"Prisoners" in quotes? No matter how well they may have been treated, they were still held captive. What would have happened if they decided to go out the door? Would they have been free to leave? They were prisoners, no matter how well they may have been treated. And I'm sure this in no way is representative of how Iran treats their own prisoners, or prisoners of war in general. Not if the prisoners of war in question won't assure them high visibility on the world stage as these did. Their human rights record pretty much sucks.
Ungrateful? Tony Blair all but fellated Ahmadinajad!
And if I were Prime Minister, I wouldn't canonize Ahmadinajad to full sainthood, either. No, it would appear they weren't treated badly at all but they were still used as part of a cynical, political excersize. Ahmadinajad is no less a bastard than all the rest of the world leaders, and I trust him no more than I do Bush.
So, no. Ahmadinajad gets no brownie points from me. Whatever motivated him to let the sailors go and treat them well, it wasn't out of compassion.
I agree with this post. (except for the comparison of Pres. Bush and Ahmadinajad).
The Iranian gov't clearly manipulated these events to try to curry favor with the international public. I'm not sure how they think this will work in the long run, but apparently they make themselves look like softees who mean no harm but just want to be left alone to make deadly weapons for use against Israel. This guy is a real wacko, isn't he?
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Ok the scare quotes were unfair, but I still think this issue was exacerbated by the US and UK media.
I wasn't referring to Blair but rather to the responses from Dalton and Bolton, who (to me) seem to be using the incident to incite more than is necessary at this moment. Couldn't they at least wait until these poor people were home with their families and then hear what they have to say?
Meanwhile, the NY Times somehow got a hold of the UN draft on climate change that directly implicates human activity - a more pressing development that DEFINITELY affects the global community - and yet this was buried in page 5 while this overblown news story about prisoners who weren't even mistreated in Iran captured all the headlines. I think the official UN draft will be released tomorrow anyway, but the UN (and concerned environmentally aware global citizens) better hope another development - like a prisoner's shoe being left behind, or another remark from a US/UN official designed to instigate a potential war - doesn't steal the spotlight.
"Prisoners" in quotes? No matter how well they may have been treated, they were still held captive. What would have happened if they decided to go out the door? Would they have been free to leave? They were prisoners, no matter how well they may have been treated. And I'm sure this in no way is representative of how Iran treats their own prisoners, or prisoners of war in general. Not if the prisoners of war in question won't assure them high visibility on the world stage as these did. Their human rights record pretty much sucks.
Ungrateful? Tony Blair all but fellated Ahmadinajad!
And if I were Prime Minister, I wouldn't canonize Ahmadinajad to full sainthood, either. No, it would appear they weren't treated badly at all but they were still used as part of a cynical, political excersize. Ahmadinajad is no less a bastard than all the rest of the world leaders, and I trust him no more than I do Bush.
So, no. Ahmadinajad gets no brownie points from me. Whatever motivated him to let the sailors go and treat them well, it wasn't out of compassion.
Fina-fucking-lly. And of course even after these people were CLEARLY not mistreated, and even after the "prisoners" repeatedly said they were treated well, and even after the Iranians showed more restraint than the US has with its own prisoners, the US and the UK manage to still be ungrateful dicks in their officials' responses.
BBC News
April 5th, 2007
British sailors on their way home
The 15 Royal Navy crew members held captive by Iran are flying home after being freed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "gift" to the UK. They left Tehran Airport at about 0800 local time (0530 BST) on a British Airways flight bound for Heathrow.
Before leaving, several of the crew spoke on Iranian television to express thanks for their release.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said the homecoming would be "a profound relief" to the personnel and their families. The navy personnel arrived at the airport in a fleet of official cars, after 13 days in Iranian custody. They are expected to arrive back in the UK at about midday.
Before leaving, one of the 15, Lt Felix Carman, told Iranian television: "To the Iranian people, I can understand why you were insulted by our apparent intrusion into your waters. I'd like to say that no harm was meant to Iranian people or its territories whatsoever, and that I hope that this experience will help to build the relationship between our countries."
The only woman in the group, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, said: "Apologies for our actions, but many thanks for having it in your hearts to let us go free."
Both said they had been well treated by their captors.
Mr Ahmadinejad said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged "that the incident would not be repeated".
Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain's approach to the crisis had been "firm but calm - not negotiating but not confronting either".
Speaking at a news conference, Mr Ahmadinejad repeated Iran's view that the crew had "invaded" Iranian waters but said they were being freed as a "gift" to Britain.
Britain says the crew were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured, and says the confessions were extracted under duress. Former British ambassador to Iran Sir Richard Dalton said Iran's reputation had been harmed by the episode.
"I think Iran's reputation has deteriorated where it counts, in many capitals, including the capitals of countries which are close to it who have joined in the effort to get these captives released," he said. "The action which the Iranian government has taken gives them a blaze of favourable publicity which is going to be short-lived, and it's not going to alter the difficulty of addressing these major issues, like the nuclear question, and is not going to give Iran any leverage in them."
However, former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said President Ahmadinejad was the clear winner and had been strengthened in his pursuit of nuclear weapons. "President Ahmadinejad comes out of this as a winner on two counts," he said. "He won by seizing British hostages and he won by unilaterally deciding to release them, having found out the answer to the question I think he was posing, which is - how strong a response will Britain make to this act of taking captive these 15 service members? The reaction was - not much at all. I think Ahmadinejad is actually emboldened in his pursuit of nuclear weapons, and I think that means more trouble ahead for all of us."
And the father of one of the crew members criticised Tony Blair's handling of the crisis. Paul Carman, the father of Lt Carman, said: "I've been very disappointed and in some cases extremely angered by what I regard as risible attempts at bravado, absolutely ridiculous schoolboy diplomacy."
Jimmy Carter, who was US President in 1979 when American nationals were taken hostage at the US embassy in Tehran, said he was impressed that diplomacy had solved the crisis: "As soon as the harsh rhetoric was assuaged on both sides - from London and also from Tehran - then normal diplomacy prevailed. I'm very grateful to see that," he said.
Former Chancellor Lord Lamont, who is president of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce, said he believed the government made a "big mistake" by going to the UN."It clearly irritated the Iranians hugely - they didn't want this international involvement and things went much better when it was handled diplomatically, one country to one country."
The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran said speculation was likely to continue over whether the release had anything to do with developments in Iraq. There, an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces and a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday.
I talked to a friend of mine who has a degree in strategic studies and his take on the whole situation is that it just wants acknowledgement of the borders they think should be in place. While Iraq and some countries believe the borders to be Iraqi that they crossed, Iran has always believed that the area in question (in the waters off the coast) actually belongs to Iran. It has nothing to do with the War in Iraq. It has to do with long-established border disputes.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
This is in no way an excuse for Iran's actions. No country should be doing this.
But it's not like they didn't have their reasons. I told you our objective was to provoke them into a war.
Now, can we have a prisoner exchange and forget about this whole thing already?
The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 03 April 2007
The Independent
A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.
Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.
In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.
Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.
The two men were in Kurdistan on an official visit during which they met the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and later saw Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), at his mountain headquarters overlooking Arbil.
"They were after Jafari," Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani, told The Independent. He confirmed that the Iranian office had been established in Arbil for a long time and was often visited by Kurds obtaining documents to visit Iran. "The Americans thought he [Jafari] was there," said Mr Hussein.
Mr Jafari was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official. "His name was General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard]," said Sadi Ahmed Pire, now head of the Diwan (office) of President Talabani in Baghdad. Mr Pire previously lived in Arbil, where he headed the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), Mr Talabani's political party.
The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Iran believes that Mr Jafari and Mr Frouzanda were targeted by the Americans. Mr Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Arbil at the time of the raid.
In a little-noticed remark, Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told IRNA: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop co-operation in the area of bilateral security."
US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces". This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.
The raid on Arbil took place within hours of President George Bush making an address to the nation on 10 January in which he claimed: "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops." He identified Iran and Syria as America's main enemies in Iraq though the four-year-old guerrilla war against US-led forces is being conducted by the strongly anti-Iranian Sunni-Arab community. Mr Jafari himself later complained about US allegations. "So far has there been a single Iranian among suicide bombers in the war-battered country?" he asked. "Almost all who involved in the suicide attacks are from Arab countries."
It seemed strange at the time that the US would so openly flout the authority of the Iraqi President and the head of the KRG simply to raid an Iranian liaison office that was being upgraded to a consulate, though this had not yet happened on 11 January. US officials, who must have been privy to the White House's new anti-Iranian stance, may have thought that bruised Kurdish pride was a small price to pay if the US could grab such senior Iranian officials.
For more than a year the US and its allies have been trying to put pressure on Iran. Security sources in Iraqi Kurdistan have long said that the US is backing Iranian Kurdish guerrillas in Iran. The US is also reportedly backing Sunni Arab dissidents in Khuzestan in southern Iran who are opposed to the government in Tehran. On 4 February soldiers from the Iraqi army 36th Commando battalion in Baghdad, considered to be under American control, seized Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat.
The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target than their American comrades.
The targeted generals
* MOHAMMED JAFARI
Powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, responsible for internal security. He has accused the United States of seeking to "hold Iran responsible for insecurity in Iraq... and [US] failure in the country."
* GENERAL MINOJAHAR FROUZANDA
Chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the military unit which maintains its own intelligence service separate from the state, as well as a parallel army, navy and air force
No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch
Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian
I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.
And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.
The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".
What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.
As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.
Iran: US jet fighters have violated Iran's airspace
AFP
US warplanes have violated Iranian airspace in the southwestern oil-rich province of Khuzestan, Al-Alam Arabic language news satellite channel quoted a local military chief as saying on Sunday.
"Two US aircraft trespassed into Iranian airspace northwest of (the southwestern port city of) Abadan before flying southwest into Iraq," a local Revolutionary Guards commander in Abadan identified only as Colonel Aqili was quoted as saying on the channel's website.
"The planes left white vapour trails, attracting the local people's attention," he said, without elaborating on when the alleged incursion took place.
The incident happened close to Iran's border with Iraq, where the US and British military are deployed in force.
The US is in a mounting diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its uranium enrichment and Western suspicions that Tehran is bent on developing nuclear weapons, a charge vehemently denied by Iran.
Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff, but it has never ruled out a military option.
Tensions have spiked since Iran's seizure on March 23 of 15 British marines and sailors for allegedly entering Iranian waters.
Iran says the Britons illegally entered its territorial waters while London insists they were in Iraqi waters on a anti-smuggling patrol under UN mandate.
------------------------------------
Is a U.S.-Iran War Inevitable?
By Robert Baer
Time Magazine
You wouldn't be wrong to wonder if Iran hasn't lost its mind seizing the 15 British marines and sailors, and in so doing, handing Bush a casus belli even he couldn't have imagined.
But then again you'd be missing the grim fatalism that has settled over Iran of late, the resigned belief that a war with the U.S. is all but inevitable. This week Iranian diplomats are telling interlocutors that, yes, they realize seizing the Brits could lead to a hot war. But, they point out, it wasn't Iran that started taking hostages — it was the U.S., when it arrested five members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Erbil in Northern Iraq on January 11. They are diplomats, the Iranians insist. They were in Erbil with the approval of the Kurds and therefore, they argue, are under the protection of the Vienna Convention.
Iranian grievances, real and perceived, don't stop there. Tehran is convinced the U.S. or one of its allies was behind the March 2006 separatist violence in Iranian Baluchistan, which ended up with 20 people killed, including an IRGC member executed. And the Iranians believe there is more to come, accusing the U.S. of training and arming Iranian Kurds and Azeris to go back home and cause problems. Needless to say the Iranians are not happy there are American soldiers on two of its borders, as well as two carriers and a dozen warships in the Gulf. You call this paranoia? they ask.
The Bush Administration is doing nothing to allay Tehran's paranoia. With the largest buildup in the Gulf since the start of this Iraq war, it's actually fanning it. You have to wonder if Bush is counting on the Iranians' overreacting the way they did when they seized our embassy in 1979. And lest we forget, this was driven by paranoia that we were plotting to destroy the revolution.
Add this to the rest of the bad news coming out of the Gulf, and things look pretty grim. The "surge," despite what some claim, has barely made a dent in the violence in Iraq. Our Arab allies are jumping ship, apparently as fast as they can. At the opening of the Arab summit on Wednesday, Saudi King Abdallah accused the U.S of illegally occupying Iraq. The day before, the leader of the United Arab Emirates sent his foreign minister to Tehran to tell the Iranians he would not allow the U.S. to use UAE soil to attack Iran. That leaves us with Kuwait and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to face Iran.
I called up an Arab Gulf security official and asked him what he thought about it all. He said the view from his side of the Gulf is that if Iran does not soon release the Brits, a war between the U.S. and Iran is in the cards. "I for one am taking all the cash I can out of my ATM," he said before hanging up.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down
Europe threatens action against Iran
EU foreign ministers support British position and warn of 'appropriate measures' if 15 sailors and marines not released
Julian Borger, Tania Branigan and Simon Tisdall
Saturday March 31, 2007
Guardian
The EU threatened to act against Iran last night if it did not immediately and unconditionally release the 15 British sailors and marines it has been holding for more than a week.
EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany, threatened "appropriate measures" if Tehran did not let the group go, supporting Britain's position that the crew had been in Iraqi waters when they were seized eight days ago. The ministers did not spell out what measures would be taken, but British diplomats hoped they would involve an escalating array of punitive steps.
The tough statement was the kind of direct rebuke Britain had sought in vain from the UN security council on Thursday night when, in the face of resistance from Russia and others, the council only expressed concern but threatened no action. Despite the EU statement, prospects for a quick resolution to the crisis dwindled yesterday after another propaganda video and letter featuring more dubious confessions and apologies by the captives.
The only glimmer of hope for a quick diplomatic solution was a note presented yesterday to Britain's ambassador in Tehran, portrayed by Iranian officials as conciliatory, which bore some resemblance to a letter sent shortly before the end of a similar drama in 2004.
The letter restated that the British naval patrol was in Iranian waters when it was intercepted by boats of the Iranian revolutionary guard, which Britain denies. But unlike previous Iranian pronouncements it did not demand an apology, just a guarantee it would not happen again.
After the delivery of the letter, an Iranian official expressed hope to the Guardian that the crisis would be "resolved soon". But Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, dismissed it, saying it did not suggest Iran was looking for a way out.
Geoffrey Adams, the British ambassador to Tehran, returned to the foreign ministry with a reply last night, but the Foreign Office would not say what it was. British officials have diminishing confidence that the foreign ministry has any control over the guards who captured the British crew. "It's just white noise," said one diplomat about the Iranian note. "Our reaction over the weekend is that we're going to carry on our efforts, but we're not going to react to everything the Iranians do."
An Iranian official said the matter was being handled properly by the foreign ministry and the supreme national security council, and rejected suggestions that any other agencies were trying to influence the outcome. Downing Street is understood to take a rosier view of the note than the Foreign Office, believing it opened a clear channel of communication. Tony Blair stressed the need for calm in a statement, but he also expressed "disgust" at the captives' treatment.
The Iranian captors continued to use the only female captive, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, to broadcast anti-British messages. A third letter in her handwriting claimed she was being "sacrificed, due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments". "It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behaviour towards other people," the letter said.
Another captive, Nathan Summers, was also broadcast admitting the British crew had "trespassed without permission".
Responding to the broadcast of the latest video, Mr Blair told reporters in Manchester: "The Iranians have to realise if they continue in this way they will face increasing isolation - we had the UN statement yesterday, the EU today and will be talking to other key allies over the weekend."
Gordon Brown, speaking during a visit to British forces in Afghanistan, told reporters: "Overnight, the UN resolution is calling definitively for their release. That's the unanimous view of the international community."
Opposition politicians stressed the need for a unified front. David Cameron told the BBC: "I think the British government is doing the right thing. They have my support. "
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, stressed that it was impossible to see the full picture: "There's what's being done in public, what's being done in private and what's being done in private by intermediaries."
Interrogation
The captured sailors would not have had special "conduct after capture" training and will have to rely on common sense, military sources say. They would have been advised to say little about their families to avoid greater pressure. But formal training is usually reserved for special forces and pilots, who endure mock interrogations.
Military sources suggested the captives were unlikely to have any sensitive state secrets. "In the main, they should just use their common sense," said one official. Whether training for capture is reviewed as a result of this incident will depend on their eventual debriefing.
Richard Norton-Taylor
Penelope wrote:I wonder if the whole British sailors issue has altered the plans -- either pushing up the timetable or delaying it. A small French fleet is also off the coast of Iran.
Do people really realize how tense the situation is right now; I kind of feel like people are oblivious they way they were the summer of 1914.
Oh. who gives a fuck?
Will Sanjaya outlast Phil and Haley? It's looking that way!
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
I wonder if the whole British sailors issue has altered the plans -- either pushing up the timetable or delaying it. A small French fleet is also off the coast of Iran.
Do people really realize how tense the situation is right now; I kind of feel like people are oblivious they way they were the summer of 1914.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Operation Bite: Russian Journalist claims U.S. to attack Iraq on Good Friday
Webster G. Tarpley | 26.03.2007 10:49
The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.”
The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.
The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.
The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.
The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.
Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.
Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.
Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.
“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.
Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.
Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented.
“Moscow must exert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.
U.S. general: No evidence Iran is arming Iraqis
Pace contradicts claims by other U.S. military, administration officials
JAKARTA, Indonesia - A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.
