La guerra que viene: IRÁN

[Dan]

Que no van a invadir Irán , pesaos.

Pues no sé qué decirte. Anda el loco éste con sus rollos iniciales. Esto tiene malos precedentes.

Bush advierte de que Irán representa una amenaza de "holocausto nuclear"

El presidente de EEUU, George W. Bush, arremetió este martes contra el régimen iraní­ por sus actividades de apoyo a los insurgentes en Irak y por su empeño en conseguir armas nucleares y convertirse así­ en una amenaza de "holocausto nuclear" en la región.

La búsqueda activa, por parte de Irán, de tecnologí­a destinada a la creación de armas nucleares "amenaza con poner a una región ya afectada por la inestabilidad y violencia bajo la sombra de un holocausto nuclear", dijo hoy el mandatario estadounidense ante la Convención Nacional de la Legión en Reno (Nevada).

En un discurso centrado en la lucha contra el terrorismo y la defensa de su actual estrategia en Irak, Bush se despachó contra Irán no solo por sus ambiciones nucleares, sino también porque, según él, "es el principal Estado patrocinador del terrorismo a nivel mundial".
Dijo, además, que apoya a las milicias de Hizbulá que tratan de debilitar al gobierno democrático de Lí­bano, financia a grupos terroristas como Hamás y la Yihad Islámica Palestina, desestabiliza los territorios palestinos y enví­a armas a los talibanes en Afganistán "que pueden usarse para atacar a estadounidenses y las tropas de la OTAN".

"Fuente de problemas"

Es un paí­s que "durante mucho tiempo ha sido una fuente de problemas en la región", según el gobernante estadounidense, quien insistió en que las actividades del régimen iraní­ "amenazan la seguridad de todas las naciones".
Estados Unidos trata de reunir a aliados y amigos de todo el mundo para aislar al régimen iraní­ e imponerle sanciones económicas, de forma que pueda hacerse frente al peligro que representa "antes de que sea demasiado tarde", añadió.
Tras preguntarse qué ocurrirí­a si Irán consigue su objetivo de hacerse con armas nucleares, Bush respondió de forma tajante al afirmar que eso provocarí­a una carrera nuclear en toda la región.

[Panzerfaust]

Pero si tiene 120.000 soldados en Iraq y no sabe cómo sacarlos de ahí­ sin hacer el ridí­culo, y otros nosecuántos en Afganistán, no sé qué bravatas se está marcando este hombre.

Por cierto, el gobierno islamoprogre de Corea del Sur se ha rendido al chantaje del terror y aquí­ los liberales patrios no dicen ni mu.

[Lacenaire]

No creo yo que invadan a estas alturas , después de todo el proceso de "negocación" que han tenido para que suprima el programa nuclear y al menda se la suda olí­mpicamente , serí­a como esperar a que tuviese pepinos de verdad para entrar en el paí­s . Y con una mayorí­a perdida en una cámara cada vez se le pone más cuesta arriba.

[myeu]

¿Quién habla de invadir? Para entrar en guerra no es preciso invadir.


Y el congreso, el senado y hasta las putas en EEUU se ponen a apoyar al presidente si se da un casus belli como en su momento fueron:

• El hundimiento del Maine
• Pearl Harbor
• Bahía de Cochinos
• Golfo de Tonkin
• World Trade Center

Hechos que indudablemente y fuera de toda duda, fueron ataques unilaterales a traición llevados a cabo por españoles, japoneses, cubanos, vietnamitas y talibanes afganos.


Sólo hace falta que Irán se una a ese club y por ejemplo, meta una "bomba sucia" en alguna ciudad del medio oeste americano. Por ponerme hipotético, más que nada.


Guerra a Irán, que habiendo atacado con material nuclear, sufre un ataque nuclear que le fuerza a la rendición, con gobierno plegado a las condiciones de EEUU.



¿Qué tal lo ves ahora, Lacenaire?

[javi]

No viene Corea.

Hablando de Corea y sus cosas, ¿es claudicar ante los terroristas el gesto realizado hoy?

[Imparable]

Sí­.

[javi]

Sí­.

Eso lo sabí­a.

¿Qué hacemos ahora?

[Lacenaire]

¿Quién habla de invadir? Para entrar en guerra no es preciso invadir.


Y el congreso, el senado y hasta las putas en EEUU se ponen a apoyar al presidente si se da un casus belli como en su momento fueron:

• El hundimiento del Maine
• Pearl Harbor
• Bahí­a de Cochinos
• Golfo de Tonkin
• World Trade Center

Hechos que indudablemente y fuera de toda duda, fueron ataques unilaterales a traición llevados a cabo por españoles, japoneses, cubanos, vietnamitas y talibanes afganos.


Sólo hace falta que Irán se una a ese club y por ejemplo, meta una "bomba sucia" en alguna ciudad del medio oeste americano. Por ponerme hipotético, más que nada.


Guerra a Irán, que habiendo atacado con material nuclear, sufre un ataque nuclear que le fuerza a la rendición, con gobierno plegado a las condiciones de EEUU.



¿Qué tal lo ves ahora, Lacenaire?

Que cuando pongan la bomba sucia esa de las narices me avisas.No van ya creo que como doscientas trece amenazas de bomba/inundación/intoxicación/liberación de agente biológico como para que la verdad fundamental a la hora de encarar estas acciones siga siendo : ¿ Pero el otro tiene o no tiene pepinos? Que ponga Corea una bomba en el mismí­simo rancho de Busch , ya veremos si hay huevos.

[Imparable]

Sí­.

Eso lo sabí­a.

¿Qué hacemos ahora?

No se. La verdad no tengo ni idea de qué coño de gesto ha hecho quien. ¿Qué es lo que ha ocurrido?

[myeu]

Syrian Civil Defense Services Placed on the Ready


October 12, 2007, 12:50 AM (GMT+02:00)


Syrian forces stay calm on the front line
Our military sources report exclusively that Thursday night, Oct. 11, Syria placed its civil defense services on a state of preparedness and mobilized their reservists.
Government and military hospitals across Syria have also been alerted.
These measures were ordered Tuesday, Oct. 9, and were in place within three days. In contrast, there is no change in the deployment of Syrian forces along the border with Israel on Golan and Mt. Hermon.
Thursday, Syrian defense minister Gen. Hassan Turkmani published a message to the armed forces calling for “readiness to withstand all aggression.”
A day earlier, the Syrian chief of staff, Gen. Ali Habib, said at an officers’ passing-out parade: “Syria is capable of beating off any conspiracies” against the country.
All these measures and this rhetoric strongly indicate the Syrian regime is convinced that either an American or Israeli assault, or attacks by both against Syria and Iran are due shortly.
Syrian president Bashar Assad articulated this fear in an interview published by the Tunisian daily Al-Shorouk Thursday. He said: I am working on the premise that the Americans will attack Iran,” explaining that this was the answer he received when he asked the Iranians how they evaluated the situation.
DEBKAfile’s sources note that the only two Iranian personalities he would have talked to would be supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Assad went on to say to the Tunisian interviewer: This means we are facing a force (the Americans) which has no respect for international laws and values, exactly as in Iraq. The United States,” he continued,” backs the enemy Israel absolutely which prevents us from perceiving the US in any other light that an enemy.”
An attack on Iran will harm the whole world but as we have seen in the Iraq War, the Americans do not enter into such calculations. “I cannot play games of anticipation,” said the Syrian ruler. “I must be ready for any US or Israeli operation against Iran or Syria.”

[NubeBlanca]

  Otro viciosillo del Debka.

Larijani and Lemonadi:


Who’s the boss in Iran?

IT IS seldom clear precisely who calls the shots in Iran. The resignation of Ali Larijani, secretary of the national security council and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator for the past two years, has stirred a flurry of speculation about the direction of Iranian policy, at home and abroad. In truth, no one outside the inner caucus of the country’s leadership knows why he went or what his departure means for policy.

Mr Larijani is widely viewed as clever, pragmatic, and increasingly uncomfortable with the belligerence of Iran’s populist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But he is no softy, no secularist and no liberal. The son and son-in-law of powerful ayatollahs, he ran the state broadcasting for ten years until 2004; during that time, he was noted for seeking to expunge foreign influence from the airwaves. Before that he had been minister of culture and Islamic guidance. Though appointed to run the national security council by the president, he has long been considered close to the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, who has the last word in every aspect of Iranian policyâ€"and therefore plainly outranks and outguns President Ahmadinejad, who nonetheless captures more of the world’s fearful attention.

In the past two years, the European diplomats who have been negotiating with Mr Larijani over Iran’s nuclear plans feel he is flexible up to a pointâ€"and certainly worth trying to convince that the merits of a “grand bargain” (whereby Iran would get financial and trade incentives as well as help in developing nuclear power for civil purposes) outweigh the risks of building a nuclear bomb that have already led to UN sanctions and could even lead to war.

In any event, Mr Larijani has sounded frustrated by the mood of rigidity and bellicosity in his president’s office. An Iranian news agency says he had often offered to resign before. The president may be tightening his grip on the nuclear portfolio. He and Mr Larijani are thought to have repeatedly clashed. When the president declared recently at the UN that the nuclear dossier was “closed”, Mr Larijani’s job plainly began to look irrelevant.

Moreover, the background of his replacement, Saeed Jalili, has alarmed the Europeans (Britain, France and Germany) who have been mandated by the West to negotiate with Iran. A former head of the department for America and Europe in the foreign ministry, he is a close friend and ideological ally of Mr Ahmadinejad and has echoed his refrain that there is really nothing to negotiate about.

But the most notable sign of discord in among Iranian policy-makers was a letter signed by no fewer than 183 out of parliament's 290 members praising Mr Larijani in what was widely seen as a lament for his departure. Mr Khamenei’s foreign-policy adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati, who was foreign minister for nearly 16 years until 1997, also publicly regretted Mr Larijani’s demiseâ€"and may well have been expressing his boss’s sentiments.

Plainly, Iran’s leadership is not at one. The reformers, once led by Muhammad Khatami, who was president from 1997 to 2005, seem demoralised and weak. But the conservatives look increasingly divided between the radicals, led by Mr Ahmadinejad, and more pragmatic figures, such as Mr Larijani. The president is becoming unpopular, largely because he has failed to improve the material lot of the poor who elected him and because his belligerence over the nuclear issue has isolated Iran in the world and made Iranians frightened of the prospect of being bombed. According to one poll, half of those who voted for him in 2005 would not do so again.

The big question is the state of relations between the president and the Supreme Leader. Does their apparent disagreement, at least over the style of nuclear diplomacy, mean that Mr Khamenei is moving towards a more flexible negotiating positionâ€"and may perhaps be more amenable to reform in other spheres too? “In terms of style, Ahmadinejad makes Khamenei look like Khatami,” muses Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst of Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in New York. “But I think their vision for Iran is very similar.” A rumour is being aired that people around Mr Khamenei may be planning to oust Mr Ahmadinejad when his term ends in 2009â€"perhaps to replace him with Mr Larijani. But that is no easy task. Mr Larijani bid for the post before, in 2005, and got a paltry 6% of the vote. Mr Ahmadinejad may keep nerves jangling for quite a while yet.

[Greñas]

Esto... Bush ha declarado al ejercito irani como "organización terrorista"

[JM]

Y el que diga lo contrario, es un miserable.

[Eustaquio]

Parece que la guerra tendrá que esperar un poco. La vida es bastante prosaica:


Niall Ferguson:

One strike, Iran could be out
October 22, 2007

Of all the columns I've written for this newspaper over the last couple of years, none has elicited a more heated response than the one published in January 2006 about the Great War of 2007. Indeed, it still gets quoted back at me more than a year and a half later.

The column was written in the style of a future historian looking back on a war that I imagined breaking out this year. My point was that if a major war were to break out in 2007, future historians would not have far to look to find its origins.

My imaginary war began in the Middle East and lasted four years. With the benefit of hindsight, the historian of the future would be able to list its causes as (a) competition for the region's abundant reserves of fossil fuels, (b) demographic pressures arising from the region's high birthrates, (c) the growth of radical Islamism and (d) the determination of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

My nightmare scenario involved a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel in August. You may have noticed that this didn't happen. However, the point of the column was not to make a prophecy. No one has the power to predict the future because (as I frequently remind my history students) there is no such thing as the future, singular -- only futures, plural.

My aim in writing the column was not to soothsay but to alert readers to the seriousness of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program -- and to persuade them that the United States should do something to stop it. True, after all that has gone wrong in Iraq, Americans are scarcely eager for another preventive war to stop another rogue regime from owning yet more weapons of mass destruction that don't currently exist. It's easy to imagine the international uproar that would ensue in the event of U.S. air strikes. It's also easy to imagine the havoc that might be wreaked by Iranian-sponsored terrorists in Iraq by way of retaliation. So it's very tempting to hope for a purely diplomatic solution.

Yet the reality is that the chances of such an outcome are dwindling fast, precisely because other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are ruling out the use of force -- and without the threat of force, diplomacy seldom works. Six days ago, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin went to Iran for an amicable meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Putin says he sees "no evidence" that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. On his return to Moscow, he explicitly repudiated what he called "a policy of threats, various sanctions or power politics."

The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, also seems less likely to support American preemption than his predecessor was in the case of Iraq. That leaves China, which remains an enigma on the Iranian question, and France, whose hawkish new president finds himself distracted by the worst kind of domestic crisis: a divorce.

By contrast, Washington's most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel, recently demonstrated the ease with which a modern air force can destroy a suspected nuclear facility. Not only was last month's attack on a site in northeastern Syria carried out without Israeli losses, there was no retaliation on the part of Damascus. Memo from Ehud Olmert to George W. Bush: You can do this, and do it with impunity.

The big question of 2007 therefore remains: Will he do it?

With every passing day, the president attracts less media coverage, while the contenders to succeed him attract more. Yet Bush made news last week with his observation at a White House news conference that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." That would seem to suggest that he is ready to use military force against Iran if he sees the alternative as mere appeasement. One eminent expert on nuclear warfare told me last week that he still puts the probability of air strikes on Iran as high as 30%.

In domestic politics, it's always a good idea to follow the money. When it comes to grand strategy, however, you need to follow the navy -- to be precise, the aircraft carriers that would be the launching platforms for any major air offensive against Iran's nuclear facilities. To do this, you don't need to be very skilled at espionage. The U.S. Navy makes the information freely available at http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.htmlor in the "Around the Navy" column published each week in the Navy Times.

The U.S. has 11 active aircraft carriers. Of these, the Kitty Hawk is in port in Japan. The Nimitz and Reagan are in San Diego. The Washington is in Norfolk, Va. The Lincoln and Stennis are in Washington state. And the Eisenhower, Vinson, Roosevelt and Truman are undergoing various sorts of refitting and maintenance checks in the vicinity of "WestLant" (Navy-speak for the western Atlantic). Only one -- the Enterprise -- is in the Persian Gulf.

At present, then, talk of World War III seems to be mere saber-rattling, not serious strategy. U.S. aircraft carriers can move fast, it's true. The Lincoln's top speed is in excess of 30 knots (30 nautical miles per hour). And it, along with the Truman, Eisenhower and Nimitz, are said to be "surge ready." But take a look at the map. It's a very long way from San Diego to the Strait of Hormuz. Even from Norfolk, it takes 17.5 days for an aircraft carrier group to reach Bahrain. If you were Ahmadinejad, how worried would you be?

As for me, I am jumping ship. This is my last weekly column on these pages. But remember when the Great Gulf War does finally come: You read about it here first.



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ferguson22oct22,0,1458042.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[k98k]

Esto... Bush ha declarado al ejercito irani como "organización terrorista"

A las fuerzas especiales de los Pasdarán, los guardianes de la revolución, que como todos sabemos son un cuerpo paramilitar y evidentemente no son el ejercito iraní­.