Amerika en Iran steggelen verder

Politiek en oorlog zijn onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden en alles over politiek en oorlog kun je hier terugvinden.
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

vr 11 nov 2011, 03:16

Tromgeroffel rond Iran (3)
donderdag 10 november 2011
http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/actueel ... 20374.html


Volgens de nucleaire waakhond in Wenen, het IAEA, zijn de jongens van Mosje Ahmadinejad bezig met de bouw van een atoombom. En dat heeft in de westerse hoofdsteden en Tel Aviv het licht op groen gezet voor de inzet van extreme afknijpmiddelen cq. wapentuig om de geboorte van een tweede islamitische bom uit te sluiten. Moet je wel onweerlegbare bewijzen hebben. Geen plakjes gele nepcake uit Mali en niet verdragende sigaren, die later niet aanwezig blijken te zijn. Echte bewijzen. Moeilijk, dus dan maar net als de vorige keer. Je zoekt wat stukjes van de puzzel bij mekaar en ramt net zo lang met een hamer tot ze passen.

Een van de stukjes die aldus bij de Iraanse puzzel werd aangepast was het bericht dat een Russische gynaecoloog betrokken was geweest bij de betrokken IVF-behandeling. Ene Vyacheslav Danilenko. Althans, volgens een niet nader genoemde lidmaat van het Amerikaanse International Institute for Science and Security.

En wat denk je?
Toch weer een plakkie gele cake.

Want die meneer Danilenko blijkt helemaal geen nucleaire bommen-expert te zijn. Lees en implodeer.
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2011/11/09/iaeas

Maar leugens en verzinsels bleken in het geval van Saddammeke ook geen beletsel om à la oom Adolf ten oorlog te trekken. Tijd om je hart vast te houden. Stay tuned



IAEA’s ‘Soviet Nuclear Scientist’ Never Worked on Weapons
by Gareth Porter,

November 10, 2011
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2011 ... n-weapons/


The report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published by a Washington think tank Tuesday repeated the sensational claim previously reported by news media all over the world that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that could be used for a nuclear weapon.

But it turns out that the foreign expert, who is not named in the IAEA report [.pdf] but was identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko, is not a nuclear weapons scientist but one of the top specialists in the world in the production of nanodiamonds by explosives.

In fact, Danilenko, a Ukrainian, has worked solely on nanodiamonds from the beginning of his research career and is considered one of the pioneers in the development of nanodiamond technology, as published scientific papers confirm.

It now appears that the IAEA and David Albright, the director of the International Institute for Science and Security in Washington, who was the source of the news reports about Danilenko, never bothered to check the accuracy of the original claim by an unnamed “Member State” on which the IAEA based its assertion about his nuclear weapons background.

Albright gave a “private briefing” for “intelligence professionals” last week, in which he named Danilenko as the foreign expert who had been contracted by Iran’s Physics Research Center in the mid-1990s and identified him as a “former Soviet nuclear scientist,” according to a story by Joby Warrick of The Washington Post on Nov. 6.

The Danilenko story then went worldwide.

The IAEA report says the agency has “strong indications” that Iran’s development of a “high-explosions initiation system,” which it has described as an “implosion system” for a nuclear weapon, was “assisted by the work of a foreign expert who was not only knowledgeable on these technologies, but who, a Member State has informed the Agency, worked for much of his career in the nuclear weapon program of the country of his origin.”

The report offers no other evidence of Danilenko’s involvement in the development of an initiation system.

The member state obviously learned that Danilenko had worked during the Soviet period at the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Technical Physics in Snezhinsk, Russia, which was well-known for its work on development of nuclear warheads and simply assumed that he had been involved in that work.

However, further research would have revealed that Danilenko worked from the beginning of his career in a part of the Institute that specialized in the synthesis of diamonds. Danilenko wrote in an account of the early work in the field published in 2006 that he was among the scientists in the “gas dynamics group” at the Institute who were “the first to start studies on diamond synthesis in 1960.”

Danilenko’s recollections of the early period of his career are in a chapter of the book Ultrananocrystalline Diamond: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications, edited by Olga A. Shenderova and Dieter M. Gruen, published in 2007.

Another chapter in the book covering the history of Russian patents related to nanodiamonds documents the fact that Danilenko’s center at the Institute developed key processes as early as 1963-66 that were later used at major “detonation nanodiamond” production centers.

Danilenko left the Institute in 1989 and joined the Institute of Materials Science Problems in Ukraine, according to the authors of that chapter.

Danilenko’s major accomplishment, according to the authors, has been the development of a large-scale technology for producing ultradispersed diamonds, a particular application of nanodiamonds. The technology, which was later implemented by the ALIT company in Zhitomir, Ukraine, is based on an explosion chamber 100 square meters in volume, which Danilenko designed.

Beginning in 1993, Danilenko was a principal in a company called Nanogroup, which was established initially in Ukraine but is now based in Prague. The company’s website boasts that it has “the strongest team of scientists,” which was involved in the “introduction of nanodiamonds in 1960 and the first commercial applications of nanodiamonds in 2000.”

The declared aim of the company is to supply worldwide demand for nanodiamonds.

Iran has an aggressive program to develop its nanotechnology sector, and it includes as one major focus nanodiamonds, as blogger Moon of Alabama has pointed out. That blog was the first source to call attention to Danilenko’s nanodiamond background.

Danilenko clearly explained that the purpose of his work in Iran was to help the development of a nanodiamond industry in the country.

The report states that the “foreign expert” was in Iran from 1996 to about 2002, “ostensibly to assist in the development of a facility and techniques for making ultra dispersed diamonds (UDDs) or nanodiamonds.” That wording suggests that nanodiamonds were merely a cover for his real purpose in Iran.

The report says the expert “also lectured on explosive physics and its applications,” without providing any further detail about what applications were involved.

The fact that the IAEA and Albright were made aware of Danilenko’s nanodiamond work in Iran before embracing the “former Soviet nuclear weapons specialist” story makes their failure to make any independent inquiry into his background even more revealing.

The tale of a Russian nuclear weapons scientist helping construct an “implosion system” for a nuclear weapon is the most recent iteration of a theme that the IAEA introduced in its May 2008 report, which mentioned a five-page document describing experimentation with a “complex multipoint initiation system to detonate a substantial amount of high explosives in hemispherical geometry” and to monitor the detonation.

Iran acknowledged using “exploding bridge wire” detonators such as those mentioned in that document for conventional military and civilian applications. But it denounced the document, along with the others in the “alleged studies” collection purporting to be from an Iranian nuclear weapons research program, as fakes.

Careful examination of the “alleged studies” documents has revealed inconsistencies and other anomalies that give evidence of fraud. But the IAEA, the United States and its allies in the IAEA continue to treat the documents as though there were no question about their authenticity.

The unnamed member state that informed the agency about Danilenko’s alleged experience as a Soviet nuclear weapons scientist is almost certainly Israel, which has been the source of virtually all the purported intelligence on Iranian work on nuclear weapons over the past decade.

Israel has made no secret of its determination to influence world opinion on the Iranian nuclear program by disseminating information to governments and news media, including purported Iran government documents. Israeli Foreign Ministry and intelligence officials told journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins about the special unit of Mossad dedicated to that task at the very time the fraudulent documents were being produced.

In an interview in September 2008, Albright said Olli Heinonen, then deputy director for safeguards at the IAEA, had told him that a document from a member state had convinced him that the “alleged studies” documents were genuine. Albright said the state was “probably Israel.”

The Jerusalem Post‘s Yaakov Katz reported Wednesday that Israeli intelligence agencies had “provided critical information used in the report,” the purpose of which was to “push through a new regime of sanctions against Tehran.”

(Inter Press Service)
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

za 12 nov 2011, 04:21

Zie bericht hier boven :whistle: Want die meneer Danilenko blijkt helemaal geen nucleaire bommen-expert te zijn. Lees en implodeer.
http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2011/11/09/iaeas
Sovjet-wetenschapper Vjatsjeslav Danilenko heeft Iran actief geholpen met het maken van een atoomwapen. Zelf ontkent hij zijn betrokkenheid, maar zijn schoonzoon denkt daar anders over.
T. Berbers

| 11 nov 2011 | 18:39

Volgens een rapport van de IAEA is er sprake van een 'buitenlandse expert' die betrokken is geweest bij het atoomprogramma van Iran. Die expert zou Danilenko zijn.

De Rus, die in de jaren negentig werkte in Iran, ontkende in de Russische krant Kommersant alle betrokkenheid. De schoonzoon van de man heeft aan het AP laten weten dat zijn schoonpapa juist nauw betrokken was bij het kernwapenprogramma van Iran.
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

zo 13 nov 2011, 22:50

Obama vraagt steun Rusland en China tegen Iran
Laatste update: 13 november 2011 12:08
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2666742/oba ... -iran.html


HONOLULU - De Amerikaanse president Barack Obama wil steun van zijn Russische en Chinese ambtgenoten om te voorkomen dat Iran kernwapens ontwikkelt.

De Russische president Dmitri Medvedev en de Chinese president Hu Jintao hebben die steun echter niet in het openbaar toegezegd. Obama sprak zaterdag met beide wereldleiders.

De zorgen over Iran zijn toegenomen na de verschijning van een rapport deze week van het Internationaal Atoomenergieagentschap (IAEA) over het Iraanse atoomprogramma.

In het rapport staat dat Iran geheime experimenten uitvoert, die alleen maar kunnen dienen voor de ontwikkeling van kernwapens. Het IAEA zegt dat sommige geheime activiteiten van Iran weliswaar vreedzame toepassingen hebben, maar dat 'andere specifiek voor kernwapens zijn'. Iran ontkent de aantijgingen.

Obstakels

Rusland en China blijven obstakels voor de Verenigde Staten bij pogingen de internationale sancties tegen Iran verder aan te scherpen. Zowel Rusland als China heeft vetorecht in de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties en het rapport lijkt hun standpunt niet te hebben gewijzigd.

Obama zei dat hij en Medvedev hun 'intentie om een gezamenlijke reactie vorm te geven' hebben bevestigd. Na een gesprek met Hu zei Obama dat beiden ervoor willen zorgen dat Iran zich aan de internationale regels en normen houdt.

Met zijn uitlatingen schetst Obama weliswaar een beeld van een gezamenlijk front, maar tekenen van echte vooruitgang zijn er vooralsnog niet.

proest:
SYDNEY - De Verenigde Staten gaan permanent mariniers legeren op een legerbasis bij het Australische Darwin.
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2665235/mar ... ralie.html

President Barack Obama zal dit bekendmaken tijdens zijn bezoek aan Australië volgende week, aldus de krant Sydney Morning Herald vrijdag.

''Dit is allemaal te doen om de opkomst van China, de modernisering van het Volksbevrijdingsleger en vooral de toegenomen kwetsbaarheid van de Amerikaanse troepen op Guam en Okinawa voor de nieuwe generatie Chinese raketten'', aldus een Australische veiligheidsexpert.
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

zo 13 nov 2011, 22:53

Iran explosion at Revolutionary Guards military base


A local resident said the sound of the blast was “deafening”
12 November 2011 Last updated at 15:16

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15705948

Seventeen soldiers have been killed in an explosion at a military base near Iran’s capital Tehran, officials say.

The blast occurred when weapons were being moved inside a Revolutionary Guards depot, a spokesman for the elite unit told state TV.

Windows in nearby buildings were shattered and the blast was heard in central Tehran, 40 km (25 miles) away.

Two hours after the explosion a fire still raged and there were traffic jams on nearby roads, a local reporter said.

The death toll was revised down from an earlier figure released by the Revolutionary Guards of 27.

Local MP Hossein Garousi said “a large part of an ammunition depot exploded,” parliament’s website reported.

Revolutionary Guards spokesman Ramezan Sharif did not say what had caused the “accident” in the village of Bidganeh, near the city of Karaj.

“Some of the casualties are reported to be in a critical condition,” he said.

An emergency worker said that 12 people had been taken to hospital.

Karaj resident Kaveer told the BBC’s Newshour programme that the sound was “deafening”.

“We were kind of shocked. I just ran out of the house and looked around,” he said.

Economic force

An elite military force, the Revolutionary Guard was set up shortly after the 1979 Iranian revolution to defend the country’s Islamic system.

It has since become a major military, political and economic force in Iran.

The Revolutionary Guard has been targeted by UN sanctions aimed at pressuring Iran to halt uranium enrichment.

There have been occasional unexplained explosions in Iran before.

Eighteen people were killed in a blast at a Revolutionary Guards base in the north-western Lorestan province in October 2010.

The latest blast comes at a time of heightened tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog the IAEA released a report on Tuesday which, correspondents say, prompted new fears that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military objective.

There has also been speculation in Israel’s media that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering ordering strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites, in the hope of stalling or ending its programme.

Iran says its nuclear programme has purely civilian aims.
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

ma 14 nov 2011, 22:30

Tromgeroffel rond Iran (4)
maandag 14 november 2011
http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/actueel ... 56200.html


En er maar over doorzeiken. Dat Moshe Ahmadinejad en zijn geloofsbaarden bezig zijn met het in elkaar sleutelen van een atoombommetje. Net als Saddammeke indertijd met zijn plakjes gele cake en zijn bio-chemische draagsigaren. En Muammar Khadaffi met zijn ... wat ook weer? O ja, hij onderdrukte zijn bevolking met fris water, goedkope benzine, vrij onderwijs, vrije medische behandeling, een redelijk inkomen en leningen met een superlage rente.

Wat is de overeenkomst tussen deze zandbakbeheerders? Ze hadden besloten niet langer de dollar als betaalmiddel te accepteren bij hun olietransacties. En hun respectievelijke centrale banken hielden dat in de kieren.

Ze hadden liever andere currency ic. hun eigen poen. Daarmee dreigde de basis onder met name de dollar naar de kloten te gaan en je kan ongedekte groene ruggen blijven drukken tot je je kameelmoe achter de billen van moeders of een escorteuse neerzijgt. Maar dat eindigt aan de meet geheid met een inflatoir bossie gladiolen en het lost geen ene slappe fluit op.

Dus schakel je ten einde raad een stel welwillende smurfen en warmpjes gestiekte gappies bij de mainstream vodden, de glazen tiet, Freedom House en andere bereiders van democratische fietsen in om met een bosje leugens de westerse opinie klaar te stomen voor een Arabische lente met waar nodig een mild regentje bommen en granaten. Saddammeke eindigde aan een touw en Muammar met een mes in zijn reet en een paar kogels in zijn lijf.
Al lang voor hij in een hemelse tent verzeild raakte met 72 jongedames die uit handen van Berlusconi waren gebleven, hadden de door het westen gesteunde Mad Maxen een alternatieve centrale bank opgericht en verhandelden olie met petrodollars. Een nog nooit vertoonde move, maar daarmee maakten ze wel duidelijk waar de pijn zat bij hun Amerikaans/Brits/Franse opdrachtgevers.

Muammar's serieuze plannen voor een Afrikaanse dinar die steunde op een goudvoorraad was daarmee definitief van de baan. De bankboys van Wall Street, Londen en Parijs kropen opgelucht achter de billen van moeders of een escorteuse.
Die miss Piggy was gewassen. Nu Iran nog en op wat langere termijn de op zijn goud zittende Chavez en de Bilderboel is voorlopig weer dichtgespijkerd.

Democracy? It's the dollar stupid.
Stay tuned.
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

di 15 nov 2011, 22:43

Tromgeroffel rond Iran (5)
dinsdag 15 november 2011
http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/actueel ... 52404.html


Denk je toch, dat onze Britse NATO-gappies niet zo mesjogge zullen zijn om aan een tweede Irak te gaan beginnen.

Nou, lees het artikel van de voormalige Britse diplomaat Craig Murray even aandachtig door en je krijgt het toch benauwd. De huidige Britse ambassadeur in Israël blijkt voordat er zelfs maar sprake was van een Conservatieve regering en een benoeming van Liam Fox tot minister van Defensie al met dit vosje en zijn enigmatische Tom Poes Adam Werritty te hebben gebabbeld.

Over een mogelijk ingrijpen in het land van Moshe Ahmadinejad en zijn geloofsbaarden. Later kwamen er nog meer van die informele babbels, soms in aanwezigheid van niet nader genoemde Israëlische hotemetoten. Een van die gelegenheden vond plaats tijdens de Herzliya Conference van 2011.
Een jaarlijks samenzijn, dat we al eens eerder de revue hebben laten passeren in een stel artikeltjes rond Ponzi-ridder Sir Allen Stanford (1).

Je wordt er niet vrolijk van. Stay tuned.

1. zie aflevering 4 van de serie "Billions and centuries" dd. 23 april 2009.

=========================================

Simple Questions A Real Democracy Would Answer
by craig

on Nov 15th
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/


The government could clear up the issue of Fox Gould and Werritty if it answered these very simple questions. They are questions to which in any real democracy we would be entitled to expect an answer, concerning officials paid by us. I have put these questions to them. Consider why the government refuses to answer these simple and obvious questions.

But the truly terrifying thing is not just that the government refuses to answer these questions from me, it is that the mainstream media refuses even to ask them:

How many times in total did Gould, Werritty and Fox meet?
How many of these are listed in O’Donnell’s official investigation?
Why the discrepancy?

Did the meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty while Fox was Shadow Defence Secretary follow official rules concerning briefing of opposition front bench spokesmen by officials?
Where did it take place?

When did Gould first meet Werritty?
How many times did Gould meet Werritty without Fox present?
How many communications of all sorts have there ever been between Gould and Werritty?

Where precisely was the “Pre-posting briefing meeting” for Gould with Werritty and Fox held?
Why was it not held in the Secretary of State’s office?
Why was no MOD official present?

Who paid for the “Private dinner” between Fox, Gould and Werritty and “Senior Israelis” in Tel Aviv in February 2011?
Who was present?
Was any note subsequently made of the discussion?

Who paid for the “social engagement” to which Fox invited Gould and Werritty in summer 2010?
Who was present?

Was the possibility of an attack on Iran discussed in any of the above meetings, events or communications?

These really are very simple questions and I will happily report any answer in full. Every media outlet should be asking these questions. Remember Werritty had no security clearance. It is therefore not possible that the answers to these questions is classified information.

If the explanations are innocent, why should these questions not be answered?

ACTION Please send reasoned communications to mainstream media journalists and editors, asking them if they will put these questions to the government. You may also like to contact your MP or any other politician you find reasonable, to ask them whether they are not interested to know the answers.

The answer to these questions would not be hidden in a democracy.

1. zie aflevering 4 van de serie "Billions and centuries" dd. 23 april 2009.

=====================

Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/ ... tack-iran/

Afbeelding

This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force.

On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.

Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.

The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Minister of Defence Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together – only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in his “investigation” into Werritty’s unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence – raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair’s determination to drive through a war on Iraq..

This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O’Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party.

Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour’s garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.

Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy.

I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould’s name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty’s funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups.

I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O’Donnell’s report.

But Gus O’Donnell’s report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O’Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them.

This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O’Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed.

Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?

The first meeting to which O’Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O’Donnell says this was

“a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD’s perspective.”

O’Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that

“Mr Gould’s meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls.”

All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do.

For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty’s presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O’Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox’s office, but in the MOD dining room.

O’Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O’Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that:

“Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter’s capacity as shadow Defence Secretary.”

So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was – what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed?

The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn’s question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information – yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted.

Hague replied to Corbyn that:

“Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.”

Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O’Donnell had completely mischaracterised the “Briefing meeting” between Fox, Werritty and O’Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before – once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for “a social engagement.” The FCO did not answer Corbyn’s question as to who else was present at this “social engagement”.

This was also key because Gould’s other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised – albeit falsely – as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at “a private social engagement” was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other’s company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that.

That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox’s office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting.

My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O’Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important.

O’Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011:

“in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present.”

There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be “private”. You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O’Donnell’s astonishing description of this as a “private” dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy.

I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card – if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn’s parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply.

Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on “Israel’s security”, which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event.

Yet again, the liar O’Donnell does not mention it.

I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the “We believe in Israel” conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference.

I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral.

This is the story I was given.

Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould’s responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period.

According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present – and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet.

My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed.

On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran.

There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?

The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy.

Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt?

There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel.

Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.

It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox.

There is no doubt that the O’Donnell report’s deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO’s blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does?

Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information.

UPDATE A commenter has already pointed me to this bit of invaluable evidence:

“My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.

From Israel National News. It also says that he will be trying to promote a positive atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, but the shallowest or the deepest search shows the same picture; an entirely biased indeed fanatical zionist who must give no confidence at all to the Palestinian Authority. He must be recalled.
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

vr 18 nov 2011, 18:42

Iran nuclear issue is ‘deep concern’ – world powers

Mr Amano says there is information Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a bomb

17 November 2011 Last updated at 16:59
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15771534


World powers have agreed a draft resolution, which expresses “increasing concern” over Iran’s controversial nuclear programme.

The document by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany comes amid fears of “possible military dimensions” to the programme.

The text is to be discussed at a meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, later this week.

The IAEA proposes sending a high-level mission to Iran to address the fears.

Tehran says its programme is for peaceful purposes.
‘Restoring confidence’

The draft resolution was hammered out by Britain, China, France, Russia, the US and also Germany on Thursday in Vienna, as the International Atomic Energy Agency continues to debate the latest report on Iran released last week in the Austrian capital.

The draft expresses “deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions”.

The document also “calls on Iran to engage seriously and without preconditions in talks aimed at restoring international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature” of Tehran’s programme.

However, it stops short of reporting Iran to the UN Security Council, which could impose more sanctions, the BBC’s Bethany Bell in Vienna reports.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano earlier said that there might be undeclared nuclear material and activities.

“Our technical experts have spent years painstakingly and objectively analysing a huge quantity of information from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of member states, from the agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. The agency finds the information to be, overall, credible,” Mr Amano said in a statement.

“It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organisations involved, and timeframes. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

Mr Amano expressed hope that a date for the the proposed mission to Iran would be agreed soon.

The US and its allies want to see stronger sanctions imposed on Iran, but Russia believes the report contains no new evidence – and could hurt the chances for diplomacy, our correspondent says.

China says sanctions cannot resolve the issue.
‘Accident’

On Wednesday, Iranian General Hassan Firouzabadi said that – contrary to speculation – the US and Israel were not behind a weekend munitions base blast that killed 17 Revolutionary Guards, including a key ballistics missile expert.

“This recent incident and blast has no link to Israel or America, but the outcome of the research, in which the incident happened as a consequence, could be a strong smack to the mouth of Israel and its occupying regime,” Gen Firouzabadi was quoted as saying by the student news agency Isna.

Iranian officials had previously said the accident happened while munitions were being moved at the base, without linking it directly to weapons research.

Brig Gen Hassan Moqaddam, who was considered a key figure in Iran’s missile programme, was the most senior casualty in the incident.
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

ma 28 nov 2011, 19:22

Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

zo 04 dec 2011, 23:52

'Leger Iran haalt onbemand toestel VS neer'
Laatste update: 4 december 2011 16:23
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2684983/leg ... -neer.html


TEHERAN - Het leger van Iran claimt dat het een onbemand Amerikaans vliegtuig heeft neergeschoten boven het oosten van het land. Dat meldde de staatstelevisie zondag.
Foto: ANP

Het gaat volgens de Iraniërs om een drone van het type RQ-170. Dat is een onbemand verkenningsvliegtuig waar niet veel over bekend is.

De Amerikanen zouden het toestel in het geheim inzetten. Het zou beschikken over eigenschappen die het minder zichtbaar maken op radar.

Iran heeft na het incident gedreigd met een reactie buiten de eigen landsgrenzen. Dat was te zien op de Iraanse staatstelevisie.
Gebruikersavatar
koewacht
Senior QFF-er
Senior QFF-er
Berichten: 79
Lid geworden op: do 03 mar 2011, 10:20

ma 05 dec 2011, 16:48

Pentagon geeft verlies van drone boven Iran toe

bron:http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland ... -toe.dhtml

Amerikaanse functionarissen hebben toegegeven dat nabij de Iraanse grens een onbemand vliegtuig verloren is geraakt, meldt de krant Washington Post.

Iran meldde zondag dat het zondag "in het oosten van het land", in het grensgebied met Afghanistan en Pakistan, een Amerikaanse RQ-170-drone, een onbemand vliegtuig neergehaald heeft.

In Washington bevestigen functionarissen het verlies van een toestel. Maar ze weigeren te zeggen om welk type het gaat. Aangehaald door de Washington Post, zegt een hoge functionaris van het Pentagon ook geen aanwijzingen te hebben dat een vliegtuig is neergeschoten.

Indien werkelijk een gesofisticeerde RQ-170 drone, die onmerkbaar is voor de vijandelijke radar, in Iran is neergekomen, is dit een serieuze tegenslag voor het Amerikaanse leger en een opsteker voor Iran en zijn bondgenoten, aldus nog de Post. (belga/vsv)
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

di 06 dec 2011, 19:18

Time for diplomacy running out with ‘pariah state’ Iran: U.S. official
Reuters Dec 5, 2011 – 7:47 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 5, 2011 11:11 AM ET
By Jeremy Laurence
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/05 ... -official/


Police chase protesters as they enter the gate of the British embassy in Tehran November 29, 2011. Dozens of young Iranian men entered buildings inside the British embassy compound in Tehran on Tuesday, throwing rocks, petrol bombs and burning documents looted from offices, Iranian news agencies reported.

SEOUL — A senior U.S. official on Monday said the situation over Iran’s nuclear program was becoming increasingly worrying and an urgent diplomatic solution needs to be found.

The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to resolve a dispute over a program they suspect is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons and says it would respond to any strike by attacking Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf.

“Iran is violating international obligations and norms. It is becoming a pariah state,” Robert Einhorn, the State Department senior adviser for non-proliferation and arms control, told a news conference in the South Korean capital.

“The situation in Iran has become more and more worrisome. The timeline for its nuclear program is beginning to get shorter, so it is important we take these strong steps on an urgent basis.

“If we do not, pressures will grow for much stronger actions. The U.S. favours a diplomatic solution pressure, but if we cannot achieve a diplomatic solution soon, inevitably interests will grow in a different kind of solution. That is why we need to act soon.”

Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its claim to have shot down a U.S. spy drone in its airspace on Sunday and last week’s storming of the British embassy in Tehran by protesters has contributed to a sharp increase in tensions in the region.

He said enforcing sanctions would force Iran to negotiate seriously.

Western nations last week significantly tightened sanctions against Iran, with the European Union expanding an Iranian blacklist and the Senate passing a measure that could severely disrupt Iran’s oil income.

Einhorn said the latest round of sanctions do not include crude oil imports, crucial to energy-starved economies like South Korea.

“But we discourage countries from continuing to import crude oil in large quantities,” added Einhorn, acknowledging that at the present time “pressure was tight” on the oil market.

“We are conscious of energy security needs of countries like the Republic of Korea and don’t want to interfere with those needs,” he said, of Asia’s fourth largest economy.

Einhorn said he had received a positive response during talks with South Korean officials about tightening sanctions, adding Seoul was considering what additional measures to take.
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

di 06 dec 2011, 19:20

Russia opposes further UN sanctions against Iran
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press
– 3 days ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... cb6d9a844c


UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia opposes new sanctions against Iran and believes negotiations with Tehran on its disputed nuclear program can be resumed, Moscow’s U.N. ambassador said Friday.

Vitaly Churkin told a news conference that Russia also believes the “threats and insinuations of possible military action against Iran” over its nuclear program are not helpful. He urged the international community to stop whipping up tensions and try to promote dialogue.

The U.N. Security Council first imposed sanctions against Iran in December 2006 and has been ratcheting up the punitive measures since then in hopes of pressuring the government to suspend uranium enrichment and start negotiations on its nuclear program. Iran has refused to do so. Enriched uranium can be used to make both nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons material.

Churkin said that in adopting the four sanctions resolutions, Russia has said “that sanctions must be targeted exclusively at Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.” In some cases, he said, the measures that were adopted “frayed that limit which was set.”

“We believe that the sanctions track in the Security Council has been exhausted,” Churkin said.

The Russian ambassador, whose country holds the council presidency this month, was also highly critical of a Nov. 8 report by the U.N. nuclear agency detailing Iran’s alleged secret weapons work. For the first time, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran was suspected of clandestine work that is “specific to nuclear weapons.”

Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful and aimed solely at producing nuclear energy. Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant was built by the Russians.

The West, which believes Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, had hoped the IAEA report could sway Moscow and Beijing into adopting even tougher sanctions.

Churkin said the report was more of “a PR exercise than a serious nuclear effort” and contained “very little new information about the various suspicions about Iran’s nuclear program.”

He said Russia was also “quite upset” that its recent intensive effort and “creative suggestions to help restart talks” between Iran and six key nations — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — were interrupted by the release of the IAEA report.

“We thought that we were on the verge of restarting those talks on the basis of our proposals, because we started recieving some encouraging signals — substantive signals from the Iranian side … and also some encouraging signals from our partners in the six,” Churkin said. He did not reveal any details of the Russian proposals.

Moscow was pleased, Churkin said, that the IAEA board of governors recently adopted a constructive resolution encouraging further talks.

While the situation continues to be “very complex,” Churkin said, “we believe that (the) negotiating track can be resumed.”
Gebruikersavatar
combi
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 15973
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 21:27

di 06 dec 2011, 20:03

Een dreun voor de drone
dinsdag 6 december 2011
http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/actueel ... 63108.html


Vorige week lieten de legersmurfen van Mosje Ahmadinejad weten dat ze een Amerikaanse stealthdrone hadden neergeschoten. Oeps, dachten ze in Washington.

Maar inmiddels zijn ze overgegaan in oeps, oeps. Want naar alle waarschijnlijkheid is de drone niet neergeschoten, maar zachtjes naar beneden gemanouvreerd en op de grond gezet.
Zo'n drone wordt vanachter de horizon bestuurd via een satcom met een megahertzsignaal op een geheime frequentie.
Wat hebben de Ruskies een kleine twee maanden geleden gedaan? Die hebben een Avtobaza aan Iran geleverd. Da's een verrijdbare installatie, die een inkomende drone kan overnemen met een sterker signaal op dezelfde frequentie.

Toegegeven, die moet ie eerst vinden. Maar het principe is eigenlijk zo eenvoudig, dat het apparaat binnenkort misschien in het assortiment van Intertoys terechtkomt.
Dat betekent overwerk in de USSA. Want stel je voor dat de Poetipoes die Avtobaza's en gros gaan produceren en ze op de kashba's smakken in allerlei baardlanden. Da's een dreun van heb ik u daar. Op naar een nieuwe drone met gigahertz. Kutrussen.
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23226
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

do 08 dec 2011, 04:09

The Latest from Iran (7 December): Rallying the Students

1745 GMT: Foreign Affairs (British Front). President Ahmadinejad has signed into law the bill downgrading Iran's ties with Britain.

Parliament approved the measure, which reduced representation to the level of chargé d'affaires on 27 November, two days before protesters occupied the British Embassy.

1715 GMT: Students in a Coma. Asr-e Iran offers the perspective on National Students Day that the student movement is "in a coma" because of discrimination, a "barracks situation" on campus, and the love of power. The website also jabs at the Basij students who occupied the British Embassy last week.

1705 GMT: The Virtual Embassy. As Iranian authorities moved quickly to block the US Government's Virtual Embassy (see 1229 GMT), Esmail Kowsari, the deputy head of Parliament's National Security Committee, has said that the project will not last more than a year: “On the one hand, they say they want to counter terrorism and, on the other hand, they make backroom deals with terrorists and .. their actions are 180 degrees opposite their words. Therefore, the website will not receive any attention."

1655 GMT: Currency Watch. Peyke Iran reports that Bank Melli in Qom had to shut today because of a run on gold coins.

As Iran's currency has fallen, amidst a fragile economy, Iranians have been rushing to buy gold.

1355 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Is this a sign that Russia will accept tougher European action against Iran's energy sector or a warning not to move too aggressively?

Minister of Energy Sergei Schmatko said Russia was “trying to be as neutral as possible” over the prospect of a ban on Iranian oil imports by the European Union. However, he added, “We have to avoid the politicisation of decisions related to the energy sector. It's quite obvious this decision is based on political factors."

1345 GMT: Drone Watch. Nasim Online quotes an "informed military source" that the US RQ-170 drone --- downed by "electronic warfare" --- will soon be shown to the media.

1229 GMT: The Virtual Embassy. Thomas Erdbrink reports that Iranian authorites have already moved, within 24 hours of its launch, to block the US Government's Virtual Embassy. He says they are re-directing traffic to an anodyne Iranian site.

Reuters later reported that a message greeted would-be visitors, "In accordance with the cybercrime law, access to this website is not possible." Fars declared, "A decisive reaction by Iranian authorities has neutralized another sly plot by the Americans."

Tehran residents confirmed the block and re-direction, having been able briefly to access the website on Tuesday.

1225 GMT: The Embassy Attack. The reformist clerics of the Assembly of Teachers and Researchers of Qom, denouncing the regime's "strategy of conflict and confrontation" with Britain, has said that university staff and students --- as opposed to Basij militia --- had "no role" in last week's attack on the British Embassy.

Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi assured on Tuesday, in an interview with a German newspaper, "This experience has immunised us against these kinds of illegal actions. This won't happen again."

0835 GMT: Economy Watch. The Central Bank has put Iran's official inflation rate for the past year at 19.8%.

The announcement was made as a Parliamentary report criticised the Government's subsidy cuts plan, launched a year ago. The report claimed that, far from generating revenues, the plan was likely to produce a 15 trillion Toman (about $11 billion) deficit.

0830 GMT: The Wall Street Shuffle. We have paid close attention in recent week to the Iranian regime's embrace of the Occupy Wall Street movement, from calls for mobilisation of Basij militia to the "Wall Street Fall" website to the rap song extolling the collapse of evil American capitalism. Now Michael Theodoulou of The National, with a cameo appearance from EA, writes, "Ahmadinejad Emerges as an Unlikely Ally as Iran Lauds the Occupy Movement Protests".

0800 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Student activist Shahin Fazli, serving a six-month sentence for collaboration with anti-regime groups and anti-regime propaganda, has been releaseed.

0740 GMT: Drone Watch. We have posted a follow-up analysis by James Dunne, after Tuesday's initial dissection over the mystery of the crashed US drone in eastern Iran --- he now asks, "Why is the US Playing Crash-and-Tell Over Its Drone?".

A US official offers more crash-and-tell to The Wall Street Journal:

U.S. officials considered conducting a covert mission inside Iran to retrieve or destroy a stealth drone that crashed late last week, but ultimately concluded such a secret operation wasn't worth the risk of provoking a more explosive clash with Tehran, a U.S. official said.

Tehran said it shot down the unmanned craft. But the U.S. official said the drone developed mechanical difficulties and remote pilots lost control of the aircraft, and said officials knew immediately it had crashed in eastern Iran.

Initially, officials in Washington didn't believe Iran had detected the drone crash....

The officials considered various options for retrieving the wreckage of the RQ-170 drone. Under one plan, a team would be sent to retrieve the aircraft. U.S. officials considered both sending in a team of American commandos based in Afghanistan as well as using allied agents inside Iran to hunt down the downed aircraft.

Another option would have had a team sneak in to blow up the remaining pieces of the drone. A third option would have been to destroy the wreckage with an airstrike.

However, the officials worried that any option for retrieving or destroying the drone would have risked discovery by Iran. "No one warmed up to the option of recovering it or destroying it because of the potential it could become a larger incident," the U.S. official said....

Some officials argued in private meetings that because the drone crashed in a remote part of eastern Iran, it might never be discovered, and therefore, leaving the remains where they were could be the safest option....

Officials said they were concerned about the remains of the craft falling into Iranian hands, but don't believe the aircraft's technology can be reverse engineered with ease.

Iranian state radio said Wednesday that the drone was detected over the Kashmar, about 225 kilometres (140 miles) from the border with Afghanistan.

0610 GMT: It is National Students Day in the Islamic Republic.

Two years ago, the day was marked by widespread protests against the regime and a call for rights and justice, almost six months after the disputed 2009 Presidential election. Thousands turned out, while Iranian authorities hit back by mobilising security forces and detaining leading activists on and around the day. Bahareh Hedayat was arrested, eventually to receive a 9 1/2-year sentence, and Majid Tavakoli, who had rallied students in 2008 with a stirring speech, was seized when he tried to do so again --- he would not only be imprisoned but, in an attempt at humiliation, would be photographed wearing hijab.

This year, after the sustained pressure from the regime and the decapitation of the movement, students are unlikely to show much public resistance. Instead, the Islamic Republic is putting out its message this morning that Iran's youth are promoting a spirit against "global arrogance". Minister of Science and Higher Education Kamran Daneshjoo and Armed forces commander Seyyed Masoud Jayazeri are among the officials setting out the right line.
Bron: http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/201 ... .html#1345
1119 AD
Gebruikersavatar
baphomet
Administrator
Administrator
Berichten: 23226
Lid geworden op: za 21 aug 2010, 16:08

do 08 dec 2011, 04:14

Fallen U.S. Drone Nearly Led to Covert Strike in Iran

Afbeelding

New reports on the CIA drone lost in Iran last week reveal the scope of the stealth plane's mission and just how far the U.S. was willing to go to recover it. The Associated Press reports on Wednesday that despite U.S. military statements Monday suggesting the drone was lost while flying a mission in western Afghanistan, Iranian officials say the RQ-170 drone was detected about 140 miles from the border of Afghanistan, deep inside the country's air space. U.S. officials, speaking on background, confirmed the RQ-170 drone had been spying on Iran for years but did not indicate the extent to which it penetrated Iranian air space. They did say the U.S. air base in Shindad, Afghanistan, was designed to launch "surveillance missions and even special operations missions into Iran if deemed necessary."

In a sign of how badly the U.S. wanted the stealth drone back, The Wall Street Journal reports that it contemplated three different operations to recover the fallen drone. One plan involved sending commandos in Afghanistan assisted by U.S. agents in Iran to track down and recover the drone. "Another option would have had a team sneak in to blow up the remaining pieces of the drone," reports the Journal. "A third option would have been to destroy the wreckage with an airstrike."
In the end, officials decided not to carry out the mission for two reasons: a) they feared the strike could be considered an "act of war" and b) it crashed in such a remote area of Iran that officials hoped it wouldn't be found "therefore, leaving the remains where they were could be the safest option."

So what went wrong? While Iran maintains that it shot down the plane using anti-aircraft weaponry, sources inside and outside the military explain to Reuters that most signs indicate a technical malfunction because of the way the RQ-170 is programmed. "The aircraft is flown remotely by pilots based in the United States, but is also programmed to autonomously fly back to the base it departed from if its data link with U.S.-based pilots is lost," a defense analyst who consults for Lockheed told the news agency. "The fact that the plane did not return to its base suggests a 'catastrophic' technical malfunction," another industry insider familiar with drone technology attested. Additionally, "several current and former defense officials" said shooting down the drone was unlikely because of the aircraft's anti-radar coating and ability to fly at high altitudes.

On the plus side, officials told The Journal they doubted Iran would be able to reverse engineer the complex craft and officials speaking to Reuters said the drone's computer files would likely be difficult to decipher as well. "If it survived a crash, all on-board computer equipment was heavily encrypted."
Bron: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2 ... ran/45857/
1119 AD
Plaats reactie

Terug naar “Politiek / Oorlog”