis Dem - Aprel, Gorcel u Mernel Vorpes Tsexamard.
Lernakan
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:29 pm

Postby Armenian on Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:40 pm

Lernakan wrote:That Iranian official was abducted in Constantinople. I think he was a leading member in the security service or the defence ministry, I don´t exactly remember.


No comrade, you speak of the general that supposedly defected in Istanbul. The Iranian official that was just released was abducted in Baghdad several weeks ago.

Here is a news source regarding the matter: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/ ... ritain.php
Last edited by Armenian on Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

Postby Lernakan on Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:44 pm

Armenian wrote:No comrade, you speak of the general that supposedly defected to the West. The official that was released was abducted in Baghdad and just released in Baghdad. Here is a new source regarding the matter: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/ ... ritain.php


My bad, I mixed things up. Thanks for the link and I agree with what you said above. This was a good move by Tehran, while it seemed daring to me at first, they surely knew what they were doing.
www.ArmenianHighland.com

Yes Tseghakron Em - Yev aha K'yerdnum Vahagni Achi Vrah Yerbek Chmexanchel Ukhtis Dem - Aprel, Gorcel u Mernel Vorpes Tsexamard.
Lernakan
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:29 pm

Postby Ararat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:35 pm

And now, Tehran is proudly returning the captured Brits as a "gift" to the British people for Easter...


Very good news, the most bad thing for us will be the war between USA and Iran
Ararat
Site Admin
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:16 am

Postby Armenian on Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:00 am

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Yet another blatant case of American hypocrisy and double standards.

U.S. protects Iranian (terrorist) group in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country. It's a paradox possible only because the United States considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran. Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran.

The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades. And the group is considered an ally to America because of its opposition to Tehran. However, the U.S. State Department officially considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime. The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf...

News Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast ... index.html
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

Postby Armenian on Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:23 pm

New Armenia-Iran railway to cost $1b

TEHRAN, April 7 (MNA) –- The building of the new railway between Armenia and Iran will cost $1 billion, Armenia’s acting Transport and Communication Minister Andranik Manukian said, the Persian service of ISNA news agency reported here on Saturday. There is a strong desire to carry out the project, said the Armenian official, adding, “We are trying to find an investor to complete the project.”

At present, there exists a railroad between Iran and the former Soviet republic but since it passes through the Nakhichevan – a controversial area between Armenia and Azerbaijan Republic – it is not currently in use, the minister added. Economic experts believe that given the possible resolution of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan Republic over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the building of the new railway would be uneconomical.

News source: http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=466988
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

Postby Armenian on Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:07 am

Iran acquires Russian-made air defense and anti-tank systems to repel a possible US attack on Iran

ImageImage
Russian Pantsyr 1 (SA-19)surface-to-air missile system sold to Iran

The Pantsyr 1 (known in the West as SA-19 GRISOM) system is designed to engage aerial targets, including missiles; the Khrizantema (9M123), to strike advancing tank columns at long range and destroy bunkers. Our military sources report that the two weapons systems combined are built to repel advancing armored units while at the same striking helicopter commando drops behind their lines. A third recently-delivered Russian system, the TOR M1, has been put into service by the Revolutionary Guards to protect nuclear and other strategic sites against missile attack, including cruise missiles.

The Israeli military fears Moscow is also planning to supply Syria and Hizballah with the sophisticated SA-9 and 9M123. DEBKAfile’s military sources say that the two weapons in Syrian hands could seriously impair Israeli tank and helicopter movements and hit IDF positions and command posts deep inside the Golan. Col. Yury Solovyov, commander of Russia’s Air Defense Forces Special Command, told Novosti news agency Friday, April 6, that Iran’s air defense system is strong enough to repel a US strike.

“Currently Iran has our defense missile systems which are capable of tackling US combat aircraft,” he said. “Iran also has French and other countries’ defense systems.”

Earlier, Russian Dept FM Alexander Losyukov stated that no US attack on Iran is expected in the coming days, contradicting a previous quote by Novosti from Russian intelligence officials who predicted a US missile strike against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite, at 4:00 a.m. April 6. Other Russian sources speak of an April attack.

The Pantsyr 1 is a radar command-guided, two-stage surface-to-air missile battery mounted on a 2S6 integrated air defense system, which is fitted with two banks of four missiles in blocks of two. Each can be independently elevated vertically. The weapon can engage aerial targets moving at a maximum speed of 500 meters per second at altitudes ranging from 15 to 3,500 meters. Its effective range is 2..4 to 8 km. A high-explosive fragmentation warhead is activated within 5 metes from target with a kill probability of 70%.

The Khrizantema’s supersonic missiles shoot at a speed of 400 meters per second to hit moving targets, including armored vehicles, at a distance of 6 km. This weapon can pierce 1,200mm of steel armor – even explosive reactor armor (ERA) - making both the US Abrams and Israeli Chariot tanks vulnerable. It can also destroy bunkers and engage low-flying helicopters. The Khrizantema uniquely features two guidance.

Source: http://www.debka.com/

TOR M1 tests in Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLfmNOOB ... ed&search=

Interesting video presentation about Iranian military: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsPGcyzu ... ed&search=
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

Postby Armenian on Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:25 pm

Image

Iraqis unite in Najaf demonstration to demand US out

Up to a million Iraqis took to the streets of Najaf on Monday to demand an end to the US occupation of their country on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. Demonstrators came in convoys of cars and buses draped with Iraqi flags. They travelled from across the country, including from Latifiyah and Mahmudiya, areas that have witnessed sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Meanwhile thousands of Iraqi flags flew from houses and shops in the capital in defiance of a 24 hour curfew imposed by US troops. The Najaf march was called by rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr whose Mehdi Army has launched two insurrections against the occupation since 2003. On the eve of the demonstration his followers battled US troops and their Iraqi allies for control of Diwaniya, a key Shia town 80 miles south of Baghdad.

Trampled

Demonstrators in Najaf burned and trampled on US and British flags to chants of, “Yes to Iraq, yes to sovereignty, no to occupation.” A statement from Sadr, read out to the crowds, said, “So far 48 months of anxiety, oppression and occupational tyranny have passed, four years which have only brought us more death, destruction and humiliation. “Every day tens are martyred, tens are crippled and every day we see and hear US interference in every aspect of our lives, which means that we are not sovereign, not independent and therefore not free.

“This is what Iraq has harvested from the US invasion.”

Sadr is said to have taken refuge in Iran after George Bush launched his “surge” of 30,000 extra troops. The US military describe the cleric as the “greatest threat to stability in Iraq.” US troops have been setting up bases in the poor Shia slums in Baghdad in a bid to drive out his supporters. The size of the demonstration shows that the rebel cleric still has a mass popular following despite claims by the US that his organisation is splintering and he has become weak. Sadr has faced divisions among his followers, who he describes as a “popular army” and not a militia.

The Mehdi army grew in the Shia slums of Baghdad and cities across the south and reflects the competing pressures on Iraq’s Shia majority – cooperation with the occupation or resistance. Some factions of the Mehdi Army have joined in the sectarian killing of Sunni Muslims – often in response to car bombings in Shia areas – while others have been attempting to hold together unity with the Sunnis. On Sunday Sadr issued another call to his followers not to attack other Iraqis but to turn all their efforts to driving out the occupation.

“God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them – not against the sons of Iraq,” he said. The struggle for unity among Iraq’s resistance organisations was symbolised by the presence of Sunni Muslim delegations on the march, with a Sunni cleric marching at the front of the demonstration. On the eve of the protest Sheikh Harith al-Dari, the head of the influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, blamed the occupation for being behind the “discord” in the country. He said Iraq has become “a vast prison, a graveyard that is devouring hundreds of thousands”, and that the US wants “to silence any voice of ­opposition and to put an end to the Iraqi people’s resistance to the occupation”.

On Friday of last week one of the most influential national resistance organisations in the Sunni heartlands issued a statement criticising Sunni groups that were fomenting sectarian and ethnic conflict and tarnishing the name of the resistance movement.

National unity

Many Iraqis have began to wear golden pendants in the shape of Iraq as a statement of national unity. The demonstrators in Najaf waved Iraqi flags, rather than the yellow and black flags associated with the Shia branch of Islam. The protest on Monday was the biggest in Iraq since the massive unity demonstrations in the early days of the occupation. Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd. Sadr appealed to them not to “walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your arch enemy.

“My brothers in the Mehdi Army, and my brothers in the security services – enough fighting and rivalry, because that is only a success for our, and your, enemy.” “Infighting between brothers is not right, nor is it right to follow the dirty American sedition, or to defend the occupier.” Sadr warned that the “enemy wants to draw you into a war to end the Shia, or rather Islam” and he urged the army and police to remain independent of US forces. Salah al-Obaydi, a senior official in Sadr’s organisation, described the rally as a “call for liberation.”

“We’re hoping that by next year’s anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty.”

News source: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/articl ... e_id=11162
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

Postby Armenian on Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm

Iran Says It Can Enrich Uranium on a Large Scale

Image
Iran's Uranium Conversion Facility just outside the city of Isfahan, about 200 miles south of Tehran, shown here in March.

NATANZ, Iran, April 9 — Iran said Monday that it was now capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, a development that would defy two United Nations resolutions passed to press the country to suspend its enrichment program. The announcement was greeted with skepticism by Western diplomats and nuclear experts, who said the declaration seemed to have more to do with political showmanship than technical progress. While reporters were invited to the country’s main nuclear complex at Natanz, they were not shown any evidence that enrichment of uranium, the step needed to make reactor fuel or bomb fuel, was under way.

In a speech on Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that if the West did not end its pressure against Iran to halt the production of uranium, Iran would review its policy of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear monitoring entity. It was unclear whether that was a threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as North Korea did four years ago, but Mr. Ahmadinejad said the West “should know that the Iranian nation will defend its rights and that this path is irreversible.”

“With great pride, I announce as of today our dear country is among the countries of the world that produces nuclear fuel on an industrial scale,” Mr. Ahmadinejad told government officials, diplomats, and foreign and local journalists at the Natanz site. “This nuclear fuel is definitely for the development of Iran and expansion of peace in the world.”

The government had decreed April 9 a national nuclear technology day. Monday was the first anniversary of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s announcement that Iran had produced enriched uranium at a pilot plant. The spokesman for the National Security Council, Gordon Johndroe, told reporters traveling with President Bush that the administration was “very concerned” about Iran’s declaration, adding, “Iran’s decision to limit even further its cooperation with the I.A.E.A. is unacceptable.” But the administration has carefully avoided making specific threats about how it might respond, other than to press for tightening sanctions through the United Nations Security Council.

The Council unanimously passed a resolution on March 24 to expand sanctions on Iran in an effort to curb its nuclear program. The resolution barred all arms exports and froze some of the financial assets of 28 Iranians linked to the country’s military and nuclear programs. The United States and some European governments have accused Iran of having a clandestine weapons program, but Iran contends that its program is peaceful, for energy purposes, and that it wants to produce fuel for its reactors.

Talks between Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, and Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, resumed last week after Iran released 15 British sailors and marines who, Iranian officials contended, had strayed into Iranian waters. Mr. Solana negotiates on behalf of the permanent members of the Security Council — Russia, China, Britain, France and the United States — plus Germany. Iran’s sprawling facility in the desert at Natanz has a small pilot plant where for more than a year engineers have periodically shot uranium gas into scores of spinning centrifuges in an experimental effort to master enrichment, a complex kind of purification process. Uranium enriched to low levels can fuel reactors; if enriched to high levels, it can fuel nuclear weapons.

Introducing uranium gas into centrifuges at the pilot plant would be nothing new. Injecting it into the larger facility under construction at the site, the one intended for “industrial production,” would be a step forward. Nuclear experts said it was unclear what Mr. Larijani was referring to when he said Monday, “Yes, we have injected gas.”

The large industrial plant under construction at Natanz is roughly half the size of the Pentagon. Inspectors say Iran is constructing 3,000 centrifuges as a first step toward 54,000. A senior European diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because diplomatic negotiations were under way, said he doubted that Iran had crossed the line and begun enriching uranium at the larger plant because Iranian and European negotiators were seriously discussing potential ways to resolve Iran’s standoff with the Security Council.

“I would be surprised if they fed the centrifuges because it would jeopardize the talks,” the diplomat said. “There are proposals out there that are quite serious.” The diplomat, who follows the nuclear agency’s work, added that none of its inspectors were currently at Natanz but that they were on their way. He said their assessment would clarify what, if anything, the Iranians had actually achieved.

Frustrated Western experts have said for months that the underlying question is whether the frenetic activity at the desert complex is real, a bluff or a little of both. The issue, they say, is whether Iran has really mastered the centrifuge basics or is involved in a political show to strengthen its bargaining position in the global standoff. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington and a former United Nations weapons inspector, also said Iran for the moment seemed more interested in scoring diplomatic points than in making technical advances.

“Ahmadinejad is trying to demonstrate facts on the ground and negotiate from a stronger position,” he said. “If they enriched today” in the cavernous industrial plant, “it would destroy the ability to go forward on any negotiation.” Mr. Albright said such enrichment “would escalate the confrontation,” adding, “It raises all kinds of worst-case scenarios that, if not managed correctly, could escalate up to a military action.”

It was unclear how seriously to take Iran’s threat to reduce further its cooperation with inspectors. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on state matters, issued a forceful warning last month after the Security Council resolution was passed, saying Iran would strike back against any threats or violence.

“Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with the international regulations,” he said in a nationwide address observing the first day of the Persian New Year on March 21. “But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so.” Ayatollah Khamenei said the nuclear program was more important than the nationalization of oil in 1958, a source of great pride for most Iranians.

“If they want to treat us with threats and use force or violence, the Iranian nation will undoubtedly use all its capabilities to strike the invading enemies,” he added.

News source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/world ... middleeast
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

Postby Armenian on Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:20 pm

War with Iran would be catastrophic - Ivanov

Image

11/04/2007 11:36 YEREVAN, April 11 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's first deputy prime minister said Wednesday a war against Iran would lead to a catastrophe. The Islamic Republic is under UN sanctions over failure to halt uranium enrichment, and Washington has refused to rule out a military operation against Iran as a way of forcing its compliance with the demands of the global community, which fears Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons.

"The Iranian problem needs to be resolved in a political and diplomatic way, as a threat of war is a road to nowhere, or to a catastrophe," Sergei Ivanov, Russia's former defense minister, said in the Armenian capital, Yerevan. The United States has reportedly been building up its Air Force and Navy contingent near the oil-rich Middle East nation, while Russian military officials have suggested that the U.S. could launch strikes on Iran's underground nuclear sites.

The latest United Nations resolution on the defiant regime highlights a focus on diplomacy, but accepts the possibility of a military solution to the crisis. Ivanov admitted Tehran's "nuclear dossier" was controversial, but said the nation had the right to pursue civilian nuclear energy. He said uranium enrichment activities should be controlled by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

He said Russia, which is building Iran's first nuclear power plant, has offered to provide the Islamic Republic with nuclear fuel for electricity generation and to accept spent fuel back for reprocessing. Tehran has neither accepted nor rejected the proposal. Iran, which insists its nuclear program is peaceful, said Monday it had begun producing nuclear fuel on an industrial scale, and reiterated plans to continue enlarging its nuclear fuel production capacity. Russia said it considered to announcement doubtful, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying the claim was still unsubstantiated.

News source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070411/63453060.html
Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

Գարեգին Նժդեհ
Armenian
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Location: Cyberia

PreviousNext

Return to Aryan World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron