WarSclerotic

Hizbullah Mulls Attacking Israeli Gas Interests – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Tamar Oil Field

EAPC Photo

A Lebanese strategic analyst close to Hizbullah warned on Monday the terror group will strike Israeli gas-exploration interests if Tel Aviv continues drilling in the Tamar and Leviathan gas fields.

“In case the enemy steals Lebanon’s oil, Hezbollah will have the right to strike its oil installations and facilities,” Feisal Abdossater told Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency.

Abdossater described Israel’s drilling operations in the mediterranean as ‘aggressive and expansionist’ saying they had heightened tension between Beirut and Jerusalem.

“Zionists’ plot to find control over Lebanon’s sea wealth has a high potential for clashes between the two sides and is likely to have dire consequences,” he stated.

“The Lebanese Islamic resistance will not tolerate any kind of aggressions against the country’s sovereignty,” he reiterated, and added, “Hezbollah views the oil resources in Lebanon’s water as a treasure for the Lebanese nation and has declared its position in this regard very transparently.”

“Hezbollah will cut the hands of anyone who targets Lebanon’s sovereignty,” the analyst continued.

Earlier in July 2011, Hezbollah Leader Seyed Hassan Nasrallah warned Israel against trying to steal Lebanon’s maritime resources, and said it would retaliate against any Israeli attack on the country’s oil and gas interests.

Nasrallah’s comments prompted Israeli officials to deploy armed UAVs over the disputed gas fields to protect Israeli gas interests in the Mediterranean.

Israel and Lebanon have never had formally set borders, and instead relied on the 1949 Armistice lines, or “Green Line,” as a de jure border until 2000.

In 2000, when Israel withdrew from the buffer zone it had created in southern Lebanon, it redeployed its forces along the “Blue Line,” set by UN Security Council in Resolution 425. Lebanon declined to participate in the talks that determined the Blue Line.

Israel submitted a map dillineating its sea boundary with Lebanon to the United Nations in answer to a similar submission by the Hizbullah-dominated government of Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati earlier this year.

Observers at the time noted Israel’s map took into account the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) set by Lebanon and Cyprus in 2007, which have already been accepted by the United Nations and United States, as its likely future border. Israel drew its boundary from the Blue Line on the coast to Point 1, the southernmost extension of Lebanon’s EEZ with Cyprus.

Lebanon, however, drew its border 17 kilometers to the south of Point 1 so that they would cut into the disputed D, E, and F blocks of the Tamar and Leviathan fields. While Beirut’s economic agreement with Cyprus did allow for Point 1 to be adjusted based on future negotiations with Israel, no such negotiations have been undertaken.

Last month an Israeli consortium, in conjunction with Houston-based giant Noble Energy, began drilling in the A, B, and C blocks to the south of the Lebanese-claimed zone.

Also Monday, Beirut said it was dispatching doplomats to Nicosia to renegotiate its boundary with Cyprus. Nicosia, however, has been conducting closed-door meetings with Jerusalem over the development of gas fields in its own terriotry since last month.

IAEA expected to give details on… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

    VIENNA – The UN atomic watchdog is expected to spell out in more detail soon the reasons for its growing concern that Iran may be working covertly to develop a nuclear missile, diplomats say.

Such a move by the International Atomic Energy Agency, possibly in a new quarterly report on Iran due early next month, could raise pressure on Tehran and offer more arguments for Western powers to tighten sanctions on the major oil producer.

The United States and its allies have urged IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano to declare plainly whether he believes that there have been military aspects to Tehran’s nuclear activities and whether such work may still be going on.

It remains to be seen whether the report’s conclusion will be sufficiently clear-cut to prompt the agency’s 35-nation board of governors to take action at a Nov. 17-18 meeting, possibly by reporting Iran once again to the UN Security Council.

“Many countries have called on Amano to give his best possible assessment of the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program,” one Western envoy said.

But it is hard to know now what Amano will say and it is “much too early to make a judgment” on whether it could provide the basis for referring the issue to the Security Council in New York, as happened in 2006, the diplomat added.

A divided board decided in June to report Syria, Iran’s ally, to the Security Council for stonewalling an IAEA probe into a suspected reactor site that was bombed by Israel in 2007.

Russia and China opposed the US-led diplomatic crackdown on Syria, highlighting big power rifts that the West would want to avoid in any similar IAEA board vote on Iran.

“Russia and China appear to be in no mood for imposing additional pressure on Iran without a pressing reason for concern,” said Ali Vaez, an Iran expert at the Federation of American Scientists think-tank.

The U.S. is Right to Give Israel Bunker Buster Bombs @PolicyMic | Joshua Lee.

The recently leaked U.S. decision to give Israel 55 GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators (commonly referred to as “bunker busters”) in November 2009 is not as big of a deal with regard to U.S.-Israel-Iran relations as some reports have made it out to be. In the nearly two years since then, despite the heated rhetoric of the Israeli government and the failure to engage Iran, no overt Israeli attack has been launched (Stuxnet is another story). Bunker busters are not a technology that Israel would be incapable of developing on their own, and history tells us that if the Israeli government feels threatened enough, they will simply attack Iran. The U.S. decision to give Israel these bunker busters was the correct choice and its potential impact has been vastly overstated in the media.

Israel has never asked for permission for assaults on supposed nuclear weapon sites in Iraq (1981) or Syria (2007), and neither a lack of U.S. approval nor a lack of bunker busters would stop them if they felt it required for their survival. To be clear, I am fully opposed to Israel’s attacking Iran’s nuclear sites, but American bunker busters will hardly be a deciding factor. Had the U.S. refused to sell them, it would just make Israel that much more worried about Iran’s nuclear facilities going underground, and it would have reduced the ability of the Obama administration to influence Israeli decisions on the matter in the future.

In fact, the timing of the deal appears more likely aimed at restarting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations: Israel agreed to a 10-month West Bank settlement freeze barely a week after agreement. In addition, the point of keeping the deal secret was to avoid giving the appearance of a U.S. “green light” to Israel to attack Iran. The immediate impact of the deal in 2009 regarding Israel-Iran relations appears negligible, and since it was leaked Iranian state media has been mostly generic in dealing with it.

One fear of those who oppose this deal is that it will needlessly antagonize Iran towards the U.S. Undoubtedly Iran’s leadership opposes this deal, but considering that they are well into the process of moving their centrifuges underground, the U.S. move was hardly pre-emptive. Significant U.S. military aid to Israel is not new or unexpected, and this is simply one more piece of it. However, if we can reduce the level of fear that the Israeli government has of the perceived existential threat from Iran, we can reduce the likelihood of a pre-emptive Israeli strike. As anyone familiar with Israeli domestic politics can tell you, they have a particular fixation (some have referred to it even as paranoia) with security. The historical reasons for this are long and complicated (far more than just the Holocaust), but they should be taken into account.

The second fear is that these bunker busters will incite an Israel-Iran regional war. I find it extremely unlikely that Israel would strike Iran in the near-term given the regional turmoil, including the Arab Spring and Israel’s deteriorating relations with Turkey and Egypt. Numerous top Israeli military officials since November 2009 have come out strongly against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if Israel did decide to attack Iran, a lack of U.S. bunker busters would not stop them. Despite Israeli fears that Iran’s leadership is entirely irrational, however, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will not willingly sacrifice Iranian civilization just to destroy Israel with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. I have no doubt that he would like to destroy Israel, but the cost of mutually assured destruction is too high.

There are also potential benefits to these bunker busters not directly associated with Iran. Alleviating Israel’s security concerns can help to make their government more willing to make concessions for peace with the Palestinians. Historically, elections in Israel that have revolved around imminent or ongoing security threats have resulted in right-wing government victories, whereas elections that have been about domestic issues and/or in an environment of relative domestic security have resulted in more left-wing governments. For those who are especially frustrated with ongoing Israeli settlement activity (myself included), making the Israelis feel more secure could help achieve a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

In the end, though, these bunker busters are just not as big of a deal as they’re cracked up to be.

Iran nuclear site draws defiant aura from namesake – seattlepi.com.

Iran issues warning to Turkey as two compete for influence in Arab world – The National.

Relations between Iran and Turkey are becoming increasingly strained as they compete for influence in a changing Arab world.

The key military adviser to Iran’s supreme leader told Ankara at the weekend that Turkey must reconsider its policies on Syria, the Nato missile shield and promoting Muslim secularism in the region.

Otherwise, he warned, Turkey would face trouble not only from its own people, but from its neighbours, Iran, Syria and Iraq, because it was “acting in line with the goals of America”.

The characteristically undiplomatic outburst from Major-General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, an influential aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, highlighted Iran’s frustration that Ankara’s star is rising in the Arab world while Tehran’s is declining. The outcome of the contest between the region’s two major non-Arab Muslim states will help shape the future of the Middle East.

Yet, experts say, Iran and Turkey have mutually beneficial relations that neither will want to see fray beyond repair.

Sir Richard Dalton, a Middle East and North Africa expert at Chatham House, a British think tank, said: “Both are keen to maintain good economic ties. Iran has long tried to keep its commercial interests largely insulated from political difficulties.”

The Iranian regime watched with envy and dismay when Turkey’s prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan, made a triumphal tour of North Africa last month. Before cheering crowds in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, he extolled Turkey’s successful brand of secular Muslim democracy as a template for the Arab world.

Mr Rahim-Safavi, the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, fumed that this was “unexpected and unimaginable”, apparently wanting to claim that since the Egyptian people were predominantly Muslims, they would prefer a ruling system like Iran’s, which places Islam firmly at its core.

The Arab uprisings have been mainly secular in nature. But Mr Khamenei has claimed they represent an “Islamic awakening” against dictatorial, Western-backed regimes, inspired by Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution. But Tehran is aware that its own model of a purportedly democratic Islamic government has little appeal in the Arab world.

Television viewers in the Middle East are well-acquainted with the Iranian regime’s draconian suppression of pro-democracy protests that erupted after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election in June 2009. They are also aware that, despite its vast oil wealth, Iran is struggling to combat inflation and unemployment while Turkey’s economy is booming.

Nor can Tehran promote itself in the Arab world any longer as the leading rhetorical scourge of Israel and champion of the Palestinians. Mr Erdogan has usurped that role far more convincingly.

Economic ties also are enabling Turkey to increase its soft power in Iraq, where Iran had hoped to be the main post-Saddam commercial beneficiary, because of its good political relations with Baghdad’s Shiite-led government. Even so, Baghdad is supporting Iran’s stance, rather than that of Turkey’s, on the Syrian uprising.

Turkish pressure on Syria, Tehran’s main ally in the Arab world, upsets Iran. Mr Erdogan has taken a tough and proactive stand against President Bashar Al Assad’s brutal response to the seven-month-old Syrian uprising. The Turkish premier predicted recently that the Syrian leader will be ousted “sooner or later”, and is set to impose its own sanctions on Damascus. Turkey is also harbouring Syrian opposition groups and army defectors.

Iran has a huge interest in Mr Al Assad’s survival. His removal could sever Iran’s umbilical cord to Hizbollah, Tehran’s coreligionist ally in Lebanon, which gives the Islamic republic a cherished presence on Israel’s northern border and enables Iran to project its power in the region.

But it is Ankara’s recent decision to deploy a Nato missile early-warning system in south-eastern Turkey that has most infuriated Iran. Tehran maintains this is a US ploy to protect Israel from any counter-attack should the Jewish state target Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“The missile defence shield is aimed at defending the Zionist regime,” Mr Ahmadinejad declared last week, while insisting it would not “prevent the collapse” of the Jewish state.

Ankara counters that the radar system does not target a specific country and that Turkey had threatened to block the deal if Iran was explicitly named as a threat.

Mr Rahim-Safavi said trade ties with Turkey, which is an importer of Iranian gas and exports a wide range of manufactured goods to Iran, would be in jeopardy unless Ankara changes tack. “If Turkish political leaders fail to make their foreign policy and ties with Iran clear, they will run into problems,” he warned in an interview with Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency on Saturday. “If, as they claim, they intend to raise the volume of contracts with Iran to $20 billion [Dh73bn], they will ultimately have to accommodate Iran.”

This hard talk ignores the benefits Iran derives from its relationship with Turkey. Ankara, which has huge commercial interests in Iran, has opposed Washington’s uncompromising stance on Iran’s nuclear programme, arguing for a diplomatic solution to the protracted standoff instead of sanctions.

Iran and Turkey also have a common security interest in battling Kurdish rebels from each country that are based in northern Iraq. Sir Richard, a former British ambassador to Tehran, said: “Tehran and Ankara have a relationship that each regards as very important, although it’s never been without its difficulties.

“Iran will try to benefit where it can with Turkey, while continuing to be frank about its opposition to some of Ankara’s policies.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.
DEBKAfile Special Report October 10, 2011, 9:15 AM (GMT+02:00)

Bashar Assad parades his army chiefs

Five days after defeating a Western-backed UN Security Council resolution condemning Bashar Assad’s savagery against his opposition, Moscow turned the heat on him by inviting an opposition delegation for a visit Monday, Oct. 10 and offering to host talks between the Syrian government and the opposition umbrella Syrian National Council.  Syrian Foreign Minister Wallid Moallem threatened unspecified “tough measures” against any countries recognizing the council, evidently fearing a repeat of the Libyan exercise which toppled Muammar Qaddafi.

Damascus also pointedly released a rare photo of President Assad with his army chiefs, a not so gentle hint that tough measures might well take military form.

In issuing the invitation, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov explained: “Our main message is that all the problems which have accumulated in Syria over many years can’t be resolved through force or confrontation” – a failed mark equally assigned by Moscow to Assad’s methods of suppression and potential foreign intervention. “In our view there is no alternative to broad-based political dialogue,” the Russian official insisted.

debkafile‘s Russian and Iranian sources report that Moscow’s willingness to receive a delegation of the newly formed opposition council has gone down badly not just in Damascus but also in Tehran.

Sunday, Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s senior military adviser warned Turkey to “radically rethink its policies on Syria, the NATO missile shield and promoting Muslim secularism in the Arab world – or face trouble from its own people and neighbors.”

Maj.-Gen. Yahya Rahim-Safavi did not mention Russia, but his warning coinciding as it did with the Syrian foreign minister’s threat did not go unnoticed in Moscow.

Turkey was singled out by name when Moallem said that Syria’s hands were not bound and it would retaliate against any Turkish moves.

The Erdogan government did not wait for the Security Council before imposing its own sanctions on Syria. Furthermore, Istanbul was the venue for the foundation of the Syrian National Council umbrella of all opposition groups for the declared goal of replacing the Assad regime and seeking recognition as the legitimate rulers of Syria from Arab governments including Egypt.
The Turkish army also staged a large-scale army mobilization exercise on the Syrian border from Oct. 2 to Oct. 13.
debkafile‘s sources report that Damascus views all these steps as replicating the process which led to the ouster of the Qaddafi regime in Libya and its replacement with forcible NATO backing by the National Transitional Council.
Russia was and remains flatly opposed to the Western alliance’s military intervention in Libya following its recognition of the NTC in Benghazi as legitimate rulers of Libya and is determined to deny the West an opening for similar military action in Syria. Hence the Russian veto, along with China, of a Security Council motion paving the way for such action.
For a few days, Syrian President Assad was allowed to hail this diplomatic success far and wide as attesting to the support of his regime by two big world powers.
However, his victory march was short lived. Friday, President Dmitry Medvedev admonished the Syrian president by saying:“If the Syrian leadership is incapable of conducting reforms, it will have to go, but this decision should be taken not in NATO or certain European countries, it should be taken by the Syrian people,” he said.

Then, after the assassination of Kurdish leader Mashaal Tammo at his home in Qamishli, the White House for the first time called on Assad to go. Spokesman Jay Carney said the Syrian ruler must “step down now before taking his country farther down this very dangerous path.”
All at once, President Assad was confronted by two very strong voices telling him his time was up. When he failed to respond, Moscow stepped up the diplomatic pressure by reaching out to the Syrian opposition, the first government to do so after Turkey. This setback was serious enough to alarm the Assad regime and elicit threats.
In the case of Libya, Russia went along with the Obama administration – but only in as far as helping to negotiate the installation of an alternative government in Tripoli for the opposition to share power with Qaddafi’s sons. This diplomatic collaboration was cut short in August by the French-British-Qatari-Jordanian special forces’ conquest of Tripoli. Moscow is now bidding to broker a similar power-sharing administration to take the reins of government in Damascus from the bloody hands of the Assad regime. Only this time, the Russians hope to act in time to preempt Western military intervention in Syria.

Last week, the Syrian ruler threatened to flatten Tel Aviv and Jordanian cities if attacked.

Paying the Obama price – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Op-ed: Egypt’s disintegration highlights president’s Mideast ignorance, policy failure

Yigal Walt