Iran vs USA/Israel watch,,,,,

[N.O.R.F]

Tehran falling into a US psy-ops trap

By Mahan Abedin

 

Psychological warfare is fast emerging as the key component of the conflict between Iran and the United States. It is being used extensively by the latter to influence Iranian behavior in Iraq and secure a climbdown by the Islamic Republic in the intricate negotiations over the country's controversial nuclear program.

 

As the Iranians analyze and react to this carefully crafted psychological-warfare campaign, they run the risk of miscalculating broader developments in the region. The most important of these is Saudi Arabia's new proactive foreign policy. In this climate of heightened tensions and widespread misunderstanding it is easy for the Iranians to dismiss Saudi diplomacy as yet another plank of America's psychological warfare against the Islamic Republic. Miscalculations of this kind can have drastic long-term consequences for Iranian interests in the Middle East.

 

War of words

Psychological warfare has been a feature of Iranian-US relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Both sides have made extensive use of it, not only to damage the morale of the other, but also as a way of managing the conflict and preventing it from escalating into a shooting war. But never has this psychological war been so intense and potentially dangerous as it is now. Given the unprecedented instability across the Middle East - with opposing factions allied either to Iran or to the US - there is a real danger of misunderstandings spinning out of control.

 

As always, it is the Americans who have ratcheted up the war of words, with the Iranians trying to come to terms with it.

 

The best analyses can be found on websites that are ideologically close to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. These are often managed by second-generation revolutionaries with loose links to the Islamic Republic's security establishment. A highly illuminating analysis is provided by Dr Hossein Kachouyan, a professor of sociology at Tehran University and an expert on psychological warfare. In an interview with Raja News (www.rajanews.com), a website run by Ahmadinejad loyalists, Kachouyan provides a historical overview of the role of propaganda and psychological warfare in human conflict with a special focus on the Islamic way of war.

 

Kachouyan concludes, "Given that the Americans are plagued by internal political disputes and international constraints in addition to huge political, economic and military problems associated with their aggressions [against Afghanistan and Iraq], they have no option but to engage in psychological warfare against Iran." He adds: "They are trying to cause splits in the internal [iranian] front ... and prevent us from pursuing our objectives by creating fear, doubt and division." [1]

 

As an Ahmadinejad loyalist, Kachouyan is clearly referring to the Rafsanjani camp, which has lately started a widespread misinformation campaign against the Ahmadinejad government, accusing it of radicalism, unnecessary militancy, economic incompetence and disregard for the national interest.

 

Another strong analysis (albeit a less sophisticated one) is put forward by Raja News' Qasim Ravanbakhsh. Ravanbakhsh identifies "Bush's foot soldiers" in the psychological-warfare campaign against Iran and concludes that the Islamic Republic should hit back with a propaganda campaign of its own and declare to the world that the US "cannot do a damn thing". [2]

 

This confidence is only partially rooted in the factors outlined by the two authors - in particular Kachouyan - namely that the US lacks the requisite political will to wage war against the Islamic Republic. The main driver behind this conviction is the actual beliefs of Ahmadinejad and his hardcore supporters. With backgrounds in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (the IRGC, the Islamic Republic's large and competent ideological army), Ahmadinejad and his supporters believe the Islamic Republic is unconquerable; with its ability to project power well beyond its actual size and resources rooted in its "undeterrable" nature.

 

It is very important to understand the origins and intricacies of this mindset. People like Ahmadinejad and Kachouyan developed their political consciousness not on the turbulent streets of the Iranian revolution but in the revolutionary decade of the 1980s, and especially in the front lines of the Iran-Iraq War. The belief that Iran faced much of the Western and Eastern worlds during the war is widely shared in the population, but it is especially intense in the networks linked to the second-generation revolutionaries.

 

From their perspective, the Islamic Republic ensured its long-term stability by facing much of the world with modest means and with iron will as its only real strategic asset (against an enemy that enjoyed the unqualified support of much of the Arab and Western worlds). They believe that the culture of sacrifice born out of eight years of war, and the unique nationalist-Islamic political heritage it has spawned, will ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic against all odds.

 

Furthermore, the very distinct features of the Islamic Republic (a political system that effortlessly combines democratic and theocratic ideas and institutions) and the intense loyalty it inspires among a substantial section of the Iranian population (as well as a considerable number of non-Iranians) enables the regime to face its only serious security threat, namely the United States.

 

This belief in the "undeterrable" nature of the Islamic Republic in turn influences Iranian psychological warfare against the United States.

 

While Iranian diplomats do their best to ease tension and neutralize US saber-rattling, the IRGC is busy conducting war games in 16 of the country's provinces. These latest military maneuvers follow numerous others during which the IRGC showcases new indigenous weaponry and boasts of its impressive missile capabilities.

 

Moreover, the Revolutionary Guards have unveiled a new pilotless drone that they claim can be used to crash into US warships in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, the IRGC claims that it recently managed to place its standard (logo) on the side of a US warship in the Gulf. [3]

 

These activities were reinforced by the latest warning from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's spiritual leader, that in the event of US aggression, Iran would target US interests throughout the world. This is not an empty threat. While the Americans are not overly concerned about Iran's conventional military capabilities (which are modest, IRGC boasting and ceaseless maneuvers notwithstanding), they cannot so easily dismiss the capabilities of the Islamic Republic's intelligence services and special forces, which are widely believed to be among the best in the world.

 

The Quds Force

But are Ahmadinejad loyalists correct in their assumption that US saber-rattling does not go beyond psychological warfare?

 

Two developments in particular shed some light on this issue. The first is recent US allegations that elements of the Quds Force (the ultra-secretive special-operations arm of the IRGC) has been providing specialized technology - namely explosively formed penetrators or EFPs - to Shi'ite militias and insurgents in Iraq.

 

While an exhaustive analysis of the US claims is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to point out that the allegations relating specifically to the technology have been met by widespread skepticism. Even before the allegations were made public, an article in Jane's Intelligence Review last month by Michael Knights, chief of analysis for the Olive Group, a private security-consulting firm, reported that British military intelligence had uncovered an entirely Iraqi network that arranged for the purchase and delivery of imported EFPs. Apparently this network was centered in the heart of the Basra Police, and included members of the Police Intelligence Unit, the Internal Affairs Directorate and the Major Crimes Unit. [4]

 

Moreover, the central contention of the original US allegations - namely that the highest levels of the Iranian government were complicit in the killing of American soldiers - was so controversial that the US administration had to backtrack immediately, claiming that it was "not sure" if the Tehran government was involved. This position is ludicrous given the status of the Quds Force, a highly disciplined unit within the IRGC, which is in turn tightly controlled by the highest levels of the Islamic regime.

 

Established in the early 1980s, and known inside the IRGC as the "2nd Quds Corps", the Quds Force is in charge of extraterritorial special operations. It has operated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sudan. In the early to mid-1990s, the Quds Force was in charge of a large-scale operation supplying arms and training to the Bosnian Muslims. Interestingly, this operation had the tacit approval of US officials who only moved against the Quds Force in Bosnia once the Dayton Peace Agreement had been signed in late November 1995.

 

In post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, the Quds Force - alongside other Iranian intelligence agencies - is active in widening and deepening Iranian influence, especially inside the new Iraqi security structures. It is highly unlikely that the Quds Force would directly counter US power in Iraq, for this would not only endanger its operations (much of which the Americans have tolerated) but would also violate the core principles of Iranian policy in Iraq, which is to avoid confrontation with the United States.

 

Seen in this context, the recent US operations against Iranian interests (namely the assault on Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's compound in late December and the raid on the Iranian Consulate in Irbil in early January) reinforce wider US psychological warfare against Iran and are designed to force its leadership to rethink some of its policies in the Middle East and compromise on the nuclear issue.

 

Saudi Arabia: Old pawn or new kingmaker?

In recent months, Saudi Arabia has shifted from its long-established role as a low-profile, behind-the-scenes regional player to pursue a more active foreign policy. This has been particularly evident in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

 

In Lebanon, the Saudis have played a major role in easing tensions between the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and the Saad Hariri camp on one side and the Hezbollah-led opposition on the other. The Saudis have only been successful because of Iranian cooperation. Both sides thrashed out a deal during Ali Larijani's recent visit to Riyadh. Apparently Larijani - the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (and the country's chief nuclear negotiator) - had submitted a letter to King Abdullah that was signed by both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. The letter stated Iran's willingness to work with Saudi Arabia to reduce sectarian and political tensions in the Middle East.

 

In the case of Palestine, the Saudis have almost single-handedly brokered a truce between warring Hamas and Fatah factions and engineered the creation of a national-unity government. While Iran cannot be happy about this Saudi success, apparently the Iranians were confident enough that the Saudis would be unable to displace Iranian influence over Hamas that they did nothing to undermine the deal.

 

While Iranian-Saudi relations have been steadily improving since the early 1990s, this level of cooperation (especially in the treacherous political landscape of Lebanon - where the two countries pursue very different objectives) is unprecedented. The key question is, why are the Iranians appeasing the House of Saud?

 

Iranian perceptions about the House of Saud are not very favorable. While the Iranian diplomatic community regards the Saudis as "enablers" of US foreign policy in the Muslim world, the hardline supporters of the Islamic Revolution go much further and regard the historical function of the House of Saud as pawns of the Western powers. They served the British during the heyday of their empire and now serve the Americans, so the argument goes.

These hardliners tend to stay loyal to the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's famous statement that "we may reach peace with Saddam but we will never accept peace with al-Saud", even if they have not done much to undermine Iranian-Saudi detente.

 

It is entirely possible that Iranian cooperation with the Saudis over the political standoff in Lebanon and (to a much lesser extent) the deal that has ended the bloody factional strife between Hamas and Fatah (at least for the time being) is informed by the view that these latest Saudi maneuvers stem not so much from creative Saudi initiatives but pressure from Washington. And this US pressure can only be understood in the wider context of intense US psychological warfare against Iran, so the policymakers in Tehran may argue.

 

If this is indeed the case, then the Iranians have badly miscalculated. All evidence suggests that the Saudis have decided on a more proactive foreign policy largely because of Iran's growing role in the region. Far from neutralizing US intrigues, by engaging more closely with the Saudis the Iranians are in fact bolstering the position of their only serious regional rival.

 

The Iranian diplomatic community has long believed in the value of engagement with Saudi Arabia, arguing that the ejection of US forces from the region can only come about as a result of deep and wide-ranging Iranian-Saudi understanding. This view was articulated to the author by Dr Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh in an interview with Saudi Debate. [5] However, the wider Iranian policymaking community (in particular Ahmadinejad loyalists) believe in keeping the Saudis at arm's length hoping that America's weakening position will in turn weaken the Saudis.

 

It is interesting that Ahmadinejad loyalists have not protested about the recent Iranian overtures to the House of Saud. In this respect they may be taking the psychological-warfare argument too far, thereby neglecting wider regional realities. After all, not every major development in the Middle East revolves around the United States. By drawing too close to the Saudis, Iran may be undermining its traditional allies, in particular Syria, whose president has just paid a visit to Tehran partly because of concerns over the recent Iranian-Saudi "deal", which undercuts Syria's position in Lebanon.

 

In the final analysis, as the Iranians counter intense US psychological warfare, they run the risk of misinterpreting wider regional developments. These may prove costly in the long term, especially in regards to the balance of Iranian and Saudi influence in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. While the House of Saud enjoys the backing of the United States and has impressive resources, it - unlike the Islamic Republic - suffers from a major legitimacy deficit. Iranian policymakers ought to beware of this and plan their long-term approach to this declining monarchy accordingly.

 

source

[N.O.R.F]

US 'not in position to take action'

Agencies

 

 

 

Tehran: Iran said yesterday that the United States was not in a position to take military action against it after a veiled threat from US Vice-President Dick Cheney and urged Washington and its allies to engage in dialogue.

 

"We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers inside America by starting another war in the region," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters yesterday.

 

"The current situation has cost them a lot."

 

Mottaki was responding to Cheney who renewed Washington's warning to Iran earlier yesterday that "all options" were on the table if Tehran continues to defy UN demands to halt uranium enrichment.

 

"But the Islamic Republic of Iran has prepared for two scenarios. We prefer the second which is based on dialogue and constructive interaction," Mottaki added at a news conference with visiting Bahrain Foreign Minister Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmad Al Khalifa.

 

The UN's atomic energy agency has confirmed that Tehran is still carrying out sensitive uranium enrichment work in defiance of the UN Security Council.

 

UN meeting

 

Diplomats from the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further measures against Tehran.

 

Mottaki called on the parties meeting in London to "take a brave decision and resume their negotiations with Iran because it is to the benefit of all people".

 

"As we have said before our activity is transparent and peaceful. A brave and logical decision can become a solution for this matter and could also start international cooperation."

 

source

[N.O.R.F]

By Rageh Omaar

 

19 February 2007

 

So unusual is it for a western documentary crew to be given permission to film in Tehran for any length of time that I rang my colleagues in London to tell them we had got through the airport without trouble. The production executive, who as you'd expect was well-informed and open-minded, asked what we were going to do first. I replied that we were going straight with all our luggage and equipment to a flat not far from Ayatollah Khomeini's house in the north of the city, to interview an Iranian businesswoman. There was a moment's pause on the crackly line. "Businesswoman? You mean there are businesswomen in Iran who employ men? That's not what I imagined at all, and not what many westerners would think of when you mention Iran."

 

In 2003, the US and British governments invaded Iraq, a country whose people and society Britons and Americans knew very little about. What we did know related to Saddam Hussein, his appalling regime, and bogus or misunderstood intelligence about its military capabilities. Rarely have we invaded and occupied a country about which we were so ignorant. We are probably on the verge of rerunning the nightmare, this time in Iran.

 

Whereas last time most news organisations gave a collective shrug about the inevitability of war, the western media now have an inescapable duty to show greater rigour and independence in scrutinising the way London and Washington present, or misrepresent, Iranian society. We've heard a lot about President Ahmadinejad and his comments about Israel and the Holocaust; we've heard a lot about Iran's alleged role in fomenting violence in Iraq. We have seen many images of Iran's mullahs leading anti-western demos. But what about the millions of ordinary Iranians?

 

Some facts: two-thirds of this population of 70 million are under 30 years old. Iran is one of the youngest countries on earth. It is also one of the oldest civilisations on earth. The Islamic revolution led by Khomeini is only 28 years old. This means that the overwhelming majority of Iranians have no recollection of what life was like under the shah. They cannot remember the rejection of that period by their parents' generation, and they have grown up knowing only the edicts of the Islamic Republic.

 

Like young people anywhere, they are restless, ambitious, unpredictable and often courageous in the face of authority. The ideas and grievances on which the revolution was built mean little to them. In the face of this, Iran's theocracy, more than any other regime in the Middle East - more even than pro-western states such as Jordan and Egypt - has been held up to scrutiny and challenge and has undergone incremental but profound change.

 

Some of the changes may have been unintentional, but they are irreversible. Most of Iran's university entrants are women and the country has a literacy rate comparable with Britain's. In the 1980s, the Islamic authorities wanted to bring the kind of university education enjoyed by urban elites to provincial communities. The effect was that the more conservative and traditional families suddenly felt more at ease with sending their daughters to all-female colleges. The effect has been dramatic, raising the visibility of women in the workplace.

 

Most foreign news coverage of Iran has focused on political and military developments. But delve deeper into society, and it is not hard to find myriad vivid snapshots of life. These give the lie to the stereotype of the dark, forbidding and hostile society. Consider: more plastic surgery operations are carried out in Tehran than in Los Angeles, and drug addiction is openly recognised (a taboo in other Middle Eastern Muslim countries). There are two million heroin addicts in Iran and a large number of independent drug rehab charities helping them. There is a similar story with HIV. Iran has one of the largest non-governmental networks of charities and aid agencies in the Middle East, working beyond state control on anything from child labour to girls' education.

 

What has to be remembered is that much of this change, and the position of people forcing it through, would be severely damaged by a military attack. The night before the 2003 invasion of Iraq started, an American colleague was pulled aside by an Iraqi who wanted the US and UK to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Even though the war to overthrow Saddam was only hours away, the man was still frightened to speak openly, so he communicated in code. He pointed excitedly at his watch and asked my American colleague, "What time America?"

 

What the man meant was: when was America going to begin its attack, and couldn't it hurry up. There are many British and American government officials who believe that a number of Iranians are asking similar questions, and that, like that man in Baghdad, they are looking to Britain and America to save them by attacking their country.

 

Of all the misconceptions about Iran, this is the most dangerous and misguided. It is we in the west who are asking the wrong question. If we want to know when we will see the Iranian people build real and lasting change in their country, and enjoy a society that truly reflects the hopes, diversity, energy and skills of its people, we should be asking: "What time Iran?"

 

Source: New Statesman

[nuune]

^^ Thanks Norf, that was good read of Rageh Omar.

 

 

PS: Do you think Rageh Omar would be doing other documentiaries for Aljazeera, his "WITNESS" programe is doing well.

[Ms DD]

^^ When does "witness" come on aljazeera?

[Jaylaani]

let it burn, let it burn!

[nuune]

Cambaro, Witness comess on in the afternoon, there is one coming soon at 16.30, if u miss this, the same programme will be on tonight about 23.30, that is da usual times in which I watch witness, dat is London/Dublin times.

 

The best "WITNESS" in which I liked alot was the "Coconut Revolution", they will repeat it anyway.

 

click here for schedule

[Sharmarkee]

"Tehran falling into a US psy-ops trap"

 

As USA is in quagmire in Iraq, Bush is under pressure from the necon, while newcon is under pressure from the Isrealis as the Isrealis are at the helm of USA's polity, they are indeed the king makers of the new world, and anyone come against them will have for sure a political suicidal.

 

At the same token that miserable lady called Dr.Rice dictates to the arab moderates,or so called suni arabs to be hostile to Iran.

 

but the question is will Iran do the damage if war broke, using all Shia people in iraq, gulf, and lebanon, or will it be like the ICU, a pure meltdown, time will tell, it seems that USA will lose the grip of power and world hegemony after a devasting low below from Iran (IA).

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Sharmarkee:

or will it be like the ICU, a pure meltdown,

No, the ICU's wasn't a pure meltdown; it was a strategic shift. The game is no longer played fairly, otherwise, the ICU would have decisively defeated Ethiopia. What transpired to the ICU cannot be judged in a timeframe of weeks or months; you have to give it enough time of at least a few years. A good example of where the ICU could be years from now is the Iraqi/Afghani insurgencies; it has become a formidable force to reckon with, a force that's bound to drive out the occupiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Didi Kong]

Originally posted by Sharmarkee:

"Tehran falling into a US psy-ops trap"

 

As USA is in quagmire in Iraq, Bush is under pressure from the necon, while newcon is under pressure from the Isrealis as the Isrealis are at the helm of USA's polity, they are indeed the king makers of the new world, and anyone come against them will have for sure a political suicidal.

 

At the same token that miserable lady called Dr.Rice dictates to the arab moderates,or so called suni arabs to be hostile to Iran.

 

but the question is will Iran do the damage if war broke, using all Shia people in iraq, gulf, and lebanon, or will it be like the ICU, a pure meltdown, time will tell, it seems that USA will lose the grip of power and world hegemony after a devasting low below from Iran (IA).

Without a doubt destabilizing Iran is next on the agenda, the neocons will certainly tap on it before their exit and even if they lose the next elections Hilary will certainly push for it, if she wins i.e. The Shias in the Middle East should not be taken lightly either as their sinister agenda includes paving the way for the Mehdi. Hatred between Shias and Sunnis in the Middle East predated Dr. Rice and if a war were to break the Sunnis will at best stay out if not they will join the other side. I pray for World Peace.

[N.O.R.F]

I have the same feeling as i did with the Iraq war. I knew it would happen some 2 years before it did. Call it a gut feeling. I feel the same about Iran, sadly.

 

Another article

 

War drums grow louder

By Sami Moubayed, Special to Gulf News

 

 

 

Even the Google search engine did not believe it. I typed: "War with Iran" and it wrote back: "Did you mean: war with Iraq." No. I meant: war with Iran. In as absurd as it may seem, with US forces tied down in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the crazy idea of yet another adventure in our part of the world, is seemingly, possible.

 

What is certain is that tension between the US and Iran has been dramatically rising, due to Iran's nuclear programme and its meddling in Iraqi affairs. Media speculations are pointing in the direction of war. So are foreign diplomats in private discourse.

 

Last week the BBC said that the US was planning to strike at numerous Iranian military facilities, mainly in Natanz and Asfahan. The Israeli press has been doing its share in drumming up anti-Iranian rhetoric, depicting a "crazy country, headed by a second Hitler.

 

Some in the US are even pushing to have Israel, rather than the US army, go to war against Iran. The Guardian wrote last month that the US was in "advanced stages" of preparing for war on Iran.

 

The Sunday Telegraph wrote on February 25 that the US is funding ethnic separatist groups (non-Persian, which make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 70 million) inside Iran to create trouble for the Iranian regime.

 

These include Kurds, Azeris and Ahwaz Arabs. This won't break the Tehran regime, they believe, but might exert enough pressure on the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to abandon his nuclear programme.

 

Other media reports are saying that the US will hit Iran either if its nuclear weapons become a threat to America or if a Iran-backed attack is conducted on US interests.

 

According to a collection of US intelligence data, compiled in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iran will be unable to develop its nuclear weapon, due to the technical difficulties, until 2015.

 

Meaning, only another 9-11 would justify war on Iran. US officials have denied any intentions to go to war, and on February 14, President George W. Bush said, "Our policies are all aimed at convincing the Iranian people there's a better way forward and I hope their government hears that message" adding, "We'll continue to try to solve the issue peacefully."

 

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates added, "For the umpteenth time, we are not looking for an excuse to go to war with Iran."

 

Stepping stone

 

On the other hand, Joshua Muravchik, a neocon from the American Enterprise Institute, said: "I still believe, at the end of the day, that he will bomb the Iranian (nuclear facilities)."

 

Diplomacy is only a stepping stone, he adds, for real war, enabling Bush to defend his action - when he does go to war - and say that "I tried everything else".

 

Iran is not making things easier for the Americans. In February 2006, it ignored a UN Security Council ultimatum to freeze uranium enrichment. John Edwards, a presidential candidate, said: "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate - all options."

 

US Vice-President Dick Cheney also echoed the same words from Australia last week. The foreign press is depicting a dangerously armed Iran, similar to how they depicted Saddam Hussain before the Gulf War of 1991 and the Iraq War of 2003.

 

These articles are based on "intelligence reports" some of which claim that Iran can strike - with limited accuracy - at Europe.

 

What fuelled all the media speculations was the groundbreaking article by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker called The Redirection.

 

This redirection, as coined by some in the White House, according to Hersh, brings America into confrontation with Iran.

 

Hersh says, "To undermine Iran, the Bush administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East." Part of the plan is increased US-Saudi planning to undermine Hezbollah in Lebanon. Another way is to encourage Sunni extremists in the region, who although anti-American, are equally, anti-Shiite.

 

How does all of this come into play with the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Saudi Arabia last Saturday? Saudi Arabia was very vocal about its fears from Iran's nuclear weapons, and upset at its interference in Iraqi, Lebanese, and Palestinian affairs. Does Ahmadinejad know things that the world does not? Is he striking some kind of deal with King Abdullah?

 

The Saudis have their agenda: they want survival of their allies in Lebanon and protection of the Iraqi Sunnis. The Iranian President can offer much in both domains.

 

But are the Saudis really able to stop an upcoming US strike on Iran - even if they so wished. And if this strike does take place, who says that it will succeed?

 

Strong

 

Any attack that does not break the Iranian regime will certainly, make it stronger. Iran is strong. It has weapons - efficient weapons - as seen in the summer war in Lebanon. Even with state-of-the art US weapons, Israel was unable to crush Hezbollah.

 

It has a large population -mostly youth - that are indoctrinated with jihad and are willing to die for their cause. And it has the ability to destabilise every region where there are US military bases. It can work the Kurds of Turkey. It can rattle the Shiites of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait. It can unleash hell in Iraq.

 

No wonder Google was surprised at my query. So is everyone else. Will it remain media talk or will we witness yet another war in the region before Bush leaves office in 2009?

 

Karl Marx once famously said: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

 

Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.

 

article

[Khalaf]

I am not that worried about iran, but pakistan remember this is the only muslim country with nuclear weapons alreadly, hizbullah did damage the israeli's confidence remember all dat hype from da israels? they can not fight iran, but they will destablize the country, iran is made by many ethnic groups, tentions are very high this will be easy to do.....but the most important country on the list is pakistan, second KSA, mark me on my words inshallah sxbs.

[N.O.R.F]

^^What do you mean by important?

 

A game is being played behind closed doors in the ME,Iran,Israel,EU and USA.

 

Iran is confident it can stave off any attack.

[Khalaf]

^^lotta ppl blame Mushurraf but da man is very smart, what wouldve happened if he didnt cooperate? he played smart, india wouldve had upper hand....mida kale caspian sea is where da big game is being played more so den MiddleEast: check Russia, China, da West...a big game sxb...

 

ME regimes are no big deal, bet Iran is in bed with uncle sam n is not near gaining nukes....but pakistan alreadly has nukes, and some independence in their miltary, US aint happy wit dat regime its risky business, if things turn bad....a coup happens in a nuclear muslim country in stragetic spot falls into the wrong hands?.......dats why sxb pakistan is #1 na mean