Posted on 03/12/2006 3:53:46 AM PST by Hannah Senesh
Iran's leaders have built a secret underground emergency command centre in Teheran as they prepare for a confrontation with the West over their illicit nuclear programme, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.
The complex of rooms and offices beneath the Abbas Abad district in the north of the capital is designed to serve as a bolthole and headquarters for the country's rulers as military tensions mount.
The recently completed command centre is connected by tunnels to other government compounds near the Mossala prayer ground, one of the city's most important religious sites.
Offices of the state security forces, the energy department and the Organisation of Islamic Culture and Communications are all located in the same area.
The construction of the complex is part of the regime's plan to move more of its operations beneath ground. The Revolutionary Guard has overseen the development of subterranean chambers and tunnels - some more than half a mile long and an estimated 35ft high and wide - at sites across the country for research and development work on nuclear and rocket programmes.
The opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) learnt about the complex from its contacts within the regime. The same network revealed in 2002 that Iran had been operating a secret nuclear programme for 18 years.
The underground strategy is partly designed to hide activities from satellite view and international inspections but also reflects a growing belief in Teheran that its showdown with the international community could end in air strikes by America or Israel. "Iran's leaders are clearly preparing for a confrontation by going underground," said Alireza Jafarzadeh, the NCRI official who made the 2002 announcement.
America and Europe believe that Iran is secretly trying to acquire an atomic bomb, although the regime insists that its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes.
As the United Nations Security Council prepares to discuss Iran's nuclear operations this week, Teheran has been stepping up plans for confrontation. Its chief delegate on nuclear talks last week threatened that Iran would inflict "harm and pain" on America if censured by the Security Council.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline president who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", also said that the West would "suffer" if it tried to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. As the war of words intensified, President George W Bush said that Teheran represents a "grave national security concern" for America.
In Iraq, which Mr Ahmadinejad hopes will develop into a fellow Shia Islamic state, Iran is already using its proxy militia to attack British and American forces, often with Iranian-made bombs and weapons. As tensions grow, Teheran could order Hizbollah - the Lebanese-based terror faction that it created and arms - to attack targets in Israel.
The regime is also reviewing its contingency plans to attack tankers and American naval forces in the Persian Gulf and to mine the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 15 million barrels of oil (about 20 per cent of world production) passes each day. Any action in the Gulf would send oil prices soaring - a weapon that Iran has often threatened to wield.
The Pentagon's strategic planning is focused on the danger that Iran might try to mine the strait and deploy explosive-packed suicide boats against its warships. In May, American vessels in the Gulf will take part in the Arabian Gauntlet training exercise that deals with clearing mines from the strait, which has a navigable channel just two miles wide.
The naval wing of the Revolutionary Guard has in recent years practised "swarming" raids, using its flotilla of small rapid-attack boats to simulate assaults on commercial vessels and United States warships, according to Ken Timmerman, an American expert on Iran.
The Pentagon is particularly sensitive to the dangers of such attacks after al-Qaeda hit the USS Cole off the Yemen with a suicide boat in 2000, killing 17 American sailors. Last month the White House listed two foiled al-Qaeda plots to attack ships in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
US intelligence believes that if Iranian nuclear facilities were attacked by either America or Israel, then Teheran would respond by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz with naval forces, mines and anti-ship cruise missiles.
"When these systems become fully operational, they will significantly enhance Iran's defensive capabilities and ability to deny access to the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz," Michael Maples, the director of the Defence Intelligence Agency testified before the Senate armed services committee last month.
A senior American intelligence officer said that the US navy would be able to reopen the strait but that it would be militarily costly. Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former Iranian intelligence officer, recently told Mr Timmerman that the Iranian navy's Strategic Studies Centre has produced an updated battle plan for the strait.
Its most devastating options would be to use its long-range Shahab-3 missiles to attack Israeli or American bases in the region or to deploy suicide bombers in Western cities under its strategy of "asymmetric" response.
"The price to the West for standing up to Iran is clear," Gen Moshe Ya'alon, the former Israeli defence chief said last month in Washington. "It includes terror attacks, economic hardship and consequences resulting from fluctuations in Iranian oil production. Indeed, the regime believes that the West - including Israel - is afraid to deal with it."
Now there's a "nice polite" cover.
Who, in America, has the guts to use nukes on Iran?
...NOBODY?
The only advantage we have is that we have no interest in occupying any ground positions in Iran.
This allows for endless air strikes, even if the underground hideouts survive.
They'll get tired of life as a mole after a while.
Not *secret* anymore.
So they get a load of soldiers, load them onto small boats and then fling all the small boats towards the enemy warship. Wow what a cunning plan. I can't possibly see how that could fail.
"..its the knowledge that they can get away with whatever they like and however they like it that is very very dangerous."
Didn't this knowledge on the part of someone or another pretty much precpitate and or complicate every war in the 20th century?
Backing and appeasing KILLS.
I am sorry, but if you think it through he did what he had to do. He could not attack Saudi Arabia because Iraq's oil was off line and to deal with Saudi Arabia (largest producer of oil) before getting Iraq (2nd largest producer of oil, not to mention in possession of WMDs and a reason to supply terrorist) back up and running would have sent the world economy into chaos and probably started WWIII.
Lets not forget that the minute our soldiers went into Iraq we got our troops out of Saudi Arabia. The thinking at the time was that Saudi Arabia would fall into civil war, we would not have to take care of them. If you remember the CIA was calling the princes dead men walking, at the time. Instead we have watched those same princes doing their best to kill every insurgent in their country before they themselves are killed.
We are also strategically located, having Iran surrounded on 3 sides and on the boarder of Saudi Arabia, to deal with either problem and they know it.
Why take care of Iran until Europe is fully helping? Sitting back and making Europe do the pushing is brilliant, no longer the world against the US and makes China and Russia rethink how they are going to deal with the situation. All know the situation will be dealt with but we are playing the diplomatic game right now, like before Iraq, to try and fend off WWIII which is very possible since this involves the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world. Having the US in Iran without them being their also is not in their strategic interest, and we have proven that if we think something needs taking care of we will go in without their support.
As for Syria, small fish for the time being. Besides they are sending their terrorist to be killed by our troops exactly where we want them and not to the US killing innocents. So until they use Saddam's WMDs or supply any to terrorist they are way down on the list.
What makes you think Wimpy Bush would go nuclear on Iran?
Wimpy Bush told us and the world exactly when we would go nuclear at the beginning of the war on terror and we will not be the ones to start it.
Nukes will get used when a nuke or a WMD is used against us first and if it is a terrorist organization using the weapon then we will go after the country that supplied the weapon.
Wimpy? Public opinion does not even sway Bush when he thinks something is right. There is much more to be thought about and reasoned through than our simplified version we get daily of world dealings. I do not agree with everything he has done but blast it, wimpy is the last thing I would call this man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.