Iran accuses US of "psychological war"

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-04-09T101600Z_01_N07360273_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-USA.xml

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday brushed aside what it called a U.S. "psychologicalwar" against its nuclear programme after a published report described Pentagon planningfor possible military strikes against Iranian atomic facilities.A report by influentialinvestigative journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine, citing unnamed currentand former officials, said Washington has stepped up plans for possible attacks onIranian facilities to curb its atomic work.The article said the United States wasconsidering using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's underground uraniumenrichment facilities at Natanz, south of Tehran.

"This is a psychological warlaunched by Americans because they feel angry and desperate regarding Iran's nucleardossier," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a weekly news conference.

"We will stand by our right to nuclear technology. It is our red line. We are readyto deal with any possible scenario. Iran is not afraid of threatening language," headded.

The United Nations has called on Iran to halt uranium enrichment, whichthe West believes Iran is pursuing to acquire technology to make a nuclear bomb. Iran hasrejected the demand and insists it only wants to make fuel for civilian uses.Iran'sdecision in January to resume enrichment prompted Britain, France and Germany to breakoff 2-1/2 years of EU talks with Tehran and back a U.S. demand to refer Iran to the U.N.Security Council, which can impose sanctions.
Asefi said Iran was ready to continueits cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and said IAEA chief MohamedElBaradei would visit Iran by Friday to discuss Iran's cooperation with the IAEA.

"We have always had good cooperation with the IAEA and we will continue to do so," hesaid.

ElBaradei is expected to provide a report to the Council on Iran's nuclearprogramme entitled "the process of Iranian compliance" at the end of this month.

ElBaradei has said he has found no proof of a weapons programme in Iran but at thesame time has said he cannot give the Islamic Republic a clean bill of health.
AnIAEA official has said earlier that ElBaradei would travel to Iran on Tuesday orWednesday for a day of meetings in Tehran to try to win more cooperation from Tehran.
________________________________________________________

I think the Iranscenario is becoming worse, every day. I don't know if there is any chance left, toprevent the next gulf-war. When you look upon the First World War there are similarities.Many people are at this moment trying to put through their national interests. This iskind of frightening, I think.

What do you think, will the consequences be, whenthere is a new (world?!) war, having it's starting point in the Middle East.


Let the dream begin,
let your darker side give in...

..::Phantom of the Opera::..

Bunch of Crap with some embarrasing trashtalk on top.. This will be a very gory War withno winner at the End. Both parties have tremendous Power, when it comes to weaponry..

"I am, what you fear the most"-.-

"From now on we will not say that the Greeks fight like Heroes, but that Heroes fight like Greeks"(Winston Churchill)
-=ebai=-

I think the 'western side' has a higher devastation potential than the ‘Islamic world’and their followers. But I agree with you, this won't be a clean war, and it willdefiantly change this planet.

Let the dream begin,
let your darker side give in...

..::Phantom of the Opera::..

"this won't be a clean war"

whats ur defintion of a "clean war"? i assume thatwhat happened in the last iraq war?

..and i agree with the iranian gov. with allthe threatining and accusions. but they should be glad as long as they are able to moanand telling the world how bad the west and isreal is treating them. when it comes to thehot phase, they wont be given many chances to complain and their super-weapons have togive proof under real conditions.

"Both parties have tremendous Power, when itcomes to weaponry.."

comparing to the iraq at the point of us-invasion, theyhave much more firepower, but is it really a match for us-military-forces? i doubtit..somehow.. of course they can cause much damage, but not with their weaponpower..

My characterization of a 'clean' war is a war that doesn't harm civilians. But in myopinion it is an obvious fact, that neither the Iranian nor the U.S. side will sparethem.

I read, a few days ago, a newspaper editorial, declaring that the Israeliswon't attack the Iranian Uranium facilities because it would be a mission of high risk,and they couldn’t ensure the discontinue of the Iran’s nuclear program. It wasfurthermore said, that the Israelis will take delivery of three submarines, which areable to fire missiles with nuclear warheads. While Iran has a number of maybe 10 or 20'nukes' in the near future, Israel has even at the present about 300-400 nuclearwarheads. A nuclear bomb, dropped on Tel-Aviv would cause a terrible retaliation. TheIran should think about this fact.

Let us all hope, that the Iranian presidentis not such a religious extremist as he seems to be.

"a war that doesn't harm civilians"

the civillians always had to suffer underthe no war in the past. directly or indirectly, i.e.: 1. WW. the peoples were hardlyinvolved into battles, but look how disastros the consequences have been to them. aintsimiliar to the wars of today.. hm..well, the accurate attacks in the gulf war is what icall "clean", compared to the massbombardments in WW2 or vietnam war...


"Let us all hope, that the Iranian president is not such a religious extremist as heseems to be."

as far as ive seen in reports shown on tv, he definitely is afanatic. more dangerous than saddam ever could have been? i dont dare to say which ofthem is the most dangerous. ie: a religous man (mullah?) told him, when he watched himduring a speech he saw apearing a "nimbus", a silloute of light around him when he startsthe speech and ahmedinedshad replied that he felt an holy force or stuff like that. i sawthis several times on different channels, and i believe its truely translated. ;)

ahmed believes that hes not only a usual political leader, also somekind of"messiah", determined to bring back power to the once glorious persian empire. so gainingand ruling nuclear power without any restrictions is a major goal the iranian gov. has toachieve.

yes, i think war is predetermind.. psychological warfare is a part ofit.. they will not step back..


(that was tough ^^ .. hope there aint somany mistakes )

“the accurate attacks in Gulf War.”

Which gulf war do you actually mean? Thefirst, the second or the third one?

I don't know how much of his behavior – theone of the Iranian president – is show, and how much is authentic. Defiantly there aresome parallels to the U.S. president, don't you think ;)
George Bush Jr. is alsodepicting himself as some kind of crusader or messiahs, defending the principles ofliberty against the power of evil.

>the civillians always had to suffer under every war in the past<
much better*g

"Which gulf war do you actually mean? The first, the second or the third one?"

i meant especially the third. the 2nd was a mere massacre or how u.s.-troopscalled it: "turkey shooting". even in the battles of GW2, which occured mainly at theiraqi-kuwaiti borderarea, were civilians (many refugees) involved.


"..parallels to the U.S. president.."

yeah, and both pushing up the tensionto the max.

Ok, thanks for your explanation.

But I disagree with you in one point. I don'tthink the two presidents are the key factors, which are “pushing up the tensions”.
There are many parties who have a major interest in starting this war, China forexample... When you U.S. forces are tied in the Iran, they won't be able to avoid aninvasion of Taiwan.

avoid an invasion of taiwan? u really think the US would risk a war with the PRC?tremondous consequences, for all of us. they cant afford that in any way. the US supportsTaiwan only diplomaticly... and with weapon delivery(dont now for sure but i guess so).

russia and china.. at least russia behaves neutral to what happens now. theydont care very much. if it comes to war, their oil and earthgas will be much appreciatedon the market, if stays peacfully and the problem is solved diplomaticly they can do bigbuisness with iran. nowadays they re building a nuclear power plant for them, and theiran has plans for another two NPPs. and who will get the job? the russians. the uraninridgement will be on their terretory, they still sell weapons and technology to them...russia will gets the best of it, no matter what.

"When you U.S. forces are tiedin the Iran, they won't be able to avoid an invasion of Taiwan. "

their forcesare still bound in the iraq. no, china aint worried that much about the americans..
my opinion

Link: en.wikipedia.org (external)

The Taiwan Relations Act is an act of the United States Congress passed in 1979 afterthe establishment of relations with the People's Republic of China and the (pro forma)breaking of relations between the United States and the Republic of China on Taiwan byPresident Jimmy Carter.

The act authorizes quasi-diplomatic relations with theROC government by establishing the American Institute in Taiwan and upholds allinternational obligations previously made between the ROC and U.S. prior to 1979 (withthe exeception of the Mutual Defence Treaty between the United States of America and theRepublic of China, which was quietly allowed to expire in 1980).

The act definesthe term "Taiwan" includes, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan and thePescadores. Thus, the act does not apply to Kinmen or Matsu.

The act stipulatesthat the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan byother than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace andsecurity of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."

This act also requires the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensivecharacter", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort toforce or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social oreconomic system, of the people on Taiwan." However, it does not necessarily require theUnited States to take any military action against the PRC in the event of an attack. TheTaiwan Relations Act has been used by successive U.S. administrations to justify armssales to the ROC, despite adopting a One-China Policy, which is not exactly the same asthe PRC's.

The PRC does not recognize the legitimacy of the Taiwan Relations Actas it is viewed by them as "an unwarranted intrusion by the United States into theinternal affairs of China." In the late 1990s, the United States Congress passed aresolution stating that relations between Taiwan and the United States will be honoredthrough the TRA first. This resolution, which puts greater weight on the TRA's value overthat of the three communiques, was signed by President Clinton as well. Nonetheless, theUnited States, despite having "acknowledged" the PRC's position regarding Taiwan,declared that "the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty overTaiwan" as part of the Six Assurances offered to Taipei in 1982.
__________________________________________________________________

Ingeneral this thread shouldn't be used for a debate about the Taiwan-conflict, but as youmay see in the quoted passage above, the U.S. forces will support Taiwan in case of aChinese invasion.

Taiwan and Japan are the only 'real' allies left for the U.S.in East-Asia. They won't risk losing them.

today CNN broadcasted a rare press conference of the iranian president "ajmedinedshad".the issue: the nuclear dispute (who would have thought that! ^^). the usual stuff wassaid, that iran wants no war, in history iran never attacked anyone and only defendthemself. in the backround: a painting onthe wall showing a child letting a white dovefly. all in all a very peacefully mood. and i do believe him, that he dont want war evenwhen he apears to be a menace to isreal with his anti-semitic attitude. but he will neverattack israel. it makes no sence to provoke a (nuclear) war.

Quote:
Ajmedinedshad
"its a time of literature and dialoge.."


impretty courius what the reslut with russia will be.

neverthless, i believe iranwants the bomb and is working on it, and if only for the purpose of self-defense.