Iran War Weekly – January 27, 2013

Angela Keaton, January 27, 2013

From Frank Brodhead of Concerned Families of Westchester:

As President Obama puts his new national security team into place, the likelihood is increasing that no meaningful negotiations about Iran’s nuclear policy will take place before Iran’s presidential election in June. There are several reasons to think this. During his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry gave no indication that President Obama’s policy towards Iran was deviating from “all options are on the table,” and there is no indication that the administration was about to relax its (to Iran, unacceptable) negotiating position. Second, as noted in some articles linked below, it is becoming clear that, in separate talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran is not about to allow an inspection of its military base at Parchin (an IAEA demand) until a more comprehensive negotiating framework is developed in the parallel negotiations between Iran and the P5+1.

If there are no negotiations between the Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany), there is little likelihood that sanctions against Iran will be lessened. I’ve linked essays below about the recently augmented sanctions, with several essays stressing the terrible effect that the sanctions are having on supplies of medicine, and thus health.

While the results of last week’s election in Israel are still being clarified, it would appear that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Right have suffered a setback. But the election campaigns paid little attention to either Iran or to Palestinian issues, and the new centrist party that is a likely member of Netanyahu’s governing coalition has not (to my knowledge) expressed any reservations about Netanyahu’s aggressive policy towards Iran. Will a weaker Netanyahu be less of a danger? And what do we make of outgoing Defense Minister Barak’s statement at Davos indicating that Israel was no longer considering a unilateral military attack on Iran? I’ve pasted in links to some preliminary election assessments below.

While Syria’s civil war still seems to be stalemated militarily and politically, Iran this week stated that it would consider an attack on Syria to be an attack on Iran. As Syria’s horrendous refugee crisis and escalating casualty figures generate more calls for “humanitarian intervention,” the danger of a regional war seems more likely than ever.

Please read the rest of the Iran War Weekly at WarIsACrime.org.




10 Responses to “Iran War Weekly – January 27, 2013”

  1. The rest of the article says:
    "Access denied
    You are not authorized to access this page."

  2. Iran regime knows that an attack on it is just a matter of time. So, by dragging Syria into the game, they want to disperse the focus of the war from just being on them. More dispersion of the attack means less damage to Iranian regime. Or so is the mullahs thinking.

  3. Iran regime knows that an attack on it is just a matter of time.
    So, by dragging Syria into the game, they want to disperse the focus of the war from just being on them. More dispersion of the attack means less damage to Iranian regime. Iranian regime wants the theater of the war to be inside Syria rather than inside Iran. Or so is the mullahs thinking.
    But as always, they are just dreaming if they think they will not be the ultimate target of any war sparked in the region.

  4. Sorry – The direct link is http://warisacrime.org/blog/46383. Repairs are underway. – Frank Brodhead

  5. While an attack on Iran by the United States is a strong possibility, I think it is far from inevitable. As for Syria, Iran is certainly not responsible for "dragging Syria into this game"; the initial non-violent uprising against Assad had nothing to do with Iran, and Iran's support for Syria is not exactly "dragging Syria into" anything it wasn't already into. As for Iran's recent statement that an attack (by an outside power, presumably) on Syria would be viewed as an attack on Iran, I think this simply clarifies what would had been implicit all along. But is "Syria" a blackhole that could drag the entire region into war if e.g. the US were to start bombing or "NATO" were to send troops? Yes, certainly.

  6. The likelihood is increasing that no meaningful negotiations about Iran’s nuclear policy will take place before Iran’s presidential election in June.

  7. turkishchat.net

  8. nice article…thanks for share

  9. I was boastful to locate this web-site.I wanted to fascinating time as a result of this amazing read!! I certainly enjoying each little it and I have you bookmarked to consider new belongings you text.//nstellar phoenix photo recovery//n//n

  10. Oh my goodness! an amazing post dude. Appreciate it Even so I might be experiencing problem with ur rss . Do not know why Can not enroll in it. Could there be any individual locating identical rss concern? Everyone who knows kindly respond. Thnkxwondershare dr fone//n//n