mr fish

Certainly and Israel was amongst them. Ask any survivors, if you can find them in Isreal, how they were treated when they arrived. One of the nicknames was "Ash". Auschwitz survivors knew what the reference was. "Exodus" was an absolute fabrication. The US didn't want a huge influx of Jews, Russia and the eastern bloc was still actively anti-semitic and Israelis blamed them for staying in Germany etc.

I do still know survivors, though they are a shrinking group and by and large they are disgusted by those who wrap themselves in the Holocaust banner just as we all know those of our lost and maimed mates who are horrified at the flag wrappers who use their sacrifice for their own ends. I am stretching the analogy a bit but I am a bit raw about it at the moment.

Anyone who listens to Iranian rhetoric must ask who the intended audience is. In common with insecure regimes throughout history, they are speaking to their own population.

I do not want Iran or anyone else to have "The Bomb" but they would almost be derilict in their duty not to acknowledge the fact that almost every border is with someone who already has one or has a mate who has.

Not many did really but this is trotted out daily about anyone we don't like.

It's a widely used amusing derivative of the gent's name even here in this forum. Yet you only now choose to be dismissive of it? Right, fair and balanced....

Ooooh, oooh, a history degree! Well, that's it then, case closed.

By the way, it's not that uncommon a degree to possess (hint, look at the pprune name). And how it'd work out for you as an aviation writer? By this logic, you are not qualified to comment on fighters, helicopters, ASW platforms, tankers, et al, the procurement and use thereof, yet you do so.

And for a living.


The impact is made. There can be no further dissent after one's talked to 'mates' and others.

Or is it possible to arrive at a different conclusion based on the same set of facts? Hmm, different understanding of scholarship. Must be a translation thing.

Well, of course. You're British. You understand how the world works. You aren't relevant, but you understand how it is. Thank you for the attempt at snideness and derision. To quote Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much!"

This couldn't be another case of starting something in the Middle East some years back - Balfour, UN Mandate, etc, then just walking away. Again. Wonder how Zimbabwe is progressing?

See how fair and balanced you are? You see both sides of the argument. Yet, you don't comment on the fact that Israel can't afford to be wrong regarding a nuclear threat to it.

The four-five thousand centrifuges, the contacts with the Paki nuclear engineer Khan, the total erasure of some nuclear facilities, down to scrubbed earth, none of that could be construed as 'maybe?'

And to continue the 'fair' theme, you know, as a journalist, the one you're supposedly a fan of, then why if Israel makes a show of force with no harm to anyone and says it will protect itself, you condemn it? After all, it's just rhetoric, isn't it?

Brick,
I freely admit I have never been a great fan of your's or Westies rather slanted vision of the world we all live in, however your last missive is nothing short of childish, crass and extremely rude to boot.

If you are going to argue with the grown up's then please have the decency to act like a grown up :rolleyes:

sffp,

I see your point.

What snideness and derision from JN, surely not?

Just how long did you do in the military Jacko?

Is that relevant?

As long as you did in the IDF/AF, I'd imagine, Nige, since VR service doesn't count. How exactly did your own long years on the Herc force (for which I respect and commend you) give you special insight into Middle Eastern affairs? :rolleyes: That's a rhetorical question, Nige, as I would respect your view, as an intelligent chap who may have done staff college, and who must know the region, whether I agreed with it or not.

But aren't we supposed to play the ball, and not the man - the argument, and not its proponent?

In any case, direct personal experience isn't always necessary to have an opinion, surely?


Brick,

I don't recall having condemned Israel's latest bout of sabre rattling. I just question the neocon view that Iran represents a 'clear and present danger' to Israel, based solely on the lunatic ramblings of the Iranian President, which are (as someone pointed out) intended for domestic consumption, and which are part of a long tradition of Iranian empty rhetoric.

I would condemn precipitous pre-emptive action by Israel, because however tempting it may be to remove a potential threat, that would be against international law, and military action must always be justified by a real, meaningful threat (as existed in Afghanistan, but as arguably did not exist in Iraq in 2003).

Otherwise the USA would be lining up to bomb North Korea, Iran and Venezuela and that would be fine and dandy.

As to your anti-British tirade and cheap points about 'walking away' from the Mandate (League of Nations, not UN) and Rhodesia, they're beneath you. Or perhaps you think we should take lessons from the US example of disengagement, as demonstrated in Vietnam, Somalia and the Lebanon - or even Iran? And that's not beneath me, as you don't sink lower than a journo.

JN, no worries, just thought you were wearing your history degree a little too obviously on the thread. Nothing particularly wrong with snideness and derision used in low doses!

I am acquainted with an Iraqi Shia, who supported the Iraq invasion but also understands the great game being played out by Persia. Don't think Dinner Jacket is playing it too smartly myself and you could argue that US foreign policy has brought on what could turn out to be a nuclear arms race in the region.

I always have a sneaking admiration for Israeli cojones though!

Cheers,

Nige

jacko,

exactly. Which is why

struck me as not your usual approach.

The US walking away? Absolutely. I claim no moral high ground for my country. edited to add: Only self-interests, just like any other nation.

I say Israel isn't entitled to moral superiority either. But to exist, yeah, I kinda think they have that right.

Iran seems to think otherwise and, by all accounts, is acquiring the means to carry out the rhetoric.

And the thread is back full circle.

Politics apart militarily I don't doubt that the Israelis have the skill and fire power to carry out the raid into Iran and destroy that nuclear facility. I'm not at all sure they would advertise their intentions in such an obvious way. I think it is a smokescreen for an attack closer to base (Syria ?). The Israelis are cunning and shrewd ( and perhaps a little stealthy) having visited Iraq and Uganda to protect their interests in the past. Why advertise their intentions in this manner. The Iranians can do the maths they know the range of an F-16I ITIRC about 1500 nm with conformal tankage max. Unless the IDF/AF has a stunning trick up its sleeve they are going to require tanking some where along the way and that mitigates against surprise.
Perhaps the stunning trick is a Lavi / Lampyridae hybrid project based on the missing Lavi number 3. Didn't a significant number of MBB technicians from the very top drawer join IAI some years ago. Lavi 1 is in a museum 2,4 & 5 were scrapped. 1 & 2 were stripped to complete number 3 as a technology demonstrator, where is it now? Not too sure on just how the timelines fit for this but it is a thought.
Just my thoughts.
Your comments and observations much appreciated.
Be lucky
David

The Bible produces some interesting insights into the Arab/Israeli conflict. They appear to have been fighting each other for centuries. Both trace their lineage to Abraham. Abraham had a son with the servant girl Hagar and he was called Ishmael. He then had a son with his wife Sarah and he was called Isaac. The Jews were descended from Isaac and the Arabs from Ishmael. It was said of Ishmael, “He shall be a wild man; his hand shall be against every man and every man’s hand against him.” Ishmael and Isaac have been fighting ever since. In AD 135ish the Romans joined the province of Judea/Samaria together with Galilee to form a new province Syria Palaestina. The word “Palaestina” was a reference to the Philistines, the arch enemies of the Israelites from the days of Moses. Rome had been fighting Jewish rebels and named Judea “Palaestina” as a sleight to the Jews.

I doubt that Carter or Blair will solve a problem that has several centuries of history behind it.

On the question of Iran, I do not believe that the current bout of sabre rattling will develop into conflict. The Iranians are not Arabs. However, history suggests that another Arab Israeli war is inevitable.

Jacko

How does all that edumakation qualify you to know if an individual is slewing innocent enough death threats or real, to be believed death threats? You're damning a country based on what you learned a long ago time in Uni, surely between protesting a cause de jour.

I guess I don't understand how knowing some Prof's in academia as you trumpet somehow allows you a greater insight.

It really is black and white. Either he's bluffing or he's not. You, me and Israel differ in how we assess verbalized threats of destruction.

You can be wrong in your analysis all day long without consequence, Israel can only be wrong once.

Here's your big chance Barry ... let's see the correct spellings in the alphabet of the countries you are talking about :ok: The Western world's interpretation will always be a bastardised version.

Avgas Dinosaur
 

Take a look here.....

J-10 Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

Perhaps acquired for a bit of reverse engineering?

Effortless, thank you for your link earlier in the thread; however, having examined the URL, since when have the terms "BBC" and "Factual" appeared in the same sentence (except with a negative modifier inbetween?)

What would one expect from that institution, anyway? They are, by their own admission, a bunch of Jew-hating pinko lefties, afterall.... BBC confesses bias on religion, politics

JN,

No, it would not be illegal. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence has long been enshrined into international law. This was done specifically to counter exactly the kind of threat ArmyDinnerjacket has made. In fact, IMHO, this is the most clear-cut case in modern times of justification for a pre-emptive strike. Let's summarise:

1. ArmyDinnerjacket says "Israel will be wiped off the map".
2. ArmyDinnerjacket starts building nuclear weapons.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

You (and many others) claim that "Oh well, he didn't really mean it" - that IMHO is a bogus argument; whether he meant it or not is irrelevant, he said it, and that's all that counts. Under English law, one can be given a custodial sentence for making "Threats to Kill" - there is no requirement to prove that the threat is real, or to wait and see if it is carried out, just that it was made. In fact, the pivotal point is whether or not the victim believes the threat, since the true intentions of the threatener are, in a legal sense at least, indeterminable.

One last point - if it were your country, and your children he was threatening, would you be so quick to give him the benefit of the doubt?

A valid point..... If S Ireland were threatening us with armageddon and we were not 100% sure it was a bluff, what would we be saying now?
The Israelis are certainly not innocents in the art of aggressor, but the constant threat of an enemy who would not be satisfied with simple defeat, eradication only please, certainly concentrates the mind. My viewpoint is simple here, but the Israelis see their options as simple also......

The Middle East Quarterly: Tactical Hudna and Islamic Intolerance

A Year to Stop Iran

Guardian: Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle

......What is clear is that the push inside the Israeli establishment for a strike is not being driven by the timetable of Iran's mastery of the technical aspects alone, but by geopolitical considerations. That point was reinforced by Bar last week when he identified a window of opportunity for a strike on Iran - ahead of the November presidential election in the United States which could see Barack Obama take power, and possibly engage with Syria and Iran. An Obama presidency would close that window for Israel, says Bar.

'The support is almost unanimous for this in Israel. One hundred percent. I don't think there is anybody within Israel who sees Iran's threats as rhetoric. So the question is, when do we reach that bridge?' he said, adding that the West is naive to believe that any kind of negotiation will work. 'The only thing that can stop Israel's intent [to bomb] would be extremely robust steps on the part of the West - a blockade of Iranian refined oil, something that would indicate that steps were meant to force regime change. Since that is not on the cards, only bombing Iran will work.

'If it's an Israeli attack they will put pressure on Iran's Arab neighbours to respond to the problem also. It will be counter-productive for Iran to launch a major attack on Israel.

'So they will launch a few rockets at us; that is not devastating for Israel,' he said with a shrug. Israel's case, as put by Bar, is that 'most of the Arab Middle East will side with the hope that Israel does the job and not the US. And make no mistake that they all want the job done. They will condemn it in public of course and then get on with their lives,' he said.

Har added that there would probably be another war with Lebanon - 'a month or two months, that is as long as the Middle East has wars for. We can easily cope with that. That's the nature of life in this region. We will set the Iranian programme back and yes, then we will need to come and take it out of existence again after that timeline. There will be no total conclusion, I hesitate to call it the "final solution", but there are no such solutions.'........

The Inquisitior

Well of course we all experience the resources available to us in different ways. For my part I tend to read and listen to almost anything I can in order to get an idea of what is going on in the world. However I think that if you had indeed listened to the program, you may have found that the contributors are quite varied and eminent in their fields. I have heard fairly right wing US academics there explaining the neocon view.

Have you factored in bias?

Westie - "Have you factored in bias?"

I think that was his point. They have the right wing 'neo-con' variety as well as the left-wing 'huggy fluffies'.

Just clap and cheer the one you follow and shake your head at the bias and blindness of the other. Easy really. Bias is very much in the eye of the beholder as I 'see it'.:ok:

I note, on another tack, that none of the self confessed 'right brigade' ever nominated what they view as a reliable news source when I asked the question many moons ago. They can be quick to denigrate BBC etc as biased but I assume they were not prepared to put their chosen sources to the same scrutiny from the 'huggy fluff' side. Unless it is Fox then I could undertand their reluctance.:E

Brick did make a sensible suggestion that they all have some bias & we just weed out the bias but BBC et al do not seem to get even that option. The usual cry from the 'right' is that if it was on the BBC it is wrong, no analysis necessary.:ugh:

Ummmm, didn't the BBC's own IG or the equivalent admit to this being the case?

The answer is yes, by the way. And you, the British taxpayer, get to pay for it.

Fine by me as it's not my government or my taxes, but I prefer the marketplace determine what bias fills the airwaves and stays transmitting, not the government.

Thread creep, but I didn't start it!
 

Living in the US for a little over 8 months now, I've never been more sure of the importance of the BBC, an organisation that produces quality broadcasting, from its news gathering (second to none IMHO), to documentaries such as Planet Earth, to the superb production values of Top Gear.

I am a big fan of US comedies (Seinfeld, Frasier) and drama (The Sopranos, probably the best drama series ever made, ever!), but the news organisations seem to have more than a whiff of bias about them and offer too much opinion, not enough news. Would Fox News/MSNBC report on bias on their own channel - I doubt it.

As for the marketplace determining the bias, is it healthy for corporations to dictate the news agenda on their channels? Its bad enough in the UK where Rupert Murdoch owns a couple of newspapers, and absolutely appalling when he says that he hasn't decided which party his papers will support in a general election ('it was The Sun wot won it' etc etc; though I believe that its more a case of a shrewd businessman backing the likely winner). Would US TV companies conduct an investigation into pharmaceutical giants at the risk of losing the ad revenue (BTW WTF is Restless Leg Syndrome)? I doubt it, but am happy to be shown otherwise. The good old Beeb was able to do just that, with its programme on GSK and the anti-depressant Seroxat, free from the threat of losing a cheque from drug companies.

A mark of the BBC's independence is that you can guarantee that the UK government of the day will accuse it (the BBC) of bias (see Norman Tebbit on the right, and Alaistar Campbell on the left). On the whole, the licence fee is money well spent, and I'll be happy to pay it when I return to Blighty.

Anyway, I'm off as 'Lewis' is about to start on PBS...

Not exactly; I can choose not to pay the license fee and to use the internet and radio for news and DVD etc for entertainment. The BBC is certainly not run by the government though they do decide how much money it gets. Every government since I could read has complained that the BBC is biased against them. They must have got somethjing right then.

I have the priviledge of being exposed to the mass media of several nations and Radio 4 does seem unique to me

A rose by any other name....

I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories, however one of the thoughts in the commodity market at the moment is that an attack by Israel is more likely before the presidential election, not less.

The theory goes that the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Irans nuclear capability has tied the hands of the current US administration with respect to a strike in the near term. However, if Israel were to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran then the US could assist in the aftermath. This would bring the 'war on terror' clearly back in to US public focus (rather than the economy) and the US public is more likely to support a Republican presidential nominee than a Democrat in times of conflict.

From the Israeli perspective the current Republican administration is more likely to support a pre-emptive strike than Obama if he gets in, so their options narrow somewhat after the US election.

Therefore a strike in September/October is likely as it could suit both Israel and the current US administration.

Kuwaiti Daily Reveals: Iran Building Secret Nuclear Reactor

On July 29, 2008, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa reported that, according to "highly reliable sources," Iranian authorities had begun construction of a secret nuclear reactor in the Al-Zarqan region close to the city of Ahwaz in southwest Iran, on the Iran-Iraq border.

The paper said that according to sources, Iran was working to distance its nuclear installations from international oversight. The English version of the report, published in the Kuwaiti Arab Times, said, "Disclosing [that] Tehran directed international A-bomb inspectors to other places, sources warned [that] the project poses a very serious threat to international security."

Also according to the sources, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not know about this site at all, since it was not included in negotiations with Iran in Geneva held in early July.

According to the report, the sources said that during 2000-2003, Iran expropriated the lands and homes of thousands of Arab citizens from the Al-Zarqan region, destroying homes of thousands of Arab citizens from the Al-Zarqan region.

Destroyed homes, fields, orchards, and wells, and built a three-meter-high wall around the project site, which allegedly measures hundreds of kilometers.

The report also said that "the construction of the reactor began with the laying of a pipeline for fresh water from the [nearby] KarounRiver to the site, and the expansion of the Al-Zarqan power station."

Also, the sources said that "the construction works seem to be routine and do not arouse attention, but the tight security around the region is what arouses suspicions regarding the nature of the work." They added that the site is guarded by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) personnel, reflecting its importance and sensitivity.

Following is a summary of the Al-Siyassa report, [1] and from its English [2] version in the Kuwaiti English-language daily Arab Times, which was also published July 29, 2008.

IRGC Commander's Letter to Construction Company: Maintain Complete Secrecy

In its report, Al-Siyassa included a letter dated April 7, 2008 from the office of the assistant of IRGC commander in Al-Ahwaz city Brig. Hassan Jalaliyan, marked "highly confidential," to Mohammed Kayafir, manager of the Mehab Qudus Company for Construction and Supervision, which is building the reactor. The following is a translation of the letter:

"From the IRGC Commander in the city of Al-Ahwas to the director in charge at the Mehab Qudus company for Construction and Supervision Mr. Mohammed Kayafir

"Re: The nuclear reactor at Al-Zarqan

"Greetings,

"I thank you for the good services of the Mehab Qudus company, and at the same time I must remind you of the following items:

"1. All construction materials must be transported from the warehouses to the construction site in top secrecy.

"2. As part of the doctrine of caution, we reiterate yet again that during the transport of all required materials, you must ensure that this [transport] does not arouse the suspicions of any citizen in the region through which you are moving.

"3. In general, it is absolutely forbidden to hire any Arabic speakers or any citizen from Khozestan in the framework of the 'Al-Zarqan Nuclear Reactor' construction project. You must ensure that all manpower, including the driver, the accountant, the warehouse manager, the laborer, the technician, or the guard, comes from the northern provinces.

"In conclusion, we say yet again that all the construction work in this project must be carried out under absolute secrecy.

"From the aide to IRGC commander in the city of Al-Ahwaz, Hassan Jalaliyan."...................

ORAC
You trying to drive the price of oil up today?

Now allow me to approach this with a cynic's point of view:

"Re: The nuclear reactor at Al-Zarqan"!

Would you really, really ever send a letter with that header when you're trying to keep your super secret nuclear reactor.... well, secret? Surely a letter entitled "Re: Project Zahabubi" or something....

Smacks of a kipper to me...

A View from The Gulf....This is a Saudi correspondent, writing in an Arab journal - and it got past the censors and into print...

Bomb Iran Now, Let the Chips Fall Where They May

In his August 4, 2008 column in the liberal Arab e-journal Elaph, Saudi columnist Saleh Al-Rashed argued that the Gulf states should urge the West to attack Iran before it acquires nuclear weapons.

Following are excerpts from the column: [1]

A Nuclear Iran is Like a Nuclear Bin Laden

"'One cannot avoid the inevitable' - this adage came to mind when I read the pronouncement by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohammad 'Ali Ja'fari, who said: 'My country is easily capable of closing the Straits of Hormuz, the main passageway for oil freighters, if the country is attacked due to its nuclear program.'

"In my estimation, confronting this country, which is trying to gain the time necessary to acquire nuclear weapons, is unavoidable. The possession of nuclear weapons by a state like Iran, which is ideological to the core, is more or less like Osama bin Laden having a nuclear bomb. They are two of a kind. Despite the difference in their turbans and in their religious beliefs, the end result is the same.

"Perhaps it is our bad luck that we [i.e. Saudi Arabia] and the Gulf states would be the first to suffer from a military confrontation with Iran and from its response, and the problem would become even more grave if Iran succeeded in closing the Straits of Hormuz, as the IRGC commander threatened. But our situation with Iran is like that of the sick man who refuses to have his illness treated with cauterization. Yes, the pain of the burning is horrible, but this malady can only be treated through this military confrontation -cauterization.

"History has taught us that ideological countries only pay heed to victory over their ideology… They never accept any halfway situation, even when they find themselves on the brink of disaster."

"Confrontation Is The Solution"; "The Absolute Priority Must Be Our Strategic Security in the Gulf"

"Confrontation is the solution, and there is no solution but confrontation. The game of the carrot and the stick played by the U.S. and E.U. will be to no avail.

"At present, we are suffering from two things: Iran's attempts [to gain] regional hegemony, and its attempts to impose its influence via its sectarian allies - the fifth column of Arab Shi'ite fundamentalists. Imagine what Iran's influence, hegemony, and fifth column would be like if Iran had a nuclear bomb.

"Perhaps it is a strange coincidence that, this time around, our strategic interests coincide with those of Israel. The regime of the mullahs in Iran is our enemy, and at the same time it is an enemy not just of Israel, but of world peace and security.

"I know that the Arab demagogues stand together indiscriminately with anyone who is against Israel and America. But we need to not be swept away by these demagogues as we were in the past. This time, the absolute priority must be our strategic security in the Gulf, which is threatened by Iran - even if this comes at the expense of the Palestinian cause.

"In politics, nothing prevents you from allying with the devil for the sake of your interests. This is what confronting the Iranian danger - which is close - demands of us. This issue, in my estimation, cannot suffer delay or hesitation. Every passing day benefits Iran.

"Thus, we need to push the world powers, and especially the U.S. and the E.U., towards military confrontation to neutralize the Iranian enemy, whatever the cost, before the nuclear bomb makes it too late - even if it is against the will of the Arabs of the north."

Wahhabi
 

"History has taught us that ideological countries only pay heed to victory over their ideology… They never accept any halfway situation, even when they find themselves on the brink of disaster."

and being a Saudi, he should know first-hand...

Hhhmm...........

...."argued that the Gulf states should urge the West to attack Iran before it acquires nuclear weapons. "

How about the "Gulf states" actually put to some use that multitude of advanced weapons they have been steadily accumulating over recent years and attack Iran themselves if they think it so important?

Or are their fleets of advanced F-16's etc all just for show?

CirrusF ...............i can only agree with you.
You highlightened a strong reason here....

Or are their fleets of advanced F-16's etc all just for show?

Just for show.

Also, one tends to think that the oil sheiks think they're buying Anglo-Ami influence and protection by buying big ticket hardware from the infidels.

And the A-rub chiefs might be right about that.

Plus, if the UK pulls out of the Persian Gulf, less big big big oil money might get deposited in City of London banks. What else holds up the English economy nowadays?

To destroy the uranium centrifuge halls at Natanz alone, analysts have argued, might require up to 80 5,000lb penetrating bombs dropped in almost simultaneous pairs to allow the second bomb to burrow through the crater of the first.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/29/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

Well, other anonemouse experts argue that only 50 8,000 pound penetrating bombs would be needed. So there, probelm simplified.

Proone

You obviously haven't worked in the field with the GCC Armed Forces. A high proportion of them are very proficient and many of their "young Turks" now coming through the ranks would not be out of place in our Armed Forces.

They are motivated, educated and well trained despite the cultural barriers to what we perceive as the lack of a western work ethic. The politics of, and ruling cliques in, the region of course mitigate against rash military action, unlike that engaged in by Blair and his sycophantic New labour posturing liars, trying to strut the world stage and giving us a bad name in the process

Utrinque Apparatus,

Which all makes sense APART from the fact that I was commenting on a member of the Gulf States who was encouraging the US and the West to bomb Iran, so your post makes NO sense........................

I made no comment on the proficiency or otherwsie of the armed forces in the region, just wish they'd fight their own wars.

For all the warmongers
 

The Israeli strike (air/ground (spec forces) and fifth columnists (not journos/they're not invited unless embedded)) is planned to take place on 18 Dec (early evening) because of the cultural significance of that date. Conventional (deep penetrating B61-11's off F-15's) and bio, but not nuclear. It also coincides with a major upgrade date for the main facility.... and a change-over of key personnel.
The current Iranian Calendar year is AP 1387 (AP = Anno Persico/Anno Persarum = Persian year). You add 622 to the Iranian calendar to arrive at a Gregorian date. The date is known to far too many people to remain a secret for much longer.

New Iranian AA defences?
 

I've just come back from my fifth visit to Iran and would say that the Iranians are preparing for an air attack judging from the number of new anti aircraft guns I saw around the place. The new Iman Khomeini airport now has a large soil berm around the perimeter c/w anti aircraft guns. In addition new guns have appeared on the base of the mountain ridge just off the Tehran - Keraj highway. These appear to be protecting two large round radar domes up on the ridge. My last visit was three years ago when none of these defence were in place.