Archive for November 14, 2011

Fighting in Syria kills 40 near Jordan border

November 14, 2011

Fighting in Syria kills 40 near Jordan bor… JPost – Middle East.

Syrian soldiers man tank (illustrative)

    At least 40 Syrians were killed in fighting on Monday between forces loyal to President Bashar Assad and insurgents in a town near the border with Jordan, local activists said, in the first case of major armed resistance to Assad in the region.

They said troops backed by armor killed 20 people — army defectors, insurgents and civilians — in an assault on Khirbet Ghazaleh in the Hauran Plain, and in fighting that ensued near the town. A similar number of troops were killed, they added.


The troops attacked Khirbet Ghazaleh, 20 km (12 miles) north of the border, on the main highway between Amman and Damascus, after army defectors attacked a security police bus at a highway intersection near the town, the activists said.

“Members of the (defectors’) brigade fought back when the army attacked and Beduin from nearby villages also rushed to help Khirbet Ghazaleh,” said one of the activists, who gave his name as Abu Hussein.

The Hauran Plain, an area of flat farmland that also borders the Golan Heights, was the first outlying area to erupt in street protests against Assad’s autocratic rule at the start of the uprising in March. Tanks and troops have been deployed across the region to crush the revolt since then.

The fighting came as pressure on Syria to halt the bloodshed in the country increased on Monday.

Jordan’s King Abdullah told Assad on Monday he should step down and the European Union added pressure with more sanctions after the Arab League’s surprise decision to suspend Damascus for its violent crackdown on protests.

Syria looks ever more isolated, but still has the support of Russia, which said the Arab League had made the wrong move and accused the West of inciting Assad’s opponents.

The anti-Assad unrest, inspired by Arab revolts elsewhere, has devastated Syria’s economy, scaring off tourists and investors, while Western sanctions have crippled oil exports.

Jordan’s King Abdullah said Assad should quit. “I believe, if I were in his shoes, I would step down,” he told the BBC.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem said the League’s decision, due to take effect on Wednesday, was “an extremely dangerous step” at a time when Damascus was implementing an Arab deal to end violence and start talks with the opposition.

Syria has called for an emergency Arab League summit in an apparent effort to forestall its suspension.

Is Israel Behind Blast at Iranian Military Base?

November 14, 2011

Is Israel Behind Blast at Iranian Military Base? « News.

On Monday a news story linking the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to a fatal explosion at a military base in Iran on Saturday is gaining traction in Israel and around the world.

Iranian officials deny the blast at Bid Ganeh was a covert operation. Instead, they maintain it was an accident caused by a munitions transfer.

But US blogger Richard Silverstein claims the Mossad worked with the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) to implement the blast. Among the dead was Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Hassan Tehrani Moqaddam, who was reportedly responsible for arms development and inventory in the IRG.

The MEK refuted any connection to the blast, but, in a rather taunting manner, suggested the IRG has a reputation for sloppiness.

Founded in the 1960s, the MEK originally functioned as a Marxist group in opposition to the Shah. Although a participant in the 1979 Revolution, its ideology was at odds with the new Islamic Republic, and since its leadership’s exile to Paris the MEK has orchestrated and executed several terrorist attacks in Iran and on its embassies. A summary of the MEK’s history and activities can be found here.

Within the US, there has been a campaign to remove the MEK from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. According to a report by the Christian Science Monitor, the MEK has curried endorsements across the political spectrum in the US because it is seen as a potential instrument in destabilizing the current regime in Tehran. But given its roots and violent history, it is hard to take the MEK’s pro-democracy claims at face value. As of September 15, the MEK remains on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

The foreign media allegations that the Mossad is behind the supposed attack in Iran follow a long history of surgical hits or strikes attributed to, but never confirmed by, one of the most potent (and impenetrable) spy agencies in the world. But as this CNN overview from 2010 illustrates, Israelis are not always comfortable with the extant of the Mossad’s fatal reach, especially when its activities appear less than clandestine.

A day before Saturday’s blast, Haaretz reported that the UK government anticipates an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities before 2012. While the report stemmed from a report in British tabloid the Daily Mail, speculations about an Israeli strike have reached a feverish pitch in recent months. Today, a Sydney Morning Herald article states that US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta received a noncommittal answer from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak when he asked that Israel first obtain US permission before any strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

It is unclear how much the frosty relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu has affected US-Israeli security cooperation. On one hand, lobbying pressures, domestic political realities in the US, and the ‘sacrosanct’ nature of the US-Israel alliance nearly assure that any personal bitterness between the two leaders would be tabled for the sake of being on the same page in the event of an Israeli surgical strike. On the other hand, historical precedent and Mr. Netanyahu’s bullish reputation suggest Israel will not bend easily to American calls for restraint (or at least coordination).

Although it is unlikely that the allegations that the Mossad was behind Saturday’s blast will be officially confirmed within Israel, it is reasonable to see the blast as one in a potential series of strikes. And more alarmingly, it increasingly seems that it is no longer a matter of if but when an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities will occur.

Israeli army trains hard to fight old foe – UPI.com

November 14, 2011

Israeli army trains hard to fight old foe – UPI.com.

Published: Nov. 14, 2011 at 2:23 PM

TEL AVIV, Israel, Nov. 14 (UPI) — Israel is swirling with speculation about a possible war with Iran, a new kind of conflict in which its cities and towns face an unprecedented missile blitz that could last for months.

But the Israeli army’s training hard to do battle with an old enemy right on its doorstep: Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Iranian-backed movement has a vast arsenal and thousands of diehard Islamic fighters who battled with Jewish state’s ground forces to an inconclusive standstill in a 34-day war in 2006.

The war left Israel feeling dangerously vulnerable. But Maj. Gen. Sami Turjeman, the current ground forces commander, is pushing his troops to be ready.

“On a tactical level we’ll see an attempt to wear us down with urban warfare, which is characteristic of the fronts we face today,” the Moroccan-born tank veteran said during an exercise in the occupied Golan Heights.

“There will be a close battle between ground forces.”

On a more strategic level, he says he’s preparing for the possibility the next conflict with Hezbollah will also lead to a war with Syria.

When Hezbollah was formed following Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it was little more than a group of hit-and-run Islamic fundamentalist militants.

But, aided by Iran and Syria, it soon developed into a deadly enemy that launched a campaign of suicide attacks that had the Israelis reeling.

In May 2000, after years of an unrelenting Hezbollah guerrilla war, the Israelis finally abandoned their “security zone” in south Lebanon.

Six years later, Hezbollah, had the trappings of a conventional army, with a brigade structure.

It didn’t have tanks and helicopters, but it had vast numbers of missiles, high-tech communications, an elaborate network of defense bunkers and launch sites, and a highly rated intelligence organization.

In the 2006 war, Hezbollah operated as what military experts call a “hybrid force” employing irregular and conventional weapons and tactics.

This is seen in military circles as the warfare of the future.

“The conflict … that intrigues me most … and speaks more toward what we can expect in the decades ahead, is the one that happened in Lebanon in the summer of 2006,” Gen. George Casey said in 2009 when he was the U.S. army chief of staff.

In 2006 Hezbollah showed Israel the future. It hammered Israeli civilian targets, mostly in the northern Galilee region, with some 4,000 missiles and rockets in the most sustained barrage the Jewish state has ever experienced.

Equipped with Iranian weapons, including deadly anti-tank and anti-ship missiles, and electronic intelligence systems, Hezbollah’s veterans held off the might of the Israeli army, the first time Arab forces had ever done that.

Israel’s northern border has been quiet since the war. But both sides know there’s unfinished business here.

Hezbollah, pushed by Iran, is now believed to have 50,000 missiles and rockets, some capable of reaching anywhere in Israel. That’s three times more than Hezbollah had in July 2006.

Israeli analysts say Hezbollah could sustain a bombardment of 100-200 missiles a day for several weeks, a nightmare scenario that would likely produce Israeli civilian casualties on a hitherto unknown scale.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned Oct. 21 that next time his forces will first attack the heavily populated center of Israel, not the less strategic north.

That region includes the large urban sprawl around Tel Aviv, Israel’s financial hub, and the country’s industrial heartland.

Hezbollah has also indicated it plans to push ground forces into the Arab-populated Galilee in the event of hostilities.

That would be another first in the annals of Arab-Israeli warfare that has raged since 1948.

No Arab force have ever invaded the Jewish state since it was founded, although in the 1973 war, Syrian and Egyptian forces briefly recaptured swathes of Arab land conquered by Israel in 1967.

The Israelis learned some harsh lessons in 2006, particularly how decades of occupation in the West Bank and Gaza had dulled their war-fighting capabilities and diluted their offense-oriented military doctrine.

“The next war will be completely different,” said Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, until July head of Israel’s Northern Command. “Hezbollah will be better prepared. So will we.”

Eizenkot’s blueprint for hammering Hezbollah is simple. It’s known as the “Dahiyeh Doctrine,” after the Shiite stronghold in south Beirut that was flattened by the Israeli air force in 2006.

Tehran’s Reaction to IAEA Report: Apprehension and Escalated Threats

November 14, 2011

Tehran’s Reaction to IAEA Report: Apprehension and Escalated Threats.

Introduction

Not long after Washington accused Tehran of involvement in terrorism, following the thwarting of the Iran-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., the IAEA’s unequivocal pronouncement, in its November 2011 report that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon increased apprehensions and concern in Tehran regarding a possible Western or Israeli strike against it. Alongside these fears, however, Iran also reacted by escalating its threats against the U.S. and Israel.

Encouraged by Russia and China, who following the publication of the report expressed their opposition to both a strike against Iran and further sanctions against it, Tehran is taking a two-pronged approach. It is threatening to carry out a forceful military strike against the U.S. and its allies if attacked, and even to destroy Israel, while at the same time engaging in diplomatic activity, relying on the support of Russia and China.[1] Though Iranian regime spokesmen stress their skepticism about the likelihood of a Western attack on Iran, Iran is nevertheless threatening to destroy Israel – both via its allies Hizbullah, Hamas, and Syria, and with a direct military strike against Israel’s nuclear facilities and population centers – while stressing what it calls Israel’s geographical, moral, and technological inferiority to Iran.

The following are several Iranian responses to the IAEA report:

For more from MEMRI on the Nuclear Program – Iran, visit http://www.memri.org/subject/en/121.htm.

Fear of a Military Strike

In response to the report, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Tehran would not back down from its position or abandon its nuclear program. He expressed hostility toward the U.S., saying that “the nations of the world feel revulsion whenever they hear the name of Obama… who wants to run the world but can’t even run a stable.”[2] However, at a November 3 convention of his supporters in Tehran, Ahmadinejad warned: “The West has mustered all its strength to strike [at Iran] and to finish the job, and it is clear as day that NATO is eager to attack Iran. Circumstances are unusual. The final confrontation is drawing nigh. This confrontation does not have to be military, it can be political. [But in any case,] we are approaching the culmination, and if we are careless, we may suffer a blow from which we will not recover in 500 years.”[3]

Threats against the U.S. and Israel

Threats By Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei

On November 10, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said, at an officers’ commencement ceremony at a military academy: “The enemies – especially America, its puppet regimes, and the Zionist regime – must know that the Iranian nation is not aggressive towards any country or nation. However, it will respond with absolute force to any aggression and even to threats, to the extent that the aggressors will explode from within. The mighty Iranian nation will not sit quietly while the materialistic straw powers, which are rotting from within, issue threats [against it]. Anyone who is thinking of attacking Iran should be prepared for powerful blows and iron fists from [its] army, from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps [IRGC], and from the Basij – or, to put it briefly, from the Iranian nation.”[4]

Threats to Attack the U.S.

In a November 9 interview on Al-Alam TV, Iranian Armed Forces deputy chief of staff Masoud Jazayeri warned that if attacked, Iran’s reaction would not be restricted to the Middle East: “Iran holds many cards, which are not limited to the region, and they will be used when the time is right.” He added: “We hope that no war breaks out in any part of the world. But, unfortunately, the people of the world are faced with leaders such as the Americans, the English, and the Zionists, so war might break out at any moment.”[5]

It should be noted that threats to harm the U.S. and Britain on their own soil were made as early as July 2010, by Jazayeri and by the daily newspaper Kayhan, which is close to Khamenei. Kayhan stated: “They [i.e. the Americans] know that such a war [against Iran] will not stop at the boundaries of Iran and the Persian Gulf, but will surely spread to international waters and even to the hearts of Washington, London, and Tel Aviv.”[6] Jazayeri likewise threatened that “Iran’s strategic [capabilities] can reach [all the way] to the heart of the U.S.”[7] Majlis National Security Committee member Hossein Naqavi said: “In case of a military attack, Iran’s forces will fight with all their might against the enemies across the European and American soil.”[8]

A less specific threat was voiced by Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani. In a November 9 speech at Semnan in northern Iran, he warned that a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would have “serious consequences” for the West, and added: “The Iranian nation is prepared for anything, and deems the wicked plots of the Zionist regime, the U.S., and the West as hasty and uncalculated.”[9]  In another speech at Semnan, Larijani said: “In light of the audacious acts of the Westerners, the Iranian nation must take a step that will cause them sorrow. The U.S., the Zionist regime, and the Western countries must know that Iran will not change its course under any circumstances…”  Larijani added that further anti-Iran sanctions would have no immediate effect and that Iran’s reaction to them would be “stinging.”[10]

A November 10 article in the conservative daily Resalat noted that Iran’s obfuscation of its missile capabilities, as well as the wide deployment of U.S. forces across the Gulf, give Iran an advantage over its enemies: “The [enemy’s] uncertainty regarding the range of the missiles manufactured by Iran, and the [wide] dispersal of U.S. bases and headquarters across the Middle East, which makes them easy to hit, are the [enemy’s] two main problems in any hypothetical confrontation between the U.S. and Israel [on the one hand] and Iran [on the other]… A handful of missiles fired randomly from the Persian Gulf coast towards the sea is likely, or even certain, to endanger the battleships, missile carriers, and submarines of the Americans and their allies… Moreover, in interviews, Iranian senior military figures have addressed the range of Iran’s shore-to-sea and sea-to-sea missiles, saying that the entire Gulf region and even [areas] beyond it are within the range of [these] missiles.”[11]

Threats to Destroy Israel

Even more blunt and direct were the threats to strike, or even destroy, Israel. Yadollah Javani, head of the IRGC political bureau, told the news agency Fars in an interview that IRGC troops were ready for martyrdom in defending Iran, and that if Israel attacked it, its days would be numbered. Hinting at Lebanon, he stressed that Iran was positioned as close as possible to Israel and would make Israel regret any attack.[12]

Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said that an Israeli attack on Iran would be an act of suicide, since “it would put an end to the Zionist regime.”[13] Similar statements were made by the vice president of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Baqeri. Speaking in Moscow prior to the announcement that a Russia-Iran strategic cooperation agreement had been signed on November 11, 2011, he said: “If the Zionist regime permits itself such an act, its [continued] existence will be in doubt – not its legitimacy, but its actual existence.”[14]

In an interview on the Arabic-speaking Iranian Al-Alam TV, Iranian Armed Forces deputy chief of staff Massoud Jazayeri said: “Tel Aviv knows well that the smallest operation against Iran will endanger [Israel’s] existence. We are not the only ones who say this; everyone believes that a military operation against Iran by the Zionist regime will lead to Israel’s total annihilation from the pages of history.” He added: “If Iran’s nuclear facilities are attacked, the [nuclear] facilities of the occupying regime [i.e. Israel] in Dimona will be the easiest possible target for Iran’s military capabilities.[15] (See also MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 4268, “‘Occupy Wall Street’ – Reactions and Support in the Arab and Muslim World, Part VIII: Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Masoud Jazayeri Calls On Occupy Wall Street to Denounce U.S. Threats to Iran, Says: An Israeli Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Installations Would Lead to ‘Total Annihilation of That Entity’; Dimona Nuclear Plant Is ‘Easiest Target,'” November 10, 2011[16])

Majlis Supreme National Security Committee member Hossein Naqavi said: “Israel does not have the capacity to carry out a military attack against Iran, even if it wants to. But if it does this foolish deed, Iran’s soldiers will fight the Zionist soldiers in the streets of Tel Aviv, and will expel them from the land of Palestine.”[17] In contrast, publicist and Kayhan staff member Saadollah Zarei told Fars in an interview that although Israel did, in fact, have the military capacity to attack Iran, it would not do so for non-military reasons. He explained that a mere four Iranian rockets fired at Israel would create a million Israeli refugees. He added that even if Israel fired 100 rockets at Iran, it would cause only minimal damage, whereas “the almond shape [and size] of Israel” meant that its citizens would not have enough time to defend themselves or find shelter before the Iranians struck back. He also said that the Zionists knew that Iran could withstand an Israeli attack and that it would respond with an even fiercer attack.[18]

Iranian Website: All-Out War If Israel Attacks

On November 5, 2011, the Iranian website Bultan News, which appears to be close to Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, set out a scenario of all-out war in response to an attack by Israel. In the scenario, Iran would strike U.S. military bases in the region and fire long-range missiles at Israel, while Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas would join in the attack. The article threatened that the Western economy, particularly Europe’s, would suffer serious losses if it supported Israel in such a war, whereas Russia and China would provide Iran with an umbrella of protection, resulting in a third world war. The following are the main points of the article:

Iran Will Strike U.S. Bases, Warships

“If the planes take off from Israel, the minute they are spotted [by Iran], the Zionist regime’s nuclear [facilities] and all of Israel will be targeted by a barrage of Iranian long-range missiles. In addition, there is no guarantee that these [Israeli] fighter planes will reach their predetermined targets. If U.S. fighter planes rush to Israel’s aid from Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, or from [countries] neighboring [Iran], all the bases [from which they take off] will become targets, considering Iran’s size and according to the statements of Iranian military chiefs. The tests of shore-to-sea missiles [fired] from a long distance at moving targets at sea prove [the validity of] this claim.”

Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria Will Join Iran in War

“The moment the Zionist regime attacks, Hamas, Hizbullah, and Syria will join Iran in the war against [this] regime (which, in the 2006 Lebanon War, suffered more than a million war refugees). [This time, its] citizens will throng to the airports to flee the country, because Israeli society is a society of immigrants who, thanks to their wealth, can easily return to Europe.”

Israel‘s Destruction

“Even if the Zionist regime has a nuclear bomb and is capable of using it, [this will not avail it], thanks to Iran’s geographical size and its ability to strike Israel with long-range missiles even from distant locations like Damghan [in northeast Iran]. Following this [Iranian] attack, the state of the Zionist regime will no longer exist on the world map.”

Closing the Strait of Hormuz Will Paralyze the World Economy

“The crucial factor in this war [will be] the continuation of the flow of energy sources to Europe and the West. If Europe makes a strategic error and joins the fight, [Iran’s] closing of the Strait of Hormuz will paralyze not only Europe but the entire world. Therefore, Europe and America’s support of the Zionist regime will come at a high price.”[19]

Russia, China Will Provide a Security Umbrella for Iran

“If the U.S. joins Israel in an attack on Iran, this will be a warning bell for Russia and China. The possibility of Russia and China remaining passive in this fight is remote from reality. If Moscow and Beijing enter the war, the possibility of even the smallest possible nuclear weapon being fired at Tehran will be nil.”

The Islamic States Will Rush to Help Iran

“Considering the [recent] wave of Islamic awakening, the Islamic countries of the region must also be added to this equation, in order to understand the depth of the panic the Zionist regime [will experience] in this fight.”

An Attack Will “Mark the Start of the Countdown to the End of the Cancerous Growth”

The article concluded by saying that “an attack against Iran will mark the start of the countdown to the end of the cancerous growth [i.e. Israel].”[20]

Internal Assessments Regarding a Possible Attack

Alongside those who issued bold threats, others dismissed the possibility of a Western attack on Iran, which they said would not surrender to Western pressure. Defense Minister Vahidi said that Israel was too small to attack Iran.[21] An article in the IRGC weekly Sobh-e Sadeq estimated that the West and Israel would not attack Iran because Iran “was capable of endangering and challenging the interests of the West and the Zionist regime anywhere in the world… Any attack on Iran will bring an end, once and for all, to the [U.S.] hegemony, bring about the collapse of the U.S., and finally annihilate Israel.” The article concluded: “If only the West and the Zionists had already committed this foolish act!”[22]

The daily Kayhan, which is close to Khamenei, reaffirmed Iran’s stance vis-à-vis the U.S., claiming that Tehran would not surrender to its pressure to pass up the historical opportunity of the “Islamic awakening” of the Arab Spring, to leave intact the corrupt Al-Sa’ud regime in Saudi Arabia and OPEC’s control of oil flow to the West, and to accept the illegitimate existence of Israel.[23]

The daily Jomhour-e Eslami claimed that the one to surrender would be Washington, not Tehran. It added that the IAEA report was politically biased, was no more than a guess based on satellite images and assessments by Western spy agencies, and presented no clear proof that Iran was, in fact, aspiring to produce a nuclear bomb.[24]

In contrast, the Iranian website Diplomacy claimed that apprehensions over the possibility of a strike by the West were once again noticeable in Iran’s cities, and, addressing Russia and China, added that they would have to redouble their efforts in order to prevent either an attack or harsher sanctions against Iran.[25] The moderate-conservative daily Ebtekar warned that the Western strikes on Libya and Iraq were proof that Iran could not depend on Moscow’s and Beijing’s protection: “We must not rely on countries like China and Russia. Every time we hear that these countries oppose an attack against some country, we are disgusted. They opposed the attack on Iraq [in 2003] and on Libya [in 2011], but when the time came for action, they danced to the drums of the U.S. and the West.”[26]

Iran’s Allies Stand With It in Light of Possible Attack

Immediately following the release of the IAEA report, Palestinian Islamic Jihad secretary-general Ramadan ‘Abdallah Shalah and Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mash’al arrived in Tehran for consultation and coordination.[27]

On November 9, 2011, the Iranian news agency Fars published an exclusive report noting that 30,000 Syrian and Palestinian martyrdom seekers residing in Syria had informed the Syrian authorities that they were prepared to be martyred in Palestine the moment the Syrian regime deemed it appropriate. Apparently, this report signals a threat by the Iranian regime in response to the possibility of a Western military strike against Iran or Syria.[28]

Similarly, the website Abna, which is identified with the Iran-based Shi’ite organization World Assembly of Ahl Al-Bayt, published an exclusive report stating that a group of Shi’ites from Bahrain had declared themselves the soldiers of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and said that they were prepared to defend Iran in the event of an attack.[29]

In Egypt, Sheikh ‘Abd Al-Hamid Al-Atrash, former head of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, issued a fatwa stating that it was considered a sin and a crime against Islam for Arab and Islamic countries to collaborate with the U.S. against Iran, as they would be abetting an enemy that does not believe in Allah and His Messenger in its fight against an Islamic country. The fatwa stated that it is the duty of the other Arab and Islamic states to annihilate these Arab and Islamic collaborators.[30]

Also, Muhammad Alaa Eddin Abu Al-‘Azayem, leader of the Egyptian Sufi Al-‘Azmeyya order, said that he would issue a fatwa calling for jihad against Israel. He added that his order would fight shoulder to shoulder with Iran if Israel attacked it.[31]

*A. Savyon is Director of the Iranian Media Project; Y. Mansharof is a Research Fellow at MEMRI.

 

Endnotes:

[1] During his visit November 8-10, 2011 visit to Russia, Ali Baqeri, deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, discussed the IAEA report with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and with the secretary of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev. IRNA, IRIB (Iran), November 9, 2011. A few days later, it was reported that Iran and Russia had signed a strategic cooperation agreement. Press TV (Iran), November 11, 2011.

[2] Snn.ir, November 8, 2011.

[3] Dolatema.com, November 3, 2011.

[4] Leader.ir, November 10, 2011. Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said at a defense convention that “any bold and hostile move against Iran’s territorial sovereignty will be met with a crushing and swift response by Iran’s armed forces.” Javan (Iran), November 8, 2011.

[5] Al-Alam (Iran), November 9, 2011.

[6] Kayhan (Iran), July 28, 2010.

[7] Fars (Iran), July 26, 2010.

[8] Javan (Iran), November 11, 2011.

[9] Press TV (Iran), November 10, 2011.

[10] Mehr (Iran),  November 10, 2011.

[11] Resalat (Iran), November 10, 2011.

[12] Fars (Iran), August 11, 2011. He also said accused the U.S. of acts of terror, and reiterated calls to bring its leaders to trial, stating that 99 percent of Americans hated the administration.

[13] Yjc.ir, November 13, 2011.

[14] Reuters, November 10, 2011.

[15] Al-Alam TV (Iran), November 9, 2011.

[17] Javan (Iran), November 8, 2011.

[18] Fars (Iran), November 5, 2011.

[19] It should be noted that threats to paralyze the Western economy have been a central motif in statements by Iranian spokesmen in recent years.

[20] Bultannews.com (Iran), November 5, 2011.

[21] Yjc.ir, November 13, 2011.

[22] Sobh-e Sadeq (Iran), November 14, 2011.

[23] Kayhan (Iran), November 9, 2011.

[24] Jomhour-e Eslami (Iran), November 9, 2011.

[25] Irdiplomacy.ir, November 5, 2011.

[26] Ebtekar (Iran), November 9, 2011.

[27] Tehran Times (Iran), November 9, 2011.

[28] Fars (Iran), November 9, 2011.

[29] Abna (Iran), November 9, 2011.

[30] Al-Gumhouriyya (Egypt), November 10, 2011.

[31] Elfagr.org (Egypt), November 8, 2011.

Has the War with Iran Begun?

November 14, 2011

Has the War with Iran Begun? – International Business Times.

By Daniel Tovrov

Seventeen soldiers were killed in an explosion at a Revolutionary Guards arms depot in Iran on Saturday, leaving many western critics to wonder: was it an accident, or has Israel initiated their quest to destroy Iran’s nuclear program?

The blast is part of an ongoing Middle East narrative surrounding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons aspirations. Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) delivered its much anticipated report on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, concluding that “Iran worked to re-design and miniaturize a Pakistani nuclear-weapon design” and conducted “some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device,” which “may still be ongoing.”

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly said that a nuclear Iran would be a direct threat to Israeli’s sovereignty, and has expressed his desire to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. His cabinet reportedly shot down the idea, but that hasn’t stopped Netanyahu for pushing a military agenda.

“The international community must stop Iran’s race to arm itself with nuclear weapons — a race that endangers the peace of the entire world,” Netanyahu said at a cabinet meeting on Monday.

The Prime Minister also believes that the IAEA report only begin to reveal the truth of Iran’s nuclear development, saying that Iran is much closer to having a bomb than many nations think.

“Only things that could be proven were written [in the IAEA report], but in reality there are many other things that we see,” Netanyahu said.

The Iranian base that exploded over the weekend reportedly stored Shahab-3 missiles, which have a 1,200-mile range and are capable of hitting Israel. According to the IAEA report, Iran has tried to make nuclear warheads that can fit on the Shahab-3.

Additionally, one of the soldiers killed in the blast was General Hassan Moqaddam, the man many describe as the architect of Iran’s nuclear weapons initiative. In response to the death, Israeli Defense Minister Ehub Barak said “may there be more like it.”

Iranian officials still attest that the explosion was an accident caused by an ammunition move. However, Time Magazine, Israeli newspapers, and blogs are speculating that Israeli secret service agency Mossad was behind the event.

A covert strike against Iran would not be unprecedented. In 1989, Israel bombed a nuclear facility in Iraq, effectively ending Saddam Hussein’s nuclear aspirations. And although they have never officially admitted it, Israel was likely behind the 2007 bombing of a nuclear site in Syria.

A number of countries have warned Israel that an attack on Iran would have dire regional consequences. On Monday, French foreign minister Alain Juppe said that military action against Iran would start an “uncontrollable spiral.” U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last week that a strike would have “unintended consequences” and “could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on U.S. forces in the region.”

Iranian officials say they are still investigating the blast.

“I have no idea whether this blast was accidental or whether it was sabotage,” former head of the national security council and former deputy head of the Mossad Ilan Mizrahi told The Guardian.

“But I will say God bless those who were behind it, because the free world should be doing its best to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear military capability.”

US concerned about UN nuclear work with Syria

November 14, 2011

US concerned about UN nuclear work with Sy… JPost – Middle East.

IAEA meeting Director General Yukiya Amano

    VIENNA – The United States took renewed aim at Syria during an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting on Monday, expressing “strong reservations” about a technical cooperation project between the UN body and Damascus.

Even though the move was not related to the crackdown on dissent in the Arab state, it was another sign that Damascus was facing growing international pressure and scrutiny. On Saturday, the Arab League suspended Syria from the group.

The project singled out by the United States concerned preparatory work for a planned nuclear power plant in Syria.

It is part of IAEA activities to help countries benefit from the peaceful uses of the atom – in areas ranging from energy to agriculture and health – but such assistance is at times sensitive as nuclear technology can also have military uses.

The IAEA’s 35-nation governing board voted in June to report Syria to the UN Security Council for covert atomic work, rebuking it for stonewalling an agency investigation into the Deir al Zor complex bombed by Israel in 2007.

US intelligence reports have said it was a nascent, North Korean-designed reactor intended to produce plutonium for atomic weaponry before warplanes reduced it to rubble.

The IAEA gave independent backing to the US allegation in a report in May which said it was “very likely” to have been a reactor. Syria insists it was a non-nuclear military site.

At Monday’s annual meeting of the IAEA’s Technical Assistance and Cooperation Committee (TACC), a senior US diplomat expressed concern about a technical cooperation project in Syria, approved by the board in 2009.

“The United States has strong reservations over the continuation of Syrian … project SYR/0/020 conducting a technical feasibility study and site selection for a nuclear power plant given Syria’s failure to cooperate with the IAEA,” US diplomat Robert Wood told the meeting.

“In principle, it is our view that a state found in non-compliance with their (IAEA) safeguards agreement should have certain TC projects curtailed or suspended,” Wood, deputy head of the US mission to the IAEA, said.

He was addressing a closer-door meeting but his remarks were made available to media.

“We strongly urge the (IAEA) Secretariat to monitor the project closely and report to the board as appropriate,” Wood said.

Earlier this year, Syria’s Atomic Energy Commission said in a document posted on the IAEA’s website that it may build its first nuclear plant by 2020 to meet growing energy demand.

BBC News – Iran ‘influenced’ Iraq over US troops’ exit

November 14, 2011

BBC News – Iran ‘influenced’ Iraq over US troops’ exit.

US soldiers stand guard during the distribution of medical aid and supplies to the Imam Ali Hospital in Jibella, south of Baghdad, on 12 November 2011
The US must withdraw all its remaining forces from Iraq by 31 December

Iran influenced Baghdad’s decision to refuse to allow the US to keep troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year, a senior adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC.

Under the current agreement, the US must withdraw all its remaining forces from Iraq by 31 December.

The admission will fuel speculation about Iran’s growing influence in Iraq, as US forces leave.

Iraq’s decision was a humiliating moment for the United States.

Washington had lobbied hard, and publicly, for a new agreement that would allow the US to keep a contingent of several thousand soldiers in Iraq.

After months of indecision, in October, the government in Baghdad said no – or at least not under conditions acceptable to the Pentagon.

Some detected the hand of Iran behind the decision.

Adviser Sa’ad Youssef al-Mutalabi says that while the decision had been Iraq’s, Iranian sensitivities had played their part.

“It is taking Iran into consideration. We understand that there is a certain sensitivity. And we do not want an excuse for the Iranians to intervene in Iraq on the pretext that you have American troops.”

Washington is acutely sensitive to suggestions that it may have fallen short of its strategic aims in the region.

Michael McClellan is the spokesman for the US embassy in Baghdad says: “We are not being pushed out and I don’t think it’s at the behest of Iran. Since 2003, our objective here has been to have an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant.

“They are sovereign because they did make their own decision. We did not just come back at them and say: ‘Sorry but we’re going to keep our troops here anyway.'”

There are still some 30,000 US soldiers in Iraq. A little over six weeks from now, they must all be gone, except for a few to guard the embassy and other official buildings.

It will mark the end of a war that has cost the America close to $1tn (£630bn) and nearly 4,500 soldiers’ lives.

France objects to strike on Iran

November 14, 2011

France objects to strike on Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

French foreign minister warns military action against Iran over its nuclear program would drag world into ‘uncontrollable spiral’

AFP

France objects to Iran strike: The French foreign minister warned Monday that taking military action against Iran over its nuclear program would drag the world into an “uncontrollable spiral.”

 

Alain Juppe said after talks with European Union counterparts that the EU would reinforce sanctions against Tehran by asking the European Investment Bank to freeze loans to the Islamic republic.

 

Related stories:

During Monday’s talks in Brussels, EU foreign ministers decided to look into the imposition of further sanctions against Iran in the wake of a damning IAEA report accusing Tehran of seeking to produce nuclear weapons.

 

However, a decision on the matter had not been taken and will be postponed to December 1st, the date of the next scheduled session.

 

Last week, Foreign Minister Juppe said that France is “very worried” about the potential militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, but opposes any strike against the Islamic Republic because it could cause irreparable damage.

 

During Monday’s talks in Brussels, EU foreign ministers decided to look into the imposition of further sanctions against Iran in the wake of a damning IAEA report accusing Tehran of seeking to produce nuclear weapons.

 

However, a decision on the matter had not been taken and will be postponed to December 1st, the date of the next scheduled session.

Russia opposes Arab League decision to suspend Syria

November 14, 2011

Russia opposes Arab League decision to suspend Syria – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

FM Sergei Lavrov says Western countries inciting opponents of Assad to seek his removal; EU government agree to extend sanctions on more Syria individuals.

By Reuters

Russia opposes the Arab League’s decision to suspend Syria and believes Western nations are inciting opponents of President Bashar Assad to seek his removal, Russian news agencies quoted Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying on Monday.

Lavrov also underlined Russia’s opposition to imposing new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program and said nations were whipping up tension over Tehran to impose additional unilateral sanctions against it, the reports said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov AP Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrives at the NATO-Russia Council Ministerial meeting, Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2010 in New York.
Photo by: AP

 

Meanwhile, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Muallem discussed the League’s decision during a press conference in Damascus on Monday. According to al Muallem, the decision “crosses red lines, and runs contrary to the regulations of the Arab League.”

The foreign minister also said that despite the Arab League’s claims, Syria responded to the League’s initiative and released 500 political prisoners, and allowed 80 foreign journalists to enter the country.

Furthermore, Syria’s interior minister released a statement calling on all armed protesters to turn in their weapon in return for amnesty. However, continued the interior minister, those same “armed cells” refused, thus preventing the government from “ending the struggle.”  

European Union governments reached a preliminary agreement on Monday to extend sanctions against Syria to more individuals associated with a violent crackdown on dissent, an EU official said.

The agreement by ambassadors of the 27 EU states, was expected to be confirmed by EU foreign ministers meeting later in Brussels, who will also endorse a decision to stop Syria accessing funds from the European Investment Bank, the official said.

EU leaders warned last month that Syria could face further sanctions if there was no halt to the violence, which the United Nations says has lead to the death of more than 3,500 protesters.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said there was a good case for adding to EU sanctions, which already affect 56 individuals and 19 firms and entities.

“It’s very important in the European Union that we consider additional measures to add to the pressure on the Assad regime to stop the unacceptable violence against the people of Syria,” he told reporters as he entered the meeting of EU foreign ministers.
Hague welcomed efforts by the Arab League to end the crisis.

In a surprise move on Saturday, the Arab League suspended Syria’s membership and called on its army to stop killing civilians and some Western leaders said this should prompt tougher international action against President Bashar Assad.

The Arab League will also impose economic and political sanctions on Damascus and has appealed to member states to withdraw their ambassadors.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said she was in close contact with the Arab League to work on an approach to Syria.

“The situation in Syria causes enormous concern. I spoke last night to the secretary general of the Arab League and expressed our commitment to working closely with them,” she said.

Analysis: Assad isolated, West intervention unlikely

November 14, 2011

Analysis: Assad isolated, West interventio… JPost – Middle East.

Syrian President Bashar Assad

    BEIRUT – The Arab League decision to suspend Syria and impose sanctions after nearly eight months of unrest will encourage tougher international measures against Damascus but is unlikely to lead to Western military intervention.

Unlike the Arab group’s call in March for a no-fly zone over Libya, which set the stage for the NATO action that helped topple Muammar Gaddafi, Saturday’s surprisingly tough measures did not include a request for the use of force.


But they will strengthen Western powers arguing for a tough United Nations resolution criticizing Syria’s suppression of protests against Syrian President Bashar Assad, in which the United Nations says 3,500 people have been killed.

They will also further embolden demonstrators who, inspired by uprisings which toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, have defied a sustained military crackdown since March and taken to the streets to call for Assad’s overthrow.

“We don’t want foreign intervention,” Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim said as he announced the Arab League’s decision in Cairo. “We are not talking about arming (the opposition), or a no-fly zone. No one at the League is talking about this issue.”

But the measures he announced — including suspension from the League, political and economic sanctions, and an appeal to the army to stop shooting civilians — marked a dramatic increase in the pressure on Syria by countries traditionally reluctant to intervene in the affairs of fellow Arab states.

Assad already faces US and European sanctions against Syria’s oil exports and several state businesses, and has alienated his powerful northern neighbor, Turkey.

The Arab League decision to withdraw Arab ambassadors from Damascus isolates him and makes him ever more reliant on Iran, tightening relations forged by Bashar’s father Hafez and strengthened during Bashar’s 11-year presidency.

Damascus responded angrily to the Arab League suspension, approved by 18 foreign ministers of the 22-member body, saying such decisions could only be taken by consensus and accusing the organization of implementing a Western and anti-Syrian agenda.

“For all the Syrian bravado and rhetoric, this is the biggest hit that they have taken. Even more so than the EU and US sanctions,” said Rime Allaf, associate fellow at London’s Chatham House.

Arab League discusses economic sanctions

The Qatari premier did not spell out the economic sanctions planned against Syria, which is already expected to suffer a sharp economic downturn this year as tourism revenues dry up, trade falls, manufacturing is disrupted, oil output dips and authorities struggle to find buyers of Syrian crude.

Full-scale trade sanctions would be devastating but might be difficult to implement. But analysts say targeted sanctions may be imposed, possibly on the sale of oil products to Syria.

“A full-on trade embargo would be a dramatic escalation and would be surprising. It would be a very clear statement that they want to remove the regime, not just force concessions from it,” said Chris Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

“I think it highly unlikely. Even with political will to do that, it would be difficult logistically,” he said, adding that neighboring Turkey and Iraq both rely heavily on Syrian transit trade for their exports and imports.

Adel Soliman, head of the International Center for Future and Strategic Studies in Cairo, said economic sanctions would not force Assad into any policy change but would bolster international moves against Damascus.

The package of Arab League measures, which included proposals for talks with human rights organizations about ways of protecting Syrian civilians, would “give a chance for all the international community to act,” Soliman said.

China and Russia, veto-holding members of the UN Security Council, blocked European and US efforts to obtain a resolution which would have condemned Syria’s crackdown and could have paved the way for UN sanctions.

The EIU’s Phillips said Saturday’s suspension could go some way towards softening China’s opposition to a UN resolution, which he said was based partly on Beijing’s concern not to be seen to be acting against the wishes of Arab trading partners.

“This sends a clear message to China — you don’t need to stick to Assad to keep (Arab countries) on board,” he said. “If China could be swayed, that could put a lot of pressure on Russia over its veto.”

Despite the growing international pressure, few expect Assad to end the crackdown whose targets he says are militant groups that Damascus blames for the violence in Syria. Authorities say more than 1,100 members of the security forces have been killed since the uprising erupted.

“If he just continues to defy signals from the Arab world and international community it’s increasingly grim for him,” said Rami Khouri, director of the Issam Fares Institute in Beirut. “The regime itself shows no sign of seriousness in taking the tough steps needed.”

Khouri said that, in the absence of a breakthrough, the Arab League could step up its contacts with the opposition as a prelude to “talking only to the opposition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people”.

He said it could also call on Arab organizations to provide “some kind of protection” to Syrian civilians, but dismissed prospects for a Libya-style NATO intervention.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on a visit to Libya two weeks ago that NATO had no intention of intervening in Syria, and Khouri and other analysts said Saturday’s moves were unlikely to change that position.

Syria’s central role in Middle East politics has made Western powers wary of intervening. It has a complex ethnic and sectarian mix, alliances with Tehran and militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and remains in a formal state of war with Israel which seized the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967.

“We should be very careful about jumping to conclusions about international intervention,” Allaf said. “We are very far from a Libya situation”.