PM: Recent ME events a harsh reminder of I… JPost – Middle East.

Netanyahu: In this region the only thing ensuring Israel’s survival, security and prosperity is our strength; Ya’alon says Assad’s fall could “break the axis of evil with Iran, Hezbollah.”

By Kobi Gideon/Flash90/Pool

Iran raid likely to drag in U.S. and hurt global economy | Reuters.

(Reuters) – An Israeli raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities would deliver a painful shock to the global economy, revive flagging Islamist militancy and possibly drag the United States into a regional war whether it backed its ally’s attack or not.

As if that prospect was not alarming enough, any doubts Tehran entertained about the wisdom of building a nuclear weapon would vanish the moment the strike occurred.

These longstanding U.S. and European assumptions about the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran are being re-examined with greater urgency in Western capitals after repeated warnings by Israel that the chance of a peaceful resolution may be closing.

There is concern that Israel may attack in coming months to disrupt the transfer of parts of Iran’s nuclear development work to an underground site south of Tehran that may be invulnerable to conventional bombing.

Western experts want Israel to think long and hard before embarking on a raid many suspect would spark a broader conflict.

“Whoever attacks Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is really making the decision to go to war with Iran,” Richard Burt, a former chief U.S. negotiator at strategic arms reduction talks, told Reuters on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.

“We are talking about a range of great uncertainties, all of them basically negative, so this is one reason why consistently the joint chiefs of staff of the uniformed military in the U.S. do not like the idea of attacking Iran.”

Analysts detect a growing gap between Israeli and Western views on using force against Tehran’s nuclear program, which Tehran says is purely for peaceful purposes but the West suspects is aimed at acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

The New York Times recently reported that Israeli leaders, based on intelligence estimates and academic studies, had taken the view that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations would not produce such catastrophic events as regional war, widespread attacks by militants and massive oil price rises.

The newspaper said that Israeli leaders and agencies believe that Iran’s threats to retaliate against Israeli and Western targets if attacked were “overblown” and partly bluff.

Asked to spell out the consequences of a strike, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that he not want to explore a hypothetical question, arguing any risks “would be dwarfed in comparison to the danger of a nuclear Iran.”

“One thing is clear,” he told Reuters. “If Iran becomes nuclear then it’s the end of world order as we know it … This is what we have to think about, and not about what will happen in case some action is being taken.

U.S. newspaper The Washington Post reported last week that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believed Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months to stop it building a nuclear bomb.

Panetta declined to comment. But his alleged remarks and other Obama administration statements indicate the White House is focused on dissuading Israel from taking action – and distancing itself from an Israeli strike if persuasion fails.

The consequences of an Israeli attack would be wide-ranging and destabilizing.

IRAN EXPELS NUCLEAR INSPECTORS, QUITS TREATY

Iran would expel International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and quit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ending any possibility of a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue.

“There is not a country on Earth that is going to blame them for doing that, they are all going to blame Israel. Once Iran is out of the NPT, the sanctions are gone,” Ken Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, told Reuters.

Leaving the NPT would disrupt the sanctions regime since its measures are predicated upon enforcing treaty compliance.

IRAN DECIDES TO GO FOR THE BOMB

Experts say a raid would only delay, not destroy Iran’s program. And once it had recovered, Iran would probably seek to develop nuclear weapons. Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at Washington’s Center for International and Strategic Studies, told Reuters Iran would redouble “efforts to develop a deterrent so it never happens again.”

OIL PRICES SOAR, JOLT FINANCIAL MARKETS

A strike on Iran and Iran’s response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, or an attack on Saudi oilfields, would lead to a sharp rise in oil prices that could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama’s chances for re-election.

Saudi Arabia would be forced to use all its spare output capacity, a crucial safety cushion for oil markets.

But the most serious fears debated at oil trading desks include the possibility of Iran mining the straits, attacking ships as it did during the Iran-Iraq war, or challenging the legality of the passage of some vessels through its territorial waters.

In the event of a big stoppage the consuming nations’ International Energy Agency would very likely release emergency government stocks to tame prices, as it did in June last year when Libyan output was lost.

Israel’s Ayalon argues that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a greater threat to the oil market as it could dictate prices. “It will be the end of the free flow of oil from the Gulf.”

IRAN HITS BACK IN THE GULF, LEVANT, POSSIBLY ASIA

Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, choking the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

But many experts say Iran’s leaders will be looking for ways to harass enemies and cause disruption while falling short of triggering massive U.S.-led retaliation.

Possible Iranian actions could include harrying tanker traffic in the Gulf with fast attack boats, seizing uninhabited Gulf islands claimed by other states or grabbing hostages from passing civilian or military ships, stoking trouble in Sunni Muslim-ruled Arab states with restive Shi’ite Muslim communities and orchestrating attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere using militant “proxies” such as Hezbollah.

If the Iranian government interprets the strike as a fully-fledged attempt at regime change, it might adopt a more muscular response could include ballistic-missile salvos on civilian and military targets in the Gulf.

US GETS SUCKED IN, MAY ITSELF BECOME TARGET

Obama also would likely come under intense domestic pressure to back Israel’s actions and come to Israel’s defense if Iran succeeds in landing missile attacks on Israel’s territory.

In a 2009 study for the Council on Foreign Relations, Middle East analyst Steve Simon, who is now Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa at the U.S. National Security Council, says that the United States would probably become embroiled militarily in any Iranian retaliation against Israel or other countries in the region.

Experts say Israel alone does not have the firepower to kill off Iran’s nuclear program and any U.S. help in that effort would therefore be very welcome. A study by former senior British intelligence official said the “The US would be assumed complicit, and would become embroiled in defending Israel against a counter-attack. This would stretch the U.S. military.”

STRAIN IN ISRAELI-WESTERN TIES

In November, the top U.S. military officer told Reuters he did not know whether Israel would alert the United States ahead of time if it decided to take military action against Iran.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also acknowledged differences in perspective between the United States and Israel over the best way to handle Iran.

In an indication of a divergence in Israeli and Western views, a senior former British intelligence official wrote in a private analysis in 2011 that the West had two objectives: prevent the Iranian bomb, and also “prevent Iran being bombed.”

“Both outcomes would be potentially disastrous for our national security,” he wrote.

Referring to a strike, he went on, “the likely damage (to Iran’s program) would outweigh the benefits.”

“There would be problems between the U.S. and Israel, .and probably tensions between the U.S. and European allies as well.”

U.S. POSITION IN THE MIDDLE EAST CONSTRAINED

Simon’s CFR study states that since the United States would be viewed as having assisted Israel, U.S. efforts to foster better relations with Muslims would almost certainly suffer.

Anti-U.S. sentiment would be inflamed in Muslim countries, especially Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. Hamas and Hezbollah would be likely to intensify attacks making a Middle East settlement even more unlikely.

“If the Israelis think they can attack Iran and remain immune they are living in a fools’ paradise,” said Farhang Jahanpour of the Oxford University Faculty of Oriental Studies.

He said a raid would create “huge anti-Israeli feeling” and an “Islamic backlash” in the region.

Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in a January interview with The Real News website a strike would be a “disaster for us more than for Israel in the short run, and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run.”

Neither the Russians or Europeans would side with America in any resulting conflict. He said that the United States could be “forced out of the region,” a development he suggested would imperil Israel’s existence.

WILL IRANIANS RALLY TO THEIR GOVERNMENT?

A RAND Corporation report in 2011 noted that the use or threat of force to compel Iran to halt its nuclear program would probably strengthen domestic support for the government.

But an analyst in Iran who asked not to be identified as the subject was sensitive said he doubted whether there would be an uptick in popularity for the government, as there was during the country’s war with Iraq in the 1980s.

“The Iran-Iraq wartime public allegiance to the regime has diminished because of various factors. Public dissatisfaction is on increase over failing economy, hostile foreign policy and political infighting among the elites,” said the analyst.

Michael Axworthy, director of the Centre for Persian and Iranian Studies at Britain’s Exeter University, told Reuters that while Iranians might not rally to their rulers, they would tend to “go along with the statements that are produced.”

“This is a regime that expects to be isolated and to some extent thrives on isolation,” he said.

POSSIBLE SPUR TO PROLIFERATION BY OTHERS

Former U.S. negotiator Burt said some aspirant nuclear weapons powers might respond to a strike on Iran by redoubling efforts to get the bomb as a deterrent. But it was difficult to generalize and not all countries would take that view.

Ayalon said it would be the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran that would be the real spur to proliferation. (Additional reporting by Peter Apps in London, Andrew Quinn, Mark Hosenball, Tabassum Zakaria in Washington)

(Reporting by William Maclean)

The Inevitable War with Iran – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

The incoming elections in the US and the flashy rhetoric by Republican presidential candidates have brought the question of a nuclear Iran onto the front page. The Muslim Gulf states and Israel have added to the rumbling; they have sustained their pressure on the US administration, urging it to act, to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

The Obama Administration has warned Iran: “pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable; the US would use all means in its disposal, including force if necessary, to neutralize Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” But to no avail.

Iran keeps its macho talk loud and condescending.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has just issued a warning—Iran will not cave in to pressure; progress toward a nuclear bomb (he did not say “nuclear bomb”, but he definitely implied it) will not be brought to an end, no matter what sanctions the Americans or the EU impose on the Islamic Republic.

The Ayatollah is serious. Although macho talk in the Islamic Middle East is a standard adopted by all militant Islamic leaders, the Iranian government is flexing its muscles, flaunting its sharp teeth. It believes that economic sanctions will hurt, but not as much as caving in to American demands. In a culture where false honor precedes anything that moves under the sun, where life without “honor” is far worse than death, where honor killing is a religious diktat, caving in to economic sanctions is equivalent to an unconditional surrender.

And surrendering to the “Great Satan” merely because life is a little tough is inexcusable, dishonorable behavior; it is treason that merits the death sentence.

The loud rhetoric from all sides has been underlined by considerable measures on the ground. The US has been and is about to keep on amassing a war machine in the Persian Gulf and on several islands within reach of Iran. American, British and French warships and aircraft have been acting around the Persian Gulf and around Saudi air bases, respectively, while the Saudis have reinforced their anti-missile defense gear and their delivery facilities around Saudi oil fields and along the Persian Gulf,respectively.

Israel has been readying itself for war on all fronts. It has recently conducted large-scale military exercises, both defensive and offensive in nature, including the drafting of reservists under projected heavy missile bombardment of every town, road and base, as well as a large scale parachuting by over a thousand paratroopers, signaling a willingness to engage ground-troops on foreign soil in addition to relying on its air force and its rockets.

Iran has not been sitting idle either. They have announced the start of a three-week exercise in southern Iran and the Strait of Hormuz under war settings. They seem to be bracing for a fitting retaliation, with the objective of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf.

In addition, they have been concocting terror attacks on soft Jewish – and possibly other – civilian targets throughout the world.

The American Administration is working hard at softening its seeming aim by masking its military buildup with wishful talking points. US Defense Secretary Panetta’s recent implications concerning Israel’s imminent attack plans are part of a grand-scale deception strategy. They have been designed to refocus the Iranians on the most suspicious front,rather than the one that would deliver the ultimate blow—the US military.

It is obvious that if Israel embarks on a preemptive strike on the Iranian nuclear project, Iran will try to retaliate. Retaliation will not be limited to hitting Israel. The Revolutionary Guards will attempt to attack American interests throughout the Middle East, providing a pretext for an American involvement in a large scale “defensive” war against Iran—a war that would be supported by the American public due to its defensive nature, a war that would boost Obama’s standing in the eyes of the American people, shortly ahead of the elections.

The scenario above may not necessitate an Israeli opening (of hostilities), since the Iranian regime is stuck in a macho syndrome, which blinds their rational reasoning. They will miscalculate. They may initiate hostilities against US interests in the Persian Gulf in order to lay bare the risk associated with any American attempt to force them into submission by aggressive economic means.  They do not believe that the US would retaliate by initiating an all-out-war in response. They view the US and President Obama as paper tigers.

The Ayatollah will then be repeating the same mistake that Hizbullah committed in 2006 when they kidnapped dead Israeli soldiers and Israel responded with an all-out-war they had not anticipated and had not wished.

There is little doubt that a war with Iran can be avoided. There is high likelihood that the US will lead the effort even if Israel initiates the campaign.

There is little doubt that the US is hard at work preparing for war in the Persian Gulf.

There is high likelihood that Iran will provide the American people with a sizzling justification by provoking the US, inviting a massive retaliation.

There is no doubt. 2012 will see a new Gulf war. This time, the Ayatollah will be the one to pay the price.

___________________

Dr. Avi Perry

Dr. Avi Perry (Fried), a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks,” and more recently, “72 Virgins,” a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories – distinguished staff member and manager, as well as a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern Universit and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site http://www.aviperry.org

► More from this writer

David Ignatius: Can Israel attack Iran without miring U.S. in another war?.

Iran: Military intervention in Syria will ignite region – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Iranian foreign minister says China, Russia vetoed anti-Assad resolution to avert Western plot to fragmentize Middle East

Roi Kais

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi suggested Sunday that Tehran will stand by Syria in case of a military intervention. In an interview with Al-Manar TV, he said: “I’m confident that any military action against Syria will blow up the entire region.”

He added, “A military intervention does not solve any problem, especially because the Syrian situation differs from that of Libya, seeing the country’s sole role is fighting Israel. Syria is now paying the price of its resistance.”

Salehi also voiced puzzlement over the Arab League’s actions on Syria in the UN Security Council, at a time when the observer mission was still performing its job in Syria.

Bodies piling up in Homs (Photo: Reuters)

Addressing Russia and China’s decision to veto the Arab League plan to end violence in Syria at the Security Council, he said: “The Russians are aware now that the Western states are interfering in the Middle East to draw a new map for the region.”

Meanwhile, some Arab newspapers chose to point a finger at the Arab League rather than Moscow and Beijing for Saturday’s events. “The solution is not in New York but in Syria and Cairo,” an op-ed published in the London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat said.

Chinese delegate at UN vetoes Syria resolution (Photo: AP)

Columnist Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed explained that the Arab League is the one that gives legitimacy, not the Security Council, citing examples from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the unrest in Libya.

Meanwhile, sources close to Hezbollah told a Kuwaiti newspaper that Lebanon must do everything to support Syrian President Bashar Assad.

They stressed that Hezbollah will not let Assad’s regime to fall, even at the expense of a conflict with Israel.

Sarkozy seeks to create ‘friends of Syria’ group to stop ‘tragedy’.

Sunday, 05 February 2012

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy has expressed his disappointment at China and Russia’s veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution on the Syria crisis. (Reuters)

inShare6

French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned China and Russia’s veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution on the Syria crisis Saturday and said Paris was consulting with Arab and European countries to create a “friends of Syria” contact group to find a solution to the crisis.

“The Syrian tragedy must stop,” said Sarkozy in a statement issued through his office.

Russia and China’s veto Saturday of a U.N. resolution on the bloodshed in Syria was also condemned by the Amnesty International a “shockingly callous betrayal” of the Syrian people.

Moscow and Beijing have acted in a “completely irresponsible” way, the London-based human rights group added.

The group’s secretary-general Salil Shetty added: “This is a completely irresponsible use of the veto.

“It is staggering that they have blocked the passage of what was already a very weak draft resolution.

“After a night in which the whole world watched the people of Homs suffering, the actions of these members are particularly shocking.”

Thirteen countries voted for the resolution proposed by European and Arab nations to give strong backing to an Arab League plan to end the clampdown.

Amnesty said it would continue to press Security Council members to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court; impose a comprehensive arms embargo; and implement an assets freeze on President Bashar al-Assad and other top Syrian officials.

Russia and China made a repeat of their rare double veto carried out on October 5 on an earlier condemnation of Assad.

Russia’s U.N. envoy Vitaly Churkin called the draft resolution “unbalanced.”

China’s official news agency quoted Li Baodong, Beijing’s representative to the U.N., as saying more consultation had been needed.

Tunisian prime minister urges all countries to cut ties with Damascus over violence.

Sunday, 05 February 2012

Tunisian Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali has called for the expulsion of Syrian ambassadors from Arab countries during a panel discussion on the Middle East at a security conference in the southern German city of Munich. (AFP)

inShare

Tunisian Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali called Sunday on all countries to cut off diplomatic relations with Syria over the violence there.

“We have to expel Syrian ambassadors from Arab and other countries,” Jebali said during a panel discussion on the Middle East at a security conference in the southern German city of Munich.

“The Syrian people do not expect from us today long statements … they are expecting deeds, they are expecting concrete measures … the very least we can do is to cut all relations to the Syria regime,” added Jebali.

He said the veto of Russia and China on Saturday against a U.N. resolution aimed at stopping the violence showed that the Security Council system was broken.

The veto was “a right that was misused and undoubtedly the international community has to reconsider this mechanism of decision taking,” said Jebali.

Tunisia, whose revolution a year ago sparked the chain of other popular uprisings across the Arab world including Syria, announced Saturday it would expel the Syrian ambassador and stop recognizing the Damascus regime.

The call came after one of the bloodiest weekends since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime erupted almost 11 months ago, with more than 200 civilians killed during a massive assault by regime forces in the central flashpoint of Homs.

Speaking at the same event, Yemeni Nobel peace laureate Tawakkul Karman also called on the international community to expel Syrian ambassadors from their countries and recall diplomats in the wake of the violence there.

“I urge you in the name of the peaceful rebels to expel Syrian ambassadors from your countries and I urge you to call back your ambassadors in Damascus,” Karman said. “That is the minimum you can do to punish this regime, and I also urge you to take the necessary measures to protect the Syrian people,” She added

Karman had harsh word for Russia and China for vetoing the resolution.
“Those two countries bear the moral and human responsibility for these massacres,” she said.

China and Russia, which vetoed a U.N. resolution aimed at ending the bloodshed in Syria, “bear the moral and human responsibility for these massacres,” she said.

Syria releases London bombings ‘mastermind’ in a retaliatory move against the West.

Sunday, 05 February 2012

Abu Musab al-Suri, the alleged terrorist mastermind behind the 7/7 London bombings, is reported to have been freed from a Syrian jail in what is believed to be a warning to the West. (File photo)

inShare

International condemnation of Russia-China veto on Syrian crisis.

Sunday, 05 February 2012

Russia’s U.N. ambassador Vitaly Churkin has justified his country’s veto of a U.N. resolution on Syria by saying it “sent an unbalanced signal to the Syrian parties.” (Reuters)

inShare1

Western and Arab powers Saturday reacted angrily to Russia and China’s veto of a Security Council resolution on the Syria crisis, but Moscow and Beijing insisted the text needed more work.

Russia, a long-time Syrian ally, and China had earlier vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian government’s deadly crackdown despite reports by Syrian activists that troops overnight had killed 230 civilians in the city of Homs.

Russia’s U.N. ambassador Vitaly Churkin justified the veto by saying the proposed resolution “sent an unbalanced signal to the Syrian parties.”

Russia had complained that the draft resolution was an improper and biased attempt at “regime change” in Syria, which is Moscow’s sole major Middle East ally, an important buyer of Russian arms exports and host to a Russian naval base.

Churkin’s Chinese counterpart Li Baodong said pushing through such “a vote when parties are still seriously divided … will not help maintain the unity and authority of the Security Council, or help resolve the issue.”

But the international community reacted with anger at the double veto, the second by the two countries since the start of the Syrian crisis a year ago.

U.N. leader Ban Ki-moon expressed deep regret, saying that it undermined the role of the United Nations, according to a statement.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice dispensed with the usual diplomatic courtesies and declared she was “disgusted” by the Russian-Chinese veto, adding that “any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands”.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the veto would encourage further crackdowns by the Syrian regime.

“The Syrian tragedy must stop,” said Sarkozy in a statement issued through his office.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Russia and China had let the Syrian people down.

They had, he said, “sided with the Syrian regime and its brutal suppression of the Syrian people in support of their own national interests.”

Mohammed Loulichki, the U.N. ambassador of Morocco, the sole Arab member of the 15-nation council, voiced his “great regret and disappointment” at the veto and said the Arabs had no intention of abandoning their plan.

Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi termed the double veto “very bad news” while U.S. ambassador Susan Rice described it as “shameful”.

European Union chief diplomat Catherine Ashton also expressed regret at the vetoes.

“The time has come to speak with one voice and demand an end to the bloodshed and speak out for a democratic future for Syria,” she said in a statement.

“We condemn the ongoing bloodshed and stand by the Syrian people against the repressive regime.

“We call on President Assad to end immediately the killing of civilians, withdraw the Syrian army from besieged towns and cities and step aside in order to make room for a peaceful transition for the sake of his country.”

The European parliament expressed dismay and its president, Martin Schulz, urged Moscow and Beijing to “take their international responsibilities seriously”.

London-based rights group Amnesty International called the veto a “shockingly callous betrayal” of the Syrian people.

Moscow and Beijing have acted in a “completely irresponsible” way, the London-based human rights group added.

Thirteen countries voted for the resolution with only Russia and China voting against. Both countries, as permanent members of the Security Council, have a veto power.

The draft resolution, put forward by Morocco, had called for an immediate end to all violence. It did not impose any sanctions, nor did it authorize military action.

Syrian U.N. envoy Bashar Ja’afari criticized the resolution and its sponsors, which included Saudi Arabia and seven other Arab states, saying nations “that prevent women from attending a soccer match” had no right to preach democracy to Syria.

Iran: ‘Sanctions Made Us Stronger’ – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Map of Strait of Hormuz

Israel news photo: Wikimedia Commons / public domain

A top Iranian official says U.S. and European sanctions have made his country stronger, not weaker.

The Islamic Republic has been pushed to rely on its own resources as a result of the sanctions, explained Iranian Air Force Commander General Hassan Shahsafi.

“The Iranian Air Force is in full combat readiness to defend the country’s airspace as well as its territorial integrity,” he said at a government ceremony marking the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Because of the need to develop its own resources, the country has benefited from a host of new technologies, Shahsafi said.

Iran introduced a new missile on Saturday, and is continuing its drive towards uranium enrichment and nuclear development, which much of the world believes is aimed at creating an atomic weapon of mass destruction.

In addition, because Iran has said plainly that it believes Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom were behind the deaths of several of its nuclear scientists, alerts have been issuedto protect Jewish institutions in North America, South America and Europe.

Iran is also conducting additional military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, aimed at preparing for a battle against a “hypothetical enemy,” said Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi on Saturday.

The waterway is the sole shipping lane for some 40 percent of the Western world’s crude, and thus is considered an important strategic asset. Under the watchful eyes of the Western intelligence and military powers, Iran has said it will continue its exercises for the next month.