US-Iran II

Sounds like an interesting read, was the conspiracy proven?

 

While Bukhara and Samarkand were once important centers of Iranian civilization, they had already separated from Iran before they fell to Russia.

 

It's Vazir-Mukhtar. The Iranian TV series was based on Tynianov's book too, it was a big hit in Iran back in early 90's.

 

The series was sympathetic to Griboyedov and portrayed the mob as naive reactionaries who were incited and manipulated by the British ambassador and the British-paid Mullahs.

If I remember correctly, what instigated the mob attack was a false rumor that Griboyedov had raped an Azeri girl.

http://www.irib.ir/cima film/htmls/en/Serials/envoy.htm

 

Before I post this report, let me point out that the problem with the Russian proposal last year, from Iran's perspective, was precisely the insistence by the US (which the EU reluctantly backed) that Iran first suspend all forms of uranium enrichment acivities, including research and development work. Otherwise, Iran was prepared to accept the Russian proposal as a framework for negotiations last year, and Iran used to be much more open to the idea of a freeze on industrial level enrichment than now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6312011.stm

 

I just read the following report, suggesting that the US is not going to 'unveil' its so-called evidence against Iran after all!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248791,00.html

 

While Iran's military doctrine relies primarily on its missile force to give it longer range strike capabilities, as I have suggested before, it would be a mistake to assume that the Iranian airforce will not play a major role in any conflict as well. What is most striking when it comes to Iranian airforce practices and maneuvers, in fact is the ambitious role assigned to the airforce to hit targets very far from Iran. Not just those in the Persian Gulf, or in other adjacent areas, not even just Israel, but even further. For instance, the notion that the US could safely base attacks on Iran from Diego Garcia, or bases in eastern Europe such as Bulgaria, itself will not be necessarily accurate. Iran has the means to hit US targets that deep. Both through its longer range air assets as well as through the long range cruise missiles they carry.

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw070201_1_n.shtml

P.S.

Let me mention here, incidentally, that a few days ago Iranian naval units entered the territorial waters of an Arab state in the Persian Gulf protected by the US navy, and dared the US forces to take action. The US blinked and did not engage the Iranian naval units. The maneuver was meant to give a clear signal to US forces that Iran will not bow under threats or bullying.

 

Link to support this claim? Which arab state? When did they do this? What US ships were in the region? Sounds like a bunch of bullshit.

 

God I hope this is not true. Not because the US backed down like you seem so pleased to announce. But because this would mean that Iran is really serious about wanting to push the US until it either continues to back down or finally takes action. I predict a war with Iran by years end. Should be fun to see if IM's claims of military strength are legitimate or of the same ilk as the Iraqi information minister.

PS I was completely and totally against the war in Iraq. But if Iran wants to a) continue to support Shia terrorists and death squads in Iraq
b) continually jab at the US by either backing the kidnapping and murder of US troops or by providing material support to those that do
c) Pull stunts like these mentioned above

Then I vote in favor of war with Iran.

 

There isn't much on the incident in the western press. But there are reports that touch on it in passing, such as this one.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16592816.htm

P.S.

There is an Iranian press report alluding to possibility the same incident, which makes some vague claims about revolutionary guard units approaching an American warship undetected, leading them to withdraw from the area.

 

Yes, interesting decision by the administration. The LA Times added some more details:

 

What do you suggest the US line should be with Saudi and Jordan who fund and support the Sunnis?

 

Im sorry, I should have been a bit more clear. The recent actions that the US has taken against Iran has been due to the 'support of information' that the US has gathered regarding Iran supporting the Shiites in Iraq. So I wanted to know what you or anyone thinks we should do with the countries that support the Sunnis?

 

I posted this message some time ago, when the US abducted the Iranians connected with an Iranian consulate in Iraq, dispatched another carrier to the Persian Gulf, and began issuing belicose statements against Iran. Based on what I have seen, Iran response to the US actions has been a combination of options 2 and 3 below. It has been asymeterical, and largely covert with the element of plausible deniability. But it has been the kind of message that the US would receive nonetheless.

 

The importance of the incident, discussed in passing in several news reports in the west, and covered in Iranian reports, is in the message that Iran intended to deliver. That message was that Iran will not be bullied or feel intimidated by recent bellicose US statements and actions. (Iran delievered that same message in more lethal form in another incident the US is 'studying').

Whether the US blinked or not, the fact is that the US is choosing to treat the incident with regard to the Iranian naval units in understated terms, as either a 'mistake' or alternatively a 'deliberate provocation'. The fact that there are Iranian news accounts which paint the incident in very provocative terms, on the other hand, suggests that the US could easily have interpreted the incident in the latter light as well. It chose not to, and wisely IMO.

The Iranian report I posted, incidentally, claims that the revolutionary guards undertook a 'daring operation', approached US warships undetected, brandished Iranian insignia towards the US warships or painted it on the warships (this part of the report was vague, but the main point was to underscore how close they came to the US forces), and the US warships withdrew from the Persian Gulf. The importance of this report is not whether the facts were correctly represented, but that clearly the report does not suggest any 'mistake' was involved.

I should also mention that Iranian commanders have in the past mentioned Iranian UAVs and subs getting very close to US warships, taking pictures of them, the UAVs flying over them, and taking other measures that would ordinarily have elicited a US response if the US was in fact really prepared for an escalation and prepared to fight Iran.

 

Well, heres the difference. When Iraq's shiites were being slaughtered in mass graves and even before that, before entire towns were wiped out and even before the back stabbing by the US after the first Gulf war, Iran has ALWAYS been a shiite supporter. They accepted the refugees that Iraq was kicking out who were all... of course shiites. The fact is that Iran will always support Shiites, and that makes the shiites bad since the US doesn't want Iranian influence in Iraq. The US wants to support the sunnis and that is where the problem arises. This whole Iran in Iraq in support of shiites has very little to do with the US, and everything to do with everyones support for the Sunnis in the repression of the Shiites. Its simply very unfortunate for the Shiites of Iraq.