WarSclerotic

‘Ahmadinejad wants to go public with Iran nuclear program’ – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Intelligence assessment says Iran’s president is in favor of shedding secrecy, but clerical leadership – fearing international reaction – opposes such a move.

By The Associated Press

Iran’s president wants to shed the nation’s secrecy and forge ahead openly with developing nuclear weapons but is opposed by the clerical leadership, which is worried about international reaction to such a move, says an intelligence assessment shared with The Associated Press.

That view, from a nation with traditionally reliable intelligence from the region, cannot be confirmed and contrasts with assessments by other countries that view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as relatively moderate on the nuclear issue compared to the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

	Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on July 20, 2011.
	Photo by: AP

Attempts to interpret Iran’s goals are important because as it expands uranium enrichment, it is moving closer to being able to make a nuclear weapon by the day, even as it asserts that it is not interested in such arms and its programs are geared only to making reactor fuel.

A U.S. official cited one assessment he has seen suggesting Ahmadinejad may be more “moderate” — more open to talks with the international community on resolving nuclear concerns than Khamenei. He asked for anonymity because his information was privileged.

But a blunt comment by Ahmadinejad last month raises questions. While repeating that Iran does not want nuclear arms, he openly reinforced its ability to make them, telling Iranian state TV that “if we want to make a bomb, we are not afraid of anybody.”

That defiant statement fits the scenario laid down by the intelligence assessment shared with the AP, depicting Ahmadinejad as wanting to move publicly to develop a nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad is pushing “to shake free of the restraints Iran has imposed upon itself, and openly push forward to create a nuclear bomb,” says the assessment shared with the AP. But Khamenei, whose word is final on nuclear and other issues, “wants to progress using secret channels, due to concern about a severe response from the West,” says the report.

The varying views reflect the difficulties that intelligence agencies face when probing a secretive nation that plays its cards close to its chest. Lines of division are murky. Alliances shift and positions change, leaving governments and private analysts frustrated as they try to nail down Tehran’s nuclear end game.

They converge, however in noting that recent political divisions between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have spilled over to encompass Iran’s nuclear activities to a greater degree than before.

While much about Iran’s nuclear program is opaque, the growing capacity — if not the intention — to make weapons is on the record, captured in International Atomic Energy Agency reports documenting the expansion of Iran’s enrichment program from its clandestine beginnings more than a decade ago to one that has produced enough material for more than two nuclear bombs.

More recently Iran has begun enriching to higher levels that would lessen the time needed to make weapons-grade material. And its stonewalling of an IAEA probe based on U.S. and other intelligence of secret work on components of a nuclear weapons program is adding to concerns raised by Tehran’s refusal to freeze enrichment despite U.N. sanctions.

Intelligence reports of tensions between Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics are in line with other signs showing Ahmadinejad at odds with Khamenei with less than two-years to go into his presidency.

In recent months, Ahmadinejad apparently fired — and was forced by Khamenei to reinstate — his interior minister in what some analysts see as a rebuffed attempt by the president to eliminate rivals to candidates he would like to see in positions of power, once his second and last term ends in 2013. That prompted an outburst of public criticism and led rivals in parliament to start proceedings that could in the most extreme case lead to impeachment.

Reports of disagreement on nuclear issues predate that dispute, but some officials from member nations of the Vienna-based IAEA see tensions over the future of the nuclear program sharpening.

Proliferation expert David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security says his briefings from European government officials who have seen the latest U.S. intelligence assessment on the Islamic Republic seem to support the assessment shared with the AP that Khamenei is worried about how the world would react to a nuclear-armed Iran.

“There is a lot of caution in the regime about the implication of building nuclear weapons,” says Albright. Asked whether Ahmadinejad or Khamenei have been the most circumspect, he says “the implication is that it was the Supreme Leader.”

The leadership is “worried about starting a nuclear weapons race and worried about the international impact,” said Albright, naming reactions from regional powers Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey as that of greatest concern to Tehran. Both Egypt and the Saudis have indicated that they would contemplate acquiring nuclear weapons if Iran had them.

One theory voiced by government officials and private analysts is that Iran might be looking to reach the level just short of making nuclear weapons — but able to do so quickly if it feels threatened. That would fit in with Khamenei’s reported cautious stance.

In any case, Ahmadinejad seems to be further weakened by the dispute. That leaves the Revolutionary Guard — the military-industrial powerhouse that is increasingly asserting itself in most aspects of Iran’s society — as a beneficiary says the intelligence assessment.

“Khamenei has decided to transfer engagement with the most sensitive parts of the nuclear program, including activity that can be used for nuclear weapons, from … the group of scientists at the Defense Ministry, who are identified with Ahmadinejad, to a special body in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp.,” it says. “This, due to the increasing lack of trust the Leader has in people in sensitive positions, who are identified with the President.”

The summary interprets the apparent decision to give the guard greater say over nuclear issues as a boost to its quest “to establish its status as a leading power force in the regime.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 22, 2011, 11:33 AM (GMT+02:00)

Syrian tanks in Homs

Since Thursday, July 21, Syria’s entire operational fleet of 1,500 tanks has been deployed to surround the country’s most active anti-Assad protest cities such as Homs, Hama, Deir al-Zour, Abu Kamal and the big Damascus suburb of Harasta. That evening, the tanks roared into the town of Homs, shelling densely populated districts at random, causing many casualties and burning buildings.

Five months into the uprising, the army no longer dares enter flashpoint cities except in large contingents backed by heavy armor and live fire.

debkafile‘s military sources report that Syrian army bases have been emptied of all servicable tanks in support of another desperate attempt by Syrian President Bashar Assad to crush the long uprising against his rule. This makes him the first Middle East leader ever to hurl an entire tank force against a rebellious population.

Left in the hangars are about 2,000 iron vehicles in poor condition.

According to our military sources, Assad resorted to this extreme measure because the big cities are out of control. Army commanders know that even a tank force entering a town will run the gauntlet of live fire and roadblocks which force the soldiers to fight their way through.
In the western town of Homs, Syria’s third largest city and its biggest industrial center, with a population of 1.7 million, four Sunni neighborhoods have set up armed militias ready to shoot to keep the army out. As Sunnis, they are not just fighting the Assad regime but also his Alawite Shabiba militia.

The uprising is therefore beginning to assume features of a sectarian conflict. Sunni soldiers are deserting in increasing numbers, especially those who hail from the most embattled cities.
Other Homs neighborhoods struck a deal with the army:  Volunteers would be posted to keep the streets quiet if the army promised to stay out.

But late Thursday, July 21 Assad and his commanders changed the rules. The demonstrative shutdown of city shops was the signal for tens of tanks to roll into Homs, shelling the streets and buildings at random. Many people were killed and injured and whole blocks set on fire.
Hama struck a similar deal with the army. There, the rebels have seized control of the entire city, barricaded sections against tanks and set up local governing committees. Monday, July 18, Bashar Assad was compelled to appoint a new governor, a resident of the city with no military background.

The new governor, Ahmed Khaled Abdul-Aziz, is the general secretary of the ruling Ba’ath Party’s Hama branch. By profession, he is an internist who specializes in sleep disorders. His first act as governor, according to our sources, was to establish contact with the imam of Hama’s central mosque and recruit him for de-escalating the clashes between rebels and army.
Terms were agreed Wednesday night, July 20: The Syrian army pledged not to enter Hama while the imam promised that there would be no more attacks on administrative institutions.

Assad went along with the deal, showing for the first time signs of fatigue and a willingness to cede control of territory held by the rebels.
In the Euphrates Valley of eastern Syria, the Syrian army has lost control of an entire region.

The two main towns of Deir al-Zour and Abu Kamal have driven Assad’s troops and agents out, fortified themselves against invasion and set up local popular committees to rule them.
Army forces who tried to enter these towns this week were repulsed with live fire. They were in such a hurry to pull back that they left their heavy weapons, tanks and armored personnel carriers behind.

Early Thursday, the popular committees agreed to hand the hardware back to the army against a guarantee that the military would henceforth refrain from setting foot in the two towns.

More trouble awaits the Syrian government when the American and French ambassadors in Damascus, Robert Ford and Eric Chevallier try to reach Deir al-Zour and Abu Kamal to meet protest leaders – possibly in a day or two.
To prevent this, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem warned the diplomats they are prohibited from leaving the capital without permission. The US State Department responded sharply, saying that this was not the act of a government which has nothing to hide.

Iran &45; America Too Weak To Stop Us!-by PipeLineNews.org.

By Reza Kahlili

July 21, 2011 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – The Obama administration has criticized the Iranian regime and its policies while the United States and other countries have put tough sanctions on Iran. The question remains, however, how the Iranian rulers perceive the situation. In their speeches and writings, they argue that America is weak and crumbling. This is, in part, propaganda, but to a considerable degree it is also clear that they believe this to be true. An example of this is an article that has just appeared on Gerdab, a website run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which concludes that America is so tired from being involved in so many wars that even if Iran makes an atomic bomb it will not attack Iran, nor will it allow Israel to take such action.

The Guards in their analysis quote British Middle East analyst Patrick Seale, who in recent comments pointed to the depletion of American stamina. Seale maintained that the U.S. has begun a quiet and deliberate withdrawal from the Middle East and that it is incapable of confronting Iran even if it is verified that the Iranians are on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.

The article states that it is a rare instance where Arab leaders, activists, intellectuals, and allies simultaneously face the same challenge they are all dealing with this summer. All equations inside and outside the Arab world are shifting.

According to the article quoting Seale, there are two main issues whose resolution will have major influence on the future of the Arab world. The first is clearer and that is regarding the revolutionary wave radiating throughout the region:

The main question therefore is, how can it be assured that the big burst of energy that produced the populistic force can have a positive effect; meaning that can this power that the Arab Spring created remain just, stable, and burgeoning, while making sure that it does not turn violent and chaotic?

The article continues that without a doubt the United States and its Western allies “will slowly but surely extricate their forces from the Middle East and Central Asia. Also, the security umbrella is from yesteryears (prior to the Second World War), which is conventional to the region, and will be effectively eliminated as well. This process has already begun in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and though there are the exceptional American bases in the Persian Gulf, they will not last very long either.”

The analysis weighs in on the financial trouble in America: “It appears that subsequent to several wars, the United States finds itself depleted and desperate. Their total debt exceeds $14.5 trillion which is equal to America’s GDP. Seemingly this year’s $900 billion will not stretch to cover the defense and military budget of the years to come. The United States will retreat from the world of Islam and the Arab world so that it can refocus its energy on China, which, in the American view, is its global rival.”

Recently, Iranian officials have increased their call for the U.S. forces to leave the region. This is while they continue to help Shiite militias in Iraq and Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda elements in Afghanistan to attack our forces.

The Iranians are also exerting pressure on the U.S. and its allies in the region by helping to incite unrest in Yemen, Bahrain, and elsewhere while calling for the unification of Muslims against Israel and America.

The strategy of the radicals ruling Iran is to keep the U.S. fixed in these theaters knowing full well the cost of the wars. They know that in order to achieve their goal of seeing the demise of America, they need to create circumstances where the U.S. can no longer afford the financial burden of protecting its interests in the region and therefore will be forced to withdraw its forces, allowing Iran to expand and exert power.

To that effect, the Iranian officials have boasted that this is the century of the Islamic awakening and that Islamic nations will soon be able to control the world’s economy through the control of oil and the world’s strategic passages.

The Iranian leaders also believe that as long as the U.S. is financially weak, as long as oil prices remain high, and as long as it is involved on too many fronts it will not dare confront Iran. That is why they have made a decision to continue on with their nuclear program in spite of four sets of UN sanctions. They’ve even gone so far as to mock the U.S. for the ineffectiveness of those sanctions.

One thing is for sure: the jihadists in Tehran feel invincible because, despite the continuous killing of our soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan and despite their pursuit of the nuclear bomb, America and the West have shown little stomach for confronting the Islamic regime in Iran.

Weakness is being observed. The belief in Islam is for one to deceive the enemy until they are strong enough to take them out. Radicals ruling Iran think that is only a matter of time!

Note: The author is a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. He now resides in the United States and writes under the pseudonym, Reza Kahlili. For further background regarding Mr. Kahlili see our in-depth interview here Iranian Defector Reza Kahlili – Iran Runs “Large Network” Through U.S. Mosques And Islamic Organizations

Despite Iranian support, Assad’s regime challenged | Sun Journal.

Two of the oldest tricks in the Middle Eastern dictator’s grab-bag of deceit and thuggery have failed Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

In early June, Assad’s regime played the Israel card. Assad’s gangsters connived to attack Israel, using a crowd of Palestinian activists instead of a tank army. An unarmed human wave of Arab protestors approached the border wire. Israeli border troops drove them off. It was a made-for-television piece of propaganda intended to inflame nationalist and sectarian passions. The Assad gang then spewed the usual anti-Israeli bile.

When Middle Eastern dictators confront domestic problems, as Assad’s regime certainly does, blaming Israel is a classic diversionary gimmick. Alas, Syria’s internal dissidents, Assad’s real worry, remained defiant.

Last week, Assad’s gang launched mob attacks on the American and French embassies in Damascus. Attacking American embassies is another classic diversionary technique. Blaring denunciations of U.S. imperialism, cowboy militarism and other recycled Nazi World War II and communist Cold War propaganda accusations always accompany these embassy assaults. The goal is to incite nationalist hatred for a foreign devil — an “us against them” ploy. These manufactured passions are supposed to suck the inflammatory oxygen from the legitimate anti-regime grievances stirred by domestic dissidents.

The old diversions aren’t working, however — not in 2011.

That they have failed is indicative of the broad depth of Syria’s slow-motion revolt.

Syria’s Arab Spring turbulence is following a very different route from that of Tunisia and Egypt. The Syrian security forces, their officer corps stacked with Alawites (Assad’s religious group), are tightly controlled by the regime. The Tunisian and Egyptian militaries have broader nationalist origins.

If propaganda diversions and secret police subversion don’t undermine a revolt, clubs, rifles and tanks can suppress it. Though bloodletting in the streets doesn’t play too well on international television, at the moment Assad is more concerned with his neck than his image.

Since March, Syrian security forces have slain some 1,500 dissidents. The regime kills in drips and drabs, dozens not thousands at a time. This calculated pace is reminiscent of the creeping war of ethnic cleansing waged by Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbian outlaws in Bosnia in 1991. Milosevic would attack, then stop, and feign negotiation.

Assad is attempting to play Milosevic’s game and avoid international intervention. Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s harsh and theatrical threats of revenge against Libyan rebels produced international outrage, which played a major role in solidifying the NATO-led coalition now waging war against Gadhafi’s regime.

Unlike Gadhafi, Assad can rely on the support of an aggressive regional power able to supply arms and repressive expertise: Iran. Syria is Iran’s most important ally. Syria provides a supply base for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. In return, Iran provides Syria with financial support.

Since the Syrian rebellion began, Iran has supplied the Assad regime with political and material aid. Several media sources assert that Iranian special forces advisers and intelligence agents have deployed to Syria to reinforce Assad’s security forces.

Iran’s dictators understand that their own people are watching events in Syria, or if not watching getting real-time updates via Twitter and the Internet. The ayatollahs know if their Syrian ally falls, internal opposition to their own heinous regime will increase. Many demands voiced by Syrian dissidents echo those of Iran’s Green Movement opposition — the Green Movement demands jobs, the end of corruption and cronyism, and free speech. Iran’s tyrants prefer to suppress these demands in Damascus, rather than battle them in Tehran.

Despite Iranian support, in spite of calculated repression, the anti-Assad regime demonstrations continue and domestic resistance is spreading. The rebels won’t quit. Massive repression would likely ignite a civil war. Democratic reforms would end the regime and land the Assad clan in jail or in exile.

What is U.S. policy? Excellent question. American political and moral support for Syrian dissidents has been underwhelming, and material support nonexistent. So far, the toughest signal the U.S. has sent to the Assad regime was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s post-embassy attack declaration that Bashar al-Assad was “not indispensable.”

The Syrian people, however, have already told us that.