Giving the thumps up in Iran is equivalent to giving the middle finger in the US so you cant blame the fans for their behavior .
A great article by an American sociologist who spent three months in Iran conducting anthropological research. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0119/p09s02-coop.html
Wow. You have to be careful with hand gestures in foreign countries. I think it was Dan Quale, then Vice-President, that went to south America (not sure which country) and gave the American O.K. sign with his hand and insulted everybody within sight.
On Saturday, three more Iranians were seized in Iraq: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9932 Also, the French newspaper Le Monde apparently obtained a copy of a classified Iranian report that describes the country's vulnerabilities to international sanctions. Le Monde claims the report was written in Spetember 2006. Here is a summary and here is an English translation of the article.
There is no need for a 'classified' report to realize that the kind of worst case, broad based, sanctions that were addressed in that report would have negative repercussions for the Iranian economy. The same kind of sanctions, applied elsewhere or anywhere, would similarly have a negative effect on the economy of practically any other country. The greatest immediate vulnerability of the Iranian economy according to that report relates, ironically, to the energy sector, especially Iran's reliance on imported refined oil products (gasoline). However, that vulnerability in some ways is the easiest for Iran to address in the medium to long term. Indeed, as it relates to this issue only, sanctions would not be without substantial benefits in the medium and long term, forcing Iran to address some problems it has long ignored to its detriment. The other area often cited to show the vulnerability of Iran to sanctions is the growth in imported foreign automobiles and automobile parts. Frankly, this is not a serious vulnerability. Iran has only recently opened its market to foreign automobiles to provide better competition for its domestic manufacturers, the latter still providing the overwhelming bulk of Iran's demand. While a few of the domestic models produced in Iran are heavily dependent on foreign parts, others do not have the same vulnerability. Sanctions will certainly hit certain automobile sectors very hard, and have an effect on the kind of cars Iranians will be able to purchase, but I don't rate this as a significant problem on its own either. As for cutting off Iran's oil exports, that issue by itself is not a substantial cause for concern. While Iran earns roughly 80% of its foreign exchange earnings from oil exports, Iran would not have the same need for foreign exchange if it is under international sanctions. At the moment, Iran's oil revenues are either being saved in its foreign exchange reserve fund or otherwise being spent on imports and subsidies. Almost all these imports, save a few, are for products that in turn compete with Iranian products or otherwise can be replaced by domestic industries. The subsidies, on the other hand, fail to properly focus on the needs of the poor and often merely encourage waste and corruption. Much of Iran's subsidies and social welfare programs are in dire need of reform. The real reason significant sanctions would negatively affect the Iranian economy is their effect on consumer confidence, investment, and the like. That effect, unlike the ones focused on particular products, aren't going to be easy to dismiss. However, as the report suggests, the analysis offered is based on Iran taking all these adverse measures against it on the chin. In other words, not lashing out in retaliation. The fact of the matter, however, is that Iran has substantial cards to play when it comes to detering such forms of outright economic warfare against it. If you took a marker and drew a circle that would cover an area twice Iran's size, using Isfahan as the center of that circle, you end up with the locations that house the majority of the world's energy reserves well within that circle. Both oil and natural gas. And some of the bravado notwithstanding, if push came to shove, Iran could indeed turn off the switch on the world's economy. In the meantime, let me assure you that Iran's economy, despite many reports trying to suggest otherwise, is doing alright. Indeed, it is in good shape, growing at a healthy rate of approximately 5% per annum. That growth is even larger in non-oil exports, which have doubled already and which are slated for huge increases in coming years. At the moment, the real problem with the Iranian economy, besides some long term structural ones that need to be addressed as it relates to its over generous subsidies and social welfare programs, relate to an economy that might be a bit overheated. Inflation, especially in the housing market, but also more generally, is causing problems for many average Iranians.
I imagine Iranians could easily absorb a two or threefold increase in the price of gas since it is currently so cheap, but what about home heating oil (heavily subsidized also, right?) The figures I'm looking at show a $4 billion budget surplus for 2006 so I guess the Iranian government could afford to increase the subsidies to cushion the shock. The Majlis report estimates a worst case scenario of $2 billion loss in revenue. That's roughly 1% of Iran's GDP, the same percentage that the US has lost in the fourth quarter of 2006 from a decline in residential investment. And since Iran's growth rate is a good 2% or so higher than the US growth rate, I see no reason to dispute your analysis. This seems to be the biggest fear expressed in the report -- the uncertainty about the social response. A 1% drop in GDP is easily dealt with, but what about the anger over prices increases, the potential for hoarding (and the feedback loop that creates economically), etc. Yes, I'm sure that threat is taken quite seriously and factored into the American strategic equation. My guess, though, is that the US is still waiting for an Iranian counter-move to the seizure of Iranians in Iraq. Remember, we Americans have short attention spans so it's quite possible the Bush administration has already interpreted the lack of an Iranian response as a "pass" and made another move over the weekend. No surprise that it was the exact same move. Yes, I noticed some grumbling over inflation today. I'd be curious to know what's causing the run on real estate. Demographic surge? Excess liquidity keeping interest rates low? Or the worst affliction of all -- speculators?
The biggest factor IMO relates to the surge in fiscal expenditures in the latest budgets, which have brought considerable sums of money into the Iranian economy. With the investment climate as well as the stock market being tense due to uncertainties relating to the pressures Iran faces and the possibility of war and sanctions, most of that money has poured ultimately into the real estate market. Historically, real estate prices have grown steadily in Iran and, hence, are considered a safe investment. The current climb in real estate prices, depending on what happens regarding Iran's nuclear file, will either prove merely the tip of the iceburg if there is a negotiated settlement arrived at between Iran and the west. Or they might eventually prove nominal, if sanctions are indeed imposed and the value of the Iranian currency takes a dip. At the moment, however, it costs around $100,000 to purchase an average 2 bedroom apartment in Tehran, while there are many homes and even apartments selling for a couple of million US dollars. Although real estate prices, measured in US dollars, are still not as high as say in Los Angeles, they are getting there. For first time buyers, these prices are prohibitive unless they are getting help from relatives; otherwise, it is virtually impossible to purchase a house relying merely on the average salaries here. This is especially true since, unlike in the US, the bulk of the money to purchase a home in Iran has to be paid in cash. In other words, Iran is still largely a cash based economy. Indeed, while there is greater financing available to buy a house than before (itself partly contributing to higher real estate prices), even in the minority of cases where someone in Iran gets a mortgage, the loan is often for less than half the price of the real estate. The highest mortgage loan available, coming with huge interest rates (22%), pays up to a maximum of either $55,000, or 70% of the fair market value of the real estate, whichever is less. Thus, these loans are mostly useless for purchasing the more expensive houses and apartments in north Tehran, whose prices are going off the roof. Most middle and low income people living either in poorer neighborhoods in Tehran, or elsewhere in Iran, were taking advantage of a home loan program from Bank Maskan which offered $20,000 in home loans for people who kept around $6,500 in a certificate of deposit for a year or more. This loan comes with (by Iranian standards) low interest rates around 8%, but it will not pay for anything but a fraction of the costs of even a small apartment in north Tehran. In some other places in the country, however, this program has helped many first time buyers purchase their first home/apartment, although real estate prices generally have climbed considerably in Iran more generally. Even in Bandar Abbas, which I recently visited at the same time the US wrestlers were there, and which used to be in one of the poorest regions in Iran, a simple 2 bedroom apartment could cost you between $50,000 to $75,000.
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime Remember 1988 when all we did was use an out of date mine, and put the USS SB in pieces : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mine Now just imagine all the new spohisticated goodies we have to deliver to those 2 carriers And for the rest of your posts, "sigggh"
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime While Iran certainly got the worst end of that deal, the US navy did suffer casualties. Specifically, an American helicopter involved in these engagments was shot down. The engagements relating to Operation Praying Mantis hold some lessons, even if both sides have some new toys to use. The lesson for Iran is not to challenge the US warships using its larger surface warships. The US certainly has the advantage there. The bravery of the captain and crew of the Joshan, Sahand and Sabalan notwithstanding, those ships had no business engaging more numerous and more powerful US naval forces in the region directly. The lessons for the US are ones that I will let the US to learn on its own. Except to say that if you give me the same determination and commitment Iran's naval forces exhibit during Operation Praying Mantis, and combine that with the appropriate tactics as well as the new systems Iran has, the edge would go to Iran in any naval engagement in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, a long time ago I mentioned this to someone else and I will repeat it here: if there is a war between Iran and the US, wait for a replay of the Greco-Persian wars, including the naval battle at Salamis, except this time the smaller country being attacked is Iran, while the US is playing the role of the powerful superpower that Persia played in those wars. Those battles, as well as the battle of Carahae between Iran under the Parthians and Rome, still have some valuable lessons too.
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime While you may be correct that the US can gain air and naval superiority easily, and then occupy the Straits, I worry that Iran would try to inflict as much damage as possible on other areas (in Iraq, the Gulf kingdoms and even Israel) through whatever means it had (including surrogates like Hezbollah). In short, I doubt that capturing the Straits would be enough to achieve much of anything.
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime A war with Iran would involve several theaters of battle. I will review only one of them here, namely the battles that will rage in the Persian Gulf. Mining Operations Iran has extensive mine laying capabilites. The US has very limited mine clearing capabilities, relying on the British navy for those operations. The Brits have a couple of such ships in the Persian Gulf. Those two ships will certainly be targetted and taken out by Iran in the early days of any war. If the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman are mined extensively, tanker insurance rates would become prohibitive. Major shipping would be very dangerous until the mines were cleared. This itself would cause major headaches for the world economy. Attacks on Shipping via small fast attack craft During the 1980s, Iran mainly used speed boats to attack oil tankers. At that time, however, these speed boats were not equiped with any anti ship missiles and had to rely on RPG like weapons. That is not at all the case today. Any oil tankers operating in the waters of the Persian Gulf, despite the mines there, would be targeted and many would be sunk by Iranian speed boats. There is little the US could do to stop them such attacks, as there are literally hundreds of small islands in the Persian Gulf which contain revolutionary guard bases that Iran can use to launch these attacks. And Iran has thousands of speed boats to use for this purpose. They can also be used to attack US naval forces, and given their numbers and the fact that they are now equiped with anti ship missiles, it takes only a few of them getting through for the US navy to suffer major blows. Iran's Land Based Anti Ship Missiles Iranian anti ship missile batteries cover much of Iran's very long coast line abetting the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman. These anti ship missiles will target not only commercial shipping, but also US naval vessels. As shown by Hezbollah in their successful attack against an Israeli warship, these missiles can overcome the defenses of even the most modern warships. Closing the Straits of Hormuz Iran could close the Straits of Hormuz in a variety of ways, and ultimately the US would have to take the ground in the area to deny Iran that ability. I don't think the US will be able to hold any ground in Iran without incurring serious casaulties. And even if the Straits are kept open, the US is certainly not able to control the entire Iranian coastline. Targets of Iranian Operations: US and allied navies Commercial Shipping (especially oil tankers) Oil and other facilities (e.g. refineries, ports, etc) Iranian Navy The major surface ships in the Iranian navy are vulnerable to US attacks. It would not be wise for Iran to use those ships in any war against the US. What Iran would rely on instead would be (a) its submarine force consisting of 3 Kilo class subs sold to Iran by Russia, as well as a dozen other small smalls acquired from other sources, along with an unknown number of Iranian built midget subs as well as 1-3 larger submarines built by Iran, (b) its large helicoper fleet, (c) its large arsenal of small attack craft, which can be launched from literally dozens of bases among the hundreds of islands used by the revolutionary guards in the Persian Gulf; (d) fixed wing aircraft, and finally and most importantly (d) Iranian missiles. Iran has the largest missile force in the Middle East, consisting of all sorts of missiles. They give Iran the kind of force projection it needs.
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime iran has no force projection. Of course I don't expect someone who never was in the military to actually understand how the Military works and just what the systems can and can't do. lets talke more about that Chinese made missile that hit the Israeli ship. It failed to sink the ship, the radar system wasn't even online, and the other missiles fired missed and one sunk a civilian ship. Some success that was. LOL!!
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime Salamis was fought because the Persians (not the Iranians - the PERSIANS) could only supply their overly large army over the sea, water travel being considerably cheaper than land travel. It also featured a naval battle between two fleets facing each other, something that has not happened since about 1942, and given the US's carrier presence, won't happen now. That is a downright stupid example. Carrhae is an even stupider example (and the Parthians, with the heart of their empire in Mesopotamia, weren't "Iranians", by the by). It featured the Romans being defeated in one battle due to horse archers. Unless you're suggesting Iran's military is more mobile than the American one (hahahahahaha) or that Iran is planning on unveiling horse archers as their secret weapon, it has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. You're trying to throw out history to sound intelligent or to show that the Persian Empire or the Parthian Empire existed. Unfortunately, those who actually know something about ancient history (and that doesn't include you) see through these ludicrous attempts at intellectual puffery.
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime (1) The name Iran itself as a political designation comes from the Parthian era! The Parthians were not only an Iranian tribe, but they called their empire Iran (or Iran shahr). Indeed, the fact that Western accounts contain so much confusion about the name of Iran (calling it Persia until the 1930s) has little to do with what Iranians called their land. IRAN, as an ethno-geographical designation, was in usage from the dawn of history including at the time of the Achaemenid empire. It referred to the lands of the Aryans, and includes what the Greeks called Persis (or Persia). (Pars in Persian). As the political name of the country, the name IRAN dates to Parthian times. (2) The battle of Salamis featured the loss of a much larger navy to a much smaller one, in part because the battle was fought in narrow straits and waters, offsetting the numerical advantage of the Persian navy. The smaller Greek vessels, in much smaller numbers, won the day. The lesson I wanted to point to should be clear. (3) The battle of Carhae featured a power hungry Rome looking to expand its empire in the Middle East, losing to an unfancied power. Militarily, the Parthians defeated Rome relying on quick attacks using their archers and then retreating. The lessons there should be clear as well. Indeed, that is the tactic Iran is practicing, only the weapons have changed.... This is for those who want to understand my post and the historical examples in it. Otherwise, I have nothing to say to "nicephoras"...
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime Yes, EXCEPT THE US NAVAL GROUP IS COMPOSED OF CARRIERS! Unless Bush has been reading Alfred Thayer Mahan, this comparison is pointless. The quaint notion of ships of the line making broadsides is a thing of the past. Iran's only hope is to disable the US fleet with missiles, not to destroy it with capital ships. In addition, the battle at Salamis didn't have nearly as large of a naval disparity - many of ot he Persian ships were container vessels to supply the army. This example is completely inapplicable. Clubs are unfancied. Somtimes national sides are unfancied. Countries are not "unfancied". A Roman general (Marcus Licinius Crassus) who hadn't fought a campaign in over 10 years (and that was against a domestic rebel) led an army into a desert on a glory seeking initiative. Iran isn't a desert. Rome as an entity wasn't looking to expand its power. Crassus was looking to match the exploits of his fellow triumvirs. Really? That's interesting. The Romans attacked the Parthians with heavy infanty, a relatively immobile force when compared to the Parthian light horse. However, there is no current comparison. The Parthians weren't fighting in key Parthian territory, they were willing to suffer vast losses because they felt Rome couldn't maintain an occupation. Is Iran willing to lose Tehran and the rest of its big cities to fight a guerilla war? If so, yes, the example fits. But then Iran has already lost the war. The US army is an army designed for fast mobile warfare, and Carrhae was a pitched battle, NOT a guerilla campaign. Its interesting, of course, that you didn't mention what happened when Rome rather than a single general attempted to expand Roman power in the east. Trajan and Hadrian devastated the Parthian empire, capturing its capital in the process and making Mesopotamia a province. Hadrian withdrew the troops, but in the beginning of the third century Septimus Severus once again attacked Parthia and won a victory that was so overwhelming the Parthian Empire collapsed. So if we're looking at ancient history precedents, we should be looking at those. Or perhaps the campaigns of Heraclius which destroyed the Sassanid Empire (at which point Heraclius placed his nephew on the throne) and allowed it to be overrun by the Arabs. Ahh, IM and his selective history. Amateur.
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime nicephoras, Why do you talk so much when you know so little? The Parthians called themselves Iranian, and you're telling me they weren't Iranian? Do you even know what Iranian means? The first Iranian dynasty were the Medes, the second Iranian dynasty were the Persians (the Achaemenids), and the third Iranian dynasty were the Parthians (the Arsacids).
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime The Nazis called themselves Aryans - what does that mean? That they're Iranian? Of course not. Do you remember the last time we had a discussion like this? It ended badly for you. I'd tell you to leave the adults alone to have a reasonable discussion, but there's no one here to discuss ancient history with from the Persian side. Oh well. Its sad, really - the Persians have so much to be proud of and all we get instead are lame overreaches that are unnecessary. The truth is I could (and have) put forward better cases for Persian history than you or IM, mostly because its not biased toward the present. I have no figh to pick with ancient Persians.
Ahmadinejad just concluded a long, live, televised interview with reporters from IRIB2. The interview was blunt and he answered a variety of questions, both on a host of domestic issues, as well as with regard to foreign policy, including the threats (both sanctions and military) Iran faces. Let me just say that Ahmadinejad was simply brilliant. He hit the ball out of the park. On the domestic and economic issues, he was truly impressive and had an array of facts and stats on his side. On the foreign policy issues, he was reassuring and self confident. One of the questions he faced, among dozens in his several hour interview, related to a subject we are discussing here, i.e., the military threats against Iran, particularly in light of the dispatch of the new US aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. In response, Ahmadinejad made the following points: 1) That the US does not have the military capability to realize its objectives. That in saying so, he is summarizing the detailed analysis of experts and military officials who brief him on the subject, and who follow and study every US move. 2) That Iran should be concerned if the US withdraws its naval forces from the Persian Gulf, not when it adds to them. He noted that during the war against Hezbollah, the US suddenly withdrew most of its naval assets out of the Persian Gulf. When it did, according to Ahmadinejad, Iran's military went into higher alert as according to Iranian calculations, the US would not be ale to launch any war against Iran with its navy in close proximity to Iran! In other words, he said that the US action is merely saber rattling, designed to create divisions within Iran. Besides, according to Ahmadinejad, while a new US carrier is entering the Persian Gulf, an old one just left those waters! 3) He assured the public that Iran's military has studied every possible contingency and Iran is fully prepared to meet every challenge the US can throw its way. When the reporters asked him if he truly was not concerned about the threats of military action, about the possibility that Bush might try to hide his failures and mistakes in Iraq by dragging Iran into a war, he told the reporter not to worry. Ahmadinejad was entirely confident, indicated that the military officials were convinced the US would not be able to confront Iran, and showed not even a hint of doubt in either his comments or in his demeanor.
What about Holocaust, he did not say anything about it at all or the Zionist entity? Wow, he's getting soft.
In light of the discussion regarding the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Carhae, and my comments in relation to them, I thought an analysis of Iran's naval doctrine might be helpful. The following is from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548 With regard to my comparison to the tactics used by the Parthians let me highlight the following portions of that report. As for what Iran will seek to do in war time, and the analogy to the Battle of Salamis, let me highlight the following.
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime Oh so you're comparing Parthians with Nazis now. I didn't realize that Nazis were an Iranian tribe who called their land "Iran Shahr". Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound? You'd tell me to leave the adults alone to have a reasonable discussion? Oh, the irony. Physician, heal yourself.
Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime It's really unfortunate that the Bush Administration could convince many otherwise reasonable Iranians to rally behind the maniacal Ahmadinejad. Things look very bleak right now for everyone in the region.
For those who want to know more about Iran or Persia, and the usage of those terms, the following might be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran As for the Parthians, hopefully this helps: http://www.did-you-mean.com/Parthia.html
It's unlikely the US will attack Iran and even more unlikely for an American attack to achieve any meaningful results, but an attack would make life miserable for millions of Iranians.