Tweet
DEVELOPMENTS AROUND IRAN
Artashes Ter-Harutyunyan
http://noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6295
09.02.2012
Though in prior years, tension around Iran - intensifying and
weakening, was not considered to be unusual, over the recent period
it can be observed that the developments concerning the Southern
neigbour of Armenia has changed their character. They have become
extraordinarily aggressive as compared with the prior years, and this
allows consuming that the situation around Iran is changing.
On the one hand if that aggression is conditioned by the pressure
imposed by the US and its European and Middle East allies, then two
points can be distinguished as the goals of that pressure:
~Uin short-term prospects to compel Iran to make as many concessions
on the crucial regional issues as possible; ~Uin long-term prospects
to weaken the ruling regime in Iran.
Situational observation The session of the EU Foreign Affairs Council
which took place on January 23 in Brussels took a decision to prohibit
all the EU member countries to import oil from Iran.
Let us mention that according to the latest data, Iran sells 2.3
million barrels of oil everyday, 450 thousand barrels of which are
bought by the EU member countries, mainly by Spain, Greece and Italy.
Taking into consideration the fact that the European countries are
going to buy Saudi and Russian oil instead of the Iranian, and on the
other hand the United States are continuing exerting pressure on other
countries which have broad trade and economic relations with Tehran
in order to make them refuse from the Iranian oil and suspend all
the financial operations with the Iranian banks, Tehran may really
face a problem of selling its oil on international market.
It is not a secret that oil is the first income item for the Iranian
regime and on this item the social and economic stability in country
is mainly dependant1. It is not a mere chance that in last December
when the intentions of the EU (to ban import of oil from Iran) has
become public, the Iranian party initiated immensely tough manoeuvres
(Velayat-90) which had lasted for 9 days and covered huge territory -
from the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Arab Sea and Aden Gulf.
During those manoeuvres the first vice-president of Iran Mohamad
Reza Rahimi stated that that if the sanctions concerning the Iranian
oil came into power, the armed forced of the Islamic Republic would
close the Strait of Hormuz through which about 40% of world oil
transportation is taking place2.
It is characteristic that during "Vilayat-90" manoeuvres they practiced
blocking the Strait of Hormuz. During those manoeuvres Iran also
tested new long-range missiles which can strike targets in Israel as
well as deliver strikes on the American military bases in the Middle
East. Further to all the aforementioned the commander of the naval
forces of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution Ali
Fadavi stated that the Iranian navy would arrange new manoeuvres in
February in the district of the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States responded to the steps taken by Iran. At first the
Pentagon stated that the presence of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf
corresponded to the international laws and Washington did not intend
to withdraw its Navy from the region. Soon, on January 8, it became
clear that in addition to the "John Stannis" aircraft carrier and
other naval vessels accompanying it, the United States brought up
to the Gulf another group of naval vessels leaded by "Carl Winson"
aircraft carrier. Besides, the Pentagon sent from the Pacific Ocean to
the Indian Ocean the third group of war-craft ships leaded by "Abraham
Lincoln" aircraft carrier. France also brought up a group of war-craft
ships leaded by "Charles de Gaulle" aircraft carrier. Several British
naval vessels also were sent to the Gulf.
On January 8 the US Secretary of Defence Leon Paneta made s statement,
mentioning that closing of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would be taken
by Washington as "crossing red line". Three days before Paneta's
statement, the Minister of Defence of Great Britain Philip Hammond
made even tougher statement saying that if Iran closed the Strait of
Hormuz, the United Kingdom would initiate military actions in order
to re-open it. But even more remarkable was the publication in The
New York Times which was later confirmed by the Iranian sources:
according to them the US president Barak Obama sent a letter to the
supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, thus cautioning him
from closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Threats and counterthreats between Washington, its allies and Iran are
nothing new but this time the difference is that they are accompanied
by such a demonstration of the military forces and tough statements
on the highest level. On the other hand the situation is constrained
by the issue which caused that constraint, i.e. the Iranian oil. As
it was mentioned selling oil is of vital importance for the Iranian
regime. They realize it in the United States and European countries
either and the fact that in previous years they did not touch the
Iranian oil was a kind of indicator that the external pressure on Iran
was of situational character. Now the situation is changing and the
decision of the European countries to stop buying oil from Iran means
that the policy of the US and the European powers towards Iran has
changed its character which is the indicator of the situation changing.
Changing of the situation is also proved by the developments round the
nuclear programme of Iran and the aggravation of the Iranian-Israeli
confrontation which can be observed over the recent period.
Against the background of the tension around the Iranian oil and
Strait of Hormuz, on January 8 Tehran stated that the underground
uranium enrichment plant started working near Fordo population centre,
not far from the city of Kum3. The head of the Iranian Nuclear Agency
Fereydun Abasi added that the plant can enrich uranium up to 20%. It
is remarkable that this step by Tehran was condemned not only by the
United States, Great Britain, France and Italy, but also by Russia.
In two days the Israeli mass media wrote, making reference to the
special services of their countries that this year Tehran planned
to blow up at one of its underground objects one kiloton bomb just
like in Northern Korea in 2006. It is remarkable that on the same
day (January 10) The Times published the report recently spread by
Institute for National Security Studies working under the Tel Aviv
University; according to that report in 2012 Israel should be ready
to face nuclear Iran.
Just in several days, on January 18 the former head of the Israeli
intelligence service, Major General Amos Yadlin stated that Iran
possessed all the technologies and materials necessary for the creation
of the weapon and it was just a matter of the political decision.
On the next day the Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated
that Iranian leadership took a decision to create nuclear weapon. The
fact that two days before the statement was made Netanyahu cancelled
Austere Challenge 12 joint American-Israeli manoeuvres, which were
planned on April and which should have been the biggest in the history
deserves special attention. According to both American and Israeli
sources this is the way Tel Aviv wants to express its discontent with
the approach of Washington to the Iranian issue; currently Washington
is against usage of military force against the Islamic Republic. Here
it is important that Tel Aviv resorts to such strict measures from
the point of view of the American-Israeli relations which taking
into consideration the situation around Iran should be the evidence
of super-importance of the issue or of the so-called high stakes.
Conclusions The process is not finished yet and the issue is in what
way the developments will go after the aforementioned decision of
the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the EU.
Of course many things depend on Iran's response. However any step
taken by any of the parties, in fact, will be of temporal character
as the logic of the developments is not directed to the detente.
On the other hand the developments around Syria are important.
According to many international experts, one of the aims of the
pressure of the US and its allies exerted on Iran is to compel it to
make concessions. The fall of al-Assad's regime in Syria may seriously
affect Iran's positions in the region. The pressure on Damascus is
rising and one should wait and see what Tehran will offer to its
Syrian ally.
1 According to the western expert evaluations, today Iran receives
about 2/3 of its national revenue from selling gas.
2 In addition to that statement the Head of the Iranian General
Staff Major General Ataola Selehi and Iran's Minister of Defence
Ahmad Vahidi stated, correspondingly on January 3 and 4, that the
United States should withdraw its naval forces from the Persian Gulf
as the countries of the region were capable of providing the security
of the Gulf by their own means.
3 In response to the American threats Iran is moving its nuclear
objects underground.
From: Baghdasarian
Artashes Ter-Harutyunyan
http://noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6295
09.02.2012
Though in prior years, tension around Iran - intensifying and
weakening, was not considered to be unusual, over the recent period
it can be observed that the developments concerning the Southern
neigbour of Armenia has changed their character. They have become
extraordinarily aggressive as compared with the prior years, and this
allows consuming that the situation around Iran is changing.
On the one hand if that aggression is conditioned by the pressure
imposed by the US and its European and Middle East allies, then two
points can be distinguished as the goals of that pressure:
~Uin short-term prospects to compel Iran to make as many concessions
on the crucial regional issues as possible; ~Uin long-term prospects
to weaken the ruling regime in Iran.
Situational observation The session of the EU Foreign Affairs Council
which took place on January 23 in Brussels took a decision to prohibit
all the EU member countries to import oil from Iran.
Let us mention that according to the latest data, Iran sells 2.3
million barrels of oil everyday, 450 thousand barrels of which are
bought by the EU member countries, mainly by Spain, Greece and Italy.
Taking into consideration the fact that the European countries are
going to buy Saudi and Russian oil instead of the Iranian, and on the
other hand the United States are continuing exerting pressure on other
countries which have broad trade and economic relations with Tehran
in order to make them refuse from the Iranian oil and suspend all
the financial operations with the Iranian banks, Tehran may really
face a problem of selling its oil on international market.
It is not a secret that oil is the first income item for the Iranian
regime and on this item the social and economic stability in country
is mainly dependant1. It is not a mere chance that in last December
when the intentions of the EU (to ban import of oil from Iran) has
become public, the Iranian party initiated immensely tough manoeuvres
(Velayat-90) which had lasted for 9 days and covered huge territory -
from the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Arab Sea and Aden Gulf.
During those manoeuvres the first vice-president of Iran Mohamad
Reza Rahimi stated that that if the sanctions concerning the Iranian
oil came into power, the armed forced of the Islamic Republic would
close the Strait of Hormuz through which about 40% of world oil
transportation is taking place2.
It is characteristic that during "Vilayat-90" manoeuvres they practiced
blocking the Strait of Hormuz. During those manoeuvres Iran also
tested new long-range missiles which can strike targets in Israel as
well as deliver strikes on the American military bases in the Middle
East. Further to all the aforementioned the commander of the naval
forces of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution Ali
Fadavi stated that the Iranian navy would arrange new manoeuvres in
February in the district of the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States responded to the steps taken by Iran. At first the
Pentagon stated that the presence of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf
corresponded to the international laws and Washington did not intend
to withdraw its Navy from the region. Soon, on January 8, it became
clear that in addition to the "John Stannis" aircraft carrier and
other naval vessels accompanying it, the United States brought up
to the Gulf another group of naval vessels leaded by "Carl Winson"
aircraft carrier. Besides, the Pentagon sent from the Pacific Ocean to
the Indian Ocean the third group of war-craft ships leaded by "Abraham
Lincoln" aircraft carrier. France also brought up a group of war-craft
ships leaded by "Charles de Gaulle" aircraft carrier. Several British
naval vessels also were sent to the Gulf.
On January 8 the US Secretary of Defence Leon Paneta made s statement,
mentioning that closing of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would be taken
by Washington as "crossing red line". Three days before Paneta's
statement, the Minister of Defence of Great Britain Philip Hammond
made even tougher statement saying that if Iran closed the Strait of
Hormuz, the United Kingdom would initiate military actions in order
to re-open it. But even more remarkable was the publication in The
New York Times which was later confirmed by the Iranian sources:
according to them the US president Barak Obama sent a letter to the
supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, thus cautioning him
from closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Threats and counterthreats between Washington, its allies and Iran are
nothing new but this time the difference is that they are accompanied
by such a demonstration of the military forces and tough statements
on the highest level. On the other hand the situation is constrained
by the issue which caused that constraint, i.e. the Iranian oil. As
it was mentioned selling oil is of vital importance for the Iranian
regime. They realize it in the United States and European countries
either and the fact that in previous years they did not touch the
Iranian oil was a kind of indicator that the external pressure on Iran
was of situational character. Now the situation is changing and the
decision of the European countries to stop buying oil from Iran means
that the policy of the US and the European powers towards Iran has
changed its character which is the indicator of the situation changing.
Changing of the situation is also proved by the developments round the
nuclear programme of Iran and the aggravation of the Iranian-Israeli
confrontation which can be observed over the recent period.
Against the background of the tension around the Iranian oil and
Strait of Hormuz, on January 8 Tehran stated that the underground
uranium enrichment plant started working near Fordo population centre,
not far from the city of Kum3. The head of the Iranian Nuclear Agency
Fereydun Abasi added that the plant can enrich uranium up to 20%. It
is remarkable that this step by Tehran was condemned not only by the
United States, Great Britain, France and Italy, but also by Russia.
In two days the Israeli mass media wrote, making reference to the
special services of their countries that this year Tehran planned
to blow up at one of its underground objects one kiloton bomb just
like in Northern Korea in 2006. It is remarkable that on the same
day (January 10) The Times published the report recently spread by
Institute for National Security Studies working under the Tel Aviv
University; according to that report in 2012 Israel should be ready
to face nuclear Iran.
Just in several days, on January 18 the former head of the Israeli
intelligence service, Major General Amos Yadlin stated that Iran
possessed all the technologies and materials necessary for the creation
of the weapon and it was just a matter of the political decision.
On the next day the Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated
that Iranian leadership took a decision to create nuclear weapon. The
fact that two days before the statement was made Netanyahu cancelled
Austere Challenge 12 joint American-Israeli manoeuvres, which were
planned on April and which should have been the biggest in the history
deserves special attention. According to both American and Israeli
sources this is the way Tel Aviv wants to express its discontent with
the approach of Washington to the Iranian issue; currently Washington
is against usage of military force against the Islamic Republic. Here
it is important that Tel Aviv resorts to such strict measures from
the point of view of the American-Israeli relations which taking
into consideration the situation around Iran should be the evidence
of super-importance of the issue or of the so-called high stakes.
Conclusions The process is not finished yet and the issue is in what
way the developments will go after the aforementioned decision of
the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the EU.
Of course many things depend on Iran's response. However any step
taken by any of the parties, in fact, will be of temporal character
as the logic of the developments is not directed to the detente.
On the other hand the developments around Syria are important.
According to many international experts, one of the aims of the
pressure of the US and its allies exerted on Iran is to compel it to
make concessions. The fall of al-Assad's regime in Syria may seriously
affect Iran's positions in the region. The pressure on Damascus is
rising and one should wait and see what Tehran will offer to its
Syrian ally.
1 According to the western expert evaluations, today Iran receives
about 2/3 of its national revenue from selling gas.
2 In addition to that statement the Head of the Iranian General
Staff Major General Ataola Selehi and Iran's Minister of Defence
Ahmad Vahidi stated, correspondingly on January 3 and 4, that the
United States should withdraw its naval forces from the Persian Gulf
as the countries of the region were capable of providing the security
of the Gulf by their own means.
3 In response to the American threats Iran is moving its nuclear
objects underground.
From: Baghdasarian