Syria: We’re ready for peace or war.

.large_body p, .large_body span { font-size: 18px; } .small_body p, .small_body span { font-size: 12px; } // //

Syria: We’re ready for peace or war

BY HERB KEINON
06/02/2010 12:45

Lieberman: A red line was crossed. A direct threat to attack population centers.

Talkbacks (35)

//

Hezbollah ‘raises alert level in Lebanon’ – Haaretz – Israel News.

Hezbollah has raised its state of alert in Lebanon following the recent war of words between Israeli and Syrian officials, according to a report by the Beirut correspondent of Saudi daily Al-Okaz.

The report cites growing concerns in Lebanon that Israel is either planning to attack Lebanon, or that tensions in the region will result in an Israeli operation there.

Senior Lebanese sources told the Saudi paper that Hezbollah has announced emergency readiness in all areas of the country where it operates. Senior figures of the organization were asked to exercise greater caution in their movements amid fears they would be targeted by Israel.

	Advertisement

The sources said the radical Lebanese Shi’ite group was preparing for any eventuality.

Meanwhile, the verbal sparring between Jerusalem and Damascus continued over the weekend, even if in lower tones. Official Syrian newspaper Tishrin said in an editorial that “the threats from Israel make it clear that it intends to initiate a new war whose limits are unknown.”

The editorial added that “death and destruction may occur if Israel responds to the logic of some of its leaders, in whose veins flows crime. Damascus is ready for any path that Israel chooses, whether it is peace or war.”

The editorial’s author is the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, who wrote that the “logic of war and threats is the dominant logic in Israel. Talk of peace is chatter void of substance that is mere media propaganda. There is no real political decision for peace in the Zionist entity, despite promises of this, on the basis of restoring rights to their rightful owners.”

Meanwhile, State Department officials were quoted by Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, a London-based Saudi newspaper, saying that the exchange of threats between Syria and Israel is making it difficult to resume negotiations between the two sides.

The comments were made after threats by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem last week that an Israeli attack against Syria would be total war. His Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, warned that Syrian President Bashar Assad and his family would not remain in power as a result of the next war.

The U.S. officials said that Washington is working hard to resume negotiations on all levels, including the Syrian-Israeli track. They noted that the newly appointed American ambassador to Damascus, Robert Ford, will immediately begin talks with Syria on all relevant issues.

Syrian sources said yesterday that Lieberman’s comments were either for domestic consumption or an attempt to cover the current Israeli leadership’s inability to meet the conditions that would spur a comprehensive and just peace in the region.

In response to Israeli criticism of his statements, Lieberman said Friday that “I do not work for the media or public relations firms.”

In an interview on Channel 2 he said that “I ran in elections, presented my worldview in a clear fashion and no one needs to guess who Lieberman is. We are loyal to that same way and our promises to the voters.

“My response, which was made to clarify that the situation is unacceptable, was immediately met with hysteria in Israel: ‘How dare we annoy the tyrant?'” he said, referring to Assad.

“I am sorry about this habit of the left in Israel. I think that in the Middle East serious things should not be left unanswered.” Lieberman was commenting on statements made by Assad to Spain’s Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, which he described as “a direct threat to the State of Israel.”

At the end of a meeting Friday, Lieberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel aims for peace and negotiations with Syria with no preconditions.

Netanyahu will try to end the verbal confrontation at this morning’s cabinet meeting by opening with a statement that Israel seeks peace and has no belligerent intentions. Netanyahu will also emphasize that he is ready to begin talks immediately without preconditions.

The head of the political-security bureau at the Defense Ministry, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, joined the efforts yesterday to restore calm to the Syrian-Israeli front. Gilad said that “to the extent that we can evaluate – and we have excellent intelligence – there is no intention by the other side to attack us. As such, the evaluation is that no war is expected.”

Gilad, who spoke on the Channel 2 show “Meet the Press,” said he cannot see Syria or Hezbollah having an interest in war with Israel at the moment.

Western officials dismiss Iranian nuclear proposal – News – World – bnd.com.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, left, and EU Foreign Affairs Minister Catherine Ashton, right, speak prior to the start of the second day of the annual Munich Security conference in Munich, southern Germany, Saturday, Feb. 6, 2010. Westerwelle told a gathering of the the world’s top defense officials in Munich Saturday that “a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable for us” and would “lead to a destabilization of the entire region.” – AP Photo

// <![CDATA[
_krdDartInc++;
document.write(”);
]]>

//

Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty contributed to this report from Ankara, Turkey.

Tories would back war with Iran – Telegraph.

A Conservative government would support military action against Iran if the rogue state developed nuclear weapons, the shadow defence secretary has revealed.

British soldiers secure a road as they set up a checkpoint near the Iranian border south of Basra Photo: REUTERS

Liam Fox described the threat posed by Iran as the “single most important issue facing the West” and added that 2010 was the year in which the Islamic state had to be confronted.

Mr Fox said that while military action would be in “no one’s interest”, he maintained that the use of force was an option which “must remain on the table” if Iran developed nuclear weapons.

He said that under Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime, the “export of terrorism and instability” was part of the country’s foreign policy and warned “the era of nuclear terrorism has arrived”.

The Tory policy on Iran differs from the Government’s stated position that military action was “inconceivable”.

Defence sources said an attack on Iran would be likely to consist of a missile attack rather than an Iraq-style invasion, with nuclear and uranium enrichment sites being targeted by cruise missiles launched from submarines and aeroplanes.

Britain could play a direct role – the Royal Navy has ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles and could provide early warning aircraft and tankers for in-flight refuelling for other aircraft taking part in an operation.

Iran has always maintained that its nuclear enrichment programme is purely peaceful and for non-military purposes.

In December last year Mr Ahmadinejad vowed to increase Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme with the aim of producing higher grade uranium, which could in theory be used in a nuclear device.

Speaking at his office in Westminster, Mr Fox said: “Iran provides us with a unique worry.

“You have an increasingly militarised state where the Revolutionary Guard have a greater say economically and politically than ever before and where a hard-line theocrat is at the top.

“Iran is a regime that seems intent on staying in office at any cost, including the death, disappearance and torture of its own nationals and they are embarked on a programme which the UN says can be for no other purpose than to develop a nuclear weapon capability.

“We know that Iran, more than any other country, is willing to export instability and terror as part of its foreign policy. We saw what they did when we were in Iraq.

“The Iranians funded some of the insurgency and supplied and trained them. We have seen their role with Hizbollah and Hamas.

“Do we really want to add nuclear material into that particular mix? If Iran becomes a nuclear -weaponed state, Turkey is likely to be next, quickly followed by Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and you will have a nuclear arms race in the world’s most unstable region.

“We have only just finished celebrating 20-years of the end of the Cold War, do we really want to have as our legacy to the next generation a nuclear arms race in the world’s most unstable place? That’s the decision we face.”

Comparing Iran with Iraq prior to the US-led invasion, Mr Fox said: “This is not “Iraq Two” – in Iraq we didn’t know what the regime was doing.

“We depended on intelligence but Iran is telling us it is developing a nuclear programme. We have seen it, we have inspected it.

“You have to accept the scale and the urgency of the problem and you have to work very hard to get diplomatic unity and you will need the European powers and Russia to be on side.

“We need to make it very clear to Iran that a nuclear weapon capability will not be tolerated by the international community and that nothing is off the table (in terms of military action).”

Mr Fox added that the time had come to establish a series of sanctions that would begin to bite and called on all European countries, and especially Germany, to “confront their own domestic business dealings” with President Ahmadinejad’s regime.

He said that while for the west Iran was a major diplomatic challenge, for Israel it remained an “existential threat”.

He went on: “2010 is the year in which we will seriously have to confront Iran. We have to say that everything remains on the table – if you play a public game of “what if” that just helps the Iranians by knowing what our next move would be.

“Nobody would want to see military action and it would be in nobody’s interest. We will only be able to deal with the Iranian problem if we maintain diplomatic unity and we are seen to be acting through international law.

“There is an urgency about this but you do not give the Iranian leadership the comfort of timetables or next moves – you do not do that with an enemy trying to develop a nuclear weapon.”

On Friday night Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran was “approaching a final agreement” with world powers to exchange some of its low-enriched uranium for higher-grade fuel it can use in a reactor producing medical isotopes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has proposed the deal amid fears that Iran’s home grown uranium enrichment programme is masking efforts to produce atomic weapons.

However, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, whose country has joined the five permanent U N Security Council members in negotiations with Tehran, dismissed Mottaki’s comments as nothing new.

IsraCast: Nuclear Iran And Israeli Palestinian Talks.

Barack Obama

The U.S. announcement of a $6 billion arms sale to Taiwan could not have come at a worse time for President Barack Obama’s attempt to rally UN Security Council backing for new sanctions against Iran. A former senior Israeli official in Washington says chances are now slimmer than ever of getting China’s crucial support. Meanwhile, the U.S. is beefing up the missile defenses of four Gulf states as Iran launches a missile which could potentially reach America’s eastern seaboard. Analyst David Essing assesses this and other developments over the past seven days.

Related Articles

Severe Sanctions Will Serve Iranian Democrats

Iranian Nuclear Scientist Assassinated

.audiocontainer { font-size: 11px; color: #996633; text-align: center; padding-top: 3px; padding-bottom: 5px; border-top-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-top-color: #CCCCCC; border-bottom-color: #CCCCCC; background-color: #CCCCCC; background-image: url(http://www.isracast.com/images/textures/5x5greyTextr.gif); margin-bottom: 30px; width: 386px; } .audiobox { border: 1px solid #CCCCCC; } .audiocaption { display: block; } #audiolinks { text-align: left; background-color: #FFFFFF; margin: 10px; padding: 0px; } // Has the Obama administration perpetrated a self-inflicted wound by announcing a $6 billion arms sale to Taiwan at the very time that China’s support is crucial for new Security Council sanctions against Iran? A former senior Israeli official to Washington says ‘Yes’. The Chinese are now likely to retaliate by torpedoing American diplomatic moves in other parts of the world arena including Iran. Nonetheless, a White House spokesman said the U.S. anticipated the weapons sale, mainly of Patriot surface to air missiles, would continue to work with the U.S. in confronting Iran’s nuclear challenge.

The Chinese response was not long in coming – Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi stated: “The talk of sanctions at this moment will complicate the situation and stand in the way of finding a diplomatic solution”. At the same time, the Chinese diplomat urged Tehran ‘not to totally shut the door’. France is now expected to lead the charge at the UN for ‘strong’ sanctions against Iran warning that time is running out. Yet it appears that Beijing, if not for its need for Iranian oil at least out of anger over the arms deal, will veto a new sanctions proposal. The U.S. has an uncanny knack for alienating countries whose support is critical in confronting Iran – Obama has now done it with China while his predecessor George Bush did it with the ill-advised plan to deploy missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic and thereby infuriating Russia. And now surprise, surprise! As expected the Iranians are again mumbling about new ideas for sending some of their enriched uranium abroad for processing into nuclear fuel rods that cannot be used for nuclear weapons.

The Iranian saga continues although it appears that Obama’s diplomatic dawdling is coming to a head. After wasting a year for the Muslim Shiite fanatics in Iran to see the light of engagement and diplomacy, the U.S. is now beefing up the missile defenses of four Gulf states. The U.S. is stationing Patriot surface to air missiles in at least four Gulf states: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qater and United Arab Emirates. At least two U.S. ships in the Gulf reportedly have a missile interception capability. In reaction, Iran’s top military commander has downplayed the deployment saying the Patriots can be rendered useless by simple counter- measures. He accused America of waging psychological warfare and trying to plunder the treasure of the Gulf states by selling them missiles.

The Iranian Missile Range

The U.S. is obviously turning up the pressure on Iran but to what end? If China does veto any Security Council vote for stronger sanctions, the U.S. will have to seek another route. After that it’s anyone’s guess what will happen. According to Moshe Arens, Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Arens at the time of Desert Storm in 1991 , the Patriots, which the U.S. rushed to Israel, did not intercept even one of the 39 Scuds that Saddam Hussein fired into the Jewish state. Arens recently said the new Patriots reportedly have an enhanced capability to intercept missiles as well as aircraft. However, the new U.S. missile defenses in the Gulf do not necessarily mean the Obama administration is now considering a military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations; on the contrary it could be part of the ‘defensive umbrella’ strategy that was articulated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last July. Clinton said:” It’s unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon”. This would seem to indicate that the Obama administration was thinking more in terms of a defensive-protective approach in the event that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, rather an offensive and/or military operation to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons.

Menashe Amir, an Israeli analyst on Iran, has told IsraCast that Iranian opponents to the regime would welcome a military strike against the nuclear sites saying it could help topple the dictatorship. However, U.S.General David Petraeus, the head of the Centcom, disagreed – in his view a military attack on Iran would backfire and rally domestic support behind the regime. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has also cautioned that he has enough on his plate already with American forces now exiting Iraq for Afghanistan. The jury is still out both in Washington and Jerusalem. The Obama administration is now moving to the next stage of trying to rally crippling sanctions against Iran. The U.S. has also warned Israel that she has no green light to hit Iran and the Netanyahu government has indicated it has no intention of going it alone, or interfering with America’s diplomatic shift from less carrots and more sticks. The Israeli leadership, as it has during this past year, can be expected to steer clear of any moves that her critics in the U.S. would love to pounce upon as proving that the Jewish state is undermining American policy or acting as the Israeli tag wagging the American dog. Again, all bets are off, if Israeli intelligence acquires reliable information that Tehran has decided to ‘break out’ by starting to enrich weapons grade uranium.

‘There are two principal axes of Israel’s foreign policy- the effort to prevent Iran from going nuclear and promoting a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict’ – that’s the assessment of Dr Uzi Arad, who heads the National Security Council and serves as a top foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, Arad spoke of more noticeable progress than meets the eye. America’s policy was also accompanied by pressure to persuade Tehran from shifting from nuclear weapons to paths of peace. In this sphere, there has been headway on what Arad called ‘a very high level of progress between Israel and the international community under America’s leadership’. Over the next three months, there would be a closing of the ring of both economic pressures on Iran and of her international isolation. Iran will face a dilemma: whether she wants to continue her defiance of the world which may cost her a heavy price or to pursue nuclear weapons.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas

In the other sphere, the advancing of agreements and the peace process – there was no question there was great disappointment that there had not been any high level contacts during the past year. Although there is great potential for moving forward, the Palestinians have adopted a posture of rejection. This rejection did not begin with the Netanyahu governmen; a year and a half ago, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had submitted a generous and wide-ranging offer to Palestinian President Muhmoud Abbas designed to advancing the peace process. However, the latter turned it down by refusing to accept it. Six months later, Abbas explained that the gaps were still too wide. There are many and varied explanations for this Palestinian rejection – Abbas is too strong or he is too weak, or he is going to an election, he is disheartened or he is waiting for a convening of the Arab League. Although these explanations changed from time to time, the Abbas policy of rejection persisted and this was disappointing. Despite this disappointment, the U.S. was trying to convene Israeli- Palestinian talks and Israel was interested in negotiations without prior conditions and had made good-will gestures to prove it. In his address to the conference, Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke optimistically of the Israeli- Palestinian talks getting underway again in the coming weeks. The idea is that West Bank Palestinians may agree to go to proximity talks between Ramallah and Jerusalem under the aegis of American envoy George Mitchell, who will serve as middleman shuttling between the two sides.

Be that as it may, these talks will take place under the shadow of the Iranian nuclear crisis in more ways than one. U.S. National Security Adviser General James Jones has warned that Iran, under mounting pressure, may try to activate her surrogates – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The outcome of the Iranian crisis may also impact on Israel’s readiness to take security risks with the Palestinians. Until the Iranian crisis is resolved the entire Middle East may be in a holding mode because the entire region will be a different place than it is today.

J’lem OK with US arms sales in Gulf.

BY HILLARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT
07/02/2010 02:13

Billions of dollars in deals meant to counter Iranian threat.

WASHINGTON – The Israeli government and pro-Israel advocates aren’t opposing recent US arms deals with Gulf countries, sources have told The Jerusalem Post.

Top US commander General David Petraeus made a rare public confirmation of US Patriot missile batteries being stationed in four Gulf states last month, which Capitol Hill sources identified as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE. They also mentioned that the shorter-range THAAD missile defense system and F-16s were components of additional billion-dollar packages.

Petraeus’s remarks came as the United States has also moved Aegis ballistic missile cruisers into the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean, conducted a massive missile defense drill with Israel and started speaking more openly about “consequences” should Iran continue with its pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

“Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front, and indeed, it has been a catalyst for the implementation of the architecture that we envision and have now been trying to implement,” Petraeus said in his comments at the Institute for the Study of War on January 22.

Though in the past, arms dealing to Israel’s neighbors has often been met with concern by Israel and its allies in Washington, the present steps are understood to be focused on shoring up regional defensive capabilities against Iran and sending a message to Teheran of deterrence and seriousness, sources said.

Several Congressional staffers told the Post that they haven’t been contacted by the Israeli government or pro-Israel lobbyists on the issue, as is usually the case if those parties have objections to policies.

“I haven’t heard anyone from the Israeli embassy complaining,” said one legislative aide.

“We are in full cooperation with the administration and it is something which we follow, as we follow every development in the region,” said embassy spokesman Jonathan Peled when asked about the deals. “There is an intensive dialogue and full cooperation and these things are discussed openly.”

Another Israeli official speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the issue said, “Israel understands US interests in sending these systems to Arab countries.” He added that at the same time, America continues to ensure Israel’s military superiority.

“We very much appreciate the US’s continued commitment at the highest levels to maintaining Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge,” he said.

Another Congressional staffer said that he doesn’t see members of Congress mounting an opposition. “Everyone seems to be on board with the strategy, so I don’t think there are any objections to these groups getting primarily defensive equipment.” Arms sales can be blocked by Congress if major resistance and political will to counter them exists, though usually concerns are addressed through backroom discussions and modifications to the packages.

In the past, Israel has expressed strong disapproval of arms sales to the Gulf, notably in the 1980s when the Reagan administration authorized a major deal involving sophisticated aircraft sales to Saudi Arabia. Despite strong opposition from many members of Congress, as well as pro-Israel lobbyists, the sale ended up going through.

More recently, in 2007, another massive deal with Saudi Arabia raised the hackles of some in Congress and the pro-Israel community. The push-back was significantly less than in the 1980s and didn’t keep the sale from proceeding.

In the current case, some observers have suggested Israel might have concerns because of the leap in capabilities for four additional Gulf countries.

In fact, some Capitol Hill sources indicated the biggest obstacle to transferring the systems hadn’t been Congressional or Israeli apprehension, but the hesitancy of the Gulf states to accept the US weaponry and troops necessary to train locals and operate the equipment given domestic sensitivities over America’s presence.

At the same time, their willingness to heighten their military collaboration with the US sends a signal to Israel that its neighbors take the threat of Iran seriously and are playing on the same team when it comes to countering that threat.

Congressman Steve Rothman (D-New Jersey), who sits on key defense and foreign operations appropriations subcommittees involved, explained that “the piece-by-piece construction of a network of offensive and defensive capabilities” by regional actors as well as the United States – whose own troops also happen to sit in two countries bordering Iran – delivers a strong warning.

“I think it’s a brilliant strategy to send a powerful message to Iran that a first strike for them will be unsuccessful and will cause a devastating regime-changing response from not only Israel but also this alliance,” he said, pointing out that the consequences should change the calculus on Teheran undertaking an attack likely to be repelled in the first place by the sophisticated defensive systems.

“Trying to be a nuclear weapons super-power is not a strategy that its neighbors will permit to happen,” he continued. “We hope that [the US] strategy will encourage Iran to cease and desist from its efforts to weaponize its nuclear program, to make all of its nuclear facilities available to inspectors and to find a way to work with the West on developing any civilian nuclear capability.

Iran gearing up for war leaving Saudi Arabia and Yemen looking worse off than Israel : RICHMARK SENTINEL.

While U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates was expressing doubts Saturday that a deal to send Iran’s uranium abroad for enrichment was close, Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi was opening two new missile production plants. This coming just three days after Iran had fired a rocket carrying live animals into space.

Notably also on the same day that Parliament speaker Ali Larijani was lambasting the West for trying to dupe Iran with a proposed nuclear fuel deal, calling it “a political swindle” designed to remove Iran’s enriched uranium” from the Islamic republic.

Yesterday his foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki was advising the world that the agreement on uranium was close.

EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton also weighed in on Saturday by telling Iran that it had to formally respond to the UN atomic agency proposals in order to “build badly needed confidence”. She confirmed that years of talks with her predecessor Javier Solana and his colleagues took place against a backdrop of Iranian work that was continuing contrary to the rules of the safeguard system by which everyone is bound.

This in direct response to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said in a television interview on Tuesday that Tehran would have “no problem” with the proposal.

Western powers,however suspect that the Iranian President is simply using delaying tactics to avoid further UN Security Council sanctions.

And so it goes on and on.

At the eleventh hour Iran promising cooperation but as soon as the parties suggest putting it down in writing they back off under some or other pretext. Russia and China invariably giving them an out.

The indications are that Iran will stop at nothing to achieve a nuclear capability in order to free up their military both at home and in the region.

In respect of the former, armed with a nuclear umbrella, they could remove any resistance to the Islamic Revolution while ignoring outside threats as so much hot air. Nobody is going to invade them.

In respect of the region the one player who can safely assume that Iran won’t be invading is Israel. Should they opt for a conventional war or a nuclear attack they would be inviting the end of Iran. Israel would respond tenfold.

That comfort is not available to Saudi Arabia, Yemen or even Iraq with Tehran sniffing around the neighbourhood. There is no doubting Iran’s support for rebels in Yemen, they’ve crossed the border into Iraq to measure the response in respect of disputed oilfields and warned the Saudis what will happen if they interfere with the problem in Yemen.

That is a random sample.

This from a country that is openly supporting militants across the region.

In respect of their missile capabilities the new plants will produce a ground-to-air missile dubbed the Qaem (Rising) and a surface-to-surface missile dubbed Toofan 5 (Storm).

The Qaem is designed to target helicopters at low and medium altitudes. It is a missile which can destroy targets in the air travelling at low speed and at low altitude, especially assault helicopters

Toofan 5 is one of the most advanced missiles. It has two warheads which can destroy tanks and other armoured vehicles. .

In December Iran tested the Sejil 2 (Lethal Stone) missile, describing it as a faster version of a medium-range missile that could allow it to strike arch-foe Israel.

The United States and its regional ally Israel have not ruled out a military option to stop Tehran’s controversial nuclear drive.

Tehran has in turn warned that it will target US bases in the region and block the strategic Gulf Strait of Hormuz waterway for oil tankers if its nuclear sites are attacked.

What is patently clear is that while striving for a nuclear capability Iran is simultaneously strengthening its ground and air forces making it a very definite threat in terms of invading its near neighbours.

If it was acting purely defensively then a nuclear deterrent coupled to existing military resources would be overwhelmingly sufficient to take care of any domestic bother.

This goes way beyond domestic use.

While the world might have been shocked by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait nobody should be surprised the day Iranian forces cross their borders into neighbouring territory.

On that day perhaps the UN will have the sense to tell China and Russia to clean up their mess.

Al Jazeera English – Middle East – Iran: Uranium deal close.

Mottaki said  an exchange deal could be reached “in the not very distant future’ [AFP] A final deal on sending some Iranian uranium abroad for enrichment is close, Iran’s foreign minister has said. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Friday,  Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran sees good prospects for clinching such a deal. “With regard to discussions with the different parties, I personally believe that we have created conducive ground for such an exchange in the not very distant future,” Mottaki said. “Under the present conditions that we have reached, I think that we are approaching a final agreement that can be accepted by all parties.” Mottaki said it should be up to Tehran to set the amounts to be exchanged, based on its needs. A deal could represent a major breakthrough in the long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme, but it was not clear whether Iran’s conditions would be acceptable to the United States and others. Nuclear bomb fears The uranium swap deal was first discussed last year between Iran and six world powers, which saw it as a way to ensure Tehran did not further enrich its uranium to a level that would be potentially usable in a nuclear bomb. But Tehran, which insists its nuclear programme has only peaceful intentions, had failed to respond positively to the proposal from the group – the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – until this week. Mottaki said he would discuss the exchange on Saturday with Yukiya Amano, the new head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, on the fringes of the Munich conference.”We think all parties have shown their political will to fulfil this exchange,” he said, without naming specific countries. He added that the “Islamic republic of Iran has shown it is serious about doing this, and we have shown it at the highest level,” referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president. Ahmadinejad said in a television interview on Tuesday that Tehran would have “no problem” sending abroad its stocks of low-enriched uranium to be further purified into fuel. Iran needs nuclear fuel to power a UN-monitored research reactor in Tehran, but Western powers fear its uranium enrichment programme masks efforts to produce atomic weapons. To curb such fears, the International Atomic Energy Agency has proposed that Tehran ship uranium to Russia and France to be further purified into reactor fuel. Tehran agreed in principle to the offer during talks with world powers in October, but later appeared to reject the deal and said it preferred a gradual swap for fuel, preferably on Iranian soil.

MIDDLE EAST: Looming regional war involving Syria, Israel and Lebanon — or more hot air? | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times.

Israel and Syria have exchanged heated words in the last few days, leading many to wonder whether this new round of threats is leading up to a regional war, or is merely a bluffing contest to maintain the status quo that allows both governments to eschew domestic problems for the sake of state security.

“The Syrians cannot afford to go to war, and [Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman hit on a major stress point for them,” retired Lebanese general and military expert Elias Hanna told The Times. “This is critical for the Syrians, so maybe they are trying to tie themselves to Hezbollah and Iran in order to put obstacles for Israel to wage a war.”

But, he added, Israel cannot afford a three-front war against Hezbollah, Iran and Syria either.

On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to back away from statements made by  the notoriously bellicose Lieberman, in which the foreign minister warned Syrian President Bashar Assad that he and his family would “lose the regime” if war were to break out between Israel and Syria.

Syrian lawmaker Mohammad Naji Ottari hit back, saying Syria would respond to any provocation, while Netanyahu tried to calm things down by reiterating Israel’s willingness to negotiate directly with Syria.

The spat came a day after Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem called on Israel to “stop launching threats” against Gaza, southern Lebanon, Iran and Syria.

“Undoubtedly if we suppose that this war will break out … then I say that war will be all-out, whether it hits south Lebanon or Syria,” he was quoted saying by the Syrian Arab News Agency.

His comments have been interpreted by some to mean that Syria will intervene militarily should Israel launch a new war on south Lebanon. In the 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah, Syria allegedly acted as a conduit for weapons to the group but did not interfere directly.

Rumors of Israeli military strikes against Iran and Hezbollah have gained currency after an informal deadline for nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic expired at the end of last year. Much ink has been spilled over whether Israel will hit Hezbollah before Iran, and if the Jewish state is willing to enter a multi-front war.

As-Safir and Al Akhbar, two Lebanese newspapers considered sympathetic to Hezbollah, ran editorials Friday questioning Israel’s motives and military preparedness.

Samir Karam, writing in As-Safir (in Arabic), criticized Israeli military strategy for failing to evolve with the conflict, citing a report by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs on Israel’s qualitative military edge.

“[The study’s authors] want to make a fuss about ending the doctrine of qualitative military edge, while emphasizing that Israel still has this qualitative edge, despite developments that would destroy [this advantage],” Karam wrote. “What can Israel do to restore this qualitative edge, which [was damaged by] the resistance, not armies?”

In Al Akhbar (in Arabic), Saadallah Mazraani accused Israeli politicians of using political and military provocation to shift focus from reaching a two-state solution.

“Will Netanyahu and Lieberman’s political escalation translate to military escalation?” he asked, and if so, will it be in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran or Syria?

“But there is a risk: despite the natural tendency of Israeli leaders toward war and aggression, despite the presence of an extremist group in a position of unprecedented power in Israel, despite the fact that this group is supported by influential powers in the American administration. … Despite all this, despite the lure of official Arab complicity and Palestinian division … the facts on the ground do not make the Israeli adventure easy. … The war will not be limited, and the resistance will be wider and more effective.”

— Meris Lutz in Beirut

Photo: Metal cutouts of soldiers are seen in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in 1967. Israel’s foreign minister has harshly warned Syria against drawing the Jewish state into another war, saying its army would be defeated and its regime would collapse in a future conflict. Credit: Ariel Schalit / Associated Press

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Syrian missile

Iranian and military sources report the war threats from Damascus this week were backed by massive Iranian airlifts for boosting Syria’s missile arsenal. Fresh supplies also reached the Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas in Gaza. Wednesday, Feb. 3, Syrian president Bashar Assad accused Israel of seeking war, while his foreign minister Walid Moallem boasted: “You know that war at this time will come to your cities.” They spoke after taking delivery of 100 new medium-range surface-to-surface missiles from Iran in January.

Moallem’s threat was comprehensive: “….Syria calls on Israel to halt directing threats once against Gaza, another against South Lebanon, then Iran and now Syria.”

His message that all four extremist allies had formed a mutual defense pact against Israel raised temperatures to a dangerous level in the region. Syria will not stand by idly next time round if Israel goes to war against Iran’s nuclear program or an aggressive Hizballah or Hamas, but go for Israel’s cities.

This was public confirmation for the first time of debkafile‘s disclosure that on Dec. 17, Iranian defense minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi signed a secret military pact with his Syrian opposite number Gen. Ali Habib in Damascus, with Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah appending his signature later.

Within days, Iran began shipping missile supplies by air to Damascus, Syria stepped up the pace of its smuggled rocket supplies to Hizballah in South Lebanon and both pumped hardware to Hamas by serpentine routes.

Syrian leaders used the visit to Damascus of Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos as the stage for their heightened stridency. US Middle East envoy George Mitchell heard a similar harsh threatening tone against Israel when he called on Bashar Assad in Damascus on Jan. 20. Neither Washington nor Jerusalem were caught by surprise.

Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented nonchalantly that he does not understand what the Bashar Assad wants, confiding to his aides that his goal is to gain international goodwill before Israel decides to attack Iran. Next day, Feb. 4, hardline foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman was more outspoken:  “Assad must be told bluntly,” he said, “that in the next war, not only will Syria be beaten but he and his family will lose power. You will not remain in power, and neither will your family.”

While his words were widely reported, the doves of the Labor party, the opposition Kadima and the left found his tone outrageous and called on the prime minister fire him.