Analysis: Iranian Defence Capabilities (Possible Offensive Dec 04)

[afridi]

I am not sure if this is the right place to have this thread, so, I hope the admin won't mind if it has to be moved.....sorry.

Another request....could we have opinions, rather than articlespasted....links to articles and other peoples' opinions are better, but opinions from members themselves are a lot better.


Thank you.


----------------------------

Keeping an eye on the horizon, I would like the members of the forum to discuss what steps Iran can take to ensure that their "eventual"/inevitable departure from the Proliferation Treaty does not give a ""pretext"" for a military build up against them......Please take a "military" view rather than a "political" view.



What I am looking for is a critique of what "defensive" capabilities the Iranian Air & Naval Arm have that would render a US (read UK & other 3 inch minions too) Military difficult or ill-advised.
Secondly, give your view of what assistance Pakistan can/should/would offer either party in their task & WHY.

Lastly, medium-long term opportunities and threats that might arise from this scenario.

(This would include short-meium term projects that can be "deployed" at the horizon end in sufficient numbers)

horizon = December 2004.

[SyedA]

Iranian invasion is inevitable. But, I think Us experince is Iran would be much different than Iraq ir Afghanistan. If I was Iran, I would test nuclear device ASAP just as a warning.

Iran has I believe 6 to 8 Kilo Class subs. Iran's sub experience is not much and kilos are not at par with Agostas let alone US nuclear attack subs. But they can ceratinly give a tough time and cause some casualties.

If I was Iran and i know I was going to get attacked in few days, I would make the preemptive strike rather than sit and wait. If I am going to die I would prefer to die on my terms.

Another option Iran has is make US life so miserable and hard in Iraq that they get bogged down and dont even think about attacking anyone else.

Dont have access to the map so Cant give strategic analysis to diff. scenerios

[Khurrum]

I think the most critical things Iranian gov needs to do is to rally Iranian citizens and make sure that the ordinary person is not disillusioned. If there will be any military confrontation between IRAN and US the most critical aspect would be the reaction of masses. US wont be able to keep their forces in any country for long where the civilians become hostile to US troops and where they cant find any strong local ally.

In any case I dont think Iran will be invaded like Iraq or Afghanistan. Most probably there will be Cruise Missile attacks on their Nuclear or/and other military installations but very little chance of deployment of soldiers on ground. If that happens US base in Qatar, and Iraq should be a fair game for an Iranian retaliation, but that depends on the will and resolve of Iranian Gov.

in my opinion exploding a nuke or pre-emptive strike will just detoriate the situation further and me be harmful for irani interests as of now. I think they can't afford to have an ofenssive posture. They dont need to pre empt or go on an ofenssive but they need to make sure that if any one comes inside their border wont be able to go back in one piece.

[MohammedA]

What kind of an offensive could Iran mount? As far as I know, the only real military options for a pre-emptive strike would be using the SSMs they have alledgely built. But what would they target? The US will predicatably start off by using mass bombardment from stand-off weapons that keeps them out of harms way.

If they were invaded, the best options for them would be to employ a mix of conventional and gureilla warfare, as they cannot match US technical and doctrine (training, tactics, etc) supierority. The initial ground attacks could be met by regular forces, who would melt away once their positions became untenable or their withdrawl routes were in danger of being blocked. I don't think US would like to get bogged down in Iranian terrain, especially mountanious areas, and with a hostile population surrounding them.

I also don't think you can separate politics from the military aspects. It may well be the case that the US will try and take advantage of apparent discord between the younger Iranians and the religious leadership. This is important, as if the population is united then it will be very difficult/impossible for the US to occupy Iran.

[yasser]

US Does not ned to invade Iran, just defang it by knocking out its missiles, nuclear plants and defence factories....

[MohammedA]

I'd be interested to see what reasons members can give for Pakistan getting involved either on the Iranian or US sides.

I think the Pak military leadership has taken the view that our economy needs to be built up over a period of 1 or 2 decades, peoples living standards raised, so that we not so susceptible to monetary/trade blackmail/strangulation. We already have nuclear weapons and delivery systems "blanket" that is constantly being upgraded, we are now trying to build up our conventional strength in terms of numbers/technology/self-reliance.

The question is not so much "should we help Iran or US", but "is it in our interests to risk our future goals" to get involved on either side. Economically, militarily and politcially I can't see ANY Muslim country helping Iran practically.

Militarily, I don't think any amount of conventional weapons spending by Iran will deter the US PERIOD.

[MohammedA]

US Does not ned to invade Iran, just defang it by knocking out its missiles, nuclear plants and defence factories....


Not if they want "Regime Change" and to definitively knock out all nuke facilities....

[yasser]

They can change the regime without invading, there a plenty of Iranians willing to fight the cerics there.

Pakistan should stay out of it, perhaps give teh US basing and overflight rights in exchange for $Billions/weaponry....

Iran has never been very huge ally of Pak......, also not really in Pak interests for Iran to have nukes, we already have one nuke neaighbour to contend with......

[MohammedA]

Doubt very much US can change regime by just supporting local opposition. They are nowhere near strong enough to challenge the regime's security apparatus.

Ineteresting point - would a nuclear-armed Iran be in Pakistan's interest or a possible problem?

[yasser]

A nuclear armed Iran would DEFIANTELY NOT be in Pak interests!

a)Look at how we thought them by proxy in Afghanistan

b) Next time the Iranian PM visits India , well, they can both cosy up to each other knowing Iran can threaten us at will

c) Lose prestige of being sole Islamic nuclear power

[Usman S.]

It doesn’t matter if a nuclear armed Iran is in the interest of Pakistan – the thing is they have a right to it (nuclear capability). The relations between Iran and Pakistan have always been great. The only bad episode is the Taliban-Afghan saga but Iran just like us was also trying to promote or safeguard its interests and of course with hindsight we can now say that we (Pakistan) were more at fault then they were! If we can not help them with their nuclear program due to international rules and regulations the least we can do is wish them luck and not try to stab them in the back.

[Amar]

If USA launch any kind of military attack on Iran, Iran must launch full powered retaliation against Israel...


So Iran must prepare its Forces to takes actions.

[Khurrum]

Well said Usman. I hundred percent agree with you. The best thing for pakistan would be this confrontation never comes to reality.

But if this happens Pakistan needs to keep herself out of it at any cost. We can't afford to worsen our relationship with Iran. we are already stretched on two fronts( I dont think afghanistan will stabalize in near future and until then have a potential to be used again us by Indians).

[uazim]

Originally posted by Khurrum
I think the most critical things Iranian gov needs to do is to rally Iranian citizens and make sure that the ordinary person is not disillusioned. If there will be any military confrontation between IRAN and US the most critical aspect would be the reaction of masses. US wont be able to keep their forces in any country for long where the civilians become hostile to US troops and where they cant find any strong local ally.

In any case I dont think Iran will be invaded like Iraq or Afghanistan. Most probably there will be Cruise Missile attacks on their Nuclear or/and other military installations but very little chance of deployment of soldiers on ground. If that happens US base in Qatar, and Iraq should be a fair game for an Iranian retaliation, but that depends on the will and resolve of Iranian Gov.

in my opinion exploding a nuke or pre-emptive strike will just detoriate the situation further and me be harmful for irani interests as of now. I think they can't afford to have an ofenssive posture. They dont need to pre empt or go on an ofenssive but they need to make sure that if any one comes inside their border wont be able to go back in one piece.

I totally agree with your views. If Iranian govt has their peoples support no superpower can do anything to them.

[Behjat]

Salaam,

Yasser, I strongly disagree with you. The Iranians helped Pakistan tremendously in the 1965 war. What Pakistan needs to develop with Iran is economic relations. There are tons of things we can buy/sell between us. OTOH the US has been far less dependable than Iran. In any future conflict between US and Iran, Pakistan must remain staunchly neutral until and unless Pakistan gains economically and financially that Pakistan can afford to take sides.

In fact I think Pakistan must adopt this as policy. Not to partake in any conflicts nor be partisan in other peoples' feuds. I hate to say it but the Ummah doesn't exist so why fret over what isn't. Simultaneously, Pakistan should never take steps that are detrimental to its Muslim friends.

I say increase trade to unseen levels. Let's bring our bilateral trade to several billion between Pakistan and each Muslim country and maintain our military for optimal deterrance against our neighbor until the premise changes and there is a need to change foreign policy. Until then, don't take sides and become stronger internally--in other words, play like China does.

The underlying paradigm of nation to nation loyalty has changed in the world. We cannot play this new game if we maintain our old world thinking let alone win in it.

[Shah Khan]

Keeping old friends

Apropos of your editorial captioned "Iran under fire", published on Sept 15, a renewed stock-taking of relations with Iran may be in order.

Since the early years of Pakistan, the affinity of strategic interests between Iran and Pakistan has been mutually recognized. Hedged in as Pakistan is by an adversarial India, an unstable and turbulent Afghanistan and a Soviet Union/ Russia in strategic partnership with India, Iran provided Pakistan's only secure and workable land link with the outside world.

While India's hostility and Russian disapproval have more or less been constant, Iran for most of our national existence and Afghanistan during the Taliban era were Pakistan's close allies. With our current troubled relationship with Kabul and the continuing ambivalence in our relationship with Iran, Pakistan has for the first time in its national existence no close allies in its immediate neighbourhood. (The special, all-weather relationship with China stands on its own and is not a part of this changing equation).

The deterioration in Pakistan-Iranian relations during the nineties resulted from their conflicting interests in Afghanistan and divergent postures towards the Taliban as also from misplaced rivalry over economic opportunities in Central Asia and the rise of sectarian terrorism in Pakistan which also targeted Iranians and raised doubts about the availability in the foreseeable future of a level playing field for the promotion of Pak-Iranian relations. That President Musharraf visited Tehran in November 1999, within weeks of his assuming power, showed his clear grasp as a militaryman of the mutuality of security interests involved.

The strong Iranian reservations about the Taliban were exploited by India as a means of policy convergence with Iran. On Iran's part, the importance of political and economic cooperation with major Asian countries, specially with a state of India's size and importance, was enhanced during the nineties by the US attempt to quarantine Iran politically and economically at a time when Iran was desperately trying to rebuild its economy shattered by a decade of war with Iraq.

Although the switch in Pakistan's support for the Taliban regime has removed a major obstacle in bilateral relations, there have been continuing irritants stemming from Pakistan's problems with the Northern Alliance which has longstanding ties with Iran and which has facilitated India's re-entry into Afghanistan. It is time Tehran and Islamabad realized that the stakes which Pakistan and Iran have in a mutually supportive relationship are more important than the stakes either of them has in Afghanistan.

The potential for economic cooperation with Central Asia and the prospects for different pipeline and transit routes are varied enough to permit harmonious Pakistan-Iranian collaboration, as long as neither served as a cat's paw of other powers.

Pakistan's close military relationship with the US and the latter's presence in and plans for South-West, Central and South Asia accentuate the security concerns of Iran which finds itself hemmed in by US military presence on all sides against the background of open US threat to Iran's security and independence.

Pakistan, with its longstanding ties with both Iran and the US, is well placed to use its good offices in a serious efforts to defuse the US threat which has, under the recent deadline imposed on Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency, assumed increased urgency.

A number of initiatives, taken by the two governments in the post-Taliban period, have manifested a desire to put the Taliban interlude behind them. President Khatami's long-delayed visit in December 2002 was the culmination of the exchanges set in motion by President Musharraf's visit to Tehran at the end of 1999. However, the significant political, security and economic inroads made by India in Iran during the period of Pakistan-Iranian estrangement continues to act as a limiting factor on those aspects of Pakistan-Iranian relations which impinge on India, including Pakistan-Iranian defence cooperation.

It is time that Islamabad and Tehran gave higher priority, in the vital interests of the two states, to the restoration of bilateral trust and cooperation to a level where significant security and development concerns of both side can be met. Annual summits and regular strategic dialogue at the foreign ministers' level would be amongst the many diplomatic tools which could be brought to bear in the evolving situation.

MAHDI MASUD, Karachi
http://www.dawn.com/2003/09/18/letted.htm#1

[nasim]

Iran and pakistan may have touchy relations at times and perfectly normal relations at time, but both countries will have to deal with each other as neighbors no matter what.

Hostilities with the US may come and go but precedent will always remain. If pakistan does anything but stay neutral in such events, then you cannot expect iran to do anything but stay neutral if pakistan starts exchanging blows with india. staying neutral means dealing with the US response. Pakistans foriegn policy has a singular focus on india and all other considerations run around that. Picking on iran when its down means pakistan can expect trouble from iran when pakistan might not be able to cope with issues on the far western border.

In my opinion, the most important thing islamabad can do to keep relations with tehran on a positive note is to try and get some diplomatic breathing space between iran and the US, be it covert or out in the open.

In the event hostilities break out, pakistan will not be able to sit on the fence because neutrality will be worse than picking sides. The second both governments know war is inevitable, they will start calling in favors and checking out who their 'friends' are and I dont think pakistan will gain anything by choosing between either of the two. Picking sides means making a longterm foe of the other. Not a comfy position.

[MohammedA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3112846.stm

[MohammedA]

Usman,

Nobody is arguing whether Iran has a right to nukes, but the question remains is it in Pakistan's interest? An analysis needs to be done. It's not enough to just hope for the best, Pakistan needs to have a stratgey to deal with this, whether the Iranians prove to be friendly or hostile, it will have to be factored into our strategic plans by the NCA.

[Fayub]

I think we should always think about our neigbours specially muslim neigbours and not take any step that give them idea that our actions are against them.

Iran is a muslim country and was and is good friend of Pakistan. I had chace in 1998 to work with one of their company a short contract in london city and i was happy to see their good and supportive feeling when pakistan carried out Nuclear test.

Thanks

[yasser]

Totally agree with Mohmmad A, imagine a Pro US nuclear armed Iran and a pro US/Israel nuclear armed India........if that day ever comes I would not like to be a General at GHQ Rawalapindi......

[Ahmed M]

Originally posted by yasser
Totally agree with Mohmmad A, imagine a Pro US nuclear armed Iran and a pro US/Israel nuclear armed India........if that day ever comes I would not like to be a General at GHQ Rawalapindi......

What's the problem with that yasser? In such a scenario,The Generals at GHQ, Rawalpindi could just decide to become a pro US nuclear armed pakistan. You got any objection to that?

[yasser]

Yes, I do Ahmed!

Then we will have no room what so ever for diplomatic movement!

Right now we can keep Iran off our backs thanks to our strategic deterrence, if this changes and Terhan gets nukes, well, then we genuienly will be between a rock and a hard place........

These Iranians would just love to see Pakistan become like them, or worse still get their hands on our nukes, imagine how they could threaten our true friends in Saudi and UAE then!?

[MohammedA]

Saudis now have a huge problem - they've got Isreal with hundreds of nukes on one side, and Iran with potential nukes on the other side. What are they going to about that? It's easy to say that non-one will ever use them, but if that's the case then why do we care so much about India having nukes then?

[yasser]

Soon we will have missiles with enough range to give Saudi a complete nuke umbrella from Iran and Israel.....

[MohammedA]

I think some sort of Pak_Saudi military defence agreement is on the cards. It will probably kjept quiet like the US nuclear umbrella for Saudis has been.....

[Shah Khan]

Press Trust of India
London, September 18

In response to the current upheaval in West Asia, Saudi Arabia has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, a leading London daily reported on Thursday.

This new threat of proliferation in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top of a crisis over Iran's alleged nuclear programme, The Guardian stated.

It said a strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options: To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent, to maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection and to try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free West Asia.

Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington since 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi.

The report stated that it is not known whether Saudi Arabia has taken a decision on any of the three options. But the fact that it is prepared to contemplate the nuclear option is a "worrying" development.

United Nations officials and nuclear arms analysts said the Saudi review reflected profound insecurities due to the volatility in the West Asia, Riyadh's estrangement with Washington and the weakening of its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella.

They pointed to the Saudi worries about an Iranian programme and to the absence of any international pressure on Israel, which has an estimated 200 nuclear devices.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_380985,00050004.htm

[Maisum Ali]

I think this thread has gone to the dogs... I am sure to Afridis disappointment....

[yasser]

Maisum
Afridi askedfor our opinions in his orginal post and we are giving them, whats the problem here!?

[MohammedA]

I think Afridi wanted 3 things here:

1. What defences could Iran mount against US attack.
2. Should Pakistan get involved and if so, what should it do?
3. Future possible scenarios


I think most of the posts here have tried to answer those questions.

[yasser]

The IRIAF is a joke!

I think only a handful of Tomcats and Phantoms are servicable. I think all of there Phoenix, Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles must be past their expiry lives.

Their pilots recived a pasting from the Saudi and Iraqi Airforces

They have no decent main battle tank to talk of.


I think the biggest assets are their SU-24s and MIG-29s.

Navy has a few old Kilo subs

Army is a standing jokes, other then Cobra gunships.....

[osman]

Pakistan should never share nuclear secrets with any one . the max we can do is to provide a sort of nuclear umbrella to allied states . But helping the iranians with its nuclear program is self sucide. According to my thinking the states most hostile to pakistan are in the following order
1) India
2) Afghanistan
3) Russia
4)Israel
5) Iran
6) USA

I have yet to hear anything positive from any iranian analyst about pakistan and its role in Central Asia. Iranians where great friends of ours back in the 70s and 60s but now they see us as an enemy. I still remember how the iranians where making the rounds back in 1996 and crying all over how pakistan was going to conquer CA with the help of talibans. I say we should handle them as neigbours with good relations but things like nuclear technology is too risky . I dont see Iran and Pakistan agreeing on CA and afghanistan in the near future. First of all they and the Arab states should stop meddling in our internal politics then we can talk.

[yasser]

Wise words Osman.....

[Usman S.]

Originally posted by yasser
The IRIAF is a joke!

I hope you are joking!


I think only a handful of Tomcats and Phantoms are servicable. I think all of there Phoenix, Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles must be past their expiry lives.

The ones who have done some research on IRIAF know that not just ‘handful’ but rather large number of Tomcats and Phantoms are still serviceable. The Iranians even carried some unique innovations on their Tomcat fleet over the years (the most interesting is the use of HAWK missile with Tomcats in BVR role). For some good information on IRIAF check-out www.ACIG.org


Their pilots recived a pasting from the Saudi and Iraqi Airforces

Actually it was the other way around. The Iraqi AF despite getting tremendous help from US and various European countries still couldn’t stop IRIAF attacks. And don’t forget that at that time IRIAF had some serious problems (both in terms of manpower and fleet maintenance) due to the Islamic revolution.


They have no decent main battle tank to talk of.

They are producing their own MBT’s which at least from the gossip I have heard seem to be quiet good.


Navy has a few old Kilo subs

They only received the Kilos few years ago and I wouldn't call them old. Guess how old our Agosta-70 class subs are?


Army is a standing jokes, other then Cobra gunships.....

And despite being a joke they were still able to halt Iraqi forces and launch major counter attacks forcing Saddam Hussein to ask/agree for a …. ?

[SyedA]

yasser

please do some research before you write on military matters and forces. I hate to say this but from your last post you sound like a 15 year old playing arm chair general. Air Power Review did an article on Iran Air Force, you should read it.

As far as their army is concerned, they have over 8 years of true battle experience.

[yasser]

Usman
I am comparing them to Pakistan Amred Forces...

I think the Iranians ARE a joke compared to us!

They could noty stop any pre emptive attack on any of their facilities if the Israelis, US or even Pakistan tried!

[yasser]

Syed
Sorry if you feel I amwriting in a manner befitting a teenager, its just I get tired of hearing how good the Iranians are!

8 yearsd battle experiance! Fine!

What about Pakistan's forces in

UN roles, Siachin, 71 war, Afghan war etc.

Thye make some tanks and planes (The details of which are convinantly witheld) while we are churning out Al Khalidsand soon JF-17s......

They boast how they will dominate the middle east and they are the leader of teh Islamic world, well, for all there money and oil and defiance of the west, they could still not make nuclear weapons and Pakistan did!

They cause trouble for Saudis in the most holiest of cities for muslims, they would have loved to have seen Pak humiliated in Afghanistan.

As some one pointed out earlier, in the 70s and 60s their attitude wasdifferent, they were true Pak allies, but now I dont trust them at all!

[SyedA]

yasser

you are mixing two different issues here, we are only discussing their military capabilities not their role in Saudi arabia. and if you talk about creating trouble in holiest cities then you should read about the role of Sauds and arabs in general at the end of ottoman empire, what they did to turks inside Haram sharif......

Before we lable iranis of any crime, we should read our own histories......

getting back to the subject, You can't compare Pakistani military with iranis inch by inch. Both of experiences in different kind of battles..... and both have different capabilities. Their navy is fairly new and limited but army is pretty expereinced and so is AF.

It would be foolish to disregard iranis for any military, unless they have leaders like rumsfeld!!!!!

[yasser]

Syed
Then we are in agreement! An experianced military does not nessacarily make a competent one! Look at India and Iraq!

From what little i know, did not the Iranians use mass waves of infantry (often consisting of old men and teenagers) against Iraqi formations!? Did not the zelous Revoltionary Guard trust more in blind faith rather then tactics!?

I am not saying we Pakistanis are perfect, but the whole point of teh thread was to give opnions on Irans military, well, if they cannot match Pakistan, how on earth will they match US or Israel!?

If Pakistan conducted an offensive to capture parts of South East Iran, our tank divisons and air force would beat them! Thats just T-80s and F-16A's

Imagine US MIA2s and F-15s...........

[FarazA]

Originally posted by yasser
Usman
I am comparing them to Pakistan Amred Forces...

I think the Iranians ARE a joke compared to us!

They could noty stop any pre emptive attack on any of their facilities if the Israelis, US or even Pakistan tried!

Are you underestimating an enemy? Isn't it the first mistake of Battle field?

As for Israel and US, no one in middle east can block their attacks. Not even Pakistan. We can retaliate but blocking an attack with full force of Israelie AirForce or US Airforce , if not impossible than it would be one hell of a job. Imagine a wave of F-15's,16's with Phalcon Early warning systems. Plus their BVR and Anti Radiation missiles. They can be a devstating force for any Arab Country.

As for Pakistan we need long range SAM systems. They might give us enough time to get in the air to counter them, or atleast keep them away for long enough for some sort of reponse. However I don't see it happening anything like that with Pakistan or with Iran.

[yasser]

Faraz

A full sclaeUS or Israeli assault on Pak would cause them heavy casulalties (although I agree, they would eventually succeed), the same cannot be said of Iran.

[FarazA]

Originally posted by yasser
Faraz

A full sclaeUS or Israeli assault on Pak would cause them heavy casulalties .


Agreed.

Just came across this article. Check out the killer Israeli missile.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html

Another one....

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/955926/posts

[yasser]

yeah, that applies to PAF and IRIAF aswell.......

At least PAF have Magic 2's and AIM-9Ls......what WVR missiles does IRIAF have!?

[osman]

Th PAF has had quiet a variety of experiences from india, afghanistan to russian and israele air forces have been its opponent. I dont think the iranian air force can claim to have such a vast experience. Soon inshallah Jf17 will be flying with the PAF and it will provide an added punch to the PAF. I dont need to mention that the PAF is regarded one of the best in the world and if we can talk about one thing that is undisputable amoung pakistanis is the fact that they all hold PAF to be a sort of holy force graced and protected by Allah. Ask any 5 years pakistani kid what he would like to be when he grows up, the answer no doubt will be a PAF GDP pilot.

[SSAAD]

Originally posted by yasser
Usman
I am comparing them to Pakistan Amred Forces...

I think the Iranians ARE a joke compared to us!

They could noty stop any pre emptive attack on any of their facilities if the Israelis, US or even Pakistan tried!

Bro enough of this ignorance.

I for one would not discount the Iranians so easily. Just their motivation and morale alone (this is when they were facing the entire Arab world and the west in the their struggle against the Iraqis) is a lesson for the Pakistani armed forces to learn from. Their actions in shatt-al-arab waterways, the battle for fao peninsula and many other major movements with division plus strength should be a lesson for all Pakistanis. What to say that the Iranis are joke when compared to PA when we had 2 divisions in EP during 1971 and they surrendered without putting up any major fight against the Indians and the MB? I don't care about what AK Niazi says about the orders to surrender, had we faught and held off the Indians in EP then we would have had the right to claim the much touted status of a martial race.

We have a tendency to discount all others out of our own sense of martial superiority. It was this same underestimation that made us think that the hindu and the Bangali is not the soldier-type. We all know the results of that underestimation.

There is another big plus for the Iranis. They are not as divided as us Pakistanis are. That is a big plus in absolute terms when comparing the two countries.

[SSAAD]

Originally posted by osman
Th PAF has had quiet a variety of experiences from india, afghanistan to russian and israele air forces have been its opponent. I dont think the iranian air force can claim to have such a vast experience. Soon inshallah Jf17 will be flying with the PAF and it will provide an added punch to the PAF. I dont need to mention that the PAF is regarded one of the best in the world and if we can talk about one thing that is undisputable amoung pakistanis is the fact that they all hold PAF to be a sort of holy force graced and protected by Allah. Ask any 5 years pakistani kid what he would like to be when he grows up, the answer no doubt will be a PAF GDP pilot.

There is a difference in perception and reality. The PAF is no longer as effective as it was in the 60s and 80s. Yes PAF training is one of the best but experience is a relative thing and has to be kept updated with the induction of new technology and tactics. This crucial aspect has been missing for one reason or the other.

Also, our prime adversary in not going to be IrAF. PAF has to keep up with and outclass the InAF. Lets not forget that. The poor Iranians are in the same boat as us (i.e. no high tech infusion from the west).

When ACM Mir was in the US, one of the things he was pushing for was the US help in incorporating modern weapons school tactics into the PAF. This by itself should tell us that things as they were 10 years ago are not the same and there is much to be desired in terms of our tactics in the current scenario. Our experiences have taught us about air-operations as they were conducted in the past century. The requirements for weilding airpower in this century are drastically different.

[osman]

The reason i was making a comparison with Iran is because members were discussing the iranian military capibilities in this thread. Off course i do not take the IAF or IRAF lightly but i do know that the PAF has qualitative edge over both of them. Maybe it has eroded a bit because of santions etc but PAF is trying to make up for the loss.
Pakistan should never be involved in any campaign against iran , but Iran should know that its constant interference in pakistani internal affair can have very negative consequences and if the iranian do chum up to the indians then its about time the pakistani military makes serious plans to counter this develpment. As i see it the iranians have very good relations with the Russians, indians and the NA all of them are sworn enemies of pakistan, one can do the math and see that iranians are not exactly making it easy for us. If people remember from the past, it was always pakistan that had to send its foreign minister over to Theran to cheer them up once things were not going according to their liking in afghanistan but now when the indians are making full use of afghanistan to stage attacks on pakistan we dont hear any one coming from theran to cheer us up.
I think pakistanis should get realistic and see that in international affairs there is no such thing as friendships its just national interests, which is actually not such a bad thing. If we have had one good friend since the start that is China no one not even the saudies have been good friends , they have done their share in fanning sectarianisim in pakistan. Its time that we tell all these jokers to either be fair with us or buzz off. I dont think pakistan and iran can ever be close partners in CA or the muslim world because each sees itself as the more deserving one. I dont mind this set up at all. This is the norm in many parts of the world. But what i do expect from pakistanis is to at least recognize who is our friend and who is our foe . Once we have done this the rest is easy stuff. I dont want us to be living in a make believe world were all islamic countries are bhai bhai.

Originally posted by syed saad


There is a difference in perception and reality. The PAF is no longer as effective as it was in the 60s and 80s. Yes PAF training is one of the best but experience is a relative thing and has to be kept updated with the induction of new technology and tactics. This crucial aspect has been missing for one reason or the other.

Also, our prime adversary in not going to be IrAF. PAF has to keep up with and outclass the InAF. Lets not forget that. The poor Iranians are in the same boat as us (i.e. no high tech infusion from the west).

When ACM Mir was in the US, one of the things he was pushing for was the US help in incorporating modern weapons school tactics into the PAF. This by itself should tell us that things as they were 10 years ago are not the same and there is much to be desired in terms of our tactics in the current scenario. Our experiences have taught us about air-operations as they were conducted in the past century. The requirements for weilding airpower in this century are drastically different.

[FarazA]

Originally posted by osman
The I dont want us to be living in a make believe world were all islamic countries are bhai bhai.



I agree. Now that would be the day. There is nothing wrong in being optimistic but one should always be realistic.
.

[afridi]

Maybe a little direction is required.....


Lets assume that there is no "joint pact" of any sort entered into by Islamabad-Tehran-Riyadh.....voiced by the Iranian and Saudi ministers when the question of a US strike against Islamabad was raised pre-afghanistan in Tehran.

Lets also assume that Iran is not capable of launching a nuclear weapon.

----


Iran has, within its previous military encounters, shown two elements that have proved to be by far their most valuable assets.

1. A sense of terrain and combined ops(natural defence) (Shatt al Arab......especially Khurramshahr)

2. Wild inmitiatives, even when outnumbered severely (they take chances similar only to us or Tel Aviv).


----


Further to my questions...another question has arisen in the forum. So, first lets take care of that question.....

Some people on the forum want to know whether the Iranians are worth anything in the field of battle or are they simply a pushover ?
I would put the question as "what are the Iranian capabilities".....very conservative estimates.


I think even a mild search for Iranian capabilities and developments in the field of military operations and manufacture can see that we are not talking about a pushover. (ironically.......if we look at the tasks that the US might have to engage in ......... when compared to Dehli, Tehran is more formiddable a task to undertake for someone like Washington)

With respect to their Airforce..... to put it mildly, even with the enormous task of waging an airwar against Iraq (read everyone else in the region,...and more) they came on top.....with distinction. (outnumbered in some sectors 5-1 in combat worthy aircraft).

The Iranian Army had the worst odds, and took the most wounds. However, one thing that rang through all their manouvers was their courage. Not that of the fighting soldiers, but the courage of their planners and strategists. In the defence of Abadan they out witted and out fought a very well laid plan which, while it was going well, Carlisle was very quick to claim as their baby.

Iran-Iraq naval encounters were pretty much one sided. It was as if the Iranian navy was at liberty to conduct a support war. Actually, some people joke about hoiw their navy took holidays from support duties to engage pro-Iraqi vessels and tankers.

Then comes the question of Military and Industrial production. Iran's capabilities could be divided into two clear catagories.....


1. Field Support (spares etc)
2. Development


Looking at the first catagory, this is an area where Iran does not have a rival in the region, including Dehli. Unlike assembly & re-assembly lines, Tehran has managed over the past decade to create complete industrial complexes dedicated to supporting individual forces.
Even if conservative estimates are adhered to we are talking about as much as an accumulative 70 odd % support for the combined military. For the region (excluding China and Russia) ... that is phenominal in its own right.

----

I think it was very good that we heard from both the proponents and opponents of Iranian military capabilities..... it cleared the air for many, I am sure it has.

----

[afridi]

Now lets deal with the first of the original questions.......

Iran's percieved defensive undertakings....

(I am going to concentrate on Naval forces for the moment, as the whole thing is too complex if we include the North, North East and so on....plus they will not weigh on Islamabad's decisions....as Kabul and CAS is a forgone conclusion).



Naval & Naval-Air arms only.

Lets assume that the US has direct field of conflict on Western Iran (North and South Iraq) and the Persian Gulf.

.....in central Iraq, they would probably not be willing to accept the damage that Iranian defences can make..... not even if they have Iraqi- psuedo-volunteer troops as fodder.........

Iranian naval defences are such that they would inflict heavy damage on any US battle group within teh Persian Gulf, thus, I would be very surprised if any US Admiral would be calculative enough to jeopardise 6 to 7 vessels for what can only be an extremely hard fought marine gain. (I would also have to be very very comfortable about Riyadh to even think about such an engagement.........we can all see that such comfort is not available under the present Riyadh regime).
Thus, expect the US to use the UK's 1982 policy of playing by range, modified only by the use of missiles.

In the air, there would be heavy reliance on the bombers....( I think we can safely assume that the support available to US bombers wouldbe a lot better :) than those Mig 25 recons from Iraq) and probably the first real test of the secound generation of Iran's medium range air to air missiles (facing much more developed US versions). Iranians showed themselves to be extremely capable using the first generation Medium range AtoA missiles........ an air superiority that was only matched by the US in the US-Iraq scenario......... even when the Iraqis had the USN prividing "complete" assistance. So, no sensible strategist in Washington would forget that. (I'll talk about the result of the Iranian and US encounter later on).

Thus, this would be a tougher Air war for the US than they faced in Europe or Iraq, but one that they would still expect to win without a lot of losses as there is very little information about the Iranian SAM capabilities and they have also kept their Air to Air developments under wrap......... as I said earlier, this is a test for Iran's developments....and a learning curve for people like us.
Having complete air superiority would depend on the US navy's ability to keep pounding the Iranian south.

This is where Iran has some strategic questions to answer. Iran would have to fight the naval war in hostile territory.... the Arabian Sea.
I say hostile because this is where the US has complete advantage....proviso.....Islamabad's involvement.
The Iranian Navy would not forget what happened the last time they came against a US attack and the losses they encountered in vessels (their Air arm came away with respect in that scenario, managing to score Iraqi kills (including high altitude bombers) even with the US babysitting them......thats something to think about......).

That encounter was very "important".... it shaped the course of Iranian weapons development for the Navy. greater emphasis was placed on increasing the range of Anti ship weapons and the goal was to have the ability to sink anything that floats in the Persian Gulf with a massive attack in numbers......something the Iranians are now able to do.

Ironically, that is probably the reason why they would have little to do unless they venture past the Hormuz, as the Air arm will not stand much of a chance once they past this arbitrary safe haven.

So, for the sake of the Iranian Naval forces Islamabad becomes a very very important player in this all. (Lets assume Abdullah is still alive and in command....and Riyadh is not allowing use of airspace....something, given the present state of relations, is very worth while assumption).
Islamabad's water becomes the staging ground for the US attack......without that space the job of the US becomes twice as tough and their reliance on missiles becomes almost absolute..... (except for high altitude bombers as mentioned above).

The tactics could be debated for hours...... but as you can imagine..... Islamabad's nuetrality would not be appreciated by the US planners...............

You could thus assume that NUETRALITY is not an option.............. Islamabad would HAVE TO make a choice.

If we assume Musharraf is still there....we could also then suspect that he would make a reluctant choice to follow the lead of Riyadh.........just as he did in Afghanistan.

What would that lead be ?

[afridi]

A few members have raised another extremely important question..........


What should Islamabad's stance be towards Tehran......military and political.... considering present trends.



Lets face one thing.

If Tehran is not engaged in a long (or a short intensive) war by the United States within a few years (porobably 2) then it would have to eventually (5 to 7 years) accept Tehran as a long term ally..... irrespective of who is in power. A "remarkable" thaw in relations will become the buzz word on everyone's lips. The process might even gain speed if the EU goes ahead to do so before Washington.

Tehran's industrial capabilities have improved considerably and leaks about their weapons manufacturing capabilities (let alone development) are also very surprising.
Given this, it would be safe to assume that Tehran would be able to field far longer range missiles armed with nuclear warheads unless "effective" measures are taken against them by Washington NOW.

So, for those people who believe that three nuclear neighbours are not in Islamabad's interest, should start to assume that such a scenario is already present, short of a US led war against them.



That given.....what should Islamabad's strategy be in the medium term ?

My own views are biased......I beieve in a completely different future....one not very well received by most.....

However, lets for the moemnt look at it from the eyes of those who believe that there should only be Islamabad's interests in the foreground, and nothing else.
Given that if Tehran does not engage in a war against the US it would eventually be a nuclear armed country with resources far more stable than Korea, Dehli or Islamabad...... should Islamabad have it as a hostil, nuetral or friendly state ?

You would also have to realise that for the initial 4 to 5 year period we can assume resource superiority of Islamabad over Tehran, but this would not be indefinite and Islamabad's perceived role in Arabia would also be surrendered when that happens.
So, would it be to Islamabad's advantage to

1. Remain aloof with Tehran

2. Be hostile.... ( as some members seem to suggest ?)

3. Take the lead and a more "central" role in Iran's defence strategy ??
Keeping in mind that almost all of their weapons development programs are complimentary or parrallel to Islamabad's.....while Tehran can fill some gaps which Islamabad has. This also enhances the futality of any adventures by Dehli.

(For those who look at Afghanistan......had Tehran and Islamabad marked their spheres of influence .....so nicely divided over the Southern highway....there would have been no cause for conflict of inetrest....however it ISLAMABAD which was UNABLE to control the Taliban in this matter.......

Had Islamabad managed to exercise that control..... Afghanistan's present scenario might have been different....)

[Maisum Ali]

Wow... missed you afridi... Always a pleasure to read your posts. Unlike quite a few of our members I myself am a proponent of an alliance of sorts with Tehran. If not now then maybe 4, 5 years down the road when things get better. But we have to start working towards it now...

[Behjat]

Salaam,

Afridi yaar, even though I don't entirely agree with you, I love your prose. Now I know why I missed you.

But to reiterate my objection to your views, you seem to think very regionally. I agree that Islamabad had some weak and adhoc policies towards Afghanistan and that things could have been worked out. If a greater understanding had occurred between Pak and Iran, it could have culminated into an alliance of sorts.

Well, in the absence of such a scenario, we're considering our potential role in Iran vs. US. I'll stick to my guns and suggest that we must remain staunchly independant. Quite simply, we cannot afford to take sides. In fact, we can play mediator so long as the sides allow us but we cannot be partisan. That would be against Pakistan's national interests.

It is my humble belief that Pakistan remain independant in all world matters except this one matter to which we're party by default--India. Let's not increase our number of enemies rather work to reduce them. Your analysis of tactical and possibly strategic capabilities boasted by Iran are very valid. It is in international/regional politics that I disagree.

In fact, as I've suggested before, to manifest brotherly relations, it must be our goal to increase bilateral trade with all muslim countries all the while gearing our defence to be comprehensively deterrant against India. This would be the umbrella under which I'd propose future foreign policy for Pakistan if anyone ever listened to this humbe, "raqim al huroof".

[Shah Khan]

Drums are beating on Muslim world
News Analysis
By Imtiaz Gul

Going by the string of sustained intelligence leaks and the (dis) information campaign spearheaded by some Washington-based think-tanks, it is more than obvious now that as long as George W Bush and his cohorts like Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage, and the army of conservatives, drawn from the vast intelligence network, there will not be any respite for major Muslim countries i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Iran is an avowed enemy, but the Royal Kingdom and Pakistan are allies, publicly at least, just as Iraq was before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

This three-fold campaign is officially dismissed as "non-representative". But according to Kenneth Adelman, a former aide to Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld, and a member of a Pentagon Advisory Board, the view that Saudi Arabia is an adversary of the United States is certainly a more prevalent view than it was a year ago (Washington Post August 6, 2002). A year down the lane, and after the elimination of the Saddam regime, these views are even stronger today.

Take the Iranian case— as the pressure on Tehran mounts to force it into subjecting itself to complete scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)— Pakistan’s name is also being dragged as a possible supplier of enriched uranium, or related technology to Iran, without really taking into account the kind of unstable ties between the two countries.

And the best proof of it came on August 29, in Islamabad when the Iranian foreign minister Kemal Kharazi dismissed these allegations and said the acquisition of some components was made through private sources. While doing this he also delivered a blow to the much-hyped and repeated Pakistani claims of "friendly, historical bonds with Iran".

"Yes we have a very good relationship with India but I must also say that our relationship with Pakistan needs further strengthening," Kharazi said.

Besides differences over Islamabad’s support to the Afghan Taliban, sectarian hostilities have been at the heart of a troubled relationship, which is defined by mutual mistrust that flows from Pakistan’s closeness to, and dependence on, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Now, viewed against this backdrop, only a fool would believe that Pakistan ever provided nuclear-related materials to a country that has much deeper political and economic-oriented ties with its adversary India.

"Uranium enrichment technology is too precious to share with any country," said an official related with the country’s nuclear establishment, adding that the presence of "particles of enriched uranium at and around Iranian facilities could have been the trick of an under-cover US agent disguised as a UN inspector.

That apart, Kharazi’s assertion on the "state of ties with Pakistan" never got a rebuke, not even a cosmetic rebuttal by, say, the ministry of foreign affairs. Silence and tolerance seem to be the current guiding principle as far as Pakistan’s position on allegations of abetment in terrorism and nuclear cooperation with countries like Iran and North Korea.

Surprisingly, Pakistan has maintained a similar defensive posture vis-‡-vis intermittent Afghan charges that "it is not doing enough to stop Taliban from moving across the border for subversion." Both president Hamid Karzai, and his foreign minister Dr Abdullah Abdullah have led a charade of insinuations against Pakistan’s "inability to control radical Muslims".

Neither did the ministry of foreign affairs officially respond to this forcefully nor to what Christina Rocca, President George W Bush’s point person for south Asia said during her latest New Delhi Yalta (visit), where she promised the Indian leadership to pressure Pakistan for stopping Kashmiri militants from crossing into Indian Kashmir.

As far Saudi Arabia, it has in recent days once again figured prominently; a daily Guardian report (Sept 20) quotes an American think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security as saying that the Saudi government is seriously considering a strategy paper that includes acquisition of nuclear weapons as one of the three goals in a region feared embroiled in ever increasing turmoil.

This "revelation" comes almost a year after Washington Post (August 6, 2002) had reported about a damning briefing given on July 10, 2002 to a top Pentagon advisory board.

The briefing described Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that US officials give it an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its oil fields and its financial assets invested in the United States.

"The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader," stated the explosive briefing.

"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies," said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" in the Middle East.

Other members of the board include former vice president Dan Quayle; former defence secretaries James Schlesinger and Harold Brown; former House speakers Newt Gingrich and Thomas Foley, and several retired senior military officers, including two former vice chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired admirals David Jeremiah and William Owens, Kenneth Adelman, a former aide to Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld.

The briefing, the paper had said, did not represent the views of the board or official government policy, but "it represents a point of view that has growing currency within the Bush administration — especially on the staff of Vice President Cheney and in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership, and neo-conservative writers and thinkers who had always believe that "a friendly regime in Baghdad would diminish US dependence on Saudi oil and so would permit the US government to confront the House of Saud for supporting terrorism.

"The drums are beginning to beat on Saudi Arabia," the paper had quoted Robert Oakley, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, as saying in the same report.

One year on, and Iraq under American occupation, complaints against Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are even louder.

And as far Pakistan, developments even next door must be alarming if not an eye-opener— Israeli prime minister’s Delhi Yaatra, joint Indo-US military exercise in Ladakh ( a disputed territory) and Indian attempt use the Kashmir card by urging Sharon and Rocca for greater help in combating cross-border terrorism are telling developments.

Have they all turned Pakistan into a cornered helpless hare whom the hounds from the east and west are sadistically staring in the face, with their master, despite being a friend, relishing the helplessness of the hare!!!

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2003-daily/20-09-2003/national/n3.htm

[afridi]

The reason I wanted this issue debated is because the answers and options, if thought through, are not easy whichever way Islamabad turns.
Whether its motivations are economic, emotional, pragmatic, idealistic, religious or even secular....... the task at hand is very dangerous any which way.

------------

I believe we both agree "COMPLETELY" on the economic aspects of the region's future, or atleast Islamabad's role in it. ( this is an interesting but long discussion I would like to have ... after this thread ends perhaps....)

I agree with you completely that Islamabad-Tehran trade has to be cultivated exponentially.
Providence, for the first time, has pushed both countries on a "slightly similar" stance on Kabul and CAS.... an opportunity for greater trade has arisen and should be availed.

Also, for that matter, Islamabad and every individual OIC member.
----------



Now to the question of what should be Islamabad's role come the showdown....and why.............

After all teh analysis and debates...... the options are not very easy....


When we look at the whole picture in a regional context, we can not ignore the trends in the military-political arena.

Tehran and Dehli, if unchecked by calamity &/or conflict will emerge as regional contenders within the next half of the coming decade, where after, if Washington makes a repeat decision of favouring Dehli....... the two will become regional competitors. (some opportunities of co-operation might arise here for Islamabad....maybe)

Islamabad, realisticaly, can not grow economically to a stature that can rival either.

Islamabad is surrounded by regional contenders and it can not join the contention because it lacks the civilian leadership to take up the challenge it's megre resources place upon them.
Consistant government (good or bad) like the present with extreme economic and administrative control can not hold power for long in Islamabad ......making an unfortunate but inevitable return to an extremely short sighted (if not blind) political structure inevitable.


Fortunately, Islamabad has one major strength ........ its population is too "diverse in mentality" to implode upon itself.....
This makes a suzerainty by either contender a complete non-starter.

So, next question........can Islamabad remain nuetral ?

.....Islamabad, I believe...... can wriggle its way into a nuetrality.......of sorts, but only if the rest of the muslim countries remain as patheticaly divided on major issues as they are at present and Riyadh flaters in its new found soul.

This will still require some "pragmatic" leadership in Islamabad.

Now, looking at the assumed "horizon".

The present US regime can not be "tugged along" into a lengthy, civilised and life saving dialogue on Tehran via a third party (Islamabad/Riyadh), which might provide Tehran with much valued time (aka Clinton-Pyongyang), especially not with an election in the offing........

I have already stated the reasons for which I am of the opinion that the nuetrality, which many hope for, does not seem to me a card Islamabad can play.
As the reform in concept, context and government in Riyadh is taking a pace most had not assumed....it might be that Riyadh's neutrality """might""" become questionable too.

This again puts Islamabad in a precarious situation vis a vis Washington..... (and Dehli).


The whole thing starts to look very risky.

The decision for which must be taken by some very calm, collective and "courageous" leaders.

By the time of the Horizon...we might be in civilian control.
Unfortunately.... with our civilian leaders... these qualities are not really their forte. They still need a lot of time to develop themselves and their planning mechanisms.



*****

At the end of the last post....I tried to highlight what might be reasonable to assume if there is no conflict and Iran emerges as the inevitable Nulear armed state, which it would.

If Islambad remains nuetral in the period leading to it, the compliment would be returned exponentially by Tehran, vis a vis Dehli, in the aftermath (not something to look forward to).

Which does not leave nice options against a US backed and armed Dehli..........

Alternatively, Islamabad can have an active role in providing Tehran the "direction" they lack at present in this field......... hence, providing a few more questions for Dehli to ask before they embark on a Washington inspired adventure.......

In all of this, Islamabad will have to hope, beyond all hope, that this new scenario does not make Dehli even more belligerant in dealing with Kashmir.

We have no idea how this changes (or does not change at all) Beijing's outlook.

The above is even more dangerous than the conflict scenario.
In its worst manifestations, it plays into the hands of neo-cons or the ultra-orthodox muslims (or even both).

So the questions that need to be answered are very tough, especially for Islamabad.
There seem to be efforts to challenge the inevitable cutting to size of certain muslim states, but Islamabad is in a very dangerous position as it does not have the economic or political pre-requisites to lead either the region or the muslims.

I am sorry if the post went too far away from the original question........

[Saladin]

Afridi, welcome back :)

Iranian defensive capabilities
While Iran is certainly capable of defending itself against regional adversaries, i honestly cannot see wherein they have the capacity to thwart the US and its allies in any conflict.The technological gap is simply too wide at this point in time.Noone , whether it be China, Russia, India, or even european nations can hope for a stalemate let alone a victory in a "standup" conventional fight.If neither China.Russia or others cannot do that , then neither can Iran which is far behind them in many areas of technical development .

Many do not realise that the US did not commit its entire combat potential in OIF .Some units like its digitised 4th Infantry division(an armoured/mechanised division actually) which is equipped with its best technology did not see any or much combat.I believe there are a number of other units like that.Naval and aircombat if it takes place is going to be one way IMHO, i.e. in favour of the US.

Pakistan's position
Postive neutrality is the best.Call for peaceful resolution but do not take sides.Taking the US side is going to annoy iranians for decades to come and they are going to cause trouble one day by putting pressure and opening a second front when Pakistan is fully engaged with Delhi.Have they done this to anyone else before?Yes, they have in the 1973 ME war they massed troops opposite Iraq to prevent it from playing a more active role in the Golan front along the Syrians.This was done mainly to punish Iraq for the support given to Kurdish insurgents and to draw off pressure from Israel.

Siding with the Iranians?.Suicidal.First Pakistan's economy will be crippled by massive sanctions by US and EU (within months i daresay).Next , a permanent loss of any neutrality vis a vis India on Kashmir . A embargo on spares will followwhich will slowly immobilise parts of the PAF, PN and RA.No government in Pakistan will be able to withstand these pressures and what will follow may be more humiliation including but not limited to calls for unilateral nuclear disarmament since Pakistan has behaved irresponsibly by siding with the "rogue" state Iran.Work and sacrifices of the Pakistani people of decades will be undone.


Such huge sacrifices for other states are not worth it .It will also be soon forgotten by the "beneficiaries" as has happened with the Afghans.There is no subsitute for realpolitick in the unipolar 21st century.

[M. Bilal Khan]

Some one stated on the first page that Iran has few Kilo subs. So are these Kilo subs are capable of dropping any unconventional warhead incase of a counter strike?

[Amitabh]

I found this in Jane's Intelligence Review, October 1, 2003. The article was about India-Israel strategic cooperation. This is the first I have seen a date put to the rumoured India-Iran alliance, but I would continue to term it speculative.

Meanwhile, Iran and India made a startling announcement on 19 January 2003: a strategic agreement under which New Delhi can use Iranian military bases in the event of war with Pakistan. In return India would provide Iran with military hardware, training, maintenance and modernisation support. Indian access to Iranian bases of course alarms Pakistan, fundamentally altering its strategic calculations.

[Gul Khan]

Originally posted by Amitabh
I found this in Jane's Intelligence Review, October 1, 2003. The article was about India-Israel strategic cooperation. This is the first I have seen a date put to the rumoured India-Iran alliance, but I would continue to term it speculative.


This must be in the jokes section unless of course Iran wants to live under constant nuke threat. As long as US and India and US and Pak are chums Iran-India or Iran-Pak alliance is out of the question. Especially India and Israel are buddies the chances are slim to none. India don't have anything that Iran cannot get from Russia and host of other countries unless India sells nukes to Iran then its a different ball game.

[SSAAD]

JANES copied the exact article from Rahul Bedi's speculation that something had happened b/w India and Iran.

AFAIK, there is no truth behind this so-called Indo-Irani alliance.

[afridi]

Saladin, (Salaam.... and hope you are well).


Iranian Defensive Capabilities:

As stated before, Iran's capabilities with respect to land based defence make it increasingly unlikely that anyone wanting to win an election is ever going to try and place US troops on their soil.

There are just too many question marks regarding their ground to air capabilities. No one has a good idea what they can do, or, if they can do anything at all.
What is very clear is that their exercises have been based on the doctrine that they are being "overwhelmed" by superior numbers and superior technology. Their naval manouvers have concentrated not on "clean"combat (risk averse), but on "maximum effect"..... (most who have had any contact during these events have "admired" the attitude taken by thier Iranian counterparts and the line taken during pre-combat risk assessment..... some call it the Sahand mentality......).

This makes things very different to OIF. The possibility of having the Airforce unable to "minimise" the land & coast based missile threat is enough for any strategists to be happy to pass the buck to the President. Even a 10% casualty rate would make winning the coming election a nightmare.
(There is also a question mark bout using the Gulf for absolutely any strike what so ever).

OIF is also a very bad way of judging US planning or their actual combat capabilities. They were fighting a force that was not fighting back. There was no resistance in military terms. Basic measures that would have halted US movements were not taken. Available forces were not deployed. No efforts were made to use geographical advantages, and, absolutely no efforts were made to punish the US for the grossly negligent decisions taken during their advance.
OIF is not a place where we should look for US pros or cons. (Though I am an admirer of Franks, he is the closest the US has come to another Patton Jnr).


What we read with respect to Tehran's decision making and strategic doctrine is even worse.
A mish mash of what mostly western sources claim to be their idea of what Tehran wants to or will do. (As they are prone to citing most of the information from dissdent Iranians or explicit anti-Iranians..... we probably need most of Khewra (salt mines) while we consume that information...)
Hence, I am not sure what the scenaio in the Air would be... the only thing that is clear is that their performance in the late eighties against the US in the air needed a lot to be desired, while the US was clearly surprised when they tried to babysit the Iraqis.
So, this is where it might just depend on the extent Tehran is under-estimated, and their ability to keep things under wrap.





Now to Islamabad's role:


I understand the reasons you have stated for not siding with the Iranians and I also understand the wish many members, along with yourself, have made about Islamabad's nuetrality in such a conflict.

However, viewing the dynamics of the conflict, I am suggesting that it might not be an option for Islamabad to be nuetral.

Given that situation..... what should be the course of action.


It is increasingly likely, that is the predicament Islamabad would face. Given as such, most people wish to "not side" with Washington so as not to "annoy Tehran"......while at the same time ....not to side with Tehran as to avoid "economic targeting" from Washington. If nuetrality is not an option, then a decision is required.

So, how about we mature the thread by asking members to give their assessment of either option (implications included) and then chose a course of action, given "nuetrality is unavailable".

[Shakeel Ahmed]

You see the US will only tackle those who it can defeat militarily without any doubt.

Iran has the abilty in essence to deny america that privllege and thus prevent any attack.

You see they do have a good armed forces what they need to do is just sharpen the blade in effect using Russia.

Now i'm assuming Iran has money correct me if i'm wrong plz.

You see in my opinion spending quite a lot on conventional stuff will deter the USA.

In the army, Iran has a well trained army, they make their own tanks i think they also have the T-90 don't they?
What they need to do is upgrade the army staarting with the republican gaurd. Give them all bullet proof armour, give them night vision goggles, give them new weapons (they make some sort of M-16 variant, i'll try to get the pix for you.) Alos they need to churn out a lot of tanks (Zulkifaar i think it's called), fit then with modern equipment also buy a lot of modern Anti tank rockets from Russia like the Kornet. Also it may be worth investing in a batch of about 500 T-84 or something.....

As for the Navy, well they do have some Kilo class subs, thats good but maybe they need to think of splashing the cash and getting aobut 5-6 akula class subs, If India can get them why not Iran, even a few would give the USA a huge headache and also they have missile boats, well make more of them churn them out and arm them with advanced missiles like the Brahmos. Get 2-3 modern destroyers a few frigates too.

The airforce i think is probably okay, they have the F-14's and the Phantoms, sure it's old but it counts. They have also made some sort of light trainer/figther which could be also used for numbers.
Their big toy is the Mig-29 if upgraded with the best Russia can offer it's a real threat to the US, also if i was Iranian i'd invest in proaby the best fighter around the SU-30, 100-150 of those, the USA will not attack garunteed.

Finally against the USA air defence is vital, they should try to get the best radars and sam systems they can for any money.......it will be a huge key to holding off any attack.

It all sounds a lot i know but the thing is if you have the money sometimes it's worth going all out on a huge spree like this to avoid getting into a fight and if you are to teach the enemy a proper lesson.

I mean it would cost a bomb, i expect that it is afterall a military overhaul.

If Iran was armed like this i don't think the US would attack as it couldn't handle it, coz it doesn't have the resources spare to launch a war to be frank. Iraq and Afghanistan where a scuffle not a war.

Persoanlly as far as getting nukles is concerned i think they shpuld develop hem and just leave them untested, re make your whole amred foces with new stuff like i suggested but even further as they see fit make them bigger stronger work on missiles and cruise missiles get more subs etc even awacs when you sure you are safe.........let teh fireworks off.

[Noman]

I don't think a US ground attack against Iran is possible. Main reason being it does not have a jump off point or a reliable supply line. Possible points of attack are...


1. Via Baluchistan in Pakistan with Gwadar being the staging and resupply point. Not remotely possible, as no Govt. in Pakistan (or the people) will allow this.


2. Via Iraq.
Lack of a reliable supply line.

Supplies cannot come through the Gulf, Kuwait, Iraq into Iran as the straights of Hormuz are a choke point that Iran can block.

Supplies from Red Sea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq Iran...I don't think the Saudi's will go for it.

Supplies through Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran....nope not likely, will be seen as an Israeli attack, and no muslim country in its right mind would agree (or survive the decision)

From the north through Russia and Central Asia, not likely, loooooong supply line through Russia.

as the

[Noman]

I don't think a US ground attack against Iran is possible. Main reason being it does not have a proper jump off point or a reliable supply line.

For any attack on Iran, possible jump points are...


1. Via Baluchistan in Pakistan with Gwadar being the staging and resupply point. This is THE ideal spot, though, not remotely possible, as no Govt. in Pakistan (or the people) will allow this.


2. Attack via Iraq.
Lack of a reliable supply line.

Supplies cannot come through the Gulf, Kuwait, Iraq into Iran as the straights of Hormuz are a choke point that Iran can block. Resupply from Red Sea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq Iran not possible since Saudi's will go for it. Supplies through Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran....nope not likely, will be seen as an Israeli attack, and no muslim country in its right mind would agree (or survive the decision).

3. Attack From the north through Russia and Central Asia, not likely, loooooong supply line through Russia.

4. Through Turkey....I don't think so.


The main reason OIF suceeded was because they had Kuwait as the Jump point, and the Gulf was open and in US control for resupply.

Besides which, US already has to spend Billions to control Iraq, it simply cannot afford another war.

The worse I can expect is, limited air attacks against Iranian Military and Civilian infrastructure. Sanctions, No Fly Zones...etc.

[Sultan]

Via Baluchistan in Pakistan with Gwadar being the staging and resupply point. This is THE ideal spot, though, not

They had actually contemplated this back in the 80s during the height of the Iran- Iraq war. If I can recall correctly Fukuyama of the Rand organisation along with the then US secretary of State George Schultz actually proposed to turn Gwadar into the logistical and planning hub of US ops. vis a vis the ME (A role primarily shared by KSA, Qatar and Bahrain now). Furthermore, GCC states were interested in Gwadar to serve as a 'fall back base' in case Iran decided to mop the floor with them. This decision was part of a wider strategy the US along with their GCC allies had for stabilising Balouchistan thus consildating Pakistan vis a vis the Soviet threat. The amount of development aid outlined for Balouchistan by USAID and GCC states was mind boggling.

[afridi]

Strategically, Gawader is important to Islamabad, but, it is far more important to Tehran in any future engagement with a large Naval power sitting in teh Indian Ocean.
It would be very "surprising" if Tehran was not hoping that Islamabad invites it to have a semi-permanent position at the fascilities.
To any regional power like Tehran certain key positions are extremely important. Gawader is one of them, however, short of a complete military alliance, Tehran will not be able to use
Gawader to its advantage.

While, for Islamabad, allowing the US to use the facility would have to mean taking a step that would damage almost all of its credibility with respect to Kashmir and can be considered as a tacid approval of an eventual annexation.

Therefore, the role teh port plays would be damaging to Islamabad, in either way.

[Noman]

Originally posted by afridi

While, for Islamabad, allowing the US to use the facility would have to mean taking a step that would damage almost all of its credibility with respect to Kashmir and can be considered as a tacid approval of an eventual annexation.

Therefore, the role teh port plays would be damaging to Islamabad, in either way.

But we have offered the first foothold in Gwadar to China! So I don't think US would be coming in except for a goodwill visit or two.

[afridi]

Gawader's importance, or lack there of, can be debated for hours on end, however, in the context of the thread, it can not be considered more than a pawn which Islamabad can not play for either side.
Though it does have significance, that I do not argue, but keeping in mind the horizon we have assumed, we can successfully argue that its lack of fascilities at present would make it a non-starter for a base of operations for Washington.... while its use by Tehran can be discounted all together.

Thus, in the context of the probable assault on Tehran or a defence by Tehran, Islamabad's political decision would have no real "effect" on the present state or course of development of Gawader.
However, a decision by Islamabad for the use of its waters for either (or trying to play a bel-lux with its waters) would not make much sense for its long term strategy at present.....

So, the question remains...what should Islamabad do ?

[Abbas Naqvi]

Originally posted by afridi
A few members have raised another extremely important question..........


What should Islamabad's stance be towards Tehran......military and political.... considering present trends.



Lets face one thing.

If Tehran is not engaged in a long (or a short intensive) war by the United States within a few years (porobably 2) then it would have to eventually (5 to 7 years) accept Tehran as a long term ally..... irrespective of who is in power. A "remarkable" thaw in relations will become the buzz word on everyone's lips. The process might even gain speed if the EU goes ahead to do so before Washington.

Tehran's industrial capabilities have improved considerably and leaks about their weapons manufacturing capabilities (let alone development) are also very surprising.
Given this, it would be safe to assume that Tehran would be able to field far longer range missiles armed with nuclear warheads unless "effective" measures are taken against them by Washington NOW.

So, for those people who believe that three nuclear neighbours are not in Islamabad's interest, should start to assume that such a scenario is already present, short of a US led war against them.



That given.....what should Islamabad's strategy be in the medium term ?

My own views are biased......I beieve in a completely different future....one not very well received by most.....

However, lets for the moemnt look at it from the eyes of those who believe that there should only be Islamabad's interests in the foreground, and nothing else.
Given that if Tehran does not engage in a war against the US it would eventually be a nuclear armed country with resources far more stable than Korea, Dehli or Islamabad...... should Islamabad have it as a hostil, nuetral or friendly state ?

You would also have to realise that for the initial 4 to 5 year period we can assume resource superiority of Islamabad over Tehran, but this would not be indefinite and Islamabad's perceived role in Arabia would also be surrendered when that happens.
So, would it be to Islamabad's advantage to

1. Remain aloof with Tehran

2. Be hostile.... ( as some members seem to suggest ?)

3. Take the lead and a more "central" role in Iran's defence strategy ??
Keeping in mind that almost all of their weapons development programs are complimentary or parrallel to Islamabad's.....while Tehran can fill some gaps which Islamabad has. This also enhances the futality of any adventures by Dehli.

(For those who look at Afghanistan......had Tehran and Islamabad marked their spheres of influence .....so nicely divided over the Southern highway....there would have been no cause for conflict of inetrest....however it ISLAMABAD which was UNABLE to control the Taliban in this matter.......

Had Islamabad managed to exercise that control..... Afghanistan's present scenario might have been different....)

Iran weapons program is nowhere, they do not have any capacity to manufacture or deliver nuclear weapons or even conventional weapons. they do not have knowhow of centrifugation capacity and it will take them another decade to reach to a level where we were in 1981. Their 'shahb' missile developing capacity is second to nothing . Its all assembled stuff from russia, and they may have got some knowhow from korea. They can easilly be put down by patriot batteries. They are a big fat hen ready to be eaten, incase if US wishes. It will be a short , unilateral affair (even if some islamic zeolite does not like it.)

Our relationship with them should be just cordial. Incase if US attacks we should adopt a policy of non-interference and wait & see. Our policies on afghanistan are far apart, our intersts in the region conflict, they have always been more sympathetic to our eastern neighbours, so we have nothing to gain in supporting them against US.

[Saladin]

Posted by Afridi,

It is increasingly likely, that is the predicament Islamabad would face. Given as such, most people wish to "not side" with Washington so as not to "annoy Tehran"......while at the same time ....not to side with Tehran as to avoid "economic targeting" from Washington. If nuetrality is not an option, then a decision is required

There are many people here who know an enormous amount about Iran, so i would like to request them to correct the mistakes in my very elementary analysis of a situation where neutrality is not an option,

Working with Iran in any conflict.
Economic benefits?
Can see little of it save perhaps for some free or cheap oil in the short term.Can Pakistani goods like textiles and other manufactured goods be sold in favourable trade terms to offset the likely loss of US and EU markets?Again i have serious doubts about that.No economic benefit which Iran can give will make up even a fraction of the losses which will be sustained if the US /EU impose an embargo.

Military benefits?
AFAIK they are marginally ahead in some areas and Pakistan is ahead in others.No big advances in Pakistan's military manufacturing capacity is going to come about by such an alliance .Iran is not in a position to offer anything which cannot be obtained from China.

What about in the long term, can both countries work together and thwart say Delhi's moves in a limited war?Well going by what happened in 1965 anmd 1971 ,even if help is offered it is not going to significantly affect any ground realities.Given Tehran's increasing economic linkages with Delhi, it is unlikely to offer any meaningful assistance.

Diplomatic benefits?
In some quarters , there will be applause for Pakistan's "principled stand" together with another muslim nation.But the applauding hands are not going to become helping hands in any way when it is time to face the music.Pakistan will all alone in such a situation.

An alliance with Iran?
Miniscule and speculative benefits compared with gargantuan problems IMHO.

[afridi]

(Economic benefits in this post...)


******



Saladin, I think that is a good way of evaluating matters, and I hope others would give their views based on the same format.

I would like to use the same format to evaluate (or atleast comment) on the alternative.



Economic Benefits:

It could be succesfully argued that given the new found bedfellowship of Washinton and Dehli, along with the increasing support from pro-Tel Aviv entities in Washington, any "peculiar" benefits added in the economic bowl of Islamabad, would be "screened" to limit their effectiveness.

Thus, REAL economic benefits are not on offer even if Islamabad was to replace London's position of the "shoulder to shoulder" ally.

This means Islamabad has to accept that its rewards would be limited.... thus, if it is to co-operate with Washington, it should match its co-operation to an amount of reward it believes it can get in the bargain, with as much a profit, as possible.

Lets see:

Even before September 2001, Islamabad's economic turnaround was being debated in economic circles with quite satsfaction. A management over-haul of proportions rarely seen in smaller economies. This came in a period where economic barriers placed by Washington actually increased in number and potency.
Many economists have actually considered that the "benefits" which Islamabad has gained in economical terms from Washington's "limited assistance" have actually been channelled not by direct assistance, but by removing barriers placed to restrict other nations from trading, which Islamabad has made shrewd use of.

(This might get a bit too much economic from here on....so if you want to switch off.... you can do so now :) )

I know this seems like digressing a little, but I believe it is a very important point, when a choice has to be made in the Washington-Iran scenario.

If you couple this with the economic fact that Islamabad's economy can not and does not benefit from increased access to the US market this becomes a very important "strategic parameter" for political and military decision with respect to the region. I'll explain.

Pakistan's industrial growth (including times of sanctions) has increased at a steady rate governed predominantly by a sustained growth in domestic private sector investment. (I include overseas investment from Pakistani dual nationals within this as do Bussiness Recorder and other private Pakistani economics analysts). This rate declined (decrease in growth) only twice in the past four deacdes.
After the late 50s, whenever Washington has provided increased access to its economy, Islamabad's industrial growth has NOT increased as a result. It has not spurned investment initiatives and the rate at which industrial output itself has changed has not been effected by this action directly.
What results is that such "increased" quotas and market access leads to a substitution. A temporary switch from one market to another, primarily because mark-ups are higher in one market than the other.
Islamabad experienced this again and the business Recorder has run this a few times within its articles as well as reviews by private banks within Pakistan. Lately, trade with the EU was effected by this switch, though it was not considered as a "problem" as mark-up rates increased leading to better export performance, rather than export gains.
In the last year however growth in multilateral trade has shot up in non-Nafta regions, with the EU being the main area of growth in the west and Beijing being the second area of growth (though this has to be taken into contaxt of poor Islamabad-Beijing trade over the past half a century).
This means that any further concessions by Washington short of a 70 to 80 percent increase in direct US investment in industry is of very little use to Pakistan over the short to medium term. Granting any more market access now, in actuality, DOES NOT assist in Pakistan's economic performance as its industrial output and service industry can not bridge the gap of increased access. Thus, little gains is made in the medium term, while Washington has a habbit of withdrawing these economic assistance plans more frequently than their administrations.

What Islamabad requires is a subsidy of its major public sector spendings (defence included).
Though a lot of press attention is paid to figures from the economic benefits that result in close co-operation with Washingotn there is little "real analysis" in what actually happens to the industrial out put and economic growth of Pakistan.


So, keeping this in mind.... there is little comparitive benefit in giving "un-hindered" or "un-mitigated" assistance to Washington in its Tehran endeavours.

Everything that is beneficial to Islamabad is gained simply by providing "Restricted" assisstance. So, ....what benefits are on offer and can be realistically "made use of"....... if we answer that question, we can then answer to what extent Islamabad should assist.

Now.... the same analysis can be made for the countries who might have a stake in "not seeing Washington" or a pro-Washington government in Tehran....weigh the odds and balance the scales, to see what or who provides the benefit that is required by Islamabad..... rather than what they are offering.

[afridi]

Military Benefits:


Many people talk about the excessive emotionalism that is spewed everytime someone starts talking about national security and military strategy as an extension of religious thinking.
Unfortunately, many seem to turn a blind eye to the other extreme of the situation.
Siding with the dominant power irrespective of context is as foolish and as is the idea that they try to shoot down.
A balance is required if reason is to be used. If it is not acquired, then both courses of action are foolish.

What then is the context for Islamabad ?

The politco-military paradigms have changed. The present uni-polar world is not an exception, we have been here before..... history has seen this play unfold so many a times its foolish to describe the hour as unprecedented.... unless you are the dominant power, in which case your cataract is understandable.

Islamabad's role as an ally of Washington is limited and its future position is this capacity is compromised unless it becomes part of a larger sphere of influence, essentially non-US in nature, but not anti-US.
Washington's present administration made its cardinal error almost as soon as it came into office. Unfortunately, though it might be seen as their Alexandria, the news is not so good for Islamabad either.
As support for Dehli and the supposed economic benefits that Washington receives by picking it instead of its better rival are exxagerated exponentially, so will the need to cage, restrain and undermine Islamabad.
In such an atmosphere, anyperson who argues that the scope for increased military assistance or military trade needs to have very sound facts to back them.

Just as the case in the economic picture, Islamabad will not gain any real advantage from siding unilaterally with Washington, not with the emerging regional climate and certainly not at the expense of Dehli.
In contrast, Islamabad must make it clear to other stake holders that its support for Washington's actions is by no means inevitable.
Therefore, bargaining for every single mode or method of assistance would have to be made. If the offers do not match atleast 50% of the assistance provided, such assistance should be delayed untill it is no longer imperitive.
Thus, an extremely reluctant ally, is a role that Islamabad, Riyadh, Ankara and Damascus will have to start to get comfortable with. As there is little alternative to this.
Islamabad needs to re-define its relationship with Washington, simply because Washington has already re-defined its relationship with Islamabad. Co-operation extended to Washington in its times of "allied" behaviour can not, and should not be made to "seem" normal in the present.

Presently, the limited assistance stance taken by the present regime in Islamabad is neither simple, nor is it with an end goal. However, it is in teh right direction. What we need to figure out is whom amongst our non-military personnel will be able to pursue this direction with more or less the same sense of "time" and "history" as ""some"" of the present military men are ?


Refusing to assist a nation due to its "religious" ties is not a seemingly logical stance for a person who weighs the odds.
Simply extending a whole hearted support for a nation, civilisation or rouge because it is the dominant power is not a solution either.

Things are more grey......fortunately, Islam is not about black and white, its about the grey, so this should come naturally to muslims.

[smah]

Originally posted by yasser
Yes, I do Ahmed!

Then we will have no room what so ever for diplomatic movement!

Right now we can keep Iran off our backs thanks to our strategic deterrence, if this changes and Terhan gets nukes, well, then we genuienly will be between a rock and a hard place........

These Iranians would just love to see Pakistan become like them, or worse still get their hands on our nukes, imagine how they could threaten our true friends in Saudi and UAE then!?

I have to say, this is just ridiculous. When you say things like, "these iranians would love to see...", what basis in fact supports your statements?

For those who doubt that Iran has been anything but ultra-helpful and an extremely reliable ally, please refer to the numerous sources of information regarding Iran's assistance with Canadair Sabres, delivered to us after '65. You can also look up how many C-130's Iran bought for us as a "gift". If you need further proof, you can read, "The Islamic Bomb" by Weissman and see how much money came from Iran after '71 to help us out. The figures quoted over a period of two years total up to $1bn (in THOSE days!) Iran also allowed the PAF to place its assets at Irani bases during '65.

There is this fad amount pseudo-strategists and historical revisionists to cast aspersions on Iran/Pakistan relations every few years (or months?). Just ask yourself whose purposes this trend serves? I'll help you with that. Israel and India.

Yes, we made a mess of our Afghan strategy and in the process alienated Iran. Please accept that. Understand that it was more Pakistan's fault than Iran's. If Musharraf and the Army have accepted that fact, then I don't think you and I are anyone to argue. We have BACKTRACKED on our Afghan policy because it led us to a point where the cost of further pursuing, what was always a demented policy, would be unthinkable. So let's not allow our own self-inflicted mistakes to be misconstrued as Iran's fault.

The Iranis have always wanted a strong Pakistan to separate them geographically from India. Their historical experiences have created a perception, which is very similar to ours, and causes them to believe that they are "surrounded". The mad Iraqi dictator on the one hand, the Russians (who, along with the Americans and the English had agreed to divide Iran into three colonial territories, one each for all of them) in the north, and the open seas in the south where everybody's favourite superpower is constantly projecting their own influence. Couple that with an always unstable Afghanistan. I assure you the Iranis don't want Pakistan's ability to act as a friendly buffer between the radical Hindu state that India is fast becoming, to erode.

[smah]

Originally posted by Abbas Naqvi


Iran weapons program is nowhere, they do not have any capacity to manufacture or deliver nuclear weapons or even conventional weapons. they do not have knowhow of centrifugation capacity and it will take them another decade to reach to a level where we were in 1981. Their 'shahb' missile developing capacity is second to nothing . Its all assembled stuff from russia, and they may have got some knowhow from korea. They can easilly be put down by patriot batteries. They are a big fat hen ready to be eaten, incase if US wishes. It will be a short , unilateral affair (even if some islamic zeolite does not like it.)

Our relationship with them should be just cordial. Incase if US attacks we should adopt a policy of non-interference and wait & see. Our policies on afghanistan are far apart, our intersts in the region conflict, they have always been more sympathetic to our eastern neighbours, so we have nothing to gain in supporting them against US.

What is centrifugation capacity?

Do your research before making such statements.

Iran's metallurgy industry is far more advanced than Pakistan's. They developed their own fighters and kept their US-bought aircraft flying through the last 2 decades, without US assitance. They have developed buddy tanker refuelling capabilities with their F-14s. Their missile program is as "Russian" as ours is "North Korean". I don't want to comment further on this... suffice to say your information is completely wrong.

Pick up a copy of Silicon Iran (Fry's Electronics carries it, if you are based in the USA) and find out more about more about the rising technology economy in Iran. Their internet user population is estimated at over 4.5 million - they have probably half our total population by the way - as compared to the between 1 and 2 million in Pakistan.

Iran produces more Phds, with half our population, than we do. They have a literacy rate of 80%!!! Pakistan's is half that. Our total exports are less than half theirs. Per capita, their exports are therefore almost 5 times ours. Their GDP growth rate has been around 6.5% consistently, and their per-capita income (PPP) is $7,000, which is three and a half times ours.

The point is not that they are better than us. The point is that we shouldn't be having such negative comparisons, especially using information (as you have) which is completely wrong and is designed to create a false impression of Iran being less developed or less advanced than Pakistan. Reality is exactly the OPPOSITE. Anyhow, the bottom line is that we need Iran and they need us. We have always recognized that, and so have they. In the new global political climate, we must maintain reasonable relations with a lot of countries, and excellent relations with neighbours such as Iran, who in our neighbourhood, are as close to natural allies as we will find.

Pakistan played a great role in bringing China into the UN, and helping to build Chinese-US relations. Perhaps a similar role by us in Iran's case would serve all three parties - Iran, the US and Pakistan - best. Certainly, another invasion in a neighbouring coutnry is not in our interest AT ALL.

[smah]

Originally posted by Abbas Naqvi


Iran weapons program is nowhere, they do not have any capacity to manufacture or deliver nuclear weapons or even conventional weapons. they do not have knowhow of centrifugation capacity and it will take them another decade to reach to a level where we were in 1981. Their 'shahb' missile developing capacity is second to nothing . Its all assembled stuff from russia, and they may have got some knowhow from korea. They can easilly be put down by patriot batteries. They are a big fat hen ready to be eaten, incase if US wishes. It will be a short , unilateral affair (even if some islamic zeolite does not like it.)

Our relationship with them should be just cordial. Incase if US attacks we should adopt a policy of non-interference and wait & see. Our policies on afghanistan are far apart, our intersts in the region conflict, they have always been more sympathetic to our eastern neighbours, so we have nothing to gain in supporting them against US.

[H Khan]

Apart from any specific areas of relationship between Iran and Pakistan, Iran's post-1979 Afghan policy was driven by their own self-interest rather than for Afghans. I don't want to get into this Shia-Sunni issue but Iran gave very special treatment to Shia Afghans in some cases pushed back starving so called Sunni refuges back into the war zone in western afghanistan.

[afridi]

Tehran's NATIONAL interests are not up for debate here, but Islamabad's are.
This is a discussion about the national interests of a nation that (thankfully) is still having problems with its identity as simply another nation. Mal-development is by no means a reason for impotence, but short sightedness IS the breeder of cowardice. That is one weakness the people of this region have not been associated with through out history.

The problem has always been that both Tehran and Islamabad have had trouble defining themselves as a nation..... unfortunately, these are times for such definitions to be "concrete".

Whether we are sensitive to the issue or not, there are sectarian differences...... however, what manner of reasoning would allow the sectarian difference(within one religion) of the two people become the basis to provide "benefit" to those who do not even share the relegion ?

So, before anyone walks the road of religious "differences" and policies that were backed or formed due to these differences, must also understand that this was done by BOTH sides.

The matter at hand is one that defines "how" we think of Tehran's defence, when we are viewing it from the eyes of Islamabad.
I think everyone will agree that this does ascend above policy differences......and......is about far more important an issue than simply who helped who and for what amount, or that our sky is light blue and theirs' is a darker kind of blue, but light.

Lets not bleat in a manner to make Orwell prophetic. .....


Lets concentrate on what should be done....and how that should be played out.......



***************

As for Tehran's industrial and military capabilities......I suggest those in doubt should investigate or research....(even the net is a good start).

[Saladin]

Afridi, interesting insights.

On the economic front these are some figures i obtained from the CIA factbook, if it is off by a big margin, do tell.
The link
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html#Econ

It shows that Pakistan exports more than a quarter of its goods to the US.What is the percentage for Iran?.The factbook doesn't say but it appears to be well behind not only the US but many other countries who are closely allied to the US as well.

Again for imports , Iran doesn't seem to figure much.

While your analysis of economics from the perspective of whether is room for growth is interesting, IMHO that by itself is insufficient.I would argue that one also needs to ask, in the absence of relations what one stands to lose.As is obvious from the factbook, what Pakistan stands to lose in the absence of amiable relations with Washington is the danger of its exports shrinking by 25%.There are many others who will be in a postion to supply the same sort of goods that Pakistan does but the reverse doesn't hold i.e Pakistan cannot find a market to absorb a 1/4 of its produce.

What of the future ,for e.g. Pakistan's hope of becoming an IT superpower or looking at emerging areas lke biotechnology or microelectronics , can any advance in those sectors take place without access to US technology and markets?.What Iran offers or can hope to offer is peanuts by comparison, IMHO.

Will look at military benefits later.
Regards

[afridi]

Firstly, an apology as the second part of this post might be in context, but in truth deviates from the main topic. I apologise.


Saladin,

I also apologise for not making clear what I am asking.....

What I mean to ask is that the level of economic co-operation being offered by Washington at present can only be marginally improved in "real" terms.

Thus, risks taken by Islamabad as a stand-alone nation (if it chooses to do so..... and many suggest it should) should be in proportion to that.

Therefore, if the US was to embark on a Tehran adventure now.... Islamabad has to weigh how it would be in any further financial benefit by going along "in force"..... or simply show "resistance" and then "cave in" to provide little more than supplimentary military support at a very low level. (no objection to unmanned over flights, rather than use of corridors).

Having already established in your previous posts that militarily siding with Tehran is not an option the question I am asking is what level of support would you wish to see and balance it with teh benefits gained.

So, when you put forward the military and economic benefits of siding with Washington, (which it seems I may have wrongly interpretted as providing military assistance), I was trying to make clear that the benefits of "complete" support in economic terms do not provide the proportional benefits when compared to the effort involved. Not because Washington can not give them, but because Islamabad can not utilise them.

---------


Now to the figures.


Though the CIA fact book (they did not intend a pun, I am sure) is not always exactly that, (sometime GDP figures of new allies can RISE above the rest, while their growth rates can stay half that of enemies....), there is also a certain feel good factor associated with them.

The US does not now stand at the largest trading partner. It has been for the last 43 years (give or take). However, what it does not say is that the US's trade position with Pakistan, due to their policies, slipped from a 64% 1985 trade partner to today's 22.8%. (A far cry).


The EU (then the EEC) has all but substituted the United States in the key import areas of Machinery and Chemicals, as yet, the importers have not switched back to US suppliers as indicated by the EU's statistics.
During the last 6 years the share of imports held by chemicals has decreased and the trend might (no figures for this year yet) continue due to increased domestic investment in chemicals.

The EU's share of Pakistan's trade has now expanded to about 28% of Pakistan's trade, from just 11% in 1993 (guess who along with Beijing benefited from US sanctions and ristrictions in this sector).
The EU share would also have increased considerably had it entered into large arms trades with Islamabad, but the EU was not "politically" astute at that time....now, we will see.
Another problem (though a pin prick for the two giants) is that once you take out arms and related imports, the US and the EU come into a serious situation vis a vis Pakistan's trade. Islamabad would then have a trade surplus which would constitute to a small leak in the economy (a very small leak for them.... but the surplus of 2% trade with the two giants pushes overall surpluses by a disproportionate level).
There has been speculation that the EU (especially France and Germany) might consider arms exports in order to quell the trade surplus which has been growing in the past 4 years, however, it is speculation only and would have to be taken into account with the political realities.


For alternative figures on the net, I will try and search US trade archives and also the directorate of trade for the EU and get the exact figures.... but they are round about that mark.

[afridi]

The only stuff I found on the net that cane be considered somewhat authentic are :


http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/cfm/doclib_type.cfm?type=9

Search for Bi-lateral trade with Pakistan. That should provide the summary stats from the past years studies and documents.
I can not find a place where I could get the whole study, but, the summary is also help ful.


Older links

http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/pakistan/intro/
http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/bilateral/prpak171001.htm


Unfortunately, detailed studies conducted by the EU are available to National Banks (ofcourse at fees) or to banks that conduct joint studies.
The National Bank does do so, but unlike them, our newspapers tend not to give much weight unless the study has a political "angle" to it.
Most of these studies do not.

I am also having some difficulty getting through to some stuff at the Business Recorder.



The one stop solution to Eu-Pakistan trade is:

http://www.delpak.cec.eu.int/

[afridi]

The first shots seem to have been fired .....
Lets see if Iran's parliment is able to play this one out in a better way than its neighbour.

Prince Saud leads the "cloaked" defence of Iran, though it is a pessimistic debate, it is showing an increasingly "centred" approach to buy time.

...... but the inspection will go ahead anyway and Tel Aviv will not be discussed further.
What would be the next step that they should take to buy more time for Tehran ?

and, what can Tel Aviv do to pre-empt them?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3151552.stm

A good indication would be what kind of support the Saudis are able to muster on behalf of Tehran in the coming conference this October.

[omar]

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_fa.asp?news_id=92343953342402&n=2

News footage of Iranian military exercise. Some interesting footage - even shows their F-14s.

[Abbas Naqvi]

Originally posted by omar
http://www.iribnews.com/Full_fa.asp?news_id=92343953342402&n=2

News footage of Iranian military exercise. Some interesting footage - even shows their F-14s.

It may(most likely) happen that iran becomes the next target for USA. Syria is unlikely? and other ME countries are american "slaves", so they do not need to be attacked. So therefore, why should we increase military ties with such a country with the possible sale of S7.
We should increase conventional military ties with SA, since it is middle ground for us (we could also carry on having "some good relations" with US), increase our strategic influence in the area and make economic gains.This will also be a sign to america that we are with them in countering iranian extremist influence in the region.Iran anyway keeps very close economic relationship with india and would most likely go india's way, against us.


Just a thought.


Abbas.

[imran]

AOA


It may(most likely) happen that iran becomes the next target for USA. Syria is unlikely? and other ME countries are american "slaves", so they do not need to be attacked.

Why do think that the next attack will be Iran and not syria?

And why do you think that an attack on Syria is unlikely?


Imran

[Shah Khan]

Top Indian Nuclear expert took Iran assignment
Jay Raina, New Delhi, October 23

A sensitive government investigation has revealed that Dr YSR Prasad, a former chairman and managing director of the Nuclear Corporation of India, took up an assignment in Iran after he retired in July 2000. He is believed to have helped Iran build technical and physical infrastructure for its nuclear power plants.

The revelations come at a time when Iran’s nuclear programme is under the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the Indian government is contemplating banning its nuclear scientists from taking up jobs abroad.

A classified government document on the investigation points out that Prasad, a highly rated scientist who spent years working on India’s atomic energy programmes, did not seek the government’s permission to go to Iran. Although Prasad wasn’t breaking any rules, the government may henceforth make it mandatory for nuclear scientists to first seek approval for such assignments — and clear only exceptional cases.

Top government sources said that though New Delhi and Teheran do have a strategic partnership, they do not collaborate where nuclear programmes are concerned.

Although nuclear scientists from the two countries have exchanged several visits in the past (the Iranians have visited facilities in Tarapur and Kakrapara, for instance), the visits have all been under the aegis of the IAEA.

The Indian government also permitted two Iranian students to carry out post-doctoral research at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_429647,0008.htm

[majithia]

Last month US through IAEA issued a provocative ultimatum to Iran and set a dead line (October 31) where Iran was required to comply with all demands related to its nuclear program. The resolution essentially put the last nail in Iran’s nuclear coffin and it also paved the way for the involvement of the UN Security Council with economic sanctions if Iran failed to comply, leading to a rapidly escalating confrontation with Iran.

Today Iran caved in to IAEA demands as is reported in several newspapers.More on this later.

We now know what IAEA did to Iraq ? Exactly in the same fashion US (through IAEA) put Iran in a dire predicament and pressed Iran with an open-ended demand ( like Iraq) that could not be proven: Prove that NONE of her nuclear program/s are being used for the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Iran on the other hand tried (in vain) to demonstrate its nuclear facilities are solely intended for power generation but in last several months was accused of hiding the enrichment activity and thus was demanded of most intrusive inspections.
The latest allegation involved the discovery of very minute traces of highly enriched uranium in environmental samples taken at the Iran’s one of the incomplete uranium plant. Iranian officials (not very smart ?) claimed the traces come from imported equipment that had been previously contaminated. This was enough to raise a red flag by IAEA and as expected ( just like in Iraq) they framed a resolution that ordered Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities and asked to provide a “full inventory of all imported material and components” for its uranium enrichment program and allow IAEA inspectors unrestricted access to all its facilities.
IAEA also ordered Iran to “promptly and unconditionally” sign additional protocol allowing for far more extensive IAEA inspections than were previously allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then there were extra and specific demands over and above the resolution that included a certain "catch-all" clause imposed on Iran to comply with “ other steps” as deemed necessary to resolve all outstanding issues involving nuclear materials and nuclear activities.

To put Iran in “ nuclear inspection dog house” IAEA also threatened ( failure to comply) with a one-sided report in November to enable the IAEA to draw definite conclusions about it’s nuclear programs.
US (as usual) warned Iran that any failure to comply would be taken as an admission of guilt. Any disruption or wish to disrupt in inspection process would only result in the broad IAEA inspections and would ask international community to conclude that in fact Iran was NOT pursuing a peaceful program.
The bottom line - If Iran failed to cooperate and was declared (as expected) in non-compliance, Iran would forfeit its right to buy nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. This inspection regime made Russia the only target, that Russia will not be able to provide nuclear fuel even for a electricity generating nuclear power plant/s that are under construction at Bushehr.

IAEA inspections would declare Iran’s entire nuclear program illegitimate. Finally, US have succeeded in shutting down Busheir plant which it has tried for years and if does not happen there would be much broader and severe economic sanctions that would bring Iran to her knees and eventually undermine , even topple the regime.
In the coming IAEA meeting in Geneva, US plans to press for a resolution immediately declaring Iran to be in non-compliance that will effectively legitimize US provocation.

Russia has no choice but to support a tough IAEA resolution that will effectively end all cooperation with Iran’s nuclear programs. Russia would be the real loser as more than 200 Russian vendors have been involved in the $1.5 billion Busheir project.

Today Iran confronts predicament similar to Iraq where loads of lies about weapons of mass destruction were exploited by US to justify Iraq’s invasion.

But Iran may still have few options :

1) Follow North Korea’s example and pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty altogether.
2) Sign additional IAEA protocol as ordered by IAEA and see if sanctions already in place are removed promptly.

Now we have to see if Iran can stop further US military provocation even after it fully complies to IAEA inspections.

Majithia

[Abbas Naqvi]

Originally posted by imran
AOA
Why do think that the next attack will be Iran and not syria?
Imran

Read majithia's post and you will get the answer.

[majithia]

Abbas,

Today Iran acts like a lawyer without a will (if she dies) or a doctor who smokes. :D :o

From various news in the press I gather that first Iran denied they were building nuclear weapons and when IAEA started breathing down their neck they agreed even for surprise inspections (obviously the most humiliating) of the their nuclear site and stress the suspension of enrichment will be for an interim period. The common sense dictate (and from Iraq experience) that once you let these highly trained inspector visit the facility there won’t be going back and Iran would lose all the negotiating leverage and the Iran would have to agree to implement the agreement. And as usual US state department is looking at this agreement with deep “skeptism” that Iran will not fully comply.

This time IAEA has showed Iran only the carrot and agreed Iran has every right to enjoy peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which means nothing. The three European countries (Germany, England and France) who negotiated the deal on IAEA behalf can later deny Iran demand to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

What was Iran’s motive in signing this agreement? Most likely it was fear of reprisal from US and now US binds the European powers and 35-nation governing board of IAEA to first act on her behalf and has committed Iran to answer question/s about the recent discovery of highly enrich uranium.

So the question remains- Can Iran acts like North Korea? In my opinion it is a big No as Iran does not have the military muscle North Korea has and there are other factors in showdown with North Korea where Japan and south Korea do the balancing act for North Korea. In case of war South Korea and Japan would be the biggest loser and both want US out of Korean Peninsula.

Did Iran as lawyer fight without a case or the doctor that dies of cancer because of smoking ?

regards

majithia

[afridi]

Iran however does have the option of signing additional protocols (as per majithia's post) and accelerate its peaceful nuclear projects by involving the two other nations that have been vying for a share of this market for years now.

Iran's projects for peaceful purposes are a much needed respite for both Paris and Berlin, whose private companies in this field are looking at 80% decomissioning within the next 15 years, unless their governments take unpopular stances at home to keep things going on for longer.
A strong anti-nuclear lobby at home, is making things very complicated. While Berlin wants to have all of its 20 present plants (last one is online too now...) to carry on into the next 25 years, Paris is even more stubborn on the issue, but a large proportion of the green & liberal vote is making things very bad as both governments are unable to explain where the funding shortfall will come from.

Both countries have made a lot of progress on designing better and more effecient plants that could replace these, but the problem is that this is only possible with huge government backed funding.
If the government or the companies were able to provide these funds without denting energy budgets, it would make it that much easier to handle opposition to plant replacement at home.

.... in short...

They need foriegn markets for their companies if they want to make sure that the Government does not have to put its share of a huge amount of money towards these decomissionings......(obvious targets, Iran and India, but in the later they face heavy and intrenched Russian competition, while Dehli is buckling under Russian pressure........in Iran they might be able to deal with the Russians a lot better).


This way, sales could offset some costs and still have these companies show increasing returns for a further quarter of a century............. not a bad deal if they can pull it off, especially when the US administration, thanks largely to Tel Aviv, has effectively got themselves out of the running.


However, all this can change within teh space of a few months if the US administration starts to get a little more wiser and look out for its own interests rather than Tel Aviv's in this region.


So, Iran can use this option to buy more time..... however, it all depends on how much time this administration in Washington will give it.

It looks highly unlikely that Iraq being the way it is, they would have their Tehran adventure before teh election...... but I think, if things pan out well in Baghdad a late 2004 initiative is not out of the question.

If this administration wins the next election.....then Tehran might not be the only one that would have to be worried.


But I agree with majithia on the point that Tehran has been pushed to a corner where its future capabilities might become a very hard to judge.......


I am optimistic about Tehran's chances to wade teh storm, but I can not ignore the signs that they might just eventually end up into a mess that would provide Tel Aviv legal grounds to push the soldiers of the US into yet another conflict.

[Abbas Naqvi]

Originally posted by majithia
Abbas,
The common sense dictate (and from Iraq experience) that once you let these highly trained inspector visit the facility there won’t be going back and Iran would lose all the negotiating leverage and the Iran would have to agree to implement the agreement. And as usual US state department is looking at this agreement with deep “skeptism” that Iran will not fully comply.


Agreed. It's a trap with no escape, like the way iranians are playing. We are lucky,we exploded our weapons in time. The benefit i find of india sitting on our eastern borders is, it gives us the "ideal excuse" to build and continue to develop our nuclear and nuclear delivery systems unabated and as a matter of fact, this "excuse" is a real world threat.


Abbas.

[Ahmed M]

Interesting Information. Sorry if this has been posted before.

http://homepage.tinet.ie/~steven/iriaf.htm

[Aziz]

The Times has an anti Pakistan agenda since Murdoch has been trying to make inroads in India with Star - especially Maddox (who can't actually back up her points if you confront her) but i thought this may be of interest in this discussion.

Iran admits Pakistan gave key nuclear help
By Bronwen Maddox, Foreign Editor, in Vienna



IRAN has told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it received crucial help from Pakistan with its controversial nuclear programme, according to those familiar with the negotiations.

Iran revealed the extensive foreign sources of help to the United Nations nuclear watchdog only in the past two weeks, The Times has learnt.

After a year of mounting international alarm that Iran’s interest in nuclear power concealed an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, the regime has admitted that it has gone to great lengths over 18 years to hide its research.

Iran has now named Pakistan and several other countries as the source of components and advice used to make centrifuges to enrich uranium, the most controversial part of its research.

The atomic energy agency (IAEA) is now trying to confirm exactly when the assistance was given, and whether it was from scientists acting on their own or with the backing of their governments.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA Director-General, refers to the foreign contribution several times in the damning 23-page report on Iran’s evasions, which he sent to the agency’s board of governors on Monday.

But he does not name the countries or people involved and said yesterday that he would not be drawn on their identities until the agency had completed many more investigations.

Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani High Commissioner in London, said yesterday: “No country has been named in the report. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it is a responsible nuclear power which has scrupulously observed its non-proliferation obligations.”

In an interview with The Times yesterday Dr ElBaradei said that Iran’s success at hiding its nuclear programme for nearly two decades had been an “eye-opener” for the IAEA. Sanctions had slowed down Iran’s attempts, but in the end had failed, he said.

Iran, as a signatory of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), is entitled to explore nuclear power for peaceful purposes provided that it is monitored by the IAEA.

However, despite years of supervision, the agency became suspicious only in the summer of 2002 that the programme was far more ambitious, sophisticated and older than Iran had admitted.

Dr ElBaradei said that Iran’s systematic covering-up of its programme for years “is by itself a serious matter”.

Iran now had all the knowledge it needed to enrich uranium, Dr ElBaradei said, and had little need of more foreign help. But its enrichment plants were still far from complete and it would take the country “probably a few years” to finish. The most controversial site, at Natanz, “is an empty structure”, he said.

Enrichment of uranium has been the focus of international concerns because, although it is permitted under the NPT as part of a civil nuclear programme, it takes a country to within a whisker of the ability to make nuclear weapons.

“The NPT gives you a very thin margin of security,” Dr ElBaradei said . “Once you have the capability (to enrich uranium), you are not far (from being able to make weapons).”

His report spells out the omissions and outright lies in Iran’s past account of its programme to the IAEA. But “in the last five weeks (Tehran has shown) a complete change of heart”, he says.

Iran now admits conducting secret experiments to test its centrifuges with uranium gas, in breach of IAEA rules. That contradicts its account this summer that some of this gas was “missing” and must have evaporated through leaky valves. It has also used lasers, over a 12-year period.

Iran told the IAEA last month that it had scrapped centrifuges from the Kalaye Electric Company in Tehran and so inspectors could not see them. Now it has admitted that it moved them elsewhere and finally allowed inspectors to see them on October 30.

Dr ElBaradei’s report, packed with examples of Iran’s brinkmanship, says that in the past three months Iran has admitted eight serious breaches of the rules.

It concludes: “It is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations” under its agreement with the IAEA.

However, the Director- General has pointedly not used the words “non-compliance” about Iran’s behaviour, which would almost compel the governors to refer it to the UN Security Council.

Instead, he emphasises that the disclosures and pledges are “a positive development”, that IAEA analysts need time to weigh them up and that he will report to the governors again in March.

“We should not tolerate breaches, whether small or large,” he told The Times, “but we should (also) focus . . . on the new chapter, and on the complexity of the task facing the IAEA.” This measured tone is likely to strip some of the significance from the board of governors’ meeting on November 20.

His deliberate impartiality is also likely to disappoint the United States, which had hoped that next Thursday’s meeting would agree on a tough stance against Iran.

There were signs of tension yesterday between Washington and Jack Straw over the appropriate response to Dr ElBaradei’s conclusions. The Foreign Secretary has favoured dialogue with Tehran, rather than a showdown in the UN. To Dr ElBaradei, the dispute with Iran illustrates the wider problems at the heart of the non-proliferation treaty.

“What I’d like to see is an addition to the NPT,” he said, where countries would agree to pool the most sensitive technologies, such as enrichment, rather than doing it all for themselves.

That would have to apply to the five nuclear weapons countries that are the permanent members of the Security Council — Britain, the US, France, Russia and China, who “cannot continue to put the screws on the rest of the world” while offering no concessions. In its current form, as an uneasy bargain between states with nuclear weapons and those without them, the treaty “is not sustainable”, he concludes.

Weapons claim ‘impossible to believe’ says US hawk

Washington: John Bolton, the US Under-Secretary of State, delivered a damning verdict on the IAEA report last night, dismissing as “impossible to believe” its findings that there is no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

The most hawkish member of the State Department insisted: “The United States believes that the massive and covert Iranian effort to acquire sensitive nuclear capabilities make sense only as part of a nuclear weapons programme . . . The international community now has to determine whether Iran has come clean on this programme and how to react to the large number of serious violations to which Iran has admitted.”

Mr Bolton was the first senior American politician to respond to the report. A State Department official said that his remarks had been approved at the highest level.

Aziz

[Shah Khan]

keyword "diplomats" ;)

UN Probes Possible Iran-Pakistan Nuclear Link
Thu Nov 27, 6:23 PM ET
By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear agency is probing a possible link between Iran and Pakistan after Tehran acknowledged using centrifuge designs that appear identical to ones used in Pakistan's quest for an atom bomb, diplomats say.


Diplomats said the agency was trying to determine whether the drawings had come from someone in Pakistan or elsewhere.


Tehran, accused by Washington of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, told the U.N. nuclear agency it got the blueprints from a "middleman" whose identity the agency had not determined, a Western diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.


It was unclear where the "middleman" got the drawings. The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said in a report Iran told the IAEA it got centrifuge drawings "from a foreign intermediary around 1987."


Centrifuges are used to purify uranium for use as fuel or in weapons. Experts say the ability to produce such material is crucial for an arms program and the biggest hurdle any country with ambitions to build a bomb must overcome.


Several diplomats familiar with the IAEA said the blueprints were of a machine by the Dutch enrichment unit of the British-Dutch-German consortium Urenco -- a leader in the field of centrifuges.


Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, told Reuters he had no knowledge a Urenco design had been used by Iran. "This is new information to me," he said.


In a statement to Reuters, Urenco said it had not supplied any centrifuge know-how or machinery to Iran.


"Urenco would like to strongly affirm that they have never supplied any technology or components to Iran at any time," it said.

PAKISTAN, IRAN DENY NUCLEAR COOPERATION


Pakistan, which non-proliferation experts and diplomats say used the Urenco blueprint, and Iran have repeatedly denied any cooperation in the nuclear field.


Iran had long insisted its centrifuge program was purely indigenous and that it had received no outside help whatsoever -- not from Pakistan or anywhere else.


The father of Pakistan's atom bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, worked at the Urenco uranium enrichment facility in the Dutch city of Almelo in the 1970s.


After his return to Pakistan he was convicted in absentia of nuclear espionage by an Amsterdam court, but the verdict was overturned on appeal. He has acknowledged he did take advantage of his experience of many years of working on similar projects in Europe and his contacts with various manufacturing firms.


But David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Institute for Science and International Security think-tank, said: "Khan is widely believed to have taken these drawings and developed them."


Khan is known to have visited Iran, but the diplomats said there was no proof of a link involving him and his laboratories in Pakistan.


The United States accuses Iran of using its nuclear power program, parts of which it kept hidden from the IAEA for 18 years, as a front to build an atom bomb. Tehran denies this.

On Wednesday, the IAEA Board of Governors unanimously approved a resolution that "strongly deplores" Iran's two-decade concealment of its centrifuge enrichment program, while praising its promises to be transparent from now on.

The IAEA is still investigating Iran's enrichment program in order to identify the origin of traces of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) inspectors found at the Natanz enrichment plant and the Kalaye Electric Co.

But when IAEA experts visited Iran's pilot enrichment plant at Natanz earlier this year, they saw it bore the marks of the centrifuges outlined in the Urenco designs, diplomats said.

They said Tehran later acknowledged it had used the Urenco designs and recently showed them to the IAEA. Iran also admitted to a massive procurement effort to get centrifuge components.

Iran says some of these components, purchased through "middlemen" in the middle of 1980-88 Iran-Iraq (news - web sites) war, were contaminated with HEU. This, the Iranians say, is why the IAEA found HEU traces at Natanz and Kalaye, where centrifuge parts were tested and manufactured.

Diplomats and non-proliferation experts say Iran's centrifuge program based on the Urenco design appears to have been more successful than Pakistan's. They say Pakistan eventually abandoned the Urenco model and chose another one.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031127/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_designs_dc_7

[majithia]

First of all, it is impossible to determine the level and type of technical assistance Pakistan provided to Iran. David Albright accusation is pure hogwash and speculative when he says that Iran developed centrifuge technology from Dr Qadeer drawings. Albright has tried to develop but failed to draw a complete picture of what Pakistan may or may not have provided to Iran. :D :D :D. The most likely scenario would be the German and European consortium of companies and their experts secretly (and independently) providing considerable amount of sensitive information just like (in the late eighties) several Germans scientists provided key info to Iraq about Urenco centrifuges. Acccording to Albright, the level of assistance provided by German experts was real key to progress in Iraqi gas centrifuge program. Pakistani assistance general in scope could not make Iran capable to develop complete centrifuge technology and Pakistan’s large scale involvement would be easily detectable. The most likely source of centrifuge components contaminated with HEU purchased through "middlemen" can only be from Russia and not Pakistani.

majithia

[Sultan]

I dont get it. We build midget subs... we've been operating midget subs for the pst many years now. So why the hell didnt we get the Iranians to sign a deal with us??? So much for a pan Islamic military industrial complex. Our intiative with th Egyptians and Saudis must include Iran. We cannot continue to ignore Iran... its too big!!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/901492.stm

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_fa.asp?news_id=96401327294683

[Noman]

Originally posted by Sultan
I dont get it. We build midget subs... we've been operating midget subs for the pst many years now. So why the hell didnt we get the Iranians to sign a deal with us??? So much for a pan Islamic military industrial complex. Our intiative with th Egyptians and Saudis must include Iran. We cannot continue to ignore Iran... its too big!!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/901492.stm

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_fa.asp?news_id=96401327294683

In the late 80's when PN was building midgets (in service today). Iran did want to purchase the ones built outright plus more. With Full payment and at a price SEVERAL times the cost price.

The deal expired somewhere in the Defence Ministry. Possible reasons are...

- PN midgets are Italian design, and to export you need their permission, which might have not been forth coming.

- Iran at that time was going head to head against the US, our 'ally' at that time in Afghanistan. It would have been 'politically incorrect' if Pakistani manufactured subs were used against US ships or other Arab Navies.

- With a lot of French/ British equipment on the subs, you could never get all the permissions necessary to export them.

In the 60's there was supposed to be a tripartite agreement to build German subs (Type 209) in Pakistan for Libya and the PN, with Libyan money. Everything was agreed between the three but the deal fell apart because our MoD couldn't agree on giving the first sub to Libya. Libyans cancelled the deal.

In the 90's the saudi's wanted to subcontract most of their naval maintenance to PN. The deal fell apart, because our people in the spirit of earning a lot of 'Foreign Exchange' quoted prices 2-3 times that provided by US and Europe. Lack of business sense ??

I seem to remember, the Shah wanted to have a joint collaboration to build a common MBT for PA and the Imperial Iranian Army. To which the PA officers replied 'The Tank has no future' or something to that effect ???.


And the list goes on and on...


On a related note, the Iranians have not really built a midget sub (seeing the pic on bbc). Its more like a small submersible. A Glass cockpit suggests is can't dive very deep. I'd guess no more that 15-20 feet or so.

[TahirN]

Tehran aims for satellite launch

Iran's defence minister has vowed that the country will launch a satellite of its own within 18 months. "Iran will be the first Islamic country to enter the stratosphere with its own satellite and its own indigenous launch system," minister Ali Shamkhani said.

His comments - at a Tehran aerospace conference - are thought to be the first official indication of the time frame for Iran's space programme.

Iran has developed its own submarine and long-range ballistic missile.

Mr Shamkhani described Iran's aerospace programme as being part of the country's "deterrence force", the official Irna news agency reported.

He said universities and the defence industry were co-operating on the satellite - but gave no details as to what type of satellite was planned.

Communications

Iran has been seeking a communications satellite since the 1980s and has taken bids from a number of countries for the project, Irna reported.

Tehran suspended discussions with Russia over the project due to contractual disputes, the Russian news agency Interfax reported in August.
Among Islamic countries, Pakistan has used Russian facilities to launch satellites, but does not have its own launch technology.

Iran has worked to develop its own military technology since relations with the United States - formerly its major arms supplier - were cut in the wake of the 1979 revolution.

It unveiled the al-Sabehat-15 mini-submarine in August 2000, and brought the Shahab-3 ballistic missile into service three years later.

The missile is believed to be based on technology bought from North Korea and Pakistan.

Iran has also developed its own nuclear programme, which it says is for civilian use.

The United States suspects it of seeking to build nuclear weapons.

In December, Iran officially agreed to let the UN nuclear watchdog inspect its nuclear facilities.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3370143.stm

Surely Pakistan and Iran could save many millions on development costs if they worked together on projects such as satellites and launch vehicles. Israel and India are working on a multitude of defence projects and therefore it is natural for Pakistan/GCC countries to work together with Iran to combat this threat.

My only concern with our current policy is that If we rely on the Arabs for some of our strategic decision making, then history has shown that they are not good at it.

[Abbas Naqvi]

They cannot build subs or midget subs, neither they have any capacity to develop nuclear weapons and nor can they launch satellites.The shahab system is an upgraded scud from russia with pathetic accuracy (worse than indian). I dont know why we keep on getting news on this forum about magnificient and advanced capabilities of iran and other middle eastern countries.




Abbas.