Spanning(en) rond Iran

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

IPA NG wat let jou om te gaan emigreren naar bv zweden of zwitserland dan graag in de buurt van een luchtmachtbasis gaan wonen zodat je iedere  dag Gripens NG ziet?

Leuker neutraal en zonder €uro... een NG heaven!

[Ace1]

Ik heb geen zin om in mijn portefeuille geraakt te worden omdat 'onze leiders' zo nodig de Joodse kooltjes uit het vuur moeten halen voor de Amerikanen.

IPA NG wat let jou om te gaan emigreren naar bv zweden of zwitserland dan graag in de buurt van een luchtmachtbasis gaan wonen zodat je iedere  dag Gripens NG ziet?

[IPA NG]

Ik heb geen zin om in mijn portefeuille geraakt te worden omdat 'onze leiders' zo nodig de Joodse kooltjes uit het vuur moeten halen voor de Amerikanen.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Want dat gaat ook gebeuren...

Volgens mij gaat het om niks anders dan het veiligstellen van Obama's campagnegelden.

Het een sluit het ander niet uit.

[IPA NG]

We helpen onszelf naar de kloten en waarom?

Om te (trachten) te voorkomen dat er straks spontaan paddenstoeltjes goeien in het midden oosten?

Want dat gaat ook gebeuren...

Volgens mij gaat het om niks anders dan het veiligstellen van Obama's campagnegelden.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

We helpen onszelf naar de kloten en waarom?

Om te (trachten) te voorkomen dat er straks spontaan paddenstoeltjes goeien in het midden oosten?

[IPA NG]

Gaan we nu meer betalen voor brandstof?

Prijzen schijnen al iets omhoog te zijn gegaan.

We helpen onszelf naar de kloten en waarom?

[Jah]

Gaan we nu meer betalen voor brandstof?

Prijzen schijnen al iets omhoog te zijn gegaan.

[IPA NG]

Gaan we nu meer betalen voor brandstof?

[onderofficier]

De BBC berichtte gisteren dat Iran de boycot probeert te omzeilen, door zijn olietankers onder de vlag te laten varen van het ministaatje Tuvalu in de Grote Oceaan. Volgens de Britse omroep zouden 15 van de 39 tankschepen zijn 'omgevlagd'.

BBC

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

EU olieboycot Iran van kracht

EPA Toegevoegd: zondag 1 jul 2012, 11:16

De boycot van Iraanse olie, waartoe de Europese Unie begin dit jaar heeft besloten, gaat vandaag in.

Met de sancties wil de EU de regering in Teheran onder druk zetten om zijn nucleaire programma stop te zetten. Brussel vreest dat Iran uranium verrijkt om een atoombom te maken. Om dezelfde reden importeert ook de VS geen Iraanse olie meer.
De afgelopen maanden is de olie-export van Iran fors afgenomen. Volgens het Internationaal Energie Agentschap verkocht het land in mei 1,5 miljoen vaten olie per dag aan het buitenland, tegen 2,5 miljoen een half jaar geleden.

Ministaatje

Analisten van de oliemarkt schatten dat Iran door de Europese en Amerikaanse boycot vanaf nu zo'n 40 procent minder olie uitvoert dan een jaar geleden.

Door de maatregelen loopt Iran dagelijks vele tientallen miljoenen dollars mis. Tot nu toe zijn er geen aanwijzingen dat de Iraanse regering zijn nucleaire ambities opzijzet.

Tot begin dit jaar ging bijna een kwart van de Iraanse olie-export naar de EU. Grote afnemers waren Spanje, Italië en vooral Griekenland. Het gemis aan Iraanse olie wordt opgevangen door meer olie aan te voeren uit Saoedi-Arabië, Irak en Rusland.

De BBC berichtte gisteren dat Iran de boycot probeert te omzeilen, door zijn olietankers onder de vlag te laten varen van het ministaatje Tuvalu in de Grote Oceaan. Volgens de Britse omroep zouden 15 van de 39 tankschepen zijn 'omgevlagd'.

Bron: NOS

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Report: Iran to deploy submarines in Caspian Sea

The Associated Press

Published: Saturday, Jun. 30, 2012 - 6:23 am

TEHRAN, Iran -- A semiofficial Iranian news agency says Tehran plans to deploy submarines in the Caspian Sea.

The Saturday report by Fars quotes Adm. Abbas Zamini as saying Iran plans to deploy "light submarines" to the oil-rich sea that adjoins Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. He did not elaborate.

Relations between Iran and Azerbaijan have soured in the past year. Iran accuses Azerbaijan of harboring anti-Iranian terrorists linked to Israel's Mossad spy agency. Azerbaijan in return says Iran supports Islamist dissidents. Both countries deny each other's charges.

Earlier this month Iran said it has begun the "initial stages" of designing nuclear-powered submarines.

Iran has domestically built several small submarines over the past years. It has recently overhauled one of the three non-nuclear Russian Kilo-class submarines it bought in the 1990s.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/30/4601469/report-iran-to-deploy-submarines.html#storylink=cpy

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Iran warns its Strait of Hormuz ships will soon be armed with missiles

Reuters  Jun 29, 2012 – 11:05 AM ET

DUBAI — Iran expects to equip its ships in the Strait of Hormuz soon with shorter-range missiles, a Revolutionary Guards commander was quoted as saying, in the latest apparent warning to the West not to attack it over its disputed nuclear program.

The Islamic Republic has threatened to shut the Strait, the conduit out of the Gulf for 40% of the world's seaborne oil trade, if Western sanctions aimed at curbing its nuclear works block its own crude exports.

The European Union plans to impose a total embargo on Iranian oil from Sunday and has told Tehran that more punitive steps could follow if it keeps defying UN demands for limits nuclear activity that could be of use in developing bombs.

"We have already equipped our vessels with missiles with a range of 220 km (136 miles) and we hope to introduce missiles with a range of over 300 km (186 miles) soon," Ali Fadavi said, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported on Friday.

"We could target from our shores all areas in the Persian Gulf region, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman."

Iran is about 225 km (140 miles) at its nearest point from Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based, and about 1,000 km (625 miles) from its arch-enemy Israel. Tehran's longest-range missile, the Sajjil-2, can fly up to 2,400 km (1,500 miles).

Iran's military and security establishment often asserts its strength in the region, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil transit channel carrying supplies from Gulf producers to the West.

But it has increasingly flexed its military muscle in the face of U.S. and Israeli warnings that last-resort military action against Iran cannot be ruled out if diplomacy and sanctions fail to resolve the nuclear dispute.

In January, the Islamic Republic said it had successfully test-fired what it called two long-range missiles.

Earlier this month, the Iranian navy announced plans to build more warships and increase its presence in international waters such as the Gulf of Aden and northern Indian Ocean.

Iran denies Western suspicions that it is trying to develop technology and material required to produce nuclear weapons, saying it needs the know-how solely to generate electricity.

Tehran has said it would retaliate for any attack with missile strikes against Israel and U.S. assets in the Gulf.

A third round of nuclear talks between world powers and Iran on June 18-19 aimed ultimately at curbing Iranian nuclear activity in exchange for sanctions relief failed to ease the stalemate. With that process seemingly close to collapse, Israel renewed veiled threats to hit Iranian nuclear installations that it considers a mortal threat.

© Thomson Reuters 2012

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

How not to write an analysis piece on a possible war with Iran

A report published on the Business Insider website, saying Israel and the U.S. are preparing for a strike against Iran, contains nothing exclusive, no new information, and is riddled with gross inaccuracies.

By Anshel Pfeffer | Jun.23, 2012 |

A great deal gets written about Iran and a possible war between the Islamic Republic, Israel and the United States. How much of that is reliable and worth reading is another question. Take for example a piece that appeared today on the American financial website, Business Insider. The headline is "Here's How US and Israel Are Preparing For a Possible War With Iran" and it has an "exclusive" banner over it. It is a lesson of how not to write an analysis on such an issue.

For a start, there is nothing "exclusive" about it - all there is in the piece is a collection of quotes and links culled from other publications, the connection between them often tenuous at best. Second, the piece doesn't tell you anything about how the U.S. and Israel are preparing for a war on Iran, not even if they are indeed doing so. Instead, there is a list of recent US defense acquisitions, which probably have no connection to a possible operation in Iran, and some quotes from Israeli officials on the need to "prepare other options" for countering Iran's nuclear program. Nothing new there then.

There is one very interesting detail though. According to Business Insider, there is "an Iranian F-16 acquisition" in the works, which would be groundbreaking news, if only it could be true. But besides this report, there has been no indication anywhere the U.S. is about to reverse its arms embargo against the Islamic Republic, in force for 33 years (except for some clandestine deals such as Iran-Contras). After that dreadful mistake, nothing else in the piece really matters, but still, just a few pointers.

The writers highlight recent arms deals by the Pentagon such as the purchase of 361 Tomahawk cruise missiles and another for a 17 thousand sonar buoys. The U.S. has been buying from Raytheon thousands of Tomahawks from the early 1980s, it has been the most effective and widely-used ship-launched missile in all the armed confrontations America has fought since then. An additional 361 is just keeping up operational levels, and making sure that wherever the U.S. Navy will find itself, it will be able to launch a devastating strike. With regard the sonar buoys, they are a standard, if advanced, instrument used to pinpoint the location of enemy submarines. But the old Soviet-era submarines of the Iranian Navy are hardly a reason for the Americans to buy advanced hardware – the threat to American ships in the Persian Gulf is not underwater; it is small and fast surface-attack boats and anti-shipping missiles.

Another detail that seems significant to the writers is the passing of the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act last month in Congress. This is an important bill, but it is designed in part to reassure Israel that America is resolutely guaranteeing its security, and therefore it does not have to launch a strike on Iran.

Two other small but not irrelevant inaccuracies: The report mentions that Israel just ordered "its fourth German-made sub." Actually, it ordered its sixth sub and just took delivery of the fourth. Not that this has any connection with a possibly impending strike on Iran, which would almost certainly be airborne.

The other inaccuracy is their writing that the Iranians are preparing for war with "some of the most advanced military technology of anyone out there." Not to belittle Iran's power, but it is not based on "advanced military technology." Most of the military technology Iran has is what is left from the Shah's purchases from the US in the 1970s, augmented by some nascent attempts to develop an indigenous arms industry, with North Korean assistance. There are a number of nations in the region with much more advanced military technology - Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf States. That's why General David Petraeus said in 2009 that the United Arab Emirates air force, a much smaller country, "could take out the entire Iranian air force."

The basic premise of the piece could be true – the U.S. and Israel may be preparing a possible war on Iran, though it still seems that the U.S. is mainly trying to prevent such a war. But none of the details in the report actually support the headline

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/the-axis/how-not-to-write-an-analysis-piece-on-a-possible-war-with-iran-1.443387

[IPA NG]

Dan hoop ik voor ze dat ze hun Sunburns in fatsoenlijke bunkers hebben opgeslagen.