As demonstrations in Libya intensified Sunday, it appeared that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is losing control of the country he has ruled for over 40 years.
On Sunday evening it was reported that the anti-government protests had spread to the capital Tripoli, which until then had not been affected by them. Al-Jazeera reported heavy gunfire exchanges in the center of the Libyan capital between thousands of demonstrators who gathered in the streets and supporters of Gaddafi. Eyewitnesses also reported the use of tear gas against demonstrators.
Also on Sunday, Sheikh Faraj al Zuway, leader of the Al-Zuwayya tribe in eastern Libya (a tribe which lives south of Benghazi), threatened during an interview with Al-Jazeera to cut oil exports to Western countries within 24 hours unless authorities stop what he called the “oppression of protesters.”
Akram Al-Warfalli, a leading figure in the Al Warfalla tribe, one of Libya’s biggest, told Al-Jazeera: “We tell the brother (Gaddafi), well he’s no longer a brother, we tell him to leave the country.”
Earlier Sunday in the city of Benghazi, members of a Libyan army unit reportedly told residents of the city that they deserted, liberated the city from forces loyal to dictator Gaddafi and joined the public protest against Gaddafi’s rule. According to local hospitals, soldiers arrived for treatment, following clashes with Gaddafi’s personal security staff.
The action came after at least 50 people were killed and 100 others were seriously wounded in afternoon and evening clashes. An emergency-room doctor said most of the dead had been shot.
Witnesses in Benghazi claimed that only one brigade did not join the demonstrators. It was also reported that the protesters climbed on top of tanks and that many of them were armed with rifles and machine guns which they had looted from the deserted tanks.
Meanwhile, Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, went on state television late Sunday night and addressed the country’s residents for the first time since the protests began.
In his speech, Gaddafi warned that Libya was on the verge of civil war and said that the protests against his father’s rule were a foreign plot. He also pledged a new constitution and new liberal laws, saying the north African country was at a crossroads.
Gaddafi’s son warned that any uprising would be ruthlessly suppressed. “We will continue to fight until the last moment, until the last bullet is fired,” he said, while admitting that the local police erred in its behavior towards the demonstrators, attributing this to the fact that the officers had never been properly trained in handling mass demonstrations.
Gaddafi also dismissed reports by groups such as Human Rights Watch, which have placed the death toll from the protests at over 200. He claimed that only 84 people have died in the demonstrations.
Meanwhile, there were unconfirmed reports Sunday night that Muammar Gaddafi had fled the country to Venezuela. His son, however, dismissed those reports as well.
“My father is in Libya and is supported by his army,” he said.
Following fierce crackdown on thousands of demonstrators, funeral marchers in Benghazi, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi says, ‘We are not Tunisia and Egypt; we will fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet’
Associated Press
After anti-government unrest spread to the Libyan capital of Tripoli and protesters seized military bases and weapons Sunday, Moammar Gaddafi’s son went on state television to proclaim that his father remained in charge with the army’s backing and would “fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet.”
Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, in the regime’s first comments on the six days of demonstrations, warned the protesters that they risked igniting a civil war in which Libya’s oil wealth “will be burned.”
The speech followed a fierce crackdown by security forces who fired on thousands of demonstrators and funeral marchers in the eastern city of Benghazi in a bloody cycle of violence that killed 60 people on Sunday alone, according to a doctor in one city hospital. Since the six days of unrest began, more than 200 people have been killed, according to medical officials, human rights groups and exiled dissidents. Libya’s response has been the harshest of any Arab country that has been wracked by the protests that toppled long-serving leaders in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. But Gaddafi’s son said his father would prevail. “We are not Tunisia and Egypt,” he said. “Moammar Gaddafi, our leader, is leading the battle in Tripoli, and we are with him. “The armed forces are with him. Tens of thousands are heading here to be with him. We will fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet,” he said in a rambling and sometimes confused speech of nearly 40 minutes.Although the elder Gaddafi did not appear, his son has often been put forward as the regime’s face of reform.
Western countries have expressed concern at the rising violence against demonstrators in Libya. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said he spoke to Seif al-Islam by phone and told him that the country must embark on “dialogue and implement reforms,” the Foreign Office said. In his speech, the younger Gaddafi conceded the army made some mistakes during the protests because the troops were not trained to deal with demonstrators, but he added that the number of dead had been exaggerated, giving a death toll of 84. He offered to put forward reforms within days that he described as a “historic national initiative” and said the regime was willing to remove some restrictions and begin discussions for a constitution. He offered to change a number of laws, including those covering the media and the penal code. Dressed in a dark business suit and tie, Seif al-Islam wagged his finger frequently as he delivered his warnings. He said that if protests continued, Libya would slide back to “colonial” rule. “You will get Americans and European fleets coming your way and they will occupy you. He threatened to “eradicate the pockets of sedition” and said the army will play a main role in restoring order. “There has to be a firm stand,” he said. “This is not the Tunisian or Egyptian army.” Protesters had seized some military bases, tanks and other weapons, he said, blaming Islamists, the media, thugs, drunks and drug abusers, foreigners – including Egyptians and Tunisians. He also admitted that the unrest had spread to Tripoli, with people firing in central Green Square before fleeing. The rebellion by Libyans frustrated with Gaddafi’s more than 40 years of authoritarian rule has spread to more than a half-dozen eastern cities – but also to Tripoli, where secret police were heavily deployed on the streets of the city of 2 million. Armed security forces were seen on rooftops surrounding central Green Square, a witness said by telephone, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.The witness added that a group of about 200 lawyers and judges were protesting inside a Tripoli courthouse, which was also surrounded by security forces.
An exiled opposition leader in Cairo said hundreds of protesters were near the Bab al-Aziziya military camp where Gaddafi lives on Tripoli’s outskirts of Tripoli. Faiz Jibril said his contacts inside Libya were also reporting that hundreds of protesters had gathered in another downtown plaza, Martyrs Square. In other setbacks for Gaddafi’s regime, a major tribe in Libya was reported to have turned against him and Libya’s representative to the Arab League said he resigned his post to protest the government’s decision to fire on defiant demonstrators in Benghazi, the second-largest city. Khaled Abu Bakr, a resident of Sabratha, an ancient Roman city to the west, said protesters besieged the local security headquarters, driving out police and setting it on fire. Abu Bakr said residents are in charge, have set up neighborhood committees to secure their city.
‘Peaceful protests need to be respected’
The Internet has been largely shut down, residents can no longer make international calls from land lines and journalists cannot work freely, but eyewitness reports trickling out of the country suggested that protesters were fighting back more forcefully against the Middle East’s longest-serving leader.
“We are not afraid. We won’t turn back,” said a teacher who identified herself only as Omneya. She said she was marching at the end of the funeral procession on a highway beside the Mediterranean and heard gunfire from two kilometers (just over a mile) away. “If we don’t continue, this vile man would crush us with his tanks and bulldozers. If we don’t, we won’t ever be free,” she said. Benghazi is “in a state of war,” said Mohamed Abdul-Rahman, a 42-year-old merchant who described how some protesters burned a police headquarters. Protesters throwing firebombs and stones got on bulldozers and tried to storm a presidential compound from which troops had fired on the marchers, who included those carrying coffins of the dead from Saturday’s unrest in the eastern city, a witness said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fears of reprisal. The attempt was repulsed by armed forces in the compound, according to the witness and the official JANA news agency, which said a number of attackers and solders were killed. Later, however, a Benghazi resident said he received a telephone text message that an army battalion that appeared to be sympathetic to the demonstrators and led by a local officer was arriving to take over control of the compound, and urging civilians to get out of the way. Abdul-Rahman, the local merchant, said he saw the battalion chase the pro-Gaddafi militia out of the compound. In another key blow to Gaddafi, the Warfla tribe – the largest in Libya – has announced it is joining the protests, said Switzerland-based Libyan exile Fathi al-Warfali. Although it had longstanding animosity toward the Libyan leader, it had been neutral for most of the past two decades.
‘Complete devotion to my people’
Gaddafi has been trying to bring his country out of isolation, announcing in 2003 that he was abandoning his program for weapons of mass destruction, renouncing terrorism and compensating victims of the 1986 La Belle disco bombing in Berlin and the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland.
Those decisions opened the door for warmer relations with the West and the lifting of UN and US sanctions. But Gaddafi continues to face allegations of human rights violations. Gaddafi has his own vast oil wealth and his response to protesters is less constrained by any alliances with the West than Egypt or Bahrain, both important US allies. A doctor at one Benghazi hospital where many of the casualties were taken said 60 people were killed Sunday. US-based Human Rights Watch said 173 people died – mostly in Benghazi – in three days of unrest from Thursday through Saturday. A Switzerland-based Libyan activist said 11 people were killed in the city of Beyida on Wednesday. A precise count of the dead has been difficult because of Libya’s tight restrictions on reporting. The Benghazi doctor said his facility is out of supplies to treat the wounded. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. He said his hospital treats most of the emergency cases in the city. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said the Obama administration was “very concerned” about reports that Libyan security forces had fired on peaceful protesters in the eastern city of Benghazi. “We’ve condemned that violence,” Rice told “Meet the Press” on NBC. “Our view is that in Libya, as throughout the region, peaceful protests need to be respected.” State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said in a statement Sunday that the US has raised strong objections with Foreign Minister Musa Kusa and other Libyan officials about the use of lethal force against demonstrators.
In Cairo, Libya’s Arab League representative Abdel-Monem al-Houni said he told the Foreign Ministry in Tripoli that he had “resigned from all his duties and joined the popular revolution.” “As a Libyan citizen, I absolutely cannot be quiet about these crimes,” he said, adding that he had renounced all links to the regime because of “my complete devotion to my people.” Al-Houni was part of the group that carried out the coup in 1969 that brought Gaddafi to power. He later fell out with him, but they reconciled in 2000. Gaddafi then named him to the Arab League post. The Benghazi violence followed the same pattern as the Saturday crackdown, when witnesses said forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked mourners at a funeral for anti-government protesters. They were burying 35 marchers who were slain Friday by government forces. Sunday’s defiant mourners chanted: “The people demand the removal of the regime,” which became a mantra for protesters in Egypt and Tunisia. Hatred of Gaddafi’s rule has grown in Benghazi in the past two decades. Anger has focused on the shooting deaths of about 1,200 inmates – most of them political prisoners – during prison riots in 1996. Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa with 44 billion barrels as of January 2010, according to the US Energy Information Administration, but it’s still a relatively small player compared with other OPEC members. In January, OPEC said Libya produced 1.57 million barrels of oil per day. That puts it behind Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. One major US company that could be affected by unrest in Libya is Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum Corp. Occidental says it was the first to resume operations in the country after the US began to lift sanctions in 2004. Last year, Occidental produced 13,000 barrels of oil, gas and liquids per day in Libya. In other sites of recent unrest, Yemen’s embattled president offered Sunday to oversee a dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition to defuse the standoff with protesters demanding his ouster.The offer by the US-backed Ali Abdullah Saleh – which opposition groups swiftly rejected – came as protests calling for his ouster continued in at least four cities around the country for the 11th straight day.
A 17-year-old demonstrator was killed Sunday in the port of Aden when the army opened fire to disperse a march there, bringing the death toll to nine since the protests began.
As the restive population in Libya begins to rise, the dictator’s desire to survive will be tested by those willing to die to remove him.
Forty-two. That is how many years the Arab world’s longest-serving ruler has been in power. Muammar Gaddafi, technically only the guide of the 1969 revolution which overthrew the incompetent King Idris, is a brutal maverick of a dictator who has ruled the oil- and gas-rich North African country with a combination of fear and terror.
The recent fall of two neighboring dictators, including his despotic counterpart Hosni Mubarak, has enshrined the idea of popular protest in Libya, a country of nearly six million.
Although rumbles of discontent started in Tunisia, Libya’s tiny western neighbor, and were witnessed in Algeria, Jordan and Yemen, the thought of Libya following suit was a surreal and distant idea to many.
Simply put, however, the writing has been on the wall for some time in Egypt and Tunisia, but in military republics like Libya, where a dreaded army and secret police run every level of the state’s institutions, the despotic nut is harder to crack.
Gaddafi’s reaction summed it all up. In a smug but controlled manner, he spoke of how Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s ouster was a great loss, and a harbinger of chaos. In effect, he was trying to say Libya was enjoying peace and tranquility; to follow in the footsteps of Tunisia was to invite danger and thus catastrophe.
The question on everybody’s mind now is whether the regime is panicking. Was Gaddafi’s speech meant to put off any Libyan who dreamed of regime change? Suddenly, on Tuesday, February 15, broadcasts on Arabic stations began to spread the news that Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi, was awash with rebellion.
Almost as quick as the news came in, reports of soldiers firing into crowded areas and mass detentions – not unusual in dictatorships – began to come through.
It summed it up perfectly. Ordinary Libyans, long economically deprived – with two-thirds living below the poverty line – were roaring for change, while the regime, led by a man who deserves the dubious honor of being one of the world’s most erratic tyrants, was scurrying for survival.
On February 17, a “day of rage” was called, as a longsubdued population struggling to free itself from tyranny began to make the regime truly nervous with a blatant call for an end to fear.
The very day on which some 50 people were reported killed, demonstrations were being held in the country’s eastern cities, such as like Benghazi, Al Bayda and Tobruk – which have a history of antagonism toward the regime. Police stations, courthouses and security headquarters were burned, a regional security chief was sacked, a statue of the leader with his Green Book was toppled, and round-the-clock arrests to keep a domino effect from reaching Tripoli – the capital – began in earnest. But the Libyan people, as patient as they are, did not yield.
As I write, the uprising has spread to the country’s west, crucially in and around Tripoli. Meanwhile, state television gives the impression of a nation in love with its leader. In reality, the regime has sent its goons to kill without mercy, with reports of African mercenaries being brought in to slaughter rioters infuriating the crowds. While human rights organizations said between 100 and 200 have been killed (in a country where the regime has gone beyond blocking Internet sites and mobile phone connections, and completely shut off electricity to areas where demonstrations are rampant), the true figure is likely to be much higher.
THE REGIME is feeling the heat. The latest reports speak of towns in the east being under opposition control; speculation is rife that Benghazi airport has been closed and surrounded by anti-government demonstrators.
Massacres at funerals, slaughter in hospitals and counterattacks on military barracks give an idea of the intensity of the situation.
In Islam, the country’s official religion, for every death there is a mourning period of 40 days. In conservative Libya, there is no question this will be adhered to.
The question on Gaddafi’s mind is that if 40 days of mourning are required for every one of the citizens he puts to death, not only is this nation going to be in constant grief, but with every death is he not digging the hole beneath him even deeper? This battle is for Libya’s future. The real question on the Libyan people’s minds is how many martyrs – 10, 100 or 100,000 – will it take before the leader is finally brought down?
The writer is a PhD candidate in in Political Violence at the Department of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College, London.
Hostility to Israel, which is deeply ingrained in the Egyptian consciousness and supported by a growing identification with Islam, could become a bond between the various opposition elements and the army.
By Dan Eldar
It was a distorted peace from the time it was made more than 30 years ago. Egypt’s “peace” strategy, which was only intended to recover the Sinai and obtain generous American support, was from the start fraught with hostility and suspicion toward us. Aside from nonbelligerence, the Egyptians did not imbue the treaty with any element of full and sincere peace with its former enemy.
Popular feelings of hostility toward Israel, Zionism and the Jewish people are still widespread among the Egyptian people. Public opinion makers, including liberal intellectuals, and the media, which until now were controlled by the authorities, have for years not hesitated to demonize Israel and its leaders, to anti-Semitically demonize the Jewish people, and incite hatred of Israel, in complete defiance of the spirit of the peace treaty.
Egypt gave the peace with Israel the most limited meaning possible. Its leaders and policy-makers, from Anwar Sadat onward, viewed the peace process with Israel primarily as a means of shrinking it to its “natural size,” meaning the pre-1967 borders, and depriving it of strategic assets.
Egypt under Hosni Mubarak’s rule preferred to slow the process of peace and normalization between Israel and the rest of the Arab world as much as possible, in order to preserve inter-Arab legitimacy for its diplomatic activity as the sole regional mediator.
Mubarak played a significant role in thwarting the Israeli-Palestinian talks at Camp David in 2000. With the support of both the Egyptian media and the clerics, he warned Yasser Arafat that he would be considered a traitor if he accepted the proposals raised at the talks and denied him the legitimacy he would have needed to make decisions on Jerusalem.
Egypt thus contributed to the outbreak of the second intifada, which provided it with a kind of war of attrition against Israel via the Palestinians. That was the Egyptian paradigm of peace with Israel: indirect control of a low-intensity confrontation.
The combination of Egypt’s grim day-to-day domestic reality and its policy of minimal peace with Israel over the years makes for a grim prognosis for the future of relations between the two countries. In negotiations with the Egyptian opposition over the future of the regime, the army may well have to become more tolerant of Islamist trends, if only to preserve its status as an arbiter and stabilizer.
Hostility to Israel, which is deeply ingrained in the Egyptian consciousness and supported by a growing identification with Islam, could become a bond between the various opposition elements and the army. If the Muslim Brotherhood is part of the next government, that could accelerate the deterioration of relations with Israel, to the point of abrogating the peace treaty, despite the army chiefs’ recent statements.
The Egyptian army, which is not necessarily loyal to a secular ethos like the Turkish army is, could change its orientation toward the peace treaty with Israel. Its training program still treats Israel as the main threat. The slide toward an atmosphere of saber-rattling could proceed gradually from strident anti-Israel rhetoric by legal opposition parties through demands in UN forums for changes in the demilitarization arrangements in Sinai to demands for inspections of the nuclear weapons Egypt claims Israel possesses.
Israel’s policy toward Egypt, from left and right alike, adjusted over the years to the parameters of the cold and distorted peace dictated by the Mubarak regime, even as it maintained an exaggerated assessment of Egypt’s regional importance. Now, with Mubarak’s removal, it seems the time has come to update this policy and prepare every diplomatic and security tool at Israel’s disposal for the possibility of negative developments to the south.
The writer, a former senior Mossad official, is currently a researcher on the Middle East.
Chile and Israel both expressed concern over growing ties between Venezuela and Iran, and well as the potential Iranian presence on border between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, cable says.
Israel was working with the Chilean government to spy on the Iranian Embassy in Chile, according to a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.
A cable from the U.S. Embassy in Santiago to the State Department in Washington, dated July 21, 2008, stated that the Israeli military attache in Chile, Col. Yoeli Or, had informed his American counterpart of Israel’s activities.
According to the cable, Or said “that he works with Chile’s Investigative Police (PDI ) and ‘other agencies’ (presumably Chile’s Intelligence Agency, ANI ), sharing information, and providing training when possible.”
“While there are no signs of GOI affiliation with terrorist groups in Chile,” the cable also said, “the Chilean intelligence service and the Israeli government are screening for anything they deem suspicious.”
The diplomatic cable went on to report that Or had suggested that Israel do more to widen its trade ties with Latin America “to help balance Iran’s expanding influence in the region,” but that “competing priorities and a lack of resources” were preventing such efforts.
Or reportedly told the American diplomat that Israel was concerned over increased Iranian activities in Latin America, and that there were 50 Iranians in Colombia holding diplomatic passports.
American and Israeli concerns over Iranian influence in South America had begun the year before, according to another diplomatic cable from May 2007. In that wire, the U.S. Embassy in Santiago conveyed a message to the Chilean Foreign Ministry that it was concerned about the growing ties between Venezuela and Iran.
A senior official in the Chilean Foreign Ministry told American diplomats that the Chileans were also concerned over potential Iranian presence on the border between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. The official said Chilean intelligence operatives were watching Iranians in that region.
Editor’s note:This is another in a series of WND/WENZEL Polls conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Barack Obama
A new survey reveals literally hundreds of millions of Americans have a strong affinity for Israel and believe the U.S. should intervene if Israel is attacked by Iran.
The poll for WND by Wenzel Strategies also documents that Christians, especially those who describe themselves as born-again believers, largely hold stronger feelings regarding Israel than do Jews.
The poll, a telephone survey conducted Feb. 9-15 with a resulting margin of error of 3.37 percent, showed 3 in 4 Americans agree with the statement that “Israel is the No. 1 target for destruction of Islamic radicals in the Middle East.”
Fifty-five percent confirmed they agree with the belief that Israel is a “flawed nation-state” but still remains “the apple of God’s eye.”Nearly the same majority said while Israel seeks peace with its neighbors, “its neighbors are generally unwilling to agree to peace with Israel.”
“This survey gives the unmistakable impression that, in yet another area, President Obama is out of step with the mindset of the American people,” said the analysis from Wenzel Strategies’ Fritz Wenzel. “This was a survey of all adults, which is a significantly more favorable audience for Obama than respondent samples of registered voters or likely voters, and yet American support for Israel far outstrips that shown by the Obama administration to date.”
Obama’s perspective on Israel was expected to come to head as early as this weekend, regarding a U.N. vote on a proposal to “condemn” Israel for its construction in the West Bank. The U.S. historically has opposed such political statements, but there were reports that this time, perhaps, the U.S. would abandon Israel.
“We are working with our partners in the Security Council, with our friends in the region, to find a consensus way forward that is consistent with our overall approach. There are a lot of rumors flying around and I’m not going to get into any specifics at this time,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.
“A good example came just recently during the government crisis in Egypt, where the Obama administration was quick to push for the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, who had maintained a 30-year peace treaty with Israel. It is still unknown what the long-term fate of that landmark treaty will be, but it’s future is highly unlikely to be more beneficial to Israel, yet Israel security is a top priority for the U.S. public,” Wenzel’s analysis said.
“Obama’s inaction and inattentiveness to the Iranian nuclear weapons threat is another area in Middle East policy where he is at odds with Americans in general. This survey registers significant concern about Iranian threats against Israel and demonstrates an appetite for U.S. involvement to protect Israel in case of an imminent threat,” he said.
To the question, “Agree or disagree: Israel is a flawed nation-state like others but remains, as the Bible says, the apple of God’s eye,” while 22.4 percent of those affiliating with the Jewish faith said they strongly agreed, 60 percent of those who identify as born-again Christian responded that they strongly agree. Another 21 percent said they somewhat agreed.
Other results:
About 80 percent of born-again Christians disagreed with the statement that Israel “is an aggressor nation,” nearly the same as the 85 percent of Jews who held that opinion.
Fifty-eight percent of the Jews said they agreed with the statement that the U.S. does not provide enough moral support to Israel, but more than 62 percent of the born-again Christians held that view.
Thirty-nine percent of the Jews believe the U.S. is undermining Israel by pushing a Palestinian state, while almost 56 percent of the born-again Christians believe that.
Fifty-one percent of the Jews believe the U.S. should make support of Israel the primary plank in Middle East policy, but more than 72 percent of born-again Christians hold that perspective.
Some 22.4 percent of the Jews believe the U.S. will be judged by God according to the way it treats Israel, but 2 of 3 born-again Christians agreed with that statement.
While 55.2 percent of Jews believe Americans should be very concerned about Israel’s national security, that figure was 71.1 percent for born-again Christians.
“The survey also shows most Americans believe Israel is under a continuing grave threat from Islamic radicals,” the analysis said.
According to the survey, 75 percent of all respondents in the survey said they believe Israel is the top target of Islamic radicals. Eighty-six percent said they are at least somewhat concerned about Israel’s national security – and 53 percent said they were “very concerned” about it.
Further, “71 percent said they believe the U.S. should support Israel if Israel engages in military action to counter a possible Iranian nuclear attack against Israel. And, while the U.S continues to wage two other heavy military actions in the region – Iraq and Afghanistan – 64 percent said they would favor using American military troops against Iran if Iran attempts a nuclear attack on Israel.”
The report continued, “Even as Iraq remakes itself as a fledgling democracy and Egypt struggles to figure out what its government might look like after the fall of Hosni Mubarak, 62 percent of survey respondents said they agree Israel is the only true pro-Western ally of the United States in the region. Among Republicans, 70 percent said as much, as did 68 percent of political independents, but just 50 percent of Democrats agreed.”
“There was striking partisan disagreement on the question of President Barack Obama’ pressuring Israel to stop building or repairing Jewish homes in and around Jerusalem. While 61 percent of Democrats approved of Obama’s stance, just 28 percent of Republicans felt the same way,” the analysis said.
OPINION: The winds of change may be blowing through some Middle East countries but Iran remains a brutal menace – to its own people and its neighbours, writes BOAZ MODAI
W HEN IRANIAN leaders disingenuously praised the protesters in Egypt one could not avoid remembering the protests that followed Iran’s rigged election in 2009. Revolt was harshly suppressed; dozens of leaders were executed and many are still in jail without contact with relatives.
The treatment of dissidents by the Iranian regime has been in keeping with its attitude towards its own people. The regime has imposed a second-class status on women, harassing and punishing them in the name of the ruling Islamist ideology. Barbaric sentences of lashing and stoning to death have been handed down on the flimsiest of charges.
Religious minorities are systematically persecuted. Since August, seven Baha’i leaders have been given 10-year sentences on baseless charges, and now languish in overcrowded cells.
Before and since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a New York reporter “there are no homosexuals in Iran”, scores of gay men and women have been executed, sometimes publicly by hanging from cranes. There were almost 400 executions in each of the past two years, and, if the figure for January 2011 is a guide, the rate is set to increase.
Not only does the regime oppress its own people, but it poses a lethal threat to its neighbours. Ahmadinejad has outlined his vision of a new Middle East free of both US influence and Israel’s existence. Recently revealed cables have shown the full depth of what the world suspected for years: Arab states live in fear of their giant neighbour with its military arsenal, its nuclear programme and its sponsorship of terrorism.
In Lebanon, Hizbullah, a politico-military proxy of Iran, has overawed the state army. A few weeks ago, a new government took power in Lebanon with the backing of Hizbullah. This de facto Hizbullah takeover marks the fulfilment of one of Iran’s geopolitical dreams of the past 30 years: the first successful export of its Shia Islamic revolution.
Instead of disarming as required by UN Security Council Resolution 1701 under the 2006 ceasefire with Israel, Hizbullah has actually increased its arsenal and now possesses more than 40,000 rockets supplied by Iran and directed at all parts of Israel. In 2009, Israel’s navy impounded the MV Francop , a ship carrying hundreds of tonnes of Iran-made weapons bound for Hizbullah. The rockets fired from Gaza at southern Israel since 2008 by Hamas and other terrorist groups also originated in Iran.
The Iranian regime has for years denounced the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. A report from 2009 uncovered a Hizbullah network in Egypt involved in destabilising the country, terrorist attacks on Egyptian soil and smuggling weapons and terrorists into Gaza.
Ahmadinejad’s 2005 call for Israel to be “wiped off the map”, itself a reiteration of earlier calls by the Ayatollah Khomeini, has since been repeated by him and other government spokesmen in many different forms. Israel is a “cancerous tumour”, a “stain of disgrace [that] will be cleaned from the garment of the world”, “a dried, rotten tree that will collapse with a single storm”.
What relevance has all of this to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians? Consider the strategic position of Israel, a country 80 times smaller than Iran, with a 10th of its population. On its northern and southern borders, proxies of Iran have already rocketed its territory thousands of times and are poised to do so again. If a Palestinian state in the West Bank was taken over by Hamas (by no means an unlikely scenario) this would mean yet another nearby base for terror attacks on Israel.
This makes any concessions by Israel fraught with risk. The history of previous concessions is not promising. The Oslo Accords that set up the Palestinian Authority were followed by waves of suicide bombings and other attacks which killed or injured thousands of Israeli civilians. The 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon emboldened Hizbullah to attack Israel. The 2005 disengagement from Gaza led to an escalation of the rocket attacks by Hamas.
Yet last week, the EU expressed “impatience” with the pace of the peace process and called for Israel to move it forward. Further concessions are expected from Israel, less than a month after the EU admitted its failure to win even the tiniest concession from Iran on its nuclear programme.
The two-state solution has been the policy of successive governments of Israel. The present government continues to hope that the Palestinian Authority will sit down in direct negotiations. But those who imagine that a settlement with the Palestinians is the key to the peace of the entire Middle East should think again. Arab leaders made clear to the US their belief that Iran’s agenda meant a resolution of the conflict would not end its machinations in the region. Putting the Palestinian issue first is putting the cart before the horse. As long as the threat from Iran remains, Israel’s adversaries will be less inclined to make peace, while Israel’s own room for manoeuvre is restricted.
Europe should not push Israel to take risks when Israel’s safety cannot be guaranteed.
IDF Northern Command believes regime in Iran may initiate attack if it feels under pressure due to anti-government protests.
Tehran could activate Hezbollah forces to attack Israel along the northern border in an effort to stave off domestic pressures within Iran, according to assessments in the IDF’s Northern Command.
The concern within the army is that if the regime in Tehran feels under pressure due to anti-government demonstrations it will try to initiate an attack on an Israeli target – either overseas or near the border – to divert attention from its own troubles.
Demonstrations picked up speed in Iran on Sunday with reports that at least two people were killed and that Hezbollah operatives were assisting Iranian security forces in suppressing the protests.
“There has always been one common enemy for the Islamic world, and that is Israel,” a senior defense official said. “Israel will then need to consider how to respond to the attack, and depending on its response, if the conflict develops the world will be focused on Israel and not on what is happening on the streets of Tehran.”
Last week, Israeli embassies were placed on heightened alert and four were closed following concrete warnings of possible terrorist attacks timed to mark the third anniversary of Hezbollah military commander Imad Mughniyeh’s assassination.
The Foreign Ministry said that a number of “irregular incidents” had been noticed recently around a number of diplomatic missions abroad. In 2008, a bomb plot was uncovered against the embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan.
With the Middle East roiling, the alarming news about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons buildup has gotten far too little attention. The Times recently reported that American intelligence agencies believe Pakistan has between 95 and more than 110 deployed nuclear weapons, up from the mid-to-high 70s just two years ago.
Pakistan can’t feed its people, educate its children, or defeat insurgents without billions of dollars in foreign aid. Yet, with China’s help, it is now building a fourth nuclear reactor to produce more weapons fuel.
Even without that reactor, experts say, it has already manufactured enough fuel for 40 to 100 additional weapons. That means Pakistan — which claims to want a minimal credible deterrent — could soon possess the world’s fifth-largest arsenal, behind the United States, Russia, France and China but ahead of Britain and India. Washington and Moscow, with thousands of nuclear weapons each, still have the most weapons by far, but at least they are making serious reductions.
Washington could threaten to suspend billions of dollars of American aid if Islamabad does not restrain its nuclear appetites. But that would hugely complicate efforts in Afghanistan and could destabilize Pakistan.
The truth is there is no easy way to stop the buildup, or that of India and China. Slowing and reversing that arms race is essential for regional and global security. Washington must look for points of leverage and make this one of its strategic priorities.
The ultimate nightmare, of course, is that the extremists will topple Pakistan’s government and get their hands on the nuclear weapons. We also don’t rest easy contemplating the weakness of Pakistan’s civilian leadership, the power of its army and the bitterness of the country’s rivalry with nuclear-armed India.
The army claims to need more nuclear weapons to deter India’s superior conventional arsenal. It seems incapable of understanding that the real threat comes from the Taliban and other extremists.
The biggest game-changer would be for Pakistan and India to normalize diplomatic and economic relations. The two sides recently agreed to resume bilateral talks suspended after the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. There is a long way to go.
India insists that it won’t accept an outside broker. There is a lot the Obama administration can do quietly to press the countries to work to settle differences over Afghanistan and the disputed region of Kashmir. Pakistan must do a lot more to stop insurgents who target India.
Washington also needs to urge the two militaries to start talking, and urge the two governments to begin exploring ways to lessen the danger of an accidental nuclear war — with more effective hotlines and data exchanges — with a long-term goal of arms-control negotiations.
Washington and its allies must also continue to look for ways to get Pakistan to stop blocking negotiations on a global ban on fissile material production.
The world, especially this part of the world, is a dangerous enough place these days. It certainly doesn’t need any more nuclear weapons.
The Iranian people have been in the streets for decades. The big moments are crystallized in media memory — 1979, 1999, 2009, and now. There are people in the streets in Iran this week, as they were last week. They do not want an Islamic Republic of Iran. They want Iran.
In 2009, it was declared all across the international media that these people — young, old, men, women — are part of an organized movement called the Green Movement. “Iran’s Green Revolution” flashed across cable news networks and front pages worldwide.
Immediately, in the moments, then days, weeks, and now years of the discontent surrounding the election dispute, this green thing — the scarves, the flags, the color, the word — suddenly appeared in the protests and from the mouths of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and other figures who ultimately did not secure a win in the presidential election against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
And then the phrase “where is my vote?” appeared. In English. On placards and posters, and t-shirts, and buttons.
You haven’t seen any of this behavior in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen — anywhere where similar anti-government protests have taken place in the last month. It is not how people protest — they don’t get together and name their revolution, then color it, and choose a catchphrase for it, then pour into the streets to let everyone know.
It didn’t happen in Iran either.
The millions — and there were millions — who were in the streets in 2009 could care less about the Green Movement — in 2009 or today. They want rid of the Islamic regime — whether it is Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, or the old guard of Mousavi, Karroubi and the “Greens” who were and still are, so powerful in the Islamic establishment.
The Green leadership is a morally-compromised faction of the establishment — as any other element of the establishment — that wants power in an Islamic Republic of Iran, but cannot seem to get it or regain it because old friends have become new enemies in the regime.
As their individual histories and powerful political records have clearly reflected, they are not secular, they are not democratic, and they do not care about the inherent rights of the Iranian people, let alone see them as a priority.
For most Iranians, the Green Movement is what the international media is calling the massive mobilization to dismantle the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Even outside of Iran, if you attend rallies claiming to be of the Green Movement, many of them are actually rallies against the Islamic regime. Some of the speakers openly address the fact that the Iranians do not want more figures from that regime, they do not want the Green Movement’s leaders, they want the whole regime to be replaced with a government that is elected by the people.
And yet, the irony is that while so many Iranians say this, they know, and so does the US State Department and the UK Foreign Office and the other governments who support the Green leaders, that the Iranian people are so miserable, so trapped in a nation overtaken by Islamists and their massively powerful military and security complex, that they will accept the Greens.
Iranians will accept them — there is no other option anymore. The hope is that change — any change — will finally open the door to serious reform. In a poverty so deep as that which the Iranian soul has experienced in the last 32 years, hope is the only chance for survival.
But Iranians are not nearly as politically and internationally naïve as they were in 1979 and 1999. After the current Green Leader, former President Mohammad Khatami, crushed the student protests of 1999, refusing to support the students, many of whom died or suffered in the violent prisons of the Islamic Republic, everyone in Iran realized that the Islamic Republic’s establishment — a boy’s club of unshorn Islamists, many of whom are actually clerics — has not produced individuals who care about changing Iran into a government that represents the people.
In the last 32 years, any individual who displayed any loyalty to the people of Iran above the Islamic Republic has been eliminated. Anyone who could have been a sincere leader of the people — a person who valued inherent rights, a person whose religion did not supersede the people’s needs — that person was not allowed to live. So there remains no one powerful but those from the regime. The Green Leaders know this very well.
But what they don’t know — and the reason they shuffled into the background when they didn’t get the power they wanted — is that in this Internet age, in this age when Iranians are some of the most educated and knowledgeable people in the world, they do not need a leader to change their country. They are doing it themselves in the streets.
Listen to them this year as compared with 2009 — they are no longer merely denouncing Ahmadinejad — they are denouncing the system itself.
They have been shouting “down with the system”, “down with the velayat-e faqih.” Iranians have for millennia been of different tribes, religions and ethnicities but they have always survived as a nation. They do not want this ‘velayat-e faqih’ system — rulership of the supreme Islamic cleric, to put it simply — which is the foundation of power of the Islamic Republic establishment and the Green Leaders.
So as you watch the new protests — these demonstrations that were inspired by recent Arab revolts which were in turn inspired by Iran’s earlier demonstrations — remember this: the Iranian people do not want the Islamic Republic, whatever shade it comes in.
They want a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. When the Green Leaders win the power they have sought for years — and they will eventually win — they will not be off the hook, because the people want real change, not another game of musical chairs.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments