Iran group says thousands ready for suicide raids

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is Iran spoiling for a fight or do they believe that the US is so overextended there can be no military response. What would in your opinion would the US response be to terrorism from that quarter ? Iran group says thousands ready for suicide raids

By Reuters

Quote:

TEHRAN - Thousands of Iranians have signed up for suicide attacks on Israel, U.S.-led forces in Iraq and British author Salman Rushdie, a recruiting group said on Saturday.

Shi'ite Iran has strongly condemned the occupation of Iraq and voiced its outrage at damage to shrines in the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala.

The father of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, condemned Rushdie to death in 1989 for alleged blasphemy in his novel "The Satanic Verses."

"Some 10,000 people have registered their names to carry out martyrdom operations on our defined targets," said Mohammad Ali Samadi, a spokesman for the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign.

But he said the group would need the green light from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to launch the attacks.

The independent group said it started to register Iranian men and women prepared to carry out the attacks after Friday prayers last week and sent forms to religious universities.

"Our targets are mainly the occupying American and British forces in the holy Iraqi cities, all the Zionists in Palestine, and Salman Rushdie," he said.

"It is not our fault that the Zionists have brought their wives and children to the occupied territories and have turned them into shields for themselves," he added, when asked about the killing of civilians.

"Salman Rushdie is the only non-military target for us, because we believe his attack against Islam was much worse that a military assault," the spokesman said.

Hardline cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati urged worshippers at Friday prayers in Tehran to attack U.S. and British interests.

"It is the duty of every Muslim to threaten U.S. and British interests anywhere," he said.

Although Iran's reformist President Mohammad Khatami said in 2001 the death sentence against Rushdie should be seen as lifted, hard-liners still occasionally call for his murder.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 719 • Replies: 9

No top replies

Assuming this is true,should the US do nothing?
Should we wait for them to attack us,and then retaliate?
Should we allow them to kill innocent people,or do we stop these recruits now?

0 Replies

mysteryman
Do we have the forces and material to sustain a conflict in Iran at the present time?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

mysteryman
Do we have the forces and material to sustain a conflict in Iran at the present time?

I dont know.So,does that mean we do nothing and wait for them to hit us?
Here we have a reuters news story,and the name of the group and its spokesman.Do we hit them now,or do we warn Iran of the consequences if this group does anything?
What do we do?

0 Replies

mysteryman
I tend to think that had the war in Iraq had gone as anticipated. US troops being greeted with flowers and dancing in the streets. The US would have attacked Iran by now. Particularly in light of the present status of their nuclear program. However, the best laid plans go awry and no one can accuse the Bush administration of that. I believe that presently the US is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to dealing with Iran.

0 Replies

Tough US rhetoric as Iran's nuclear intent remains unclear

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

MOSCOW – Questions remain about the intent of Iran's nuclear programs, according to a critical new report by UN inspectors that details misleading claims and contradictory declarations from Tehran.
Iran said that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will soon be able to confirm Iran has no nuclear-weapon plans. Its report "shows Iran's nuclear case is approaching the end," though Iran expects to keep a uranium-enrichment capability, Hassan Rohani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council and top nuclear negotiator, said Wednesday.
But the results are likely to provide ammunition for critics - especially Washington, which charges that Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a peaceful atomic-energy program. The report presents a challenge to Iran, which has made clear it expects the IAEA to close a two-year inquiry into Iran's once-secret nuclear programs at a meeting June 14.

"I'm not terribly optimistic right now," says Michael Donovan, an Iran specialist at the Center for Defense Information in Washington. "The last 10 months, we've seen clear signs the Iranians are trying to pull every rabbit out of the hat to avoid a thorough reckoning with the IAEA."

The confidential report, released to IAEA members Tuesday, and obtained by the Monitor, cited "good progress" in some cases, along with "changing or contradictory information." Inconsistencies include:

*Iran's acknowledgment that 4.19 lbs. of uranium hexafluoride, once declared lost, was in fact used for research.

• Key centrifuge parts for enriching uranium have been imported from another country - known to be Pakistan - despite Iranian denials.

• Some nuclear work has been carried out at military sites, contrary to Iran's declarations. IAEA access has been difficult.

• The source of trace amounts of 36 percent enriched uranium is unknown.

• Despite Iran's promise to the IAEA in February that it would cease all uranium-enrichment activities, inspectors found that, since then, 285 new rotors for P-1 centrifuges have been assembled.

"The jury is out on whether the program has been dedicated exclusively for peaceful purposes or if it has some military dimension," IAEA chief Mohamed El- Baradei said Tuesday. "We haven't seen concrete proof of a military program so it's premature to make a judgment on that."

President Mohamed Khatami warned Thursday about US "political pressure" on the IAEA. "We are sure that even if we respond to all the agency's demands, the US will still look for excuses," he said. "We will resume enrichment if necessary."

In a watershed decision supported by all of Iran's power centers, Iran last December signed the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which permits intrusive snap inspections. Tehran expects help in return for its atomic-energy program - a right codified in the NPT.

But tough US rhetoric hasn't eased. One result, analysts say, is that Iran may be deliberately slowing its cooperation. "The Americans have politicized this process so much," says Mohamed Hadi Semati, a political scientist at Tehran University who is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Some say Iran should keep its programs and "accept the pressure and the cost,'" says Mr. Semati. "The conservatives have pulled back a step, in terms of their agreement with the IAEA."

Iran handed over a 1,000-page dossier Friday that it said gives "all the information" the IAEA needs to clear up questions.

"What we're seeing now is ... skirmishing before the big showdown, which will come when Iran begins to enrich uranium with the centrifuges," says Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in Washington. "Right now the Iran strategy is to give the IAEA the minimum necessary to keep it from condemning Iran as noncomplying."

"The US is trying to figure out how to get a united front against the Iranians," Milhollin adds.

Despite calls from some hard-liners to pull out of the NPT altogether, Tehran last October promised European leaders that Iran would work with the IAEA and sign the additional protocol. That deal was made with a "good cop, bad cop" routine, since the US ratcheted up rhetoric against Tehran soon after toppling Hussein.

"It was a credit to the Bush administration that they allowed it to work without trying to strong-arm the bureaucracy into a censure," says CDI's Donovan.

But tough US talk - including branding Iran part of an "axis of evil" - is taking a toll. Iran wants nuclear weapons "because of national prestige, and the fact that they are now surrounded by US military forces," says Donovan. "The Bush administration has played no small role in perpetuating the Iranian desire for a nuclear weapon with that kind of rhetoric."

Also, scant benefits of its deal with the West have been felt in Tehran, where the nuclear debate into a political hot potato.

Many ordinary Iranians say they want nuclear weapons, and would see giving up the nuclear fuel cycle as a sellout.

Semati says Iran's powerful conservatives aren't "interested in nuclear weapons right now.... [They want] to have the capability, to give them the chance to go nuclear if they have a threat to deter.... This is the ultimate aim of the government."

0 Replies

What does this say about our ability to expand our military operations.

Quote:

World > Terrorism & Security
posted June 4, 2004, updated 11:00 a.m.

Troop strain renews draft debate

'Stop-loss' efforts signal US military's struggle to shore up forces.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Should the United States reinstate a military draft?
Even though the Associated Press reports that four out of five poll respondents say no to the idea, the Pentagon still seems to have trouble convincing the public it doesn't want a draft either. "I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes it would be appropriate or necessary," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said recently.

Analysts say that the current strain on US forces, caused by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and likely to continue for several more years to come, is one reason that talk of the draft has continued, despite public opinion. Only this week, ABC News reports, the Army issued orders to keep thousands of soldiers in the military longer than they may have planned (the so-called "stop-loss policy"), "in an effort to ensure there are enough combat-ready, fresh forces to continue serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The Guardian reports that some critics have called this move a back door "return to the draft." In an opinion piece in Thursday's New York Times, Andrew Exum, a former army captain who served in the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, called the treatment of soldiers under stop-loss programs "shameful".

"Many, if not most, of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan," he wrote. "They have honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq."
Meanwhile, recruitment is down, particularly in the National Guard and Reserves. ABC reports, for instance, that recruiting for the Air National Guard is off by 23 percent. In an effort to maintain troop strength in Iraq, the US recently announced it was moving 3600 soldiers from duty in South Korea to Iraq. Erich Marquardt, writing in Power and Interest News Report aargues that while the number of troops being moved will make little actual difference to the war in Iraq, it has enormous symbolic importance.
This decision will spark many to argue that the administration of President George W Bush has made ill-fated policy choices that are causing damage to the US military establishment and also to US interests. Present conditions in Iraq mean that there will be no reduction in US troop levels there for some time; if anything, there will need to be an increase in troops. On May 19, General John Abizaid, the chief of US Central Command, warned that the United States "might need more forces" in Iraq. Such an increase would add even further strain to present US military deployments throughout the world.
Regardless of the manpower problem in the military, Mr. Rumsfeld says he remains committed to a totally volunteer military, and doesn't see the need for a draft. He says the latest high amount of military activity is probably a temporary "spike." But some Democratic members of Congress believe that it's necessary to share the burden of fighting America's wars more equitably throughout the population. Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, and Democrat Sen. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina introduced a bill in the House and Senate last year, the Universal National Service Act of 2003.

It would require "that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." If approved, the measure would require citizens between 19 and 26 to serve two years of military or related service. But The Aberdeen News of South Dakota notes that the bill lacks even the support of Democratic minority leader Sen. Tom Daschle.

An editorial in The Sentinel of Carlisle, Penn., represents most public opinion about the draft. The paper declares that it is "sympathetic to the idea of shared sacrifice," but that there is no need for a draft.

The number of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is only about a tenth of the complete active-duty force, and there are any number of ways the military could maintain or increase the current Middle East complement if necessary. There's also the political equation. Four out of five Americans oppose the draft right now. To turn those numbers around, citizens would have to be convinced the country is in a deep and immediate danger. And now that we know nearly all the justifications for invading Iraq were inaccurate, we think the current administration would find it difficult to make that kind of case anytime soon. The draft is a tool of last resort for national defense. Thankfully, we're not at that point now.
Some people argue, however, that the current attitude towards the draft indicates a lack of public spirit. Charles Moskos, a Northwestern University sociologist who studies military issues, said the draft is an idea "whose time may never come." But he also said the public's reluctance to accept a draft creates a condition of "patriotism lite" – people say they're patriotic but are "not willing to sacrifice anything." Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, argues that the "sons and daughters of the working class" still bear too much of the burden of "defending freedom," while the children of the "affluent" are largely left untouched.
And MSNBC reports on another group that believes the draft is a good idea: veterans of World War II gathered this weekend in France for the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Despite President Bush's recent speech comparing the war on terror to World War II, the men who fought that struggle say there are few comparisons, and that one of the biggest difference was the presence of the draft.

"You can’t have unity now [behind the Iraq war] when the public isn’t participating in the war. There is no draft ... .So the war is being fought by a professional army," said Warren Josephy [captain of the 187th Field Artillery Battalion when he landed at Omaha Beach on June 8]. For Mr. Josephy, the very fabric of the military has changed because, "you don’t get that rich man, poor man, college graduates mixing in with the working guy that you had then." Gardner Botsford [landed as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Intelligence section of the 1st Infantry Division at Omaha Beach on D-Day] concurred, "There should be a draft. I mean, if we are going to be serious about this military posture we seem to be adopting all over the world. There should be a draft."

0 Replies

I think certain anti American muslims want the US to spread its forces over as much of the area as possible, to make them easier picking with roadside bombs and mortar attacks, to keep us bogged down there as long as possible for that reason.

0 Replies

Now, now. Just where are we going to get another 140,000 troops to occupy Iran? I think the US wants to tread verrry carefully here.

Of course, the real danger is not Iran. It is Saudi Arabia. If this government falls, and it is not inconcievable that it will, we are in deep deep trouble.

The US got a big break from Sistani who is willing to give qualified support the interim governement. If we are smart we will back away slowly and hope that the Iraqi's can pull off the transition.

If we are smart, we will disengage from the region. We want to avoid further fights. The US is in no position to even think about pushing around Iran.

0 Replies

And Iran says "a finger to you" Rolling Eyes

Last Update: 12/06/2004 15:58

Iranian FM: Tehran won't accept new nuclear obligations

By The Associated Press

TEHRAN - Iran's top diplomat said Saturday the country won't accept any new internationally imposed obligations regarding its nuclear program and that the world must recognize Iran as a nuclear-capable nation.
"We won't accept any new obligations," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told reporters, suggesting a toughening of Iran's position two days before the 35-nation board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, meets to discuss Iran's nuclear program.

"Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club," Kharrazi said at a press conference. "This is an irreversible path."

The IAEA has wrestled for more than a year with what to do regarding what the United States and its allies say is a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran has rejected such allegations, saying its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making an atom bomb.

Kharrazi insisted Saturday that Iran won't give up its development of the nuclear fuel cycle, the steps for processing and enriching uranium necessary for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says it has achieved the full cycle, but is not now enriching uranium.

"That somebody demands that we give up the nuclear fuel cycle... is an additional demand," Kharrazi said. He apparently was referring to demands by U.S. and European countries that Iran halt operations of a plant it inaugurated in March in Isfahan, central Iran, that processes uranium into gas and abort plans to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, another city in central Iran.

"We can't accept such an additional demand, which is contrary to our legal and legitimate rights," he said. "No one in Iran can make a decision to deny the nation of something that is a source of pride."

Iran has confirmed possessing technology to extract uranium ore, processing it into a powder called yellow cake and then converting it into gas. The gas is then injected into centrifuges for low-grade enrichment that turns it into fuel for nuclear reactors.

Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment last year under mounting international pressure. In April, it said it had stopped building centrifuges. IAEA inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites, which Iranian officials have maintained was due to contaminated imported materials.

Kharrazi condemned a draft resolution critical of Iran drawn up by Germany, France and Britain and currently debated before the IAEA board meeting Monday.

"The draft resolution is unacceptable unless changes are made so that it can be acceptable to all parties," he said.

The minister said insistence by Europeans on "very tiny issues is contrary to the spirit of cooperation." He said that by doing so, the European countries are bowing to U.S. pressure and showing "lack of independence."

Kharrazi warned that failure in settling the debate over Iran's nuclear dossier will be a "failure for all," including Iran, Europe and the IAEA.

The minister confirmed Iran's efforts to buy 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment, saying the issue was being "unnecessarily" hyped. He did not say where the magnets were bought from.

Diplomats told The Associated Press in Vienna that Iran had acknowledged inquiring about 4,000 magnets needed for uranium enrichment equipment with a European black-market supplier and had dangled the possibility of buying a "higher number."

"If everybody is looking to settle this issue [Iran's nuclear dossier], they have to look at it in a broad outlook," Kharrazi said.

0 Replies

Iran group says thousands ready for suicide raids

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know