WarSclerotic

BBC News – Oil wealth ‘must be shared’ with citizens says Soros.

Click to play

George Soros: Middle East turmoil caused by ‘revulsion against the corruption’

Citizens of oil producing nations must see more benefit from their country’s national resources, billionaire investor George Soros has told the BBC.

Revolts in Libya were partly the result of “revulsion against a corruption” fed by the misuse of oil money, he added.

More “transparency and accountability” was needed from other producers such as Russia and Saudi Arabia he said.

Mr Soros also predicted the Iranian regime would be overthrown in the “bloodiest of the revolutions”.

‘Rebelled’

Libya produces 1.6 million barrels of oil per day and is the 17th largest producer in the world.

And Colonel Gaddafi’s hold on power has been dependent on the billions of dollars in oil revenue that pour into the country.

Talking of the wave of governments being challenged in North Africa and the Middle East, Mr Soros said: “What has caused the revolutions is a revulsion against a corruption that is fed by the misuse of natural resources like for instance in Libya.

“Transparency and even more importantly accountability in the use of natural resources is what you need for people living in those countries to get the benefit of those national resources.

“Libya produced enormous wealth which Gaddafi took as his own and now the people rebelled against it.”

‘Tremendous improvement’

Asked whether there should be more transparency with what happened to oil incomes, Mr Soros said: “Very much so.”

And he said the US and Europe needed to more actively support the revolutions in Libya and elsewhere so that the new regimes will co-operate with the West.

“What is happening today in the Middle East is very similar to what happened in the former Soviet Union in 1989-91. But then it was a regime hostile to the West that was destroyed by the revolution,” he said.

“Now it is regimes supported by the West, so the West has to regain the allegiance of the people in those countries by actually supporting the transition to democracy.

“It’s very important that Europe and the US should be in front of the revolution rather than behind it because if they are behind it, they are going to lose the allegiance of the new regimes that are emerging and if they are properly supported they will be democratic regimes and it will be a tremendous improvement.”

Could Iran Be Using Stuxnet to Confuse the West? – Jeffrey Goldberg – International – The Atlantic.

Via Alexis Madrigal, a v. hot Vanity Fair piece about the origins of Stuxnet, and its impact. Much to comment on (and much that is too obscure to comment on) but the piece contained this provocative bit of analysis:

After being detected by Iran, (the virus) may have been retooled by the country as “psyops”–psychological operations–against the West. Robert Baer, the former C.I.A. officer and author of The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower, says, “The moment Iran caught Stuxnet, they could easily have put out misinformation”–to the effect that their nuclear program had been set back several years–“simply to alleviate meetings in Western capitals. So that everyone will say, ‘All right, Stuxnet worked.'”

I don’t know. Even the people who know don’t know. But I’ve become dubious about the effect of Stuxnet, especially since a raft of reports, including one from the International Atomic Energy Agency, suggesting that the Iranian program continues apace. Here’s a fatalistic-sounding Charles Duelfer on Iran’s program:

The IAEA inspectors report that Iran continues to expand its activities and, in particular, its uranium enrichment seems to be continuing with plans for expansion. Tehran has not complied with requirements to explain suspected military nuclear work and seems unfazed by Security Council sanctions. Moreover, the IAEA reports that the output of the declared facilities continues–despite the affects of the Stuxnet cyber attack. The evidence is that despite increased sanctions, the effects of cyber attacks (and reportedly the sabotaging of imported equipment) and the assassinations in Iran of top scientists, the program marches on…to the point where it is beginning to look inevitable rather than unacceptable as previous White House statements have declared.

Bibi Netanyahu’s people are making noises that he’s going to offer some sort of plan to restart peace talks with the Palestinians, and that he’s going to announce his willingness to make certain concessions he wasn’t willing to make before. If he does this, he does it because he does fear for Israel’s repuation, and for its future as a Jewish-majority state. But there is an ancillary benefit here, as well: Cooperation with President Obama for Bibi is vital — as is some level of international credibility —  if he is going to tackle the Iranian nuclear program in dramatic fashion, as he fears he might have to do.

Column One: The New Middle East.

A new Middle East is upon us and its primary beneficiary couldn’t be happier. In a speech Monday in the Iranian city of Kermanshah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Politburo Chief Gen. Yadollah Javani crowed, “Iran’s pivotal role in the New Middle East is undeniable.

Today the Islamic Revolution of the Iranian nation enjoys such a power, honor and respect in the world that all nations and governments wish to have such a ruling system.”

Iran’s leaders have eagerly thrown their newfound weight around. For instance, Iran is challenging Saudi Arabia’s ability to guarantee the stability of global oil markets.

For generations, the stability of global oil supplies has been guaranteed by Saudi Arabia’s reserve capacity that could be relied on to make up for any shocks to those supplies due to political unrest or other factors. When Libya’s teetering dictator Muammar Gaddafi decided to shut down Libya’s oil exports last month, the oil markets reacted with a sharp increase in prices. The very next day the Saudis announced they would make up the shortfall from Libya’s withdrawal from the export market.

In the old Middle East, the Saudi statement would never have been questioned. Oil suppliers and purchasers alike accepted the arrangement whereby Saudi Arabian reserves – defended by the US military – served as the guarantor of the oil economy. But in the New Middle East, Iran feels comfortable questioning the Saudi role.

On Thursday, Iran’s Oil Minister Massoud Mirkazemi urged Saudi Arabia to refrain from increasing production. Mirkazemi argued that since the OPEC oil cartel has not discussed increasing supplies, Saudi Arabia had no right to increase its oil output.

True, Iran’s veiled threat did not stop Saudi Arabia from increasing its oil production by 500,000 barrels per day. But the fact that Iran feels comfortable telling the Saudis what they can and cannot do with their oil demonstrates the mullocracy’s new sense of empowerment.

And it makes sense. With each passing day, the Iranian regime is actively destabilizing Saudi Arabia’s neighbors and increasing its influence over Saudi Arabia’s Shi’ite minority in the kingdom’s Eastern Province where most of its oil is located.

Perhaps moved by the political unrest in Bahrain and Yemen, Saudi regime opponents including Saudi Arabia’s Shi’ite minority have stepped up their acts of political opposition. The Saudi royal family has sought to buy off its opponents by showering its subjects with billions of dollars in new subsidies and payoffs. But still the tide of dissent rises.

Saudi regime opponents have scheduled political protests for March 11 and March 20. In an attempt to blunt the force of the demonstrations, Saudi security forces arrested Tawfiq al- Amir, a prominent Shi’ite cleric from the Eastern Province. On February 25, Amir delivered a sermon calling for the transformation of the kingdom into a constitutional monarchy.

Iran has used his arrest to pressure the Saudi regime. In an interview with Iran’s Fars news agency this week, Iranian parliamentarian and regime heavyweight Mohammed Dehqan warned the Saudis not to try to quell the growing unrest. As he put it, the Saudi leaders “should know that the Saudi people have become vigilant and do not allow the rulers of the country to commit any possible crime against them.”

Dehqan continued, “Considering that the developments in Bahrain and Yemen affect the situation in Saudi Arabia, the [regime] feels grave danger and interferes in the internal affairs of these states.”

Dehqan’s statement is indicative of the mullah’s confidence in the direction the region is taking.

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Iran is deeply involved in all the anti-regime protests and movements from Egypt to Yemen to Bahrain and beyond.

“Either directly or through proxies, they are constantly trying to influence events. They have a very active diplomatic foreign policy outreach,” Clinton said.

Iranian officials, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists and other Iranian agents have played pivotal roles in the anti-regime movements in Yemen and Bahrain. Their operations are the product of Iran’s long-running policy of developing close ties to opposition figures in these countries as well as in Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Morocco.

These long-developed ties are reaping great rewards for Iran today. Not only do these connections give the Iranians the ability to influence the policies of post-revolutionary allied regimes.

They give the mullahs and their allies the ability to intimidate the likes of the Saudi and Bahraini royals and force them to appease Iran’s allies.

THIS MEANS that Iran’s mullahs win no matter how the revolts pan out. If weakened regimes maintain power by appeasing Iran’s allies in the opposition – as they are trying to do in Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen – then Iranian influence over the weakened regimes will grow substantially. And if Iran’s allies topple the regimes, then Iran’s influence will increase even more steeply.

Moreover, Iran’s preference for proxy wars and asymmetric battles is served well by the current instability. Iran’s proxies – from Hezbollah to al- Qaida to Hamas – operate best in weak states.

From Hezbollah’s operations in South Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s, to the Iranian-sponsored Iraqi insurgents in recent years and beyond, Iran has exploited weak central authorities to undermine pro-Western governments, weaken Israel and diminish US regional influence.

In the midst of Egypt’s revolutionary violence, Iran quickly deployed its Hamas proxies to Sinai.

Since Mubarak’s fall, Iran has worked intensively to expand its proxy forces’ capacity to operate freely in Sinai.

Recognition of Iran’s expanded power is fast altering the international community’s perception of the regional balance of forces. Russia’s announcement last Saturday that it will sell Syria the Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missile was a testament to Iran’s rising regional power and the US’s loss of power.

Russia signed a deal to provide the missiles to Syria in 2007. But Moscow abstained from supplying them until now – just after Iran sailed its naval ships unmolested to Syria through the Suez Canal and signed a naval treaty with Syria effectively fusing the Iranian and Syrian navies.

So, too, Russia’s announcement that it sides with Iran’s ally Turkey in its support for reducing UN Security Council sanctions against Iran indicates that the US no longer has the regional posture necessary to contain Iran on the international stage.

Iran’s increased regional power and its concomitant expanded leverage in international oil markets will make it impossible for the US to win UN Security Council support for more stringent sanctions against Tehran. Obviously, UN Security Council-sanctioned military action against Iran’s nuclear installations is out of the question.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has failed completely to understand what is happening.

Clinton told the House of Representatives and the Senate that Iran’s increased power means that the US should continue to arm and fund Iran’s allies and support the so-called democratic forces that are allied with Iran.

So it was that Clinton told the Senate that the Obama administration thinks it is essential to continue to supply the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese military with US arms. Clinton claimed that she couldn’t say what Hezbollah control over the Lebanese government meant regarding the future of US ties to Lebanon.

So, too, while Palestinian Authority leaders burn President Barack Obama in effigy and seek to form a unity government with Iran’s Hamas proxy, Clinton gave an impassioned defense of US funding for the PA to the House Foreign Relations Committee this week.

Clinton’s behavior bespeaks a stunning failure to understand the basic realities she and the State Department she leads are supposed to shape. Her lack of comprehension is matched only by her colleague Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ lack of shame and nerve. In a press conference this week, Gates claimed that Iran is weakened by the populist waves in the Arab world because Iran’s leaders are violently oppressing their political opponents.

In light of the Obama administration’s refusal to use US military force for even the most minor missions – like evacuating US citizens from Libya – without UN approval, it is apparent that the US will not use armed force against Iran for as long as Obama is in power.

And given the administration’s refusal to expend any effort to protect US interests and allies in the region lest the US be accused of acting like a superpower, it is clear that US allies like the Saudis will not be able to depend on America to defend the regime. This is the case despite the fact that its overthrow would threaten the US’s core regional interests.

AGAINST THIS backdrop, it is clear that the only way to curb Iran’s influence in the region and so strike a major blow against its rising Shi’ite-Sunni jihadist alliance is to actively support the prodemocracy regime opponents in Iran’s Green Movement. The only chance of preventing Iran from plunging the region into war and bloodshed is if the regime is overthrown.

So long as the Iranian regime remains in power, it will be that much harder for the Egyptians to build an open democracy or for the Saudis to open the kingdom to liberal voices and influences. The same is true of almost every country in the region. Iran is the primary regional engine of war, terror, nuclear proliferation and instability. As long as the regime survives, it will be difficult for liberal forces in the region to gain strength and influence.

On February 24, the mullahs reportedly arrested opposition leaders Mir Hossain Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi along with their wives. It took the Obama administration several days to even acknowledge the arrests, let alone denounce them.

In the face of massive regime violence, Iran’s anti-regime protesters are out in force in cities throughout the country demanding their freedom and a new regime. And yet, aside from paying lip service to their bravery, neither the US nor any other government has come forward to help them. No one has supplied Iran’s embattled revolutionaries with proxy servers after the regime brought down their Internet communications networks. No one has given them arms.

No one has demanded that Iran be thrown out of all UN bodies pending the regime’s release of the Mousavis and Karroubis and the thousands of political prisoners being tortured in the mullah’s jails. No one has stepped up to fund around-the-clock anti-regime broadcasts into Iran to help regime opponents organize and coordinate their operations. Certainly no one has discussed instituting a no-fly zone over Iran to protect the protesters.

With steeply rising oil prices and the real prospect of al-Qaida taking over Yemen, Iranian proxies taking over Bahrain, and the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt, some Americans are recognizing that not all revolutions are Washingtonian.

But there is a high likelihood that an Iranian revolution would be. At a minimum, a democratic Iran would be far less dangerous to the region and the world than the current regime.

The Iranians are right. We are moving into a new Middle East. And if the mullahs aren’t overthrown, the New Middle East will be a very dark and dangerous place.

caroline@carolineglick.com

DEBKA.

Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen

The profound debate dividing the US government on how to proceed on the Libyan crisis burst out into the open this week in several conflicting statements: President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, were all seen to be pulling in different directions – especially over military intervention to resolve the uprising against Muammar Qaddafi.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s Washington sources disclose that President Obama is in favor of such intervention, whether by US or Egyptian troops (as DEBKA-Net-Weekly 483 reported on Feb. 25, 2011). He wants no-fly zones enforced over Libya and US special forces deployed at Qaddafi’s military airports and bases to disable his air force and loyal army units.
At the same time, Obama is bent on pursuing diplomatic engagement with Iran on its nuclear program and aiming for a modus vivendi with the Islamic Republic.
His Libyan and Iranian policies are interwoven in the sense that the US president and his close advisers see the revolutions engulfing the Arab world, which are still at their outset, as weakening the conservative Arab (anti-Iran) regimes hitherto regarded as pro-American in the interim stage, while strengthening Iran and its alliance of Turkey and Syria, backed by Latin American governments.
Obama believes that this process will steer Iran into cooperation with the United States and so promote American diplomatic goals in the Middle East – a gambit reminiscent of Carter-Brzezinski instrumentality in overthrowing the Shah of Iran in 1979.
Iran off the hook, on the hook
This rationale was behind the comment made by Adm. Mullen in the course of his round trip of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Persian Gulf emirates in the third week of February. On instructions from the White House, he was quoted as saying: “There are always concerns in this region with Iran. Certainly the United States has them, as well as all the regional players. Iran, I still believe, is a country that continues to foment instability in the region, take advantage of every opportunity. But from my perspective that has not been the principal focus of what happened in Egypt or what happened in Bahrain or any of these countries.”
Secretary Clinton takes strong issue with this approach. She is against drastic gyrations in the US attitude toward the Iran-Turkey-Syria bloc that would spell the abandonment of traditional US Sunni allies in favor of the Shiite bloc headed by Iran, even though Sunni Turkey is an important component of the Iran-led alignment. Clinton fears a policy reversal would imperil Israel, America’s senior ally in the Middle East, and seriously impact that country’s strategic standing and security.
Clinton used her appearance at the Senate Appropriations Committee Wednesday, March 2, to give the (unmentioned) Obama policy a piece of her mind and counter the White House view articulated by Adm. Mullen: She accused Iran of direct and indirect contacts with opposition groups in Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen to shape events there. It was the first time in the three-month wave of Arab unrest which toppled the Tunisian and Egyptian presidents, convulsed Libya and rocked Yemen, Bahrain and Oman, that the US secretary had alleged Iranian meddling in their affairs.
Clinton warns that Obama is giving Tehran a free hand
“They are doing everything they can to influence the outcomes in these places,” Clinton told the Senate Committee. “They are using Hizballah… to communicate with counterparts… in (the Palestinian movement) Hamas who then in turn communicate with counterparts in Egypt,” she said. “We know that they are reaching out to the opposition in Bahrain. We know that the Iranians are very much involved in the opposition movements in Yemen,” she said.
Clinton’s remarks were configured both to forewarn President Obama that his policy could have dire results and to let Tehran know that some administration officials were keeping an eye on its actions and were keenly aware of what the Iranians were up to. They need not think they had a free hand to exploit the unrest in the Middle East in any way they pleased.
Defense Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen have not subscribed to Clinton’s diplomatic arguments against Obama’s approach on Iran, but they will object strongly if it results in US military intervention in Libya or any other Arab uprisings.
Friday, Feb. 25, in a farewell speech as defense secretary at West Point, Gates said: “In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”
Then, Tuesday and Wednesday, March 1-2, Gates sharpened his arguments against American military intervention in Libya.
Gates: Too much loose talks about military options
“Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya,” Gates told the House subcommittee on Defense Appropriations. “That’s the way you do a no fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. Well, if it’s ordered, we can do it,” Gates said. “But the reality is, there’s a lot of, frankly, loose talk about some of these military options.”
Gates’ opposition to any US military involvement in Libya is so strong that when Washington announced that it was sending naval forces to be stationed off the Libyan coast, Gates cut them down to the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponc amphibious assault vessels with the number of marines on board kept down to 800.
This left an American show of strength without enough teeth and claws to affect the course of events in Libya.
In the latter part of this week, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s military and intelligence sources report, awareness of the discord in Washington over how to handle him gave Muammar Qaddafi a huge boost and accounted for his relaxed and confident manner in a televised address on Wednesday, March 2 – a n evident recovery from his bedraggled, woebegone appearance under an umbrella in the first week of the protest against his rule.
Qaddafi seized the chance of salvaging his regime and strengthening his hand when he received an intelligence briefing on the confused situation in Washington from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Chavez was briefed by two sources – Iranian president Ahmed Ahmadinejad and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan (who publicly calls for Qaddafi’s ouster).
In contrast, DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s intelligence sources report that Obama, Gates and Clinton are groping in the dark in Libya for lack of intelligence assets on ground. They are at sea on unfolding events on both sides of the Libyan divide, their only sources being Libyan expats in Europe and oil sources.
To parry rising doubts about the value of administration decision-making in the dark, President Obama Wednesday, March 2, set up a team of CIA, National Security Council and Pentagon intelligence experts to start organizing a working undercover network inside Libya. This will take some time to build.