The Iran-US War

[BradyLady12]

Saw the quote, I think NK is a remnant of the Cold War and do not think they were oppressed by our FP back then. Recent history of sabre rattling was stupid and unecessary as well as provocative acts by SK, which is seen as related to the Bush Doctrine of remaking countries and replacing all rogue govts as per his Second Inaugural address.

[Wandering Athol]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

On this note....is it just me...or did everyone fail to mention that the Saudi US Ambassador is the Crown Prince?

Yes, because that would be a misstatement. ;)

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by Wandering Athol

Yes, because that would be a misstatement. ;)

Ah...I was going by the caption on the picture in the Aljazeera article.

"The US alleges Iran is behind a plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Adel al-Jubeir"

At any rate, I found this....this is very interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/sa...210619462.html

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah sends private message to Obama

.By Laura Rozen
Senior Foreign Affairs Reporter
By Laura Rozen | The Envoy – Tue, Sep 6, 2011....

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon met with Saudi King Abdullah in April. (Saudi Press …


Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has sent a private message to President Obama, The Envoy has learned.

The message was delivered to the White House by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel A. Al-Jubeir, who returned to Washington from a trip to the oil-rich kingdom last week, a former senior US official told The Envoy on condition of anonymity.

The exact subject of the correspondence remained opaque, but it was described as concerning a Saudi diplomatic initiative--possibly on Syria. The message was also described as substantive and "close-hold," meaning not widely briefed beyond a small circle of senior officials.

The Saudi ambassador has since left Washington again, a second former senior US official who works on the region told The Envoy.

The White House declined to comment Tuesday.

The director of the Saudi embassy in Washington's information office, Nail Al-Jubeir, the ambassador's brother, told the Envoy by email Tuesday that he had just returned from holiday and did not immediately have any information on such a message, but would look into it.

American-Saudi bilateral relations have been recovering from a period of tension. Riyadh has been upset by the Arab Spring uprisings, and was horrified by Obama's call last February for Washington's ally of three decades, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, to step down from power.
King Abdullah declined to meet with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when they were traveling in the region last March.

Relations have seemed to improve, however, since that low point. The Saudi king granted an audience to Gates in April before the Pentagon chief's retirement. He also met with Obama's National Security Advisor Tom Donilon for over two hours in April.

In that meeting, Donilon delivered a personal letter from Obama to the Saudi monarch, the Washington Post's David Ignatius reported in April. "The reassuring message ... was about 'the bond we have in a relationship of 70 years that's rooted in shared strategic interest,'" Ignatius wrote, citing Donilon's description of Obama's message to the king.

A former American diplomat said that Obama has also asked for greater Saudi contributions to help fund the Palestinian Authority, whose declared plans to seek statehood recognition from the United Nations later this month have sparked threats to cut-off US assistance from some members of Congress.

The Saudi monarch "may have responded to Obama's request for money for the PA, and he will no doubt have strong views about what's happening in Syria," the former diplomat said, adding that it's not so unusual for the king to pass messages to Washington through Al-Jubeir.

Washington Saudi analysts said the Saudi king trusts Amb. Al-Jubeir, who he promoted to ambassador from serving as the embassy's congressional liaison. King Abdullah prefers to conduct personal diplomacy with the White House sending discreet communications through his hand-picked envoy, rather than dealing with US diplomats posted to Riyadh.

"Given that the king is not a phone person and is still stung by Wikileaks, the shuttling is neither unusual nor surprising," one Washington Middle East analyst commented.

(The king's alleged reservations about normal diplomatic channels may have turned out to be vindicated. A July 2008 US diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks in recent days describes a medical evaluation of the Saudi monarch by a western physician said to have read Abdullah's medical file. "It was related that King Abdullah is 92 years old (born 1916), he remains a heavy smoker, regularly receives hormone injections and 'uses Viagra excessively,'" the cable, released by Wikileaks on September 1st, stated.)

Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia in the next couple of weeks, an American official told The Envoy Tuesday, on condition of anonymity because the trip has not yet been announced.


How interesting is this in hindsight?

I would say it is indicative of setting up a plotline....but also....here Obama is out there at the UN railing against a Palestinian state, while at the same time pushing the Saudi's to prop that same state up.

[Brady's Bunch]

More pre-war propoganda?

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-iran-d...131547831.html

[Baron Samedi]

Psychological intimidation of Iran will lead to a new war

In the last few months, a large-scale psychological war has been launched against Iran. Respectable Western publications are carrying intimidating reports about Iran's military plans, its success in developing nuclear weapons and its terrorist schemes. Is this strategy justified and does it increase the likelihood of a new war in the Middle East?

Is America under threat of attack?

In mid-May the German Die Welt reported on the construction of an Iranian missile base near the city of Santa Ana de Coro, Venezuela. The report said that Iran will deploy medium-range missiles on this base and that nuclear-capable Iranian missiles could easily reach any target in the United States. In fact, this was a case of misinformation. Even if we assume that Iran has developed a nuclear warhead (which would take Iran at least two years under its most successful uranium program) and brought its Shahab-3 medium-range missiles into Venezuela, it would still be unable to deliver a strike even at the closest American state. The distance between the city of Maracaibo in Venezuela (the closest to the U.S.) and Miami is about 2,000 km. These missiles, especially with nuclear warheads made from weapons-grade uranium, are not capable of reaching that far.

Iran would not gain many advantages by bringing its Sajil-2 two-stage solid fuel missile to Venezuela. In this situation, the number of targets on U.S. territory would be very limited.

In late October, The Washington Times quoted the then vice president of the German Federal Intelligence Service as saying that "Iran had received two of the three nuclear warheads and medium-range nuclear delivery systems" that had gone missing in Kazakhstan. It was also reported that "Iran had purchased four 152 mm nuclear shells from the former Soviet Union, which were reportedly stolen and sold by former Red Army officers."

The newspaper went on to say that "The Revolutionary Guards now have more than 1,000 ballistic missiles, many of which are pointed at U.S. military bases in the Middle East and Europe." These facts are false. Neither the United States, nor any other country has proved any cases of Soviet nuclear warheads having been stolen in the 1990s.

Only ICBMs were deployed in Kazakhstan. Considering this, Iran's medium-range missiles could not deliver nuclear warheads even into Israeli territory. But even if a nuclear warhead were hypothetically stolen, it is technically impossible to maintain it in proper working order without replacing certain components for even a decade.

Pursuing the same strategy of psychological warfare, American prosecutors charged two ethnic Iranians on October 11 in a plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador. They were suspected to be linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and allegedly planned to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington and stage other acts of terror on the territory of Saudi and Israeli embassies. Later on, U.S. President Barack Obama and State Secretary Hillary Clinton also joined the choir of accusations against Iran.

The November 2011 report by the IAEA director-general on the status of Iran's nuclear program can also be considered an element of psychological pressure. The appendix to this report quotes confidential information on Iran's applied nuclear military research. Iran's activities in this sphere until 2003 (the beginning of the crisis over its nuclear program) have been thoroughly studied.

In 2002-2003 Iranian specialists carried out Project 111 on the modernization of the Shahab-3 rocket, in an attempt to shape uranium into a spherical warhead. This information is not entirely new. However, its dissemination in the media led to excessive tensions and effectively blocked the talks on the existing problem.

The veracity of facts that refer to later dates is cause for serious doubts. First, these facts were taken from a limited number of sources, and second, the Iranians' activities were not of an obviously military nature (in most cases, the report reviewed dual technology).

The exposed undeclared nuclear materials were not weapons-grade, and their amount, in IAEA terminology, cannot be considered "substantial" (25 kg for uranium enriched by over 20%). Therefore, the majority of Russian experts believe the UN Security Council has no serious grounds for imposing new sanctions against Iran.

Israel is ready. Or is it?

In early November Israeli President Shimon Peres announced his country's readiness to deal a blow to Iranian nuclear facilities for the first time. At the same time, Israel staged large-scale civil defense exercises. According to some sources, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak began consultations with their government colleagues on resolving Iran's nuclear problem by force.

This is further evidence of the continued psychological warfare against Iran, since at present it poses neither a nuclear nor a missile threat to Israel.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), commonly known in Israel by the Hebrew acronym Tzahal, do not yet have the necessary potential capable of the assured destruction of Iran's 15 nuclear facilities. Nor has it completed the formation of its four-echelon missile defense system either. It will adopt counter-missiles of its upper (exoatmospheric) echelon, which allow a second attempt to intercept a ballistic missile warhead, no sooner than 2013. The defense's third echelon - David's Sling - is still in the R&D phase.

All these factors tangibly reduce the efficiency of Israel's national missile defense, even if it is potentially strengthened by American ground-based THAAD and sea-based Aegis systems.

Potential scenarios

There are two possible development scenarios concerning Iran's nuclear program.

The first involves a Russian and Chinese veto on new UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. In this case the United States and its allies would increase their pressure on Iran by expanding the existing unilateral sanctions. Iran would continue cooperating with the IAEA but would limit its scope as it becomes politicized.

This scenario is the most likely. It does not lead to any disastrous consequences, but allows Iran to approach closer to the red line, beyond which the development of nuclear weapons will become a strictly political issue.

The second scenario involves an Israeli missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. At this point we return to the reasons for this decision. It depends not so much on the reality of Iran's nuclear threat as on the domestic political developments in Israel and events in the surrounding region, both of which are highly complicated and explosive.

Considering Israel's decision-making practices, it's clear that even its loyal ally, the United States, would not be able to prevent it from making such a move. Israel would simply face the Americans and the rest of the world community with a fait accompli. Subsequent developments will depend entirely on Washington's position. If it supports Israel by dealing a disarming strike at Iran, then the Middle East will be plunged into a regional war with unpredictable consequences. If Washington abstains from military action after Israel's strike, Iran will develop nuclear weapons as quickly as they possibly can. This may encourage Saudi Arabia and probably Turkey to go nuclear as well.

It is very hard to predict when Israel might deal a blow at Iranian facilities but this scenario is becoming increasingly realistic.

In summary, the psychological intimidation of Iran is becoming increasingly dangerous. Nobody wants a new war in the region but this is becoming more and more likely. It is still possible to stop this process but both Israel and Iran must recognize the need to do so.

Vladimir Yevseyev is director of the Center for Social and Political Research

The views expressed in this article are the author's and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20111115/168714032.html

[BradyLady12]

Originally Posted by Brady's Bunch

More pre-war propoganda?

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-iran-d...131547831.html

YES! Exactly. I will post specifics later.

[tehmackdaddy]

I've got a buddy who works checkpoints at the Iraq/Kuwait border and he says the U.S. troops are technically leaving Iraq, but are setting up camp just across the border in Kuwait and not going anywhere.

[BradyLady12]

"Spy Ring Was Following Iran's Deployment of Missiles Against Possible Attack Having already lost two distinct spy rings earlier this week in the Pizza Hut fiasco in Beirut, Lebanon, an Iranian MP reports that a third CIA spy ring has been broken inside Iran, with at least 12 arrested.

MP Parviz Sorouri, a member of the National Security Committee, said that they were “trying to use regional intelligence services, both inside and outside Iran, in order to deal a strong blow to our country.” The nationality of those arrested has not been made public.

In addition to being the third spy ring lost this week, it is also the second time this year Iran has uncovered a CIA spy network, after arrests in May. With the CIA putting more and more focus on its assassination program, it raises further questions about its ability to effectively operate intelligence gathering services."

[BradyLady12]

I have been reading that it's only certain leaders in Israel who want a strike on Iran—that the same view is not held lower down inside Mossad and is argued within the Israeli citizenry. I also read that it's the more psychotic elements that are for striking Iran including in the US. In the US it's the politicians and not even those in Defense or the military so much where there are opinions against it. This includes US generals. US Sec of Defense said it will create unintended consequences that may be worse. Gates was opposed too. Iran will retaliate if attacked. That includes on Israel.

[BradyLady12]

"Before We Bomb Iran, Let's Have a Serious Conversation."
General John H. Johns, a retired Army officer

"While rhetoric about military strikes may work as an applause line in Republican debates, there is little or no chance that military action would be quite so simple. Quite the contrary. Defense leaders agree that the military option would likely result in serious unintended consequences."


"Meir Dagan, the recently retired chief of Israel's Mossad, shares the assessment of the Americans cited above. He noted earlier this year that attacking Iran would mean regional war and went on to say that arguments for military strikes were the "stupidest thing I have ever heard"

"America ought not consider another war in the Middle East without a very serious discussion of the consequences. Political candidates should curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought."

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...-conversation/


I think this reflects the sentiments of a majority of Americans in that they are tired of war —73%. This is a loser position for the Republicans in the next election.

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by BradyLady12

"Spy Ring Was Following Iran's Deployment of Missiles Against Possible Attack Having already lost two distinct spy rings earlier this week in the Pizza Hut fiasco in Beirut, Lebanon, an Iranian MP reports that a third CIA spy ring has been broken inside Iran, with at least 12 arrested.

MP Parviz Sorouri, a member of the National Security Committee, said that they were “trying to use regional intelligence services, both inside and outside Iran, in order to deal a strong blow to our country.” The nationality of those arrested has not been made public.

In addition to being the third spy ring lost this week, it is also the second time this year Iran has uncovered a CIA spy network, after arrests in May. With the CIA putting more and more focus on its assassination program, it raises further questions about its ability to effectively operate intelligence gathering services."

So?

What is this supposed to prove?

That the CIA can make mistakes?

Gee, film at 11:00.

That because the CIA had assets in Iran this "proves" we are going to war?

Don't you think it's appropriate for the US intelligence services to try and find out information on other countries?

Are you simply channeling your inner Henry Stimson?

[SteelerFan87]

I'm not sure I understand this. So going to war with the bad guys is bad. Ok. I understand that part. But imposing sanctions on the bad guys (which costs us nothing in lives or money) is also bad? Having proxies fight the bad guys for us (which also costs us nothing in lives or money) is also bad?

I mean, if the argument is that it's wrong because it hurts the people of these countries, so? The other side argues that the leaders of those countries hurt the people of those countries, and removing those leaders helps the people. The argument against that is "why is it our place to help those people remove their tyrannical leaders?" But according to that logic, there's also no reason to care if our sanctions or proxies hurt those people.

So the only argument I can see to make this perspective work is to say that the bad guys aren't really bad. A fair argument if only we weren't talking about guys like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il.

[BradyLady12]

Because the sanctions are a prelude to a war the same way they were with Iraq. Certainly you are aware of that?

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by BradyLady12

Because the sanctions are a prelude to a war the same way they were with Iraq. Certainly you are aware of that?

Right, the same way the sanctions against Apartheid South Africa (when it was around), Cuba, Sudan, Belarus, Burma, Côte d'Ivoire, Congo, Zimbabwe, etc. were all preludes to war.

[SteelerFan87]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

Right, the same way the sanctions against Apartheid South Africa (when it was around), Cuba, Sudan, Belarus, Burma, Côte d'Ivoire, Congo, Zimbabwe, etc. were all preludes to war.

This.

Hell, Cuba is right in our backyard and we haven't gone to war with them. The Cold War is over, and we don't have to worry that maybe Russia will nuke us if we attack Cuba anymore. But we haven't attacked Cuba.

And it's not like we've just started imposing sanctions on Iran now, after never having done so before.