I hope Iran ignores the US warnings and carries on with its nuclear program as planned, including unveiling the 3,000 centrifuges that will give Iran the capacity to enrich sufficient amount of weapons grade uranium in a matter of months if its so chose. Indeed, Iran would have a lot to celebrate by the time of the anniversary of the revolution, if it could not only show 3,000 operational centrifuges, but also successfully launch a satellite into space. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/27/content_5659569.htm
Satelite into space and opertional centrigues with all the pressure from west, is indeed a turning point in Iran's history. This will surely incourage other countries to follow Iran's path. IM, do you have any info regarding Iran's space program, or where I could access to these info? I'm curious to know if it they have already concidered a near future where Iran would with or without Russia's cooperation, send an Iranian to space? I know its too early to ask, but if they manage to sucessfuly launch a satelite to space, they can surely start working on other projects alike.
Wow soon iran will be on the same level of advancement that the US and the Soviet Union were on in the 50's. Congrats.
I personally don't have any information regarding Iran's space program, other than from what I have read in new sources. To be sure, Iran's space program itself is in its infancy; it was not long ago when Iran even established a bona fide space agency. Since then, Iran has worked on producing satellite systems and contracted with Russia for the launch of its first space satellite last year. That was a small, research, satellite but Iran is also working on more ambitious satellite projects and several are slated to be launched in the near future. The latest reports indicate that Iran is also ready to launch its own satellites and that would certainly be an important milestone for Iran. That ability, I should add, also exhibits advancements in Iran's balllistic missile capabilities and brings Iran closer to the capability to devleop ICBMs. However, precisely for that reason, the development of this part of Iran's space program was slowed down somewhat the past few years, while Iran was working to gain the trust of the Europeans as part of its negotiations on its nuclear file. Indeed, some reports suggested at the time that Iran had decided not to proceed with its Shahab 4 program, which was the program that would also give it the ability to launch its own satellites as well as develop longer range missiles. Lately, however, with the collapse of negotiations with the EU, Iran has apparently resumed in full speed its space and missile programs.
The killing of four US soldiers in Karbala last week did not happen exactly as it was originally reported. The soldiers were actually abducted and later killed. More here. So why am I putting it in this thread? Laura Rozen explains:
The US has authorized its forces to kidnap and kill Iranian 'agents' in Iraq. The term 'agent' is euphemism for Iranians working in Iraq, helping the Iraqis in a host of enterprises, generally with the permission of the Iraqi authorities. If that is the kind of game the US likes to play, I guess its not unreasonable to speculate that Iran might wish to send a message that it takes two to tango. The operation itself was certainly quite sophisticated. The report you linked gives the following description of the operation. I highlighted the fact that a computer was taken in the raid because the US also took a computer when it raided an Iranian consulate in Iraq a couple of weeks ago.
This is the exact line of thinking which results in war. You did this so I can do something worse in response to send a message etc. I am not saying that Iran is alone in this thinking either. The capture of the alleged Iranian diplomats in a building not officially recognized as an emabassy was the US response to some other transgression. IMHO though, you kidnap and/or kill US soldiers...and the US intelligence community has definitive proof of the attack tied directly to Iran...well that is a pretty official act of war as far as I am concerned no matter how you cut it. I am by no means a hawk. Both sides are to blame in this. I guess we will get to see if Iranian Monitor's posts on the strength of the military in Iran are legitimate or just puffing.
Interesting. Laura Rozen has since edited the post on her blog that I linked to above. She deleted the second paragraph.
I personally believe it is in Iran's interest to stand firm and to give appropriate messages to recent US as well as Saudi provocations. I believe that to be the case because I do not ultimately believe the US has the power to do much more than it is doing anyway. What I want at the end, however, is for the two countries to sit down and talk about their differences. I certainly do not want a war, as that would be disastrous for all the countries in the region, including Iran, as well as for the United States as well as China. Ironically, the only country that might, under certain circumstances, benefit from the kind of war that I forsee is Russia. Essentially, if both Iran and the US are weakened as a result, the Russians -- which hold much of the world's energy supplies outside of the Middle East -- will become strengthened and can become a major power again. Indeed, a much more powerful one than the Soviet Union. (To be sure, if a war results in a clear victory for either the US or Iran, then Russia would suffer greatly, but I just don't see that as being in the cards). As for the details of what happened to the US soldiers, and who was responsible, I obviously don't know more than what is being reported. Nor do I feel comfortable ever celebrating the death of people on either side, as frankly, even when hostile acts are a necessary means for a just larger end, I still believe that these means detract from the justice of the ends being promoted. Alas, politics is dirty and messy and while more of the dirt is carried by the US, and its allies in the region, Iran is certainly not squeaky clean either.
This makes me think of the other holders of major reserves: Norway and Canada. So much for the nice guy facades those two put on!
Ok here is an honest question that I pose to the Iranians on this board. Do you think the people of Iran would support a war with either the US or the Arab states if IRAN were the ones to start the war? I of course would fully expect that the people of Iran would support their Govt. if they were attacked first, but the question I am asking here is if Iran starts the fighting how would the people of Iran react and would they support that war?
Although the Russians would prefer to be risk averse, and their policy is to oppose an American war against Iran, the law of unintended consequences needs to be remembered as well. If someone maps out the likely scenarios as it relates to war between Iran and the US, there are several which hint as conditions that would greatly benefit Russia. Indeed, a few that would put Russia in a very strong position geopolitically and economically. Admitedly, however, there are other possible scenarios from such a war that Russia has good reason to fear. At the end of the day, however, Russia has a complex set of interests viz a viz Iran. IMO, Iran should always be wary putting too many of its eggs in any Russian basket. Indeed, while Russia's help in the Security Council has been valuable on occasion, and some other Russian moves have helped Iran, ultimately the Russians are part of the problem as well. They have traded their votes to water down US proposed sanctions, with implicit understandings reached with Iranian negotiators that require Iran to be all too transparent and timid in its nuclear program. The biggest area of conflict of interest between Iran and Russia is not addressed in the following comments by Dr. Kissinger. But the crux of the comments showing Russia's conflicting stance on the Iranian issue is not completely without merit... http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...r/opinion_November61.xml§ion=opinion&col= ...
Regarding Russia, let make the following additional points as Russia's national security council chief, Invanov, visited Tehran and the Russians are trying to mediate a solution to Iran's nuclear case. The Russians are backing the recent proposal by IAEA's chief, Mohammad Al Baradaie, for a so-called 'time-out'. Under this proposal, Iran would agree to a short voluntary suspension of its enrichment program, while Iran's nuclear file is taken out of the UN and referred back to the IAEA. The concerned parties would then open negotiations to find an amicable solution. This proposal comes at a critical time in Iran's nuclear program. Iran was about to unveil 3,000 centrifuges being made operational at Natanz, a move that the Russians oppose but which would essentially end the pretense that Iran can be prevented from acquiring the 'know-how' to build nukes. Essentially, the deal the Russians would like to engineer is for Iran to forego industrial level enrichment, transferring those activities to Russian soil, while convincing the US and the EU to give up their demand that Iran also suspend research level enrichment activities. This is actually very close, indeed mirrors, the position Iran took last year when it was being threatened with UN sanctions. In the meantime, however, Iran's position has strengthened, while the US/EU position has weakened considerably. Nonetheless, there are indications that if the US and EU can be convinced to give up their nonsensical demands that Iran suspend all enrichment activities, Iran might be willing to consider postpone its plans for industrial level enrichment to allow negotiations aimed at resolving the differences between the parties. The real issue now is whether, on the one hand, the US (with Israel prodding it in the opposite direction) is willing to accept research level enrichment activities by Iran, in return for a suspension of Iran's plans for industrial level enrichment? And, on the other hand, whether such a compromise can be sold to Ahmadinejad, who wants Iran to proceed full speed ahead? In this regard, US opposition is still the bigger obstacles, as ultimately it appears that Ayatollah Khameinie would prefer that Iran accept postponing industrial level enrichment and the position of the Supreme Leader is one that Ahmadinejad could not really ignore. IMO, if the US accepts that Iran can continue with research level enrichment activities, but only if it does so, Iran should also forego industrial level enrichment while negotiations for a lasting solution begin. Otherwise, if the US does not agree, then the Russian proposals and pressures will be totally against Iranian interests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUf7vbuzMxI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI-3lsKc7Xc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCs0dqODq-E Hagel looks like an interesting character. He seems honest and sincere, unlike most politicians.
My guess is that the Bush administration will not accept this Russian offer for three reasons: 1. Too similar to last year's Russian offer which Iran rejected (as I understand it the only difference is the new distinction between research-level enrichment and industrial-level. Russia proposed last year that they conduct all enrichment for Iran, right?) And since Iran is considering the offer now the US will interpret that as Iranian weakness and will think pressure is working so will want to keep the pressure on until Iran stops all enrichment. 2. Iran is saying they want to study the offer. This will probably be interpreted as stalling by the Bush team. 3. If the weekend rumors about the Karbala incident are true then the Bush administration will not be willing to be perceived as accepting the Russian offer as a reaction to Iranian killing of US troops. A lot depends on #3. We'll have to wait for the press conference the US has been promising.
It would be no different than the position of Americans towards the war in Iraq. If Iran does attack a country for no reason than the people will have no reason to support the war but if Iran does attack another for a good reason than the people will support it but Iran has not officially attacked another country in our life time and Iranians know that Iran will not attack anyone because its not in Iran’s interest but if Iran does get attacked then the issue will be totally different as 99.9 % of Iranians would support Iran .
Iran hasn't attacked or invaded another sovereign nation since 1738 when Nader Shah successfully invaded India and captured the capital Delhi. Nader Shah http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Nadir+Shah
Since Iran did not recognize the independence of Afghanistan, a Persian territory under the Safavids which had seceded from Iran, and since Iran considered the Caucasus as its territory, you are correct to highlight Nader Shah's exploits as the last time Iran invaded a sovereign nation and omit references to Iran's wars in the 19th century. However, to be absolutely precise, the last offensive military operation by Iran was in 1856, when Iran retook Herat (Afghanistan), leading to the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-57. Before then, the reassertion of Persian rule over Georgia in 1796, the war against the Ottomans in 1821, as well as the the invasion of the Caucasus after the Russians had conquered the area, were the last offensive military operations by Iran. Regretably, except for the war against the Ottomans which Iran won (nonetheless Iran returned the territories it captured so it could prepare for war with Russia), these other military engagements represented disastrous defeats for Iran. The two wars against Russia costs Iran its territories in the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, and northern Azerbaijan) and had far reaching consequences otherwise due to the harsh terms from the treaty of Turkemenchai. While the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-57 was by comparison not as significant, nonetheless as a result of that war, Iran was forced to recognize the independence of Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_War British-Indian forces attacking Iranian units at the Battle of Kooshab, 1856
Incidentally, Iran's other wars in the 19th century, are covered in these articles. Some of those wars helped draw the map of the region, especially the Russo-Persian wars which essentially carved Georgia, Armenia and northern Azerbaijan out of Iran's control. Russo-Persian War (1804-1813) Turko-Persian War Russo-Persian War (1826-1828)
Alexandr Griboyedov was Russia's ambassador to Iran, the British ambassador incited and paid a mob to attack the Russian embassy and kill Griboyedov.
Actually I know Griboyedov from an Iranian TV series about his life. He was a diplomat at the time of war and his murder was a British conspiracy, that is my point.