• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

This interference in Syria will be the undoing of the Iranian government economically, if the news reports are to be believed.  The value of the Rial is plummeting faster than Rob Anders' reputation.  What will come of that should make for interesting watching over the next few months.  I'll be fascinated to see how and if they wriggle out of this predicament. 
 
jollyjacktar said:
This interference in Syria will be the undoing of the Iranian government economically, if the news reports are to be believed.  The value of the Rial is plummeting faster than Rob Anders' reputation.  What will come of that should make for interesting watching over the next few months.  I'll be fascinated to see how and if they wriggle out of this predicament.

Crashing their economy is definitely going to get the attention of the people, and it seems it's already leading to demonstrations. It seems that the tightening of sanctions is causing a lot of headaches for Iran, because even those who would normally overlook their shenanigans aren't really all that interested in helping much. Perhaps, then, we'll see more of their failed "green revolution" - but with enough of a critical mass to actually bring change. I certainly don't think the average Iranian on the street wants anything to do with more war, they just don't have a particularly effective voice. Yet.
 
A New Yorker review of the movie "Argo",
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2012/10/15/121015crci_cinema_lane

and Tony Mendez' (the CIA officer who ran the plan) official CIA account:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol43no3/pdf/v43i3a01p.pdf

Mark
Ottawa
 
Also, here's a couple of podcasts from the International Spy Museum in Washington D.C. where Mendez and a couple of American diplomats (Mark and Cora Lijek) who had to hide in a Canadian diplomat's home.
http://www.spymuseum.org/multimedia/spycast/episode/escape-from-tehran-1979-part-i/
http://www.spymuseum.org/multimedia/spycast/episode/escape-from-tehran-1979-part-ii/
 
The story from one of the hostages:

“I Was Rescued From Iran
It wasn’t like the movie.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/10/argo_hostage_story_mark_lijek_s_true_account_of_fleeing_iran.single.html

Though he thinks it a good flick.  The hostage, Mark Lijek, has his own website where one can buy his e-book on the exfiltration:

“Argo Adventure or Canadian Caper?”
http://marklijek.com/

Mark
Ottawa
 
More on why Iran is heavily involved with Syria:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/24/how-syria-is-irans-route-to-the-sea/

How Syria is Iran’s route to the sea

David Kopel • October 24, 2012 2:29 am

“Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” So said Mitt Romney at the Monday debate. The Associated Press, The Guardian, The Telegraph, New York, U.S. News,  Brad DeLong, Rachel Maddow’s Maddowblog,  Comedy Central, and The Daily Kos promptly seized the opportunity to show off their superior geographical knowledge, pointing out that Iran has a coastline. The explicit or implicit explanation was that Romney does not even know basic geography. “Romney Flubs Geography” announced the A.P. headline on the Washington Post website. Readers in search of more sophisticated coverage  might have turned to Yahoo! Answers:

    Q. Why did Romney say that Syria is Iran’s “route to the sea”? ...when 1) Iraq stands between Syria and Iran, and 2) Iran already has the Persian Gulf, not to mention the Indian Sea?

    A. Romney was speaking in the context of the debate topic on foreign policy and the sanctions restricting the finances and trade of Iran. Although Iran is indeed located on the seacoast of the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, the international trade sanctions have restricted and impeded its ability to transport armaments and other goods through its own seaports. To defeat these trade sanctions, Iran has resorted to using its air transportation to transport goods through an air corridor in Iraqi airspace into Syria and its seaports, such as Latakia.

Fact-checkers who actually investigate the facts might have started with expert websites such as StrategyPage. A 2006 article titled Syrian Delivery System for Iranian Nukes details the extensive seaborne smuggling operations carried out by Syrian companies operating out of Syrian ports. The article concludes:

    Iran was generous with its “foreign aid” because Syria provided support for terrorists Iran backed. Now Iran is keen on getting nuclear weapons. The first ones Iran will get will be large and delicate. The only feasible intercontinental delivery system will be a ship. A ship that is accustomed to moving illicit goods.

Stratfor, which is an outstanding site for the collection and analysis open source intelligence, has the following reports involving Syria/Iran sea-related collaboration: An Iranian ship at the Syrian port of Tartus (also spelled “Tartous”) picked up Syrian oil for delivery to China, to evade the economic sanctions on Syria (Mar. 30, 2012). Iran warships docked at the port of Latakia in early 2012 (Feb. 18, 2012), and in early 2011 (Feb. 22, 2011; Feb. 24, 2011). During the 2011 visit, the Iranian navy’s commander, Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, announced that Iran was ready to help Syria improve its port facilities, and to collaborate on technical projects with Syria. (Feb. 26, 2011). (All the Stratfor articles are behind a paywall.)

So in short, Syria is Iran’s route for the projection into the Mediterranean Sea (and from there, the Atlantic Ocean) of conventional naval power, and, perhaps soon, of nuclear weaponry.

Post-debate, the Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler at least made a start towards a serious factcheck of the Romney quote. He published an updated and condensed version of a longer piece he had written last April about Romney’s repeated use of the phrase.

In the April piece, Kessler wondered what difference Syria made, since Iranian ships can enter the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal. True, but anyone with even a mild knowledge of naval affairs could explain the utility of a Mediterranean port, as a opposed to a Persian Gulf port, for ships operating in the Mediterranean. In April and in October, Kessler wrote:

    We also checked with other experts, many of whom confessed to being puzzled by Romney’s comments.  [DK: Kessler should have named all the "other" experts, and should also have included the explanation of at least one of the experts who was not among the "many" were were confused.] Tehran certainly uses Syria to supply the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, but that has little to do with the water. The relationship with Syria could also effectively allow Iran to project its power to the Mediterranean and the border with Israel. But does that really mean, “a route to the sea”?

The last two sentences are really the buried lede of the story: Romney is raising a very important issue (Syria as the base for the projection of Iranian naval power), but Romney is not explaining himself in a manner which the less well-informed members of the public (e.g., the sources linked in the 1st paragraph of this post) can understand. If Romney were a better communicator, he would have laid out the facts in greater detail, as Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill did in their own time, when warning their countrymen about the military dangers of aggressive totalitarian regimes. As Kessler wrote in April, “If Romney is elected president, he will quickly learn that words have consequences. Precision in language is especially important in diplomacy, and here Romney used a phrase that left people befuddled as to his intent and meaning, especially since he did not even make a distinction between the Mediterranean and Arabian seas.”

If you’re a journalist or a commentator, there’s no reason be ashamed just because a Washington Post writer reported a story much better than you did. But when you find yourself being outclassed by Yahoo! Answers, perhaps it’s time to rethink your assumptions that you’re much smarter and better informed than Mitt Romney.
 
I think this is a more salient point from the article:

Thucydides said:
If Romney were a better communicator, he would have laid out the facts in greater detail, as Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill did in their own time, when warning their countrymen about the military dangers of aggressive totalitarian regimes. As Kessler wrote in April, “If Romney is elected president, he will quickly learn that words have consequences. Precision in language is especially important in diplomacy,
 
I posted this in another thread, but it is relevant for this discussion as well.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108015/post-1182909.html#msg1182909
 
You would think that on the eve of war the CF would lift the recruiting freeze and start preparing.
 
hagan_91 said:
You would think that on the eve of war the CF would lift the recruiting freeze and start preparing.
Any insights you'd care to share with us re:  what Canada will be doing to require more troops than it has now, even if shots are fired in anger?
 
A slight mobilization to increase the cf to 125-150000. This would allow at least a fielded CMBG, 24 fighters, and contributions to carrier groups, and all its support units.
 
Your "slight mobilization" would effectively double the size of the CF.

Have you also made provisions for training, housing and equipping these new people?

Do you think the Canadian public will accept a military budget of $60 billion/year; plus surge costs involved in buying all the new boots, uniforms, trucks, ships, airplanes etc?

Is Iran an existential threat to Canada?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Thucydides said:
Your "slight mobilization" would effectively double the size of the CF.

Have you also made provisions for training, housing and equipping these new people?

Do you think the Canadian public will accept a military budget of $60 billion/year; plus surge costs involved in buying all the new boots, uniforms, trucks, ships, airplanes etc?

Is Iran an existential threat to Canada?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Its that attitude that keeps the CF small.
 
hagan_91 said:
Its that attitude that keeps the CF small.

No, it's government priorities and policy, along with socioeconomic realities that keep the CF small.
 
Update on the Iran nuclear  Threat.

New York Times   

October 30, 2012

Israeli Defense Chief Says Iran Postponed Nuclear Ambitions

By RICK GLADSTONE


Israel’s defense minister said Tuesday that the country had interpreted Iran’s conversion of some enriched uranium to fuel rods for civilian use as evidence that Iran had delayed ambitions to build a nuclear weapon.

The assertion, by Defense Minister Ehud Barak in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper, amounted to the first explanation from him as to why he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu softened their position in September over the possibility of a military strike to thwart what they called Iran’s drive toward imminent nuclear weapons capability.

Their tough position on Iran, which they consider Israel’s most dangerous enemy, had generated tensions with the Obama administration, which has contended that Iran is many months away from the ability to make a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Barak, who was visiting London, was quoted by the newspaper as saying an immediate crisis had been averted this summer because Iran had chosen to use a third of its enriched uranium for use as fuel rods in a medical research reactor. The conversion of that uranium, which was reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency in August, makes it much more difficult to use militarily.

The Iranian decision, Mr. Barak said, “allows contemplating delaying the moment of truth by 8 to 10 months.”

Asked why Iran would have decided on such a conversion, Mr. Barak said it might have taken Israeli and American warnings seriously, might have wished to delay a confrontation with Israel until after the American presidential elections, or might have been seeking to convince the agency of the sincerity of its peaceful intent.

Iran has consistently denied it intends to build a nuclear weapon and has denounced Israel’s assertions as warmongering.

The Iranians have also pointed out that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and that Israel, which is not, possesses an unacknowledged stockpile of nuclear weapons.


 
Iran showcases new domestically built Sina 7 submarines.  Pretty colours...  Full story, photos and video at link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240160/Irans-navy-showcases-bright-new-warship---damage-wont-coming.html
 
This could go in the China Superthread as well, but I felt it was more applicable here.

Huawei linked to plan to sell restricted equipment to Iran

A major partner of the Chinese telecommunications gear maker offered to sell $1.7 million worth of embargoed HP computer equipment to Iran, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57561298-92/huawei-linked-to-plan-to-sell-restricted-equipment-to-iran/

Already considered a threat to U.S. national security, Huawei is again finding itself under scrutiny, linked to an offer to sell embargoed computer equipment to Iran.

A major partner of the Chinese telecommunications gear maker offered to provide 1.3 million euros ($1.7 million) of Hewlett-Packard computer equipment to Iran in 2010, according to documents reviewed by Reuters. However, Huawei says neither it nor Hong Kong-based Skycom, its privately-owned partner, provided the equipment to Mobile Telecommunication Co of Iran, known as MCI.

The proposal focused on expanding MCI's subscriber billing system and included at least 13 pages marked "Huawei confidential" and carrying the Huawei's company logo, according to Reuters. Those documents featured a price list for new HP equipment that included one server, 20 disk arrays, and 22 switches, as well as software.

In a statement, Huawei called the proposal a bidding document and said it was submitted by Skycom.

    Huawei's business in Iran is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations including those of the U.N., U.S. and E.U. This commitment has been carried out and followed strictly by our company. Further, we also require our partners to follow the same commitment and strictly abide by the relevant laws and regulations.

The two Chinese companies appear to have close ties, with Reuters noting that the two share headquarters in China and Skycom employees in Tehran wear Huawei badges.

The report emerges just months after Cisco Systems ended its relationship with ZTE -- another Chinese telecommunications gear maker -- after it was revealed that ZTE was selling Cisco-branded networking equipment to Iran. The Shenzhen, China-based telecommunications giant reportedly sold restricted and banned computer equipment developed by Cisco and other U.S.-based companies to Iran's telecoms firms.

In October, House Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Huawei and ZTE of being threats to U.S. security and discouraging U.S. companies from buying their equipment.

"U.S. network providers and systems developers are strongly encouraged to seek other vendors for their projects," the committee wrote in its 52-page report. "Based on available classified and unclassified information, Huawei and ZTE cannot be trusted to be free of foreign state influence and thus pose a security threat to the United States and to our systems."
 
Conrad Black on the consequences if (when) Iran gets the bomb:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/12/conrad-black-if-iran-gets-the-bomb/

Conrad Black: If Iran gets the bomb

Conrad Black | Jan 12, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 11, 2013 4:04 PM ET
More from Conrad Black

The odds are that Iran will acquire a nuclear military capacity in the next year or 18 months. The subject has been bandied about for so long that the implications of such a step are now widely accepted with resignation — much as with North Korea, when it joined the nuclear club. And the United States is duly distributing anti-missile defense around the Persian Gulf.

Barack Obama never formally took the military option “off the table.” Nevertheless — if the United States, especially with John Kerry and Chuck Hagel in the State Department and the Pentagon — lifts a finger to prevent Iran from crossing this threshold, it would be the greatest Middle Eastern backflip since Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem.

It would also be a welcome sight. North Korea is essentially a puppet of China’s, which the People’s Republic unleashes on the West for its own amusement from time to time, but which it can contain. Iran, as the noted behaviourist Monty Python would say, is something completely different.

All that is good that can be said about the Iranian nuclear initiative is that it exposes the nuclear disarmament regime as the fraud that it is.

The United States developed atomic weapons for their potential to save American and Allied lives in ending the Second World War, and because they were afraid the Germans would develop them first. The Soviet Union developed them because Stalin could not stand not having atomic weapons if the Americans had them. The British developed them because they and the United States were supposedly partners in the atomic weapons program, and they were the supreme criterion of military power, and so the United Kingdom felt Western Europe, and particularly Britain, should not be without them. France produced its nuclear weapons because the other three acknowledged Great Powers had them, and Charles de Gaulle declined to have France consigned to any lesser status.

China’s nuclear program was designed to strengthen that country opposite the Americans and Soviets. India’s was to endow that country with what China possessed, and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because its arch-rival and enemy in the sub-continent, India, had them. Israel and the white minority regime in South Africa developed nuclear weapons because they were endangered by more numerous groups around and among them. (When the white-dominated regime ended in South Africa, the weapons were disposed of and the nuclear capability renounced.) North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, though insane, was, as has been mentioned, a Chinese puppet, and was useful to Beijing as a flail and goad of the West.

In other words: The nuclear club grew out of a form of bomb envy. And the rest of the world, which resisted the contagion, was served the pacifier of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, in which all signatories pledged to facilitate the use of peaceful applications of nuclear power, non-nuclear countries pledged to eschew them, and the nuclear powers pledged to seek nuclear disarmament. The NPT has been signed or acceded to by 190 countries, but North Korea withdrew and India, Israel and Pakistan have not signed.

Of course, the nuclear military powers have not made any serious effort to disarm. The Americans and Soviets have reduced absurdly excessive over-supplies of warheads and delivery systems, but disarmament is nonsense beyond a certain point, because if it were ever enacted, a North Korea or even a gangster or terror organization operating from a failed state, like the Somali pirates or a faction of the Taliban, could rule the world.

None of the nuclear powers prior to North Korea was an intolerable risk of irresponsible first use. Mao Tse-tung occasionally made vapid threats about China’s ability to absorb hundreds of millions of dead in a nuclear attack, which was neither true nor relevant, as both the United States and U.S.S.R. had the ability to incinerate every living organism in China in a nuclear attack.

Related

    George Jonas: Sanctions won’t stop Iran
    Charles Krauthammer: Chuck Hagel represents the inner Obama

There have been worries about Pakistan’s political stability, but as long as its arsenal is in the hands of its military, which has provided Pakistan with the closest approximation to functioning government it has had during its 66-year tumultuous history, there is little likelihood of impetuosity. Stalin would not have hesitated to threaten nuclear destruction on anyone, but American deterrent power has always been adequate to dissuade whoever ruled in the Kremlin from trigger-happy conduct. (When Nikita Khrushchev told President Eisenhower in 1959 that the Soviet Union could overpower Western conventional forces in Germany, Ike responded at once: “If you attack us in Germany, there will be nothing conventional about our response.” The subject of a Soviet attack in Germany did not come up again between them.)

Iran is of more concern because its leaders have spoken almost ceaselessly of destroying the Jewish state, and they have often claimed a wish to die for the cause of militant Islam. They certainly have no shortage of followers ready to make such a sacrifice. But — as is indicated by the conduct of the Hamas leaders when Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon had the Israeli Defense Forces kill the head of Hamas after each terrorist outrage in Israel, and of Osama bin Laden, hiding like an animal behind high walls against American retribution — militant Islamist leaders tend to be more careful with their lives than their rhetoric might suggest.

Those truly determined and eager to die, especially if they are in positions of power, have no difficulty doing so. Iran’s leaders have not done so yet, nor come close to doing so.

But there will be terrible consequences if Iran obtains these horrible weapons, even if they do not use them. Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will feel obliged to do the same, and a general movement will then spread to replace the present furtively expanding club of sensible nuclear hypocrites, arming themselves to deter aggression but not initiate it, with a vast nuclear club of unlimited membership.

Like a neighbourhood that leaps from gradually slipping gun control to being universally armed to the teeth, the world will bristle with nuclear weaponry like hand guns and switchblades on Saturday night in an American slum. This will continue to deter most countries, though most do not need to be deterred, but it will make nuclear exchanges inevitable, eventually, and deterrence will then have to regress to early Cold War massive retaliation, which will only accelerate and spread the arms race.

It is not quite too late to institute and enforce a policy of insistence on denial of nuclear weapons to countries that do not plausibly renounce first use, but the chances are eroding every day, through the irresolution and misjudgments of the U.S. government. If Iran becomes a nuclear military power, the consequences are easily foreseeable, are as described, and they will be terrifying.

National Post
cbletters@gmail.com
 
Back
Top