WarSclerotic

Israel Army Chief Of Staff: Gaza Will Not Turn Into Iranian Port – The Philadelphia Bulletin.

By DAVID BEDEIN, Middle East CorrespondentTuesday, June 29, 2010

JERUSALEM – “If the flotilla arrives from Lebanon we will deal with it, whether its intentions are peaceful or hostile. We will not let Gaza become Iran’s home port.”

This was the statement released this week by Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi.

The Israeli Army Chief of staff commented on the flotilla that is scheduled to arrive from Lebanon, saying: “We will not let the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers be attacked; we have an inherent right to prevent arms from being brought into the country.” The chief of staff also commented on the events of the flotilla from Turkey, saying: “The combatants responded properly and acted in an extraordinary manner, and I salute them.”

Contradictory reports continued regarding the departure date of the Lebanese flotilla and the Iranian ships to Gaza. One of the organizers, Samar al-Hajj, said that this was deliberate. The Iranian media reported that a ship belonging to the Iranian Red Crescent called the “Gaza children’s ship” would leave for Gaza this coming Sunday, bearing 1,100 tons of aid supplies.

The Arab media also reported that the Julia and the Miriam were scheduled to leave at the beginning of next week from the port of Tripoli in northern Lebanon for Cyprus — and from there sail towards the Gaza Strip.

Jamal al-Khudari, a Palestinian Legislative Council member and head of the Popular Committee Against the Siege, said yesterday that the Lebanese ships would also have on board 12 former senior members of the U.S. administration, Lebanese citizens and peace activists from all over the world. He said that in mid-July another flotilla would leave Lebanon for Gaza, consisting of 15-20 ships.

Israeli officials are not taking any chances in advance of the anticipated flotillas and are seriously examining every possible scenario. One such scenario that was addressed in a meeting in the Prime Minister’s Office involved the presence of a suicide bomber on board the ship who would be waiting for the Naval Commandos.

In that scenario, it is not at all certain that the women on board the ship would be aware of the presence of a suicide bomber, whose goal would be to carry out a high-profile terror attack. Given the concerns about the presence of a suicide bomber on board, a number of additional steps will be taken prior to boarding the boat.

A senior Lebanese official in Beirut said in an interview to Al-Jazeera that despite all of Hezbollah’s denials that it had any connection to the flotilla to Gaza, Prime Minister Saad Hariri took the matter up with Nasrallah and asked him to cancel the flotilla. Nasrallah rejected the Lebanese prime minister’s request, claiming that Hezbollah was not responsible for the flotilla. Nasrallah said that Hariri needed to make his request to the organizations, activists in the Free Palestine organization and Journalists Without Borders.

Israeli government officials have already submitted a request to Cyprus not to allow Lebanese ships that intend to sail to Gaza to leave its ports.

Flotilla Organizer: “Our Ships Will Take The Israelis Back To Europe”

The financier of the Lebanese flotilla, the Syrian businessman of Palestinian extraction Yasser Kashlak, gave an interview to Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television station, in which he left no room for doubt as to the nature of the “Lebanese peace flotilla.” Kashlak said that, “I become more and more optimistic every time the Israelis, that band of criminal pirates, confiscates a ship because the day will come when those ships will transport the remains of that European trash that came to my homeland and will return them back to their homeland. Let Gilad Shalit return to Paris, and those murderers return to Poland, and then we will pursue them until the end of the world to bring them to justice for the massacres that they have committed from Dir Yassin to this very day.”

Kashlak called Israel a “stray dog that was sent to the region to frighten the Arabs,” and added: “I have a message for the Israelis: get on the boats that we’re sending you and go back to your countries. Don’t let the moderate Arab leaders deceive you. You won’t be able to make peace with us. Our children will return to Palestine. There is no reason for coexistence. Even if our leaders have signed peace agreements with you, we will not sign them.”

Israel has warned the United Nations (UN) about the danger posed to the Middle East by the flotilla that is being planned.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev sent a personal letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the current president of the UN Security Council in which she warned against the “provocative flotilla” that was liable to have an impact on security in the entire region. Shalev wrote: “The organizers of the flotilla have repeatedly declared their intention to be shahids, and there appears to be a direct link between them and Hamas activists. The possibility that either terrorists or weapons will be smuggled on board the ship to Gaza cannot be ruled out. Given that and on the basis of the departure of the ship from Lebanon—and in light of the ongoing conflict between the terrorist organization Hamas, which controls Gaza, and Israel, Israel announces that it reserves the right to use all necessary means, and this is in keeping with international law, to prevent those ships from breaking the maritime blockade,” wrote Shalev.

Navy Command Ready For Next Flotilla

The Israeli Navy is already on high alert for the possibility that another flotilla will set sail for Gaza, this time from Lebanon. Last Friday, Naval Commando combat troops assembled at the unit’s base in Atlit and, in the presence of Navy Commander Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, the orders of Operation Sky Winds were read to them.

In the wake of media reports from Lebanon, the IDF went on alert in order to track the flotilla and gather intelligence that would assist the IDF’s response. IDF officials believe that the flotilla from Lebanon will not set sail over the next several days. “As of now, we know that activists are gathering and that one ship is being organized in Lebanon,” a Navy officer said. “They intend to purchase additional ships. However, we are prepared to set out on an operation within hours.”

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah: Barack Obama’s most important friend – Telegraph Blogs.

Barack Obama with King Abdullah at the G20 conference (Photo: AFP/Getty)

President Obama meets King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia later today, and though I don’t suppose it will be picked up much it’s probably far more important than any White House meetings he will have with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinians, or even David Cameron.

There’s something so weird to Western eyes, obsessed with youth and the cut of your suit and the colour of your tie, about seeing an 86 year-old in a white robe turn up at the White House that it doesn’t compute into importance in our minds. Saudi Arabia, too, is a subject that makes both liberals and neo-cons nervous. Nervous? Apoplectic with rage, more like.

But the facts have to be faced: Saudi is America’s second-most important ally in the Middle East, and nowadays a lot easier to deal with than the number one. It is certainly a strategic asset, and King Abdullah represents a better hope for a Saudi Arabia we can grow to respect than most other leaders it has had. Abdullah may be an absolute monarch of a state where Christianity is banned, executions are public, jihadism is rife and women are, well, not given to overt displays of “Girl Power”. But he argues for a Middle East that tackles fundamentalism head-on but humanely, that is willing to accept the existence of Israel, even if it does not actively welcome it, and above all is tough on Iran. Tough on Iran? If Saudi Arabia poses a real problem to America it is that its hatred of Iran is so intense that sometimes it cannot think straight about it.

There are many rumours, all denied, suggesting that Saudi Arabia is prepared to cooperate in an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. That may all be a clever game of bluff. What is undeniably true is that Riyadh cannot accept the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, which would enable it to exert its regional influence, particularly in countries like Saudi Arabia with substantial Shia populations, and at the same time does not believe sanctions will work.

Obama, his advisers and his generals – and, I truly think, the entire Washington establishment except for a handful of particularly gung-ho neo-cons like John Bolton – do not think they have any realistic solution to the Iran dilemma. The fall-out from a military attack, either by the States itself or by Israel, would be horrendous and, in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, currently unimaginable. In a year or two, they might just believe it worth taking a risk, but I have a hunch that Obama, and perhaps most Republicans too, now acknowledge that this it is a risk that cannot be taken without the implicit approval of Iran’s neighbours, in the same way that an attack on North Korea’s nuclear facilities was never going to happen because South Korea would never allow it. Hence the importance of King Abdullah’s visit, while he is only 86 and still whizzing around the world.

The standard AFP diplomatic round-up I link to here quotes a Dubai-based analyst, Mustafa Alani, interestingly and amusingly: “The Saudis believe strongly that economic sanctions will have no effect.” But, he says, “they have no answer” as to an alternative. Dr Alani is both astute and an excellent interpreter of Saudi thinking – his base, the Gulf Research Centre, is part Saudi-funded. And he’s right to say that this is the impression we have of Saudi thinking – a lot of bluster about the inadequacy of the world’s response to Iran, but not much on what it would have done differently.

I do wonder though whether, in the strictest privacy, King Abdullah will be telling Mr Obama exactly how far he’s prepared to see him go.

Saudi-US Alliance – An Obstacle Against War On Terrorism?.

By R. Upadhyay

Saudi-US alliance which is primarily a bargain of oil for security for over half a century is perhaps the most improbable engagement between the two socially, politically and religiously opposite societies in the modern world.

Saudi Arabia claims to be a true Islamic state but its strategic alliance with an infidel “Crusader” may be against the Islamist doctrine of Wahhabism which is the political ideology of the Saudi Monarchy. Similarly United States which is a democratic Super Power having alliance with an authoritarian Islamist Monarchy that is ideologically opposed to the modern world view and is also known as a financial and ideological source of the on going global terrorism is nothing but an example of political opportunism. Although it is hard to imagine a close relation between the religiously intolerant and xenophobic Wahhabi monarchy against  non-Muslims and a democratic Christian power believing in modern worldview, their self-seeking interest over ideology was a common ground for this still going alliance. If  successive Saudi kings using their oil wealth in winning over the Mullhas and Islamic scholars interpreted Islam according to the security needs of the kingdom, the successive US presidents since 1940s too ignored the direct or indirect Saudi support to the Islamist terror groups.

Historically, the might of sword and opportunistic alliance have all along been the decisive factor in the politics of Middle-East. Saudi King Abd al Aziz also became the custodian of the two holiest shrines of Islam not due to any spiritual background but only with the might of the sword power of his Wahhabi militia known as Ikhwan when he conquered Hijaj province for the second and the last time in 1924. After conquering the two shrines from the agent of Ottoman Caliph, he became the self-made guardian of Islam and started consolidating his monarchy through a strategic pact with infidel British power in 1927 and put restrictions on any further Jihad in the region particularly against the protectorates of the British.

Ikhwan militia however revolted against the alliance with Christian infidel which they considered un-Islamic. With the support of the British the Saudi King crushed the revolt in the battle of Sibila in 1929 and established Saudi Arabia in 1932 as a sovereign monarchy. Since his sword power was found losing its sharpness due to Ikhwan revolt and he was always afraid of the militant character of his neighbouring war lords due to his incredible history of grabbing the guardianship of the two holiest shrines, he was much concerned of the political stability and territorial integrity of his kingdom than to continue the Wahhabi mission of Jihad. Therefore, with a view to defend the kingdom from his rivals, he had an opportunistic alliance with infidel British. Although, he betrayed his own Wahhabi militia Ikhwan, he tried to justify his alliance with infidels declaring, “the Prophet Mohammad had sought the help of infidels when it was needed” (Religion and Politics in Saudi Arabia – Edited by Mohammad Ayoob and Hasan Kosebalaban, Lynne Rienner Publisher, London, 2009 page 123). Even though Islamist scholars did not approve such interpretation the Saudi kings continued to treat the Christian infidels as their valued allies.

With the end of World War II and beginning of Cold War, international political scene was primarily focussed around the rivalry between the two super powers the United States and the Soviet Union. Initially, the Saudi Monarchy tried to remain outside the arena of the direct confrontation between Washington and Moscow but when the divided Wahhabi group in the country had relatively been losing their hold the prime strategic concern of Saudi Monarchy was the encirclement of the region by Soviet Union and the security of its biggest treasure oil. Accordingly, it preferred to have a strategic alliance with another infidel Christian power United States to defend the kingdom from Soviet Union and other hostile neighbours. Since Saudi Arabia does not share any border with United States, it eliminated the chance of any trans-border problem from America.

Although, the official position of Saudi Arabia was against the presence of any infidel forces in the kingdom, its suspicion over the nature of Soviet threat in the region compelled it to allow the US Air Force to use Dahran Air base temporarily in 1946. Subsequently, the mutual defence assistance agreement in 1951 steadily expanded the relation during the Cold War. Under the agreement while US provided military equipment to Saudi Arabia, the latter authorized the former to establish a permanent United States Military Training Mission in the kingdom.

Since the discovery of oil resources in the kingdom oil remained the cornerstone of Saudi’s foreign as well as security policy.  It therefore gave contract to American companies for exploration of oil. Wahhabism believes in Darul Islam and therefore any friendly relation with infidel countries like United States which is Darul Harab (Land of War) is un-Islamic. However with the objective to protect the kingdom from hostile neighbours and Soviet Union Saudi Monarchy compromised its Wahhabi ideology with a bargain of oil for security. Wahhabism remained its policy only for domestic affairs and for the Muslim world. Such a double standard of the custodian of the holiest shrines of Islam which attracts the daily ovation of Muslim world suggests that Saudi Monarchy has been using the tools of Islamist orthodoxy only to control the people of the kingdom and for furthering the personal agenda of the huge royal family members in Muslim world.

Saudi Monarchy  had strong reservations against establishment of Israel in former Arab-dominated territory of Palestine. However, despite periodic strains in Saudi-US relationship caused by differences over latter’s close strategic relation with Israel since its establishment in 1948, Saudi-US relationship continued due to their mutual interest even though the monarchy did not extend any diplomatic recognition to Israel. In fact during Cold War era Saudi regime was more concerned of its security primarily against pro-Soviet Egypt, Syria, and South Yemen known to be the champions of Arab nationalism than US relations with Israel.

Although, the US Congressional leaders were opposed to the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia apprehending their use against Israel, the US Government did not stop it and kept its commitments. Thus, the nascent alliance since mid 1940s between the two countries based on bargain of oil for security is still continuing. Even the close relation of Israel with United States never came in the way of Saudi’s defence assistance agreement with the latter. In fact despite a significant section of US Congress, media and think tanks were opposed to the Islamist design of Saudi Arabia, the relation between the two worked out for more than half a century without any major problem due to pressure from US petroleum companies which had huge financial contracts for developing oilfields in the kingdom and needed its security and political stability. Accordingly, the US army provided training to the Saudi army and also constructed the airfield at Dhahran.

In fact, Since 1940s, the successive US presidents not only valued Saudi Arabia as an important base in handling Middle East political game and also as a fortification against Soviet Union Communism but also for their economic benefit through various contracts in modernisation of its airports, hospitals, electric power stations, military bases and other development related projects. Americans may declare of their concern for human rights but they looked other way seeing the judicial actions of even the public display of severed hands and other punishments like whipping of women and stoning to death of persons violating Islamic laws. They also took a stand not to interfere even in the prevailing bigotry in this country against the non-Muslims. Ironically, despite the consistent efforts of United State to convert Saudi Arabia to a most developed state  consistent military support to it against Egypt in 1963, Iran- Iraq war in 1980 and quick response by dispatching about a half million troops to ward off potential threat from Iraq in 1990, Saudi Arabia never allowed any societal change as per American modern world view.

The first dent on Saudi-US special relation by US people was only after September 11, 2001 terror attacks in their land in which 15 out of 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens. In a televised address to the joint session of US Congress on September 20, 2001 Bush declared, “Our ‘war on terror’ begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. Similarly, on January 20, 2009, his successor Barack Obama said, “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In this high voltage campaign with the stated objective to eliminate this global menace, the US Presidents might have tried to convince the world in general and their own people in particular spelling out their determination to fight against terrorism but in absence of any action oriented programme against the Jihadi ideology of their trusted allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the main power behind the on going terror war they failed to achieve any effective result. What to talk of any action, Barack Obama was so soft in his campaign that instead of using the word terror, he replaced it with “violence and hatred” against the heinous and inhuman crime like Islamist terrorism.

Despite the US media hype questioning the role of Saudi Kingdom in war against terrorism, US administration is still not clear about the future of its ties with this Islamist Monarchy. Boston Herald in its report dated October 12, 2001 just after a month of terror attacks in US quoted some experts saying “Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Saudi Arabia has been a reluctant ally, refusing to let the U.S. use Saudi bases as staging areas for military operations in Afghanistan. The Saudis have also balked at freezing the assets of organizations linked to bin Laden and international terrorism, some of which are Saudi-run.” Similarly, Los Angeles Times in its issue dated March 8, 2003 reported, “The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.”.

Since Middle East oil and huge business with Islamist countries are more important for Americans, they hardly take any interest in crimes against humanity so long it does not affect their country. US had enlisted Iran as sponsor state of International terrorism and George Bush had named Iran, Iraq and North Korea as axis of evil.  Even though 15 out of 19 terrorists involved in September 11 attack were Saudi citizens he neither included Saudi Arabia in the US list of the sponsor states of Islamist terrorism nor in the axis of evil. Such double standards of US Government in dealing with terrorism by ignoring Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which are known as main sponsor states for terrorism exposed its so called commitment to eliminate this global menace. They remained satisfied that there was no repetition of September 11 in their country and therefore, former President’s commitment for the total elimination of terrorism from the world was kept in a cold storage because they don’t want to annoy Saudi Arabia.  A Harvard International Review report says, “Saudi Arabia imports more than US$4.5 billion per year from the United States and the links between the two countries involved tens of thousands of Saudis and US citizens working together”.

Although, Saudi Arabia criticised terrorism for public consumption, it did not co-operate with American agencies investigating the involvement of Saudi citizens in September 11 terror attacks. In fact the Saudi citizens from all walks of life are still carrying negative perception against United States. During Gulf War (1990-91) when Iraq attacked Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was at receiving end, arrival of US troops in Saudi Arabia protected the latter from the army of Saddam Hussain. However, US invasion of Iraq was viewed in Saudi Arabia “as a neo-conservative plot by Washington and Israel to weaken the Arab world”. Islamist monarchy used more US goods, its management systems and benefits of modern technology than other countries and also got protection from hostile neighbours. US too earned billions of dollars through oil exploration and contract work for industrial developments in this country. But even though the relation between the two countries had benefited both, United States is still paying a heavy price.

Today you ask any Muslims in any profession from a taxi driver to university professor to fix responsibility for the on going Islamic terrorism; they will not name Saudi Arabia or Pakistan but accuse America in one voice due to its relation with Israel. Like Osama bin Laden even a defiant Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad who pleaded guilty in US court and boasted himself a “Muslim soldier” to fight against America would become the hero of Muslim world. Despite the on going hate-America campaign launched by the Islamist world, hardly they have put pressure on Saudi Arabia to break its cosy relation with Washington which was consolidated with Defence Assistance Agreement in 1951 only three years after the establishment of Israel in Arab land in 1948. Ironically, even the Wahhabi Mullhas do not oppose Saudi-US relation as Saudi Monarchy has been hugely spending oil-earned money for the cause of Wahhabi Islam. Such mental frame of Muslim world suggests that the followers of Islam in general and its so called guardian Saudi Arabia in particular can never do a wrong. However, financial links between the royal family of Saudi Arabia and US authorities and military cooperation between Riyadh and Washington which translated into fabulous oil wealth conversion in dollar deposits in US banks are so strong that despite strains from time to time between the two countries their relation hardly faced any major problem during their decades old relationship.

It is a fact that the September 11 incident had adversely affected the old trust between the two countries and US is no more so liberal in granting visas to Saudi citizens.  The compulsion of its economic and strategic interest however, is a major reason which does not allow weakening the relation to a breaking point. Apart from it, major increase of imports from China into Saudi Arabia is also a signal that the latter has kept its option open for its import requirements even from other countries which will not be in the interest of America. Mutual interest between the two which extended into economic, political and military affairs is the main reason that Washington is now found compelled to maintain a low profile on its pledge for a decisive war against Islamist terrorism which is a part of the religio-political agenda of Islamist world prominently funded by Saudi Monarchy and strongly supported by its ally Pakistan.

Amazingly, despite the Jihadi threat Saudi Arabia is also facing, it does not want to take the risk of annoying the terror groups by providing active co-operation to US in its fight against terrorism. But due to huge commercial transaction in US dollar, the ruling royal family with deposits in trillions in US banks will think twice to break its relation with America. Thus, on surface Saudi Government may try to maintain smooth relation with America but gradually it will minimize its dependence on it. Besides, it is now improving relations relatively with its neighbouring regional powers and no more fully depending on America for its defence. It may not cancel the old military agreement but will not be ready to assist America in its war on terrorism.

If the remark of Saudi Prince Turki last month in Riyadh characterizing America’s policy in Afghanistan as “inept” and advising it to “hunt down terrorists on both sides of Afghanistan and Pakistan border and get out and let Afghan people to deal with problems” (Pioneer dated June 24) is believed it is apparently a reflection of Saudi mind against US, its old dependable ally. United States therefore, must try to understand that if the Saudis could ditch their trusted Ikhwan fighters who played prominent part in creation of the new Saudi regime, they will never think twice if they get favourable opportunity to join Jihad against the Crusaders which is the ideological focal point of Wahhabism. Saudi Prince might have given statement for public consumption that creation of Taliban in Afghanistan was not in the interest of the kingdom but the whole world is aware that there is no ideological difference between Wahhabism and actions of Taliban. Since the Saudi-US alliance is not congenial to the settled world order as the strategic alliance between two has posed a major obstacle against a decisive war on terrorism.

Iran Accuses U.S. of Psychological Warfare.

Accusing the U.S. of waging psychological warfare, Iran tried to undo the damage form the fourth round of Security Council sanctions for its uranium enrichment program. Western powers have grown increasingly suspicious of the Islamic Republic after finding Sept. 25, 2009 a new secret nuclear enrichment facility in the ancient city of Qom. Most of Iran’s known enrichment work centers on its underground facility in Natanz, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defiantly proclaimed that Iran would continue adding more sophisticated centrifuges, despite new U.N. sanctions and warnings from the U.S. and Israel. Calling the CIA a “fake report,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast blasted CIA Director Leon Panetta who claimed Sunday that Iran had enough low-grade fissile material for two bombs. Mehmanparast called the claim “psychological warfare.”

Iran insists that its nuclear program is “peaceful,” despite non-compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. It’s refusal to submit to routine inspections raises doubts in Western powers, concerned, as Panetta points out, that Iran could have a workable A-bomb by 2012. “Such remarks fall with the framework of psychological warfare aimed at creating a negative perception about Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities,” said Mehmanparast, refuting Panetta’s estimates of Iran’s work on a nuclear bomb. Had Ahamdinejad not threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” no matter how metaphorical or figurative, there would be less alarm over Iran’s nuclear program. Ahamadinejad and supreme religious leader Ayatollah Al Khanemei insist that Iran has a right to complete the nuclear fuel cycle. Iran, like Pakistan, believes that the bomb is the great equalizer.

Pakistan found out May 28, 1998 that detonating a nuclear bomb kept its archenemy India at bay. No matter how superior one’s military, the fear of mutual assured destruction restrains otherwise aggressive adversaries. Iran knows that its supremacy around the Persian Gulf is assured with an A-bomb. “The American officials, especially their intelligence apparatus, know that Iran’s nuclear program is in not way a military one but is aimed at peaceful purposes,” said Mehmanparast not denying Iran’s
interest in building a bomb. All the spokesman said is that Iran’s nuclear program is not military and for “peaceful purposes.” Pakistan and India have kept their nuclear program “peaceful,” to the extent that neither country has attacked the other. Iran wants the focus back on Israel that has an unofficial nuclear weapons program. Iran feels entitled to its nuclear program.

Iran blames the U.S. for distorting its nuclear intent and spreading unwarranted lies about its nuclear program. “Those who bring up such false reports seek to deflect world public option from the main concern . . . the nuclear arsenals of several countries and a certain regime,” said Mehmanparast, indirectly referring to Israel. U.S. authorities have given Israel, for safekeeping, a stockpile of nuclear weapons for its own defense. What many Middle Eastern countries don’t get is that the U.S. has its own strategic interest in stockpiling nuclear weapons in the Middle East. After Israel was attacked in 1967 and 1973, it became clear to the U.S. that it needed something more than a conventional arsenal to stave off would-be enemies. Since 1973, Israel has encountered sporadic mini-wars and terrorist attacks. No collective attempt to wipeout Israel State has occurred since 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Panetta acknowledged on ABC’s “This Week” June 27 that Iran was around two years away from building a nuclear device with its stockpile of low-grade enriched uranium. “Israel is very concerned about what’s happening in Iran,” said Panetta, putting the veiled threat of retaliation on the airwaves. Iran has been defiant about its nuclear enrichment program since the U.N. Security Council voted in a new round of sanctions June 9. Few arms control experts expect Iran to curtail or abandon its nuclear enrichment program anytime soon. Iran’s nuclear program began during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1975, under the administration of President Gerald R. Ford. No country that’s spent the last 35 years developing its nuclear program is going to buckle under international pressure. It’s going to take far more pressure—among other things—to get Tehran to back down.

U.N. and U.S. officials are at their wit’s end to reason with the current leadership in Tehran. Iran’s mullahs are 100% committed to taking the nuclear fuel cycle to its nth-degree, including building its first bomb. It’s unrealistic to expect Iran to abandon its great national goal of going nuclear. “This information has to be checked but such information is always worrying and all the more because the international community does not recognize the Iranian nuclear program as transparent,” said Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at a G20 economic forum in Toronto. Whether the U.N. Security Council recognizes Iran’s nuclear program or not, Ahmadinejad shows no signs of backing down. “You will take the wish to stop Iran’s nuclear activities to the grave,” said conservative parliament speaker and former arms negotiator Ali Larijani, telling the U.S. and U.N. to jump in a lake

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

French oil giant shuns Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Gasoline company Total joins list of global suppliers who stopped fuel sales to Islamic Republic

Reuters

Russia complains about German seizure of Iran items – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Moscow tells Security Council confiscation of technology bound for nuclear power plant in Islamic Republic ‘not in line’ with UN rules

Reuters

Mullen: Iran will continue to strive for nukes – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

U.S. military chief says there is ‘no reason to trust’ Iran’s assurances that it is only pursuing a peaceful nuclear program.

Adm. Mike Mullen said on Monday he believes Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons, even if sanctions against the country are increased.

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said it would be “incredibly dangerous” for Iran to achieve nuclear weapons, and that there’s “no reason to trust” Iran’s assurances that it is only pursuing a peaceful nuclear program, especially after the discovery of the secret nuclear facility in Khom.

But he said a military strike against Iran would be “incredibly destabilizing” to the region, and that he believed U.S. ally Israel understands that. The admiral was responding to questions about whether he shared the assessment of CIA Director Leon Panetta, who said on Sunday that Iran likely has enough nuclear material to make two weapons, but is at least a year away from being able to carry that out.

	Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Navy Admiral Michael Mullen
	Photo by: Reuters

Mullen has just returned from a multination tour that included a stop in Tel Aviv, where he met with his Israeli military counterpart to discuss Iran’s continuing defiance of the international community over the nuclear issue.

The UN Security Council approved new sanctions against Iran earlier this month. Congress and the European Union followed with additional measures aimed at discouraging Iran from continuing its uranium enrichment program, which they fear could be used to produce a nuclear weapon.

Mullen said there was no reason to expect Iran to conform to international norms, given its past behavior, but he declined to describe what measures the U.S. was considering. He has often said that all options remain on the table.

He explained that the hardest part about trying to decide what to do about Iran is how much the U.S. does not know about the country’s nuclear progress.

When asked whether he thought Israel would give the United States time to see whether tougher sanctions or talks would produce more cooperation from Iran, he would only say that he believes the U.S. and Israel are “in synch” with their current policies.

Pressure on Iran as oil firms stop petrol sales – Scotsman.com News.

The developments underlined the oil producer’s increasing international isolation over a nuclear programme it says is aimed at generating electricity but major powers suspect is intended for making bombs.

France’s Total joined a growing list of co

mpanies that have stopped petrol sales to Iran, and Spain’s Repsol said it had pulled out of a contract to develop part of the country’s huge South Pars gas field in the Gulf.

“Total has suspended its sales of gasoline or refined products to Iran,” a company spokesman said in Paris.

The decisions were announced four days after the United States Congress approved a bill to penalise firms supplying petrol to Iran, which is the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter but lacks sufficient refining capacity for its own fuel needs.

Moving to implement the latest round of measures, the UAE’s central bank has told financial institutions to freeze accounts belonging to dozens of Iran-linked firms targeted by a 9 June United Nations resolution, a banking source said.

Last week an Emirati newspaper reported that the seven-member United Arab Emirates federation was “tightening the noose” on companies which the UN Security Council suspects act as fronts for supplies to Iran’s atomic activities.

Iran and the UAE have close economic and historic relations. Tens of thousands of Iranians live and work in Gulf trade hub Dubai and elsewhere in the Arab state. Many of these workers are involved in the re-export trade to Iran.

Middle East Views | Israel planning new attacks in the region?.

Musa Keilani

According to a report in The Jerusalem Post last week, the Israeli military has drawn up plans ahead of a potential new conflict with Hamas in Gaza Strip. The plan includes evacuation of entire Palestinian villages and refugee camps from areas of conflict in the event of an Israeli incursion, said the report.

A Moving Sidewalk for Terrorists.