If you must know the source, and it's preverance: the statement of the graves was taken from The Economist (July 5th - 11th 2008, page 57, 'Iran's confrontation with the West: Dangerous Games) (It was published online on the 3rd July 2008)
The entire article was:
AS IS well known, one reason for the giddying rise in oil prices is the fear of a messy conflict over Iran because of its suspected ambition to build atomic bombs. The danger is not simply of a cut-off in supplies from Iran, the world’s fourth-largest exporter, but of a prolonged threat to the wider Gulf region, which accounts for 40% of oil traded on the world’s markets. Yet if everyone believed the warmongering noises coming from both Iran and its critics, the price of oil would be higher still.
Iranian newspapers, for instance, have reported plans by the army to dig some 320,000 graves near its borders, supposedly a humanitarian move to speed the disposal of enemy corpses and so “reduce the pain and hardship of the families of the soldiers who will be killed in any possible invasion of our country.” One commander advises that any invaders should equip themselves with artificial legs, because they will not be walking home.
In a more sober vein, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, General Muhammad Ali Jafari, told interviewers that the danger of an American attack had risen in the waning months of the Bush administration, because of the “Republican hopelessness regarding the victory of their candidate.” Iran’s response to aggression would be swift and decisive, said Mr Jafari, and could include strikes against Israel, strikes at countries hosting American bases in the Gulf, and exerting control over the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which most of the region’s oil flows to market. “Certainly if there is fighting the scope will be extended to oil, meaning its price will increase drastically,” he said.
Mr Jafari’s remarks came in response to a string of what were seen in Tehran as provocative developments. These have included reports of massive Israeli long-distance aerial manoeuvres and revelations of a boost in covert American funding to Iranian opposition groups. There were also statements attributed to senior Israelis and Americans suggesting that the window for military action could close within a year, because by then Iran might already have developed a bomb, or improved its air defences sufficiently to deter any attack.
Yet both the Israeli and American governments distanced themselves from these provocative statements. Asked about an unnamed Pentagon official who hinted at an imminent Israeli attack in a television interview, a State Department spokesman said that if such talk were credible, the source should not remain unnamed. In fact, American diplomats are talking about resuming direct talks with Iran over Iraq, and even of sending the first American diplomats to Tehran since the 1979-81 hostage crisis. It was also reported this week that the Pentagon stopped the air force from deploying its newest fighter to the Gulf, the F22, for fear of causing “strategic dislocation” with Iran.
Amid the drums of war Iran, too, has been sounding a quieter leitmotif of compromise. On numerous occasions, senior regime figures have chastised the country’s feisty populist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for stirring up needless trouble with his bellicose rhetoric. And in contrast to how previous international overtures were met in Iran, the most recent offer of a deal over the nuclear issue, presented last month by European diplomats, has prompted widespread public discussion and even positive official noises.
Ali Velayati, who was foreign minister from 1981-97, and remains a top adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has publicly declared that Iran should accept the proposal, which calls for an initial six-week period of preliminary talks, during which Iran would forego any expansion of its enrichment programme in exchange for a freeze on new sanctions. The head of Iran’s atomic energy agency has also weighed in, according to Iranian news sites, apparently telling the Iranian parliament’s energy committee that the decision has already been taken to start the talks. It remains unclear, however, whether Iran would follow this with a full suspension of enrichment, which remains the condition set by America, Britain, France, Russia and China, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany for letting Iran off the sanctions hook.
Some naysayers believe this may simply be another Iranian stalling tactic, while others say it shows that the escalation of tensions, and the recent beefing up of sanctions brought by a European Union move to freeze dealings with Iran’s biggest bank, is causing Iranian officials to blink. Iranian analysts prefer the view that their leaders, reckoning that dangers may ease following America’s presidential election, simply wish to keep things calm until November.
