Iran, current events and ongoing sabre rattling!

[Gary]

Saw a short report on Sky News but can't find anything mentioned on the UK news websites. Obama has again warned Iran time for a diplomaic sollution is running out.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/2 ... 5520120325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also Iranian made UAV's being used in Syria

http://theaviationist.com/2012/03/25/ne ... ria-drone/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gary]

Been reported on a couple of websites the Israeli Air Force have apparently gained access to a former Soviet era airbase in Azerbaijan. For use during possible action against Iran

Foreign Policy.com

The Aviationist.com

[Gary]

Been a little quiet on the Iran front recently, just found this though.

Tehran (CNN) -- Iran declared Sunday it has "cracked the codes" of the intelligence gathering system of a U.S. spy drone it captured last year for violating its airspace, the nation's semiofficial media reported.

Tehran bragged about seizing the unmanned U.S. drone aircraft with stealth technology in December and displayed it on national television as a victory for Iran.

Months later, an Iranian senior military official declared armed forces have extracted data from it to prove a point to the Pentagon, which they said expressed doubt Tehran can be able to decode it.

"This plane is seen as a national capital for us and our words should not disclose all the information that we have very easily," Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh was quoted as saying by the semiofficial Fars News Agency.

"Yet, I provide four cues in here to let the Americans know how deep we could penetrate into the intelligence systems and devices of this drone."

Some data from the drone's memory device revealed it had flown over the Pakistani hideout of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden two weeks before his death in May, according to Hajizadeh.

"Had we not accessed the plane's softwares and hard discs, we wouldn't have been able to achieve these facts," he said.

Iran has also decoded information such as protocols, repairs and flight sorties, said the military leader, who commands the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps' aerospace forces.

Information shows the drone was in California in October 2010 for repairs and was moved to Afghanistan the following month, where it had problems that U.S. experts could not solve, he said.

The United States did not immediately comment on Tehran's claims Sunday.

In December, President Barack Obama said the United States asked Iran to return the drone aircraft it claimed to have. At the time, two U.S. officials confirmed to CNN that the missing drone was part of a CIA reconnaissance mission that involved both the intelligence community and military personnel stationed in Afghanistan.

"We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama had said.

Iranian military officials have vowed not to return the plane.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/22/world ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RichC]

More here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17805201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RichC]

Attack "plan" is now ready

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18110191" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gary]

Iran has been a bit quite recently. Just read this

Iran warns U.S. over timing of Gulf exercises
The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Sep 11, 2012 6:53:21 EDT
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s foreign ministry on Tuesday said the country will closely monitor U.S.-led naval exercises planned for next week in the Persian Gulf.

Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters that the military maneuvers are a “very sensitive phenomenon” amid rising tensions over Tehran’s nuclear program.

The U.S.-led exercises are to include minesweeping operations seen as a direct response to Iranian warnings earlier this year that it could close the strategic oil shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for tighter Western sanctions. Tehran later withdrew the threat, but the region still faces risks of possible Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear sites.

The U.S. and its allies suspect Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, a charge Iran denies.

Iran usually conducts its own war games in the fall.

Navy Times

[RichC]

Iran have "warned" (yawn) the US that they will be ready to deploy ships off the US coast by 2013. I bet the USN are quaking in their pants.
Meanwhile, Israel have also warned that they "plan" on attacking Iran before November.

[reheat]

Mmmmm By November, eh! Whatever happened to the element of surprise?

[RichC]

All something to do with the US Presidential campaign....
quote
"Nr Netanyahu was 'determined' to attack Iran before the US election on November 6 "

[Sparts99]

Does that mean the current US administration have agreed to Israel taking action, Israel don't want to risk a new US government saying no ?

[Blackcat1]

November eh? just before the world is supposed to come to an end on December 12th!!!!!!

[smurf]

Not sure if it's relevant to this discussion but the reactor at Bushehr reached 100% power at the end of last month and Rosatom are planning to handover control of the plant at the end of this year.

[Ronald Reagan]

I have some good friends in Israel and Iran. The Iranians were nothing like I expected! Truely great people.
A war between these two nations would be a disaster for both. I would tell Israel if they attack they are on their own. As for the Iranian regime, thats a hard one, if the west ever goes to war then the Iranian people will pay terribly. On the other hand if they were ever stupid enough to attack Israel first then we should ofcourse come to the aid of Israel.

The irony is rich though, in many ways the Iranian regime is a product of western interference with that nations politics, so we are in many ways to blame for the existance of that regime. I don't see we can really stop them getting nukes, I certainly don't want them to have them, but an all out war to stop them, I don't think so.
The regime is terrible (my Iranian friends hate it) BUT some of what they say is just talk to satisfy certain domestic groups. IF they ever manage to get nukes I would be very surprised if they ever used them, simply as Israel could respond in kind and also the US!

To me the Iranian regime seems far more interested in growing trade with places like India, China and Russia. I was amazed regarding India as one would think such vocal supporters of their religion would not want anything to do with the enemy of Pakistan! To me they are more concerned with the creation of wealth and power than having a war.

[Pete_uk]

I expect the ordinary citizen of Iran is a nice, all round person. As were the people of Iraq. I expect a lot of them are quite surprisingly well informed as well. Its just a shame that things above them (and us) end up causing a lot of grief.

[Ronald Reagan]

I expect the ordinary citizen of Iran is a nice, all round person. As were the people of Iraq. I expect a lot of them are quite surprisingly well informed as well. Its just a shame that things above them (and us) end up causing a lot of grief.

I agree totally Pete. At the time I supported the war in Iraq (2003), but considering the aftermath I am now much more reluctant to trust our leaders or will to engage in a war. War should only ever be the very last option, its the lives of our personnel on the line and ofcourse many civilians in the nation in question.
We and the Americans seem to always feel we have to be the worlds policemen. In my opinion most of these interventions ends badly (not all), but most do. The politicians just don't seem to think about the long term consesquences of their actions.

[Gary]

Iran: US bases fair game if attacked by Israel
By Ali Akbar Dareini - The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Sep 23, 2012 11:58:00 EDT
TEHRAN, Iran — A senior commander in Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard warned that Iran will target U.S. bases in the region in the event of war with Israel, raising the prospect of a broader conflict that would force other countries to get involved, Iranian state television reported Sunday.

The comments by Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who heads the Guard’s aerospace division, came amid tension over Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s suggestion that it might unilaterally strike Iranian nuclear facilities to scuttle what the United States and its allies believe are efforts to build a bomb. Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Hajizadeh said no Israeli attack can happen without the support of its most important ally, the United States, making all U.S. military bases a legitimate target.

“For this reason, we will enter a confrontation with both parties and will definitely be at war with American bases should a war break out,” Hajizadeh said in remarks that were posted on the website of Iran’s state Al-Alam TV. U.S. facilities in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan would be targeted, he said.

“There will be no neutral country in the region,” Hajizadeh said. “To us, these bases are equal to U.S. soil.”

The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain and the U.S. has a heavy military presence in Afghanistan.

Despite Israeli hints of a military strike, Iran’s military commanders believe Israel is unlikely to take unilateral action against Iran. The Guard’s top commander, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, said last week that Iran believes the United States won’t attack Iran because its military bases in the Middle East are within the range of Iran’s missiles.

Iran has also warned that oil shipments through the strategic Strait of Hormuz will be in jeopardy if a war breaks out between Iran and the United States. Iranian officials had previously threatened to close the waterway, the route for a fifth of the world’s oil, if there is war.

Israel believes that any attack on Iran would likely unleash retaliation in the form of Iranian missiles as well as rocket attacks by Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on its northern and southern borders.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel says international diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions against Iran have failed to deter its nuclear ambitions, and he has urged President Obama to declare “red lines” that would trigger an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, coupling his appeals with veiled threats of an Israeli attack.

Obama has rejected these calls, saying diplomacy and U.S.-led sanctions must be given more time and that Iran will never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. American officials have pressed Israel not to attack Iran unilaterally, a move that could set off regional mayhem just ahead of the November election.

Info from Navy Times

[hertsman]

There used to be an accepted Foreign Office policy that we didn't interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. I believe this is still the optimum default position.

Like all government policy, it was changeable according to the needs and expediencies of the day. As soon as any policy is cast in stone an unforeseen situation inevitability arises which casts doubt on its wisdom in that particular case. Yet I still believe that our first inclination should be non-interference, changeable only upon proper consideration and parliamentary debate. The Balkans was a case in point where genocide was being committed within Europe once more, threatening the peace and stability of the region. Since 9/11, there has been an increasing tendency to start from the point of ' We should intervene' rather than 'It is our policy not to intervene'. I believe this balance needs to revert to the status quo.

When you stand between two (or more) sides with the best of intentions, you can soon find you become a target for all. Recent foreign adventures by the West have not won plaudits, more often outright hostility from those we set out to protect. I believe our primary consideration for intervention in such cases should be the self-interest of ourselves or our allies. Cold-hearted maybe, but if we are to risk our troops lives, it should be for the return of greater security, protection and prosperity for our country. I did not support the Libyan intervention, although I will always support our troops in action. I do not support a Syrian military intervention. Humanitarian relief - yes, of course, even where it has to be delivered under armed protection. Taking an overt military stance on behalf of one internal faction over another? Take great, great care.

hertsman

[RichC]

Some interesting comments
Obama address
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZP6SNvkrD0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wave scanner]

Don't forget the sinking of a USN warship conspiracy theory...
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13782 ... know-about" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Suv0Wtf-6Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hertsman]

I watched Obama's speech linked by RichC with interest. Obama is certainly one of the most powerful orators of recent times and would that we had someone with his presence to speak for us. What I am less sure about is whether he can walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Has he really delivered on his promise of change? I tend to think not although he is not the first, nor will he be the last, politician to find that making good on the promises made on the election trail is way, way harder once the realities and shackles of office are taken up.

He tackled the issue of the murder of a US envoy in Libya very well, when the siren call would be to lash out. Equally he tried to bridge the divide that separates democracy from religious fanaticism. Very creditable. Yet I can't help feeling that there remains a huge groundswell of anti-American feeling that, while ostensibly in the cause of an insult to their religion, may be the taking of an opportunity to hit back at a country which they do not trust for a whole range of reasons. Of course Obama is not responsible for much of the US policy which gave rise to this mistrust, and it is an unbelievably difficult task for him to steer a way through issues such as US support for Israel at the same time as calling for cooperation with the Arab states.

Coming back to the thread topic, he is clearly between a rock and a hard place over Iran's nuclear ambitions and Israeli intransigence. Now any nuclear weapons debate is a wander through the moral maze. What gives the (admitted) nuclear club the right to deny that opportunity to others? What about those strongly suspected to possess them but not part of the club - say Israel for example? I am the first to admit that I am worried about a nuclear capable Iran, because, like North Korea, its government stands outside normal international relations, but who decides who we trust with the capability and those we don't? And nuclear proliferation is scary stuff. It also seems inexorable too so who might come under the cross-hairs next? What if it were one of our friends? Tricky.

The best hope is that the US, United Nations and other leading lights must do all we can to open and maintain a dialogue with those states who shut themselves off from the rest of the world. That does not mean fighting them (unless they attack us) and it does not mean expecting them to suddenly become just like us. They have right to self determination. Obama said America would walk alongside those who shared their ideals - well it may also mean having to walk alongside some who don't and respecting each other's rights to think differently as well.

It is very easy to denigrate politicians, and I am no different to anyone else - sometimes what they do just seems to beggar belief. But the reality is that making the kinds of difficult decisions they have to make and dealing with the mind-numbing consequences of those decisions is a hard, hard job. It seems there are no ways of getting it right, but no end of ways of getting it wrong. Glad I can sound off without having to face the consequences they have to - but I guess that's one of the privileges of democracy.

hertsman