Iran Invasion soon ?

[Beatmaster]

Information Dissemination: Preparing for War

It seems that US is sending some more mine hunters,helicopters,etc to the region. Also plenty of rumors that more units are being called up to go the Middle east. Don't know if true or not.

Jup i heard about that to.
Regardless if its a rumor or not, i believe that with the added pressure from Israel its a kinda all or nothing deal here.
So a build up of any size is probably a precaution just in case the *beep* hits the fan.
And 4 mine sweepers may come in handy if Iran is planning to turn the strait into a dead labyrinth.

Btw what do we know about the Iranian mines? How advanced are they and are the US minesweepers "good" enough to deal with them if the time comes?

 

[NICO]

Jup i heard about that to.
Regardless if its a rumor or not, i believe that with the added pressure from Israel its a kinda all or nothing deal here.
So a build up of any size is probably a precaution just in case the *beep* hits the fan.
And 4 mine sweepers may come in handy if Iran is planning to turn the strait into a dead labyrinth.

Btw what do we know about the Iranian mines? How advanced are they and are the US minesweepers "good" enough to deal with them if the time comes?

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1v6A94zushAq_WWMCvc2ip8jdYX8oSZQRAOdKjmyCujSiwgO443it9MwCCt2z/edit

Very good Google doc on Iran and mines. They seem to have the more older type of mines, probably upgraded. What makes it so dangerous is numbers, quantity of vessels that can deploy mines and narrow straits....

 

[Beatmaster]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1v6A94zushAq_WWMCvc2ip8jdYX8oSZQRAOdKjmyCujSiwgO443it9MwCCt2z/edit

Very good Google doc on Iran and mines. They seem to have the more older type of mines, probably upgraded. What makes it so dangerous is numbers, quantity of vessels that can deploy mines and narrow straits....

Thx.
I do not have a Google account so i cannot view it and therefor ill take your word for it.

Different question instead how likely is it that Iran is able to successfully deploy sufficient numbers of mines to seriously pose a threat to the current shipping lanes going trough the strait?
And what possible or likely gains or result is Iran going to have in terms of their strategic mine laying IF this is required during a actual skirmish or military conflict? also before i forget what actual forces does the western world have that are equipped to hunt and destroy sea mines besides the 4 mine hunters send by the US in that particular region? As to me the strait itself is pretty narrow and therefor relative easy to monitor, on the other hand narrow might be the wrong terms as its still a incredible big pond of water where there are multiple places that really can be devastating to local shipping IF mines are deployed. So its not only the strait itself that "must" be covered having that said i believe that a few heli's and a few mine sweepers are not going to cut it.

 

[18zulu]

[Different question instead how likely is it that Iran is able to successfully deploy sufficient numbers of mines to seriously pose a threat to the current shipping lanes going trough the strait?

The last time the Iranians mined they used everything from fishing trawlers to old landingcraft to drop mines. I say drop because many were just set a drift with no anchor chain. The US used old WW2 minesweeper to detect and clear. They also sent and used CH-53 Sea Stallions to sweep. For detection P-3s and S-3 were used for search. The Iranians just wanted to cause havoc akin to a child having a tempor tantrum. But thiers killed.

Hope this helps

 

[the concerned]

These extra ships that the US is providing is just trying to boost capabilties without upping tension's plus i know its only 4 ships but if these were used in concert with other coalition assets and maybe the UK and France could provide landing ships as operating platforms for minehunting helicopters

 

[the concerned]

I really don't think that invading Iran is going to be nessecary .I think a serious airstrike campaign to severly downgrade Iran's capabilties would be enough and i don't think Iran has the stomach to have a protracted fight with the US no matter what the media says.

 

[LGB]

On the naval mine issue the US home ports mine hunters in Bahrain and has since 5th Fleet was stood up, as well as MH-53E's. The last time Iran mined the Gulf the US response was Operation Praying Mantis. They lost half their navy in an afternoon. We have far more assets in the region today with more moving in as has been reported.

The main concern with Iran going nuclear is the resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and others will go nuclear in response and already have been setting the ground work to do so. Imagine all the issues with just Iran going nuclear then multiply that by 4 or more nations.

 

[STURM]

Actually the US would have very little leverage over the Saudi, Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Qatar, Oman, and UAE governments at that point, particularly as US guarantees without US troops on the ground in those countries are unlikely to be believed. So you would shortly have 7 nuclear armed states in the Middle East, not one.

On the contrary I would argue that the U.S. has a great deal of leverage over these countries as these countries rely a lot on Uncle Sam, not only for external security but also for regime survival. With regards to external threats, for the past few decades the main security concerns of these countries you mentioned - with the exception of Oman - has been other Sunni Arab countries, and the 'heretic' Iranians, not Israel. Whether or not the U.S. actually has troops in these countries is not of a concern, as long as the U.S. remain the dominant military power in the region, is what counts. If any of these countries were to be faced with an external threat, it goes without being said that U.S. help would be forthcoming as such a move would be fully in line with the U.S.'s interests.

The main concern with Iran going nuclear is the resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and others will go nuclear in response and already have been setting the ground work to do so. Imagine all the issues with just Iran going nuclear then multiply that by 4 or more nations.

Though this has often been mentioned as a reason to justify strikes on Iran, IMO it is just a smokescreen and doesn't really hold much weight. Not only can the U.S. apply a lot of pressure on these countries, as these countries, unlike Iran, are highly dependent on the U.S, but the is also in a much better position to keep tracks of any nuclear developments in these countries. Another major stumbling block for countries like Eqypt is not only technology and know how but cash.

I really don't think that invading Iran is going to be nessecary .I think a serious airstrike campaign to severly downgrade Iran's capabilties would be enough and i don't think Iran has the stomach to have a protracted fight with the US no matter what the media says.

How many airstrikes would be needed to severely damage Iranian's nuclear facilities and what if the desired results are not achieved - what next? If more strikes are needed how many times will Israeli planes have to overfly other countries to finish the job or will the task be taken over by the U.S.?

It is not Iran that is itching for a fight. Iran's announcements and actions are largely for internal political reasons and are in reaction to moves taken by other countries, which includes announcements that strikes on Iran are a great possibility so the question of whether Iran ''has the stomach to have a protracted fight '' shouldn't arise.

 

[the concerned]

You would have to put good money on 1 of the US navies SSGN's being in the vacinity plus the long range platforms at deigo garcia with F-18g back up and fighter escort how many strikes would you want before Iran is no longer considered a threat. i wouldn't say too many

 

[Beatmaster]

You would have to put good money on 1 of the US navies SSGN's being in the vacinity plus the long range platforms at deigo garcia with F-18g back up and fighter escort how many strikes would you want before Iran is no longer considered a threat. i wouldn't say too many

That might be true on paper but its not in reality.
You seem to forget that Iran in 3 times the size of Iraq, it has 2.5 times the population.
Its technological well educated and has the infrastructure to maintain them self.
Not to mention the vast resources it possesses.
On-line sources estimate that it would take roughly 300k to 400k troops to do a ground invasion, and that it roughly takes 35% of all the US air-assets.
The size of the deployment versus Iran itself, and the additional assets needed to strengthen its bases in the region and secure it would be in terms of dollars and numbers 2 times the total cost of the 1 and second Iraq war combined.
As i said before its just not that simple anymore.
I do not want to show off Iran and its capabilities because fact remains that Iran VS US would be a done deal and thats not the point.
But what most people forget is that Iran is a very proud nation and has a LONG track record dating back as being the mighty Persian empire.
There is so much more to Iran then meets the eye.
Sure a full blown campaign will eventually bring down Iran to its knees but it will NOT stop them from getting the bomb.
Lets say for a moment that they do not want the bomb and that the whole program would be truly peaceful ok? Then by attacking Iran one way or another you will give them a perfect reason to pass the threshold.
Thing is Iran is investing heavy amounts of money to secure their assets and to hide their stuff in deep and extremely well protected caves and this alone without a ground offensive would give them the opportunity to continue their program even during a air campaign.
Now the thing here is that Israel can and will strike Iran if it has enough reason to do so and they have all the tech they ever need to pull it off when ever they feel the time is right.
BUT ask your self the real question would that stop the nuclear program itself, and how much resources does Iran actually have to enrich and make the bomb stored in those mountain facilities?
If this is a small amount then a attack might work out but if this amount is bigger then there is a really really big risk.
Also keep in mind after the attack Iran will respond probably with long range missiles.
Estimates are that they have around 100/200 missiles that can hit Israel.
Now how many hits can take Israel before it collapses?
As i pointed out before Israel does have the army to do a attack, BUT they lack the endurance and resilience as a nation to cope with a large scale missile attack.
It would destroy the capital, and its economy.
My point here is Iran can take several nukes and survive while Israel cannot take 1 and it will be all over.
So here we got the dilemma would the US go into Iran either by air or ground or combined, and have the risk that the Iran regime can retaliate against Israel possible by a hidden nuke or by a nuke thats being build in those caves while both the US and Israel assumed by bombing those key installations that they have delayed/stopped the program.
Keep in mind Iran has miles and miles of cave systems build.
If i would be Iran hypothetical speaking then i would do the dirty work in those cave facilities knowing that i will be perfectly hidden from Sats and Airstrikes.
And there is nothing the US or Israel can do about that unless they go in all the way.
And here we are again, its not a clear cut case like the raid on Syria, and the Raid on Iraq and its succes, the attack itself is not a factor.
However the incredible amount of what if's thats a real factor with serious repercussions and making that call has a prize tag, and thats exactly why the Arab world does not want to see a nuclear Iran but they do not want to see a war either as in the end its not the US who pays the biggest prize but its those nations who are in striking range of Iran's conventional arsenal.
Iran knows it cannot hit the US, but it can respond to any nation in a 3k miles radius, and that on itself is one factor that should not be forgotten.

 

[swerve]

That might be true on paper but its not in reality.
You seem to forget that Iran in 3 times the size of Iraq, it has 2.5 times the population..

Even more than you say. Nearer 4 times the land area. Also, the terrain makes it more difficult to invade.

 

[LGB]

Describing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as a "smokescreen" for striking Iran and assuming these nations can be pressured not to go nuclear in response to Iran is questionable at best.

The pattern for response is clearly India and Pakistan not Iran. In effect there was no response. The West is not going to destroy it's relationship with Saudi Arabia if they go nuclear in response and they're certainly not going to embargo oil exports. It's not exactly clear how the US, France, and UK will argue with fellow NATO member Turkey why they shouldn't go nuclear in response? Egypt becoming more isolated and more radicalized in response to sanctions isn't in our interest either.

It's more than just a dangerous fundamentalist Iran going nuclear. It's the long history of Shia vs Sunni and Persian's vs Arabs (and everyone else). When Iran lifts the lid off that box the West is not going to be in the position to put it back.

 

[STURM]

Describing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as a "smokescreen" for striking Iran and assuming these nations can be pressured not to go nuclear in response to Iran is questionable at best.

A nuclear arms race between who exactly? I would be very interested if you could tell me because I have no idea who these countries are. We keep hearing talk about 'rogue regimes' and how the mullahs will threaten Israel but what 'rogue regimes' and why would the mullahs engage in a suicidal act and for what benefit??

What is really very questionable is whether Israel's and the U.S.'s stated aims are real or is the real reason really to ensure continued Israel/U.S. hegemony in the region? If Iran is ever successful in developing nukes this will lead to changes in how America deals with Iran and will lead to a rethink of Israels nuclear policy. If you were the Israeli PM, wouldn't you do all you could to ensure your nuclear monopoly? I know I would.

The West is not going to destroy it's relationship with Saudi Arabia if they go nuclear in response and they're certainly not going to embargo oil exports.

And Saudi government is willing to destroy its relationship with the West? The Saudis are not going to severe their relationship with the U.S. as long as they remain under the security umbrella of the United States and as long as the United States maintains its military presence in the region. And there's also the matter of economics.

It's more than just a dangerous fundamentalist Iran going nuclear. It's the long history of Shia vs Sunni and Persian's vs Arabs (and everyone else). When Iran lifts the lid off that box the West is not going to be in the position to put it back.

Yes the Sunni Gulf States in the 1980's were terrified of the Iranians exporting the revolution west, at present are wary of Iranian attempts to support their Shia brethren in these countries and are engaged in a cold war with Iran, involving other countries such as Pakistan, but if indeed Iran has a nuclear weapons programme it is intended for regime survival against non-Arab countries and not as the pro-war right wings hawks would have us believe, to wipe Israel off the map or attack the freedom loving countries of the free world.

IMO too much focus and attention has been placed on worrying what a nuclear armed Iran might or might not do rather than worrying about the consequences of a military strike on Iran and its effect on a region that is already unstable and how this will effect the rest of the world. What is for certain is that strikes on Iran will Iranian retaliation against Israel which will lead to U.S. involvement- when does it end and where will this lead us? Surely the there are lesson to be learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Beatmaster]

Different question:

Iran does see Israel as a the evil of the middle east right?
Iran main reason for this is because of the ungoing war with Israels direct region.
Let forget the many dictator like key figures in the region for a moment and all their wrong doings,
and lets put all the rhetoric and such aside and lets forget the whole thing for a moment and see this very basically:

Iran is saying that Israel wages war against its very direct region and killing lots of people.
So one might say that Iran is playing a protective role here to stop it ok?
Then how would a N-Bomb on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv help in this scenario? if in the process it would not only kill millions of Israeli but also a very large number of Arabs the very people that Iran is trying to protect against the so called Zionist state Israel?
Another thing is the middle east wanted a nuclear free region and everyone did agree to it except Israel.
So if this is the case what right has Israel to keep them around while demanding that other nations should not have them? specially if those nations are seriously thinking about getting their own program because of Israel?
Now keep in mind that the US allowed Israel and Pakistan to have Nukes they have helped them and now things turn sour its all because of Iran and Pakistan?

Thats the same thing as the Cuba crisis, US moves assets to Turkey and Europa and Russia responded by placing assets on Cuban soil.

Now US/West allowed nukes for Israel and Pakistan and now a nation (for whatever reason) wants that same status and its automatically bad?

Now my question who is pushing who around here?
Get the nukes out of Israel, make peace in the middle east clean up the mess and THEN you can demand that there is no reason for a new nation to develop nukes.
Not trying to sound like a anti US speaker as i am not but fact is fact the nuclear arms race in the middle east started the moment Israel was allowed to have them, while they removed Syria's and Iraq's program....

I personally believe that if push comes to shove that the Arab world would rather see a nuclear Iran then another war which will eventually lead in the escalation of a already troubled region where US & Israeli influence has already caused so much harm to begin with?
Most nations in the region want to be helped by the west and the security that comes from but they are not going to be pushed around anymore.
There use to be a time when the US was most welcome in the region but at the present state the outcry against the US is bigger then ever, because and only because the US is a key player in starting events and changing things around but they are not taking responsibility to clean up the left overs and rubble they created, and then they start wondering why the region is turning into a war zone.
You cannot change the balance if you are not prepared to equal it.
And this is what shaped the region as it is, standing powers (Regardless or they are good or bad) vanish while they kept things in balance and in check and this enables for rival powers, ethnic groups, rebels and extremist mullahs and so on to spread their word and to increase their power and create havoc.
And its this Havoc that pushing Iran and Pakistan to the brink of destruction as well as it does force Saudi Arabia to consider going nuclear as well because they do not want to get into a fight with Israel or Iran for that matter but they do not want to get caught in the cross fight either.

just saying...

 

[STURM]

Iran does see Israel as a the evil of the middle east right?

In recent times this is due to the Palestinian/Israeli problem and Israeli actions in Lebanon. Like I mentioned in another thread, though many could not grasp it, the Palestinian/Israeli problem plays a big part and is related to the current impasse with Iran. If only Uncle Sam could apply more energy to being an impartial and an honest broker in the peace process, perhaps, just perhaps a 2 state solution might still be possible, and would in turn solve a hell of a lot of other problems in the Middle East that are effecting the whole world.

There use to be a time when the US was most welcome in the region but at the present state the outcry against the US is bigger then ever, because and only because the US is a key player in starting events and changing things around but they are not taking responsibility to clean up the left overs and rubble they created, and then they start wondering why the region is turning into a war zone.

The Gulf States welcome the U.S. presence in the region as a stabilising factor, as insurance against the 'heretic' Iranians, as protection from one another and as a guarantee of regime survival. As long as the Arabs did not publicly chastise Israel too much or adopted policies that were at odds with Western interests, the West was more than happy to turn a blind eye to the lack of democracy and human rights in certain countries. Unfortunately, the 'Arab Spring' caught all these countries by surprise and forced a rethink in policies and strategy. Personally, I think one solution to easing a of of problems would be for all Western countries to completely withdraw from all foreign lands in the region and let or force the Arabs solve their own mess without Western interference and pressure, but off course this is unlikely to happen as it would be opposed by the Gulf Sates, irrespective of how popular it would be with large segments of the Arab population.

I personally believe that if push comes to shove that the Arab world would rather see a nuclear Iran then another war which will eventually lead in the escalation of a already troubled region where US & Israeli influence has already caused so much harm to begin with?

At an OIC conference about 6 years ago, Gaddafi blasted the Arabs, saying that they were too busy scheming against each other rather than being united and trying to solve the Palestinian issue and other disputes. That still holds true, the Arabs were more than contend in seeing Israel the remain the strongest country as it was not Israel they worried about - no matter how much sympathy they had for the Palestinians - but fellow Arab states. The Arabs are more than contend with Israel remaining the only nuclear armed country in the region but are highly distrustful of one another, terrified of the Iranians and would welcome any moves by Israel and Uncle Sam to strike at Israel.

There was a report a few months - that off course has never been confirmed - of Saudi Arabia secretly giving permission for the Israelis to overfly their airspace to hit Iran, which makes a lot of sense given the intense rivalry between Saudi and Iran. As Iraq is unlikely to approve overflight due to its improved relations with Iran [to the dismay of the Americans], flying over Saudi is the most practical route for the Israelis to take, especially if they have to launch more than one strike.

As for Israel and the U.S., I have always maintained my personal opinion that the real reason it wants to stop Iran from having nukes is not because fears that Tehran will use it, will pass it to 'terrorists' or that it will lead to a nuclear arms race in the region.

An extract from a Patrick Seale article.

Could Peace Break Out in the Middle East? http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=2751

The issue is not, and has never been, about ensuring Israel’s survival, but rather about ensuring its regional military supremacy -- a supremacy which, over the past several decades, has given it the freedom to strike its neighbours at will without being hit back. If Iran were ever to acquire a nuclear weapon -- or merely the capability of building one -- Israel fears this would restrict its freedom of action. It might even be a step towards creating a regional balance of power, which Israel is determined to prevent.

 

[Beatmaster]

Could Peace Break Out in the Middle East? Agence Global - Article

Very nice article and a good read.
+1

And does confirm what previous has been said.

 

[My2Cents]

Could Peace Break Out in the Middle East? Agence Global - Article

Very nice article and a good read.
+1

And does confirm what previous has been said.

Hardly. Just look at the author’s choice of words and his biases are rather blatant. And to pin his hope on vague proposals being pushed by a pair of lightweight political hacks like Catherine Ashton and Kofi Annan?

Kofi has already announced that Syria turned him down. He is now frantically trying to keep Turkey from intervening.

Iran is (again) attaching the preconditions to any negotiations that have burned the EU’s members many times in the past, so Catherine proposal is going nowhere. It is questionable if even the EU governments are paying much attention to her antics.

 

[RobWilliams]

These extra ships that the US is providing is just trying to boost capabilties without upping tension's plus i know its only 4 ships but if these were used in concert with other coalition assets and maybe the UK and France could provide landing ships as operating platforms for minehunting helicopters

Using the RN map it seems like they only have 1 MCMV deployed; HMS Quorn

No idea on the depositions of the MN however.

 

[Beatmaster]

Hardly. Just look at the author’s choice of words and his biases are rather blatant. And to pin his hope on vague proposals being pushed by a pair of lightweight political hacks like Catherine Ashton and Kofi Annan?

Kofi has already announced that Syria turned him down. He is now frantically trying to keep Turkey from intervening.

Iran is (again) attaching the preconditions to any negotiations that have burned the EU’s members many times in the past, so Catherine proposal is going nowhere. It is questionable if even the EU governments are paying much attention to her antics.

Hardly how is that?
Kofi Annan only failed because the Syria regime did not recognize him as legal representative and therefor denied his authority.
That does not mean his plan is a flaw and to lightweight to succeed.
Preconditions or not its easy to look at it from a western point of view, but you seem to forget that Iran and the middle east in general have also interests to look after do they not have a say in this matter?
Both Catherine Ashton and Kofi Annan might be seen as light weights but so far they are doing a better job as the average US middle/ heavy weight.

Question what would a US or EU heavy weight for that matter achieve in this scenario:

Israel detests the idea of the great powers negotiating a settlement with Tehran, since it knows that talks must inevitably result in recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium, if only to modest levels for purely civilian purposes. Netanyahu wants Iran’s entire nuclear programme shut down -- his goal is “zero enrichment” -- a demand which no Iranian regime, whatever its coloring, could possibly accept.

Is it Israel that must bend? Or is it Iran that is going to have to give in?
And at what prize?

Now if you take this next piece of text into account and acknowledge this as fact:

Talk of Israel facing an “existential threat” from Iran has no basis in fact. Rather it is Israel’s neighbours who risk annihilation. As the former French President Jacques Chirac once said: If Iran were ever to contemplate launching a suspect missile towards Israel, Tehran would be immediately obliterated!

Then the following pre-conditions:

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that if Iran were supplied with 20% enriched uranium for the Tehran Research Reactor and medical purposes, it would immediately stop enriching uranium to that level, restricting itself to 3.5% enrichment for electricity generation. (He repeated this pledge to Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post on 13 September 2011; to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times on 21 September 2011; and to Reuters on 22 September 2011. To Iranian TV in October 2011, he declared: “If they give us the 20 percent fuel, we will immediately halt 20 percent.”) In return, however, he would no doubt expect a US guarantee that it would not seek to overthrow the Iranian regime by subversion or force. The outline of a deal with Iran is, therefore, already on the table.

Do not sound that unreal to me specially if this avoids a major conflict in the region.
Keep in mind this would bring the 2 powers back on the table on equal terms and this would make the whole issue itself vanish.
Mission Accomplished.

Or do you think that Israel/US demands must be fulfilled at any prize?
Israel wants this badly to maintain their regional footprint and national security (which in my opinion is a bought security as on their own it would be a different matter)

While the Iran regime with all its do's and don't do's just want to make sure that their regime survives.
Which is basically the very same thing as Israel wants.
Its true that the Mullahs and Iran's leader have said ridiculous things which obviously causes for a huge amount of distrust and fear.
But in the rate its going right now, none is going to win anything thing here.

If the US wants to play a proper key role here and if the EU wants to take the lead role as they tried to do but failed so far and the Arab league wants to claim a positive step towards a more stabilized region which will benefit them all then those leaders should step in between Israel and Iran and say:

Benyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad you both are going to sit down and talk things over, while knowing that both have a equal right and that compromises must be made on both sides.
And none is going to attack anyone as this has gone far enough.

But that is unreasonable right?

So how about talking about the pre-terms and coming to a agreement or a variant of it where both parties do not lose to much but do not win to much either they can look into each others eye and say: We have avoided a major war

Now my question to you is: Is this not the goal that the whole western world claim to aim for?

Also this piece of tekst which has been written by many legit sources is VERY vital:

There is as yet no convincing evidence that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon. America’s annual National Intelligence Estimate -- the collective opinion of its 16 intelligence agencies -- has repeatedly confirmed that Tehran has not so far taken any such decision.

Without that evidence Israel has NO say what o ever and this applies for the US as well.
Because by signing the treaty of non proliferation (which Iran did a long time ago) they are allowed to have nuclear program as long they do not take it to weapons grade status or use it for weapons.
Keep in mind Israel never signed that or does the stance: policy of deliberate ambiguity give Israel the right to force a NPT member to comply?
So to speak if Iran does keep it peaceful for civilian purposes then its ok.


And if this is not allowed then i believe that Israel has some serious explaining to do about: Negev Nuclear Research Center near the city of Dimona as what they accuse Iran of doing, they are doing this for the past 15 years at this location and much further.

So who is acting with double standards here?
Anyway just saying they force each other to a climax where in the end none can back down anymore.

 

[STURM]

Hardly. Just look at the author’s choice of words and his biases are rather blatant. And to pin his hope on vague proposals being pushed by a pair of lightweight political hacks like Catherine Ashton and Kofi Annan?

Bias or not, the writer has been covering the Middle East for than 3 decades and has immense knowledge on what he's talking about as well as numerous well placed contacts both on the ground and elsewhere. And if there is any form of bias it would be in sharp contrast and pale in comparison to the daily reporting we get from the mainstream press. Catherine Ashton and Kofi Annan may indeed fail but at least they are trying to avert a war, which is more than can be said of the right wing hawks who are hell bent on war.

Iran is (again) attaching the preconditions to any negotiations that have burned the EU’s members many times in the past, so Catherine proposal is going nowhere. It is questionable if even the EU governments are paying much attention to her antics.

How can Iran not place any preconditions when there are so much double standards at play and when Iran is being forced to accept a plan which does not take into consideration her national interests and security? If Iran accepts what is being pushed upon it by the West, will Uncle Sam give her a firm guarantee that there will be no attempts at regime change and no support for Iranian Sunni groups, who the West calls 'dissidents' but whom the Iranians call 'terrorists'? I