Pleasantly suprised by France vis-à-vis Iran

[[-=IDSF=-]SykloAG]

March 22, 2007, 9:18 PM (GMT+02:00) - from Debkafile

The French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force enter Arabian Sea. Iran launches a new naval war game

They rendezvoused with the USS John C. Stennis Wed. March 21, for missions in support of Operation Enduring, Freedom and International Security Assistance Forces ISAF for the global war on terror. US and French carriers are sailing and operating in concert opposite Iranian shores for the first time. The Iranian Navy responded to the new arrival the following day by announcing a new series of military exercise in the Persian Gulf.

DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose that the American-French rendezvous was timed to coincide with the UN Security Council session Wednesday to debate expanded sanctions against Iran for continuing its banned uranium enrichment program.

The Iranians were bowled over by the appearance of the Charles de Gaulle opposite their southern coast, having assumed that Paris took issue with Washington’s tough stand on their nuclear activities and was seeking improved relations with Tehran.

However, Western military circles explain that the French president Jacques Chirac decided before he leaves office in May to repair the bad impression he left in early February when he urged the world - and Israel in particular - to learn to live with “an Iranian nuclear bomb or two.”

Rafale fighter-bombers on the French carrier’s decks will fly missions over Afghanistan alongside US warplanes.

Its arrival raises to four the number of Western aircraft carriers cruising within striking distance of Iran, including the USS Eisenhower and USS Boxer.

The Charles de Gaulle is accompanied by French Task Force 473, which consists of five warships: the FNS Cassard guided missile destroyer, the FNS Tourville anti-submarine frigate, the FNS Dupleix destroyer adapted for escorting oil tankers and the FNS Marne, a command and supply vessel. Captain of the French task force is Rear Adm. Xavier Magne. Commander of the American flotilla is Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn.

I just hope it does more than sit there and look scary when and if the time comes for action. But damn, that is one force to be reckoned with.

[General_J0k3r]

why is that positive?

[[-=IDSF=-]SykloAG]

Maybe because Iran is a threat to the West and all countries in the region that desire some semblance of normality? Right now they are playing games with the UN (probably the only thing the UN does well - host games). Sooner or later the need will arise to deal with them (and not cards).

Its a good thing because it shows to Iran to stop messing about - or else.

Its good because Iran is bad - they openly threatened to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons and Ahmadinijihad frequently speaks of wiping Israel off the map. People threatening genocide of millions are evil. Please tell me this is not news.

[Cravixon]

I think the bigger issue here, is where the French have been hiding an aircraft carrier???

[[-=IDSF=-]SykloAG]

I'm really hoping this can get sorted out diplomatically, even though I know it is unlikely and totally unrealistic. This article just made front page in a major paper here in Israel. Front page stuff here is usually dead on the money unfortunately, especially regarding war.

Embassies in Teheran prepare escape plans
Amir Mizroch, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 23, 2007

Several foreign embassies in Teheran are updating their emergency evacuation plans should a Western or Israeli attack on Iran occur.

According to foreign sources, foreign diplomats believe a possible attack would take place before the end of 2007. By that time, Iran might have enough enriched uranium to cause a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe from radioactive fallout should its nuclear facilities be damaged or destroyed in an attack.

Embassies in all countries generally have evacuation plans for their staff, but foreign sources describe the general atmosphere in Iran as one of heightened preparedness. Recently, several diplomatic missions based in Teheran have begun to reassess their plans, and embassies without permanent security officers have requested them.

Embassy experts reportedly are testing various evacuation options and logistics, such as timing routes to different destinations by different types of vehicles. The plans include evacuation for all staff.

Foreign sources say both the United States and Israel, who accuse Iran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons, want to give diplomatic efforts aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear drive the best possible chance to succeed.

But according to these sources, should the West or Israel feel that the time needed for diplomatic efforts is longer than the time it would take for Iran to obtain nuclear independence, they are likely to strike at Iran's main nuclear facilities before the damage done by such an attack would cause serious radiation fallout. Such fallout would likely kill many civilians and render some parts of Iran uninhabitable for an undetermined period of time.

According to this logic, the timing of such an attack would take place just before Iran has enriched an amount of weapons-grade material that, if damaged, would cause such a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe, it could be construed as a nuclear attack.

The assessments posit that Israel and the US will try to delay an attack until the last moment due to the expected Iranian counterattack and regional deterioration.

Similar dilemmas over timing were faced by Israel before the 1981 raid that destroyed Saddam Hussein's reactor at Osirak. According to "The Raid on the Osirak Nuclear Reactor," an article by researcher Avi Hein, the Israeli cabinet in 1981 received word that "a shipment of 90 kilograms of enriched uranium fuel rods is expected from France to Iraq, ready for radiation." The moment the rods would be placed in the reactor, there would be a danger of radiation fallout if the reactor was attacked. This was the decisive factor for deputy prime minister Yigael Yadin, who had initially opposed the plan to attack Osirak, but changed his mind after receiving the news about the fuel rods, Hein wrote.

According to other published sources on the Osirak strike, Israel felt any raid had to take place well before nuclear fuel was loaded to prevent radioactive contamination.

It is now known that during the strike preparations, one question affecting the timing was the estimated date the reactor would become "live," after which a strike could cause radiation fallout on civilians.

In the current standoff with Iran, US pressure on many countries and multinational corporations to divest from Teheran is bearing fruit. But in the final analysis, Iran is not seen likely to stop its nuclear program, and UN sanctions are regarded as likely to take too long to have an effect.

Should it be attacked, Iran is expected to launch missiles against Israel and an offensive against US forces in the Middle East. Teheran is also expected to activate Hizbullah in a full assault against Israel. Israeli security services also expect attacks on Jewish interests and institutions worldwide.

Syria is still deciding if it will go "all the way" with Iran, or abandon its one friend in the world and return to the international fold. Syria's potential role in such a regional conflagration is undetermined. Saudi Arabia has been exerting consistent and mounting pressure on both Syria and Iran to change course.

Former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is making political moves within Iran's Supreme Council to limit the power of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who many in Iran feel is out of the control of the ruling elite.

At first, the ayatollahs acquiesced to Ahmadinejad's foreign policy line - which has at its core the drive for nuclear power, the ambition to replace Saudi Arabia as Islam's "core state," and the stated aim to destroy Israel - because of the former mayor of Teheran's wide popular support. For approximately the past year, there has been a noticeable growing concern among the ruling elite that Ahmadinejad is slipping out of their control, even though there is little chance he could take over supreme power and authority.

[Expendable Grunt]

I knew the French had it in them.

War with Iran will be distaster. If there's war, I may well step up and join the forces...

[Aljen]

Sorry but this is a known lie SykloAG(and a very usefull one for USrael)
:"they openly threatened to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons and Ahmadinijihad frequently speaks of wiping Israel off the map"

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=5866

In reality he said this:
"As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated." -which is something completely different.

[[-=IDSF=-]SykloAG]

Originally Posted by Aljen

Sorry but this is a known lie SykloAG(and a very usefull one for USrael)

Wow.

I point you to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVbGUw2Wwn8
Ignore all the stupid text. Focus on what your pal Ahmadinejad and his spiritual leader has to say.

I'm suprised you buy into such great counter-intelligence propaganda.

But if that is not enough - then take it neat/straight/clean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ywoLsATW9w

Of course, I run the risk that he might be convincing enough for you to believe his conspiracy theories.
Don't know about others, but this guy reminds me of Hitler. Just a little...

Here is a list of some of his threats:
http://queenofswords.wordpress.com/2...estroy-israel/

Btw, I think you need slightly less biased sources. The Arash Norouzi who wrote your article is the founder of the Mossadegh Project. Guess what their agenda is. Give up?

From their site:

The purpose of this project is the establishment of the Mossadegh Exhibit to advance the study and understanding of:
• The political life of Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadegh.
• The national democratic movement in Iran under his leadership.
• The forces which ended Mossadegh's control and their impact on Iran, the Middle East and the world.

[Michael_Denmark]

Neither Iran nor all those nations questioning Iran’s intentions about the nuclear program, benefit from this situational escalation.

And tactical speaking I’m not sure if the carriers or the Iranian military posses the largest threat in that part of the region.


I am however pretty sure, although I haven’t got a single piece of documentation (since I haven’t searched for it), that France with no doubt has been selling weapons to Iran in the same manner as France sold weapon to Iraq. (Saddam period)

Maybe Iran now got too big a debt to the French weapon industry? A problem which of course could lead to that kind of political act that we see now from France.

Furthermore this little “lets get together” demonstration from two major weapon producing western countries will only push the Iranians even more to focus on either Russia, China, Brazil or anyone else not being from the old classical western countries. (Including Germany and maybe even Sweden)

Such a situation would mean that the countries opposing the nuclear program will have even less to bargain with than before, making economical an military escalation the only political options left.

Not sure of course, but it seems to me that everybody in that whole stupid affaire is raising the stakes now, meaning that the nations criticising Iran now speak the same langue as some of the Iranians leaders. And that langue is not a diplomatic one.

Must say I am not too proud about political leaders these years, including the ones from my own country.
To me it seems like most of them am from the Cold War period and they are still using the political tools from that era too.

If that’s true then all of this Middle East conflict is maybe just only a couple of decades long pause from one cold war to another?


It’s amazing to see the short slightness from political leaders these years. They still forget thinking in terms like: “If we down this Iranian president and destroy the nuclear program…and uses economical tools to lower the possibility for Iran to begin such a program again, then that’s it…then we won the fight”.

Just amazing.

You don’t see politicians of today go On-screen saying, “we could use the tool/right of the strongest, but in the end it would only result in a maybe even worse counter reaction in the future”.

No, instead you see politicians trying to sell wars or any “peaceful/diplomatic” act before a war, as the only solution, yes even as the fast solution! I.e.: “This war will maybe be hard but i promise you that it will be short”

And if they don’t do that, it’s the direct opposite isn’t it? Like: “the war on terror will take at least 50 years. Period”.

Please remember that most present political leaders out there are not from the Internet generation as we are. So they haven’t made those weekly or everyday connections with people from other countries as we have. As we do.

Hopefully our leaders in 20-30 years from now will see the world differently than those we have today. Maybe they will view the world as a more integrated and converged dynamic than the opposite.


Or hopefully the will.



Otherwise...

War robots.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

The Russians are pissed because Mahmoud is stiffing them on payments.

Want to bet that is the same reason the French are rattling their rusty saber ?

I would like to welcome Aljen as the latest apologist for a terrorist nation.

I thought the forums were drifting a little to the right and it's nice to hear someone talk about the peaceful and inclusive nature of Iranian leadership.

Power to the PEOPLE !!!!!!