Iran: Inside - Outside

This is about the U.S., not "Iran outside". It could have been titled "Countdown to Iran's Capitulation". What happened to the Iran thread, NDPP?

Saudi Arabia gives permission for Israel to use its airspace to attack Iranian nuclear facilities

The US hasn't yet given the necessary permission to allow the use of Iraq's airspace, wanting to see what results from the new sanctions.

The report outlines the likely shape of an Israeli strike, saying it would:
 

• Be focused not only on destroying ‘military real estate’ – nuclear and missile targets - but also would hit factories and research centres, and even university laboratories, in order to do as much damage as possible to the Iranian expertise that underpins the programme.
   
• Would not be limited to remote bases but would involve the direct bombing of targets in Tehran. It would probably include attempts to kill those technocrats who manage Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes.
   
• Be widely viewed across the Middle East as having been undertaken with the knowledge, approval and assistance of the United States, even if carried out solely by Israel.

It's a good report, and only 14 pages.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

The Source of Wars - by Fidel Castro Ruz

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20130

In one of the best articles ran by the Global Research website, signed by Rick Rozoff, the author offers plenty of indisputable arguments, which every well-informed person should be aware of, about the intentions of the United States. From my viewpoint, the United States and its NATO allies have said their last word. Two powerful states with authority and prestige failed to exercise their right of vetoing the perfidious UN Resolution.

It was the only possibility to gain time in order to find a formula to save peace, an objective that would have given them more authority to continue struggling for it.

"Today, everything hangs by a thread...An incident could set in motion an all out nuclear war.."

Apparently Fidel is referring to Russia and China as the two UNSC member nations that have failed to veto the perfidious UN resolution. It doesn't look good for Iran at this point.

Propaganda poorly disguised as news:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Enter+Iran/3345166/story.html

Fotheringay-Phipps wrote:

What's next, outlawing pictures of dripping-wet kitties with imploring eyes?

More silly mocking of the Iranian leadership at this critical juncture serves no purpose except to weaken the unity against those raving maniacs planning a cataclysmic attack on the whole Iranian nation.  

 Damn the mullahs and their political army and their politicians for their ferocious repression of minorities and dissidents.  But let's  keep the issues separate:  raining fire and radioactivity on Iran and levelling its infrastructure won't liberate anyone -- on the contrary: minorities and progressives will be left even more exposed and vulnerable and deprived of what little aid will be available in a disaster.    

At this point, anything that adds the slightest justification to an attack on Iran or that in any way divides or weakens opposition to that attack will be  aiding the crazies who are raring to drag the whole planet into hell.

Once again, it's about the oil and gas.  Don't be fooled.  Remember that "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."  Well, some so-called progressives were fooled over Yugoslavia, many over  Afghanistan, some over Iraq, many over Rwanda and Somalia -- but there's no excuse for getting tricked into supporting this impending mad dog attack.

This military analyst has a good track record.

There's no way for the U.S. to win a non-nuclear war with Iran

If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran's south coast, senior American generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land war, the only lever the United States would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs-but if they aren't nuclear, then they aren't very persuasive. Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on the United States.

Just stopping Iran's own oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for around seven percent of internationally traded oil. But it could also block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.

The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 200-km range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just metres above the sea's surface, and it has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 percent.

Iran's mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf, and these missiles have easily concealed mobile launchers. They would sink tankers with ease, and in a few days insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region's oil exports completely.

Meanwhile Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air missiles to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that would soon shut down the U.S. military effort there. (It was the arrival of U.S.-supplied Stinger missiles in Afghanistan in the late 1980s that drove Russian helicopters from the sky and ultimately doomed the whole Soviet intervention there.)

Iranian ballistic missiles would strike U.S. bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf, and Iran's Hezbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel. The United States would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the world's industries and transport ground to a halt.

The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States, and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every wargame the Pentagon played, and Mike Mullen knows it. So there is a plan for an attack on Iran, but he would probably rather resign than put it into action. It is all bluff. It always was.

http://www.straight.com/article-336907/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-theres-no-w...

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21044]Real Versus Fake Crises: Concealing The Risk of An All Out Nuclear War[/url]

globalresearch.ca wrote:

We have reached a turning point in our history. The US and its allies are preparing to launch a nuclear war with devastating consequences.

During the Cold War, the concept of "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) was put forth. An understanding of the consequences of nuclear war largely contributed to avoiding the outbreak of war between the US and the Soviet Union.

Today, in the post-Cold war era, no such understanding prevails.[...]

Real versus Fake Crises

In an utterly twisted logic, World War III is presented as a means to preserving World Peace.

Iran is blamed for refusing to abide by the "reasonable demands" of "the international community".

Realities are twisted and turned upside down. Iran is being accused of wanting to start World War III. Inherent in US military doctrine, the victims of war are often heralded as the aggressor.

World War III is upheld as a bona fide humanitarian undertaking which contributes to global security. In a bitter irony, those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons believe their own propaganda. President and Commander in Chief Barack Obama believes his own lies.

Neither the War nor the worldwide economic depression are understood as part of an unprecedented crisis in World history. Ironically, the dangers to humanity of an all out nuclear war do not instil fear and public concern.

Instead, fake "crises" -- e.g. a global warming, a Worldwide flu pandemic, a "false flag" nuclear attack by "Islamic terrorists"--, are fabricated by the media, the governments, the intelligence apparatus and the Washington think tanks.

The world is being run by a small group of highly intelligent megalomaniacal psychopaths. God help us.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

The Sakineh Scandal

http://www.voltairenet.org/article167041.html

"In the specific case of Sakineh, everything that was reported by Bernard - Henry Levy and endorsed by President Sarkozy is false.

This lady has not been tried for adultery but for murder. The death penalty is likely to be executed by hanging. "

What a load of bullshits by Thierry Meyssan.

First of all, the news about possible stoning of Sakineh Ashtiani did not come from Sarkozi or any western politician. It was her lawyer and her family who informed the public in this regard, and a copy of the original stoning sentence and her lawyer's appeal letter are still available on the net. Therefore, Meyssan's and Ahmadinejad's claim that there was no stoning sentence is pure fabrication (somehow similar to Ahmadinejad's claim that his opponents can freely criticize him in Iran!). The Iranian regime has backed off temporarily under international pressure, as it is its usual practice.

But Meyssan doesn't stop here and continues:

Quote:

After overthrowing the dictatorship of Shah Reza Pahlevi, the Islamic Republic made it a priority to put an end to authoritarian abuses by establishing the rule of law in the most rigorous way possible. For those cases tried in a criminal court, an appeal mechanism has existed in the Iranian judicial system for a long time...Stoning - which still prevailed under the Shah's rule and was maintained for a number of years after his overthrow - has been abolished by the Islamic Revolution..

Yeah...Surrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee! Perhaps someone who is so ignorant about the history of the justice system in Iran should first check the wiki before writing analytical pieces! The legal justice system in Iran (including formal courts, appeal mechanism and supreme court) were established in 1930s. Throughout Mohammad Reza Shah's reign, the civil court system was relatively independent to some extent and that was why the Shah used to send his political opponents to military courts instead.

After the 1979 revolution, the main change to justice system was to bring it under the control of clerics, by requiring religious training for judicial posts. Top level judicial posts are always filled by clerics now. Furthermore, additional changes in constitution in 1989 allowed the judiciary chief (appointed by the leader) to fire or move judges at will. The Islamic republic has a track record in punishing judges who dared to not rule according to orders from regime officials. So much for "rigorous rule of law"!

As for stoning, this sentence was added to Iranian criminal code after the revolution, not before it! and it remains on the books. Several people have been stoned in recent years, and it is interesting that while Meyssan is defending the Islamic regime by falsely claiming that this type of sentence has been abolished, the regime newspapers and media are urging the judiciary to strongly carry out "the ruling of God". Obviously they haven't received the memo that it was abolished.

(The regime officials can't formally abolish it because it is in Sharia books. They don't want to get beheaded for "invention in religion"! So all promises so far were to "suspend" it, which was not really applied in practice.)

And then Meyssan wraps up by claiming that:

Quote:

Ms. Mohammadi-Ashtiani’s defense attorney, Mr. Javid Hustan Kian, is an impostor. He is linked with the son of the accused, but has never been appointed by Ms. Mohammadi-Astiani and has never been in touch with her. Javid Hustan Kian is member of the People’s Mujahidin, a terrorist organization that enjoys the protection of Israel and of the neo-conservatives.

First of all someone should tell Meyssan to learn how to spell! It is Hutan-Kian, not Hustan-Kian! Then, Ashtiani's first lawyer was Mohammad Mustafaei, a well known lawyer in Iran, who first brought the issue to the attention of the world. When the Iranian regime went after him in retaliation and arrested his family members, he fled to Norway. Hutan-Kian took over the case at his family's request, and the charge that he may not have formal representation agreement with the condemned in prison, is laughable. Then, it is hard to believe that Meyssan would not know that not just membership, but contacting members of MKO carries a charge of "Moharebeh" (Fighting against God) and a death penalty in Iran, as it happened to several people arrested after last year's upraising.

As for Meyssan's comment about "Free and democratic government in Iran", I guess the Islamic Republic's embassy in Paris must have been busy writing paychecks. I just hope it didn't cost the Iranian people too much oil money.