<tit>
ANATOLY TSYGANOK: THERE WILL BE NO WAR
<aut>Yekaterina Barova
<src>Sobesednik, No 6, February 15 - 21, 2006, p. 4
<sum>An interview with Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Center of Military Prognosis of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.</sum>
<cov>ANATOLY TSYGANOK, THE HEAD OF THE CENTER OF MILITARY PROGNOSIS OF THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICAL AND MILITARY ANALYSIS: THE AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE LEVERAGE ON IRAN
<itl>The situation provoked by the Iranian nuclear program and the scandal with caricatures compels political scientists to speak in terms of the "war of civilizations" or "the Third World War". Here is an interview with Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Center of Military Prognosis of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis and Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, on why this scenario is unlikely.
Question: Anatoly Dmitriyevich, will there be peace between the United States and Iran or is the so-called war of civilizations a grim inevitability?
Anatoly Tsyganok: That's way off target. Everybody is drawing conclusions on the basis of the scandal with caricatures. Everyone is waiting to see what the situation with the Iranian nuclear program ends in. Everyone is scared of HAMAS triumph in the election... I suspect that all this noise is being made to focus the attention on Iran on the one hand and to stall for time on the other. The Americans have neither the strength to take on Iran nor the leverage to be used against it. They can fire their high-precision missiles of course, but they lack the mass military might.
Question: Are you saying that we should treat the caricatures separately and Iran separately?
Anatoly Tsyganok: They may have been timed to follow one another, but it costs. Individuals cannot afford such expenditures. It follows that all of that was provoked and orchestrated by Iran.
Question: Can the sabre-rattling therefore be heard by experts and journalists alone?
Anatoly Tsyganok: No, there may be some options of putting Iran under military pressure but that's way to iffy. It was the most probable option before Sharon's illness. Had he been in power now, Israel might have launched missiles at Iranian nuclear sites regardless of consequences. The acting prime minister of Israel, however, lacks the political stamina for it. I do not rule out the possibility that it was a deliberate leak to newspapers that the United States contemplated a military solution to the problem, namely strikes from US bases in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Turkey will not permit a strike from the bases on its territory that much is clear because Iran may strike back at its neighbors.
Question: What do you think of Russia's position in the confrontation?
Anatoly Tsyganok: As I see it, the UN Security Council will fail to pass the decision on the Iranian nuclear folder precisely because of Moscow's and Beijing's stand on the matter. Russia will fight for its economic interests in Iran that amount to about $2 billion. Besides, another contest is being prepared there, the one for construction of three more nuclear power plants. This is serious money we are talking about! China has just completed a contract for almost $2.5 billion worth of oil with Iran, meaning that it too can be counted on to defend its interests there. Generally speaking the EU was defeated in the talks concerning the problems of IAEA control over Iranian nuclear objects. It urges Russia to step in now because it needs a way out of the blind alley that will permit it to save face.
Question: But why all this hysteria if everyone understands it all?
Anatoly Tsyganok: I'd say that the situation being what it is, Iran is emulating North Korea. When facing a more or less similar situation, Pyongyang boldly admitted "Yes, we are working on a nuclear bomb" and launched its missiles in Japan's direction. Nobody expected this audacity, and the United States took a step back. Japan's reaction was somewhat akin to it. Under the circumstances therefore, we should view the caricatures as a cover for Iran, and not as an element of the war between confessions. It is Iran and HAMAS that benefit from all these speculations about "wars of civilizations" because they need this threat exaggerated in the hope to gain something economically and politically.
<tit>
FLASH-WAR OR REGIONAL APOCALYPSE<aut>Renat Yafizov
<src>Delo, February 20, 2006, EV
<sum>An interview with Alexander Khramchikhin, Director of the Department of Analysis of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.</sum>
<cov>ALEXANDER KHRAMCHIKHIN, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANALYSIS OF THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICAL AND MILITARY ANALYSIS, ON THE IRANIAN SITUATION: A WAR IS INEVITABLE
<itl>The United States threatens to bomb the Iranian Islamic regime out of existence to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. Neither does Iran intend to knuckle under. Is a new war so near the Russian borders possible? What may it end in for the world? Here is an interview with Alexander Khramchikhin, Director of the Department of Analysis of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.
Question: Senior officials of the US Administration make statements that lead the rest of the world to the conclusion that America must be preparing a military operation against Iran. Do you think the United States will strike at Iran?
Alexander Khramchikhin: The Americans do not have any other alternative because they cannot afford to have a nuclear Iran to deal with. And nobody doubts anymore that this is exactly what Iran is after. The United States lacks the strength for an operation on a major scale but neither can it afford not to go to war. A war is inevitable.
Question: How do you envisage this military operation?
Alexander Khramchikhin: Aerial strikes - like in Yugoslavia or in the first Iraqi war but taking much shorter time. The Americans will have no problems with that. If they have pinpointed all targets accurately, taking them out will be easy. There will be no losses at all because the existing Iranian antiaircraft defense may be dismissed out of hand.
Will Iran strike back? That's what really counts. In other words, will Tehran undertake to disrupt oil export with mines in the Strait of Ormuz? Will it try to strike at the US troops in Iraq? Will it try to provoke a Shi'ah revolt in Iraq? I doubt that Iran will swallow elimination of its nuclear arsenal without biting back. It will never put up with it. The Iranians will hurt the Americans with every means at their disposal, and the Americans will be hurt indeed.
Question: What regions will be affected? Is there a danger for the Caspian Basin and for the Commonwealth? The United States claims it needs Azerbaijan to base its aircraft for deployment in the operation...
Alexander Khramchikhin: As a matter of fact, the Americans already have enough military bases. Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Bahrain, aircraft carriers in the strait... Why bother with Azerbaijan as well? No, I do not think that this conflict poses a direct threat to the Commonwealth for the time being. But only for the time being. Any long-term forecasts are a waste of time. The situation is absolutely unpredictable. Particularly for the Middle East including Afghanistan. I cannot even imagine what everything may end in!
As for the forecasts for the medium-term future... I'd say that instability in Iraq will worsen greatly, there and in Afghanistan. Iran may try and sway monarchies of the Persian Gulf. On the one hand, it does not wield that much clout with the Sunni. On the other, we cannot dismiss the so-called Islamic solidarity, which I think may play its part yet. Besides, Iran may string with the Palestinians, say, via the openly pro-Iranian Hezbollah. As a result, a strike at Israel will follow.
There is the trodden down Shi'ah minority in Saudi Arabia, and Iran may use it to destabilize the situation in this monarchy. Strikes may be delivered at the Saudi oil sites to crash the oil market. It will send oil prices soaring sky-high.
Question: What are the ramifications for Iran itself? What do its leaders count on?
Alexander Khramchikhin: Iran itself will suffer greatly - from air raids and from disruption of oil export. Still, it will not care anymore. Islamic expansion, unpredictable in forms and end results, will be sparked. Iran will never become the leader of the Islamic world anymore even though this is precisely what Khomeini planned in his time. Generally speaking, we do not understand their psychology fully, and the president of Iran does not leave the impression of an adequate person. Absolutely different logic is employed and objectives sought here. Perhaps, the Iranians do not think that the Americans will strike because they are already in trouble in Iraq. Iran will make nuclear weapons five or so years from now, and they will certainly make it invincible. I mean nobody will even contemplate a strike at it anymore.
Question: And what will Israel do?
Alexander Khramchikhin: It's difficult for me to imagine the Americans launching this operation together with Israel. It may result to a pan-Islamic protest movement without division into Shi'ah and Sunni. The Americans will pool efforts with Israel only if they are attacked by all Islamic forces at once and not by Iran alone. It will be the end of all politics then. It will be a matter of defense, pure and simple. It should be remembered here that Israel is well experienced in wars on Moslems, and that it has always defeated them so far. It will be a matter of survival for Israel, and Tel-Aviv will not hesitate. Once Tehran is able to make its own nuclear weapons, it will take only three or four missiles to destroy Israel. Israel is psychologically weaker now than it was in 1948, but a more substantial threat will probably rally the nation and Israel will parry the attack. At the very least, it may use its own nuclear weapons it certainly has.
Question: And what then?
Alexander Khramchikhin: Strikes at nuclear sites with conventional weapons are not going to leave a lot of territory contaminated, and casualties will run in the thousands. The use of nuclear weapons or chemical warfare means, which all countries have will leave millions dead. Even Pakistan has nuclear weapons. In other words, it will be a regional Apocalypse. It is not to be ruled out.
<tit>
RUSSIA IS NAMED ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACES FOR WORK AND TRAVEL
Forbes composed an annual rating of countries dangerous for work and travel. The rating included 14 countries or three countries more than the rating of 2005. In comparison to the rating of 2005, the rating of 2006 did not include Kyrgyzstan but included Russia.
To compose the rating journalists polled several international companies specializing in assessment of risks for the corporations sending their employees to work to various countries. Countries were evaluated according to several criteria from political and terrorist risks to a possibility of beginning of a civil war and general level of crime and work of the law-enforcement agencies.
As a result, 14 countries were included in the list of the most dangerous countries of 2006. Nine of them scored the highest five points. These are six African countries, Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti. These countries are characterized by "despotic rule, low level of education and low value of life," remarks Forbes. Russia received one point less together with Burundi, Papua - New Guinea and Pakistan. Georgia ends the rating. Forbes recommends the tourists visiting Georgia to be extremely cautious due to the unstable political situation and frequent attacks.
Russia was included in the rating because of political instability in republics of the Caucasian region, first of all, in Chechnya. Travelers are recommended not to visit North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Stavropol, Karachaevo-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria and Chechnya. Forbes writes, "In a situation of lawlessness these regions are still plagued by an open guerilla war. Kidnapping of foreigners for the sake of ransom is frequent there still, as well as terrorist acts and explosions of hotels, government buildings, marketplaces and schools." As an example, Forbes reminds about seizing of the school in Beslan in September of 2004, as a result of which many children and other civilians died.
For composition of the rating Forbes polled experts of iJet Intelligent Risk Systems (based in Maryland, US), California-based companies The Steele Foundation and Blackwater, Bureau of Consular Affairs of the US Department of State and Control Risks (London, UK). These companies advise and train transnational corporations and nongovernmental organizations working in dangerous countries. A manager of iJet Intelligent explains, "Our work is supplying people with the latest credible information about the situation in this or that city or region." For example, employees sent on business trips are trained in methods of search for handicraft explosive devices in transportation vehicles, as well as methods of extreme driving in case of an attempt of kidnapping on a road.
<ref>newsru.com, February 20, 2006
RVR
