Irán: ¿Conflicto inevitable?

[Vanguardia]

Las sanciones afectan gravemente a la economía de Irán.

El Ríal iraní se desploma

Sólo ayer, la moneda iraní se depreció en un 17 por ciento, llegando a mínimos históricos. En la última semana ha perdido más de la cuarta parte de su valor. El lunes, para comprar un dólar estadounidense había que desembolsar 34.500 ríales. Precisamente, según Washington esta pérdida de valor es una señal clara de que las sanciones al régimen de Teherán están funcionando y que “empresas de todo el mundo se niegan a hacer negocios cobn Irán”

Teherán está sometido a sanciones del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU y también de la Unión Europea, Estados Unidos y otros países por el convencimiento de que su programa nuclear está destinado a lograr un arma nuclear, mientras Teherán afirma que es exclusivamente civil y pacífico.

Según los analistas, además de las sanciones contra los sectores financiero, energético y petroquímico, el rial también se resiente de una mala administración en el sector económico y financiero nacional.


Copyright © 2012 euronews

[Vanguardia]

El iluminado dice:

“Una guerra económica”

El desplome del rial iraní es el resultado de una guerra económica, así lo ha definido este martes el presidente del país tras la nueva bajada de la moneda nacional que ha perdido un 30 por ciento de su valor en la última semana, el 80 por ciento en un año.

Mahmud Ahmadinejad echa la culpa del desplome monetario del país a un complot orquestado por enemigos de Irán. Personas identificadas, corredores en el mercado cambiario, ha dicho hoy al tiempo que insistía en que podrán sortear las consecuencias de las sanciones impuestas por el programa nuclear.

Para Estados Unidos, la exclusión de Irán del sistema bancario internacional impidendo que pueda exportar petróleo ha surtido efecto.

La debilidad de la divisa doméstica sigue encareciendo las importaciones y genera una inflación galopante.

Copyright © 2012 euronews

[Mauricio]

Del New York Times:

October 2, 2012

Wary of Israel, Iran Is Said to Err in Strikes

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

The Iranian military was so apprehensive about the threat of an Israeli airstrike on its nuclear installations in 2007 and 2008 that it mistakenly fired on civilian airliners and, in one instance, on one of its own military aircraft, according to classified American intelligence reports.

The civilian planes were fired on by surface-to-air missiles and antiaircraft batteries and intercepted by Iranian fighter jets.

“Iranian air defense units have taken inappropriate actions dozens of times, including firing antiaircraft artillery and scrambling aircraft against unidentified or misidentified targets,” noted a heavily classified Pentagon intelligence report, which added that the Iranian military’s communications were so inadequate and its training deficiencies so significant that “misidentification of aircraft will continue.”

At the time, there was growing concern in Israel and the United States over Iran’s nuclear program and discussion of a military response.

In September 2007, Israeli aircraft bombed a nuclear reactor that was under construction in northeast Syria. The following year, Israel conducted a major air exercise over the Mediterranean that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

In Iran, air defense units were edgy, fearing that an enemy aircraft might try to mimic the flight profile of a civilian airliner, according to a classified Pentagon assessment.

The combination of heightened vigilance and poor command and control led to series of mistakes, according to a highly classified 2008 Pentagon report on “Operational Mishaps by Air Defense Units.”

In June 2007, the report noted, a Revolutionary Guards air defense unit fired a TOR-M1 surface-to-air missile at a civilian airliner. In May 2008, an antiaircraft battery fired on an Iranian reconnaissance drone and a civilian airliner. That same month, an antiaircraft battery fired on an Iranian F-14 fighter jet.

The report and other documents were examined for a new book.

In June 2008, soon after the Israeli air exercise, Iranian air defense units fired at two more civilian aircraft. In one instance, an Iranian F-4 fighter scrambled to intercept an Iraqi Airways flight from Baghdad to Tehran to visually inspect the passenger plane. The Iraqi Airways plane was not harmed.

The mishaps were not the first time that air defense forces fired at a civilian aircraft that was believed to be on a military mission. In September 1983, a Soviet pilot shot down a Korean 747 airliner that had strayed from its flight path to Seoul. The Soviet pilot later said in an interview that he knew that he was shooting at a civilian plane, but assumed that it was being used for a spy mission.

Worried about an Israeli strike, the Iranian military began to rehearse attacks of its own. Less than two weeks after Israeli warplanes practiced over the Mediterranean in June 2008, a classified Pentagon report noted, the commander of the Iranian Air Force ordered fighter units to “conduct daily air-to-ground attack training (GAT) at firing ranges resembling the Israeli city of Haifa and the Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona,” according to a classified 2008 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Iraqi officials had their own concerns about a possible Israeli strike. On July 3, 2008, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq opened a videoconference with President George W. Bush by expressing his fear that Israel might fly through Iraqi skies to attack Iran.

If Israel violated Iraqi airspace, he said, he would have no choice but to hold the United States responsible, said Mr. Maliki, who said that he could not allow Iraq to “become a battleground.”

“I hear you loud and clear,” Mr. Bush assured Mr. Maliki, according to notes of the conversation. “Nothing is more important to me than success in Iraq.”

[Heckler]

En cuanto al tema guerra Iran-Estados Unidos, ¿cuál creis que sería el papel de las fuerzas armadas españolas? ¿creis que tendría una participación como Afganistan o incluso mayor?

[a615618]

España no tendra ningun papel en un posible ataque de Israel ó EE.UU sobre Iran,

[Chechitar_1985]

España no tendra ningun papel en un posible ataque de Israel ó EE.UU sobre Iran,

quizas en el uso de las bases aereas para lo concerniente al abastecimiento de material belico, aunque no se verian fuerzas españolas dentro del ataque

[Heckler]

y el resto de europa? reino unido?

[Experten]

Dependerá de muchas cosas, pero no veo a toda la OTAN apoyando un ataque contra las instalaciones nucleares de Iran, de hecho, será un problema serio coordinar el uso del espacio aéreo de diversos países de la OTAN para efectuar un ataque contra Iran.

[Mauricio]

Nuevo en el Scribd del FMG - Reportes y artículos sobre la crisis nuclear Iraní

[NN_1972]

Del New York Times:

October 2, 2012

Wary of Israel, Iran Is Said to Err in Strikes

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

The Iranian military was so apprehensive about the threat of an Israeli airstrike on its nuclear installations in 2007 and 2008 that it mistakenly fired on civilian airliners and, in one instance, on one of its own military aircraft, according to classified American intelligence reports.

The civilian planes were fired on by surface-to-air missiles and antiaircraft batteries and intercepted by Iranian fighter jets.

“Iranian air defense units have taken inappropriate actions dozens of times, including firing antiaircraft artillery and scrambling aircraft against unidentified or misidentified targets,” noted a heavily classified Pentagon intelligence report, which added that the Iranian military’s communications were so inadequate and its training deficiencies so significant that “misidentification of aircraft will continue.”

At the time, there was growing concern in Israel and the United States over Iran’s nuclear program and discussion of a military response.

In September 2007, Israeli aircraft bombed a nuclear reactor that was under construction in northeast Syria. The following year, Israel conducted a major air exercise over the Mediterranean that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

In Iran, air defense units were edgy, fearing that an enemy aircraft might try to mimic the flight profile of a civilian airliner, according to a classified Pentagon assessment.

The combination of heightened vigilance and poor command and control led to series of mistakes, according to a highly classified 2008 Pentagon report on “Operational Mishaps by Air Defense Units.”

In June 2007, the report noted, a Revolutionary Guards air defense unit fired a TOR-M1 surface-to-air missile at a civilian airliner. In May 2008, an antiaircraft battery fired on an Iranian reconnaissance drone and a civilian airliner. That same month, an antiaircraft battery fired on an Iranian F-14 fighter jet.

The report and other documents were examined for a new book.

In June 2008, soon after the Israeli air exercise, Iranian air defense units fired at two more civilian aircraft. In one instance, an Iranian F-4 fighter scrambled to intercept an Iraqi Airways flight from Baghdad to Tehran to visually inspect the passenger plane. The Iraqi Airways plane was not harmed.

The mishaps were not the first time that air defense forces fired at a civilian aircraft that was believed to be on a military mission. In September 1983, a Soviet pilot shot down a Korean 747 airliner that had strayed from its flight path to Seoul. The Soviet pilot later said in an interview that he knew that he was shooting at a civilian plane, but assumed that it was being used for a spy mission.

Worried about an Israeli strike, the Iranian military began to rehearse attacks of its own. Less than two weeks after Israeli warplanes practiced over the Mediterranean in June 2008, a classified Pentagon report noted, the commander of the Iranian Air Force ordered fighter units to “conduct daily air-to-ground attack training (GAT) at firing ranges resembling the Israeli city of Haifa and the Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona,” according to a classified 2008 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Iraqi officials had their own concerns about a possible Israeli strike. On July 3, 2008, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq opened a videoconference with President George W. Bush by expressing his fear that Israel might fly through Iraqi skies to attack Iran.

If Israel violated Iraqi airspace, he said, he would have no choice but to hold the United States responsible, said Mr. Maliki, who said that he could not allow Iraq to “become a battleground.”

“I hear you loud and clear,” Mr. Bush assured Mr. Maliki, according to notes of the conversation. “Nothing is more important to me than success in Iraq.”

convengamos que te pones paranoico si la IAF te tiene como objetivo....

[Ismael]

Ni bombardeos, ni leches. Para combatir a los ayatolás, no hay nada mejor que enviar a Jennifer López:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

[Mauricio]

Armada Iraní: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110288877/Off ... l-Strategy

[Mauricio]

El AW&ST de la semana tiene una serie de artículos sobre el tema de este debate. Vale la pena echarle una ojeadita - *CLICK*

[Albertopus]

Estimados todos:

El New York Times habla de la predisposición iraní a entablar negociaciones directas con EE.UU. después de que sepa quien va a ser el próximo presidente de EE.UU.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/world/iran-said-ready-to-talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?ref=world&_r=0

Los propios norteamericanos han rechazado reconocer ese preacuerdo, aunque dicen estar abiertos a esa posibilidad.

"The White House denied that a final agreement had been reached. “It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said Saturday evening. He added, however, that the administration was open to such talks, and has “said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”..."

Lo interesante es que los iraníes lo han desmentido también. Pero de una manera muy sutil. Dicen no tener nada "llamado negociaciones"... ¡Ah!, a lo mejor no son negociaciones, pero en el mundo diplomático se emplean muchas expresiones para definir distintos grados de aproximaciones: "contactos", "evaluaciones", "exploraciones"...

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107114102

Los israelíes dicen no saber nada de esas cosas, pero advierten que Irán siempre aprovecha las conversaciones para avanzar en su proyecto nuclear.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-israel-unaware-of-any-breakthrough-in-u-s-iran-nuclear-talks.premium-1.471368

Lo relevante de este asunto, creo, es que EE.UU pudiera estar empleando la última baza para evitar un ataque israelí. Si realmente hubiera negociaciones, los contactos serían más directos y las decisiones que se tomaran no necesitarían el consenso de los 5+1. Irán podrían hablar con su "enemigo nº 1" y decirse las cosas a la cara. EE.UU podría mantener una postura dura contra Irán, pero mucho menos intransigente que la israelí, como demuestra la reacción del embajador israelí en EE.UU, Michael Oren:

""We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” Oren said, “rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.”..."

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=288628

Saludos.

PD. Gracias, estimado Mauricio por los links.

[Ismael]

El Tribunal Supremo Iraní acusa al gobierno de una transferencia ilegal de 12.000 millones dólares para camuflar el déficit:

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/201 ... ciary.html



Un saludo