The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force declared Wednesday that the IRGC has prepared comprehensive contingency plans to attack 35 American military bases in the region “within minutes” of an American military strike on his country.

“We have thought of measures to set up bases and deploy missiles to destroy all these bases in the early minutes after an attack,” said Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh.

Hajizadeh said the 35 American bases were within range of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, the most advanced of which can reportedly hit targets 1,300 miles away.

This figure is important because the United States and its allies maintain several operational military bases in the region, including the home of the Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain, a site only about 120 miles from Iran’s southern border.

Another base used by the United States is located at the United Arab Emirates’ al-Dafra air base, located less than 200 miles from the southern coast of Iran.

In April, the al-Dafra base received a shipment of multiple American F-22 stealth fighters. At the time of the delivery a U.S. Air Force spokesman assured the press that the deployment of these jets should not be interpreted as a threat to Iran.

A report published by ABC News, however, casts doubt on that comment. In April 2011 an official at Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-22, told ABC News “that the planes — which have never been used in combat — could find a home in quick strike missions in countries like Iran or North Korea.”

In light of all this, Hajizadeh’s promise of swift retribution for an American attack is perhaps predictable. So are similar statements made by a member of the Iranian Parliament.

Mansour Haqiqatpour, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, echoed the military commander’s sentiments, saying, “The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and the Iranian Army’s missiles can target and destroy any threatening target in the region,” according to a statement published by the Iranian Fars News Service.

It’s not just American concerns that will come under Iranian missile fire should the United States attack, however. In his statement, General Hajizadeh said that “the occupied [Palestinian] lands [Israel] are good targets for us as well.”

Meanwhile, Haqiqatpour also included Israel in the threat, informing the Fars News Service that Iran keeps close tabs on activity at American bases in the Middle East and that the “slightest mistake [on their part] will cause them and their regional allies regret.”

“They will definitely incur losses,” he warned.

Currently, the United States maintains known military bases in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Kyrgyzstan.

These warnings by Iranian officials coincide with the fact that on Tuesday, the IRGC Aerospace Force began a missile wargames operation codenamed Payambar-e Azam 7 (The Great Prophet 7). The exercise included firing tens of short-, mid- and long-range missiles from bases located throughout Iran at a target situated somewhere in central Iran.

The missiles were launched at a mock enemy air base described by IRGC officials as a replica of the American air bases in the region.

Iran’s top military officials have repeatedly insisted that if either Israel or the United States attacks their country, Iran would instantly launch missiles targeted at all American bases in the Middle East and that the IRGC would close the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

An estimated 40 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through that critical waterway.

In recent weeks, Israel has threatened to carry out a preemptive military strike against Iran in order to disable that nation’s nuclear facilities. Most doubt that Israel could conduct such an operation without the logistical support of the armed forces of the United States. There is little doubt, however, that the United States if asked would deny such assistance to its staunchest ally in the region.

In addition to the potential for a joint Israeli-American strike on Iran, Tehran’s threats against American and Israeli interests are also likely a response to Sunday’s implementation of a complete embargo by the European Union on the purchase of Iranian crude oil.

Of course, the recent revelations of a cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure launched by the Obama administration may also have triggered the uptick in Iranian threats of military attacks on American bases.

The story of the intentional infection of Iran’s computer with the Stuxnet virus is particularly interesting given the parameters of the operation, as well as the effect such an act of computer sabotage on another nation would have on the credibility of the United States. Just last year, the Pentagon issued a warning of its own declaring that any attempt to violate the computer security of the United States would be considered an “act of war.” Are we, then, already at war with Iran? Is what would be an act of war if perpetrated by another nation simply a clever tactic when deployed by the United States? It would seem so.

Regardless of the frequency and ferocity of the Iranian warnings, many defense experts are skeptical of Iran’s military might and say “the country’s military capability would be no match for sophisticated U.S. defense systems.”

In a statement to the New York Times, one Pentagon official issued his own warning to Iran.

“The message to Iran is, ‘Don’t even think about it,’ ” the senior Defense Department official told the Times. “Don’t even think about closing the strait. We’ll clear the mines. Don’t even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We’ll put them on the bottom of the gulf.”

All this rattling of sabers might actually come to something in the near future. In addition to President Obama’s launch of the Stuxnet virus and his Defense Department’s menacing response to Iran’s hostile posturing, there are the statements made by Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney regarding his take on possible military strikes against Iran and his role in initiating them.

Appearing with Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Face the Nation, Romney said that if he is elected in November he would not need congressional approval to start a war with Iran.

Specifically, Romney said:

I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions. [Emphasis added.]

Apparently, a President Romney would retain his predecessor’s predilection for ignoring the Constitution and usurping war-making powers that are not his.

When contacted for a comment neither the Defense Department nor the Romney campaign would comment on Iran’s latest threats of retaliation.

The vice chancellor, VC, of the Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, is being investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, for the mismanagement of billions of naira meant for development in the institution. Boniface Egboka, the VC, allegedly misappropriated funds allocated to the university through award of bogus and inflated contracts to fronts and cronies through selective bidding and fraudulent contract cost variations.

Egboka was recently arrested and questioned by the commission and has made statements about his involvement in the alleged fraud. He was thereafter released on administrative bail.

A group of lecturers of the university in March this year petitioned the EFCC slamming a litany of allegations against Egboka including fraud, abuse of office, inflation of contract, using fronts to get contracts and high handedness.

Our reporter confirmed from the EFCC that it was investigating a petition against the VC. Wilson Uwujaren, the commission’s spokesman, said that the petition was already being investigated by its Enugu office, adding that the Egboka has already been invited for interrogation and had made statements to investigators. Independent investigations of the allegations by icirnigeria.org indicate that Egboka might be in deep trouble except he can explain many actions he took which bother on misappropriation of funds.

Our investigations revealed that the vice chancellor spends university funds like his own personal resources without recourse to rules and regulations, awarded contracts without due process and without open tenders, an infraction that earned him a query from the Bureau for Public Procurement, BPP in April.

For example, in October, 2011on a trip to America with other officials, Egboka ordered for two 2011 Toyota 4 Runner jeeps worth N27 million for himself and the pro – chancellor of the university who was also on the delegation.

He made the order without any bidding and without the approval of the tender’s board and in spite of the fact that he already had a Prado jeep as official car while the pro – chancellor used a Toyota Avensis. He also claimed to have committed the institution by making a deposit from his own pocket.

Upon returning to Nigeria, Egboka tried to perfect the purchase by causing the registrar of the institution to award the contract for the purchase of the vehicles. But the contract could not be awarded to a foreign company so, the VC directed that it be awarded to a local firm, Grech Resources Limited.

Going through the motions of a contract award, the bursar wrote an award letter to the company claiming that the tenders’ board at its 30th meeting held on Wednesday, 12th October, 2011, approved the award for the supply of the two vehicles.

However, the bursar refused to release funds for the purchase because there was no proof of tender, forcing the V.C. to write an undertaking where he explained the irregularity attending the purchase.

Investigations also showed that the vice chancellor, without due process and against regulations, selectively awarded contracts or just merely invited whosoever he wanted and handed contracts out to them.

In many of these cases, the contracts were awarded to family members. Apart from that, variations were illegally granted to the companies, raising costs outrageously.

For example, in August 2011, Porras and Oliva, a company allegedly owned by Egboka’s son – in – law, got a contract for the renovation and furnishing of the university auditorium for N20, 264,685.00.

The contract was awarded through selective tendering and given to Porras and Oliva which quoted N21, 229,670.00 in spite of the facts that there were lower bids.

However, halfway into the job’s execution, the company requested for a variation of N80, 536,788.00 in the contract sum which was granted at the sum of N58, 190,469.00.

In a letter written to the company on December 5, 2011, the registrar of the university stated that the tenders board at its 35th meeting of three days earlier approved the sum as “completion sum” for the project, thereby granting more than hundred percent variation cost.

Porras and Oliva got several other contracts without going through due process. These include an N8, 455,145.00 contract for the reticulation of the university foundry; N5, 167,000.00 for furnishing of the VC’s office and a N5, 887,436.50 contract for the fencing of the university auditorium.

Another questionable contract was the one awarded to Regibel Limited, another company which is alleged to be a front for the VC. The company was awarded the contract for the construction of a 676 metre road for N92, 630,453.78.

Apart from the suspected inflated contract sum, subsequently the VC developed a relationship with the company whereby he just gives directives to it to execute projects running into several millions.

For these projects, there was no tender or agreement between the parties. Acting on the VC’s directive Regibel executed the project and sent a bill to the management which is rubber stamped, approved and paid.

On December 14, 2011, the university management got such a bill for the sum of N122, 141,500.85 for the construction of a 7.1 kilometre walkway. No details were provided about the exact location of the walkway.There was never any tender process, agreement or any other document concerning this walkway contract. But the university approved and paid the company the money it asked for.

In the same manner, on December 16, 2011, Regibel sent another bill of engineering measurements and evaluation for N78, 450,062.36 for the construction of a 412 metre road – JoyEmordi Road – which it built based on a directive from the VC. There was no bidding or agreement before it got the contract. Again, it was paid the full sum it demanded.

Unilateral variations in contract costs appear to have become the hallmark of project execution in Nnamdi Azikiwe University.  There is virtually no contract that does not suffer an upward review in costs.

The contract for the construction of the Art Faculty complex is a good example of this. Initially awarded to Chyfon Limited for N558, 980,341.76, the cost was later adjusted to N624, 831,489.81. But other variations to the contract sum were to follow.

On December, 22, 2011, N7, 581,849.73 was granted to the contractor, being variation resulting from “relocation of library”.

The same day, another N9 603,239.30 variation was granted for the use of vitrified tiles instead of terrazzo in the construction work.

Yet again, on February 27, 2012 another N72, 966,890.70 variation was granted the contractor for “evaluation and assessment fluctuations”.

The petitioners allege that the amounts approved for variation were siphoned by officials of the university administration. In fact, it is alleged that all kinds of disingenuous methods are employed by the administration in December of every year in order to mop up unspent funds so that money is not returned back into the treasury. Interestingly, as if to prove the petitioners right, many of the approved variations came in December.

Another contract unconventionally awarded by the vice chancellor is the public private partnership, PPP, students’ hostel project.

In January 2010, Egboka committed the university to a memorandum of understanding, MOU, with Elmada Consulting Inc., a company purported to be based in Canada, for the building of hostels on the main campus.

The MOU which was signed on behalf of the university by the VC and a Nigerian representative for the company, states that the institution’s equity to the project would be 40 per cent while the company would contribute the remaining 60 percent.

With a total cost of N239, 400,000.00, the institution was expected to contribute N97, 760,000.00. There are several curious and suspicious developments about this PPP arrangement which has sent tongues wagging. First, the Nigerian representative of Elmada who signed the MOU on behalf of the company is alleged to be another of Egboka’s sons – in – law.

The alleged son – in – law is the sole project manager of the project which is being executed through a joint account managed only by him. The VC never disclosed his relationship or any conflict of interest that might arise to the university Senate.

What is more, the only document binding the two parties together is the MOU. No binding agreement spelling out details of contractual and legal commitments has been signed.

Besides, the cost has been reviewed upwards to N400 million and there are allegations that the university has solely funded the two – phased project. When our reporter visited the school’s main campus in Awka, it was observed that the project had been nearly completed.

However, the project that has gotten Egboka into real trouble is the contract for the construction of the bio sciences and physical sciences faculty complex. In fact Egboka has already been queried by the BPP over the manner the contract was awarded.

The contract for the construction of the twin identical complex housing the faculties of biosciences and physical sciences was awarded by selective bidding to Bechtel Nig. Limited on December 22, 2011 for the sum of 993,906,690.00.

In a similar fashion, without following due process, on February 27, 2012 the contract for the construction of the central facility linking the two structures was also awarded to the same company for N288, 307,464.27.

For the N1.2 billion project, the VC abandoned all due process such as open bidding and just called on a contractor of his choice to execute the project.

This jettisoning of due process irked some members of the institution’s management who petitioned the BPP, which on April 4, 2012, wrote to the VC demanding that he furnish the bureau with all the original bid documents in respect of the contract.

The letter signed by Emeka Ezeh, the bureau’s director general specifically asked for:

“a. Copies of the advertisement of this procurement.

b. Technical and financial tenders of all bidders.

C. Bid return sheet.

d. Evaluation report of the bid.

e. Scope of work and all other documents relating to this procurement.”

Sources in the university and at the BPP confided that no such documents exist and the VC has been unable to provide them to the bureau.

Consequent upon this, the school administration has been forced to cancel the previous contract and it has now advertised the contract in the newspapers asking for bids from interested companies. Our reporter observed that the structures which were still in foundation level had since been abandoned by the contractor. But Egboka’s sins are not limited to financial mismanagement of the university’s resources as he has also been accused of administrative recklessness, abuse of office and not following due process in appointments which he allegedly dishes out to family and friends as he wishes.

Two of the VC’s children, Nkechi Egboka and Dr. Egboka Chioma Mmazulu, were employed by the university since last year and their names have been on the payroll since then.  While Nkechi was employed as an assistant lecturer in the department of geological sciences, Chioma was appointed medical director of the institution’s medical centre. However, none of them had resumed work when our reporter conducted checks in their departments about two weeks ago.

Also, Uchenna Okeke, wife of the deputy vice chancellor, DVC, administration and Godwin Orji, alleged to be a friend of the DVC, academics were employed against laid down rules.

Okeke appeared before the governing council’s appointments and promotions committee, A&PC, and found unqualified for the position of assistant lecturer for which she applied. However, she was still offered an appointment as an assistant lecturer after the council was dissolved.

Orji was interviewed for and appointed to the position of technologist however, although he never appeared before the A&PC, as is required in the appointment of all academic staff, his employment was unilaterally converted to lecturer by the VC.

When our reporter visited the main campus of the university and requested to speak to the VC, he was said to be out of station. And when he was reached on the phone to answer questions relating to the petition, Egboka declined, saying that “the matter is under investigation and I cannot make any comment”.

The VC dropped the line and subsequently refused to take calls from our reporter.

No other official of the university was ready to speak on the matter. The office of the registrar referred our reporter to the VC’s office. The couple of lecturers who spoke to our reporter on the corruption allegations against the VC did soon the strictest assurances of confidentiality as Egboka is said to be very vindictive.

Several academic and non – academic staff of the institution have been who oppose the VC have been allegedly victimised since the investigations into his management of the school’s resources commenced.

For example, a source told icirnigeria.org of the story of a professor friend of the VC who had written him warning him of the consequences of some high handed actions he took.

The professor had questioned why Egboka employed six consultants for the medical centre when requests for needed staff such as doctors, nurses and pharmacists had been repeatedly denied.

The friend also warned that the lack of due process in the employment of the consultant could land the VC in trouble as it had sent tongues wagging on the campus. Rather than listen to his friend, the VC transferred him to the Nnewi campus where he has been rendered virtually redundant. Sources in the EFCC said that investigations have reached advanced stage on the corruption charges against Egboka and that enough evidence might have been obtained to institute a case against him in court soon.

Source(International center for investigative reporting. icirnigeria.org)

Revolutionary Guards commander says Iran could strike back at US bases in the Gulf and Israeli targets minutes after attack

Iran is prepared to launch missiles at US bases throughout the Gulf within minutes of an attack on the Islamic Republic, according to a commander of the country’s Revolutionary Guards.

In an apparent response to reports that the US has increased its military presence in the Gulf, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ air force said on Wednesdaythat missiles had been aimed at 35 US military bases in the Gulf as well as targets in Israel, ready to be launched in case of an attack.

The semi-official Fars news agency reported Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh as saying: “We have thought of measures to set up bases and deploy missiles to destroy all these bases in the early minutes after an attack.”

Hajizadeh’s remarks were made on the sidelines of a three-day war game called Great Prophet Seven, which Iranian officials claimed was a show of defiance against western pressure, including the US and EU embargo against imports of Iranian oil that came into effect on 1 July.

“These [US] bases are all in range of our missiles, and the occupied lands [a reference to Israel] are also good targets for us,” Hajizadeh said.

During the exercise, the elite Revolutionary Guards – who have their own military divisions separate from the Iranian army – test-fired dozens of missiles, including Shahab-3 and Sejil, which are said to have a range of 1,200 miles, capable of hitting Israel.

The US military has several bases in the Gulf, and the navy’s Bahrain-based 5th fleet is 120 miles from the Iranian coast. Israel is about 600 miles away from Iran.

Domestically, the war games were also aimed at showing progress in the missile industry, despite a series of dramatic setbacks in recent years. In November 2011, an explosion at the Alghadir missile base, 30 miles from Tehran, killed Major General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, who was described as the “architect” of the country’s missile programme. It also killed at least two dozen members of the Revolutionary Guards working at the base.

The US has significantly reinforced its military presence in the Gulf, increasing the number of fighter jets and minesweepers, in preparation for a possible blocking of the strait of Hormuz by Iran.

Iranian officials have signalled that in reaction to the oil sanctions they may shut the strait, a vital passageway in the Gulf through which a fifth of the world’s crude passes in tankers. In a recent development, the Iranian parliament said it would discuss a bill proposed by at least 100 MPs which requires the government to block oil tankers in the Gulf.

Israel has said it may carry out a pre-emptive military strike against Iran because of its nuclear activities, but there are doubts about whether it has the logistical capacity to do that without the help of its main ally, the US.

As the oil embargo came into force this week, the Iranian authorities showed mixed reactions to the economic sanctions, admitting the severity of the pressure but at the same time remaining adamant that they could survive.

Meanwhile, a meeting in Istanbul between Iranian and international nuclear experts ended in the early hours of this morning with an agreement to keep low-level contacts going in the hope of narrowing the substantial gap between Tehran and the major powers over the scope and scale of the Iranian nuclear programme. However, although the differences between the sides came into greater focus in Istanbul, diplomats said there was no sign of that gap closing.

The Istanbul talks lasted 13 hours over five sessions, ending at 1am, and went into exhaustive technical detail on the proposals put on the table in Baghdad in May by six world powers – the US, UK, China, France, Germany and Russia.

“It was a technical meeting that went into incredible detail,” said a European diplomat.

The six-nation proposal laid down in Baghdad was for Iran to stop producing 20%-enriched uranium (a particular proliferation concern) to shut the underground plant at Fordow, where much of it is made, and to ship its existing 20% stockpile out of the country, in return for a range of incentives such as reactor fuel plates, nuclear safety assistance and aircraft parts.

At later talks in Moscow, Iran said it might discuss its 20% enrichment but wanted international guarantees of its right to enrich uranium in principle and for economic sanctions to be dropped.

“We went into great detail on our proposal – for example, what do we mean by closing Fordow, and what our expectations and timelines are,” the European diplomat said. ” And the Iranians expanded on their proposal.”

The diplomat did not provide the details, saying only there were “fruitful exchanges, which mostly involved us probing them”.

The Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said there had been no breakthrough or decisive progress in Istanbul.

“But we are not losing heart or think that the Istanbul meeting of experts was a failure,” Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency. “On the contrary, there are grounds to speak of certain progress.”

Another source familiar with the talks said there was no sign of the difference between the two position narrowing, and no sign that sanctions were having any tangible effect in changing Tehran’s negotiating position. However, a meeting between mid-ranking officials from the European Union and Iran is due to take place in the next couple of weeks to discuss whether any common ground emerged in Istanbul.

High-level negotiations were suspended last month after the Moscow talks failed to make progress. Diplomatic contacts were downgraded but kept alive, to keep the door to diplomacy ajar, in the hope of fending off the threat of military action by Israel.