Iran

Israel has expanded its operations against Iranian targets to Iraq, where Air Force jets have struck twice in ten days, a report said Tuesday morning.
Israel commonly conducts strikes in Syrian territory, targeting Iranian missile shipments meant for Lebanese terror group Hezbollah to use against the Jewish state, but strikes in Iraq by Israel have not been reported since the 1981 bombing of a nuclear reactor.

Asharq Al-Awsat, an Arabic-language newspaper published in London, cited Western diplomatic sources as saying an Israeli F-35 plane was behind a July 19 strike on a rocket depot in a Shiite militia base north of Baghdad.

The IDF has not commented on the report.

The Saudi-based al-Arabiya network reported at the time that members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and Hezbollah had been killed in the strike. It said the base had shortly before the strike received Iranian ballistic missiles, which had been hidden inside trucks.
Iraq’s military said at the time that one fighter was killed and two Iranians wounded, saying the strike was carried out by an unmanned drone. The United States denied involvement.

In this photo from July 1, 2016, members of the Iran-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq paramilitary group take part in a Quds Day march in Baghdad, Iraq. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban, File)
Asharq Al-Awsat also said that Israel was behind another strike in Iraq carried out Sunday at Camp Ashraf, the former headquarters of the exiled People’s Mujahedin of Iran, located 40 kilometers northeast of Baghdad and 80 kilometers from the Iranian border.
That strike targeted Iranian advisers and a ballistic missile shipment, the report cited sources as saying.
The report also mentioned a strike in Syria last week blamed on Israel, in which nine were killed including six Iranians fighting for the Syrian regime, claiming it was meant to prevent Iran from taking over a strategic hill in the Daraa province in the country’s south.
Israeli missiles targeted “military positions and intelligence facilities belonging to Iran and [pro-Iranian] militias” in the southern provinces of Daraa and Quneitra early on Wednesday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at the time.
The other three killed in the strike were pro-regime Syrian fighters, it added.

Illustrative: Explosions seen near Damascus on July 1, 2019, during a purported Israeli airstrike. (Screen capture/Twitter)
Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria since the beginning of the conflict in 2011, targeting Iranian and Hezbollah forces in the country, as well as those loyal to the Assad regime, as part of a stated policy to prevent arms transfers to Hezbollah in Lebanon and the entrenchment of Iranian military forces across from Israel’s northern border.
Israel does not usually comment on specific reports of strikes, but does insist it has the right to defend itself by targeting positions held by Iran and Hezbollah.
Regional Cooperation Minister Tzachi Hanegbi boasted last week that Israel is the only country in the world that has been “killing Iranians.”
In a speech to the UN General Assembly last September, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that “Israel will do whatever it must do to defend itself against Iran’s aggression. We will continue to act against you in Syria. We will act against you in Lebanon. We will act against you in Iraq. We will act against you whenever and wherever we must act to defend our state and defend our people.” An excerpt from that speech was utilized in a recent Likud election campaign clip.

Times of Israel staff and agencies contributed to this report.

Interesting little piece from the TOI. I hadn't heard anything about it on any other media sites.
 
After a series of incidents which included harassing the British Heritage, seizing a Panama-flagged tanker then a British tanker together with attacks on commercial ships across two separate incidents in May and June 2019, shooting down a U.S. Navy drone in June and losing a drone to the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer, U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles are now flying patrols over the Persian Gulf armed with a variety of weapons useful for dealing with IRGC small boat swarms, and will be co-ordinating with USN vessels in the area.

These multi-munition-armed F-15Es from the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing flying Surface Combat Air Patrols, or SuCAP based and flying from Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE are now providing aerial escorts of naval vessels as they traverse the Strait of Hormuz where Iran has recently used its small boat fleet to damage, harass and seize Tankers

Weapons carried include AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles, AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range infrared homing missiles. These are for self-defence but also allow engaging other aircraft or drones, CBU’s for the small boat swarms, and laser-guided 500-pound class GBU-12/B Paveway II bombs, and up to 2,000-pound class GBU-24/B Paveway III on the centreline station which are capable of disabling or destroying any ship in the Iranian Navy.


With the present situation U.S. sanctions are causing pain in Iran, and Iranian leaders now have to worry about the further sanctions they have recently incurred. Further provocations by Iran are very likely, however the use of force by them is now more than ever likely to be met by overwhelming force by the United States.

Iran’s strategy to date is starting to lose them sympathy, and while it may bolster the hardliner’s position back home, now less likely to receive universal support from abroad who are now seeing Iran more as a mischief maker being justifiably constrained, rather than a small power being bullied by the US. Much as happened to N Korea recently.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, in the real world. Does Russia have a waiver? An exemption?
From Washington? Russia doesn't need it. Washington is not the capital of the World and decisions made here are bounded only by ability of the USA to impose them.
We see that in recent years capabilities of Washington to enforce its unilaterally made decisions are becoming lower and lower.
The World is moving toward multi-polar state with different decision making centres. Later or sooner Washington will have to accept realities.
 
From Washington? Russia doesn't need it. Washington is not the capital of the World and decisions made here are bounded only by ability of the USA to impose them.
That’s okay, I hope you stay silent if additional sanctions are applied IF (and it is a big if) Russia buys oil from Iran
We see that in recent years capabilities of Washington to enforce its unilaterally made decisions are becoming lower and lower.
But your ‘crooks and thieves’ want the sanctions lifting
The World is moving toward multi-polar state with different decision making centres. Later or sooner Washington will have to accept realities.
Indeed. It’s becoming more like the Cold War but with multiple protagonists and added ME terrorism. But then Russia will think its in its own sphere when in actuality it will be doing somebody else’s bidding. Good luck.
 
Yes, but previously Iran told that the tankers swap is impossible.
July 30. Iranian Ambassador to London Hamid Baeidinejad has said it is impossible to exchange the Iranian-seized British ship with a British-seized supertanker which was carrying Iranian oil.

“Impossible to advance a quid pro quo or barter exchange of detained UK and Iranian ships as some British media suggest,” Baeidinejad tweeted on Monday.

“UK has illegally detained the ship carrying Iranian oil while the British ship is detained for violating some key safety/security regulations in Hormoz Strait,” he added.
So Reuters (as ever) tells half-truth
- previously outlined position of Iran is not mentioned in the Reuters article.
- it was not message to Iran but just an answer to some suppositions made in mass media.
 
Yes, but previously Iran told that the tankers swap is impossible.

So Reuters (as ever) tells half-truth
- previously outlined position of Iran is not mentioned in the Reuters article.
- it was not message to Iran but just an answer to some suppositions made in mass media.
And you lie full stop.

Raab said on Monday 29/07/2019:
“There is no quid pro quo,” Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told BBC radio. “This is not about some kind of barter. This is about the international law and the rules of the international legal system being upheld and that is what we will insist on.”
The Iranian Ambo is like a 'yo yo'. His 'hard line' softened a day later:
Iranian ambassador Hamid Baeidinejad told Sky News: "Of course one issue can help resolution of another issue but these are two separate issues that need to be tackled separately."

He also said: "We're very keen to see the UK is doing all the measures necessary to release as soon as possible the Grace 1."

On Monday he had been less open to compromise, tweeting that any exchange would be "impossible", as the UK had "illegally detained" the Iranian ship and the British-flagged ship had been "detained for violating some key safety/security regulations".
You've been upset by Reuters since they quoted Bellingcat on MH17. You can't even say Bellingcat now.
 
And you lie full stop.

Raab said on Monday 29/07/2019:

The Iranian Ambo is like a 'yo yo'. His 'hard line' softened a day later:


You've been upset by Reuters since they quoted Bellingcat on MH17. You can't even say Bellingcat now.
There are two issues here
1. Official positions of Iran and the UK
2. Coverage proposed by Reuters.
As for #1 then the positions are clear but as for the coverage then my previous comment is correct.
Reuters in the article published 1 Augusts
failed to present position of Iran and thus the headline is misleading. Iran should not be told about impossibility of the swap just because Iran itself sounded the same position previously.
It is merely typical Reuters half-truth.
As for BoJo's Cat then it is not serious, respected organization to take its bleatings into account.
 
There are two issues here
1. Official positions of Iran and the UK
2. Coverage proposed by Reuters.
As for #1 then the positions are clear but as for the coverage then my previous comment is correct.
Reuters in the article published 1 Augusts
failed to present position of Iran and thus the headline is misleading. Iran should not be told about impossibility of the swap just because Iran itself sounded the same position previously.
Which part of 'Raab had already said the same' are you having difficulty with?

Which part of the Iranian Ambo 'flip flopping' are you having difficulty with?
It is merely typical Reuters half-truth.
There's plenty of articles on Reuters about who said what and when, much as I provided. The fact that they talked about one thing in one article doesn't make it a 'half truth' no matter how much you bluff and bluster.
As for BoJo's Cat then it is not serious, respected organization to take its bleatings into account.
So sad, you can't even bring yourself to say it. It must really hurt seeing BELLINGCAT written
 
There's plenty of articles on Reuters about who said what and when, much as I provided. The fact that they talked about one thing in one article doesn't make it a 'half truth' no matter how much you bluff and bluster.
Serious news source (as BBC for example) as a rule proposes all relevant points of view. Comprehensive coverage means mention of all important details related to the issue.
Reuters quoted mr.Raab but failed to mention the context, the position previously expressed by Iran.
So Reuters in this case failed to provide comprehensive coverage.
Let's look at another Reuters article (big enough) and scrutinise it.
It is 5 minutes read article that have a subtitle
NO SWAP OF SEIZED TANKERS, BRITAIN SAYS
Maybe here we could find comprehensive coverage?
In July, Iran seized a British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf’s outlet to the open seas, in apparent retaliation for Britain’s seizure of an Iranian ship accused of violating European sanctions by taking oil to Syria.
Here we see one sided information. The Iranian tanker was captured according to the EU sanctions but formal cause of the Iranian action was not mentioned.
According to BBC
Iran's state-run IRNA news agency said the tanker was captured after it collided with a fishing boat and failed to respond to calls from the smaller craft.
As we see Reuters failed to mention the official Iranian explanation.
Let's read the Reuters article further.
Britain on Thursday ruled out a swap of the two tankers. “We are not going to barter: if people or nations have detained UK-flagged illegally then the rule of law and rule of international law must be upheld,” Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said.
And that's all. There is nothing about official position of Iran, that it also ruled out the swap.

Moral: it is not enough to get information only from Reuters as it is specific news source with coverage full of gaps and half truths.
 
I am no expert on international affairs, but Iran just may, just may, have missed an opportunity to establish more normal relationship with the U.S. just after 9/11 when the U.S. was in turmoil and just before the Iraq war.

Point of order, the US was in deep talks with the Iranians just after 9/11 re normalising things, and Iran going into Afghanistan after the Taliban and then… tadah, mmid talks, Bush appears on TV and calls Iran part of his Axis of Evil. US State Department seriously non impressed.
 
As we see Reuters failed to mention the official Iranian explanation.
Let's read the Reuters article further.

And that's all. There is nothing about official position of Iran, that it also ruled out the swap.
You're just like a cheap NAAFI watch once again, albeit that's right twice a day unlike you. How about:
While Iran’s official line is that its capture of the Stena Impero was because of safety issues, it has done little to hide that the move was retaliatory. The tactics it used — with masked troops rappelling from helicopters — matched those the British had used two weeks before.

Parliament speaker Ali Larijani spelled it out more clearly on Sunday, telling a parliament session: “The Revolutionary Guards responded to Britain’s hijacking of the Iranian tanker.”
Plus a little bit more:
He added that Iran is likely to view any British response through the wider prism of its conflict with the United States.

“If the Americans are going to continue to enforce this embargo, there’s no incentive for the Iranians not to take more tankers. What have they got to lose?” said Ripley.

An Iranian official who asked not to be identified made a similar point.

“Iran is displaying its power without entering a military confrontation,” the official said. “This is the result of America’s mounting pressure on Iran.”
Moral: it is not enough to get information only from Reuters as it is specific news source with coverage full of gaps and half truths.
Coming from the mouthpiece of Putin's 'crooks and thieves', that's rich.
 
You're just like a cheap NAAFI watch once again, albeit that's right twice a day unlike you. How about:

Plus a little bit more:


Coming from the mouthpiece of Putin's 'crooks and thieves', that's rich.
Remarkably, you quote RU.REUTERS.COM
The Russians are much more better informed because not only Putin's agitprop outlets but also BBC and other high quality news sources are available in Russian. So primitive Reuters-style reporting in Russian would cause only laugh.
Thus Reuters in Russian has to report about details that it fails to report in English.
 
Point of order, the US was in deep talks with the Iranians just after 9/11 re normalising things, and Iran going into Afghanistan after the Taliban and then… tadah, mmid talks, Bush appears on TV and calls Iran part of his Axis of Evil. US State Department seriously non impressed.
I would like to note that in fact the only obstacle to normalise relations between Iran and the USA is position of Israel.
 
Remarkably, you quote RU.REUTERS.COM
The Russians are much more better informed because not only Putin's agitprop outlets but also BBC and other high quality news sources are available in Russian. So primitive Reuters-style reporting in Russian would cause only laugh.
Thus Reuters in Russian has to report about details that it fails to report in English.
I thought the Russian theory with comms to the populace was " feed them shit and keep them in the dark - like mushrooms."
 
Remarkably, you quote RU.REUTERS.COM
It’s Reuters. It’s not rocket science.
The Russians are much more better informed because not only Putin's agitprop outlets but also BBC and other high quality news sources are available in Russian. So primitive Reuters-style reporting in Russian would cause only laugh.
You’d have thought so, but then you push the agitprop line continually. It’s almost as if you’re paid to do so .....
Thus Reuters in Russian has to report about details that it fails to report in English.
Thus Reuters prove you are worse than a cheap NAAFI watch.

E2A: UK Reuters, the difference being .... Britain weighs response to Iran Gulf crisis with few good options
 
Well, as predicted, Iran has taken another tanker.

They definitely want to provoke some form of military response to take the publics attention off the shit state the country’s in.

So far without luck but they will continue to push.

As for KGB, predictable as always, and like the Energizer bunny...still going.
1564924731107.png
 

Latest Threads

Top