Iran:The Next War

[Rasputin]

You may be surprised at the answer; there are already over 205 cosponsors of H.Con.Res. 362. Is yours one?

This bill calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also “demands” that the President impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.”

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, the critical chokepoint through which nearly a quarter of the world’s oil passes. Imposing such a blockade without United Nations authority (which the resolution does not call for) would be considered an act of war. Some congressional sources say the House could vote on the resolution as early as this week.

Critics of the bill claim that if the US Congress were to pass H.Con.Res. 362, it would send the signal to the Iranian people and the international community that the US is willing to engage in an aggressive and unwarranted act of war before direct diplomacy even begins. That interpretation is refuted, however, by strong interests in Washington who have pushed to promote the petroleum embargo as a voluntary hold on exports to Iran from a coalition of willing countries. Supporters claim that this proposal is actually an alternative to war and an effective approach to pressure Iran economically.

Sensing that the threat of war has once again increased -- especially in light of this month’s Israeli military exercises which simulated a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities -- IAEA Director Mohamad El Baradei warned last week that he would resign if any country attacked Iran.

Economic analysts worry that the risk of military escalation in the Persian Gulf could drive oil prices above their already record highs, possibly approaching $200 per barrel. During this highly charged political time, members of Congress are prone to give in to calls for tough talk and escalation against Iran. That approach, however, has failed for nearly three decades and produces nothing more than higher gas prices and a constantly growing risk of war.

Your members of Congress need to hear your opinion about this. Tell your members of Congress not to support this war resolution.

[Rasputin]

Big Dog, Little Tail: The American Elite Resolves on War With Iran

Let's be clear about one thing: Israel will not attack Iran without the full knowledge and approval of the United States government. The trigger of the "warning shot" of Israel's long-range air-strike exercise last week was actually pulled in Washington. The Israelis will not force or deceive the U.S. government into an attack on Iran; that attack – which grows more certain by the hour – will take place because America's bipartisan foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex (to the extent that there is any real difference between the two) want it to happen, or are willing to let it happen.

It is of course an article of faith for some people that the Israeli tails wags the big American dog. This rather ludicrous assertion is nothing more than the pernicious doctrine of "American exceptionalism" tricked out in "dissident" drag. For its underlying assumption is that good ole true-blue American elites would never commit war crimes or seek empire and geopolitical dominion unless they had somehow been tricked into it by those wily Jews. This is exactly backwards. If Israel was of no use to the American elite's domination agenda, then it would be discarded, or at least downgraded in terms of military, economic and diplomatic support.

When a nation serves the American elite's interests well, it is rewarded, and its various shortcomings are overlooked, however egregious they might be. Saudi Arabia is a prime example. Egypt is another. Iraq is a negative example. When Saddam's regime was thought useful, it was supported, copiously. When Saddam was no longer useful – especially when he threatened the Bush Family's long-time business partners in Kuwait – then he became "a new Hitler." When Iran was governed by a tyrant friendly to Washington, it was lauded – and larded with the usual military support and diplomatic muscle. When unfriendly tyrants took over, Iran became a land of Persian devils. The list of such examples from American history goes on and on.

If Israel had, say, opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it would have found itself shorn of much of its American largess very quickly. Israel is in fact almost entirely dependent on the United States for its military and economic well-being; in return it gives unstinting support to the interests of the American elite. It is in many ways one of the most abject client states in the world today, outside of Iraq or Afghanistan. The fact that there is a convergence of interests and ideology between militarist elites in the United States and Israel is hardly surprising. It would only be surprising if this were not the case. And so we see a cross-pollination of ideas, strategies, techniques, technologies – and even, in some cases, personnel (e.g. the "Clean Break" group) – between these elites.

For the same reasons, we also see a strong "Jewish Lobby" in the United States. For although those lobbying organizations do not actually represent the viewpoint of the majority of American Jews, they do offer unwavering support to the American elite's domination agenda. These organizations – like Israel itself – also serve as useful stalking horses and lightning rods. In the first instance, they can stake out radical positions which would be too impolitic for America's governing elite to espouse too openly. In the second instance, they can always be conveniently blamed for "radicalizing" or "duping" the American elite if one of the latter's schemes for loot and dominion go wrong. And of course they can be used to punish domestic politicians who fail to hew slavishly enough to the elite's imperial line. But if AIPAC came out tomorrow with, say, a demand that America dismantle its worldwide empire of military bases, or condemned the invasion of Iraq as a war crime, we would see its influence decline almost instantly. Again, it is the convergence of interests with the American elite, and their willingness to serve those interests, that give the government of Israel and non-representative organizations like AIPAC such a prominent role.

For example, AIPAC has played the stalking horse in helping push Resolution 362, the "Iran War Resolution," toward its virtually guaranteed passage by the House. The bill – supported by the usual broad spectrum of the "bipartisan foreign policy establishment" – calls for, among other things, a full blockade of Iran. This is of course an outright act of war, and one aimed directly and purposely at the Iranian people, who would be subjected to the same kind of treatment that left at least a million Iraqis dead during the many years of American-led, bipartisan sanctions against Saddam's regime. This fact – an impending act of war that could inflict untold suffering upon millions of innocent people, even before the first shot is fired – does not seem to trouble anyone in the American establishment, nor in the "progressive blogosphere."

Arthur Silber has a few choice words on this situation here, including:

In the fearsome, awful, terrifying wake of an attack on Iran, as the economy crumbles, as violence spreads throughout the Middle East, Asia and possibly elsewhere, as life falls apart in the United States, do you think anyone will give a damn about FISA? Do you think anyone will even remember FISA? Do you doubt that the government will seize and utilize powers that will make FISA look like child's play? Do you doubt that the government will do all this with the active, eager participation of the Democrats?

II.
The stated casus belli in the "Iran War Resolution" – which replicates exactly the bellicose intentions and deceptions of the Bush Administration – is Iran's "nuclear enrichment activities." This is presented as an unmitigated evil worthy of the most severe measures, including an act of war like a blockade. The truth, of course, is that these enrichment activities are entirely legal under international treaties governing nuclear proliferation, and are being carried out under the most extensive and stringent international supervision ever imposed on a nation, as Kaveh Afrasiabi notes in the Asia Times. Afrasiabi also details the rank falsehoods about Iran's nuclear programme, and the international inspection program overseeing it, that permeate the American media:

...in an article in The Wall Street Journal, US Congresswoman Jane Harman, who chairs the powerful Homeland Security Intelligence Committee, cites Iran's steady progress in installing new centrifuges and the dangers posed by "unsupervised, weapons-grade material" in Tehran's hands.

Never mind that IAEA reports clearly confirm that all of Iran's enrichment-related facilities are under the agency's "containment and monitoring", or that IAEA inspectors have had nine "unannounced visits" at the enrichment facility in Natanz since March 2007.

Thus, for instance, in a front-page article in the New York Times, dated June 20, Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt break the sensational news about Israel's extensive maneuvers in preparation for an attack on Iran, indirectly rationalizing Israel's belligerency by omitting any mention of the IAEA's latest report confirming the absence of any evidence of military nuclear diversion and, instead, confining themselves to the following comment: "In late May, the IAEA reported that Iran's suspected work on nuclear matters was a 'matter of serious concern' and that the Iranians owed the agency 'substantial explanation'."

What ought to have been added was that the same IAEA report states unequivocally that it had received "no credible information" regarding the alleged "weaponization studies", nor has the agency detected any nuclear activity connected to those alleged studies. Besides, the same IAEA report more than a dozen times stresses the evidence of peacefulness of Iran's nuclear program...

To turn to another example of flawed coverage of Iran by the US media, a recent editorial in the Dallas News states categorically that the IAEA "has recently accused Iran of developing its program of enriching uranium". The editors appear unaware that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory, does not prohibit Iran's uranium-enrichment program.

The IAEA has never declared Iran in material breach of its obligations and, certainly, has never "accused" Iran of pursuing a program sanctioned under the NPT. Rather, the governing board of the IAEA has simply requested from Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear program as a "confidence-building measure", that is, as a time-bound and thus temporary "legally non-binding" step.

As Sam Gardiner notes, Bush and his minions are now pounding the "enrichment" theme as their chief drumbeat for war with Iran. And they have obviously succeeded in demonizing the entirely legal and carefully supervised process of enrichment, as demonstrated by the Congressional resolution and the press coverage, both of which also take up "enrichment" as an evil that must be stopped at all costs.

No doubt this is in response to the IAEA reports noted by Afrasiabi, which have found no credible information about "weaponization studies." (And those are just studies, mind you, not actual weaponization programs.) This is of course not the first time that the Bush Administration has moved the goalposts in its fearmongering campaign. As we noted here last December, just after the Administration's own intelligence agencies declared that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program, Bush announced that

[Rasputin]

عمليات 400 ميليون دلاري آمريكا در ايران


به گفته سيمور هرش حمايت آمريكا از مخالفان حكومت ايران ممكن است به سركوب خشونت آميز دگرانديشان بيانجامد كه اين به نوبه خود بهانه اي به جورج بوش براي حمله به ايران مي دهد
بر اساس مقاله روز يكشنبه هفته نامه نيويوركر رهبران كنگره آمريكا اواخر سال گذشته با درخواست مالي جورج بوش براي گسترش قابل توجه عمليات مخفيانه به منظور بي ثبات كردن حكومت ايران موافقت كردند.
اين مقاله كه توسط سيمور هرش نوشته شده مبتني بر سند بسيار محرمانه "يافته رياست جمهوري" است كه توسط جورج بوش امضا شده كه بر اساس قانون بايد به اطلاع رهبران هر دو حزب كنگره آمريكا برسد.

سيمور هرش به نقل از فردي كه با اين پروژه آشنا بوده مي نويسد هدف از اين سند "تضعيف بلندپروازي هاي اتمي ايران و تلاش براي تضعيف حكومت از طريق تغيير رژيم است."

همكاري با گروه هاي مخالف و انتقال پول به آنها بخشي از اين پروژه است.

اين مقاله به نقل از منابع كنوني و پيشين نظامي، اطلاعاتي و نيز كنگره مي افزايد تقاضاي 400 ميليون دلاري بوش براي بسط عمليات پنهاني عليه حكومت ايران به تاييد رهبران كنگره رسيد.

به نوشته سيمور هرش عمليات مخفيانه عليه ايران جديد نيست و نيروهاي عملياتي ويژه آمريكا از سال گذشته تاكنون در مناطق مرزي جنوب عراق فعال بوده اند.

اين فعاليت ها شامل دستگيري اعضاي نيروي قدس سپاه پاسداران، انتقال و بازجويي آنها در عراق و جستجوي "اهداف بسيار ارزشمند" به منظور دستگيري و يا كشتن بوده است.

به نوشته سيمور هرش ميزان و وسعت اين گونه فعاليت ها كه سازمان سيا نيز در آن شركت دارد، بطور قابل توجهي گسترش يافته است.

اما بر اساس اين مقاله برخي از اين اقدامات مشخصا در سند "يافته رياست جمهوري" نيامده و مورد مخالفت برخي اعضاي كنگره بوده است.

رابرت بائر مامور سابق سيا گفته است جند الله يكي از گروه هايي است كه از حمايت آمريكا بهره مند است.

اما ولي نصر كارشناس شوراي روابط خارجي به هرش گفته جندالله سازماني خشن و شرير است.

اين مقاله تاكيد مي كند حمايت آمريكا از مخالفان حكومت ايران ممكن است به سركوب خشونت آميز دگرانديشان بيانجامد كه اين به نوبه خود بهانه اي به جورج بوش براي حمله به ايران مي دهد.

هيچ يك از رهبران دمكرات كنگره آمريكا حاضر نشده اند كه در اين زمينه با سيمور هرش گفتگو كنند.

سيمور هرش طي چند سال گذشته طي مقالات متعددي خبر از برنامه ريزي جورج بوش براي حمله به ايران داده است.

[Rasputin]

The Bush administration has once again ratcheted up the drum beating of a “Preemptive War” against Iran, on the presumption of the now familiar saber rattling pretext of “weapons of mass destruction.” Many believe his motive as a dire hope of passing on the White-House-Baton to another neo-conservative warmonger, John McCain, as his successor. While the court of public opinion worldwide, including the U.S., is unanimously against waging another bloody war of transgression costly to all sides concerned, President Bush, at least on the surface, seems to have been orchestrating another false image of “an international coalition” relying on his political lackeys and lapdogs and poodles and patsies in Europe, Israel and the Middle East, as they are referred to by the independent press and the populace.

There has been repeated number of unannounced inspections (over 3,000) and live camera surveillance by the IAEA of the so-called nuclear sites in Iran; Iran, unlike other intransigent regimes in the region, has signed onto the NPT and the UN conventions for nuclear non-proliferations. There is no proven evidence to substantiate the frivolous claim by the Bush administration that the Iranian nuclear development, which Iran states is for peaceful energy and medical applications, has or is leading toward nuclear weapon development. It is believed that the Iranian regime has ostentatiously showcased its nuclear projects seeking security guarantees from outside while orchestrating and exploiting a domestic unified sense of nationalism and pride.

Iran is a highly diverse and historically rich nation, with archaeological monuments dating back to 10,000 years, and with a continuous form of government within the past 2,500 years. The struggle for democracy, modernization and socio-cultural and political reform in Iran has actually labored on for over one hundred years, only to be hindered by external colonial intervention, albeit the Americans since World War II, and their internal native cronies so as to exploit the natural and strategic resources of the country. In fact, the first democratically elected Iranian prime-minister, Dr. Mohammad Mosadegh, the internally acclaimed lawyer who nationalized Iranian oil and defended Iran’s sovereignty against the Anglo-American Oil consortium was overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup in 1953, followed by the reluctant return of the Shah to in effect reinstall the absolute monarch on the Persian Peacock throne, that had been abolished fifty years earlier. The modest degree of domestic reform and international engagement achieved in Iran during the 90’s, has now been replaced by some of the harshest repressive measures unseen since the midst of the revolutionary fervor of the late 70’s. The credit for such socio-political regression goes to Bush and his denigrating label of Iran as a member of the “Axis of Evil” and his continued ideologically inflamed rhetoric of the “battle of Armageddon” that has in essence resurrected the ultra-, and neo-conservatives everywhere. The current annual U.S. financing of up to 100 million dollars of covert ethnic unrest and interference in Iran’s internal affairs, as grotesque as it may seem to most honorable Americans, has further antagonized, and as result disenfranchised the political hierarchies of the Middle East region.




The press and media as well as the populace in both countries should, therefore, remain vigilant by expressing their conscientious objections to war and terrorism, and repression and bloodshed, and their staunch advocacy instead, for negotiations, justice and peace; otherwise, we may be facing a horrifically calamitous outcome that could engulf the entire Middle East, thereby pushing the price of oil astronomically and an economic contraction to follow. As treacherous as the long-term intertwined national interests of the Americans, the Iranians, and the Israelis, may be portrayed by those with ulterior motives from all sides. They can harmoniously achieve credibility and economic competitiveness for the U.S., legitimate security and progress for Israel, and homegrown democracy, justice and development for Iran, if and when a mutually respectful multilateral negotiation convene to resolve all outstanding Middle Eastern issues. The time, to resort to human basics of logic and reason, rationale and justice, over belligerence and confrontation, and hegemony and adventurism, is far overdue. This paradigm, as counterintuitive as it may seem to the sold-out political powerhouses and lobbying think-tanks, is nonetheless, congruent with the longing aspirations of the peoples of the U.S., Israel and Iran who have reaffirmed their desires for CHANGE.

[Rasputin]

On June 20, 2008, Michael Eisenstadt and Patrick Clawson addressed a Policy Forum at The Washington Institute. Mr. Eisenstadt is a senior fellow and director of the Institute's Military and Security Studies Program, and Dr. Clawson is deputy director of research at the Institute. The two recently coauthored The Last Resort: Consequences of Preventive Military Action against Iran. The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks.



Online audio of this event is also available at WashingtonInstitute.org

PATRICK CLAWSON
When considering preventive military action against Iran's nuclear program, one must remember that such an exercise is purely hypothetical at this point. In fact, with some renewed vigor, diplomacy still might succeed in convincing Iran to suspend its nuclear program, as was the case in 2003.

Context matters when discussing preventive action against Iran. For example, if Iran's leaders announced they were developing nuclear weapons, leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and intending to test a nuclear weapon, the debate for using preventive military force would be entirely different. There is still a debate in the analytical community whether Iran wants a nuclear weapon or just a rapid breakout capability. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has stated that Iran has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons and that their use is un-Islamic.

If Iran suddenly announced its intent to test a nuclear weapon -- voiding the statements of the past twenty-five years -- such a situation would cast grave doubts on previous assessments and force analysts to seriously reconsider how well they can predict future Iranian action. If Iran persists on the path of nuclear weapons development, the resulting international crisis would surely change the discourse over preventive military action. The use of preventive military force, in this and other cases, would become thinkable.

Several other factors make a difference in the context of the use of force. In domestic Iranian politics, the extent to which the country is led by hardliners, who are seen by their own people as risk-takers, overly assertive, and overly confident, creates one context. In contrast, if Iran were to elect a new president who is seen as a man of moderation and compromise, such as situation would create a very different context in Iran, internationally, and in the United States. Similarly, developments on the international diplomatic front would affect the context.

An additional key issue is on what basis a determination is made about the status of Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. intelligence community has a decidedly mixed record on this score. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on the other hand, has done some remarkable detective work during its on-site inspections in North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. Therefore, a decision to use preventive military force based on IAEA inspections would be very different than acting on disputed intelligence.

The level of support for military action will determine what happens after the operation, and is also an important metric in determining the success of such a strike. Success would also weigh on domestic U.S. and international support for, and Iranian domestic rejection or acceptance of, military action. Iran, based on its record, is sensitive to world opinion, and this should not be discounted when considering diplomatic pressure in resolving the issue. The impact of a strike on global U.S. standing will also be a key determinant in the success or failure of military action. A strike on an Iranian nuclear facility would have the added objective of dissuading others international actors from pursuing nuclear arms.

MICHAEL EISENSTADT
Assessing the risks and outcomes of preventive military action against Iran is a difficult analytical challenge to undertake because of the military and political uncertainties, and the high stakes involved. Diplomacy is by far the best option right now, at least as long as it offers even a mild chance of success.

Nevertheless, the United States might come to the conclusion soon that diplomacy has run its course and that other options, namely prevention and deterrence, have to be examined. Prevention must remain as an option in order to bolster diplomacy, and because it may be necessary at some point. The public debate about prevention tends to focus on military and technical challenges. On the issue of targeting, accurate intelligence is the sine qua non for effective prevention. There are also the challenges of weaponeering and hitting hardened, buried facilities effectively. Success most likely would require multiple strikes over time.

To measure the success of such a policy, the most crucial factor is whether Iran decides to rebuild. Success would likely hinge on Washington's ability to craft a sustainable policy that effectively integrates military, diplomatic, and informational policy instruments to cause maximum destruction to the nuclear infrastructure, to mitigate the consequences of Iranian retaliation, and to set the conditions for successful post-strike diplomacy or military action. Iran's possible responses, though not exhaustive, include: withholding its oil exports, disrupting regional oil exports, attacking allied and U.S. regional assets and interests, or launching a full-scale war.

Prevention cannot be examined in a vacuum, however, and must be considered alongside the other policy option available to the United States, namely deterrence. The cost-benefit analysis of the two options may be one of the most complex and difficult problems facing the United States, given the uncertainties of success and the prices of failure for each. Deterrence is not an easy, low-risk alternative. If one were to juxtapose the risks and benefits of the two options, the balance sheet might conclude that prevention entails significant near-term risk of Iranian retaliation for an uncertain outcome whose benefits may be relatively short-lived, while deterrence defers the crisis but runs very high risks in the long term. There is also the risk that Iran's acquisition of nuclear capability may tempt other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere to pursue their own nuclear capability.

Prevention and deterrence are not mutually exclusive options. Prevention may delay but not halt Iran's nuclear program, and may in the end be just a very costly detour on the path to deterrence. Given that the United States has set a very high rhetorical bar with Iran's nuclear program, if Tehran acquired a nuclear weapon, the United States might have more difficulty establishing credible future warnings, threats, and red lines.

If diplomacy fails, either option will have profound consequences for the future of the Middle East, the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, and for U.S. standing in the world. For this reason, the United States must redouble its efforts to find a diplomatic solution to this problem.

This rapporteur's summary was prepared by Audrey Flake.

[Rasputin]

چنانچه منافعمان به خطر بيافتد،تنگه هرمز را خواهيم بست

رييس ستاد كل نيروهاي مسلح تنگه هرمز را آبراهي راهبردي توصيف كرد و گفت: ما براي بازبودن اين تنگه اهميت زيادي قائل هستيم، و همه كشورهاي ديگر بايد توجه كنند كه چنانچه منافع ايران در اين منطقه ناديده گرفته شود، بديهي است ما نيز اجازه استفاده به ديگران را نخواهيم داد.

به گزارش خبرنگار امور دفاعي انتخاب، سردار سرلشكر بسيجي سيدحسن فيروزآبادي با ياداوري جنايت بزرگ ساقط كردن هواپيماي ايرباس جمهوري اسلامي ايران در 20 سال قبل ضمن ابراز همدردي و تسليت مجدد به خانواده هاي قربانيان اين سانحه فجيع و اقدام تروريستي دولت آمريكا، خطاب به نظاميان و سربازان آمريكايي مستقر در منطقه اظهار داشت: به اين نظاميان و سربازان يادآور مي شويم كه مبادا با طناب پوسيده جرج بوش مانند فرمانده ناو وينسنس به چاه بيفتند و نام خود را در زمره جنايتكاران تاريخ قرار دهند.

وي گفت: ارتش آمريكا متعلق به دولت اين كشور است و نبايد مورد سوء استفاده اشخاص جنگ طلب و زياده خواه و وجه المصالحه جرج بوش و صهيونيستها واقع شود.

سرلشكر فيروزآبادي همچنين دولت آمريكا را گرفتار چنبره صهيونيزم جهاني دانست و گفت: ارتش و ملت اين كشور نبايد فداي حاكمان بي لياقت و تحت سيطره زياده خواهان صهيونيست شوند.

[Rasputin]

به منظور تضمين شناسايي تمام افراد نيروهاي مسلح كشور مهاجم ترتيبي اتخاذ نمائيد تا كليه اطلاعات افراد و گروههاي مسلح درگير در نبرد قبل از هرگونه ورود به جبهه*هاي جنگ در اختيار كميته جستجوي مفقودين قرار گيرد.

آفتاب: سردار ميرفيصل باقرزاده فرمانده كميته جستجوي مفقودين ستاد كل نيروهاي مسلح كه چندي پيش خبر از حفر 320 هزار قبر براي متجاوزين به ايران داده بود در نامه*اي سرگشاده به آقاي «پيتراشتوكر»، رئيس دفتر نمايندگي كميته بين المللي صليب سرخ در ايران ضمن شرح دادن وظايف اين كميته در زمان جنگ، بر كمكهاي صليب سرخ به اين كميته در صورت بروز جنگ احتمالي تاكيد كرد.

به گزارش سرويس سياسي آفتاب، متن كامل نامه فرمانده كميته جستجوي مفقدين ستاد كل نيروهاي مسلح به صليب سرخ به شرح زير است:

جناب آقاي پيتراشتوكر
با تقديم بهترين سلام*ها و آرزوي موفقيت، همانگونه كه مطلع مي*باشيد، كميته جستجوي مفقودين جمهوري اسلامي*ايران به عنوان عالي*ترين دستگاه اجرائي در حوزه مقابله با عوارض جنگ رواني اجتماعي جنگ از جمله موضوع مفقودين و قربانيان جنگي فعاليت مي*كند، به نحوي كه عملكرد آن پس از جنگ تحميلي رژيم بعثي عراق عليه ايران براي آن كميته آشناست.

در همين رابطه و بر اساس اهداف بشر دوستانه و به منظور تعيين قلمرو، سياست*ها و چگونگي آموزش، پشتيباني عملي و تجهيزاتي از نقش آفرينان اين كميته (اعم از نظامي *ويا مردمي*) كه در صحنه تدفين اجساد سربازان متجاوز دشمن ناگزير به دخالت مي*گردند تمهيداتي از سوي كميته جستجوي مفقودين در نظر گرفته شده*است كه مهم ترين آن در تقدم يك، حفر 320 هزار گور در استانهاي مرزي كشور است (مختصات نقاط ياد شده متعاقباً اعلام خواهد شد).

از آنجايي*كه كميته جستجوي مفقودين ستادكل نيروهاي مسلح بعنوان تنها نهاد ملّي براي مفقودين به طور داوطلبانه و يك جانبه، تكاليفي را در قالب سازو كارهاي چند جانبه تضمين و تعهد نموده است، انتظار داريم كميته بين المللي صليب سرخ بعنوان يك ميانجي بي*طرف برابر فهرستي كه اعلام مي*شود، ما را در اين عمليات خطير و انساني ياري نمايد تا بتوانيم عملكردي متناسب با استانداردهاي بين المللي و توام با قابليت توسعه موثر و قابل تحمل براي جامعه ملّي داشته باشيم؛ به نحوي كه اين مركز به طور همزمان توانايي به كارگيري همه منابع نوسنجي شده جامعه جهاني را نيز داشته باشد.

• فهرست كلي نيازمندي*ها:
1- ضرورت كمك لجستيكي جهت ايجاد سامانه مركز اطلاعات رسمي *براي شناسايي آن گروه از سربازان متجاوز دشمن كه پس از كشته شدن يا اسارت بنا به علل مختلف در هويت*شان ترديد به وجود مي*آيد.

يادآوري: بديهي است كميته جستجوي مفقودين جمهوري اسلامي*ايران تلاش خواهد كرد تا حقوق بين المللي عرفي قابل اعمال در مخاصمات بين المللي مراعات شود و در اين رابطه طرف ايراني، آژانس جستجوي كميته بين المللي صليب سرخ را مناسب*ترين رابط خود با خانواده قربانيان مي*شناسد.

2- كمك به ايجاد و تداوم فعاليت تيم*هاي جستجوي سازمان يافته در مقياس ارضي جمهوري اسلامي*ايران با استعداد يكصد نفر در هر تيم، مجموعاً هفتاد تيم.

3- ظرفيت سازي و كمك لجستيكي به منظور تحقق مجموعه قطعنامه*هاي بين المللي، شامل قطعنامه*هاي*:
شانزدهم- كنفرانس بين المللي لندن (1938 )، هفدهمين- استكهلم (194، نوزدهمين- دهلي نو (1957 )، بيستمين- وين (1965) و بيست و چهارمين- مانيل (1981)

بديهي است حمايت كميته بين المللي صليب سرخ از كميته جستجوي مفقودين جمهوري اسلامي*ايران، به ويژه به استناد مصوبه 2 از بيست و چهارمين كنفرانس بين المللي مانيل مي*تواند تاثيري اساسي در پيشگيري از مفقود شدن سربازان دشمن در خاك پهناور جمهوري اسلامي *ايران داشته باشد.

4- به منظور تضمين شناسايي تمام افراد نيروهاي مسلح كشور مهاجم ترتيبي اتخاذ نمائيد تا كليه اطلاعات افراد و گروههاي مسلح درگير در نبرد قبل از هرگونه ورود به جبهه*هاي جنگ در اختيار كميته جستجوي مفقودين قرار گيرد(مستند به بند 3 دستورالعمل اصول اجرايي).

ترجيحاً اين اطلاعات بايد شامل: نام و نام خانوادگي كامل، نام پدر، ملّيت، يگان اعزام كننده، شماره پلاك هويت و مشخصات ژنتيكي (DNA ) و آخرين محل سكونت باشد.

5- پشتيباني لجستيكي در فعاليت*هاي بشر دوستانه كميته ايراني جهت جمع آوري و تدفين سربازان دشمن در صحنه نبرد و اعمال مديريت در مورد بقاياي انساني كشته*شدگان.

يادآوري*: كميته جستجوي مفقودين آمادگي دارد تعدادي كارشناس مذهبي را بر*اساس معرفي كميته *بين المللي صليب سرخ براي انجام مراسم مذهبي تدفين به كارگيري نمايد.

6- حمايت لجستيكي ازكميته جستجوي مفقودين جهت نبش قبور و شناسايي بقاياي انساني افرادي كه براثر مواد تجزيه كننده و يا استحاله كننده زمين، در كوتاه مدت متلاشي مي*شوند.

در پايان كميته جستجوي مفقودين جمهوري اسلامي*ايران آمادگي دارد ضمن گفتگوي*هاي محرمانه با كميته بين المللي صليب سرخ، نحوه همكاري خود جهت اجراي صادقانه قوانين بين*المللي انسان دوستانه كه بايد به هنگام مواجهه با متجاوزين مورد توجّه قرار گيرد را معلوم و پيش از از وقوع هرگونه حادثه*اي در جهت حفاظت ازمنابع قربانيان تلاش نمايد.

به اميد آرزوي موفقيت و تقديم احترام براي حقوق بين الملل بشر دوستانه

[Rasputin]

During the last twenty-nine years, since the popular revolution toppled the Shah’s puppet regime, Iran has been a permanent target of military threats and economic and technological sanctions of the United States. For the application of this foreign policy, the U.S. has also utilized the power and influence of its long-time Western European allies who are also the members of the United Nations Security Council, namely Britain and France. In their long-term drive to subordinate Iran and effectively remove the government of the Islamic Republic, a significantly credible obstacle in the way of shoring up and consolidating their geopolitical hegemony and monopoly control over the vast oil and gas reserves of the Middle East, the U.S. and its allies have put into motion such belligerent proxies as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and the Zionist state of Israel.

Ironically the countries that have exhibited their open aggression towards the Iranian people, at the same time have framed their wicked undertakings as defensive measures and in response to Iran’s “intransigence”. In this cohort, the gladiatorial service of the Israelites is not confined to the grandest of all imperial powers – the United States. It has also served the lesser imperialist powers for a price.

“Last week,” writes the Financial Times of London on June 24, 2008, “a senior European diplomat told journalists in Washington…that while Europe was opposed to Israeli military action against Iran, the threat of such a strike was one of the most significant sources of pressure on Tehran.”

In this expression, the objectives of our European diplomat whose likes are lauded for their leanings toward dialogue, civility and diplomacy in the international and regional conflicts, except when they are marshalling and expanding the NATO troops, are crystal clear: 1) the use of force as a vehicle of intimidation, and 2) the use of the Zionist state as a pit-bull in the oil-rich region.

It is important to ask why Israel, who by any standard for a long time has been engaged in the on-going conflict with the peoples of Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, tries constantly to keep the issue of Iran’s uranium enrichment on the front-burner and has raised it to the level of Israel’s existential motto: to be or not to be. This garrison state goes as far as declaring itself ready to attack Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, should the U.S. hesitate to do so. In the last month, the likes of Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, and a crew of opinion-makers in the U.S. and European media, not to mention some diplomats, have been bellowing about Israel’s readiness to carry out a military assault on Iran. Should the Iranian government and people take these declarations seriously? In response to the alleged ‘imminent’ military attack, on Monday, June 23, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference: Israel “does not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran; they have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans.' Then, on June 25th, Reuters reported that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warned the United States against any attack on Iran: 'We advise U.S. officials to be careful not to face another tragedy,' Mohammad Hejazi, a senior commander of the elite Guards, was quoted by the official IRNA news agency. “Our last word is that if you want to move towards Iran make sure you bring walking sticks and artificial legs because if you came you will not have any legs to return on,' he said.

In the last two decades Israel has stubbornly called for imposing stiffer economic sanctions and blockades on Iran, as if Israeli starvation and besiege of the Palestinian people is not enough. Israel ceaselessly whines to the heads of the imperialist countries that Iran is getting ready, perhaps in the next six months or a year to produce an atomic bomb, if not two or three. But it never answers why Israel is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and how it came to have between 200 and 420 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.

The question remains to be answered why Israel, who is in the everyday business of massacring unarmed Palestinians, finds it necessary to march into another conflict? The answer is that in this case it is trying to help out its patron – the U.S.- by deflecting world public attention from the murderous acts of the U.S.-Nato troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bolster its goal of establishing a permanent military presence in the region.




It goes without saying that what is called the international community, i.e., the U.S., its allies in Western Europe and Israel follow the same foreign policy in relation to Iran. They all continue to raise the issue of Iran’s nuclear enrichment, call for stiffer economic, financial and trade sanctions, perform military exercises as a tool of psychological warfare, undermine Iran’s international relations, weaken the country economically to pressure Iran to give up its support for the resistance forces in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, wear down the resistance of the Iranian people and try to drive a wedge between the masses of people and the country’s leadership. All this is part of the plan of action of the United States to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely and be in control of the Middle East oil reserves. If these imperial powers can achieve such an outcome, Iran’s sovereignty and its revolutionary gains over the past 25 years will be seriously threatened.

What really would threaten the Iranian revolution and its long-term stability and progress is not the short-run threat of attack by the U.S. and/or Israel, but the increasing disparity in income and wealth between Iran’s social classes, the rich and the poor, and the political weights that they are loaded with.

One of the many plans of the U.S. Defense Department for shaping U.S. public opinion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been to justify its military presence and war operations in the M.E. region and against the peoples of Iraq and Iran, two of the three countries which were labeled as members of the “axis of evil” by President George W. Bush. By framing Iran as a non-complier with the rules of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a supporter of terrorists groups (read the national liberation movements), the U.S. government has hoped to justify its aggressive undertakings so much so that allows itself to take pride at openly declaring support for Israeli plans for military strikes against Iran’s strategic facilities.

Unfortunately, whenever Washington and Tel Aviv in collusion demonstrate their show of military strength to serve as an expression of their powerful presence and potentiality and by implication hope to induce fright and stir instability and perhaps paralysis in the hearts and minds of the Iranian body politic and society as well, the Pavlovian automatic response of the liberal and even some progressive pundits in the U.S. political circles is whether and even when the U.S. and Israel are intending to make the Iranian people and their nuclear and defense establishments the targets of their missiles.

Some go as far as setting the month and even the day such attacks could occur and in that capacity, they assume the role of fortune-tellers. Some even go further and set the time of attack by following the past seasonal pattern in which the U.S. has launched wars on other countries. This method of foretelling is a replica of the claims that are often made by the market gurus who try to establish causal relations between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and the behavior of the stock market. Such an approach could involuntarily give credence to the U.S.-Israeli psychological war propaganda.

There is absolutely no doubt that a great majority in the peace and progressive movements are well-intentioned and their concern about the U.S.-Israel menace stems out of their desire to prevent ever-greater Iranian casualties by preparing to oppose such an onslaught before it begins.

However, whenever the question of an Israeli-U.S. attack is the subject of conversation among Iranian leaders, and even among the Iranian people, the answer has been: “They cannot do a damn thing!” One may say that before the war on Iraq, President Saddam Hussein also downgraded the degree of danger, but the U.S. went on to invade that country.

The parallel drawn here is too simplistic because Iraq was acutely isolated, its relations with other Arab countries was at its worst level ever, it had been weakened by the eight-year war with Iran, its economy and people had suffered 12 long years of punitive sanctions imposed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, and its air defense system was under constant over-flights and bombings by the U.S. Navy forces in the North and the South of the country. Perhaps the more important factor is that Iran, unlike Iraq, has a very strong domestic support among the population and in the region is considered a vital political force.

[Rasputin]

فرمانده کل سپاه

با حمله به پایگاه های اتمی

جنگ را آغاز می کنیم

در کنترل گرفتن تنگه هرمز اولین هدف ایران در آغاز جنگ است




سرلشکر عزیز جعفری فرمانده کل سپاه پاسداران، بموجب خبری که خبرگزاری جمهوری اسلامی منتشر کرد اعلام کرد، با اشاره به اوج گیری اخبار مربوط به حمله نظامی به ایران و یا بستن تنگه هرمز به روی کشتی های حامل نفت ایران اعلام کرد:

جمهوری اسلامی هر گونه حمله به تاسیسات اتمی ایران را بعنوان «آغاز جنگ» تلقی خواهد کرد. سرلشکر جعفری که بصورت اختصاصی با خبرگزاری جمهوری اسلامی مصاحبه کرده است، در پاسخ به این سئوال که تغییرات جدید در ساختار و فرماندهی سپاه با توجه به خطر حمله به ایران صورت گرفته گفت:

طرح تشکیل 31 سپاه استانی از مدتی قبل مطرح بود و مقرر شد در سال جاری این طرح اجرا شود. در عین حال ما از نفت بعنوان عامل بازدارنده حمله به ایران استفاده خواهیم کرد و تنگه هرمز را کاملاً تحت کنترل خود خواهیم گرفت. تغییرات در حال انجام در سپاه پاسداران در راستای تقویت سپاه برای مقابله با تهدیدات آینده صورت می گیرد.

[Rasputin]

فرماندهان جدید، با تخصص جنگ های نا منظم

جانشین فرماندهان سابق سپاه می شوند

اعلام تغییرات گسترده برای آمادگی جنگی در سپاه

سپاه پاسداران

آماده حمله به ایران می شود

همزمان با تغییرات گسترده در فرماندهی سپاه و ایجاد 31 مرکز فرماندهی سپاه در سراسر کشور، که به معنای تقسیم ایران میان 31 فرماندهی سپاه است، فرمانده کل سپاه در مصاحبه ای که "جام جم" منتشر کرد، برای نخستین بار احتمال حمله به ایران را بصورت جدی طرح کرد. پیش از این مصاحبه و اعلام تغییرات جدید تشکیلاتی سپاه، فرمانده کل سپاه از ایجاد یک مرکز واحد موشکی تحت فرمان رهبر، بعنوان فرمانده کل قوا خبر داده بود. این اخبار بتدریج در طول دو هفته گذشته از دهان این و یا آن فرمانده سپاه نیز طرح شده بود که از سوی پیک نت نیز بعنوان اخبار مهم داخلی انتشار یافت. لینک این شماره های پیک نت را در ادامه گزارش جدیدی که می خوانید، جهت مطالعه دوباره می آوریم.




فرماندهان جدید لشکر سيدالشهدای تهران، تيپ جواد الائمه خراسان شمالی، لشکر ۳۱ عاشورای تبريز، لشکر ۱۶ قدس گيلان، لشکر صاحب الامر قزوين و لشکر علی بن ابيطالب قم منصوب شدند . سردار محمد حجازی، که خود جانشين سردار مرتضی رضائی قائم مقام فرمانده کل سپاه شده همزمان با اعلام این تغییرات گفت: انتصابات جدید به فرمان رهبر انجام می شود و شامل حوزه نمايندگی های ولی فقيه در سپاه پاسداران نیز می شود.

مرتضی رضائی از فرماندهان قدیمی و پرقدرت سپاه پاسداران بود و او را چشم امنیتی سپاه می دانستند. وی پس از انتقال سردار ذوالقدر به دولت احمدی نژاد از فرماندهی بخش امنیتی سپاه انتقال یافته و قائم مقام فرمانده جدید سپاه شده بود، که اکنون و با تحویل پست خود به سردار محمد حجازی معلوم نیست چه سمت و مقامی در سپاه دارد.

سردار حجازی همچنین اعلام داشت طبق برنامه ريزی انجام شده و دستور فرمانده سپاه پاسداران، مراکز فرماندهی ۳۱ گانه سپاه در کشور فعاليت خود را آغاز کرده و فرماندهان آنها در تمامی استان ها تا هفته آينده معرفی خواهند شد.

در ادامه همین تغییرات نظامی اعلام شد که در آذربایجان شرقی نخستين سپاه استانی با نام «سپاه عاشورايی» تشکیل شده است.

در راستای همین تغییرات، سردار حسین همدانی «نماينده ويژه فرمانده کل سپاه» نیز هدف از تغییرات جدید در سپاه را «حفظ وحدت و ضرورت حرکت در يک صف» اعلام داشت. وی اضافه کرد:

به فرمان مقام معظم رهبری سرپنجه های سپاه شامل پايگاه، حوزه، نواحی مقاومت، گردان های رزمی و تيپ ها باید تقویت شوند و به همین دلیل تدابير مهمی در ساختار سازمانی سپاه بوجود خواهد آمد.

تغيير نمايندگان ولی فقيه در اغلب استان ها نيز در حال انجام است و از جمله، حجت الاسلام محمد مقدسی به عنوان مسئول نمايندگی ولی فقيه در سپاه تهران بزرگ منصوب شد.

سرلشکر سپاه عزیرجعفری فرمانده کل سپاه دلیل اين تغييرات را افزايش همآهنگی و همکاری بين نيروی زمينی سپاه و نيروی بسيج نیز عنوان کرد و گفت: «با فعال شدن ۳۱ سپاه در استان های کشور، آمادگی و توانمندی های يگان های رزم و گردان های بسيج در صحنه مأموريت های سپاه بيش از پيش ارتقاء خواهد يافت. ارتباط بسيج با بدنه رزمی سپاه، ايجاد انسجام تشکيلاتی و تمرکز زدايی و توسعه اختيارات سپاه های استانی از اهداف این تغییرات است. به همین دلیل در برخی استان ها، لشکرها به سپاه استانی تبديل می شوند .

در 30 استان کشور مرکز فرماندهی تشکيل شده که بتدریج مستقر می شوند و در مورد استان تهران بدلیل وسعت و جمعیت پایتخت اين استان دو مرکز فرماندهی خواهد داشت. يکی در شهرستان کرج و ديگری در تهران بزرگ.

فرماندهان از اين پس می توانند با اختياراتی که به آنها واگذار شده تمامی امورات اداری واجرايی مانند استخدام، بازنشستگی و انتصابات را انجام دهند.

پیش از اعلام تغییرات جدید، از نخستین اقدامات اصلاحی در سپاه – پس از تغییر فرمانده کل آن- ادغام فرماندهی بسيج و سپاه در يکديگر و در دست گرفتن این فرماندهی از سوی سرلشکر عزیز جعفری بود. نخستین اقدام پس از این ادغام تغییر فرمانداه بسیج اصفهان و تهران بود.

از آنجا که فرمانده کل سپاه از بنيانگذاران گردان های ضد شورش عاشورا و الزهرا است، و متخصص«جنگ نامتقارن و نامنظم» این احتمال که تغییرات جدید در سپاه با پیش بینی آغاز حمله به ایران صورت می گیرد بسیار قوی به نظر می رسد. این گمانه زنی را تشکيل و تجهيز هسته های مستقلی از بسيج و سپاه با نام گردان های «ذوالفقار» و «کربلا» در سطح کشور بعنوان «سرپنجه های سپاه در مقابله با دشمن فرا منطقه ای» تقویت می کند. فرمانده نیروی زمینی سپاه با اعلام این خبر گفت: قرن بیست و یكم، قرن اسلام و دوره*ای است كه مجاهدت انسان*های مومن در راه اعتلای اسلام به*ثمر خواهد نشست.

[Rasputin]

Iran tests missiles amid tension with U.S., Israel

Iran test fired nine long- and medium-range missiles on Wednesday, state media said, including one which it has said could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the region.

The tests occurred at a time of increased tension between Iran and Israel over Tehran's nuclear program, which the West fears is aimed at making bombs. Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, says its program is only for electricity.

A New York Times report in June said Israel had practiced an attack on Iranian nuclear sites, and the tension has rattled financial markets. U.S. and London Brent crude oil futures rose by more than a dollar on news of Iran firing the missiles.

"The aim of holding this maneuver is to show (Iran's) will and authority to the enemies that have threatened Iran with harsh language in recent weeks," state broadcaster IRIB quoted a Revolutionary Guards commander as saying.

"We ... launch these missiles in honor of Iran, to show that this is only a small part of Iran's capability and defensive power," said the commander, Hossein Salami.

Israel, believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power, has vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb. The United States says it wants to resolve the dispute by diplomacy but has not ruled out military action.

"Israel does not threaten Iran, but the Iranian nuclear program combined with their aggressive ballistic missile program is a matter of grave concern." Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said after the tests.

IRAN'S WARNING

An aide to Iran's Supreme Leader was quoted as saying on Tuesday the Islamic Republic would hit Tel Aviv, U.S. shipping in the Gulf and U.S. interests around the world if it was attacked over its nuclear activities.

State Press TV said the "highly advanced" missiles tested by the Guards included a "new" Shahab 3 missile, which officials have said could reach targets 2,000 km (1,250 miles) away.

The TV, which said the Shahab 3 carries a conventional warhead, showed images of missiles blasting off in the desert and leaving long vapor trails as they soared into the sky.

Other ground-to-ground missiles tested by naval and air units of the Guards were the Zelzal and Fateh, with respective ranges of 400 km and 170 km, state TV said.

Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if it comes under attack. About 40 percent of globally traded oil moves through the Gulf waterway.

Leaders of the Group of Eight rich countries expressed serious concern at the proliferation risks posed by Iran's nuclear program.

In a statement issued after G8 leaders met in Hokkaido, northern Japan, the grouping urged Tehran to suspend all uranium enrichment-related activities -- a step Iran has rejected.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said major world powers had decided to send European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana to Iran for talks on an incentives package they offered last month to induce Tehran to change its nuclear policy.

Sarkozy did not say when Solana would travel to Tehran. Iran formally replied on Friday to the offer by the United States, France, Britain, China, Russia and Germany.

France said Iran's response had ignored the world powers' demand that it suspend enrichment.

The U.S. dollar weakened on Wednesday and U.S. treasuries trimmed their losses over news of the missile tests.

[Rasputin]

Iran test-fires missiles, reports say

One day after threatening to strike Tel Aviv and United States interests if attacked, Iran's Revolutionary Guards were reported on Wednesday to have test-fired nine missiles, including one which Tehran claims has the range to reach Israel.

State-run media, quoted by Western news agencies, said the missiles were long- and medium-range projectiles, among them a new version of the Shahab-3 which Tehran maintains can hit targets 1,250 miles away from its firing position.

The reported tests coincide with increasingly tense negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program, which Iran says is for civilian purposes but which many Western governments suspect is aimed at building nuclear weapons. At the same time, United States and British warships have been conducting naval maneuvers in the Gulf — apparently within range of the launching site of the missiles tested on Wednesday. Israel insisted it did not want war with Iran.

"Israel has no desire for conflict or hostilities with Iran," Mark Regev, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said. "But the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program must be of grave concern to the entire international community."

The confrontation has drawn in the world's industrialized nations in the Group of 8, meeting in Japan, whose leaders urged Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran displayed its military capability just a day after the United States and the Czech Republic signed an accord to allow the Pentagon to deploy part of its contentious antiballistic missile shield, which Washington maintains is designed to protect in part against Iranian missiles.

Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam television and English-language Press-TV channel both reported the missile firings, Agence France-Presse reported.

Al-Alam said the missiles, fired from an undisclosed location in the Iranian desert, included a "Shahab-3 with a conventional warhead weighing one ton and a 2,000 kilometer range," or about 1,250 miles. Iran was first known to have fired a Shahab-3 in November, 2006.

The other missiles in the tests were identified as the Zelzal, with a range of 250 miles and the Fateh, with a range of 110 miles, Agence France-Presse reported. The Press-TV channel showed what was said to be the Shahab-3 missile rising amid clouds of dust from the desert launch site.

Hossein Salami, a commander of the Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying: "The aim of these war games is to show we are ready to defend the integrity of the Iranian nation."

"Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy. The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance," he said.

The missile tests followed remarks by a senior Iranian official who was quoted Tuesday as warning the United States against attacking Iran.

"In case that they commit such foolishness, Tel Aviv and the U.S. fleet in the Gulf would be the first targets to burst into flames receiving Iran's crushing response," said Ali Shirazi, a representative of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, according to the Iranian news agency.

Like the missile tests, the bellicose rhetoric seemed part of an effort by Iran to couple offers of negotiation with warnings of military preparedness.

Negotiations between Iran and the West are scheduled to resume later this month and Iranian officials have sounded mounting alarms about speculation that the United States or Israel could attack Tehran's nuclear facilities. On a European tour last month, President George W. Bush repeated Washington's warning that no options had been ruled out.

"The Zionist regime is pushing the White House to get prepared for military attack," the news agency quoted Shirazi as saying.

Last weekend, Iran signaled that it would not comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring it to stop enriching uranium. During his European visit, Bush won pledges from some European leaders to tighten sanctions against Iran.

Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said in a letter that Iran was prepared to open comprehensive negotiations with the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and the six world powers — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — that have proposed a set of incentives to resolve the impasse over its nuclear program.

A senior European official involved in the negotiations said Saturday that Solana would meet with Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, later this month.

On Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said demands that Iran halt its enrichment program were illegitimate.

The semi-official Iranian news agency Fars has reported on recent military maneuvers by the Revolutionary Guards to improve its "combat capability."

[Rasputin]

هشدار اسد؛ چيزي خطرناك تر از حمله به ايران وجود ندارد

بشار اسد كه پس از مجادلات فراوان بر سر حضورش در فرانسه قرار است به عنوان يكي از مهمانان نشست اتحاديه مديترانه اي در پاريس شركت كند در گفتگوي اختصاصي با خبرنگار شبكه پنج فرانسه نظرات خود را در رابطه با پرونده هسته اي ايران ، مذاكره با اسرائيل و انتظاراتش از نشست اتحاديه مديترانه اي بيان كرد .

بشار اسد در اين گفتگو گفت : ابتكار تاسيس اتحاديه مديترانه اي در درجه اول ابتكاري اقتصادي است زيرا برخي معتقدند كه اقتصاد به ايجاد و برقراري صلح كمك مي كند.

وي افزود : اين رويكرد رويكردي واقع گرايانه است و ما به عنوان شركاي عربي خواسته ايم تا سياست نيز به عنوان يكي از عناصر اصلي وارد اين موضوع شود .

اسد در رابطه با مذاكرات غير مستقيم با اسرائيل گفت :فرمول مذاكرات غير مستقيم به معناي آزمايش اهداف بازيگران اصلي بويژه پس از هشت سال توقف فرايند صلح و حمله اسرائيل به لبنان در سال دو هزار و شش و همچنين چندين حمله اسرائيل به سوريه است .

رئيس جمهوري سوريه در ادامه افزود : در حال حاضر اعتمادي بين دو طرف ( سوريه و اسرائيل ) وجود ندارد پس ما بايد اين اعتماد را دوباره ايجاد كنيم و پايه اي مشترك بين دو طرف تعريف كنيم تا بتوانيم به مذاكرات مستقيم وارد شويم .

بشار اسد در رابطه با بحران هاي ناشي از برنامه هسته اي ايران گفت : به اعتقاد من چيزي خطرناكتر از حمله به ايران و جنگ با اين كشور وجود ندارد. اين حمله پيامدهايي خواهد داشت كه به ايران، خليج (فارس) يا خاورميانه ختم نخواهد شد و مطمئنا پيامدهاي فاجعه بار آن در سراسر جهان احساس خواهد شد .

اسد گفت :به نظر من اين پيامدها در زمينه هاي امنيتي و اقتصادي خواهد بود و باعث ايجاد بي ثباتي خواهد شد و به همين خاطر تنها راه حل ممكن راه حلي سياسي است .

[Rasputin]

گروه تحقيقاتي آمريكايي: حمله به ايران به نفع دولت اين كشور است

گزارشي جديد كه توسط يك گروه تحقيقاتي در آمريكا تهيه شده، سياستمداران را تشويق مي كند كه استراتژي بلندمدت تري را براي ايجاد تغيير در ايران در نظر بگيرند.
اين گزارش كه از سوي موسسه "راند" تهيه شده، هشدار مي دهد كه عمليات نظامي عليه ايران ممكن است فقط موجب افزايش حمايت از دولت بشود.

طبق گزارش راند، عملا هيچ راه حل سريعي براي مشكل ايران وجود ندارد. اين گزارش به دنبال آن است كه نقاط ضعف ايران را مشخص كند؛ نقاط ضعفي كه آمريكا و كشورهاي ديگر بتوانند از آن براي تحت تاثير قرار دادن رفتار ايران و فشار آوردن به آن استفاده كنند. اما نتايج اين گزارش چندان باعث آرامش عناصر تندروي دولت بوش نشده است.

از نظر سياسي، در مورد عملكرد دولت ايران، نارضايتي هايي به ويژه در ميان جوانان وجود دارد. اما حداقل در حال حاضر دولت كنترل اوضاع را در دست دارد و تهديدي عليه خود نمي بيند. اقتصاد ايران دچار سوء مديريت، بيكاري و تورم است كه موجب نارضايتي گسترده مردم شده است اما قيمت بالاي نفت در حال حاضر، موجب مي شود كه اشتباهات دولت كمتر به چشم بيايد.

محققان راند، مخالف اعمال فشارهاي اقتصادي بر ايران نيستند و در واقع هم تلاش مي كنند تا از افزايش صادرات گاز طبيعي ايران جلوگيري كنند. اما چندان هم اميدوار نيستند كه اين فشارها نتايج فوري، خصوصا در مورد مناقشه هسته اي، در پي داشته باشد.

در عوض، پيام مستقيم اين گزارش به جانشين جورج بوش اين است كه عملي شدن تغييرات در ايران، نيازمند زمان و صبر است.

[Rasputin]

Iran's foreign minister said on Saturday he believed neither the United States nor Israel would want to get entangled in a new Middle East crisis and attack the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.



The comments by Manouchehr Mottaki came a few days after Iranian missile tests heightened regional tension and helped send world oil prices to new record levels.

Mottaki told the official IRNA news agency that Iran's response would be "firm and pounding" if its two arch-foes launched strikes against the country.

But, he added: "Of course, the Zionist regime and the U.S. do not possess such capacities to want to involve themselves in new crises."

"The Zionist regime is still involved in the after-shocks of the war with Lebanon," Mottaki said, referring to Israel's inconclusive 2006 war with Hezbollah guerrillas.

"And the U.S. still does not possess the capacity to enter another crisis in the Persian Gulf region."

Iran says its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity. Western nations and Israel fear the world's fourth-largest oil exporter is seeking to build nuclear bombs.

Washington has said it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but has not ruled out military action should that fail.

Israel, long assumed to have its own atomic arsenal, has sworn to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear-armed power.

Last month it staged an air force exercise that stoked speculation about a possible assault on Iranian nuclear sites.

Iran has vowed to strike back at Tel Aviv and U.S. interests and shipping if it is attacked. Tehran says missiles fired during Revolutionary Guards wargames on Wednesday included ones that could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

"The recent maneuver ... and the firing of indigenously produced missiles was the display of the Islamic Republic of Iran's capabilities and the scientists and innovators of our country," Mottaki said.

Asked how concerned President George W. Bush's administration was about the Iranian test-firings, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters in Washington on Friday: "I would just characterize it as continued Iranian defiance of international obligations and further isolating its people."

Perino said it would "re-strengthen" the international community's resolve in the standoff with Iran, but she also stressed Washington's aim of reaching a diplomatic solution.

Analysts say any U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran would be limited to air strikes, rather than a full-scale attack with U.S. ground forces, which are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They say Iran could respond with unconventional tactics, such as deploying small craft to attack ships, or using allies in the area to strike at U.S. or Israeli interests.