Post by MMM on Nov 4, 2011 11:55:33 GMT 4
Since all the talk about a possible Atomic Aggression against Iran, the following article may be of interest:
S ource: Milaz
Due to the fact that there is a totalitarian, theocratic regime in Iran Islam Republic (IIR), neither its national security concept, nor military doctrine are open document. Despite of this, based on open sources, analyze and evaluation of Iranian foreign, security, defense and military policy, it is possible to determine its views system in the military security field.
After Islam revolution of 1979, the new forces came to the government in Iran, started to establish the country’s national security concept and military doctrine on the new principles. “Neither West, nor East” policy pursued by IRR leader Khomeini, at the same time its “Islam revolution export” target started to create tension and confrontation not only in Iranian relations with U.S., Israel and Western countries, but also with neighbor countries. Since this confrontation policy of Iran and its strategy to increase the tension did not bring success to him, as well as along with negative effect on the regional peace and stability, security, cause to tension in its relations with neighbor countries, official Teheran gradually softened this policy and changed it.
IIR regime put forward new security model for the region. The former Foreign Minister of Iran Ali Akber Vilayeti gave explanation of this model in its statement in 1991 so: “outside countries’ interference into the settlement of regional problems is unacceptable. Only regional countries should be involved in this”. In fact, Tehran’s aim is not to give a contribution to the regional security with putting forward the “neither West, not East” model, but to provide Iran’s predomination and the regime’s security in the region.
Even today they consider in the government circles of IIR that, the U.S, Israel and West states, which do not accept Iranian regime, by rapprochement to the region, building close political and economic relations intend to target Iran Islam regime in future. However, this regional security model did not go on as well. So, IIR pursuing a tension and confrontation policy in the region since the day of its establishment, not only is able to create a trust in regional countries, especially in its neighbors, but also on the contrary, it is considered one of the main source of threat for regional stability and security.
At present, IIR, which is rapidly developing missile and nuclear program, implements the doctrine of “frightening and deterrence” in the field of military security, on the bases of which is nuclear weapon.
The analytics of influential journal “Time” of U.S., which decided to analyze Iranian military doctrine in 2009, came to the conclusion that ayatollahs made up their military doctrine taking into account the mistakes of their holy enemy, Saddam Huseyn. According to the analytics of “Time”, the “frightening and deterrence” doctrine of Iran consists of four items:
1. Regardless of Iranian government’s opening and cooperation level, UN and International Nuclear Energy Agency (INEA) will not be able to prevent U.S. or Israel attacks directed to it. Saddam cooperating with UN, destroyed his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) potential, but could not to prove anything to anybody. To comply to UN severe monitoring will only shake national security of Iran.
2. Iran will fight with U.S. and Israel beyond its borders and determine military operation itself. Saddam lost its country and life because of its decision to resist within U.S.-Iraq borders. Iran will response to the attacks of Israel, U.S. and their allies Afghanistan, Iraq, countries of Persian Gulf, Gaza and Jordan river.
3. Iran regime can even withstand powerful and painful American attacks and do not collapse. Iraq is shown as an example again. In 1999, Saddam’s army hardly failed, the regime lost control in the north over kurds, and in the south violent upheaval of Shiites raised. However, in spite of this, the new regime continued to proceed. Ayatollahs believe that they also can bear such a loss and hold the regime. Particularly, if the population are prepared adequate to “martyrdom”. Iranian strategists consider that if U.S. loss a several thousands of forces and one barrel’s of oil to raise more than 100$, this will be enough for U.S to compromise, and this will mean a victory according to Iran.
4. IIR prepared for long-term and bloody war very well. Iran understood from the example of Libya that mobile and well-armed units can conduct non-centric partisan war, which will be able to defeat the enemy’s regular army. Iran, at the same time makes a great efforts to prevent “the fifth colonna” – any opposition, which is against the regime within the country and can give legitimacy to foreign intervention.
The analytics of “Time”, who came to the conclusion that Israel is ready to any measures to prevent the opportunities of Iran to get nuclear arm also add that, America and Israel strategists trying to plan military operation against Iran should not forget that this country’s ruling elite prepares not “limited response”, but total war.
According to the report of U.S. military intelligence about military potential of Iran presented to the congress on April, 2010, Pentagon experts believe that, Iran is not going to attack on any country, prepares nuclear arm for its defense only. This report shows difference of opinions in the issue of Iran between the White House and Pentagon. This report presented by Pentagon to the Congress is the first official documents putting the White House’s policy on Iran under the doubt. According to Pentagon experts, military doctrine of Iran does not stipulate conduction of “aggressive wars” and based on necessities of providing the “guarantees of the existed regime”. In other words, Iran looks at nuclear weapon as a guarantee of the existed theocratic Islam regime. They believe in Pentagon that, “creation of nuclear arm itself composes the basis of Iranian deterrence policy”.
The headquarter chairs of U.S. Armed Forces united committee heads Admiral Mick Mullen last year stated during its speech in Columbia University, in New-York that “there are people, who told me “Muller come and involve into Iran issue”. However, it may bring to such results that we even can not imagine it”. According to Admiral Mullen, military apply against Teheran is the latest measure, which servicemen do not want to review. M. Mullen also stated in his speech that “Iran’s creation of nuclear weapon will be the largest instability factor. However, attack on Iran will bring to the same results in already instable region. We do not need in this”.
We should also note that, Iran does not start to any aggressive war in its modern history, and its leaders follows the doctrine of “inadmissibility of preventive attack”. This relates to both the supreme religious leader Khomeini, and Islam Revolution Watch Corpus commander.
However, Israel’s position, which consider possible the attack on Iran nuclear objects still also remains a problem for U.S. servicemen. They believe in Pentagon that in this case, in spite U.S.-Israel relations’ worsening, they will have to interfere. This also shows how much the issue is sensible and complicated.
This year U.S International and Strategic Research Centre also studied military policy of Iran and came to the following results:
1. Non-central war strategy plays a crucial role in military doctrine of Iran.
2. IIR by implementing the idea of non-central war, compensates its underdevelopment in weapon and military technology and settles this problem.
3. The main goal in Iranian military doctrine is to prevent U.S. achievement its purposes in the region.
4. The main methods of non-central war, which Iran considered to implement against U.S.:
- to compensate its underdevelopment, mass production and development of cheap and simple in terms of technology weapons in order to stand before U.S modern military technologies;
- establishment and preparation of military and partly-military institutions similar to HAMAS in “Hizbullah” and Gaza sector in Libya;
- doctrine of target of objects (oil platforms and oil ships) useful for U.S. in terms of economy in Persian Gulf;
5. The other feature of non-central war preparation is ship group of Iranian Military Naval Forces’ forwarding to Aden Gulf.
6. The policy of Iran implemented in Libya by means of “Hizbullah” is considered successful (April 5, 2011, persian-farsi.ucoz.ru/).
Nuclear program takes a central place in the military doctrine of Iran. Iran is developing its doubtful nuclear program without paying attention to the challenges of international community and sanctions of UN. On March 01, 2009 the head of U.S. Armed Forces Headquarter chairs’ joint committee, admiral Mick Mullen declared that Iran has enough nuclear fuel for preparation of nuclear bomb.
It is indicated in the annual report of U.S. MKI about nuclear program of Iran that, Iran in 2009 increased the low enriched uranium reserve more than three times, “caused sufficient ballistic missile production” and “continues to prepare a number of technologies, which will be used in preparation of nuclear arm”. However, Iran insistently declare the peaceful nature of nuclear program, and its having no intention to get nuclear weapon.
On February12, 2007 IIR Secretary of Supreme national security council, at present the chairman of the parliament, Ali Larijani, stated giving an interview to “Suddeutsche Zeitung” newspaper of FRG at the end of Munich conference that “There is no place for nuclear arm in military doctrine of Iran. This is inadmissible in terms of religion, our religious leader gave special instigation (fitva) forbidding WMD (weapon of mass destruction). Moreover, when Iraq dictator Saddam Huseyn applied chemical weapon against us, we felt the effect of a such weapon ourselves. We do not need such a deterrence weapon. If we have such an arm, then the start of armed competition in the neighbor states is inescapable”.
Although Iranian leadership’s “calming” statements, the anxiety regarding its nuclear program gradually increases in the world, especially in Tel-Aviv and Washington. On April 05, 2010, U.S. President Barak Obama stated after the closed evening dinner with his counterpart French N. Sarkozy in Washington that we should “calm down” Iran in the nearest future. Obama also added that U.S. will not be confine to only application of “aggressive sanctions” and “still do not exclude the other versions”, “because leadership of Iran does not want to settle the problem with diplomatic methods”.
On the one hand, Iranian not rejection of its nuclear program, threatening of Israel, on the other hand, Israel’s making the “inadmissibility of Iran’s getting nuclear weapon” to official state policy, the strict position of U.S., particularly, the powerful Jewish lobby in this issue, increase confrontation not only around this program, as a whole around Iran and in the region. They think in U.S. conservative circles that Iran policy of Washington came to deadlock without leaving practically any space for maneuver and White House before the option: either it should retreat, or go by the way of force for settlement of this problem. Israel is more interested in solution of Iran issue by the force way, because Israel was indicated as an enemy state in the military doctrine of Iran since Islam Revolution. Iran uses of all opportunities in order to weaken Israel, including with support of “Hezbollah” and “Hamas”.
On the other hand, Iran is indicated as a direct future adversary in official military doctrine of Tel-Aviv. The head of Israel military intelligence the General Amos Yadlin repeatedly declared in defense committee of Knesset that Iran will have already this year (2010) establish nuclear bomb. At the same time, they realize in Israel military-political circles that without support of U.S they have not sufficient resource for stopping or retard of Iranian nuclear program.
By the way, on March 19, 2010, Israel ambassador to UN, Gabriel Shalev openly declared that U.S. and Israel although could not get support from a number of large world countries, are preparing for military intervention into Iran. After two days, on March 21, 2010, the head of U.S. Armed Forces Center command, General David Petreus stated during his speech in Georgetown University that at present, the regional Missile Attack Defense system (MAD) was deployed in Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain). This system is considered to defense American objects and allies in the region. The General Petreus also noted that U.S. do not content with deployment of only weapon systems of defensive nature in the region. U.S. army centre commander works out plan of attack to Iranian nuclear objects. Centre command has already prepared several versions of the settlement of the issue of Iranian nuclear program with the way of force.
We should also add that, U.S. have already concluded the agreement with Israel regarding twice increase of strategic resources of American weapons in its territory. The General Petreus also is noted that, he does not expect U.S. attack to Iran in the near future.
Thus, the General D. Petreus’s this statement actually was the first official declaration about existence of U.S. military operation plan against Iran.
As a response to D. Petreus’s this statement, the head of Iran Armed Forces Headquarter, the General Hasan Firuzabadi told that attack to the country’s nuclear objects will cause to incitement of serious threats for U.S. in the region.
Iran, which is aware of these plans, started to the implementation of active defense policy, precisely, to reinforcement of this policy. At present, Iran Islam Republic, which lives in the state of strict sanctions increases its power mainly at the expense of internal opportunities. Very few number of country seem ready to cooperation with Iran in this case. Internal and foreign policy implemented by Iran gradually reduces the opportunities of military cooperation with the third countries. Although Iran Islam Republic during the 31 years of its establishment never implemented military intervention to any state (Iraq’s territorial claim and military aggression caused to Iran-Iraq war), the countries of region, particularly the neighbor states are always beware of Iranian policy.
Along with nuclear weapon, missile forces take special place in the military doctrine of Iran as well. IIR implements in this field the doctrine of “response with accurate missile attacks” of MAF.
In response to the assumption of air attacks to nuclear objects of Iran by U.S. and Israel, the commander of Islam Revolution Watch Corpus (IRWC), the General Mahamad Ali Jafari declared in March 04, 2009 that, Iranian missiles are able not only to reach Israel, but if there is necessity, also able to destroy confidential nuclear objects in Demon. According to the General, “the whole nuclear powers deployed in different territories of the countries, which are under the occupation of Zionist regime place in the radius of influence of Iranian missile systems”. According to his opinion, Iranian military doctrine only has an aim of defensive nature, but a worthy response is ready in case of enemy attack.
Threats regarding possible attacks to strategic targets of Israel by Iran (Iran, Libya and Gaza) have already stated before as well. In the beginnings of January, 2009, the newspaper “Times” referring to sources in Guts wrote that Iranian Fajr-3 missiles sent to Gaza are able to attack to Demon. According to the newspaper, the main reason of “Casting plant” operation was this fact.
Before this, in July 29, 2008 again that newspaper as a source of information referring to Ali Jafari wrote that Iran prepares to launch “Shahab-3” missiles to Israel side and the main target is nuclear objects in Demon.
During the second Libyan war (June, 2006), the newspaper “Maariv” informed referring to Israel military intelligence (AMAH) data that “Hezbollah” also targeted missiles of Iranian production to the direction of nuclear objects in Demon.
Missile forces in IIR Armed Forces are also included into the structure of IICC MAF. This certainly, shows Iranian military-political leadership’s special interest in this type of army.
Iran, first of all, worked out a number of tactic missiles (Oghab, Nazeat, Zelzal, Shihab-1, Shihab-2), which have a flight distance from 40 km. to 300 km. by the support of North Korea.
However, Iran turned into missile state only after the creation of Shihab-3 (Shihab-3D, Shihab-3DE) missiles, which’s flight distance is 1300-1500 km. and more and at present in the combat burst. Shihab-3 missiles were created on the bases of No-Dong missiles of S. Korea. At present, S. Korea continues constructive works and tests on preparation of new generations (Shihab-4, 5 and 6) of Shihab, on the bases of Taepo-Dong-1, Taepo-Dong-2 və Taepo-Dong-Х missiles, which’s flight distances are from 1800 (Shihab-4) to 6400 km. (Shihab-6).
The role of Military Naval Forces (MNF) is growing in military doctrine of Iran. Now, Iran started to observe the opening strategy to the world oceans, particularly to Aden Gulf.
Iranian MNF commander rear-admiral Habibollah Sayayari informed about preparation and adoption of Iranian new defense doctrine in April 25, 2011 in his interview to IRNA agency. MNF commander of Iran stated his intention of “increase of powerful strategic presence in world ocean waters”. Rear-admiral H. Sayayari especially noted the importance of Iranian presence in Aden Gulf. The commander noting gladly the first time the Iranian two military vessels’ passing through Suveish channel after 1979, Islam Revolution stated that “only Zionist regime frightens of our vessels’ presence in Suveish channel”.
Although Iran insistently declared the defensive nature of its military doctrine, studies show that its defense and military policy based on “threatening and deterrence” doctrine and bears aggressive nature. On the other hand, though IIR stated that its policy in this field serves to the regional stability and security, as well as Islam world, actually this policy “serves” to confrontation in the region, violation of stability and security environment.
Iranian military doctrine, militarist policy, international and military-political tension, as well as its policy in S. Caucasus and Caspian Sea region:
- its intention to increase influence and impact on the region, particularly in Azerbaijan;
- building of close relations and development of the relations with aggressor Armenia in economic, trade, transport and energy field;
- strategic cooperation with Russia, which plays destructive role in the region;
- its unconstructive position in determination of legal status of Caspian Sea;
- violation of water borders of Azerbaijan occasionally, prevention of oil production on south part of Caspian Sea, which belongs to it with military force;
- protest against all activities (expansion of NATO, U.S., TR and other alliance member-states’ military participation and presence in the region) together with Russia in order to change of military-political disbalance to opposite direction existed in the region;
- at the same time, protest against democratization and integration of the region to Euro-Atlantic space cause to increase of tension, violation of stability and security environment in the region, as well as formation of unfavorable atmosphere for democratic advance.
The Center of Military Analyses and Research
S ource: Milaz
Due to the fact that there is a totalitarian, theocratic regime in Iran Islam Republic (IIR), neither its national security concept, nor military doctrine are open document. Despite of this, based on open sources, analyze and evaluation of Iranian foreign, security, defense and military policy, it is possible to determine its views system in the military security field.
After Islam revolution of 1979, the new forces came to the government in Iran, started to establish the country’s national security concept and military doctrine on the new principles. “Neither West, nor East” policy pursued by IRR leader Khomeini, at the same time its “Islam revolution export” target started to create tension and confrontation not only in Iranian relations with U.S., Israel and Western countries, but also with neighbor countries. Since this confrontation policy of Iran and its strategy to increase the tension did not bring success to him, as well as along with negative effect on the regional peace and stability, security, cause to tension in its relations with neighbor countries, official Teheran gradually softened this policy and changed it.
IIR regime put forward new security model for the region. The former Foreign Minister of Iran Ali Akber Vilayeti gave explanation of this model in its statement in 1991 so: “outside countries’ interference into the settlement of regional problems is unacceptable. Only regional countries should be involved in this”. In fact, Tehran’s aim is not to give a contribution to the regional security with putting forward the “neither West, not East” model, but to provide Iran’s predomination and the regime’s security in the region.
Even today they consider in the government circles of IIR that, the U.S, Israel and West states, which do not accept Iranian regime, by rapprochement to the region, building close political and economic relations intend to target Iran Islam regime in future. However, this regional security model did not go on as well. So, IIR pursuing a tension and confrontation policy in the region since the day of its establishment, not only is able to create a trust in regional countries, especially in its neighbors, but also on the contrary, it is considered one of the main source of threat for regional stability and security.
At present, IIR, which is rapidly developing missile and nuclear program, implements the doctrine of “frightening and deterrence” in the field of military security, on the bases of which is nuclear weapon.
The analytics of influential journal “Time” of U.S., which decided to analyze Iranian military doctrine in 2009, came to the conclusion that ayatollahs made up their military doctrine taking into account the mistakes of their holy enemy, Saddam Huseyn. According to the analytics of “Time”, the “frightening and deterrence” doctrine of Iran consists of four items:
1. Regardless of Iranian government’s opening and cooperation level, UN and International Nuclear Energy Agency (INEA) will not be able to prevent U.S. or Israel attacks directed to it. Saddam cooperating with UN, destroyed his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) potential, but could not to prove anything to anybody. To comply to UN severe monitoring will only shake national security of Iran.
2. Iran will fight with U.S. and Israel beyond its borders and determine military operation itself. Saddam lost its country and life because of its decision to resist within U.S.-Iraq borders. Iran will response to the attacks of Israel, U.S. and their allies Afghanistan, Iraq, countries of Persian Gulf, Gaza and Jordan river.
3. Iran regime can even withstand powerful and painful American attacks and do not collapse. Iraq is shown as an example again. In 1999, Saddam’s army hardly failed, the regime lost control in the north over kurds, and in the south violent upheaval of Shiites raised. However, in spite of this, the new regime continued to proceed. Ayatollahs believe that they also can bear such a loss and hold the regime. Particularly, if the population are prepared adequate to “martyrdom”. Iranian strategists consider that if U.S. loss a several thousands of forces and one barrel’s of oil to raise more than 100$, this will be enough for U.S to compromise, and this will mean a victory according to Iran.
4. IIR prepared for long-term and bloody war very well. Iran understood from the example of Libya that mobile and well-armed units can conduct non-centric partisan war, which will be able to defeat the enemy’s regular army. Iran, at the same time makes a great efforts to prevent “the fifth colonna” – any opposition, which is against the regime within the country and can give legitimacy to foreign intervention.
The analytics of “Time”, who came to the conclusion that Israel is ready to any measures to prevent the opportunities of Iran to get nuclear arm also add that, America and Israel strategists trying to plan military operation against Iran should not forget that this country’s ruling elite prepares not “limited response”, but total war.
According to the report of U.S. military intelligence about military potential of Iran presented to the congress on April, 2010, Pentagon experts believe that, Iran is not going to attack on any country, prepares nuclear arm for its defense only. This report shows difference of opinions in the issue of Iran between the White House and Pentagon. This report presented by Pentagon to the Congress is the first official documents putting the White House’s policy on Iran under the doubt. According to Pentagon experts, military doctrine of Iran does not stipulate conduction of “aggressive wars” and based on necessities of providing the “guarantees of the existed regime”. In other words, Iran looks at nuclear weapon as a guarantee of the existed theocratic Islam regime. They believe in Pentagon that, “creation of nuclear arm itself composes the basis of Iranian deterrence policy”.
The headquarter chairs of U.S. Armed Forces united committee heads Admiral Mick Mullen last year stated during its speech in Columbia University, in New-York that “there are people, who told me “Muller come and involve into Iran issue”. However, it may bring to such results that we even can not imagine it”. According to Admiral Mullen, military apply against Teheran is the latest measure, which servicemen do not want to review. M. Mullen also stated in his speech that “Iran’s creation of nuclear weapon will be the largest instability factor. However, attack on Iran will bring to the same results in already instable region. We do not need in this”.
We should also note that, Iran does not start to any aggressive war in its modern history, and its leaders follows the doctrine of “inadmissibility of preventive attack”. This relates to both the supreme religious leader Khomeini, and Islam Revolution Watch Corpus commander.
However, Israel’s position, which consider possible the attack on Iran nuclear objects still also remains a problem for U.S. servicemen. They believe in Pentagon that in this case, in spite U.S.-Israel relations’ worsening, they will have to interfere. This also shows how much the issue is sensible and complicated.
This year U.S International and Strategic Research Centre also studied military policy of Iran and came to the following results:
1. Non-central war strategy plays a crucial role in military doctrine of Iran.
2. IIR by implementing the idea of non-central war, compensates its underdevelopment in weapon and military technology and settles this problem.
3. The main goal in Iranian military doctrine is to prevent U.S. achievement its purposes in the region.
4. The main methods of non-central war, which Iran considered to implement against U.S.:
- to compensate its underdevelopment, mass production and development of cheap and simple in terms of technology weapons in order to stand before U.S modern military technologies;
- establishment and preparation of military and partly-military institutions similar to HAMAS in “Hizbullah” and Gaza sector in Libya;
- doctrine of target of objects (oil platforms and oil ships) useful for U.S. in terms of economy in Persian Gulf;
5. The other feature of non-central war preparation is ship group of Iranian Military Naval Forces’ forwarding to Aden Gulf.
6. The policy of Iran implemented in Libya by means of “Hizbullah” is considered successful (April 5, 2011, persian-farsi.ucoz.ru/).
Nuclear program takes a central place in the military doctrine of Iran. Iran is developing its doubtful nuclear program without paying attention to the challenges of international community and sanctions of UN. On March 01, 2009 the head of U.S. Armed Forces Headquarter chairs’ joint committee, admiral Mick Mullen declared that Iran has enough nuclear fuel for preparation of nuclear bomb.
It is indicated in the annual report of U.S. MKI about nuclear program of Iran that, Iran in 2009 increased the low enriched uranium reserve more than three times, “caused sufficient ballistic missile production” and “continues to prepare a number of technologies, which will be used in preparation of nuclear arm”. However, Iran insistently declare the peaceful nature of nuclear program, and its having no intention to get nuclear weapon.
On February12, 2007 IIR Secretary of Supreme national security council, at present the chairman of the parliament, Ali Larijani, stated giving an interview to “Suddeutsche Zeitung” newspaper of FRG at the end of Munich conference that “There is no place for nuclear arm in military doctrine of Iran. This is inadmissible in terms of religion, our religious leader gave special instigation (fitva) forbidding WMD (weapon of mass destruction). Moreover, when Iraq dictator Saddam Huseyn applied chemical weapon against us, we felt the effect of a such weapon ourselves. We do not need such a deterrence weapon. If we have such an arm, then the start of armed competition in the neighbor states is inescapable”.
Although Iranian leadership’s “calming” statements, the anxiety regarding its nuclear program gradually increases in the world, especially in Tel-Aviv and Washington. On April 05, 2010, U.S. President Barak Obama stated after the closed evening dinner with his counterpart French N. Sarkozy in Washington that we should “calm down” Iran in the nearest future. Obama also added that U.S. will not be confine to only application of “aggressive sanctions” and “still do not exclude the other versions”, “because leadership of Iran does not want to settle the problem with diplomatic methods”.
On the one hand, Iranian not rejection of its nuclear program, threatening of Israel, on the other hand, Israel’s making the “inadmissibility of Iran’s getting nuclear weapon” to official state policy, the strict position of U.S., particularly, the powerful Jewish lobby in this issue, increase confrontation not only around this program, as a whole around Iran and in the region. They think in U.S. conservative circles that Iran policy of Washington came to deadlock without leaving practically any space for maneuver and White House before the option: either it should retreat, or go by the way of force for settlement of this problem. Israel is more interested in solution of Iran issue by the force way, because Israel was indicated as an enemy state in the military doctrine of Iran since Islam Revolution. Iran uses of all opportunities in order to weaken Israel, including with support of “Hezbollah” and “Hamas”.
On the other hand, Iran is indicated as a direct future adversary in official military doctrine of Tel-Aviv. The head of Israel military intelligence the General Amos Yadlin repeatedly declared in defense committee of Knesset that Iran will have already this year (2010) establish nuclear bomb. At the same time, they realize in Israel military-political circles that without support of U.S they have not sufficient resource for stopping or retard of Iranian nuclear program.
By the way, on March 19, 2010, Israel ambassador to UN, Gabriel Shalev openly declared that U.S. and Israel although could not get support from a number of large world countries, are preparing for military intervention into Iran. After two days, on March 21, 2010, the head of U.S. Armed Forces Center command, General David Petreus stated during his speech in Georgetown University that at present, the regional Missile Attack Defense system (MAD) was deployed in Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain). This system is considered to defense American objects and allies in the region. The General Petreus also noted that U.S. do not content with deployment of only weapon systems of defensive nature in the region. U.S. army centre commander works out plan of attack to Iranian nuclear objects. Centre command has already prepared several versions of the settlement of the issue of Iranian nuclear program with the way of force.
We should also add that, U.S. have already concluded the agreement with Israel regarding twice increase of strategic resources of American weapons in its territory. The General Petreus also is noted that, he does not expect U.S. attack to Iran in the near future.
Thus, the General D. Petreus’s this statement actually was the first official declaration about existence of U.S. military operation plan against Iran.
As a response to D. Petreus’s this statement, the head of Iran Armed Forces Headquarter, the General Hasan Firuzabadi told that attack to the country’s nuclear objects will cause to incitement of serious threats for U.S. in the region.
Iran, which is aware of these plans, started to the implementation of active defense policy, precisely, to reinforcement of this policy. At present, Iran Islam Republic, which lives in the state of strict sanctions increases its power mainly at the expense of internal opportunities. Very few number of country seem ready to cooperation with Iran in this case. Internal and foreign policy implemented by Iran gradually reduces the opportunities of military cooperation with the third countries. Although Iran Islam Republic during the 31 years of its establishment never implemented military intervention to any state (Iraq’s territorial claim and military aggression caused to Iran-Iraq war), the countries of region, particularly the neighbor states are always beware of Iranian policy.
Along with nuclear weapon, missile forces take special place in the military doctrine of Iran as well. IIR implements in this field the doctrine of “response with accurate missile attacks” of MAF.
In response to the assumption of air attacks to nuclear objects of Iran by U.S. and Israel, the commander of Islam Revolution Watch Corpus (IRWC), the General Mahamad Ali Jafari declared in March 04, 2009 that, Iranian missiles are able not only to reach Israel, but if there is necessity, also able to destroy confidential nuclear objects in Demon. According to the General, “the whole nuclear powers deployed in different territories of the countries, which are under the occupation of Zionist regime place in the radius of influence of Iranian missile systems”. According to his opinion, Iranian military doctrine only has an aim of defensive nature, but a worthy response is ready in case of enemy attack.
Threats regarding possible attacks to strategic targets of Israel by Iran (Iran, Libya and Gaza) have already stated before as well. In the beginnings of January, 2009, the newspaper “Times” referring to sources in Guts wrote that Iranian Fajr-3 missiles sent to Gaza are able to attack to Demon. According to the newspaper, the main reason of “Casting plant” operation was this fact.
Before this, in July 29, 2008 again that newspaper as a source of information referring to Ali Jafari wrote that Iran prepares to launch “Shahab-3” missiles to Israel side and the main target is nuclear objects in Demon.
During the second Libyan war (June, 2006), the newspaper “Maariv” informed referring to Israel military intelligence (AMAH) data that “Hezbollah” also targeted missiles of Iranian production to the direction of nuclear objects in Demon.
Missile forces in IIR Armed Forces are also included into the structure of IICC MAF. This certainly, shows Iranian military-political leadership’s special interest in this type of army.
Iran, first of all, worked out a number of tactic missiles (Oghab, Nazeat, Zelzal, Shihab-1, Shihab-2), which have a flight distance from 40 km. to 300 km. by the support of North Korea.
However, Iran turned into missile state only after the creation of Shihab-3 (Shihab-3D, Shihab-3DE) missiles, which’s flight distance is 1300-1500 km. and more and at present in the combat burst. Shihab-3 missiles were created on the bases of No-Dong missiles of S. Korea. At present, S. Korea continues constructive works and tests on preparation of new generations (Shihab-4, 5 and 6) of Shihab, on the bases of Taepo-Dong-1, Taepo-Dong-2 və Taepo-Dong-Х missiles, which’s flight distances are from 1800 (Shihab-4) to 6400 km. (Shihab-6).
The role of Military Naval Forces (MNF) is growing in military doctrine of Iran. Now, Iran started to observe the opening strategy to the world oceans, particularly to Aden Gulf.
Iranian MNF commander rear-admiral Habibollah Sayayari informed about preparation and adoption of Iranian new defense doctrine in April 25, 2011 in his interview to IRNA agency. MNF commander of Iran stated his intention of “increase of powerful strategic presence in world ocean waters”. Rear-admiral H. Sayayari especially noted the importance of Iranian presence in Aden Gulf. The commander noting gladly the first time the Iranian two military vessels’ passing through Suveish channel after 1979, Islam Revolution stated that “only Zionist regime frightens of our vessels’ presence in Suveish channel”.
Although Iran insistently declared the defensive nature of its military doctrine, studies show that its defense and military policy based on “threatening and deterrence” doctrine and bears aggressive nature. On the other hand, though IIR stated that its policy in this field serves to the regional stability and security, as well as Islam world, actually this policy “serves” to confrontation in the region, violation of stability and security environment.
Iranian military doctrine, militarist policy, international and military-political tension, as well as its policy in S. Caucasus and Caspian Sea region:
- its intention to increase influence and impact on the region, particularly in Azerbaijan;
- building of close relations and development of the relations with aggressor Armenia in economic, trade, transport and energy field;
- strategic cooperation with Russia, which plays destructive role in the region;
- its unconstructive position in determination of legal status of Caspian Sea;
- violation of water borders of Azerbaijan occasionally, prevention of oil production on south part of Caspian Sea, which belongs to it with military force;
- protest against all activities (expansion of NATO, U.S., TR and other alliance member-states’ military participation and presence in the region) together with Russia in order to change of military-political disbalance to opposite direction existed in the region;
- at the same time, protest against democratization and integration of the region to Euro-Atlantic space cause to increase of tension, violation of stability and security environment in the region, as well as formation of unfavorable atmosphere for democratic advance.
The Center of Military Analyses and Research