http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146342,00.html

Congress Mulls Regime Change in Iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

US encourages Iran's reformers to rise against the rule of clerics

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1059EST0556.DTL

Iran, Syria dismiss Bush's accusations that they sponsor terror

France Defends Talks With Iran on Nuclear Fuel

http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=B6236E:2F72C9D

Remarks by French Minister Michele Alliot-Marie come a day after
President Bush accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism France's Defense
Minister is defending European efforts to prod Iran to give up its
nuclear fuel enrichment program, despite criticism by the Iranian
government.  Remarks by French Minister Michele Alliot-Marie come
a day after President Bush accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism.

Speaking to French and American reporters in Paris Thursday, Defense
Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said that negotiations to get Tehran to
abandon the program were hampered by lack of trust on both sides.

"The Europeans don't want to concede anything in negotiations or give
up something so long as the Iranians don't accept the controls that
are being demanded," Ms. Alliot-Marie noted.  "And the Iranians
don't want to give up a nuclear enrichment program because they unsure
they will get anything tangible in return."

France, Germany and Britain signed an agreement with Iran last
November, in which Tehran agreed to suspend its nuclear enrichment
program while talks with the Europeans continued. That agreement
opened up broader talks, touching on future security and trade
cooperation, among other areas.

But Tehran has yet to agree to European demands that it abandon its
nuclear enrichment program altogether.  Critics fear the program
might be used for manufacturing nuclear weapons.

In an interview published in Britain's Financial Times newspaper on
Thursday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator criticized the three European
countries for not delivering incentives they promised Tehran in return
for suspending the Iraninian program.

Iran argues its nuclear enrichment program is for peaceful purposes.
And an Iranian spokesman Thursday rejected charges of sponsoring
terrorism, made by President Bush during his state of the union speech
on Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...on_re_eu/rice_2

Rice Plays Down Military Aspects in Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/internat...6cFmDkyoUMKC5AA

Rice, Meeting Schroder, Wins German Promise of Help for Iraq

Like they said to the Shities after GW1 'rebel and be marry..' after which Saddam slaughtert them, the same would happend here.

Please allow me to show here some statistics about Iran:

(data late 2003 Nouvel Observateur Atlaseco)

Population : 64,000,000
pop. growth rate : 1.42%
0-14 year : 37.4%
15-64 : 59.2%
65 plus : 3.4%
life expectancy : 69 years


From these figures, Iran could raise an infantry army of how many millions? War is not an option and even raising the question sends us back to 1980. Iran has regional power aspirations ; the US will have to learn to live with this.

If a foreign power was trying to subjugate Central America again ; do you really believe the US would not consider this an affront? Every major power in the world is aware of this. Stop being one sided just for one second and put yourselves in the shoes of the people of the most powerful Middle East country.

Iran wants regional influence. The Western countries that will reckon with this first may gain eventual good relations with Iran.

Better have a "friend" you disagree with than a open enemy.

Further data: Army 546000. reserves 1line 1150000. incl 380000 national guard and boarder guards.that is the long arm of the mullahs mainly light and medium weapons.
Potential reserves whit 3 months warning incl retiered personel and armed police forces whit some millitary armed traning. 3,200.000.
Heavy SP weapons: MBT. SPH. SPM. APC. IFV= 5047 (Jul 03')
Artillery : +4300 pieces above 81 mm of towed mortars, howitzers, mountain guns & MRL
male population in 05' 35.800.000. of which 21.200.000 is eliglbel for draft.

Know guess why Rice plays down the military aspect of Iran

By the way Turkeys armed forces are even more impressive whit more than twise the number of heavy weapons and 746000 men in the regular army (Standing that is)

Upps... forgot the links if anybody wants to check it out.

http://first.sipri.org

http://www2.janes.com/public

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...an_050206002635

Military strike on Iran would be a 'mistake' says EU's Solana

Of course it would be a mistake, never start an attack on somebody you can't follow up on, wether a country, or a slap in the face off one HA's 'dirty few'. they both have a tendensy to carry a grudge.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....IRAN-USA-DC.XML

Rumsfeld: Iran 'Years Away' from Nuclear Weapon

http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/20...article03.shtml

Israel, US Spying on Iran from Iraq: Report

Cheney Supports European Diplomacy on Iran

http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=B6FFBF:2F72C9D

But US vice president not ruling out possible military action in
future if diplomatic efforts fail

Dick CheneyVice President Cheney says Washington is moving to support
French, German, and British efforts to resolve the dispute
diplomatically, in hopes that Iran will agree to permanently stop
enriching uranium, which could be used in a nuclear-weapons program.

Last November, the diplomats from the three European countries reached
an agreement with Iran to suspend all uranium-enrichment activities,
in return for talks on trade, security, and technology.

Interviewed on the television show Fox News, Vice President Cheney
says he does not know if that diplomacy will succeed.

"It all turns on this question of whether or not they should be
enriching uranium," he said. "They claim they are doing it only for
peaceful purposes, although there is some evidence to suggest that
they have military aspirations and are trying to acquire nuclear
weapons, as well."

During talks with European leaders this past week, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said Washington is not contemplating military action
to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because there are
plenty of diplomatic means still available.

But she said President Bush will not take any options off the table,
particularly with regard to nuclear issues.

The head of Iran's national security council told the Reuters news
agency Sunday, there is nothing Western governments can offer to
persuade Iran to end its uranium-enrichment program, and talks with
the Europeans should focus on eliciting Iranian guarantees that it
will not divert uranium enrichment to a military program. Hassan
Rhohani also warned that Iran would retaliate, and increase its push
to master nuclear technology, if the United States or Israel attacks
its nuclear facilities.

Vice President Cheney Sunday said Iran is a concern for the United
States because, if the country's leaders continue on the course they
are on, he says, Tehran is a potential source of instability in the
region.

"It is a regime, obviously, that we have got major problems with, not
only because of their search for nuclear weapons. There is also the
fact that they have been a prime state sponsor of terror over the
years, prime movers behind Hezbollah. So, there are a lot of reasons
why the Iranians are on the list of problem states," explained Mr.
Cheney.

The vice president says Iran should, in his words, do the right thing,
and agree to transparent inspections of its nuclear facilities to
reassure the rest of the world that it is not trying to acquire
nuclear weapons.

If the diplomatic process breaks down, Mr. Cheney says, the next step
would be to go back to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and,
ultimately, refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible
sanctions.

I am sceptical about this. Why agree to dismantle uranium hexafluoride enrichment installations? These installations are costly to build and operate. They are usually looked at as the "boot strap" to a nuclear arms program.

My guess is Iran already has 2 or 3 nuclear weapons but is not ready to take the gamble to test one of them on their soil openly.

Iran will in it's own time make a big show of it's compliance with world community by taking down it's uranium enrichment program, which will by then be obsolete and replaced by plutonium production.

I'd keep a tab on China's own tests. China's oil requirements are getting the world enegy geopolitics in a totally new perspective. And do not forget which country was providing Iran's Silkworm missiles during the first Gulf war.

Rice Tells Iran Do Not Delay Nuclear Talks with Europeans

http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=B7F334:2F72C9D

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice serves notice to Iran that it
cannot use talks with Europe to indefinitely delay accountability for
its nuclear program

Condoleezza Rice, left, and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer at NATO headquarters in Brussels Though the Bush
administration has publicly supported the joint British, French, and
German diplomatic nuclear initiative with Iran, U.S. officials have
expressed impatience with the negotiation process that has been
underway for more than a year.

In an interview with Fox television before beginning talks in
Brussels, Ms. Rice said she does not know whether anyone has told Iran
as clearly as they should what the consequences will be if it rejects
European incentives for full disclosure of its nuclear program

The Secretary said the Iranians need to hear that if they are
unwilling to accept the deal, then a referral of the matter to the
U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions looms.

She said Iran cannot use talks with the Europeans as, what she termed,
a kind of way station, where they are allowed to continue their
nuclear activities, which despite Iranian denials the United States
says includes a covert weapons program.

Security Council :

permanent seats : China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States

non-permanent (2005) : Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Tanzania

Lots of wheeling and dealing in view. <_<

PM agrees with Bush on Iranian threat :

Iran is a sponsor of state terrorism and should realise it must not seek to obstruct progress towards a Middle East peace settlement, Tony Blair said yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

http://tinyurl.com/3pdx4

Strike Iran and Risk Huge Backlash, Blix Warns US :

'' I think the restraining element in this must be that the United States must know if they launch an attack, there (possibly) could be (a nuclear) retaliation,'' said Blix.
http://207.44.245.159/article8010.htm

Nuclear Folly:

According to recent news reports and as hinted in the president's State of the Union Address, the neocons who dominate the Bush administration are gearing up for another pre-emptive military attack, this time upon Iran. The ostensible reason for such an attack is that the Iranian government is developing nuclear weapons.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/wittner8.html

Iran to take control of world's oil trade in 2005?:

In 2005 Iran will launch a new oil exchange that is expected to put an end to Western domination of the international oil trade. The US and UK, currently home to the world's largest oil markets, are unlikely to allow Iran to undermine their control of the oil trade without putting up a fight.
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0508

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/...iran/index.html

Kay, Carter urge caution on Iran

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09...n.ap/index.html

Rice: Iran can't drag its feet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

PM Agrees with Bush on Iranian threat

Bush: World Must Speak with One Voice on Iran Nukes:

President Bush said on Wednesday Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a "very destabilizing" force and that it was important for the world to speak with one voice against Tehran's program.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n..._iran_bush_dc_1

http://tinyurl.com/6e5kx

US-Iran tensions escalate:

Tensions between the United States and Iran have increased today, with Iran's President Mohammed Khatami threatening "massive consequences" if there is any attempt to shut down his country's nuclear program. Audio and transcript.
http://207.44.245.159/article8017.htm

U.S. Intelligence on Iran Seen Lacking - Experts:

U.S. intelligence is unlikely to know much about Iran's contentious nuclear program and could be vulnerable to manipulation for political ends, former intelligence officers and other experts say.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7586007

http://tinyurl.com/4cun8

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:

The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

Iran takes on west's control of oil trading :

Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1239644,00.html

===

Bush Is Leading America Into War and Disaster:

It is natural that Bush would want to divert our attention from his failures in all arenas by a new attack, this time on Iran
http://www.todaysalternativenews.com/index...link,150&values[0]=&values[1]=2259

http://tinyurl.com/3sjwr

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4805

Iran War Drums Beat Harder
Jim Lobe

US Warns Iran Over Nuclear Ambitions

http://enews.voanews.com/t?ctl=B8F3C4:2F72C9D

US Central Command says it is updating its war plan for Iran Over the
past week the Bush Administration has issued more warnings to Iran
that it must abandon its nuclear aspirations and end support for
terrorism.\
The United States Central Command says it is updating its war plan for
Iran. According to the Washington Post, a senior U.S. officer called
the planning part of the "normal process."&nbsp; The news comes one
week after President Bush's State of the Union address to Congress and
the American people, in which he singled out the theocratic regime in
Iran as a threat.

George W.Bush"Today, Iran remains the world's primary state
sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people
of the freedom they seek and deserve," Mr. Bush said.

The president said the United States is working with European allies
to make clear to Iran's ruling mullahs that they must abandon their
quest for nuclear weapons and end their support for terrorist
groups.&nbsp; He also said the United States supports those Iranians
who seek democracy and freedom.

Mark Palmer, a former U.S. State Department official active in
promoting democracy across Eastern Europe and the Middle East, says
the fact Mr. Bush devoted part of the State of the Union address and
almost his entire inaugural address to the importance of democracy
indicates the value it has for the president.&nbsp; It also explains
why Iran is a frequent topic of the Bush administration.

"He has made this the number one priority in the second
administration: to help people who are willing to stand up for their
freedom," said Mr. Palmer.

Ambassador Palmer, pointing to the success of recent elections in
Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and Iraq, says the Bush
Administration wants free and fair elections in Iran.&nbsp;

The U.S. Congress has also expressed its support for democracy in
Iran.&nbsp; Michael Ledeen, a senior analyst at the American
Enterprise Institute, a research organization in Washington, notes
there are bills pending on Iran in both the Senate and the House.

"Both call for the government of the United States to do everything in
its power to support the transition to democracy in Iran,” added Mr.
Ledeen.&nbsp; “That's the essence and they allocate funds for groups
working for democracy in Iran, both within the country and outside."

However, regime change in Iran, whether by democratic revolution or
peaceful means, may not come easily, according to Hadi Semati,
professor of political science at Tehran University in Iran.&nbsp; Mr.
Semati, a visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington,
says the Iranian state is still strong.

"Institutions and structures are intact and formidable,” said Mr.
Semati.&nbsp; “Bureaucratic structures are fairly resistant and
consolidated.&nbsp; There is a cohesive core support at the base of
the Islamic Republic and the regime, despite a crisis of legitimacy
and a widening gap between state and society."

Mr. Semati cautions that President Bush's remarks, as well as comments
by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about "regime change" in Iran,
may not be in the long-term interests of the United States.&nbsp; He
fears the tough talk could strengthen the hand of the hardliners in
Iran and harm efforts to persuade Iran not to seek a nuclear weapons
capability.

And right now, says Ken Pollack, who served on the National Security
Council during the Clinton Administration, it is the nuclear issue
that is most pressing.&nbsp;

"It is clear that the administration really does like this idea of
regime change or democratization, selective though it may be, and it's
decided that Iran is a good place to push this agenda,” said Mr.
Pollack.&nbsp; “But the principal reason Iran is on the agenda and the
principal issue the United States needs to deal with is the nuclear
issue."

President Bush, who says a nuclear Iran would be unacceptable, hasn't
ruled out a military option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons capability, but for now the Bush Administration is supporting
efforts by Britain, France and Germany to persuade Iran to comply with
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

And Mr. Pollack says the diplomatic approach, rather than a military
operation, is probably the best way to win over the people of Iran.

"The Iranians are very proud people,” he added.&nbsp; “We have seen
them respond nationalistically.&nbsp; We have seen them bristle at
even the hint of U.S. interference in their affairs.&nbsp; And I think
that if we tried to do this [military invasion], we would be forcing
the Iranian people into the hands of their regime."

Although opinion may be divided on the best way to deal with Iran, all
analysts agree that the administration has no interest in
strengthening the hand of Iran's hard-liners.

Analysis: U.S., Iran face off in Munich:

Diplomatic fireworks may light up Bavaria this weekend with Pentagon hawks and Iran's deputy foreign minister attending the 41st Munich Security Conference.
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...11-021353-9638r

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/a...1027246,00.html

Why Iran Will go Nuclear

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-s...y-iran-usa.html?

Intelligence Reviewing Assessments on Iran

U.S. Reviewing Its Intelligence on Iran

By Dafna Linzer and Walter Pincus

The intelligence community is conducting a broad review of its Iran assessments, including a new look at the country's nuclear program, the future of its ruling clerics and the impact of the Iraq war on Tehran's powerful position in the region, according to administration officials and congressional sources.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...er=emailarticle

http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;ses...3/ixportal.html

Teheran 'executed CIA's spy network 10 years ago'

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ea/iran_nuclear

Iran Rejects Demand on Nuclear Reactor

If anyone doubts Iran's capacity to wage war, remember the Iran-Irak war. Not since the WWII Pacific campaign has the US faced the possibility of extreme ferocity in such a scale. Anyone with common sense can foresee that military conflict is not an option.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nuclear_iran_dc

Iran Warns US Not to Play with Nuclear 'Fire'

Tehran protests at US use of drones:

The US has been flying surveillance drones over Iran since last year to look for evidence of nuclear weapons programs and examine air defences.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...90^2703,00.html

http://tinyurl.com/56d7u

If you look back in time during the Cold War, you will find that US forces have always relied on tactical nuclear weapons for any large scale military conflict. This was NATO doctrine. It worked as dissuation because both the Warsaw pact and NATO had ICBMs.

Unless something very new has come up in modern arsenals, I don't see how the US can take on a military force of more than 2 million servicemen without tactical nukes.

This is not Irak. The people who hold power now were revolutionary islamic guards when they were 18. The regime, while not totally unquestionned from within, is still solid.

So taking military action against Iran will bring killing fields any way you look at it. The use by the US of tactical nuclear weapons could bring a world wide conflict. Either way, it would be a disaster.

What do they want? What does the US want? Is there ground for compromise? Those are the vital questions that need to be addressed.

Iran, Syria 'form common front' :

"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4270859.stm

Iran, Syria Missiles Can Target U.S. Intrests:

A senior U.S. official said Iran and Syria have developed ballistic missiles that can destroy U.S. targets in Iraq as well as in nations aligned with Washington.
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2005/february/02_16_4.html

===

Iran six months from having knowledge to build nuclear bomb: Israel :

Iran's nuclear programme was a problem that must be tackled by the entire world, said Shalom, who arrived in London late Tuesday from Paris. "Terrorism and Iran were Israel's problem for a very long time," he said.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp.../132859/1/.html

http://tinyurl.com/7xx7f

If Israel was not threatening it's Arab neighbours with their own nuclear weapons then maybe incentive to build nuclear weapons would not be so strong in Iran. Has Israel ever been brought before the UN Security Council for it's own nuclear weapons? Never. This is the problem with turning a blind eye to reality : you're half blind.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8111.htm

Iran Calls for Alliance to Combat US and Israel

Which fastest growing economy needs oil?
clues:
- permanent UN Security Council member
- has ICBMs
- sold Iran missiles that threatened the Gulf prior to the 1st Gulf war?
- is bringing US economy down on it's knees remorselessly
- has national ideology so twisted, it professes both socialism and free enterprise at the same time.

Any answers anyone?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/p...18-111237-6122r

Iran readies for feared attack by US