Archive for April 2010

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

‘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.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

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.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran’s president attacks Obama on nuclear threat | Reuters

April 8, 2010

Iran’s president attacks Obama on nuclear threat | Reuters.

EDITORS' NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on leaving the office to report, film or take pictures in Tehran. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (C) holds a flag as he waves to his supporters during his provincial trip to Orumieh, 946 km (591 miles) north west of Tehran, April 7, 2010. REUTERS/President.ir/Handout

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s president issued a scathing personal attack on U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday, calling him an “inexperienced amateur” who was quick to threaten to use nuclear weapons against U.S. enemies.

Commenting on new U.S. policy restrictions on the use of atomic weapons which sent a stern message to nuclear-defiant Iran that it remained a potential target, hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Obama that Iran would not yield to threats.

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

Obama made a diplomatic overture to Tehran soon after taking office in 2009, urging it to “unclench its fist.”

But since then a confrontation has intensified over Iran’s nuclear activities which the West suspects are aimed at developing an atomic bomb and Tehran says are for civilian use.

Obama is urging U.N. Security Council members to back new sanctions against Iran.

His changes to U.S. weapons policy were announced before a nuclear summit in Washington next week. He renounced the development of new atomic weapons and ruled out the use of nuclear arms against non-nuclear armed states.

But this came with a condition. Countries would be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran and North Korea would thus not be protected and be potential targets.

“Yesterday some news was published saying that he (Obama) has threatened to use nuclear and biochemical weapons against countries that don’t comply with America and which do not yield to America’s pressure,” Ahmadinejad said in the speech from the northwestern city of Urmia. “We hope these reports are false.”

Iran will host its own Nuclear Disarmament Conference on April 17-18. China, which has been courted by Obama to support sanctions against Iran, has said it might attend.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Wednesday that China would join talks with the United States, Britain, Russia, France and Germany in New York on Thursday to discuss possible sanctions against Iran

But he indicated this was not necessarily a sign that China was dropping its resistance to sanctions.

“Negotiations will be long, will they be over by the end of April? I hope so,” Kouchner said.

IRAN WARNS ISRAEL

Iran repeated warnings to Israel not to attack.

“If they (Israel) attack Iran, possibly no trace will be left from the Zionist regime (Israel),” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi was quoted as saying by semi-official Mehr news agency.

Israel has hinted it could strike Iran in an effort to halt the nuclear activities. Iran has threatened to retaliate for any attack by firing missiles at Israel, which is believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal.

A deputy of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the elite Revolutionary Guards made similar threats on Tuesday.

The United States and its allies hope to get new sanctions imposed in the coming weeks over Iran’s nuclear enrichment work, after failing to reach a fuel-swap agreement with Tehran.

Iran, which says it needs nuclear technology to generate power and for medical reasons, says it would hand over its low-grade enriched uranium in return for higher-grade uranium, but the swap must be carried out inside the country under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“We have a positive attitude toward the fuel swapping idea … provided it is done within Iran,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference on Wednesday.

Russia, which, like China, is under intense Western pressure to support tougher U.N. sanctions has so far failed to deliver a S-300 anti-aircraft system Iran has ordered, a move which has irritated Iranian officials.

But Defense Minister Vahidi said Russia had no intention of breaking the agreement to sell the missile system. “Russia is committed to our agreements over the S-300 system. They have told us that the system will be delivered to Iran on time.”

Analysts say the S-300 could help Iran to thwart any attempt by Israel or the United States — which have refused to rule out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the atomic row — to bomb its nuclear facilities.

The truck-mounted S-300PMU1, known in the West as the SA-20, can shoot down cruise missiles and aircraft. It has a range of 150 km (90 miles) and travels at more than 2 km per second.

(Additional reporting by Ramin Mostafavi and Hossein Jaseb, Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by Noah Barkin)

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: 1 Comment

Is Israel Facing War With Hezbollah and Syria?

April 8, 2010

Is Israel Facing War With Hezbollah and Syria?.

By David Schenker for JCPA
on Thursday, April 08, 2010
•Concerns about Israeli hostilities with Hizbullah are nothing new, but based on recent pronouncements from Syria, if the situation degenerates, fighting could take on a regional dimension not seen since 1973.

•On February 26, Syrian President Bashar Assad hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Damascus. Afterward, Hizbullah’s online magazine Al Intiqad suggested that war with Israel was on the horizon.

•Raising tensions further are reports that Syria has provided Hizbullah with the advanced, Russian-made, shoulder-fired, Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, which could inhibit Israeli air operations over Lebanon in a future conflict. The transfer of this equipment had previously been defined by Israeli officials as a “red line.”

•In the summer of 2006, Syria sat on the sidelines as Hizbullah fought Israel to a standstill. After the war, Assad, who during the fighting received public assurances from then-Prime Minister Olmert that Syria would not be targeted, took credit for the “divine victory.”

•Damascus’ support for “resistance” was on full display at the Arab Summit in Libya in late March 2010, where Assad urged Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to abandon U.S.-supported negotiations and “take up arms against Israel.”

•After years of diplomatic isolation, Damascus has finally broken the code to Europe, and appears to be on the verge of doing so with the Obama administration as well. Currently, Syria appears to be in a position where it can cultivate its ties with the West without sacrificing its support for terrorism.
In February 2010, tensions spiked between Israel and its northern neighbors. First, Syrian and Israeli officials engaged in a war of words, complete with dueling threats of regime change and targeting civilian populations. Weeks later, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah pledged to go toe-to-toe with Israel in the next war.1 Then, toward the end of the month, Israel began military maneuvers in the north. Finally, on February 26, Syrian President Bashar Assad hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah for an unprecedented dinner meeting in Damascus.
Concerns about Israeli hostilities with Hizbullah are nothing new, but based on recent pronouncements from Damascus, if the situation degenerates, fighting could take on a regional dimension not seen since 1973. In January and February, Syrian officials indicated that, unlike during the 2006 fighting in Lebanon, Damascus would not “sit idly by” in the next war.2 While these statements may be bravado, it’s not difficult to imagine Syria being drawn into the conflict.
The Israeli government has taken steps to alleviate tensions, including, most prominently, Prime Minister Netanyahu issuing a gag order forbidding his ministers to discuss Syria.3 Still, the situation in the north remains volatile. Within a three-day span in mid-March: the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) fired at Israeli jets violating Lebanese airspace;4 four Lebanese nationals were charged with spying for Israel against Hizbullah;5 and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the Shiite militia was “building up its forces north of the Litani (river).” Currently, according to Ashkenazi, the border was calm, “but this can change.”6
It’s easy to see how the situation could deteriorate. Hizbullah retaliation against Israel for the 2008 assassination of its military leader Imad Mugniyyeh could spark a war. So could Hizbullah firing missiles in retribution for an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The transfer of sensitive Syrian technology to the Shiite militia could also prompt an Israeli strike. Regrettably, even if Israel continues to try and diffuse tensions in the north, given the central role Tehran has in determining Hizbullah policy, a third Lebanon war may be inevitable.

Martyrs Month Pronouncements

In mid-February, Hizbullah held the annual commemoration for its pantheon of heroes, a week of celebrations marking the organization’s top three martyrs – founding father Ragheb Harb, Secretary General Abbas Mussawi, and military leader Imad Mugniyyeh. On February 16 – Martyred Leaders Day – Nasrallah gave a speech where he defined a new, more aggressive posture toward Israel, upping the ante in the militia’s longstanding “balance of terror” strategy. Promising parity with Israeli strikes on Lebanon, Nasrallah threatened:
If you [Israel] bomb Rafik Hariri international airport in Beirut, we will bomb Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. If you bomb our docks, we will bomb your docks. If you bomb our oil refineries, we will bomb your oil refineries. If you bomb our factories, we will bomb your factories. And if you bomb our power plants, we will bomb your power plants.7

With current estimates suggesting that Hizbullah now possesses in excess of 40,000 missiles and rockets, Nasrallah’s threats have some resonance. Raising tensions further are reports that Syria has provided Hizbullah with the advanced, Russian-made, shoulder-fired, Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, which could inhibit Israeli air operations over Lebanon in a future conflict.8 The transfer of this equipment had previously been defined by Israeli officials as a “red line.”9 It is unclear whether such a transgression remains a casus belli.
In addition to laying out Hizbullah’s new targeting strategy, Nasrallah also discussed his yet unfulfilled pledge to retaliate against Israel for the 2008 killing of Mugniyyeh. Two years ago, immediately after the assassination, Nasrallah declared an “open war” against Israel, swearing vengeance for the group’s martyred leader. However, to date, the militia’s attempts to strike Israeli targets – in Azerbaijan and Turkey – have failed.10 During his speech, Nasrallah reiterated Hizbullah’s commitment to retaliate. “Our options are open and we have all the time in the world,” he said, adding, “What we want is a revenge that rises to the level of Imad Mugniyyeh.”11
The Damascus “Resistance” Summit

In recent years, meetings between Assad and Ahmadinejad have been routine occurrences. It has also been customary for senior Syrian and Iranian officials to visit their respective capitals – and to sign defense or economic agreements – immediately following meetings between the Assad regime and U.S. officials. So it came as little surprise that Ahmadinejad arrived in Damascus just days after Undersecretary of State William Burns departed the Syrian capital. The surprising part about his visit was that Hassan Nasrallah joined the presidents for dinner.
On the day before Nasrallah’s visit, Assad and Ahmadinejad made great efforts to demonstrate that Washington’s transparent efforts to drive a wedge between the thirty-year strategic allies had failed. In a press conference on February 25, Assad famously mocked U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the administration’s gambit to split Syria from Iran, announced the end of visa requirements for travel between the two states, and described “support for the resistance [a]s a moral and national duty in every nation, and also a [religious] legal duty.”12 He also said that he discussed with his Iranian counterpart “how to confront Israeli terrorism.”
While the Syria-Iran bilateral meeting and subsequent press conference was described in some detail by Assad regime insider Ibrahim Humaydi in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, far less is known about what Assad, Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah discussed during their dinner meeting the next day. According to the account in Hizbullah’s online magazine Al Intiqad, the meeting was about “the escalating strategic response of the axis of the confrontationist, rejectionist, and resistance states” to the U.S.-Israeli threat.13 Significantly, this article also suggested that war with Israel was on the horizon.
Resorting to the most extreme decision – that is, launching and setting a war on its path – will decide the final results. In any case, if reasonable calculations prevail, they will lead to producing comprehensive and specific [Israeli] compromises or it will lead to postponing the war which still waits for its most appropriate time for everyone.14

Based on its analysis of the trilateral summit in Damascus, this Hizbullah organ seems to be suggesting that a war, while not imminent, is inevitable.
The Weak Link

In the summer of 2006, Syria sat on the sidelines as Hizbullah fought Israel to a standstill. After the war, Assad, who during the fighting received public assurances from then-Prime Minister Olmert that Syria would not be targeted, took credit for the “divine victory.”15 Since then, Syria has upgraded its rhetorical and materiel support for the Shiite militia.16 Damascus has helped Hizbullah to fully rearm, reportedly providing the militia with cutting-edge Russian weaponry from its own stocks. In this context, Syrian officials have been increasingly trumpeting their support for, and loyalty to, the resistance, so much so that the official government-controlled Syrian press now proclaims that “Syrian foreign policy depends on supporting the resistance.”17
Damascus’ support for “resistance” was on full display at the Arab Summit in Libya in late March 2010. According to reports, at the meeting Assad urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to abandon U.S.-supported negotiations and “take up arms against Israel,” imparting his own experience that “the price of resistance is not higher than the price of peace.”18 During his speech before his fellow Arab leaders, Assad was equally hard-line in his prescriptions. At a minimum, he said, Arab states should cut off their relations with Israel. The “maximum” – and presumably preferable – policy option, he said, would be to support the resistance.19
Despite the rhetoric, however, it’s not clear that Syria is presently itching for a fight with Israel. After years of diplomatic isolation, Damascus has finally broken the code to Europe, and appears to be on the verge of doing so with the Obama administration, which recently announced the posting of a new ambassador and indicated a willingness to revise sanctions and modify U.S. economic pressures on Damascus.20 Currently, Syria appears to be in a position where it can cultivate its ties with the West without sacrificing its support for terrorism.
War would change this comfortable dynamic. In the event of an Israel-Hizbullah conflagration, pressures on Syria to participate would be intense. Furthermore, could Syria really watch an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities without responding? After so much crowing about its support for Hizbullah and its regional ilk, could Syria sit out yet another fight?

Conclusion

While it’s too early to predict the timing or the trigger, on Israel’s northern border there appears to be a growing sense that war is coming. Iran may have an interest in maintaining Hizbullah’s arsenal until an Israeli strike. Likewise, for Hizbullah, which lately has been playing up its Lebanese identity in an effort to improve its image at home, waging war on Israel on behalf of Iran could be problematic. In any event, it is all but assured that a war on Israel’s northern front will be determined, at least in part, by Tehran.
In early February, Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak told the IDF: “In the absence of an arrangement with Syria, we are liable to enter a belligerent clash with it that could reach the point of an all-out, regional war.”21 Regrettably, regardless of what happens between Syria and Israel in the coming months, the decision of war or peace with Hizbullah may be out of Israel’s hands.
To read more go to http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=283&PID=0&IID=3647&TTL=Is_Israel_Facing_War_with_Hizbullah_and_Syria?

*     *     *

Notes
* The author would like to thank his research assistant Cole Bunzel for his excellent assistance in the preparation of this article.

1. “Full Text of H.E. Sayyed Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders,” http://english.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=10225&cid=214.

2. “Syria Will Back Hizbullah Against IDF,” Jerusalem Post, January 6, 2010. Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem echoed this threat in February 2010; see “Al-Mouallem at Press Conference with Moratinos,” SANA, February 4, 2010. http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/02/04/270781.htm.

3. Attila Somfalvi, “Bibi Tells Ministers to Keep Mum on Syria,” Ynet, February 4, 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3844619,00.html. Netanyahu also reassured Syria that Israel remained interested in peace.

4. “Lebanese Army Fires on Israeli Warplanes,” AFP, March 21, 2010, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100321-260030/Lebanese-army-fires-on-Israeli-warplanes.

5. “Lebanon Charges Four with Spying for Israel,” Press TV, March 20, 2010, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121274§ionid=351020203.

6. Amnon Meranda, “Ashkenazi: Hamas Doesn’t Want a Flareup,” Ynet, March 23, 2010, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3866883,00.html.

7. “Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders.”

8. See, for example, Barak Ravid, “Israel Warns Hizbullah: We Won’t Tolerate Arms Smuggling,” Ha’aretz, October 12, 2008, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009384.html.

9. “Report: Hizbullah Trains on Missiles,” UPI, January 17, 2010, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2010/01/17/Report-Hezbollah-trains-on-missiles/UPI-51221263741141/.

10. See Yossi Melman, “Hizbullah, Iran Plotted Bombing of Israeli Embassy in Azerbaijan,” Ha’aretz, May 31, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1089204.html. Also Avi Isaacharoff, “Turkish Forces Foil Attack on Israeli Target,” Ha’aretz, December 9, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1133747.html.

11. “Nasrallah Speech on Day of Martyred Leaders.”

12. Ibrahim Humaydi, “Al Asad: Ta‘ziz al-‘alaqat bayna duwal al-mintaqa tariq wahid li-l-qarar al mustaqill,” Al Hayat, February 26, 2010, http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/112984.

13. “Qimmat Nejad-Al-Asad-Nasrallah: Ayy hisabat ba‘daha?” http://www.alintiqad.com/essaydetails.php?eid=27878&cid=4.

14. Ibid.

15. “Speech of Bashar Asad at Journalist Union 4th Conference,” August 15, 2006,

http://www.golan67.net/NEWS/president%20Assad%20Speech%2015-8-6.htm.

16. In addition to the Igla-S anti-aircraft missile, some unconfirmed reports indicate that Syria may have transferred some of its Scud-D missiles – capable of delivering chemical warheads – to Hizbullah.

17. “Junblatt wa-l-Tariq ila Dimashq,” Al Watan, March 10, 2010, http://alwatan.sy/dindex.php?idn=75718. That support for resistance is central to Syrian foreign policy comes as little surprise: in 2009, Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem volunteered to join Hizbullah. See “Muallem Says He’s Ready to Join Hizbullah,” Gulf News, May 3, 2009, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/lebanon/muallem-says-ready-to-join-hezbollah-1.248887.

18. “Arab Leaders Support Peace Plan,” AP, March 28, 2010, http://www.jpost.com/middleeast/article.aspx?id=171981.

19. Ziyad Haydar, “Qimmat sirte infaddat ‘ala ‘ajal…wa bila za‘al,” As Safir, March 29, 2010, http://www.assafir.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=3020&EditionId=1496&ChannelId=34736. In an interview following the summit, Syrian advisor Buthaina Sha‘ban declared victory for the Syrian position, saying that “an agreement took place among the Arab leaders in a closed session to support the resistance and reject normalization” with Israel.

20. Ibrahim Humaydi, “Washington tarfa‘ mu‘aradataha ‘udwiyat Suriya fi munazzimat al-tijara al-‘alamiya,” Al Hayat, February 24, 2010,. http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/112646.

21. Amos Harel, “Barak: Without Peace We Could Be Headed for All-Out War,” Ha’aretz, February 2, 2010, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1146731.html.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran will strike U.S. troops if attacked: army chief | Reuters

April 8, 2010

Iran will strike U.S. troops if attacked: army chief | Reuters.

(Reuters) – Iran would respond to any military attack from the United States by hitting U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East, its military commander said on Thursday.

“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.

His comments intensified hostile rhetoric in a week when U.S. President Barack Obama excluded Iran from a new policy restricting the use of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Obama is urging U.N. Security Council members to back new sanctions in the coming weeks to pressure Iran to curb a nuclear program which the West fears could lead it to make nuclear weapons.

Iran has also repeatedly warned Israel — which has hinted it could use military strikes against Iran’s nuclear activities — that it would respond militarily to any attack.

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.

Pressure on Iran could increase next week when Obama will host a summit on nuclear security to be attended by the leaders of China and Russia — the two Security Council veto holders he has been courting to support new U.N. sanctions.

(Reporting by Hashem Kalantari; writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Israel PM doubts sanctions have ‘teeth’ to dissuade Iran

April 7, 2010

IC Publications.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that he doubts the sanctions being mulled against Iran would be tough enough to rein in the Islamic republic’s nuclear ambitions.

“I doubt that such a programme will have teeth,” he said at a news conference in Jerusalem, referring to US-led efforts to slap new UN sanctions on Iran over its nuclear defiance.

Israel shares the US conviction that Iran, its arch-foe, is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons, a claim Tehran denies.

The sole, if undeclared nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, the Jewish state has repeatedly said it would not rule out a military option in dealing with Iran.

Netanyahu made the comments ahead of next week’s international summit on nuclear security summit in Washington, which he will attend.

The US administration said in a policy document presented on Tuesday that it would only use atomic arms in “extreme circumstances” and would not attack non-nuclear states, although Iran and North Korea were exceptions.

The Nuclear Posture Review described “nuclear terrorism” as an immediate and extreme threat, with efforts to prevent the spread of atomic weapons given top priority.

“This is a very, very serious issue that nuclear weapons, even crude nuclear weapons would find their way into the hands of terrorists and the consequences could be very very dire for all of humanity,” Netanyahu said.

Responding to a question, he deflected concerns the spotlight could be turned onto Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

“I’m not concerned that anyone will think that Israel is a terrorist regime. Everybody knows a terrorist and rogue regime when they see one, and believe me they see quite a few around Israel.”

Israel has never publicly acknowledged it has nuclear weapons and has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity since it inaugurated its Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev desert in 1965.

“This policy of ambiguity constitutes one of the pillars of Israeli national security and the Americans consider it very important,” Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told army radio.

“There is no reason for the Americans to change their approach or for Israel to change its position,” he said.

For the past four decades, Israeli governments have insisted the Jewish state will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

“This policy will continue and no pressure from any country will make it change,” Ayalon said.

In a slight departure from the usual wording, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, said in an interview with CNN last year that “to introduce” meant “to deploy.”

Foreign military experts believe Israel has an arsenal of several hundred nuclear weapons.

In 1969, Israeli leaders undertook not to make any statement on their country’s nuclear potential or carry out any nuclear test, while Washington agreed to refrain from exerting pressure on the issue.

The Israeli programme is under military censorship.

Like nuclear-armed countries India, Pakistan and North Korea, Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in order to avoid inspections by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama is right to keep America’s nuclear weapons trained on Iran – Telegraph

April 7, 2010

Obama is right to keep America’s nuclear weapons trained on Iran – Telegraph Blogs.

Ahmadinejad greets his supporters in the city of Oroumieh today (Photo: EPA)

Ahmadinejad greets his supporters in the city of Oroumieh today (Photo: EPA)

The hardline regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would do well to take note of U.S. President Barack Obama’s carefully-worded caveat about the conditions under which America might use its devastating stockpile of nuclear weapons.

In his Nuclear Posture Review, Mr Obama stresses that the role of America’s nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attacks on the U.S. and its allies, and rules out the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, even if they were to attack the U.S. with non-conventional weapons, such as chemical or biological devices.

But he makes an important exception with regard to both Iran and North Korea. While stating that he would refrain from launching nuclear attacks against countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this constraint only applies to those countries that are in compliance with the NPT, which both North Korea and Iran are most certainly not.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might think he can drum up domestic support by denouncing Mr Obama’s policy as that of a “cowboy”, but he would do well to give its implications serious consideration. The West is heading for a fresh confrontation with Iran over its refusal to freeze its uranium enrichment programme, with a new round of sanctions likely to be implemented in the next few weeks.

But if Iran continues to defy world opinion and presses ahead with its attempts to build an atom bomb, it could easily find itself in the target sights of America’s nuclear technicians.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Now Netanyahu gets it – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

April 7, 2010

Now Netanyahu gets it – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Sever Plocker offers breakdown of Netanyahu-Obama dialogue over past year

Published: 04.07.10, 18:06 / Israel Opinion
After patiently listening to his guest’s scholarly lecture, Obama said the following words to Netanyahu: I feel for you, the Israelis, and therefore I recommend that we set a binding timetable for resolving the conflict between you and the Palestinians. I’m determined to end it no later than a year before my first term in office ends. More than 40 years have passed since you occupied the territories and there is no reason to delay or waste more time: Everyone knows what the final-status agreement will look like. You do too. Bill Clinton outlined it in detail. George W. Bush endorsed it. As a black president with Muslims roots, I can get more benefits for you out of the Arabs than my two predecessors.

I therefore expect you, Mr. Prime Minister of Israel, to show guts, draw courage, and lead your state to peace in 2011. The settlement construction freeze is needed only as a start. Meanwhile, I will make the following pledge to you: As long as I am America’s president, Iran will not possess military nuclear capabilities. This I swear. God bless you, Mr. Netanyahu; God bless the people of Israel.

Netanyahu heard this and was stunned. A week before the meeting, he rejected Finance Minister Dr. Yuval Steintiz’s advice not to travel to America, and instead was tempted by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who as always promised a pleasant and friendly conversation with Obama. The aides and advisors prepared Netanyahu for a clash over the issue of Jerusalem construction: He arrived at the White House equipped with good explanations. Yet he was not prepared to hear, from the president, a firm, unequivocal and blatant demand to complete the negotiations (which had not yet started) within a year and a half. He felt the ground is shifting below his feet; his predications and assessments crumbled.

People who spoke with Netanyahu before the elections can attest to his position at the time. Netanyahu viewed himself as a person chosen by history for one mission only: Freeing Israel from the horror of an Iranian nuclear bomb. He did not link the enlistment of US support against Iran to an agreement with the Palestinians. With complete conviction, he argued that the conflict had been resolved in fact, and that the reality which had emerged in the territories is the solution. This is what we have: A Palestinian parliament already exists, as well as Palestinian elections, a Palestinian prime minister, a Palestinian flag, a Palestinian area code, and Palestinian police. They have full autonomy; almost a state.

A focused president

Netanyahu pinned great hopes on advancing the Palestinian economy and reinforcing its institutions; through actions, rather than slogans. The diplomatic process – that is, the shining path that his predecessors took to nowhere – appeared to him as a needless diversion. A sort of ritual. Netanyahu was not excited over its existence, but was willing to take part in it in order to pay lip service. In his view, which was shared by many others, the demographic and political developments – half a million Israelis living beyond the 1967 borders, as well as the Hamas state in Gaza – pre-empted and annulled any thought of a final-status agreement.

The sense of disgust with the “diplomatic process” prompted author and journalist Tom Friedman to urge President Obama to refrain from US involvement in Israeli-Palestinian talks, at least until the sides are prepared for mutual concessions. Up until a month or two ago, it appeared that the Administration in Washington took Friedman’s advice and that Netanyahu’s approach proved itself. Obama conveyed a sense of voluntarily helplessness.

Yet then came the shock, the consternation, and the pressure. Suddenly, the prime minister of Israel found himself facing an American president who is focused on his objective. A president who shakes his finger at the PM and says: Mr. Netanyahu, in order to hit Iran I need an agreement in Palestine. The time for evasive maneuvers has run out. It’s either peace now, sir, or you will pay now.

When Salam Fayyad, the most moderate and pro-American prime minister the Palestinians ever had, and will ever have, declared in Passover that soon his people will celebrate the establishment of their new state, which will be recognized by the world and by Israel with Jerusalem as its capital, it was Barack Obama who spoke from Fayyad’s mouth. Both of them share the same vision.

Now Netanyahu understands. Now he needs to either make a decision, or go home.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

American Jewry’s deafening silence

April 7, 2010

American Jewry’s deafening silence

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

Al Arabiya | Obama an “inexperienced amateur”: Iran leader

April 7, 2010

Middle East News | Obama an “inexperienced amateur”: Iran leader.

Ahmadinejad (C) llashed out after the US unveiled new limits on use of its nuclear arsenal (File)
Iran’s president made a scathing and personal attack on U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday as an “inexperienced amateur” who was too quick to threaten to use nuclear weapons against enemies of the United States.

Ahmadinejad lashed out after the United States unveiled new limits on use of the nation’s nuclear arsenal, but suggested that exceptions could be made for “outliers” such as Iran and North Korea, both accused by the West of flouting U.N. resolutions concerning their nuclear programs.

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

Obama had made a diplomatic overture to Tehran soon after he took power in 2009, urging it to “unclench its fist”.

But since then a confrontation has intensified over Iran’s nuclear activities which the West suspects aims to develop an atomic bomb and which Tehran says is for civilian use.

Obama has recently urged U.N. Security Council members to back new sanctions against Iran.

His changes to U.S. weapons policy were announced before a nuclear summit in Washington next week. He renounced the development of new atomic weapons and ruled out the use of nuclear arms against non-nuclear armed states.

But this came with a condition. Countries would be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran and North Korea would thus not be protected and be potential targets.

“Yesterday some news was published saying that he (Obama) has threatened to use nuclear and biochemical weapons against countries that don’t comply with America and which do not yield to America’s pressure,” Ahmadinejad said. “We hope these reports are false.”

“Be careful. If you set step in Mr. (George W.) Bush’s path, the nations’ response would be the same tooth-breaking one as they gave Bush,” he added as crowds in the northwestern city of Orumieh cheered “Death to America.”

Iran will host its own Nuclear Disarmament Conference on April 17-18 which China, courted by Obama to support sanctions against Iran, has said it might attend.

Iran, which says its nuclear program is for entirely peaceful ends, also repeated warnings to Israel not to attack.

“If they (Israel) attack Iran, possibly no trace will be left from the Zionist regime (Israel),” Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi was quoted as saying by semi-official Mehr news agency.

Israel has hinted it could strike Iran in an effort to halt the nuclear activities. Iran has threatened to retaliate for any attack by firing missiles at Israel, which is believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal.

A deputy of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the elite revolutionary Guards made similar threats on Tuesday.

The United States and its allies hope to get new sanctions imposed in the coming weeks over Iran’s nuclear enrichment work, after failing to reach a fuel-swap agreement with Tehran.

Iran, which says it needs nuclear technology to generate power and for medical reasons, says it would hand over its low-grade enriched uranium in return for higher-grade uranium, but the swap must be carried out inside the country under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy agency.

“We have a positive attitude towards the fuel swapping idea … provided it is done within Iran,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference on Wednesday.

Russia, which, like China, is under intense Western pressure to support tougher U.N. sanctions has so far failed to deliver a S-300 anti-aircraft system Iran has ordered, a move which has irritated Iranian officials.

But Defence Minister Vahidi said Russia had no intention of breaking the agreement to sell the missile system. “Russia is committed to our agreements over the S-300 system. They have told us that the system will be delivered to Iran on time.”

The truck-mounted S-300PMU1, known in the West as the SA-20, can shoot down cruise missiles and aircraft. It has a range of 150 km (90 miles) and travels at more than 2 km per second.

Categories: Iran / Israel War

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »