Archive for April 8, 2010

Iran Sanctions Negotiations Start at UN With No End in Sight

April 8, 2010

Evelyn Leopold: Iran Sanctions Negotiations Start at UN With No End in Sight (Update).

UNITED NATIONS – The first talks at the United Nations on US proposals for sanctions against Iran began on Thursday but could take a month or even two months before any resolution is adopted by the 15-nation Security Council.

“I’m not prepared to predict when they will conclude or not — we’re working to get this done swiftly within a matter of weeks in the spring,” Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters.

The talks were made possible by the consent of China to negotiate on possible new sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium and discuss its nuclear activities.

China, which gets 11 percent of its oil and gas from Iran, was perhaps persuaded that diplomacy had reached an end, at least for the time being, after a recent visit to Beijing by Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. Iran could reverse this by agreeing on a fuel-swap deal that would send out some of its uranium for a research reactor for refining in Russia and France.

Yet, despite all the hype, particularly from Washington, in predicting negotiations for weeks, the key participants in the discussions – the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany – would not on Thursday admit the talks had started or that they were being held at Britain’s UN mission, where reporters were waiting.

France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner first announced the talks on Wednesday. He told reporters in Paris that “China will participate in a meeting tomorrow in New York. Whether they will talk about the text, whether it’s just to respect formalities, I don’t know.”

The negotiations follow a scathing attack by Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against President Obama, calling him an “inexperienced amateur” who was quick to threaten to use nuclear weapons against U.S. enemies. He was reacting to new US restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons in the new Nuclear Posture Review that nevertheless left Iran and North Korea as potential targets.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but has not allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect all suspected sites. The UN Security Council, in three previous rounds of sanctions that China approved, has demanded Iran suspend all enrichment of uranium, which can be used in bombs.

“Obama made these latest remarks because he is inexperienced and an amateur politician,” Ahmadinejad said on Iranian television, Reuters reported. “American politicians are like cowboys. Whenever they have legal shortcomings, their hands go to their guns.”

The US proposals, agreed with European allies and shown to Russia and China in early March, include sanctions against Iran’s banking, shipping and insurance sectors, mainly those run by the Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Guards are increasing their hold on the Iranian economy as well as playing a leading role in brutally crushing any opposition. The draft also broadens the list of individuals facing a travel ban and assets freeze. China as well as Russia is expected to dilute the measures but energy supplies are not on the list.

In Prague, where Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and President Obama signed an arms reduction treaty on Thursday, the Russian leader said he was in favor of “secure strong sanctions” but that they should not bring hardship to the Iranian people. He said he had presented the American president with a list of what was and was not acceptable.

If the six powers agree, the other 10 Council members must support the measures and the United States wants at least 14 votes, expecting Lebanon to oppose or abstain as its government now includes the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group. But Brazil and Turkey, which have rotating seats on the Council, also have reservations.

Separately, both the United States and the European Union are considering further unilateral sanctions. But UN Security Council sanctions in the long run can have more impact as they apply to all states. Council diplomats said that one aim of the sanctions was to show the Iranian establishment it was isolated and that increased penalties, no matter how incremental, would become more costly than pursuing a nuclear arms program.

How far Iran is from making a bomb is in dispute. But Tehran kept its program a secret for 18 years, revealing it to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency only six years ago.

Still, like Iraq’s late President Saddam Hussein, having or pretending to have weapons of mass destruction, is often a step towards regional one-upmanship. “In some perverse way, Iran made (nuclear energy) attractive,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, the recently retired director general of the IAEA. “Nuclear power, in many ways got sexy.”

The Price of Iranian Sanctions – WSJ.com

April 8, 2010

Con Coughlin: The Price of Iranian Sanctions – WSJ.com.

As U.S. President Barack Obama intensifies his efforts to garner international support for fresh U.N. sanctions against Iran, Tehran is quietly putting its own measures in place for renewed confrontation with the West. Watching how a conventionally armed Iran manages to destabilize the entire region only serves to underline how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran would be.

For all of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s public bluster, the Iranian regime likely feels threatened by the prospect of further sanctions—so much so that it has now embarked on a well-organized and coordinated effort to attack or undermine Western interests throughout the region. The most sinister trend is the revival of Iran’s international terrorist infrastructure, which is evident in neighboring Afghanistan where NATO intelligence officers have reported a marked increase in cooperation between Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Taliban insurgents.

CoughlinIran

Associated Press

Now imagine the Revolutionary Guards with a nuclear bomb.

A senior Taliban commander claimed last month in Britain’s Sunday Times that hundreds of his fighters had been taught how to conduct ambushes at training camps run by Iranian Revolutionary Guards located along Iran’s border with Afghanistan. At the camps young Taliban recruits were given instructions on how to attack American, British and other NATO troops, as well as how to construct the deadly roadside bombs that account for the majority of NATO casualties.

Tehran has also revived its interest in Iraq, where the Revolutionary Guards’ elite Quds force has a long history of attempting to radicalize the country’s Shia community. The inconclusive election result last month has delivered the balance of power to Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iran-backed radical Shia cleric who waged war against U.S. forces at the height of Iraq’s insurgency. At present Mr. al-Sadr is living in exile in the Iranian holy city of Qom, where he is undergoing intensive religious training. But after his Sadrist Movement (the political arm of his Mahdi Army that has in the past fought bitterly with U.S. forces) won between 30 and 40 seats in Iraq’s 325-seat assembly, Mr. al-Sadr suddenly finds himself in the unlikely position of being courted as a potential king-maker by secular Shia leaders, such as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and his main rival, Ayad Allawi.

Mr. al-Sadr’s unexpected return to Iraqi politics has resulted in the almost inevitable surge in sectarian strife. After Tehran was accused of organizing the execution-style murder last weekend of 25 Sunnis in a village south of the capital, Sunni suicide bombers subsequently attacked the Iranian embassy in Baghdad.

Nor is this increase in Iran’s terrorist activity confined to its immediate borders. Saudi intelligence officials have blamed a detachment of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in north Yemen for the recent increase in al-Qaeda terror attacks against Saudi Arabia. Following the failed Christmas terror attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, Yemen has emerged as a major training center for al-Qaeda. Iran’s claim that it has sent its Revolutionary Guards to protect Yemen’s minority Shia community has raised fears in intelligence circles that they might be attempting to cooperate with al-Qaeda terror cells.

Finally, there are Iran’s well-documented ties with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which have been strengthened in recent months in anticipation of renewed hostilities with Israel—one obvious consequence of any increased tensions between Iran and the West. Israeli intelligence estimates that Hezbollah now has more rockets at its disposal than it did during the Lebanon war of 2006. Meanwhile, Iran is continuing to supply Hamas with the military means to attack Israel’s southern border. One aspect that has been overlooked in the row over the January assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai is that al-Mabhouh was negotiating with Iran to ship weapons to Gaza at the time of his death.

With so much Iranian activity taking place throughout the region, the message is clear: Any attempt by the West to increase the pressure on Iran over its nuclear program will result in an explosion of violence throughout the Middle East and beyond. The problem is that doing nothing about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions would be even more dangerous.

Mr. Coughlin is executive foreign editor of London’s Daily Telegraph. The updated edition of his book “Khomeini’s Ghost” has just been published by Ecco.

Iran will not beg to avoid sanctions: Ahmadinejad | Reuters

April 8, 2010

Iran will not beg to avoid sanctions: Ahmadinejad | Reuters.

Soldiers from Iran's army fire an anti-aircraft gun during the  Defenders of Velayat (Pontificate) Sky Manoeuvre 2 near Arak, 290 km  (180 miles) southwest of Tehran in this November 23, 2009 picture.  REUTERS/FARS NEWS/Ali Shayegan

(Reuters) – Iran’s president said on Thursday he would not plead with opponents of Tehran’s nuclear program in order to avoid sanctions as Russia and the United States said new measures might be necessary.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Wednesday called President Barack Obama a nuclear-armed “cowboy”, said Iran would “try to make an opportunity out of sanctions” rather than change its stance to avoid them.

“We do not welcome the idea of threat or sanctions, but we would never implore those who threaten us with sanctions to reverse their sanctions against us,” he was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA.

Ahmadinejad was speaking as Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty in Prague. The two were “working together at the United Nations Security Council to pass strong sanctions on Iran,” Obama said.

Medvedev said he was unhappy with Iran’s stance over its nuclear program which the West believes is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

“Tehran is not reacting to a range of suggested constructive compromise agreements. We can’t close our eyes to this. That is why I do not exclude that Security Council will have to examine this question again,” Medvedev told reporters.

Obama is hoping to persuade Russia and China — both Security Council veto holders — to drop their traditional reluctance to the new sanctions.

His campaign is likely to continue next week when both Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao attend a summit on nuclear security in Washington.

MILITARY WARNING

While dismissing the sanctions threat, Iran has also warned against any military steps against its nuclear program.

After several warnings that it would hit back at Israel if attacked from there, Iran’s military chief said Thursday he would target U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East if Washington attacked.

“If America presents Iran with a serious threat and undertakes any measure against Iran, none of the American soldiers who are currently in the region would go back to America alive,” Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.

U.S. troops are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which border Iran.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a military ceremony, Firouzabadi said a strike on Iran would also put oil supplies at risk.

“If America wants to have the region’s oil and its markets then the region’s markets would be taken away from America and the Muslims’ control over oil would increase,” he said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.

Israeli minister touts new ‘oil weapon’ – UPI.com

April 8, 2010

Israeli minister touts new ‘oil weapon’ – UPI.com.

JERUSALEM, April 8 (UPI) — As the United States and its allies ponder harsh new sanctions on Iran, Israel’s infrastructure minister has come up with a new strategy for countering the Islamic Republic and terrorism — green technology to cripple the main oil-producing states.

Uzi Landau unveiled his master plan at the recent annual conference in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in the United States.

By breaking the stranglehold that Iran, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich states have over the industrialized world, Landau reasons Israel and its strategic ally, the United States, would immeasurably weaken these states and leave them unable to support Islamist terror groups.

In place of oil as the prime source of energy, Landau sees building Israel into a green technology powerhouse in the Middle East and urged the United States to join it in this endeavor.

“Israel hopes that be repackaging the ‘war on terror’ in this way it can gain sympathy in the West and deflect increasing expectations that it make concessions to solve the conflict with the Palestinians,” said Avner de Shalit, a professor of politics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Senior U.S. officials were in the Washington audience that heard Landau’s presentation, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But so far President Obama’s administration has made no public comment on Landau’s blueprint.

However arcane and politically fraught Landau’s plan may sound, it would appear he has the weight of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu behind him.

In October 2009 Netanyahu launched a “national project” at Israel’s National Economic Council to find a way to end the world’s dependence on fossil fuels.

“Dependence on fossil fuels strengthens the dark regimes that encourage instability and fund terror with their petrodollars,” he declared.

Jonathan Cook, a British writer who lives in Israel and has followed this issue, reported: “Mr. Landau is known to be acting on the direct instructions of Binyamin Netanyahu.”

The liberal Israeli daily Haaretz, no fan of the hawkish Netanyahu, has reported he hopes that developing eco-friendly green technology will allow Israel to strengthen ties with China, which will one day challenge U.S. economic power and, unlike the West, has no real interest in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

“Although Israel has developed new solar energy and water technologies, Mr. Netanyahu is reported to want a revolution in fuels used in transport, which accounts for a large proportion of oil use,” Cook observed.

“Israeli companies are already involved in researching battery technologies for cars,” even though the country has a poor record on using renewable energy sources.

There are, Cook says, “strong indications that Israel’s green technologies drive is related to plans developed by U.S. neoconservative groups in the buildup to the attack on Iraq.”

According to Cook, some of these groups lobbied the George W. Bush administration “to invade Iraq so that the oil fields could be privatized and the international markets flooded with oil.”

The Heritage Foundation, a major pro-Israel think tank in Washington, reasoned that privatization would drive down oil prices and shatter the Saudi-dominated Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq, however, did not proceed as the neocons expected. The Iraqi oil fields remain in state hands. U.S. Big Oil did not move in to take over the country’s vast oil reserves. Instead, non-American oil companies have production contracts to develop them.

Cook notes that at a debate in February on ending the world’s oil dependency at Israel’s annual national security convention in Herzliya, near Tel Aviv, a leading U.S. neocon, R. James Woolsey, director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1993 to 1995, called for the OPEC cartel’s destruction.

Netanyahu’s new strategy is likely to torpedo what had seemed to be a nascent and highly discreet effort by some Gulf Arab states to establish contact with Israel about Obama’s drive to settle the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic dialogue.

The Saudis and their friends feel as threatened about Iran’s nuclear ambitions as Israel and prefer more direct action against Iran than sanctions.

In June 2009 Michael Hertzog, chief of staff to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and a former general in military intelligence, said he had been approached by a senior Gulf official and had similar conversations with officials from Egypt, Jordan and the North African states.

Iran vows to strike American troops in Middle East

April 8, 2010

Iran vows to strike American troops in Middle East.

Courtesy Presidential Press and Information Office of the Kremlin
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Iranian President issued a stern warning to the United States and its allies in the Middle East Thursday, promising an attack on the US if it strikes the Islamic Republic.
A day after calling United States President Barack Obama a “nuclear cowboy,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised a response on the US if there is a strike on Iran. Speaking on behalf of President Ahmadinejad, a top officer in the Revolutionary Guard said if Iran were attacked, “none of the American soldiers who are currently in the [Middle East] would go back to America alive.”
President Obama has been stepping up his rhetoric in regards to the Iranian nuclear program. He has called for a new round of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Russia said on Thursday that may be appropriate. President Dmitry Medvedev told reporters he is “not happy” with Iran’s stance over its nuclear program. He went on to say the UN Security Council may have to examine the issue of sanctions again soon. Ahmadinejad said he would not beg to avoid sanctions, but instead would attempt to “make an opportunity” of them.

Ahmadinejad: Sanctions won’t deter us

April 8, 2010

Ahmadinejad: Sanctions won’t deter us.


Iranian defense minister says “Israel is no match for Iranian military.”

Sanctions imposed by the United Nations will hold no weight over Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying Thursday.

“We can do without those countries which exercise pressure on us,” Ahmadinejad said in an exclusive interview with German television network RTL, due to be aired Thursday evening, according to IRNA.

Ahmadinejad stressed that Iran would not be influenced by other countries on the nuclear issue, reported the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Ahmadinejad claimed that the Iranian nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.

“We are in principle against atomic bombs. For us, weapons of mass destruction are inhumane,” he said.

Meanwhile, Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi commented on US and Israeli pressure saying that “they should be held accountable for their aggressions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they try to impose empty threats on other countries instead.”

“If the Zionists dare to target Iran, there will remain no trace of them. They know that they are no match for Iran in any military confrontation,” Vahidi asserted.

Vahidi finished by saying that “the Islamic Republic of Iran is in full combat readiness and will give a crushing response to any threat posed against it.”

In addition, Iranian Chief of Staff Maj.-Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said, “If the US threatens Iran…the attack will be very costly for the US… and none of its soldiers will go back home alive,” reported IRNA.


Reactions in the Gulf to Tension over Iranian Nuclear Issue

April 8, 2010

MEMRI – Middle East Media Research Institute.

By: L. Barkan*

In late January 2010, as the U.S. media was reporting on the background to the tension between Iran and the West over Iran’s nuclear issue and on U.S. attempts to draw up sanctions to be implemented against Iran, the U.S. was stepping up its deployment of defense systems in the Gulf region – including Patriot missile batteries, warships, and fighter planes.

In response, Iran sent some threatening messages and other reassuring ones. Iranian Ambassador to Qatar Abdollah Sohrabi warned the Gulf against allowing the U.S. to attack Iran from their territory, saying that “when there is war, no one knows who is attacking whom, and the fire scorches everyone in its path.”[1] Likewise, the conservative Iranian daily Qods warned that if attacked, Iran would immediately strike the Gulf states, and not only the U.S. forces on their soil – and that the results of this attack would be unbearable for these states. [2]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likewise warned the Gulf states about the U.S. presence in the region.[3] However, on other occasions he said that the deployment of defense systems by the U.S. was a routine matter that did not bother Iran, because no country dared attack it.[4] Iranian Ambassador to Kuwait Ali Jannati also took a reassuring line, making it clear that Iran had no intention of attacking the Gulf states.[5]

Official Reaction of the Gulf States: Reinforcing Inter-Gulf Cooperation and Activity vis-à-vis Iran

The Gulf states did not hide their apprehension at the possibility of a military conflict, and acted in two main directions. They sought to strengthen cooperation among themselves – for example, on March 2, 2010, they declared that security cooperation was being stepped up and joint armored forces were being strengthened, and that joint naval forces would be established.[6]

At the same time, they engaged in diplomatic activity vis-à-vis Iran in accordance with that of the Western countries; on March 9, they declared that they were working to persuade Iran to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but that if their efforts failed, they would act to impose sanctions on Iran.[7]

It should be noted that the Gulf states have chosen almost overwhelmingly to ignore the news about the deployment of defense systems in the U.S. bases in their countries; isolated responses were heard from Bahrain, whose foreign minister, Khalid bin Ahmad, clarified that the missile deployment was strictly a defensive move that threatened no one.[8]

Alongside the joint Gulf activity, individual countries also held contacts with Iran that sometimes seemed not in synch with official Gulf activity. The most prominent of these countries was Qatar; it expressed its full confidence in the peaceful intent of Iran’s nuclear program, and moved towards closer relations with it via a security cooperation agreement and reciprocal diplomatic and security visits.[9]

Also, Iran stated that it had signed nonaggression pacts with three Gulf countries – Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait. While elements in Kuwait hastened to deny this, they stressed that Kuwait was adhering to the principle of not serving as a platform to attack neighboring countries.[10]

While the official Gulf position is in accordance with the West’s stance in all things concerning Iran’s nuclear issue – i.e. diplomatic activity and support for sanctions when necessary – the Gulf media has been singing a different, and more aggressive, tune. Publicists and columnists have expressed fears of an upcoming war and of Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and have proposed ways of dealing with the situation. The discussion has centered on the question of cooperation with the U.S. – whether the Gulf countries should prepare to defend themselves against Iran by cooperating with the U.S., or to abandon the alliance with the West and form a uniform Gulf front against Iran.

Following is a summary of reactions, as they appeared in the Gulf press:

I. Apprehensions about Iran’s Nuclear Program

Al-Arabiya Director: An Iranian Bomb Will Help Iran Take Over the Region

‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of the Saudi Al-Arabiya network, wrote in the Saudi London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands would help it take over the region: “We are not afraid of an Iranian bomb. This weapon will not be put to military use; it will be used as a way to change the rules of the game.

“What we are afraid of is Iran’s policy, that uses all means to force its existence [as a regional power], and nuclear weapons is only [one of these] means. If Saddam [Hussein] had had a nuclear bomb when he invaded Kuwait, it would have remained occupied to this day, because the superpowers would not have risked war with a state with nuclear weapons. If [a nuclear] Iran tomorrow takes over Bahrain – something that is altogether possible – or if its militias take over southern Iraq, no superpower will dare to use military means to stop it. The international community will [only] have the options of conducting negotiations and bargaining with Iran, or of implementing economic sanctions against it – [tactics] that everyone knows never deterred any occupier in the past, and will certainly not deter Iran…

“We fear the logic of the current regime in Tehran, which spent the country’s funds on Hizbullah, Hamas, the extremist movements in Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and supported every extremist in the region. The Ahmadinejad regime aspires to expansion, hegemony, and a clear takeover on the ground, and to do this he needs a nuclear umbrella to protect him from deterrence by [any] superpower.

“The Gulf states, that built giant cities and factories all along the coast, will, when Iran possesses nuclear weapons, become hostage to the caprices of Ahmadinejad and his extremist government…

“The region cannot be left to the test of reality. When we find out that the reality is painful, we will have already missed the chance [to change it].”[11]

Editor of Kuwaiti Daily: Imperialist Iran – An Existential Threat to the Gulf

Ahmad Al-Jarallah, editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, explained that Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons threatened the existence of the Gulf states, and called on the international community to curb these efforts: “…Iran thundered about the deployment of the missile defense system in some Arab Gulf countries as a precaution to any unexpected instance; at the same time, it announced that this system did not threaten it, and that it knows how to jam it. If so, why did it thunder?…

“The Iranian arrogance rejects any opposition to building nuclear reactors near the borders of these states, and poses an existential and environmental danger for them… The entire region has become hostage to fears of [possible] rash actions by Iran that could cause nuclear catastrophes that neither Iran nor the world will be able to bear. After all, examples of such catastrophes, some of which were the result of unexpected events, are still etched in memory, and the world continues to pay for them.”

Al-Jarallah compared Iran’s actions to those of Saddam Hussein, saying: “The current Iranian position is reminiscent of the stands taken by Saddam, particularly in all things concerning his [threat to] burn half of Israel with chemical [weapons]… We have seen how this murderer’s life ended on the gallows… Now the Iranian symphony is playing the same tune, and carrying out deceptive political maneuvers that could lead to disasters – which [Iran] is preparing without even a minimal sense of human responsibility.

“Clearly, the political path taken by the Tehran regime is controlled by imperialist aspirations; this inspires much fear. [This is worrying] not only due to [Iran’s] support for several extremist groups of various kinds, but also due to the nuclear issue and the real intentions that the Iranian leadership is concealing. This evasion and deception hint that Iran is not interested in a reactor for peaceful purposes but aspires to produce nuclear weapons with the aim of becoming the new empire in the region…

“Now more than ever, the entire international community must stop Iran’s rashness and bring it back to the right path – particularly in light of the obvious signs of the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the region. Beyond the economic cost, this race will affect all areas of life, and will drown the region in a quagmire of chaos and [evoke] reactions that none can predict.”[12]

Kuwaiti Columnist: Iran Is Warmongering

Kuwaiti columnist Mutlaq Musa’id Al-‘Ajmi explained that the U.S. bases in the Gulf had never posed a threat to Iran, but that nevertheless Iran is amassing arms in order to attack them and the Gulf states: “We are under direct threat by Iran, and [we are] within the range of its missiles. I do not believe that Iran is designating its missiles [for targets] beyond the Gulf. [Iran] claims that the Western military bases in the Gulf states – and now also Iraq – pose a threat to its security. But these bases have existed for a long time, and the Islamic Revolution in Iran has coexisted with them for 30 years, without them causing it any harm… These bases are there in order to strengthen the security and stability of the Gulf region, and to ensure the flow of oil, especially since this region is situated within the burning Middle East, whose fires Iran is fanning and stoking… [For their part], the Gulf states have always made sure not to threaten Iran from their territories…”

II. The Gulf States Must Defend Themselves While Cooperating with the U.S.

In the same article, Al-‘Ajmi justified the deployment of defense systems, writing: “The deployment of a U.S. defense shield in the Gulf is intended to reassure the countries in the region, and to deter Iran, not to threaten it or attack it. It is also intended to reassure Israel, which is threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. These goals are consistent with the interest of regional stability, including stability in Iran, and they achieve the balance and the calm necessary [in order to reach] a solution to the problems of the Middle East. If Iran views this as igniting an arms race in the region, it should know that it was [Iran itself], not the Gulf states, that started the race and got onto the racecourse before anyone else!”[13]

Kuwaiti MP: The Gulf’s Military Development Is Strictly Defensive

Kuwaiti MP Ma’suma Al-Mubarak was of a similar opinion; in the Qatari daily Al-Watan, she wondered at Iran’s response to the strengthening of the Gulf defense systems: “In light of U.S. and Israeli threats against Iran, the Gulf states must develop their own security systems, so as not to become caught in the vise [created by] the U.S. and Iran. Therefore, these countries have declared their intention to develop their own military capabilities, particularly their bases’ Patriot missile systems, as a precautionary means against any development or military confrontation that would have consequences for the countries in the region, as has happened under previous circumstances…

“However, the Islamic Republic’s response to the announcement of the development of special defense [systems] in the GCC countries – that is, that this development was aimed against Iran, its sovereignty, and its stability – was surprising and unrealistic, because all the Gulf countries had clarified that they were acting for the sake of calm, and calling for self-restraint, and that their lands had not and would never be used as a launching pad for missiles directed against Iran…”[14]

Saudi Daily: The Gulf States Must Prepare for War

In an editorial, the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah criticized Iran over its provoking of the international community, and clarified that the Gulf states must plan for a possible war: “…In our region, or to be more precise, in the Arab Gulf region, the Iranian regime is not stopping its provocation of the international community, or to be more precise, of the five great powers and the industrialized and influential countries. Iran has focused the enmity of these countries on it, to an extraordinary degree. They hastened to respond to its provocation and sent forces and warships to fill the Gulf with all the elements of war and destruction, threatening the Gulf states and their residents. This is the result of the power madness of the Tehran regime – which is insignificant next to the forces that it is provoking.

“The Arab Gulf states found themselves between two evils – the provocation and the response to it. Each of the sides is gathering its forces and getting equipment ready for a duel that will certainly harm the Arab Gulf states – particularly in light of the proliferation of threats [by Iran] to strike at Western interests in the region.

“Preparations [for the duel] have been stepped up, as warning signs of a new war about to break out in the region proliferate. This means that the Gulf countries must plan, and their governments must prepare, so as to protect the people and repel any attack on their soil.

“Therefore, all the Arab Gulf countries are hastening – and a good thing too – to complete the efforts for effective self defense, as manifested in the deployment of batteries of interception missiles (Patriot), and additional military equipment that defends the Gulf states’ land, air, and sea. These measures are purely defensive and legitimate, in order to defend the sovereignty and security of the Gulf states, which are not party to a conflict in which even the victor has nothing to gain. These measures must not worry Iran or anyone else.”[15]

Qatari Liberal: No Choice But to Cooperate With U.S.

Qatari cleric and liberal journalist ‘Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari referred to statements made by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her February 2010 visit to the Gulf, regarding the Gulf states’ options. He called for cooperating with the U.S., even though, he said, Iran’s nuclear program cannot be stopped: “If Iran obtains nuclear [weapons] it will not use them against Israel or against us… On the one hand, [it] will exploit its possession of them in order to take over the Gulf and to dictate to us; at the same time, it is likely to push the countries of the region into a nuclear arms race…

“Iran’s nuclear program threatens not only the Gulf but also national Arab security – after Israel, of course, which is the greatest danger – and whoever does not see this must uncover his eyes and [start] worrying…

“The American administration has reached a dead end, and there is no reasonable chance for war because America is at a political, economic, and military ebb. If Bush the fighter did not launch [a war], his peace-seeking successor [certainly] cannot be expected to do so – not to mention that that the countries of the region reject a military solution for fear of harming their interests.

“Economic sanctions will not prevent Iran from moving ahead with its [nuclear] program… It will continue on its way to becoming a nuclear state – whether we want it or not – and we must prepare to coexist with it. Nothing is left for us but to pray [to Allah] the Supreme, the Omnipotent, to protect the Gulf from nuclear dangers.

“Clinton presented [us with] three options: submit to the Iranian threat, act to build our [own] nuclear capabilities, or ally with the U.S. to defend ourselves. It seems that we have no choice but the third option, Allah help us.”[16]

III. The Gulf States Should Abandon Alliance with U.S., Form United Front

A different opinion was voiced by Kuwaiti columnists who called to stop the cooperation with the U.S. Columnist Ibrahim Al-Hadban called to stop purchasing American weapons because they will not help to defend the Gulf: “…The Gulf must prepare for many conspiracies and upheavals that the Americans and Zionists will cause, especially if they attack Iran and expose us to retaliation on its part. We must stop purchasing American weapons. [These weapons] will not help us anyway in case of a confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, for we are within the range of Iran’s missiles, and Iran can destroy us with its conventional and chemical weapons, without needing nuclear weapons.”[17]

Columnist Mash’al Al-Nami wrote that the West was collaborating with Iran out of its own interests, and that the Gulf states should therefore stop cooperating with the U.S. and form a united front in order to pressure Iran. “…Iran’s ongoing effort to obtain nuclear weapons is fueled by Western aspirations, or rather by American ones – because a nuclear Iran will prompt the Gulf states to seek America’s approval by any means, in order to obtain its protection…

“Iran is disregarding the Gulf states because they are not making serious efforts to prevent it from spreading its influence throughout the countries of the region… The Gulf states can cause [Iran] to change its plans if they stand united and reach a mutual understanding regarding [their] relations with Iran – something that is currently not happening. At present, one Gulf state is engaged in a heated media war with Iran, while the head of another Gulf state is exchanging mutual friendly visits with Iran…

“After [the Gulf states] reach a mutual understanding, they will be able to consolidate their [status] in the region by pressuring Iran [and threatening it] with their weapons. They will also be able to hobble Iran, first by banning Iranian imports – which will economically burden the Iranian regime – and later on by stopping the import of labor from Iran.

“In the second phase, the pressure on Iran will be intensified by means of expelling [its] intelligence elements deployed in the region, and at the same time cultivating and supporting the [groups] struggling against the Iranian [regime], such as [those in] Baluchistan and Ahwaz, in response to Iran’s blunt intervention in the internal affairs of many countries in the region…

“The Gulf states must create for themselves a foothold in the heart of the current struggle over the spread of influence in the Gulf region. If they continue to ignore the problem that is directly harming their security, American control of the region will be stronger than it was after the war to liberate Kuwait – and then regret will be useless.”[18]

*L. Barkan is a research fellow at MEMRI.
Endnotes:

[1] Al-Watan (Qatar), February 1, 2010.

[2] Qods (Iran), February 21, 2010.

[3] Al-Arab (Qatar), March 12, 2010.

[4] Fararu (Iran), February 3, 2010.

[5] Al-Rai (Kuwait), February 9, 2010.

[6] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), March 3, 2010.

[7] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), March 10, 2010

[8] Alarabiya.net, February 4, 2010.

[9] Al-Watan (Qatar), March 10, 2010.

[10] Al-Rai (Kuwait), March 6, 2010; Aljazeera.net, March 5, 2010.

[11] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 21, 2010.

[12] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), February 7, 2010.

[13] Awan (Kuwait), February 2, 2010.

[14] Al-Watan (Qatar), February 8, 2010.

[15] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), February 5, 2010.

[16] Al-Watan (Qatar), February 22, 2010.

[17] Al-Rai (Kuwait), February 3, 2010.

[18] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), February 16, 2010.

The Armageddon Scenario – Op-Eds – Israel National News

April 8, 2010

The Armageddon Scenario – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

Published: 04/08/10, 5:17 PM
by Prof. Chuck Freilich

The Iranian nuclear threat has obscured another threat: the possibility of waging nuclear terrorism against Israel.

There is a clear rationale for employing nuclear terrorism and countering it needs calibrated policies of prevention
The time to prepare for the Armageddon scenario is now.
and possibly US-Israeli cooperation. The time to prepare for the Armageddon scenario is now.

For the past 15 years, Israel’s focus on the Iranian nuclear threat has been nearly all-encompassing, eclipsing virtually all other threats. While understandable, this preoccupation may have distracted Israel from a threat which may be no less likely and actually far more dangerous; nuclear terrorism. Unlike “traditional” terrorism, nuclear terrorism poses a catastrophic threat to the state.

Moreover, those most likely to conduct nuclear terrorism (al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Iran, and others) may be fundamentally nihilistic and thus undeterrable. As millennial movements who believe that Israel’s destruction is a sacred mission, they may view a nuclear attack, even assuming a devastating Israeli response, to be a worthy means of ushering in a messianic era.

A nuclear terrorist threat against Israel might be designed for:

Actual Use – to deal Israel a devastating blow
Deterrence – to counter Israel’s conventional superiority and purported nuclear capability, to deter Israeli attacks, or to conduct attacks with relative impunity
Compellence – to exert a decisive influence on Israeli decision making during crises or over fundamental issues, holding it hostage by the threat of an attack
Weakening – to severely erode Israel’s national resilience due to the ongoing need to live in the shadow of nuclear terrorism
Back Up – to strengthen the deterrent value of a state-based (Iranian or Syrian) capability
Decapitation – to remove the Israeli political and/or military leadership

The potential means of conducting nuclear terrorism against Israel would be similar to those applicable to other
Rockets, such as those already in Hizballah’s possession, could be fitted with nuclear warheads
countries (sea, air, and land-based), with one important addition: rockets. Rockets, such as those already in Hizballah’s possession, could be fitted with nuclear warheads. Though unsuited for ordinary military purposes, they could be effective weapons of terror.

Policy Options

Prevention

Prevention includes a variety of intelligence, interdiction, and other offensive measures to detect and prevent a nuclear terrorist capability from being developed or used. If still under development, Israel will have sufficient time to pursue a range of preventative options, alone and in conjunction with the US, from targeted to massive military operations. Once a capability exists, the window for action will be severely attenuated and preventative efforts will have to include any and all capabilities to guarantee success at all costs. While a unilateral Israeli operation might be sufficient if the capability is still being developed, the need for immediate and guaranteed success to thwart an operational capability may require American involvement. The challenges posed by detection and elimination of a terrorist nuclear weapon are hugely difficult.

Deterrence

Deterrence is commonly thought to be ineffective against nuclear terrorism, due to the presumed nihilistic nature of potential perpetrators. However, Hizballah and Hamas, while certainly extremist, have populations for which they take responsibility and have proven over the years to be deterrable. Although their acquisition of a nuclear capability would pose severe threats, such as the ability to terrorize Israel’s population with relative impunity, it does place them in the appropriate context.

Iran would presumably be willing to suffer great losses in pursuit of Israel’s destruction, but would have to take into account that Israel is considered by the international community to be a nuclear power and that a nuclear crisis could lead to a devastating exchange. While a precise assessment of Iran’s cost-benefit analysis is unknowable, it does appear to be fundamentally rational and thus deterrable.

The biggest question mark is in regard to al-Qaeda, whose presumed nihilism may indeed make it undeterrable. It is questionable whether this would truly be the case in the face of threats of annihilation of their leadership and families, Muslim population centers, and sites of major importance to the Muslim world.

Potential perpetrators of nuclear terrorism must be convinced that Israel will preempt/retaliate devastatingly. For Israel, this means a “shoot first, no questions asked” policy. Both those clearly responsible for an actual attack (if any) and those reasonably suspected of involvement must be held accountable, and Israel must retaliate with all the means at its disposal.  In the absence of irrefutable and immediate evidence to the contrary, Israel’s retaliatory
Potential perpetrators of nuclear terrorism must be convinced that Israel will preempt/retaliate devastatingly
policy should hold Iran and/or al-Qaeda responsible with an absence of irrefutable and immediate evidence to the contrary. In the event of a declared nuclear terrorist capability, a stated intention to acquire one, or an advanced suspected one, the known or suspected perpetrator and host country should be attacked in advance with the amount of all of the force necessary to prevent the threat’s materialization.

As a global power, the US will be unlikely to adopt such a “no questions asked” policy and will require nuclear forensics. Nevertheless, American determination to prevent nuclear terrorism and retaliate devastatingly against those responsible must be beyond question. US declaratory policy on the nuclear terrorist threat to Israel would not need to be significantly different from its posture on nuclear terrorism generally, but could be further elucidated.

US-Israeli Cooperation

As with so many other areas of Israeli national security, cooperation with the US is a primary option for dealing with nuclear terrorism. In this case, however, the US would only be able to provide limited assistance. “Extended deterrence” would have little if any value in the face of nihilistic terrorists. Heightened cooperative preventative efforts, while important, may not suffice when the US lacks a satisfactory response to nuclear terrorism.

Conversely, global American efforts to minimize the threat of nuclear terrorism might be of significant indirect benefit for Israel. These efforts include, inter alia: heightened diplomacy to make better international use of existing diplomatic tools and to adopt new ones; intensified pressure on states to deny terrorists assistance and sanctuary; improvements in control over nuclear facilities, stockpiles and personnel; strengthening the NPT; heightened international cooperation regarding border security, export controls, intelligence sharing, and interdiction; and a variety of covert operations.

Ending Nuclear Ambiguity

Israel is widely thought by foreign observers to be nuclear and any potential perpetrator of nuclear terrorism must take this into account. It is doubtful whether ending nuclear ambiguity would be of significant deterrent value.

Defensive Measures

Israel has an extensive operational homeland security system (Arrow and Iron Dome) and an attacker must consider the probability of interception and massive retaliation. However, if “only” one nuclear warhead got through, this would constitute unacceptable failure for Israel, rendering defensive measures an insufficient option.

Conclusion

To date, no terrorist group has apparently acquired a nuclear weapon or the materials needed to make one. Al-Qaeda has tried repeatedly, but currently the technical challenges are daunting. This good news comes with a crucial caveat; it is true only “as far as we know.” Even if the risk may be low at this time, the potential costs are monstrous and the threat assessment is likely to change significantly in the coming years. Israel must take into account that a nuclear terrorist threat could emerge in the foreseeable future and therefore devote greater attention and resources to it, in order to develop the necessary doctrine and undertake the preparations possible. The time to act is now.

This perspective is based on a more comprehensive study to be published by the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.

Nisan 24, 5770 / 08 April 10

‘No US troop survives if Iran is attacked’

April 8, 2010

‘No US troop survives if Iran is attacked’.

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:41:27 GMT

Major General Hassan Firouzabadi says if the United States attacks Iran, none of the American troops in the region will go back home alive.

Iran’s Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi has warned the US against making any military moves on the Islamic Republic.

Firouzabadi said that if the United States attacks Iran, none of the American troops in the region will go back home alive.

“If the US seriously threatens Iran and takes an action against Iran, none of the US soldiers in the region will return to America alive,” Fars news agency quoted him as saying on Thursday.

Firouzabadi made the remarks in reaction to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said on Tuesday that Washington was keeping “all options” on the table for dealing with Iran and North Korea.

“If there is a message for Iran and North Korea here, it is that if you’re going to play by the rules, if you’re going to join the international community, then we will undertake certain obligations to you,” AFP quoted Gates as saying.

Firouzabadi also said if the US takes action against Iran, the threats it would face increase exponentially and its economic problems skyrocket.

“If the US seriously threatens Iran and takes an action against Iran, the threats against it will become a thousand times more, its economic problems will increase and it will lose more markets,” he said.

Firouzabadi’s speech comes a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Washington’s latest nuclear policy.

The policy authorizes the use of nuclear arms against nations which violate the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Obama’s mention of Iran is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence indicating Iran is violating the NPT.

In response to the new nuclear strategy, Ahmadinejad lambasted the plan and advised his US counterpart not to repeat the “past mistakes” of the previous US governments.

“I advise Mr Obama to be careful. If he tries to follow in the footsteps of Mr [George W.] Bush, the response of the [Iranian] nation will be the same crushing response they gave to Bush,” President Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northwestern city of Orumiyeh.

The 50-page “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR) issued by the US administration was released on Tuesday. It purportedly restricts the use of US nuclear arms against some non-nuclear countries.

The new NPR by the Obama Administration restricts the use of US nuclear arms against some non-nuclear countries. Countries that “from the US perspective” do not comply with the NPT will be at risk of a possible nuclear attack.

The US has repeatedly accused Iran of failing to meet its obligations defined in the NPT — an allegation categorically denied by Tehran.

Iran was among the original countries that signed the NPT, a global pact aimed at curbing the spread of nuclear weapons across the globe.

Tehran says its nuclear work is monitored by the UN nuclear watchdog and is conducted in accordance with the NPT.

Three Disturbing Reports from the White House

April 8, 2010

Three Disturbing Reports from the White House | Editorial.

Lots of strange and disturbing things are coming from the White House now that the health-care issue is over:

1) Islamic terrorism is dropped into the memory hole.

President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century… – AP (Ha’aretz)

Well, I can understand him wanting to say “we are not fighting against Islam.” But we are fighting something and somebody. Someone killed 3000 Americans on 9/11 and someone is shooting at our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly motivated someones are lobbing rockets at Israel from Gaza and preparing a massive bombardment from Lebanon. And someone in Iran is developing nuclear weapons for some reason. How can we fight an ideology that we are not allowed to name?

The AP piece continues:

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a new beginning in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world.

“You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.'” That doesn’t make much sense, said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.

My brain actually hurts from thinking about this. Certainly the US should try to have good relations with Muslim countries. But should we ignore the fact that there is a vicious strain of Islamic extremism that expresses itself by trying to kill us? And worse, that there are many – in some Muslim countries a majority – who, while they don’t physically engage in terrorism themselves, support the extremists in principle or materially?

2) Contradictory nuclear guidelines appear.

I’m not going to try to analyze the administration’s new nuclear guidelines in detail; specialists in this sort of thing say that practically speaking there will be little change. But what is the advantage of proposing something that is intended to appear as a limitation, even if in practice it isn’t? Isn’t the whole idea of a deterrent to give the impression that if attacked we will respond in a devastating way? The assertion that we wouldn’t retaliate with nuclear weapons against a biological attack (but we reserve the right to do so) is self-contradictory and confusing.

Why is Obama playing with something that has been kept substantially unchanged by the last eleven US presidents?

Can I be excused for being suspicious, even paranoid? Do I suspect that this means that the administration is laying the groundwork for dealing with a nuclear Iran, which it considers inevitable? Do I also expect more pressure on Israel to join the non-proliferation treaty and give up its own nuclear deterrent? Yes on all.

3) Obama’s imposed ‘peace’ plan is floated.

Given the way this article in the NY Times is written, we can take it as having been dictated to the friendly newspaper by the administration. Replete with references to Netanyahu’s “right-wing party” and a suggestion that talks have been held up by Israeli intransigence on settlements – an outright lie – the piece appears to be a White House trial balloon. The plan implies an imposed settlement, possibly including US or NATO troops along the Jordan!

The most frightening part is that three out of the four presidential advisors mentioned in connection with the idea – Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and Robert Malley – are among the most anti-Israel elements in White House circles. Indeed, Obama was forced to disavow Brzezinski during the campaign when Jewish voters complained. Dennis Ross, the most experienced and knowledgeable Mideast expert associated with the administration was not quoted or mentioned in the article.

Can’t we get Obama interested in something else? He’s really out of his depth in foreign affairs.