Iran and Russia have signed a energy development deal involving onshore and offshare oil and gas fields

The National Iranian Oil Co. and Russia's Gazprom have signed an agreement to develop Iran's crude oil and natural gas fields, particularly Azadegan, the largest onshore oil field in the country with estimated reserves of 42 billion barrels.
The deal, signed on July 13 in wake of the withdrawal by France's Total, was meant to pave the way for Russia to become a leading foreign contractor in Iran's energy sector.

Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, warned yesterday that any attack on Iran's nuclear programme would have grave consequences for the US, Israel and the whole world.

But Assad, Iran's most important Arab ally, also promised to discuss the issue with Tehran, suggesting that Syria, itself shunned by the US, could mediate in a crisis which has escalated, with Iranian and Israeli sabre-rattling in the last fortnight.

"It will cost the US and the planet dear," he told France Inter radio yesterday during his visit to Paris. "Israel will pay directly the price of this war. Iran has said so. The problem is that when one starts such action in the Middle East, one cannot manage ... reactions that can spread out over years or even decades."

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said talks with the United States are possible in the near future, according the country's official news agency.

But he said that such talks would not happen at governmental level.

Tension has grown recently amid Iranian missile tests and speculation over a possible Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The US cut ties with Iran after the 1979 revolution and the seizure of 63 people at the US embassy in Tehran.

The timing of any military attack on Iran probably has more to do with Iran's ability to "see" an attack coming than the state of development of their nuclear program or UN negotiations.

For example, it was previously reported that the end of March was Israel's point of no return for a military option against Iran, and that the timing of the end of March was due to "fears of Irans growing intelligence-gathering capability" through the launch of satellites. According to this article, the Russians launched the first Iranian satellite in October 2005. This was reported on December 11, 2005 by the Times Online, sorry, can't refind the link but think the article is posted previously on this same forum.

It has also been reported that the Iranians will be launching a second satellite in late March 2006. Space Daily

The West apparently fears the Iranian satellite program could be a "trojan horse" for a WMD program, similar to North Korea.

Free Republic

Israel reports these Iranian satellites and missiles are "spy satellites" using technology to foil Israeli defenses that cause Israel a lot of damage.
Haaretz Daily

For an interesting chronology of Iran's missile development program, check this site out and click on whatever year you want to review. NTI


All this to say, it appears that any deadline for a strike against Iran has more to do with two things: (1) striking while the Iranians don't have the satellite capability to detect a preemptive strike; (2) striking before the Iranians get the missile capability to effectively launch a missile counter-strike.

This is something I think people are tending to forget. Iran isn't Iraq. Not by a long shot. Iraq was essentially defenseless, but Iran isn't. Faced with nuclear-armed invaders, they really can't prevail. But that's not to say they can't put a beating on their assailants the likes of which the US hasn't endured since the Pacific campaigns of the Second World War. I don't think Iran could hold off a truly determined United States. But I do believe they have the capacity to inflict loses on the US military that will be shocking and horrifying to the people of the United States, and reveal the feet of clay upon which even the greatest powers stand... we're all mortal, after all. To me, the single most concerning fact is that the Russians have sold Iran a group of land-based anti-ship cruise missiles that they designed specifically to counter the advantage the US had in carrier fleets. The SS-N-22 Sunburn was intended specifically to be used to defend the coast from an amphibious assault, and it makes the Exorcet look like a toy by comparison. They fly at twice the speed of sound and present an attack profile width only slightly wider than 30 inches. A single one could cripple, and potentially even sink, an aircraft carrier. I don't think anyone knows for sure just how many the Russians sold Iran, aside from Russia and Iran. So while I agree that Iran can't ultimately prevail, at least not alone, in defending its sovereignty, I think people need to keep in mind that an earnest attack on Iran presents potential losses the likes of which no Western country has seen since our grandparents' day.

How would it be different?

It is hard to get the truth about such issues. Some say Iran's need nukes for energy is legitimate. Others say no it is not. We can't go by past performance of the gov, as we were told nothing but lies about Iraq.

Too bad the US didn't plant at least one or two weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, We may have had more faith in our gov if they kept us in the dark about their lies.

That's a good point you've brought up. If the US is so quick to conspire, if it brought down the twin towers with planted explosives and all, then why DIDN'T it plant WMDs in Iraq? This is where the conspiracy theories start to break down.

If there is anything the Bush administration has to show for itself it is INCOMPETENCE. I think the administration actually believed the WMDs were there. There is no way they would want to set themselves up for the shame of not finding them afterwards. Not that it really changes things that much.

It was much simpler and sneakier to say, "Oops, we fu*ked up".

Because if WMD were found, then there would have to also exist abundant evidence of a sophisticated, highly organized program to produce them.

There would have to also exist many, many scientists, technicians and support personnel; there would have to exist facilities infrastructure; materials acquisitions links, etc.

If you just planted a few fully functioning and complete WMD's without there being any supporting infrastructure and 1000's of supporting personnel, the weapons would look exactly as they were -- planted evidence. It would stick out obviously to everyone who bothered to look at the details.

It was much simpler and sneakier to say, "Oops, we fu*ked up".

That's a good point you've brought up. If the US is so quick to conspire, if it brought down the twin towers with planted explosives and all, then why DIDN'T it plant WMDs in Iraq? This is where the conspiracy theories start to break down.

If there is anything the Bush administration has to show for itself it is INCOMPETENCE. I think the administration actually believed the WMDs were there. There is no way they would want to set themselves up for the shame of not finding them afterwards. Not that it really changes things that much.

VIENNA, Austria - Iran is nearing the ability to arm a nuclear warhead even if it insists its atomic activities are peaceful, the European Union warned Wednesday.

In comments prepared for delivery to the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35 board members, the EU also asserted that Iran appeared to have had a past nuclear arms program despite its denials.

The statement was made available to reporters as the meeting turned its attention on Iran's nuclear defiance on its third day. The main international concerns focus on the country's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment despite three U.N. Security Council sanctions and its blocking of IAEA attempts to follow up on intelligence suggesting it was developing a nuclear arms program until several years ago.

Iran insists its nuclear activities are geared only toward generating power. But Israel says the Islamic Republic could have enough nuclear material to make its first bomb within a year. The U.S. estimates Iran is at least two years away from that stage, and some experts say the country could reach that stage in as little as 6 months through uranium enrichment.

An IAEA report drawn up for Wednesday's meeting says Iran has increased the number of centrifuges used to process uranium to nearly 4,000 from 3,000 just a few months ago.

But David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security closely tracks suspect secret proliferators, has also been able to extrapolate other information from the report that is less obvious but of at least equal concern.

Iran, he says, has managed to iron out most of the bugs in the intensely complicated process of enrichment that often saw the centrifuges breaking down. The machines, he says "now appear to be running at approximately 85 percent of their stated target capacity, a significant increase over previous rates."

That, he says means, they can produce more enriched uranium faster. And while the IAEA says the machines have spewed out only low-enriched material suitable solely for nuclear fuel, producing enough of that can make it easy to "break out" quickly by reprocessing it to weapons-grade uranium.

To date, Iran has produced nearly 1,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium, said the report — close to what Albright says is the 1,500-pound minimum needed to produce the 45-60 pounds needed for a simple nuclear bomb under optimal conditions.

And with Iran's centrifuges running ever more smoothly, it "is progressing toward this capability and can be expected to reach it in six months to two years," says Albright.

Touching on such fears, the statement by the 27-nation EU said that Iran's defiance of Security Council demands on enrichment is troubling "because it brings us closer to the moment where Iran will have fissile materials for a weapon, if it chose to increase their degree of enrichment."

It also cast serious doubt on Iranian assertions that it never embarked on studies geared toward making nuclear weapons.

While the evidence "remains to be verified, the IAEA's exhaustive and detailed" information, "leads one to think that the Iran has methodically pursued a program aimed at acquiring the nuclear bomb," the statement said.

In a statement, Iran's mission to the IAEA again denied wrongdoing and suggested the pressure was part of a U.S. witchhunt.

The Islamic Republic "has repeatedly declared that there is not and has not been any undeclared nuclear activities and material in Iran," it said, denouncing the "fabricated and baseless allegations ... produced by the United States."

An IAEA report circulated to the board members Monday that faulted Iran for blocking efforts to further investigate the alleged weapons program.

Part of the report touched on what appeared to be drawings and calculations by Iranian engineers on reconfiguring its Shahab-3 missile to be able to carry a nuclear payload. Iranian officials say the missile has a range of 1,250 miles — enabling a strike on Israel and most of the Middle East.

Gregory L. Schulte, Washington's chief IAEA delegate, noted that — beyond dismissing the allegations — Iran "refuses to provide credible explanations to support its claims that all of this information ... is pure forgery and fabrication."

And his German counterpart, Ruediger Luedeking, said that "if Iran is not pursuing a military nuclear program it should have no difficulty in cooperating with the agency.

"Iran needs to explain why its military is so deeply involved in its nuclear program," he said.

The last thing we need is the EU giving the US any nod to attack Iran. The EU may not be pushing the US, but they certainly are now standing behind Bush on his accusation Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and what timing for this latent support, right before a presidential election and at the cusp of "world financial meltdown."