Venda do Novo Banco pode representar 8% do M&A na banca europeia este ano

[JPtuga]

Bem, o que é certo é que isto talvez seja apenas uma maneira de desviar a atenção da situação critica que actualmente vive a administração bush, com tantas demissões e o problema da bolha especulativa do imobiliário e o subprime.
E ainda há duvidas em relação á real capacidade dos EUA poderem mobilizar os meios necessários a uma operação militar contra o Irão com meios terrestres. Por outro lado, se estivermos a falar de uma campanha estritamente áerea, os meios existem para punir severamente o Irão, atingindo as infraestruturas de comunicações, fábricas, etc, embora sabendo-se que será practicamente impossivel garantir a erradicação do programa nuclear iraniano, apenas com recurso a bombas e misseis.
Há aqui uma realidade que é esta:
O Irão, actualmente, fruto da classe politica no poder, é uma potência regional, que ofusca em capacidade militar,organização, e determinação todas as nações da área, o que causa um problemas gravissimos a esses vizinhos, bem como a Israel.
No caso do Iraque ficar sob o controle Iraniano, por via indirecta, bem como a Arábia saudita, kuweit, etc etc, o Ocidente terá um problema gravissimo para resolver.
A questão das armas nucleares é muito relevante pelo seguinte; na guerra fria o que evitou um conflito nuclear generalizado foi o medo que cada uma das potências tinha de ser aniquilada pelo outro lado, mesmo no caso de um ataque de surpresa, era o conceito MAD(mutual assured destruction), logo os interlocutores eram racionais. Mesmo assim, em 2 ocasiões (que se saiba...) quase que ia havendo esse conflito; a crise cubana de 1962 e a guerra Israelo-Arabe do Yom kippur em 1973. No mundo actual, o medo que o ocidente tem que paises como o irão, obtenham armas nucleares, advém do facto de não perceberem as suas lideranças politicas como estaveis e racionais, mas sim como fanáticas e instaveis, logo susceptiveis de usar essas armas á minima provocação, ou mesmo sem ela, ou apenas usando-as para chantagear os vizinhos. Sem falar nos multiplos interesses geopoliticos envolvidos, da russia, da China, etc. etc.
Ou seja, se o irão obter armas nucleares, e a liderança politica mantiver a postura dos ultimos anos, a pergunta que deveremos fazer, na minha opinião, é quando se dará um confronto militar com o irão, e não se irá haver esse confronto....
No entretanto vamos vendo os episódios de "saber rattling" de ambos os lados, com avanços e recuos... que aproveitam a ambos os lados, para efeitos de consumo politico interno e desviar atenção das fraquezas internas de ambos os lados. e o Iraque logo ali ao lado...

[jotabil]

Caro Atomez

Isto é apenas propaganda e da melhor

TEHRAN, Iran Sept. 2 — Iran’s leaders maintained their defiant position to the West today, with the president announcing the nation had 3,000 active centrifuges to enrich uranium and the nation’s supreme leader appointing a war veteran and ideological hard-liner as the new commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.

Não serão os líderes do Irão a cumprir um mandato de outra entidade politica?
O que é facto é que a europa terrestre tem visto as correrias dos USA-UK pelo médio oriente adiante e ela a ver passar os combóios do seu interesse.....essa é que é a dura realidade.
E não é só aí...é na África Oxidental e na meridional,
Ou tb julga que a prevista cimeira União Europeia- África vai realizar-se e que daí resultem alguns reais benefícios geopolíticos para a partes?
O bloco marítimo não vai deixar facilmente que resultem alterações ao staus quo existente.
Não sejamos poetas e deixemos os muçulmanos em paz...pois não são eles que se constituem em antagonistas...pese toda a propaganda do mundo.
Não se confunda meu Caro...existem outros sedentos interessados que o médio oriente se instabilize o suficiente para que o actual equilibrio de forças se degrade rapidamente e disso advenha uma situação geopolitica que lhe seja mais propícia.
Coitados dos muçulmanos metidos no meio de ambições insanáveis.

cumps

[Keyser Soze]

Sunday Times deste fim de semana:


Os Ingleses vão deixar o Iraque

UK troops poised to quit Basra
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington

BRITAIN is preparing to hand over control of Basra to the Iraqi army as early as next month, sparking renewed claims from the US that the British are preparing to “cut and run”.

The Iraqi army is on course to take control of Basra province by the autumn with October seen as the earliest point at which it would be ready, according to Whitehall officials.

It could allow Gordon Brown to announce the handover in his widely anticipated statement on Iraq to the Commons when MPs return from the summer recess.

The handover would enable most of the 5,500 British soldiers to leave Iraq, although negotiations are under way to base some troops in Kuwait.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 368539.ece

O General Britânico, comandante do Exército Britânico durante a guerra no Iraque, critica fortemente a Administração Americana

Former army chief condemns US for 'short-sighted' policy on Iraq
Fran Yeoman

The head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq has condemned America’s postwar policy in the country as “intellectually bankrupt” and “very short-sighted”.

In an unprecedented attack, General Sir Mike Jackson, former Chief of the General Staff, said that insufficient troops were deployed to control the country after Saddam Hussein’s downfall, and he criticised the decision to disband the Iraqi Army and security forces.

Sir Mike blamed Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Defence Secretary, for much of the fiasco and said that his claims that American forces “don’t do nation-building” were “nonsensical”.

He criticised the Bush Administration for handing control of postwar Iraq to the Pentagon, and claimed that Mr Rumsfeld discarded detailed plans for post-conflict administration that had been drawn up by the State Department. “All the planning went to waste,” he said. Mr Rumsfeld, who he labelled “intellectually bankrupt”, was “one of the most responsible for the current situation in Iraq”.

Sir Mike added that Washington relied too much on military power rather than nation-building and diplomacy in fighting global terrorism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 365477.ece

Um ataque ao Irão não se resumirá ás instalações nucleares

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 369001.ece

[atomez]

Iran Reaffirms Its Defiance of the West

TEHRAN, Iran Sept. 2 — Iran’s leaders maintained their defiant position to the West today, with the president announcing the nation had 3,000 active centrifuges to enrich uranium and the nation’s supreme leader appointing a war veteran and ideological hard-liner as the new commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.

While the details of each announcement did not signal any significant change of course for Iranian policy, the pairing of the messages appeared intended to reaffirm Iran’s refusal to back down in the face of stepped-up pressure from the United States over its nuclear program and its role in Iraq, political analysts in Iran said.

The White House has threatened to declare the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which could open the way for far-reaching economic sanctions against Iran since the Guards are involved in nearly every aspect of the state-controlled economy, diplomats here said. At the same time, Iran faces the prospect of being sanctioned a third time by the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear program.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that Iran had finally reached its stated goal of developing 3,000 centrifuges, but his message seemed more of a challenge to the United States and Europe than it did a statement of a technological breakthrough.

“The West thought the Iranian nation would give in after just a resolution, but now we have taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines, installing a new cascade every week,” state television quoted the president as saying.

Se os States declararem os RG como organização terrorista, será na prática uma declaração de guerra.

Por outro lado

North Korea to Disable Nuclear Facilities by Year’s End

GENEVA (AP) -- North Korea agreed Sunday to account for and disable its atomic programs by the end of the year, offering its first timeline for a process long sought by nuclear negotiators, the chief U.S. envoy said.

Kim Gye Gwan, head of the North Korean delegation, said separately his country's willingness to cooperate was clear -- in return for ''political and economic compensation'' -- but he mentioned no dates.

[jotabil]

Caro

A história das religiões não se pode reduzir a grafismos como o apresentado.Induz em erro, simplifica aquilo que não pode ser simplificado e exige um conhecimento,aínda que liminar, do pensamento filosófico referindo, sucintamente, os grandes passos da espiritualidade humana e todo o percurso feito pela divindade na sua aproximação do homem ou vice versa.
No tempo dos egícios os deuses eram cósmicos....as invocações a Osíris, no livro dos mortos, são apelos feitos pelo homem junto de deuses emudecidos ou silenciosos,para poder ultrapassar um ditame da natureza que é a morte....Osíris é apenas e aínda, um deus cósmico apenas existia na espiritualidade humana como apaziguador das suas angústias.....
Mais tarde.....com Zaratustra o deus anunciado por este profeta...e por isso é revolucionário.....é um deus que ao indicar o caminho do bem e o do mal ....dá ao homem a responsabilidade e liberdade éticas para escolher...vemos que aqui, a divindade inicia a sua relação com o homem através dos anunciadores ...os profetas.
Este deus aumenta a aproximação na religiões que lhe sucedem:
No judaísmo...aparece um deus omnipotente e mandão...a sua relação com o homem..consubstancia-se através dos ditames da aliança com o povo de noé após o dilúvio.....e com os mandamentos de Moisés ...e todas anunciações dos profetas que lhe sucederam.....vidé pentateuco e livro dos profetas.
No cristianismo a aproximação da divindade com o homem é mais estreita....a divindade assume a condição humana...encarna...para melhor entender o drama humano e assim melhor o ajudar a percorrer o caminho da redenção....o infinito solidariza-se com o finito.....filho de Deus feito homem...estão a apreciar a aproximação.?....
No Islamismo essa aproximação leva à sacrilização do homem. Ou seja, Alá é absoluto...e forma com a natureza e o homem uma unidade orgânica....nada existe além de Alá...O homem pertence à divindade.

Como podem apreciar a divindade, de início cósmica e externa ao homem....é agora parte intrínseca da humanidade. Desejava acentuar esta transmutação da espiritualidade humana.

Por isso sempre afirmei que o islamismo como doutrina, tem o mesma paradigma que as outras duas religiões proféticas e que considero uma tentativa de manipulação quem associa meras vicissitudes materiais a linhas espirituais admiráveis e profundamente humanas.
O lucro, os mercadores do templo, não podem manipular desse modo simplista, todo o caminho de sísifo que o homem tem cumprido com a sua espiritualidade....como ser que é em revolta perante um universo absurdo e ingrato.
O espirito não se resolve em grafismos para os menos avisados engolirem.
O judaísmo não nasceu por geração expontânea num lugar definido como dizem os grafismos...O islamismo com data definida na sua cosmogonia em 622 DC.....tem sinais nos filhos de Agár a escrava de Abraão....a caaba é simbólicamente a casa de Abraão....como se pode graficar temporalmente uma coisa que tem raizes indeterminadas e comuns....só um espirito adulterado e mecanicista em face de interesses imediatos.
Diria mais...claro que não aceito essa aparente evidência....Oh eras!!!!


cmps

[Keyser Soze]

<object width="600" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/Religion.swf"></param><embed src="http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/Religion.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="600" height="300"></embed></object>

<object width="600" height="400"><param name="movie" value="http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf"></param><embed src="http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="600" height="400"></embed></object>

[jotabil]

O profecta a que me queria referir é Zaratustra...naturalmente ...ou Zoroastro...conforme quiserem.


cumps

[jotabil]

Caros

Apenas para esclarecer:

O cisma da religião muçulmana constituiu-se, fundamentalmente, na existência de três facções....bem definidas Os Sunitas, os chiitas e os caredjitas.
A causa maior da sua existência tem fundamento na procura dos legitimos herdeiros da doutrina de mohamad (Maomé)... Mohamad não definiu uma estrutura para sutentar a a doutrina que proclamou....dado que nada pode existir para além de Ala...e essa indefinição parece ter sido a causa maior das lutas e facções que sucederam.
Os sunitas...sustentam que os legitimos herdeiros são os que dão testemunho para a sharia....e que por reconhecido mérito a conduzem.
Os chiitas..dizem que os herdeiros por direito são os familiares descendentes de Alá.
Os Caredjitas...uma outra facção mais próxima dos chiitas do que os sunitas, teve como herói mártir esse tal Husayin mas que após a sua morte iniciou um declinio considerando-se já desaparecida no seio dos chiitas.
É esta a história.
Outra coisa que aqui parece confundir o entendimento, é o facto de se confundir o chiismo com outro factos que a história revela.
A área a assinalada a verde no mapa, coincide na sua maioria à área dos sassânidas que tinham um paradigma religioso que é a madre das religiões proféticas onde , como sabemos, se inclui o islamismo a par do judaísmo e do cristianísmo.
Refiro-me designadamente ao Mazdaísmo com os seus deuses Ormuz;deus do bem, e Ariman, deus do mal.....e ao grande profeta revolucionário que à data do sec V AC contemporâneo ,portanto,de Péricles,
revolucionou as divindades tornando-as mais proximas do homem e com ele relacionaveis.
É este o nosso berço religioso, essa área verde assinalada no mapa, aí nasceu a liberdade do homem na escolha do caminho do bem ou do mal para efectivar a sua redenção....aí nasceram as religiões proféticas e també as religiões misticas que avançaram para o Indostão dando origem ao induísmo e sequentes fundamentalismos como o budismo e outros.
Quero com isto dizer, que entendo reducionista e facciosa a interpretação que é apresentada no texto.
O autor apenas foi comprado para contar uma história conveniente a uma geopolitica que como tal se contitui num modelo geográfico a favor de uma das duas entidades politicas que realmente se confrontam.
Não se deve manipular a história arredondando os factos.


cumps

[Keyser Soze]

Mas mesmo assim não vejo o interesse de Israel.
O que é que ganha em dar umas porradas nos Sírios?

quem é que matou o PM do Libano há uns anos atrás?
quem é que está por detrás da desestabilização do Libano?
quem é que apoia o Hezbollah? que por sua vez ataca os israelitas ?

a questão é que não sei como os Russo iriam reagir..actualmente eles estão de boas reacções com os Sirios e tencionam estabelcer lá uma base da marinha russa


não sei se China e Russia iriam aceitar de bom grado outra intervenção unilaterista dos USA

se bem que até podem achar estas intervenções positivas pq assistem ao desgaste rápido do poder militar (e da credibilidade) americano nestes conflitos enquanto eles vão adquirindo e investindo em novo equipamento


e o q q a Administração Bush iria alcançar com um ataque ?

admitindo que os aviões e misseis de cruzeiro conseguem destruir as instalações nucleares iranianas, os iranianos não iam ficar sentados a ver os aviões....abria-se uma nova frente da guerra do Iraque, o sul xiita ficava ingovernavel ( os ingleses já se querem vir embora..independentemente do q os americanos pensam), aumento do terrorismos internacional, agravamento do radicalismo islâmico...

[Dwer]

O ataque israelita à Síria é que eu não percebo. A que propósito? Saiu-lhes o palito mais pequeno?

o Irão tem estacionados na Síria misseis para atingir Israel como represália a um ataque americano

diz quem? O facto de terem misseis com capacidade para atingir Israel, não é novidade nenhuma. Israel tem as mesmas capacidades ou maiores (maiores, na verdade).
Não percebo é o que é que mudou. Porque é que o facto de os USA atacarem o Irão implica um ataque de Israel à Síria? E porquê o convencimento de que, caso os US ataquem o Irão, a Síria responderá atacando Israel?
Não me parece muito inteligente da parte da Síria.
Cheira-me a patranhas tipo WMDs no Iraque.
Mas mesmo assim não vejo o interesse de Israel.
O que é que ganha em dar umas porradas nos Sírios?

[Fogueiro]

A IAF, em estreita colaboração com a Mossad, tem planos detalhados para um ataque aéreo à Siria.
Estão muito mais preparados para isso que os EEUU, só precisam do apoio daqueles aviões americanos que interferem com as defesas antiaéreas, nos sistemas de "guiamento" dos misseis terra-ar.

Os meus amigos americanos estão convencidos que o Bush ataca o Irão antes de acabar o mandato.
Mas há que dar um desconto porque são todos anti-Bush.
...

[atomez]

O ataque israelita à Síria é que eu não percebo. A que propósito? Saiu-lhes o palito mais pequeno?

o Irão tem estacionados na Síria misseis para atingir Israel como represália a um ataque americano

[Dwer]

Sarkozy’s warning to Tehran was the bluntest but not the only one Tehran received of the Bush administration plans to bomb its nuclear facilities. Iran was discreetly warned by the Kremlin in early spring that an American attack was impending and would be coordinated with an Israeli strike against Syria. All three armies, the Iranian (plus Hizballah), Syrian and Israeli, have been deep in hectic war preparations ever since.

O ataque israelita à Síria é que eu não percebo. A que propósito? Saiu-lhes o palito mais pequeno?

[karlitos]

nao sei porque mas nao me parece... mais uma guerra agora teria um efeito bastante negativo na opinião publica.

ate porque parece-me que por la aquilo anda mais calmo... pelo menos nao se tem visto noticias... o que tambem pode ser mau sinal... quem cala consente... esperemos que não, pois uma guerra nuclear seria catastrófico para economia, planeta e desenvolvimento da espécie humana..

[atomez]

Este tema voltou a estar muito activo. E já não é só o Bush a mandar bocas.

Sarkozy is first Western leader to speak out loud about US plan to bomb Iran

August 28, 2007

Addressing 180 French diplomats Monday, Aug. 27, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable and the world must tighten sanctions while offering Tehran incentives to halt weapons development. “This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran,” he said.

Sarkozy thus became the first important Western leader to declare with brutal frankness that Iran stands in peril of an attack on its nuclear installations.

Sarkozy’s warning to Tehran was the bluntest but not the only one Tehran received of the Bush administration plans to bomb its nuclear facilities. Iran was discreetly warned by the Kremlin in early spring that an American attack was impending and would be coordinated with an Israeli strike against Syria. All three armies, the Iranian (plus Hizballah), Syrian and Israeli, have been deep in hectic war preparations ever since.

Por outro lado:

U.S. Outfitting B-2's with Monster Bunker Buster Bombs - Iran May Be Target

Friday, July 27, 2007

The U.S. is retrofitting its B-2 Stealth bombers with massive bunker-buster bombs - a move that could be a prelude to an attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities.

Northrop Grumman announced last week in a little noticed release that the company had begun integrating on the B-2's a new 30,000-pound-class "penetrator bomb" or bunker buster.

The company is doing the work under a seven-month, $2.5 million contract awarded June 1 by the Air Force's Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

The new Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which is being developed by the Boeing Co., is a GPS-guided weapon containing more than 5,300 pounds of conventional explosives inside a 20.5-foot-long enclosure of hardened steel. It is designed to penetrate dirt, rock and reinforced concrete to reach enemy bunker or tunnel installations.

The B-2 is capable of carrying two MOPs, one in each weapons bay.

Tudo sugere que vai haver uma ataque ao Irão antes de o Bush terminar a presidência. E o mais provável é que seja ainda antes do fim deste ano ou início de 2008, mais tarde cai muito em cima da campanha eleitoral.

E agora é a boa altura para começar a preparar a opinião pública.

"Nunca se lançam novos produtos em Agosto" dizia um mestre de marketing.

[Keyser Soze]

This picture released by Amnesty International shows how a woman would be prepared for stoning



11th July 2007

An Iranian woman faces being stoned to death for having an affair with a married man.

Mother- of- two Mokarrameh Ebrahimi has spent the last 11 years in jail for adultery with Jafar Kiani.

(...)

Tehran stopped official stonings in 2002 following international pressure. But judiciary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi confirmed that Jafar Kiani had been killed on Thursday. "The verdict was implemented because it was definitive," he said.

Under Islamic law a male convict is buried up to the waist with his hands tied behind his back, while a female is usually buried up to her neck. Spectators and officials then carry out the execution by hurling rocks and stones.

The stones are deliberately chosen to be large enough to cause pain, but not big enough to kill the person in just one or two strikes.

Kiani and Ebrahimi were jailed in 1996 and their two children, one aged 11, are believed to live in prison with their mother.

(...)

In May, the European Union criticised Tehran's human rights record and expressed concern about the use of the death penalty in the Islamic state.

Iran says it is acting on the basis of Islamic sharia law.

[Keyser Soze]

Aprender a conhecer a manta de retalhos do mundo islâmico

03.06.2007, Diana Soller

No décimo dia do primeiro mês do calendário lunar muçulmano, os xiitas celebram a Ashoura, uma das mais importantes festividades religiosas desta facção muçulmana. Quem viu diz que é um espectáculo impressionante, de fortíssima carga dramática: milhares de fiéis enchem as ruas para chorar e lamentar o assassinato de Husayn, neto do Profeta Maomé, morto em combate pelos soldados (sunitas) do califa Umayyad. Esta manifestação marca as profundas diferenças que separam as duas principais seitas do Islão; é um ritual de identidade xiita, uma identidade que se desenvolveu em oposição ao domínio sunita.

Não é por acaso que a principal data religiosa xiita recorda a milenar cisão entre si e os seus rivais muçulmanos. Os xiitas são a facção derrotada, minoritária, muitas vezes segregada; os sunitas são a vertente dominante, pragmática, triunfante. Apesar de o ramo xiita ter encontrado o caminho do poder em certos períodos históricos (o Grande Império Iraniano entre os séculos XVI e XVIII, governado pela dinastia Safavide, ou o domínio do Irão moderno desde a Revolução Islâmica do ayatollah Khomeini, 1979), o xiismo é a força resistente, que espera, em letargia religiosa, a oportunidade para voltar, por vontade divina, ao poder temporal, num espaço geográfico cada vez mais amplo. Vali Nasr, especialista do Council of Foreign Relations, argumenta que esta é a lente por onde se devem observar as relações de poder, hoje, no Médio Oriente. Há séculos, xiismo e sunismo lutam pela preponderância no mundo islâmico. No Iraque, o desaparecimento do poder secular de Saddam Hussein relançou a rivalidade latente: os conflitos que opõem radicais de uma e outra facção no Iraque são um microcosmos radicalizado deste conflito histórico e em grande reemergência hoje em dia. São um espelho das tensões que ensombram outros países de população muçulmana. Os primeiros anos do século XXI marcam, como o título deste livro indica, o despertar do xiismo para o domínio do islão.

O Ocidente desconhece esta realidade. Habituamo-nos a ver o mundo muçulmano como um todo indivisível, sem atentarmos nas diferenças de comportamento (que são inúmeras, no plano da vivência religiosa, no comportamento social e na concepção de governo e de poder). Alimentámos a ideia de que o único padrão é o das populações e lideranças de países sunitas, com quem mantemos contactos mais estreitos, e esquecemos o islão resistente e, de alguma forma, subjugado. Agora que ele reemerge, somos obrigados a reaprender.

Trata-se, no entanto, de um fenómeno muito importante: as tensões no Médio Oriente tendem a agudizar-se, uma vez que os Estados que detêm o status quo - nomeadamente a Arábia Saudita, o Egipto e a Jordânia - olham com preocupação a renovada assertividade do xiismo, quer dentro das suas próprias fronteiras, quer na crescente afirmação do Irão no equilíbrio de poder regional. É possível que esta tensão marque o aumento da instabilidade das relações entre estes países e que se assista a comportamentos mais agressivos de ambas as partes. Além disso, se o problema se agravar, vamos testemunhar uma reedição da batalha pela "alma do islão". Quem vencer ditará as regras das relações islão-Ocidente no futuro.

O propósito explícito deste livro é esclarecer os leitores ocidentais sobre as diferenças que compõem a complexa manta de retalhos que constitui o mundo islâmico e os riscos da rivalidade pelo domínio ideológico e político do Médio Oriente, agora que o xiismo está revigorado. É importante lê-lo, uma vez que este será, provavelmente, um dos assuntos centrais da política internacional nos próximos anos.

[atomez]

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com

The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.
...
The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.
...
It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.

[Keyser Soze]

U.S. engages in rare talks with Iran on Iraq security

By Kirk Semple
Monday, May 28, 2007

BAGHDAD: The United States and Iran held their most high-profile bilateral talks in nearly three decades on Monday, adhering to an agenda that focused strictly on the war in Iraq and on how the two nations, bitter adversaries, could work to improve conditions here.

The meeting between Ambassador Ryan Crocker of the United States and Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qumi of Iran - held in the offices of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad - produced no agreements nor any promise of a follow-up meeting between the two nations, officials said.

But Crocker told a news conference that the talks "proceeded positively" and were "businesslike." Both sides, he said, articulated a common desire to help stabilize Iraq.

"The Iranians as well as ourselves laid out the principles that guide our respective policies toward Iraq," he said. "There was pretty good congruence right down the line: support for a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq, in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbors."

The meeting came against a backdrop of a worsening conflict in Iraq and deepening animosity between Iran and the United States. Each blames the other for contributing to the instability in Iraq.

Underscoring the security challenges here - the exclusive topic of the meeting - a car bomb exploded Monday afternoon next to a revered Sunni Arab mosque in central Baghdad, killing at least 24 people and wounding 68, the police said.

American and Iranian officials suggested in comments after the meeting that they had had no detailed exchange of ideas or any comprehensive discussion about each nation's criticisms of the other.

"As you surely know among diplomats," Crocker told reporters, "you don't need a lot of substance to take up a lot of time."

Crocker said that he "laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq." Washington has repeatedly accused Tehran of meddling in Iraq, including training Shiite militiamen and shipping highly lethal weaponry into Iraq for use in attacks by Shiite and Sunni Arab militants against American troops.

Crocker said he told his Iranian counterpart that these activities "needed to cease."

"We all are pretty much in the same place in terms of declaratory policy," he said. "The problem lies, in our view, with the Iranians not bringing their behavior on the ground into line with their own policy."

In comments to the state-run television network Iraqiya, Qumi said, "Some problems have been raised and studied, and I think this was a positive step."

According to The Associated Press, Qumi told Crocker that Iran would train and equip the Iraqi security forces to create "a new military and security structure," though he did not describe the plan.

Crocker said the Iranians asserted that the American efforts to prepare the Iraqi security forces had been "inadequate," and called the presence in Iraq "an occupation."

In addition, the American ambassador said, the Iranian delegation proposed forming a "trilateral mechanism" to coordinate security matters in Iraq, a proposal that the ambassador said he would forward to Washington for consideration.

Hewing to the strict guidelines of the meeting, neither side discussed Washington's complaints about Iran's nuclear program, which Bush administration officials say is aimed at developing nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

Crocker said the Iraqi government planned to invite the United States and Iran to another meeting.

"In terms of what happens next, I think we're going to want to wait and see, not quite what is said next, but what happens next on the ground - whether we start to see indications of a change in Iranian behavior," he said.

Qumi told The Associated Press that a second meeting would "occur in Iraq in less than one month."

The meeting reflected a significant shift in President George W. Bush's approach toward Tehran.

The United States broke off diplomatic relations with Iran after the 1979 Islamist revolution and the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the Bush administration has insisted that Tehran must abandon its plans to enrich uranium before direct, high-level negotiations could take place.

But in recent months, the administration began to soften its opposition to diplomatic contact, particularly over Iraq. Critics of the administration have urged Bush to engage its main regional rivals in the Middle East - Iran and Syria - in direct talks on shared concerns. So has the Shiite-led Iraqi government, which maintains close ties with Tehran.

The meeting Monday followed two recent encounters by high-level American and Iranian officials, one at a regional conference in March, attended by the State Department's Iraq envoy, David Satterfield, and the other at a ministerial-level conference in May, attended by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

A year ago, Iranian and American officials announced a planned meeting between the American ambassador to Baghdad and Iranian officials to help stabilize Iraq, but the meeting never occurred.

Just before 10:30 A.M. Monday, the two ambassadors were met by Maliki, who led them into a conference room in his office. The ambassadors, flanked by members of their delegations, sat across a long, polished conference table from each other.

In a televised statement before U.S. and Iranian representatives began talks Monday, Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, said that Iraqis wanted a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference.

"We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere," he said.

Maliki then left the meeting, which was led by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Maliki's national security adviser.

The meeting followed a drumbeat of public recriminations between the two countries in recent weeks.

Last week, the Bush administration said it would use a new report detailing Iran's progress in enriching uranium to encourage European and Asian allies to seek a major expansion of sanctions against Tehran. The United States also dispatched 9 warships with 17,000 troops into the Gulf for naval exercises, which further inflamed tensions.

On Saturday, Tehran said that it had uncovered spy networks inside Iran that were organized by the United States and its Western allies.

Iran has also accused the United States of illegally holding seven Iranians who were detained by American forces in Iraq earlier this year on suspicion of being spies. Iran maintains that the men are diplomats. Crocker said this matter was not raised at the meeting on Monday.

Violence continued to roil Iraq on Monday. The deadliest attack of the day was the bombing of the Abdul-Qadir al-Gailani Mosque in central Baghdad, one of the world's most important shrines in Sufism, generally considered a branch of Sunni Islam.

The blast destroyed several cars, shattered glass in buildings within a radius of 200 meters and scattered body parts from the victims. "It was like an earthquake," said Muwaffaq Abdulla, 55. "Smoke, dust and fire everywhere. Cars were burning."

As he spoke, Abdulla suddenly burst into tears. "Why would they target our Sheik Abdul-Qadir?" he wailed. "What is the government doing to stop this? I don't think they can not protect us because they can not protect themselves."

In the past two years, Sufis, though widely considered Sunnis, have found themselves the targets of attacks by fundamentalist Sunnis who view the Sufis as apostates, one step removed from the Shiites.

Several prominent Sunni and Shiite leaders speculated that the mosque attack Monday was also the work of extremist Sunni insurgents likely operating under the auspices of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has made the car bomb one of its gruesome hallmarks.

The bombers "are committing these acts to create and increase the sectarian violence in our country," said Omar Abdul Sattar, a Sunni Arab legislator from the Iraqi Consensus Front, the largest Sunni Arab bloc in parliament. "The only solution is to stand together against them and against violence."

The mosque's imam, Sheik Mahmoud al-Isawi, said in a tearful phone interview that the attackers were "enemies of Iraq." The mosque, he said, "is for all Iraqis: Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs."

Maliki immediately ordered that the mosque be reconstructed and that security be tightened at the site.

In the Kasra neighborhood of Baghdad an improvised bomb hidden on a roadway killed 9 and wounded 20, an Interior Ministry official said.

In the predominantly Sunni Arab neighborhood of Fadhel, militants ambushed a police patrol, killing 7 police officers and wounding 3, the ministry official said.

Gunmen kidnapped more than 40 people near the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad, according to a police commander in Tikrit, the capital of Salahuddin province. The official said the gunmen appeared to be linked to Al Qaida in Mesopotamia, which operate in the area and have attacked local Sunni Arab targets in response to the formation of a tribal council that has vowed to fight Al Qaeda.

Four bodyguards affiliated with the tribal council were killed by gunmen on Monday, the police in Salahuddin said.

In the northern oil city of Kirkuk, a roadside bomb that was apparently targeting a local police chief's convoy killed a civilian and wounded six other people, Brigadier Sarhad Qadar of the Kirkuk police said.

Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi, Wisam A. Habeeb and Ali Adeeb contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times contributed from Salahuddin Province and Kirkuk.

A top Iranian energy official said Sunday that Iran was planning an investment fund outside the Islamic Republic to raise money for its huge South Pars gas field and circumvent a financial squeeze by Washington, Reuters reported from Tehran.

As the United States pushes for tighter United Nations sanctions on Iran over its atomic work, Akbar Torkan, head of the Pars Oil and Gas Company, said Tehran would base the fund in Bahrain or Dubai, both regional financial centers.

"It's a reaction against the financial sanctions on Iran," said Torkan, a former defense minister. "There are no sanctions against an investment fund."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/28/news/iraq.php

[Cartago]

E depois de um ataque destes vamos todos viver felizes para sempre, right?

Não se esqueçam de que o Irão de hoje não é o Iraque de 1981, quando Israel atacou e destruiu o programa nuclear iraquiano. A conversa hoje é bem diferente!

Atacar o Irão é abrir as portas do inferno.

[atomez]

MIT eggheads plan Israeli airstrike on Iran nuke factories

A pair of postgraduate students at MIT have produced a detailed assessment of the Israeli Air Force's ability to destroy Iran's potential nuclear weapon manufacturing plants.

Whitney Raas and Austin Long, PhD candidates in Nuclear Engineering and Political Science respectively, published (pdf) Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities last month. The title alludes to the famous Israeli air raid on Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981, which destroyed the facility and denied Iraq any chance to build nuclear weapons in the 1980s.

Raas and Long suggest that a "strike package" of 50 US-made F-15 and F-16 jets - a considerable proportion of the IAF's current strength - could potentially wreck Iran's ability to build nukes, using conventional weapons already in the Israeli inventory.

The two eggheads believe that this could be done by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan, the heavy-water plants at Arak, and of course the biggy - the underground, heavily protected uranium-enrichment centrifuge bunkers at Natanz. Other targets in Iran, such as the Bushehr reactor, are assessed as being genuinely civilian in character and of no relevance to nuclear weaponry.

Esfahan and Arak could be dealt with comparatively easily, requiring no more than a dozen weapons each to wreck, according to Raas and Long. But the large, hardened subterranean centrifuge arrays of Natanz would be more difficult altogether. To have a serious chance of drilling down through layers of earth and concrete protection, the report suggests that Israeli jets would need to drop 12 5,000 pound BLU-113 penetrator bombs, and then another 12 exactly into the craters made by the first lot. This sort of accuracy could be achieved only by the use of laser guidance: GPS-steered weapons would not suffice.

Raas and Long note that this technique has been considered in the past by the US Air Force, and mentioned publicly by IAF general Eitan Ben-Elyahu, who participated in the original Osirak raid. Even so, the Israelis probably wish they had a mega-penatrator option like the 30,000 pound whopper the Americans are currently working on.

The two authors also admit that under some of the more likely planning options, Israeli F-15I "Ra'am" jets could each carry only a single BLU-113 to Natanz; and that the IAF possesses only 25 of these aircraft. Only a little would need to go wrong for the Israelis here - a jet or two going titsup, getting shot down, or being compelled to dump weapons - and the Natanz hit might not be fully effective. If just 1,000 centrifuges of a possible 50,000 remained serviceable, Iran could still enrich weapons-grade uranium, albeit much more slowly.

Raas and Long skate over the massive diplomatic problems that would accompany an Israeli strike. The planes would have to fly over Turkey, Syria, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia: and/or American-occupied Iraq. Turkey and Jordan would be extremely angry, but conceivably might not shoot at the Israelis. Syria surely would. America probably wouldn't, and arguably would have to be consulted in advance anyway, but all in all the Israeli airmen might have to fight before they even reached Iraq, and perhaps again before they got home. The two authors are surely correct to assume that Israel could never get away with more than a single lightning raid; international outrage would surely prohibit any sustained campaign.

Some analysts have taken this report to indicate that Israel could destroy the Iranian nuclear capability almost any time it feels like it (or any time it thinks the Yanks won't get too upset). The authors themselves conclude that "Israeli leaders have access to the technical capability to carry out the attack".

Alternatively, one might say that from the Israeli viewpoint the strike would need the entire fleet of F-15I Ra'ams to be serviceable; it would need neutral or hostile governments to be complicit or at least inactive; it would require a larger air-refuelling fleet than the IAF has - or alternatively very little fighter cover; the Natanz bombers in particular would need to arrive almost uninterfered with; and in the aftermath there would surely be a massive political price to pay.

That's a big accumulator bet to make, especially when one considers that even if Iran were nuclear armed and able to attack Israel, the Israelis could still rely on their own nuclear weapons for deterrent effect.

On the other hand, Raas and Long have seemingly ignored other options available to Tel Aviv. Israel is nowadays believed to possess submarine-launched cruise missiles, which could easily be launched from the Arabian Sea or the Gulf to hit Iranian targets.

The problem with that, of course, is that subsonic low-flying weapons like the Israeli "Popeye Turbo" couldn't crack the Natanz bunkers using conventional warheads - at least not in the current state of the technology. The submarine option would require the use of nuclear weapons, which probably doesn't seem like a brilliant idea even to the Israelis - let alone the rest of the world.

Which is probably why the MIT guys didn't choose to open that particular can of worms.

One thing's for sure: student life seems to have changed a lot since our day. Maybe Raas and Long need to get down to the pub a bit more.

[atomez]

April 24, 2007, 1:49 PM

Kuwait government sets up emergency team to prepare for an Iran-US military conflict

Deputy Saleh Ashour reported Tuesday that the Kuwait cabinet had formed a team to draw up plans to keep the country running during a war. Parliament will be briefed.

[Keyser Soze]

A Win-Win Strategy For Iran
by Georgy Mirsky
RIA Novosti Commentator

Moscow (RIA Novosti) April 17, 2007

Experts have two main questions about the situation in Iran: First, are the Iranians close to developing a nuclear bomb? And second, are the Americans going to start a war there? Several thousand centrifuges are enough to enrich uranium to 90 percent and produce a nuclear bomb within a year.

Earlier, the Iranians announced their intention to increase the number of centrifuges at the Natanz facility to 3,000. On April 10, after the celebration of the National Day of Nuclear Technologies (April 9), Gholamreza Agazade, Iran's vice president and head of the country's atomic energy organization, said that the plan is to launch 50,000 centrifuges.

Nevertheless, officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency have warned many times that it is not possible to prove that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. This situation is not likely to change. But there is still indirect evidence that what the Iranians are developing is very far from a civilian nuclear industry.

In 2005, Russia made an offer to Iran to enrich uranium for it, and guaranteed that Iranian nuclear plants would be fully loaded with nuclear fuel. Tehran rejected the idea, as well as a package of proposals from the U.N. Security Council members and Germany. Iran was promised help with its World Trade Organization application, assistance in building nuclear power plants and supplies of new spare parts for worn-out civilian aircraft if it gave up uranium enrichment.

But Iran turned down all these tempting proposals for only one reason -- it wanted to avoid foreign control over its uranium enrichment. It seems that throughout the talks, Tehran has simply been stalling for time in order to start enriching weapons-grade uranium.

It is clear, though, that Iran does not need the bomb. Which country would be targeted? The United States is far away, and an attack on Israel would kill not only Jews but also Arabs in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. It is abundantly clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran, with its aspirations to Muslim leadership, would not dare kill millions of its brethren-in-faith.

The bomb has no practical use. Most probably, Tehran plans to stop at the five-minute-readiness level, that is, one step before the bomb. This would allow the Iranian leaders to enjoy unheard-of prestige at home, dominate the Muslim world, and dictate its terms to the West.

Iran is already talking with everyone from a position of strength because it feels invulnerable and is not afraid of an American attack. The Americans are stuck in Iraq and cannot afford to launch another military land operation. Pinpoint air strikes at nuclear facilities may delay the Iranian nuclear program for several years but will not change the regime.

In any case, the Iranians are not likely to leave the American strike unanswered. They may attack oil refineries in neighboring countries or U.S. military bases in the region. This would be a disaster for the U.S. in Iraq -- all the local Shiites who cooperated with the Americans, albeit without much enthusiasm, will turn against them. This would lead to the defeat of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential, congressional and gubernatorial elections. Although U.S. President George W. Bush may be very tempted to attack Iran, he is not a dictator and will not ignore public opinion and ruin his party.

The Iranians are not afraid of sanctions, either. Those imposed by the U.N. Security Council are irritating but not very effective. Only an embargo on oil and gas exports would be deadly for Iran, but nobody except the Americans would insist on such a measure, and the Iranians are fully aware of this. Therefore, they can say with a straight face that they will ignore the world community and continue enriching uranium.

The question is: What to do after the expiration of the 60-day deadline stipulated by the U.N. Security Council in its latest resolution on Iran (No. 1747 of March 24)? It would be logical to adopt an even tougher resolution, but there are fears that stronger measures could compel Iran to quit the IAEA and go on enriching uranium without any control.

But maybe it's worth the risk. Iran is in desperate need of investment, without which its industries cannot cope with domestic requirements. Even though it is a world leader in oil reserves, today Iran has to import 40 percent of its gasoline. A gradual economic isolation of Iran could be quite effective, probably leading the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. If they did so, they would still be able to save face and say that they never even thought about building a bomb but merely wanted to secure more privileges for their peaceful nuclear industry. "We have not been brought to our knees; we have won," the Iranian leaders would say.


(Georgy Mirsky is a senior researcher at the Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This article is reprinted by permission of the RIA Novosti news agency. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)

Source: RIA Novosti

[Keyser Soze]

Ahmadinejad Bluffing to Hide His Weakness

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems intent on shocking the West with increasingly frequent PR stunts that are starting to look like bluffs to stifle growing domestic discontent with him, say German media commentators. The West, they say, mustn't isolate Iran too much or his strategy will pay off.

Ahmadinejad claims Iran has begun industrial-scale uranium enrichment -- an important milepost on the way to becoming a nuclear power.
Iran drew worldwide condemnation following its announcement on Mondaythat it had begun industrial-scale uranium enrichment, stoking Western fears that it has got another step closer to building a nuclear weapon.

German newspaper commentators say President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to stoke the diplomatic row with the West to distract from growing disenchantment with his domestic and foreign policies in Iran. Further sanctions are now likely but the West mustn't let Iran isolate itself any further or the world will lose what power it still has to control and monitor the country's nuclear program, commentators say.

Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"If the country is sealed off through self-isolation, sanctions and an international quarantine, the regime will probably take the North Korean route: stepping up the development of nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool for negotiations or for geostrategic power politics."

"Those in Europe or America who want to prevent that should make every effort to bind Iran into an international network of controls and cooperation to a greater extent than before. That, rather than confrontation, is the only way to reach the highest level of security in the nuclear arena that Western governments say they want to achieve in the region."

"For his announcement in Natanz, Ahmadinejad mobilized not only Iranian media but an audience of dozens of foreign diplomats and journalists. He seems to require a stage for self-portrayal at ever shorter intervals. Given the lack of concrete successes, the message increasingly isn't the event or its content, it's he himself."

Conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"The Arab neighbors are already thinking about launching their own nuclear programs and America and Israel won't stand idly by indefinitely while their arch enemy builds itself a nuclear option. The Iranian nuclear program is the most pressing political problem facing the world -- especially because it is being worsened by the mess in Iraq and the new confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis."

"That's why one will have to try yet more rigorous sanctions. The measures the UN Security Council has passed so far have already begun to bite and started fuelling a debate in Tehran about the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad's grip on power isn't nearly as tight as his boastful declarations suggest. The European Union's offer to solve the crisis is generous and fair -- it will appear all the more lucrative when the price Iran is paying for its obstinacy starts to rise."

Conservative Die Welt writes:

"The international community will have to get used to the prospect of an Iran with nuclear capabilities, it probably won't be able to stop Tehran, it's nuclear research program is on track."

"It's time to think about new strategies, about ways to tie Iran in as closely as possible and thereby arrive at a fairly reliable control of a nuclear Iran. It's time to start talking about a transparent partnership of security. There are pragmatic, influential Iranian circles that fear an increasing isolation of their country. These people want economic success, development and progress -- and all that is impossible under a rigid regime of sanctions and international isolation.

"The rational forces in Iran must be won over for a deal on equal terms, then there can be hope of taming a nuclear Iran."

Left-wing Die Tageszeitung writes:

"It's pure bluffing. The fact is that Iran is still far off from having the capability to build an atom bomb and even from being able to make the industrial fuel for the peaceful use of nuclear energy."

"In fact, things are getting increasingly tight for radical Islamist Ahmadinejad. The number of his critics, even from within the Islamic establishment is growing, as is discontent in the population. Foreign policy conflicts can save him: the bigger the better. This conflict strategy seems to be welcome in the West, especially in the US. Any provocation from the radicals in Tehran delivers fresh material to portray Iran as 'most dangerous enemy of world peace' to prepare the public psychologically for a possible military attack on Iran."

"From the US point of view this isn't just about the nuclear dispute -- they could have solved that through direct negotiations with Tehran long ago. Rather, this is about the role of Iran in the entire region: In Iraq, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Afghanistan. And it's about US hegemony in the Middle East. One has to ask what George W. Bush would do if it weren't for Ahmadinejad."

-- David Crossland, 3 p.m. CET

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 38,00.html

[Keyser Soze]

Irão:Marinheiros libertados dizem foram coagidos a confessar

Os 15 marinheiros britânicos libertados pelo Irão afirmaram hoje que estavam fora das águas territoriais iranianas quando foram capturados pelo Irão a 23 de Março, explicando que foram coagidos a gravar os vídeos transmitidos pela TV iraniana em que diziam o contrário foram encenados.

Na pimeira conferência de imprensa que deram desde que chegaram ao Reino Unido, quinta-feira, os militares disseram ainda que foram coagidos a fazer as «confissões» de que se encontravam em água iranianas sob ameaça de ficarem sete anos presos no Irão, e que foram submetidos a «constante pressão psicológica» por parte das autoridades iranianas.

Num comunicado conjunto, os marinheiros afirmam ainda estarem «muito orgulhosos» de Faye Turney, 26 anos, e da forma «muito profissional» como esta se comportou durante os 13 dias de cativeiro.

«O facto de ela ser uma mulher foi utilizado como um meio de propaganda pelo Irão. Isto é muito lamentável», declararam. Faye Turney foi separada dos companheiros desde o início e mais tarde recebeu a notícia de que os homens tinham regressado ao Reino Unido e que ela estava sozinha no Irão, acrescentaram.

Os marinheiros contaram que permaneceram com os olhos vendados, atados e foram objecto de «pressões psicológicas constantes».

«Eu posso afirmar claramente que estávamos a 1,7 milhas náuticas das águas territoriais iranianas», declarou o capitão Chris Air dos Royal Marines, ao ler a declaração em nome de todo o grupo.

Vários membros deste grupo foram exibidos na televisão iraniana, onde se desculparam por ter entrado em águas territoriais iranianas.

As autoridades britânicos afirmaram na altura que as supostas confissões pareciam ter sido obtidas sob coacção.

06-04-2007 16:13:09