Regarding Iran..........
-
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html
First Stop, Iraq
How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda—and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order
By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Posted Sunday, March 23, 2003; 2:31 p.m. EST
"F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.
A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad. But the apparent simplicity of his message belies the gravity at hand. Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons. The U.S. has launched a war unlike any it has fought in the past. This one is being waged not to defend against an enemy that has attacked the U.S. or its interests but to pre-empt the possibility that one day it might do so. The war has turned much of the world against America. Even in countries that have joined the "coalition of the willing," big majorities view it as the impetuous action of a superpower led by a bully. This divide threatens to emasculate a United Nations that failed to channel a diplomatic settlement or brand the war as legitimate. The endgame will see the U.S. front and center, attempting to remake not merely Iraq but the entire region. The hope is that the Middle East, a cockpit of instability for decades, will eventually settle into habits of democracy, prosperity and peace. The risks are that Washington's rupture with some of its closest allies will deepen and that the war will become a cause for which a new generation of terrorists can be recruited.
How did we get here? In one sense, this war is easy to explain. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who hates America and has shown a wicked fondness for acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Since Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has been acutely aware of what can happen when powerful weapons fall into the hands of those with no compunction about their use and no sympathy for those they kill. Put those facts together, and you can argue that Saddam's days were numbered from the moment the attacks on New York City and Washington happened. But that suggests a fatalistic inevitability to the story and ignores the dramatic shifts in opinion and influence among Washington's key players. In truth, this war is just as much about an idea—that Iraq is but the first step in an American-led effort to make the world a safer place. For some in the Administration, the principles that have shaped policy on Iraq are generally applicable; they could be used with other nations, like Iran or North Korea, that have or threaten to acquire terrible weapons. The least understood story of the Iraq crisis is how the idea behind it took root and eventually brought America to the edge of Baghdad.
In this battle march of an idea, there are four central players: President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and—least known to the general public—Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. One by one, these men signed on to the imperative of taking on Iraq and its weapons, and sending a message to the world. This story does not start where one might suppose, on the day last year when Bush identified Iraq—with Iran and North Korea—as part of the "axis of evil." Nor does it start with the horrors of Sept. 11. The confrontation with Iraq can be traced to 1991 and the end of what some Administration officials have since last fall called "the first Gulf War"—the one waged and won by the President's father.
SOUNDING THE ALARM
When senior advisers of the first President Bush—including Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Cheney, then Secretary of Defense—gathered in the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon, Feb. 27, 1991, they agreed that their military and political objectives in the Persian Gulf had been met. Saddam's forces, which had invaded Kuwait seven months before, had been routed. General Norman Schwarzkopf, commander in chief of Operation Desert Storm, concurred in the judgment. Bush had a clear goal for the war: it was not to topple Saddam, much less to march on Baghdad, but to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. The President had assembled a grand coalition, including armies from many Arab states, behind that aim, and he was not inclined to deviate from it. "Bush was a firm believer in sticking with his word," says a former senior aide. "It was his word and his promises that got that coalition together. There was never any doubt in his mind that the war had to end and we couldn't go to Baghdad."
the rest of the report read from the webby...i shall not say much.... note: -- Note President Bush uses "F---" word!
-
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=19870
Iran to be US next target: CIA Report
Monday March 24, 2003 (0214 PST)
LAHORE, March 24 (Online): The next target of US after capturing Iraq will be replacement of religious government in Iran with a secular government as the US forces in Afghanistan have already started implementation on action plan in this regard.
According to reliable sources, US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had submitted a detailed 300 pages long report to President George Bush in which it was pointed out that during possible US attack on Iran religiously motivated Jehadi (holy warrior) organizations would support Iran from the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Following this report US intelligence agencies have started actions to check any possibility of provision of support to Iran from border areas of the two neighbouring countries by organizations like Tehreek Nifaz Shariat Mohammadi and tribal leaders in Pakistan and Hizb-e-Islami of Eng. Gulbadeen Hikmatyar along with supporters of former Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Sources further revealed that operation being conducted by U.S. forces in Afghanistan on March 20 was not against Al-Qaeda rather it was against Hizb-e-Islami and possible supporters of Iran.
US intelligence agencies have also informed the US State Department about the names of organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan which could support Iran during any possible US attack and this list include names of about six organizations.
Sources also revealed that list of countries where replacement of government has been declared essential included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba and North Korea and from this list Taliban regime has been replaced in Afghanistan while war against Iraq is going on.
Moreover, those 22 countries which are being declared threat to U.S. security could face similar US action like in Iraq if they failed to ensure disarming of their armed organizations and finishing their nuclear arsenal.
End. -
http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/national/nr124032003.html
Iran vows to react against airspace violations
Monday, March 24, 2003
TEHRAN—Iran warned yesterday that its army would react if there were further violations of its airspace. “Our soldiers on the border are on full alert... If they observe the slightest violation of Iranian airspace or at the border they will certainly react,” said Interior Minister Abdolvahed Musavi-Lari. Tehran, officially neutral in the US-led war to depose Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, has condemned what it says have been repeated violations of its airspace by coalition planes. An interior ministry spokesman said earlier yesterday that a missile that injured three Iranians when it landed on a petrochemical depot at Abadan, near the border with Iraq, was fired by a US or British warplane. Iranian radar had detected no Iraqi planes in the sky at the time, and southern Iraq has been off-limits to Baghdad’s planes since the 1991 Gulf war, the spokesman, Jahanbakhsh Khamjani, said.
Witnesses also described the aircraft as belonging to the coalition, he said. But the Interior Minister also said at least one of a series of missiles that have hit Iranian territory since Britain and the United States attacked Iraq last week was Iraqi and not Western. He said the Foreign Ministry had summoned Iraq’s Charge d’Affaires to lodge a formal protest. In London, a British Defence Ministry spokeswoman said Iraq was probably responsible for stray missiles which landed in Iranian territory during the weekend. “Given the disposition of forces it’s most likely that this incident was the result of Iraqi action, that’s currently the situation,” she said. The United States on Saturday informed Tehran that an investigation was under way into reports that two Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at Iraq had veered off course and landed in Iran. The State Department said it got a complaint from Iran through the same channel late Friday. Iran, which fought a bloody war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988 but also has a hostile relationship with the United States, has condemned the US-led offensive against Baghdad but insisted it would not take sides. Iran has had no diplomatic relations with Washington since after the 1979 Islamic revolution and looks nervously at the presence of the US military in neighboring Iraq on the west and Afghanistan on the east. -
http://www.irna.com/en/head/030323200354.ehe.shtml
USWAR/Iran says ready to thwart aggression, reiterates neutrality
toward Iraq crisis
Tehran, March 23, IRNA -- Interior Minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari
here on Sunday stressed that Iranian forces are ready to thwart any
foreign aggression against the country, and reiterated Iran's
position of "active neutrality" toward the Iraq crisis.
Lari, speaking at a news conference, said Iranian combatants are
carefully watching out for the developments on the border with Iraq,
stressing that they will definitely take action against any air or sea
aggression against the country.
He said Iran continues to maintain its policy of "active
neutrality" toward the Iraq crisis, stressing that the Islamic
Republic is "completely neutral" in the US-led war against Iraq.
Lari stressed that Tehran had already announced its opposition to
war and bloodshed before the prevailing crisis in Iraq broke out,
adding that Iran's envoys in their missions to several world countries
had voiced the concern of the Islamic Republic toward the consequences
of a war in the region.
He highlighted the need that the Iraqi people be given the chance
to determine their fate.
"Today, it seems that the only way is to let nations decide over
their fates, themselves," Lari said.
"The west must let the Iraqi nation decide over the affairs of
their country, and western countries must stop the US war machine, and
never allow them to determine the fate of the Iraqi nation."
Lari called on the international community to stop the US war on
Iraq, stressing that the UN must take the leadership in resolving the
crisis.
The UN, he said, must also set the stage for the emergence of a
popular and democratically-elected government.
Asked whether the US campaign against Iraq would later include
countries such as Iran, North Korea or Syria, Lari said the
"aggressive nature" of US leaders might fail to stop them from
creating new crises.
"But there is no doubt that the modern world of today will never
allow unilateralism to cross certain boundaries, and they ultimately
have to follow the international public opinion," he said.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Lari said members of the terrorist
Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) will be forgiven once they repent
of their activities against the Islamic Republic.
"The fate of those who have spared no atrocity in cooperating with
Saddam and have moved with him shoulder-to-shoulder would be
definitely the same as that of Saddam's," he said.
"But should MKO elements repent and turn to realities, they will
be certainly entitled to the Islamic Ra'fat (forgiveness)."
AA/AR
End -
Iranians take pot shots at US-British forces in Iraq
FAO, Southern Iraq (AFP) Mar 23, 2003
Coalition forces have come under fire from Iranian military units across the border from Iraq, British commandos said.
Iranian anti-aircraft gun emplacements and fixed machine-gun posts have opened fire sporadically at British Royal Marine commandos and low-flying US aircraft.
The 40 Commando marines were in the far southern town of Fao locked in a fire fight with Iraqi Baath party fighters just a few hundred metres (yards) from the border between the two countries, the Shatt al-Arab waterway.
A Royal Marines spokesman said: "We are content that the fire from Iran was inaccurate and ineffective, but none the less puzzling".
The first of several volleys, witnessed by a reporter from London's Daily Mirror, was directed at a US A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack jet which swooped low over the Iraqi town to 'buzz' a gun position.
Royal Marines spotted at least one anti-aircraft tower on the Iranian side of the waterway attempting to target the jet.
None of the Iranian fire was accurate and all coalition personnel were left unharmed by it.
British and US troops did not return the fire, but they have orders that allow them to do so if it is necessary for self-defence.
Other pot shots at US-led forces from Iran further north by the border have also been reported in the last few days.
It is not thought the incidents were given official authorisation from Tehran. The Islamic republic's leaders publicly oppose the US-led invasion of Iraq that begun last Thursday.
Iranians living on or near the border with Iraq were suspected of having sympathies with their Iraqi neighbours -
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC25Ak02.html
Iran's neutrality on the line
By Hooman Peimani
Iranian government spokesperson Abdullah Ramezanzadeh has condemned the American war on Iraq as "illegitimate" and "unjustifiable" and reiterated Iran's neutrality in the war. He has also demanded that both Iraq and the United States respect Iran's neutrality. However, Iran might find it increasingly difficult to remain idle when regional (Turkey) and non-regional (United States and United Kingdom) states are seeking to achieve long-term objectives in Iraq with potentially dire consequences for the Iranians.
Ramezanzadeh deplored the American government's initiating the war despite the international community's opposition, which he predicted to have grim consequences for Iraq, the Persian Gulf region, the Middle East and the entire world. In his address on the occasion of the Iranian new year (Nouroz) on Friday, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami stressed Ramezanzadeh's points as he stated, "We have opposed this move from the outset and today we again clearly condemn this military attack ... this military attack, apart from the destructive damage which it has for the oppressed Iraqi people, is dangerous for the whole region and the world." Despite its intention, though, Iran could be dragged into the American war on Iraq. Intentional, and more likely, unintentional military attacks on Iranian territory could push Iran into the war. On Saturday, an American cruise missile, presumably aimed at the Iraqi port of Basra, missed its target and hit the nearby Iranian port of Abadan. The Iranian government filed a protest for the incident in which two Iranians were killed. On the same day, the head of the legal affairs bureau of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mohammad Danesh-Yazdi, handed over his government's protest to the British and Swiss embassies in Tehran for the violation of its airspace by American and British aircraft. The Swiss embassy takes care of American interests in the absence of an American embassy in Iran. The continuation of such military incidents may well force Iran to take retaliatory action, a recipe for an unwanted involvement in the war.
The entry into Iran of Iraqi military personnel to seek shelter or to use that country for their attacks on the American and British forces could also provoke the latter's attack on Iran, which would drag it into the conflict against its will. To prevent that scenario, Ramezanzadeh stated that Iran had decided to seal off its borders to prevent any "illegal infiltration to its soil by Iraqi nationals", that is, Iraqi military personnel. Yet he announced Iran's readiness to help Iraqi refugees fleeing war-affected areas. As mentioned last week in Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi's appeal to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan for refugee relief assistance, "a growing number of Iraqi refugees" has been entering Iran.
Iran could more likely be dragged into the war as a result of an Iranian military intervention in that country in reaction to Turkey's move to achieve its strategic interests that could have an unacceptable impact on the regional balance of power. In particular, Turkey's determination to deploy a large military force in Iraq's Kurdish region now sanctioned by its parliament and/or its efforts to annex or control oil-rich Kirkuk and Mosul to which the Turks have territorial claims since the Ottoman Empire's disintegration could trigger an Iranian reaction. Turkey already has a few thousand military personnel in that region who control a 30 kilometer-wide "security zone" along the Iraqi side of the border, while amassing its troops estimated at 20,000 to 40,000 along its border with Iraq for a future massive deployment.
This situation also alarms the Iraqi Kurds who are on good terms with Iran. Last month, Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), one of the two main Kurdish armed groups governing northern Iraq, said that the Kurds would resist "all further Turkish intrusions" into their territory. Nechirvan Barzani, the KDP's second in command, went beyond that statement to say, "The Turks must be made to understand that their presence [in Iraqi Kurdistan] will be disastrous both for us and for themselves." Moreover, Barham Saleh, prime minister under Jalal Talabani, the leader of the other main Kurdish group, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), clearly hinted at a possible Iranian intervention, apart from a Kurdish reaction, when he held, "[Turkish] military intervention would only complicate matters. If one neighbor gets into Iraq, the others will too, and it will be a mess."
Iran's intervention could take a direct military form if it fails to dissuade Turkey from pursuing its objectives through diplomacy and/or by its Iraqi Kurdish friends and Shi'ite proteges. Iran's ties with the KDP and the PUK have experienced ups and downs over the past two decades. Nevertheless, the two sides have had friendly ties during the past few years as reflected in their receiving assistance from the Iranian government, which has let them maintain offices in Iran. The Iranians will likely seek to halt any long-term Turkish gain in Iraq through those Kurdish groups, which share Iran's concerns about Turkey.
Towards that end, the mentioned groups could count on the Badr Brigade's cooperation, which is the military wing of the Iran-based and backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). This pro-Iranian Shi'ite military force is reportedly have about 10,000 well-armed and trained militias. Late in 2002, Iran brokered an agreement between the Badr Brigade and the PUK in whose territory along the Iranian western border the brigade has bases. The latter aims to ensure a significant share for the Iraqi Shi'ites accounting for 60 percent of the Iraqi population in any post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. The Americans have warned the Badr Brigade to refrain from any move to control Iraqi territories when the Iraqi government losses control over them. Given the SCIRI opposition to an American domination over or occupation of Iraq and its close ties with Iran, its military wing's control of parts of Iraq will increase Iran's influence in a post-Saddam era, a scenario that the Americans want to avoid.
In the case of the mentioned Iraqi forces' failure to prevent the Turks from pursuing their objectives in Iraq, the Iranians might be forced to intervene directly. As well, the Americans' repeated expression of concern about a sudden boost in the power and status of the Iraqi Shi'ites with a positive attitude towards Tehran and the American government's predictable efforts to prevent them from securing a large share of a future Iraqi government may well force Iran to involve itself directly in Iraq. Undoubtedly, this scenario, if comes true, will further worsen already tense Iranian-American relations and may well contribute to a military confrontation between the two sides.
Dr Hooman Peimani works as an independent consultant with international organizations in Geneva and does research in international relations.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. -
If the Iranian Government is unwilling and unable to control their forces close to the Iraqi-Kuwait border area, they will run the risk of being sucked into this war, as a result of hostile actions committed by their military personnel against the US-UK led coalition forces.
Iran cannot afford to get sucked into this war, when they have much to loose by way of their nuclear development program, which is in an embryonic stage of development.
This ISLAMIC nuclear bomb will bring it prestige in the Islamic World, as well as bring itself much security against outside aggression or interference.
It will be tragic, if the moderate government of Iran should fall, resulting in the hardline fundamentalist factions taking control of the Iranian Government, and by default, also the control of a successful nuclear development program.
With the much publicized Iranian affiliation to the cause of many radical muslim freedom fighters throughout the Middle-east, all of whom has anti-Western or anti-USA ideologies as their main theme, it will be bad news for the USA and the regional neighbors of Iran, when Iran succeed in developing the Islamic Nuclear Bomb. -
http://www.payvand.com/news/03/mar/1123.html
3/24/03
The Growing Risk to Iran's Nuclear Technology Program
Nader Habibi
[email protected]
For the past three decades Iran has shown a persistent interest in development of nuclear technology. This interest has been one of the most stable aspects of Iran's technological development policy. However, despite Iran's repeated declarations that it is only interested in peaceful application of nuclear technology, the United States has accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. It has also tried very hard in recent years to prevent other nations from assisting Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. opposition to Iran's nuclear program is to a large extent due to Iran's hostile relations with the U.S. and Israel. Israel, itself, has expressed a deep suspicion about Iran's nuclear motives and seems committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.
In light of the military capabilities and the expressed opposition of United States and Israel, Iran's nuclear facilities are at risk. If Iran's nuclear program reaches a stage that can produce weapons grade material, either Israel or the United States might carry out a preemptive strike against its key facilities. Iran should not underestimate the likelihood of such an operation.
Since Iran's air defense at the present is not capable of intercepting and neutralizing such a strike, billion's of dollars worth of investment that have gone into its nuclear program could be destroyed overnight. Iranian policymakers might think of several options that Iran can adopt to reduce the risk of such an attack but as will be described below, none of them appear to be feasible under current international climate.
One option is to forge a strong political and military alliance with a powerful nation that can shield Iran's nuclear facilities against an air strike. Possible candidates are Russia, China, and to a lesser extent India and Pakistan. However, both, Russia and China have close commercial ties with the United States and cannot afford to anger the United States by supporting Iran. Russia is offering nuclear technology to Iran despite U.S. protest but it will not go as far as risking a military confrontation with the U.S. over Iran's nuclear program. The possibility of receiving protection from China is even less likely. The third and fourth candidates Pakistan and India are locked in a bloody conflict with each other and neither one can afford to annoy the United States.
A second option is to demonstrate a credible retaliatory power. This could include an array of unconventional weapons and an effective missile system that can deliver such weapons in large quantities to Israel and possibly the United States. However, both of these countries are closely monitoring Iran's missile technology and they are fast at work developing anti-missile weapons. Furthermore, if Iran resorts to such weapons in retaliation for an attack on its nuclear facilities, it could face a full-scale war with the U.S. and Israel in which it will be at a disadvantage. Hence the threat of retaliation is not a viable deterrence either.
The third option is to work towards improving Iran's relations with the United States. Improved U.S.-Iran relations will reduce the risk of a U.S. initiated strike but it will not necessarily deter Israel. Keep in mind that Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor despite the latter's close relation with the United States in 1980s. Currently, Israel has a close military cooperation with Turkey. With access to Turkish airbases near Iran, Israel can attack Iran's nuclear facilities independently (or at least without any official coordination with the United States.)
If Iran goes a step further and adopts a more moderate policy towards Israel (similar to the current position of the Arab League, which calls for recognition of Israel in exchange for withdrawal from occupied territories), then the threat will be further reduced. However, A powerful faction of Iran's current Islamic regime is strongly opposed to rapprochement with the United States or adoption of a softer policy towards Israel. Hence this option does not seem to be feasible.
Since none of these options is feasible in the short-run, Iran must look to alternative strategies to safeguard its nuclear policy. One strategy is to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Agency. This requires full submission to surprise inspections of all nuclear facilities and acceptance of a highly intrusive inspection program by international monitoring teams. Under this option Iran might be allowed to continue its nuclear program because the inspections will ensure the international community that Iran is not using its nuclear technology for military purposes.
A second strategy, available to Iranian policy makers, is to significantly slow down the nuclear program such that Israel and the United States are convinced that there is no need for an immediate military strike. This strategy will give Iran breathing time until the current international climate changes or Iran's ability to defend its nuclear facilities improves. It appears that Iran has chosen the opposite option in recent months. Instead of slowing down it has accelerated its nuclear development program and has revealed to the world that it will soon achieve self-sufficiency in development of enriched nuclear materials. This announcement has lead to a sharp increase in U.S. expression of concern about Iran's nuclear intensions. Some U.S. experts have warned that it is only a matter of months before Iran can produce weapon's grade nuclear materials.
It must also be kept in mind that even if United States and Israel decide that for, strategic or diplomatic reasons, a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is not appropriate, they might resort to other means to slow down the pace of Iran's nuclear program. One option that they might consider is to deprive Iran of access to any type of technology that might have an application in its nuclear program. This means the continuation and even intensification of the current economic sanctions. Since the lack of cooperation from Europe and Russia might reduce the effectiveness of this option, the U.S. might try to weaken Iran's economy by contributing to political instability. Iran is currently in the middle of a power struggle between the conservatives and reformists, which has created a dangerous climate. There is a growing concern that the current conditions could deteriorate into political violence and social unrest. Clandestine foreign intervention could increase the probability of such an undesirable outcome. Those who are opposed to Iran's nuclear program might facilitate such an outcome because it will be very difficult for a country that is involved in a violent political crisis to pursue a nuclear technology program in an efficient and speedy manner. The opponents might also try to weaken Iran by assisting the violent opposition groups and promoting movements for ethnic independence.
In conclusion, unless Iran is able to convince the world community and the United States in particular, that its nuclear program does not lead to the production of nuclear weapons, it should significantly slow down its nuclear program during the next few months. Otherwise, Iran must be prepared for a possible military strike against its nuclear facilities and many other measures that certain countries might take to stop its nuclear program.
About the author:
Nader Habibi works for an economic consulting firm in Philadelphia as a regional specialist for Persian Gulf. He has taught economics in Iran, Turkey and most recently in the United States. His latest publication is a novel called "Atul's Quest." Atul's Quest offers a satirical look at racial attitudes in developing countries and third world immigrant communities in the United States. -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s815232.htm
Last Update: Tuesday, March 25, 2003. 2:20am (AEDT)
Iran says it may fire on aircraft in its skies
Iran, which has reported several violations of its airspace by US and British jets attacking Iraq, said on Monday it might fire on aircraft which enter its skies.
But it played down the significance of apparently errant missiles landing on its territory and said such incidents were the natural consequence of living next door to a war zone.
Torn between its enmity for both main protagonists in the war in Iraq, the Islamic Republic has vowed to stay neutral.
Deputy Interior Minister Aliasghar Ahmadi said aircraft which entered Iranian airspace would be warned.
"But if they fail to heed (the warnings), they will surely face pre-emptive measures from our troops," Ahmadi, who is responsible for military and security affairs at the ministry, told state television.
"If it is required, and if they fail to heed the warnings, they might face firing from Iran," he said.
"Firing does not mean going to war," he added.
Ahmadi said Iran had already warned the ambassadors of Britain and Switzerland -- which handles US interests in Tehran -- about several violations of its airspace in southwest Iran, where US-led forces are battling to control Iraqi cities close to the Iran-Iraq border. -
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-3-2003_pg7_55
Iran denies firing at allies
TEHRAN: An Iranian official Monday strongly denied charges by British commandos that coalition troops in southern Iraq had come under fire from Iranian forces across the border.
“We consider this allegation as baseless,” the official told AFP.
British Royal Marine commandos on the Fao peninsula said Sunday that both they and low-flying US aircraft had come under sporadic fire from Iranian anti-aircraft batteries and fixed machine-gun posts. The 40 Commando marines were in the town of Fao on the far south of the peninsula, just a few hundred metres from the Shatt al-Arab waterway that marks the border.
A Royal Marines spokesman said: “We are content that the fire from Iran was inaccurate and ineffective, but none the less puzzling”.
The first of several volleys, witnessed by a reporter from London’s Daily Mirror, was directed at a US A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack jet that swooped low over the Iraqi town to “buzz” a gun position. Interior Minister Abdolvahed Moussavi-Lari warned Sunday that the Iranian army would “react” if there were further violations of its airspace by US and British warplanes.
“Our soldiers on the border are on full alert ... If they observe the slightest violation of Iranian airspace or at the border they will certainly react,” he threatened.
Iran denies helping Ansar Al-Islam: Iran also denied any link to Ansar al-Islam, a hardline Islamist group operating in Iraqi Kurdistan accused by Washington of being linked to al-Qaeda that has come under massive US air strikes.
For the Iranian government “Ansar al-Islam is an extremist group with suspect objectives, and there is no link between this group and Iran”, foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi was quoted by the official IRNA news agency as saying.
Kharazi says rockets hitting Iran is “natural”: Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi has said US or Iraqi missiles hitting Iranian territory was a “natural” consequence of the war raging in Iraq.
“Taking into account that we are neighbour of Iraq and the activities of belligerent forces throughout Iraq, it is natural that a rocket or missile comes towards us,” Kharaz told state television late Sunday.
“Of course, we have strongly protested, and they have promised to respect our airspace.
IranÂ’s interior ministry has said that, since Friday, three US missiles had hit the southern region of Abadan, and that an Iraqi missile had hit Sardasht in the western Kurdistan province.
Kharazi said Iran was examining the type of the rockets.
“We protested to the British and American forces, and we will obtain more precise information to register our protest officially”, he said. “They should take into account” the documents and evidences Iran will show them.
Speaking of the Iraqi rocket, he said it “fortunately did not work” and that Iraqi officials had said “they did not intend to violate Iran’s airspace and it was only accidental.” —AFP -
http://www.irna.com/en/head/030325162926.ehe.shtml
USWAR/Military expert accuses US of weak war management
Tehran, March 25, IRNA -- An Iranian military expert Amir Hayat
Moqaddam said the US enjoys high airlift capability but suffers
from weak war management which has prevented it from achieving its
goals.
Hayat Moqaddam told IRNA that the US and British forces have
not yet been able to achieve their objectives in the war although
Iraq has not put up much serious resistance.
He pointed to high casualties and high number of air incidents
suffered by the US in Iraq, as an evidence of the US army's weak
war management.
BG/RR
End -
http://www.irna.com/en/head/030325193401.ehe.shtml
USWAR/Iranian defense ministry warns of "very dangerous" war fallout
Tehran, March 25, IRNA -- Iranian defense ministry Tuesday warned
against "very dangerous" consequences of the US-led strike on Iraq
and urged the world community and "peace loving governments" to
ratchet up their efforts to immediately stop the "illegitimate,
immoral and destructive war".
"The war for oil which is ongoing in Iraq will not guarantee the
two hostile sides' interests and will instead plunge the region and
the world into an insecure swamp," it said in a statement, a copy of
which was made available to IRNA.
"Establishing democracy through military aggression is a failed
policy and contrary to the international principles," it said,
adding "the only decisive factor in determining Iraq's fate is the
will of that country's people".
The ministry also urged a massive turnout in Friday's anti-war
demonstrations throughout Iran.
The Islamic Republic has strongly condemned the US-led invasion
of Iraq. Iran, which fought an imposed war between 1980 and 1988
with Iraq -- then a close American ally -- has taken a position of
"active neutrality" and reiterated that it will not back one side or
the other in the US-led war.
At least three projectiles have landed in the Iranian territory
since the war began last Wednesday and Tehran has blamed both
the coalition and Iraq for the attacks.
US and British officials have speculated that the missiles had
been fired by Iraq. Washington has said it took Iranian territorial
integrity and sovereignty very seriously" and vowed to investigate
where the missiles came from.
On Tuesday, the British Embassy in Iran said that the apparently
stray missile which hit an oil refinery depot in southwest Abadan
last Friday was "most likely the result of Iraqi action".
"The UK Ministry of Defense have looked into this incident and
made this conclusion on the basis of the information available and
given the disposition of coalition and Iraqi forces in the region at
the time," it said in a news release sent to IRNA.
BH/RR
End -
Marines line up on Iranian border
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
(Filed: 26/03/2003)
Royal Marines were deployed to Iraq's border with Iran yesterday in a move that will unnerve Teheran's regime, which fears encirclement by American-led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Ministry of Defence said the Royal Marines were merely "securing their area of operations" after seizing at the Faw peninsula.
But with Iranian troops manning positions on the other side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, British forces face a highly sensitive task.
Tensions were illustrated by a succession of border incidents. A rocket struck an Iranian oil refinery depot in Abadan, just across from Basra, on Friday injuring two people while there were reports on Monday that Iranian forces had fired on British troops on the Faw peninsula.
Iran, part of America's "axis of evil", is formally neutral but fears it could be the next target for attack.
It is torn between publicly denouncing the "imperialist" war on a fellow Muslim country and co-operating tacitly with America and Britain in removing the old enemy, Saddam Hussein.
America has waged war against two of Iran's most hated foes, the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Ba'athists in Baghdad. But the "Great Satan", as America is known, now has forces on two of Iran's borders.
Neighbouring Arab countries have long feared a war in Iraq could suck in forces from Turkey and Iran.
Western diplomats said Turkish intervention to forestall any Kurdish attempt to seize greater autonomy could encourage Iran to cross the border to support fellow Shi'ites and clear out bases of the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq.
The leading Iraqi Shi'ite opposition group, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution, has thousands of fighters in Iran. Some have slipped into Iraqi Kurdistan and many more may cross the border to claim a stake in the future Iraqi government.
18 March 2003: America's dream for a new Middle East
10 March 2003: Alarm as Iran takes another step towards nuclear weapons
7 February 2003: Blair tries to woo Iran into anti-Saddam pact
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/26/wiran26.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/26/ixnewstop.html -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922750,00.html
Iran rallies militia for border show of force
Brian Whitaker
Thursday March 27, 2003
The Guardian
Thousands of members of an Iranian militia have held a rally on their country's border with Iraq in what appears to have been a muscle-flexing gesture.
A provincial commander of the Revolutionary Guard told the militia that its presence in Mehran demonstrated "the vigilance of the Islamic state and readiness of the Basij forces to defend aspirations of the Islamic republic", according to a report by the Iranian students news agency.
The Basij Mobilisation Resistance Force was set up during the Iranian revolution and became a major force in support of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Tens of thousands of its volunteers, who are often young, poor and uneducated, died in Iran's war with Iraq during the 1980s. Members also act as guardians of Islamic morality and have been known to beat up reformist students.
The Iranian government yesterday maintained its public stance of neutrality, saying it would prevent armed Iraqi exiles based on its territory from joining the war in Iraq.
"We will not allow any military movements in favour of, or against, any of the conflicting sides until the whole conflict is over," a government spokesman told a news conference.
"Our borders are closed to any kind of crossing."
There was no immediate comment from Tehran-based officials of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is made up of Iraqi exiles who share Iran's adherence to the Shia version of Islam. The Badr Brigade - the council's armed wing - says it has several thousand Iraqi fighters in south-western Iran, close to the border.
Tehran's official stance towards the war is described as "active neutrality" - meaning that it aims to stay out of the conflict as much as possible while making diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting.
As in Afghanistan, it is also providing some discreet cooperation with the US in the hope of acquiring a say in the shaping of a post-Saddam Iraq.
The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has claimed that some Iranian-backed groups are in Iraq.
"We do see Iran-sponsored forces... troops with an allegiance to the Iranian government inside Iraq at this time," he said on Tuesday, but added that Iran had not so far "done things that are making our life more difficult in Iraq".
Government sources in Iran yesterday told the Associated Press that another stray missile from Iraq had landed in the country near Qasr-i Shirin, in western Kermanshah province, on Monday - though this was later denied by the interior ministry. -
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-3-2003_pg7_4
America may turn focus on Iran: expert
TOKYO: The United States is likely to turn its focus on IranÂ’s suspected nuclear weapons programme once it finishes the ongoing war against Iraq, an American military expert said at an academic symposium on non-proliferation Tuesday.
“The United States is likely to turn its focus on halting Iran’s uranium enrichment programme while Iran still seems to be a few years from achieving the capability,” said Gary Samore, director of studies at the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
“Despite (Iran’s) assurances, it seems more likely that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons option under cover of its civilian nuclear power programme,” he said.
The comment came at a one-day symposium hosted by the United Nations University and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was attended by around 50 experts and university academics. —APP -
Another Stray Missile Lands Hits Iran, Sources Say
3-26-3
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Another apparently stray missile has landed in Iran, government sources said on Wednesday, but an analyst said the country was unlikely to lose its neutrality on war in neighboring Iraq.
The rocket landed on Monday night near the city of Qasr-e Shirin, in western Kermanshah province. There were no reports of damage and it was not clear who had fired the rocket, the sources said.
Torn between its enmity for both protagonists in the war, the Islamic Republic has vowed neutrality in the conflict. It has also said such errant missile incidents were not uncommon next to a war zone.
"I don't think Iran will lose its patience and answer back. Until now they have behaved very well," political analyst Saeed Leylaz said.
The neighbors, both labeled members of "an axis of evil" by Washington last year, fought each other to a standstill in their 1980-1988 war that killed around one million people.
Since U.S.-led forces started the campaign to topple the rule of President Saddam Hussein have accused both U.S. forces and Iraq of firing missiles that have errantly landed in Iran.
Washington has said it was investigating the reports.
The most serious incident to date occurred on Friday when a missile smashed into an oil refinery in the southwest city of Abadan and injured two workers.
In the first reported anti-war protest in Iran since war started, about 300 people demonstrated outside the main U.N. building in central Tehran on Wednesday, witnesses and state television said.
"Why does America kill innocent Iraqi people for the sake of oil?" asked one demonstrator.
"We don't support Saddam, we back each single Muslim in Iraq," said another.
Television footage showed some protesters were family members of Iranians who died during the brutal Iran-Iraq war and also disabled combatants from that conflict.
In another consequence of war, negotiations between Iran and Iraq on swapping the remains of soldiers killed in the war have been put on hold, the official IRNA news agency said.
The fate of thousands of combatants listed as missing in action remains a source of tension between the two countries. Iraq denies having Iranian war prisoners.
"Iraqi authorities announced they are not ready to negotiate and cooperate with Iran regarding exchanging the remains of whose were killed during Iran-Iraq war," IRNA said, quoting an unnamed official.
Iranian and Iraqi teams combing former war zones have found thousands of bodies since a U.N.-sponsored cease-fire halted the war and last year the International Committee for the Red Cross supervised the repatriation of over 97,400 POWs from both sides.
Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. -
USWAR/Rumors of US or British paratroopers landing in Iran denied
Abadan, Khuzestan prov, March 27, IRNA -- An official for security
affairs in the southern province of Khuzestan denied here Thursday
rumors that two US or British paratroopers had landed in the southern
part of the province in the area called 'Khur-e Doraq'.
He told IRNA that there is no truth to such assertion and that in
contacts with local people they have rejected any indication that
foreign forces have landed on the Iranian soil.
Earlier on Thursday, several reports had quoted villagers in the
area as saying that two British or US pilots or paratroopers had
veered off-course due to strong winds and landed in the area.
Khuzestan borders Iraq and although several war-related incidents
have occurred in the area, life goes on as usual.
The head of provincial port of Abadan Shipping Organization
Hedayatollah Feyze-Mahdavi said here Wednesday that despite the
intense fighting close to Iran-Iraq border shipping is still operating
normally.
"There are no unusual security fallout due to the war at the
port," he said, adding there have been no snags in customs operations
or in loading and unloading of goods.
He said shipping is taking place normally and "only due to the
Iranian new year holiday the activity has somewhat tapered off."
Abadan is one of the busiest ports in Iran with huge volume of
cargo passing through its docks daily.
At least three projectiles have landed in the Iranian territory
since the war began last Thursday and Tehran has blamed both the
coalition forces and Iraq for the attacks.
Two severe blasts rocked the city of Abadan last Friday. The
explosions were followed by a column of smoke and dust across the
border inside the Iraqi territory.
Iranian oil depot in the southwestern city of Abadan had been
target of the first rocket fired from an American plane. At least two
people, including a guard of the depot, were injured in the attack and
the injured were taken to hospital.
NB/BH/AR
End
http://www.irna.com/en/head/030327230511.ehe.shtml