Israeli campaign worked – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Western oil embargo imposed on Iran can be credited to Israel’s strike threats

It certainly looks as though the Israeli campaign launched during the previous fall, where rumors of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran were disseminated, secured its objectives. Western statesmen clung to this campaign and utilized it in order to impose on Iran the devastating sanctions that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded two years ago already.

On July 1st, European Unionstates intend to shut their doors to Iranian oil. The Islamic Republic will then have to contend with a decline of at least $20 billion in its annual income. Iran will survive – beaten, battered and suffocating, like a patient who lost yet another vital oxygen pipe. With emphasis on “another.”

The sanctions imposed by the EU on Iran Monday are not there in and of themselves: They are the continuation and highlight of a long and increasingly intensifying path of sanctions. The economic sanction regime – first American and later international in nature – has been imposed on Iran since 1979 and in its current format since May of 1995.

Until 2008, the sanctions achieved little; they were no more than a nuisance. However, since then, and especially ever since Security Council Resolution 1929 from June of 2010, the picture has been changing rapidly. The sanctions are biting into the flesh of Iran’s economy and weakening it every day; their cumulative effect is crushing.

Another aspect is the boycott on Iran’s central bank. Although it has not yet been expelled from the joint nerve center of all central banks, The Bank for International Settlements in Basel (Nazi Germany’s central bank was also not expelled during World War II,) the Iranian bank has in fact become a pariah.

Russian reactor a failure

The strict sanction regime makes it much harder to undertaken further investments in the nuclear program, both because of a foreign currency shortage and a shortage in means and technologies. Everything costs 100-fold of its price in the official market and the origin of the goods is always dubious.

Meanwhile, the Russian nuclear reactor has already been proven as a failure: It produces energy at crazy costs and its safety is doubtful.

Hence, will the sanction chokehold being tightened around the neck of Iran’s economy prompt its leaders to renounce the military nuclear project? The likely answer is “not yet.”

An insane government like the one in Iran often conducts itself like a gambler near the roulette table: The more it loses, the more risks it assumes. Yet the moment arrives where even the most serious gambler loses his pants and is thrown out of the casino. Iran is closer to this point than assumed. It is possible that the Iranian people’s patience will wear thin even before that, and they will rebel in the face of the vision of turning their country into North Korea.

Israel to UN: Tomorrow will be too late for action against Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Israel’s envoy to the UN Ron Prosor levies harsh criticism at the Security Council, saying it is obsessed with Israel and ignores crimes of other countries.

By Shlomo Shamir

“The Arab world is in flames and the Security Council is dealing with construction permits in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank),” Israel’s United Nations envoy Ron Prossor said in a speech at the UN Security Council on Tuesday.

Prosor used the Security Council’s monthly meeting on the situation in the Middle East to direct harsh criticism at the body.

	Israeli envoy to the UN Ron Prosor
	Photo by: GPO

“The obsession with Israeli and the ignoring of countries where civilians are tortured and killed undermines the credibility and calls into question the relevance of the Security Council,” Prosor said.

“Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons represent the greatest threat to peace and security in the world,” Prosor said. “The silence of the Security Council will be very costly. You must act today. Tomorrow will be too late.”

“The thought of Iran equipped with nuclear weapons should take sleep from the eyes of Security Council member states,” Prosor said. “The international community cannot stand by idly while the Ayatollah’s regime works to combine extremist ideology with nuclear technology.”

Prosor also attacked the Security Council for its silence on continued rocket fire at Israel from the Gaza Strip. He mentioned a letter he sent to the council protesting the rocket fire.

“But we have still not heard condemnation from the Security Council or the Palestinian Authority,” Prosor said.

On UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s expected upcoming visit to Israel, Prosor said: “I hope that the Secrtary-General’s visit will provide a new perspective on the real barriers to peace and security in the region and illuminate the true problems of terror, extremism and incitement in our region.”

PM: World silent while Iran, Hezbollah threaten to destroy Israel – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Netanyahu tells special Knesset session ‘world condemns Gilo construction, but not mufti’s call to kill Jews.’ Speaker: We can’t deny tragedies of other nations

Moran Azulay

“Seventy years have passed since the Holocaust, and many around the world still remain silent in the face of Iran’s threats to wipe Israel off the map, and many stay silent despite Hezbollah‘s call for the destruction of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday during a special Knesset session ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which will be marked this week.

“International Holocaust Remembrance Day is the day on which the world needs to stand behind the words ‘no more.’ It’s not a slogan, but has a deep meaning,” he said. “It is the day on which the world must unite to make certain weapons of mass destruction do not fall into the hands of dark regimes, headed by the ayatollahs’ regime in Iran.”

Netanyahu added: “Have we learned the lessons of the Holocaust? Are we treating these threats of destruction seriously? Or perhaps, like many generations before us we do not want to see the scope of the danger that is facing us. The Iranian regime is openly calling for the destruction of Israel, but many around the world remain silent. We mustn’t bury our head in the sand. The Iranian regime is planning the annihilation of Israel and is working towards Israel’s destruction – its agents (Hezbollah) fired over 12,000 missiles towards Israel’s cities. They are not concealing their intent to kill as many (Israelis) as possible.

“The UN was founded to prevent genocides and massacres. These were its basic goals. Have these goals been attained? Unfortunately, the answer is no,” said the PM.

Netanyahu also addressed a recent speech delivered by the Palestinians’ top Muslim cleric, Mufti Mohammed Hussein, in which he encouraged the killing of Jews. “Instead of calling for peace and reconciliation, the mufti is calling to kill Jews wherever they may be. I don’t hear any condemnations from the world’s countries. I hear them condemning the construction of a home in Giloor a balcony in Ramot (neighborhoods in Jerusalem) – that is what I hear,” he said.

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin told the plenum, “We don’t have the privilege to deny the tragedies of other nations, be it the Armenians, Syrians or others.”

“Even when denial is convenient, history has destined us to fight against such atrocities. We cannot stand aside and let the world remain indifferent,” he added.

Only three ministers and 22 Knesset members attended the special session.

Israel to United Nations: Take ac… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

    Iran is the single greatest threat to the world and the United Nations needs to take action against it immediately, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor told the Security Council in New York on Tuesday.

“Never has it been so clear Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon,” said Prosor speaking at a regular meeting debating the “situation in the Middle East and the Palestinians question.”
“Now is the time to act. Tomorrow is too late. The stakes are too high. The price of inaction is too great,” he said.

Prosor cited the last International Atomic Energy Agency report saying it proved beyond all doubt that the Islamic Republic sought to obtain nuclear weapons. He said Tehran’s efforts to enrich uranium to 20 percent-levels at its reactor in Qom could serve no other plausible aim other than to develop an atomic bomb.

The Israeli diplomat also rebuked Palestinian religious leader Muhammad Hussein who in a sermon broadcast on television last week told believers that killing Jews was “a sacred goal” for Muslims.”

“His comments were deeply disturbing,” said Prosor. “But what was even more disturbing is that no one from the Palestinian Leadership stood up and condemned his comments, denounced his actions or dissociated themselves from his message.”

US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice chose to highlight the start of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in Amman earlier this month, the first time the two sides have sat down for talks in years.

She thanked Jordan for hosting the event and added “it is necessary we do everything we can to ensure progress.”

The Permanent Observer of Palestine Riyad H. Mansour, who spoke before Prosor, placed the blame for the lack of progress in talks between Israel and the Palestinians squarely on the Israelis.

“We spare no effort for peace despite the many obstacles imposed by the Israeli government,” Mansour said.

He gave a long list of grievances accusing Israel of expelling Palestinians from the Jordan valley and violating human rights of Palestinian “shepherds and children.” He reiterated the Palestinian Authority’s bid to seek statehood status at the UN which is being debated saying it would be part of a two state solution.

During the gathering the US ambassador to the UN also addressed events in Syria where ongoing violence between protesters and security forces have left thousands dead. Rice called again on the government of Bashar Assad to permit the access of observers to the restive country and respect human rights. She added that Washington was “concerned [about] recent reports of shipments of arms and munitions to the Syrian regime,” calling for an arms embargo.

Representatives from Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Togo, India and Iran were also set to speak at the gathering.

Would Iran block the Strait of Hormuz? | The Spectator.

Daniel Korski 2:42pm

With the EU agreeing a new round of sanctions on Iran – outlawing European oil and gas purchases from Iran in six months, freezing Iran’s Central Bank and banning trade in gold and other precious metals with any state-related bodies – tensions between Iran and the West are increasing. An Iranian MP has – again – warned that Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz and the US administration has – again – said that such an action will be countered. But what would happen if Iran carried out its threat?

Iran has noteworthy littoral warfare capabilities, including mines, anti-ship cruise missiles, and land-based air defence. If Iran uses these capabilities smartly, it could probably impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz for some time: maybe days, maybe weeks. This would cut off a quarter of the world’s oil and thus send oil prices skyrocketing. Recession would follow. A closure would, however, also hurt Iran – something like 70 per cent of Iran’s budget revenues are generated by oil exports, all of which must transit the Strait.

US-led efforts to reopen the Strait would escalate rapidly into sustained, large-scale air and naval operations during which Iran could impose significant economic and military costs on the US and its forces. Think of a flotilla of Basij-crewed boats heading, kamikaze-style, towards US ships. Think USS Cole-style attacks.

Ultimately, however, Iran would lose the fight. It has neither the capabilities nor the resources to sustain a confrontation with the West. You can’t win a maritime conflict against the US Fifth Fleet using ‘Basij Boats’. Having lost, the Iranian regime would probably face an internal challenge and be vulnerable to attacks on its nuclear facilities by Israel or the US.

For these reasons, Iran is unlikely to push its luck. But there is another reason too. The blockade is Iran’s anti-strike deterrent, the threat it brandishes when it thinks an attack on its nuclear facilities is imminent. If Iran closes the Strait now and loses a subsequent naval confrontation with the US, what would it have left as a deterrent? Hezbollah attacks on Israel? Terrorism in Europe? Neither is likely to win Iran any favours or sway the West. Quite the opposite. It would probably broaden the conflict, drawing in more states and leading to calls for the US to target nuclear and military installations on the Iranian mainland and for ‘decapitation strikes’ against the Iranian regime.

Short-term and medium-term, therefore, Iran loses more from closing the Strait of Hormuz than the West, though any conflict will not be easy or casualty-free for either side. Iran’s regime is many things but it is not irrational. Or, at least, it hasn’t been yet.

Jerusalem Issue Briefs-Iran: The Syrian Highway in the Fight Against Israel Is Still Open.

Michael Segall

• The wave of protest in Syria has put to the test the strategic alliance between Iran (and Hizbullah) and Bashar Assad’s regime. Syria is the main state component of the “resistance camp” and serves as a logistical hinterland for Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran sees its unequivocal backing for Syria as a demonstration of its ability to stay loyal to its allies despite the regional turmoil.
• Iran believes that ultimately the “Islamic mantle” will supplant the region’s pro-Western regimes as part of the Islamic awakening. This would offset the possible loss of Syria and reconsolidate the resistance camp on a broad basis of Islamic religion and ideological hatred of Israel and the United States.
• Ali Akbar Velayati, Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, speaks of the resistance camp as incorporating “the new Iraqi government.” If Bashar falls, Iran will make sure its western border with Iraq is also an advantageous border with the Middle East, enabling it to exploit instability in Syria so as to keep operating within and from its territory.
• The fall of the Assad regime would affect Iran’s ability to help Hizbullah in “real time” in the event of another round of hostilities with Israel, and the freedom of action of the Hamas headquarters in Damascus. Yet, at the same time, opportunities will open for Iran in view of the electoral victories of the Islamic forces in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco.
• For as long as it lasts, the crisis in Syria will manifest the inter-Arab fault line of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vs. Syria, and deepen the Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shiite, and historical Persian-Turkish (Ottoman) fault lines.

Iran Backs Its Syrian Ally

Since the wave of protest in Syria began as part of the Middle Eastern upheavals – with the Middle East being recast in the Islamic mold – the strategic alliance between Iran (and Hizbullah) and Bashar Assad’s regime has been put to its ultimate test. Both the international community and the Arab-regional system (and Turkey) are trying to impose a change that entails Bashar’s ouster and the fostering of a democratic political process in Syria, with Iran (and Hizbullah) standing alone in backing Syria. At the same time, China and Russia are counter-balancing Western and Arab efforts to oust Bashar, impeding a tough resolution in the UN Security Council.

Syria was a critical bulwark of the old Middle Eastern regional order that Iran had cultivated with immense financial, political, and military investments. It is the main state component of the “resistance camp” that Iran counterposes to the “imperialist” presence in the region, and was also a logistical hinterland for Hizbullah and to a lesser extent for the other nonstate terrorist members of the resistance camp – particularly the Palestinian terror organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

The Arab Spring, or, as Iran calls it, the “Islamic awakening,” found Iran almost at the height of the resistance camp’s consolidation and power. Hizbullah had completed its takeover of the Lebanese arena, Hamas was entrenching its rule in Gaza, and the peace process with regard to Israel, in its Syrian and Palestinian channels, had stopped. Iran, for its part, was continuing to progress in its nuclear program and to project regional power as the United States talked of completing its withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, Iran had successfully defied the United States and the West, which it saw as “at a nadir of military and economic weakness.”

Now, as Bashar’s regime faces an ongoing storm of protest and he refuses to give up his rule despite both internal and external pressures, his ally Iran is backing him with all its might. It is doing so despite and perhaps because of the regional conditions that are fostering a different Middle East. Seemingly, Iran will have to pay a price for defying the Arab Spring and sustaining its unstinting support for Bashar. Iran, however, sees its unequivocal backing for its ally Bashar – as contrasted to U.S. president Barack Obama’s sudden abandonment of long-time U.S. ally Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak – as a manifestation of its power and its ability to withstand the revolution and stay loyal to its allies despite the regional turmoil.

Iran wants to proceed carefully, without betraying the basic elements of its policy and losing its main cards in the region so far – Syria, Hizbullah, and the Palestinian organizations. Tehran is well aware that Bashar Assad may eventually be toppled, but for now keeps giving him its full support including security and military,¹ economic, and diplomatic assistance² (including coordinating positions toward Russia and China). Iran believes that ultimately the “Islamic mantle” – as already evident from the Egyptian and Tunisian elections that saw the triumph of the Islamist movements, with which Iran maintained a dialogue during and despite the rule of the “dictators” – will supplant the region’s pro-Western regimes as part of the Islamic awakening. As Iran sees it, this Islamic ambience, which is fundamentally hostile toward Israel and the United States, would offset the possible loss of Syria and reconsolidate the resistance camp on a broad basis of Islamic religion and ideological hatred of Israel and the United States.

For now, Iran prefers to hold the rope at both ends: to keep supporting the Syrian regime and helping it to survive – including through Hizbullah – to repress the protest, and to portray the United States, Israel, and the moderate Arab states and bodies – those whose leaders still stand, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and the Arab League – as lurking behind the efforts to overthrow Bashar for having led the Middle East’s anti-Israeli, anti-Western resistance camp for years. Iran is pursuing this course even though it knows that, if Bashar falls, it stands to pay a heavy political and military price in terms of its future relations with the new regime and its ability to assist Hizbullah via the Syrian-Turkish conduit. The commander of the Qods Force of the Revolutionary Guards said recently in this regard that “the war in Syria is not a sickness that will destroy the regime,” since most of its citizens continue to support Bashar.³

Indeed, Iran’s loyalty to Syria has already cost it dearly in the form of rising tensions with Islamist Turkey. Here, too, Iran has criticized Turkey for siding with the West instead of Syria, and as relations have worsened, some in Iran have even characterized Islam in Turkey as “Western Islam” – an appellation formerly reserved in Iran for the moderate Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia.

Syria: “The Gold-Plated Link in the Chain of Anti-Israeli Resistance”

Iran’s present position regarding the “plots” unfolding in Syria, along with Syria’s role in Iran’s overall regional policy, was formulated quite precisely by Ali Akbar Velayati. He is Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei’s special assistant for international affairs, currently coordinating for him the strategy toward the Islamic awakening in his role as secretary-general of the World Assembly of the Islamic Awakening. Velayati praised Syria’s staunch resilience “in the face of the plots and collusions of different states aimed at weakening Syria’s firm stance as the main arm of the resistance front against the Zionist regime.” Velayati also linked together all the members of this camp when he said that “the chain of resistance against Israel, whose main links are Iran and Syria, Hizbullah, the new government in Iraq, and Hamas runs along the Syrian highway.” He also referred to Syria as “the gold-plated link in this chain.”⁴

On another occasion, perhaps manifesting wishful thinking, Velayati insisted that the Syrian uprising had passed its worst and the Assad government would not collapse thanks to the government’s “strong roots” in Syrian society.

He added that Burhan Ghalioun, head of the opposition Syrian National Council, had no social base in Syria and accused him of being an “agent” of the West and Israel.⁵

Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabadi, averred that “Fortunately, Syria is strongly moving towards stability and a full failure of the enemies’ plots grows more and more obvious each day.”⁶ Several times Iran has denied reports that it has held contacts with opposition elements.⁷

Velayati’s assertions echo repeated claims by various spokesmen and commentators that the “Syrian case” is different and not part of the Arab Spring. They also charge that the United States, Israel, some of the Arab states, the West, and Turkey (!) seek to exploit the atmosphere of the Arab Spring so as to be rid of Bashar’s regime, which they see as a thorn in their side given his strong posture – which they liken to Iran’s – against the West and his role as a key member of the resistance front against Israel and its efforts to gain legitimacy.

Is Syria a Red Line for Iran?

Mohsen Rezaee, secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council and former IRGC (Revolutionary Guards) commander, said in an interview to Hizbullah’s Al-Manar network that Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas constitute a red line for Iran, which “will not allow any problem to be created for them since they form the Islamic world’s front line [of defense] against Israel.”⁸

The conservative newspaper Kayhan, which reflects Khamenei’s positions, claimed the United States fears that the resistance camp will only gain power once the Syrian crisis ends and hence is working to topple the Syrian regime. The writer of the article opines that what is happening in Syria has no connection at all to the Arab Spring, which only provides a pretext for overthrowing Bashar and weakening the resistance camp. In his view, U.S. activity in Syria is aimed at offsetting the great damage that the Islamic awakening has inflicted on U.S. policy in the region, including the loss of its power base and popularity.⁹ Former Iranian ambassador to Syria Ahmad Mousavi said similarly that the West’s hostility toward Syria stems from Syria’s ongoing support for the resistance against Western peace plans aimed at bestowing legitimacy on Israel. Mousavi added that President Assad is the only Arab leader who has not been charged with either moral or economic corruption. He also expressed support for Bashar’s reforms in Syria.¹⁰

The hard-line newspaper Jomhouri Eslami, too, denies any Arab Spring context for the events in Syria and depicts them as an attempt by the West, led by the United States, to uproot a main pillar of the resistance camp. The paper describes the failure of the American attempt to influence the revolutions in the region, points to the rise of the Islamist regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and asserts that Iran and Hizbullah’s close ties with the Assad government are an important factor in its stability and have neutralized the plot by the king of Jordan and the Turkish government to topple him.

It is totally clear that the aim of the United States and its allies in ousting Assad’s regime is to destroy the resistance front against the Zionist regime. Neutralizing this plot requires strengthening the Syrian regime. This can be done through two channels: external support from Syria’s friends who share a common denominator in the struggle against Zionism and the United States, and internal reforms that the Syrian regime itself must carry out, and without which there will be no benefit from the external support….Even though the Syrian regime has overcome the plots, it needs to take some sort of measures to achieve full stability and not provide a pretext to the opponents. In truth, the rulers of Syria, more than in the past, must go in the direction of reforms….Reform must start with the Baath Party, continue with the uprooting of administrative corruption, and move on to solving the problems of the public’s welfare and ensuring freedom.¹¹

Ali Larijani, chairman of the Majlis, called on all the Islamic countries not to exploit the crisis in Syria and play into the hands of countries outside the region, or cooperate with their plot against Syria. “We expect Islamic countries not to allow those who hold a grudge against Syria for its resistance against the Zionist regime to take advantage of the situation.”¹² Majlis member Mohammad Karim Abadi said that Iran “strongly condemn[s] the plots against the Syrian nation that is on the frontline of resistance (against Zionists)….We ask Muslim nations in the region, especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to support the people of Syria who were in the forefront of Zionists’ aggression and their lands are still under the occupation of aliens.”¹³ The editor of Kayhan, Hossein Shariatmadari, also criticized Qatar, calling it “the undeclared, and sometimes declared, base for the United States in the region. Qatar’s open ties with the Zionist regime and its open participation in the plots of Saudi Arabia and Turkey to exert pressure on Syria and remove it from the resistance axis, are only some examples of the treachery of the mercenary Qatar government.”¹⁴

Iran also exploited the recent suicide bombings in Damascus to slam the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and claim they were responsible. After one of the bombings, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry said “the nation and the government in Syria will succeed to foil the Zionist-American axis that seeks to ignite civil war and separatism in the region.”¹⁵ The director of the board of the state-run Iranian satellite channel Al-Alam (which targets an Arabic-speaking audience) claimed that “the attack points to the terrorist nature of the armed group and to the activity of a few groups that work hand in hand with their allies.” He hinted that the attack was carried out after the intelligence agencies of Turkey, France, the United States, and several Arab states held parleys on sowing chaos and instability in Syria.¹⁶ The semi-official Fars news agency was more blunt. It claimed in a recent news dispatch from Syria that al-Qaeda and Salafi terrorists have infiltrated into Syria in recent months and were involved in terrorist attacks, the latest of which was a suicide attack that killed 25 people. The report maintained that, in addition to the support provided by Saudi Arabia for the terrorist attacks in Syria, Saudi clergymen and Friday prayers leaders in the kingdom have also called the protests and moves against the Syrian government as halal (religiously legitimate) and have persuaded people to conduct them.¹⁷

Iran and Turkey in Conflict: “Real Islam” vs. “Secular Islam”

Iran’s firm support for Syria, almost unquestioned within Iran, together with its opposition to Turkey’s strong stance against the violent repression in Syria, has quickly put the two states at loggerheads. And this comes shortly after a “golden age” of improving relations within the Syrian-Turkish-Iranian triangle, which had emerged briefly as a new regional axis before the Syrian crisis erupted. This tension between the two non-Arab states, each of which for its own reasons not only seeks to mold the new regional order but to stand at its helm, has brought their intense rivalry and political-religious divergence to the fore.

When it came to fine-tuning Iran’s policy toward Turkey, it was Velayati who detailed the extremely delicate Islamic issues between the two states. He criticized Turkey’s governmental system as “secular Islam,” a mere variant of Western liberal democracy, and an inappropriate model for countries now experiencing the Islamic awakening.¹⁸

Hassan Rowhani, one of Khamenei’s two representatives on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and head of the Strategic Research Center of the Expediency Council, similarly claimed that, while the West wanted Turkey – not Iran – to be a model for the popular revolutions in the region, Turkey maintained close ties with Israel and its anti-Israeli policy was merely symbolic. Rowhani also asserted that the Second Lebanon War and Israel’s 2009 Gaza operation had provided the main impetus for the Islamic trend in the region; and that by supporting the Syrian opposition, “Turkey has crossed the boundaries that are permitted it.”¹⁹

Also joining the criticism were senior officials in the Iranian religious establishment. For example, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi advised Turkey not to stoke the Syrian crisis. He claimed the unrest there “is a conspiracy devised by the United States, Israel, and one of the Arab countries, and Turkey is feeding the flames of the crisis….Turkish officials took an anti-Zionist line for a while to gain popularity, but this popularity will turn into disrepute. Why do they not understand?”²⁰

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, called on Turkey to modify its policy toward Syria and recognize reality if it wants to pursue a policy congruent with Iran’s. The policy Turkey has adopted, he asserted, does not contribute to regional stability.²¹ Former Iranian foreign minister Manuchehr Mottaki, who was deposed a few months ago by President Ahmadinejad, also criticized Turkey’s position toward the Syrian crisis and called for a reconsideration. He also urged Syria to focus on reforms and denied any possibility of Iran intervening there.²²

The escalating tension between Iran and Turkey not only concerns the Syrian situation. It also stems from Ankara’s decision to station components of NATO’s antimissile defense system on its soil. The vice-chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee did not rule out the possibility that Iran, if attacked, would strike targets in Turkish territory, while IRGC aerospace commander Brig.-Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh stated:

We have prepared ourselves. If any threat is staged against Iran, we will target NATO’s missile shield in Turkey and will then attack other targets….We are sure that the missile system is deployed by the U.S. for the sake of the Zionist regime, but to deceive the world’s people, especially the Turkish people, they allege that the system belongs to NATO….Turkey is a member and cover for NATO. Today NATO has become a cover for the U.S. [moves] while the U.S. itself has turned into a cover for the Zionist regime….Yet the Turkish people are aware and we are sure that Turkey’s Muslims will stop this plot by themselves….We are sure that the Muslim people of Turkey will promptly cut these systems into pieces under threatening conditions.²³

Turkey, for its part, has not remained docile. With tensions between the two countries mounting, Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu during a recent visit to Tehran criticized Iran and urged his counterpart, Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, to give the Syrian regime “good advice” on its responsibility for the bloodshed in Syria and the need to put a stop to it.²⁴

Whereas the Iranian Foreign Ministry is trying to calm the winds with Turkey and prevent further escalation, Khamenei’s bureau and elements connected to it are in fact pushing for a more aggressive policy toward Ankara. Salehi, for his part, trying to tamp down the tensions, said the two states had a good relationship and called on the Turkish media – which gave much play to Iranian statements that did not rule out an Iranian attack on Turkish soil – to distinguish between official spokesmen and those speaking only for themselves. He also said that policy decisions, at any rate, are taken by the supreme leader, the president, and the foreign minister.²⁵ It appears, however, that in the Turkish case in particular, and regarding the overall Iranian policy toward the regional changes in general with an emphasis on the Islamic awakening, the Iranian Foreign Ministry is not playing a significant role in leading the aggressive and defiant Iranian policy.

Saadollah Zarei is an international-affairs expert who also writes editorials for Kayhan. In an article in the conservative newspaper Siyasat-e Ruz on the crisis in Syria, he divided the Middle Eastern states into two blocs – the “resistance front” and the “conciliation front” – and suggested the cost-benefit tally for each of these:

The countries of the resistance front were always subject to criticism by the West as well as harsh criticism from the Arab states in the region. Now, when the international system has joined ranks to bring down Bashar Assad’s regime and is also threatening war against Iran, the Arab states that are members of the Arab League have convened and decided to suspend Syria’s membership²⁶ [a decision that Iran criticized] and also to impose sanctions on it [in an attempt to promote the designs of the West]. The events of recent years [the victories of Iran’s allies Hizbullah and Hamas in the anti-Israeli struggle], Iran’s progress in the nuclear field, the U.S. forces’ withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic situation in the United States, and the power struggles surrounding the presidential elections there are stymieing U.S. efforts to control and manage the region, and given these conditions of an administrative vacuum along with the turmoil in the Arab countries, Iran is the big winner. In parallel, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are trying to thwart these developments [the strengthening of Iran and its allies] by isolating Syria, a strategic ally of Iran in the region and the bridge to Hizbullah and Hamas. Another actor that is trying to isolate Syria, with the aim of preventing Iran from taking the reins, is Turkey. Turkey knows that presently there is not a single Arab state in the region that can prevent it from becoming a superpower, which only Iran can do, and therefore it has joined the Arab states in trying to prevent the deepening of Iran’s penetration.

Zarei also asserts that Iran unquestionably and assertively backs Syria against the Western and Arab states.²⁷

Where to Go from Here?: A New Approach for the Resistance Camp

All in all, the crisis in Syria poses one of Iran’s most difficult challenges in recent years in the field of foreign policy and exporting the revolution. It is occurring at a time when international pressure on Iran is mounting and sanctions on its oil exports and central bank (CBI) appear more imminent than ever. Yet, even under the growing burden of sanctions, Iran is not abandoning its longtime ally and in recent weeks has been unequivocally supporting Syria and providing Bashar with military and security assistance to curb the protests.

Even though Iran, when referring to the crisis in Syria, often stresses the firm stance of the resistance camp and the price Syria is paying for being a main pillar of it, Iran is already preparing for the possibility – despite almost never publicly admitting it – that Bashar will eventually fall. Especially important here is the statement by Khamenei’s international-affairs adviser on incorporating the “new Iraqi government” in the resistance camp along with the growing contacts between Iran and that government, which began as soon as the United States had completed its withdrawal – a move whose strange timing plays into Iran’s hands. If Bashar falls, then, Iran will make sure its western border with Iraq is also an advantageous border with the Middle East, enabling it to exploit instability in Syria so as to keep operating within and from its territory. In recent months Iran has – similar to its activity in Lebanon – been investing substantial resources in Iraq. This goes beyond the subversion it waged there throughout the U.S. presence and the assistance it provided, sometimes in coordination with and through Lebanese Hizbullah, to the radical Shiite elements there.

Furthermore, the possible loss of Syria will push Iran to deal more forcefully with its “backyard” – the Persian Gulf – and to settle accounts with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; Iran has not yet said its last word about the Shiite revolt in Bahrain and the Shiites’ struggle in eastern Saudi Arabia. Iran’s recent show of strength in the gulf in the form of a wide-scale naval and army exercise, to be complemented by a Revolutionary Guards exercise to be held in the coming weeks, along with escalatory rhetoric about possibly closing off the Strait of Hormuz in case of sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and central bank, indicates that Iran aims to tighten its grip and further entrench its status in the region.

An Abundance of Fault Lines

For as long as it lasts the crisis in Syria will manifest the inter-Arab fault line of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states vs. Syria, and deepen the Persian-Arab, Sunni-Shiite, and historical Persian-Turkish (Ottoman) fault lines. Parallel to the metahistorical processes is the ongoing weakening of the United States in the Middle East and the rise of Islamic regimes that, albeit mostly Sunni, are much closer to Iran than to America. From Tehran’s standpoint, the real challenge is Turkey, as illustrated by the crisis with Syria. Turkey sees what is happening in Syria – its backyard – as part of the Arab Spring and calls on the president to respond to the will of the people, while Iran keeps backing Bashar and claims the Arab Spring is just a pretext to get rid of him. Both of these states have a superpower-imperialist past they would like to bring back, and will continue their dispute as the Middle Eastern tumult intensifies and even when the dust of the “Arab revolutions” settles. Both, with their apparent Islamic agenda, are competing for the same public, but still a wide gap yawns between them.

Iran appears to be at an advanced stage of reshaping what it calls the resistance camp. The fall of one of its mainstays, the Assad regime, would affect Iran’s ability to help Hizbullah in “real time” in the event of another round of hostilities with Israel, and the freedom of action of the Hamas headquarters in Damascus. Yet, at the same time, opportunities will open for Iran in the region. In its view, the electoral victories of the Islamic forces (even if Sunni) and the possibility of communicating with them without fear of governmental repression – particularly in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, while in eastern Saudi Arabia the Shiite minority is still under tight control – opens for Tehran a new range of ideology-driven opportunities. As in the past, the common denominator around which it seeks to unite all members of the camp is hatred of the West and Israel. Here, Iran’s rhetoric about the Syrian crisis, which it portrays as an attempt to harm a central Arab actor that has operated against Israel and has paid and is paying a price for its actions, plays a salient role.

Iran will try to consolidate the resistance camp in accordance with the changing geostrategic conditions of the region. In the first stage, it will work to widen the camp’s ideological reach to include both a religious basis of Islam and an ideological-political basis of hatred of Israel and the United States. As for the practical aspects of the struggle against Israel, Iran will continue to leave them in the hands of Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, attempting to broaden the scope of military-terrorist conflict with Israel in the future. Meanwhile, Iran is assigning an important role to its nuclear program and to formulating an appropriate deterrence concept that will be combined with its current “resistance camp” doctrine.

*     *     *

Notes

1. Michael Segall, “How Iran Is Helping Assad Suppress Syria’s ‘Arab Spring,'” Jerusalem Issue Brief, July 20, 2011, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=7945&TTL=How_Iran_Is_Helping_Assad_Suppress_Syria’s_”Arab_Spring”

2. http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/93333

3. http://www.nehzatejahani.com/1390/10/%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%C2%AB%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%C2%BB-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D9%87/

4. http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1496800

5. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277334

6. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277071

7. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30666591&SRCH=1

8. http://shoranews.com/News/2549

9. http://kayhannews.ir/900921/14.htm#other1400

10. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30708565

11. http://www.jomhourieslami.com/1390/13900926/13900926_01_jomhori_islami_sar_magaleh_0001.html

12. http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93113-islamic-countries-should-not-play-against-syria

13. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007275529

14. http://www.kayhannews.ir/900908/2.HTM#other200

15. http://irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30751979

16. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010170171

17. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010171825

18. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277334

19. http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1482337

20. http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/93510-ayatollah-advises-turkey-against-stoking-flames-of-syria-crisis

21. http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1501152

22. http://www.javanonline.ir/vdcdf90osyt0k56.2a2y.html

23. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277163

24. http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1502256

25. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30712338

26. http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30666436

27. http://www.siasatrooz.ir/vdcdso09.yt0nx6a22y.html

*     *     *

IDF Lt.-Col. (ret.) Michael (Mickey) Segall, an expert on strategic issues with a focus on Iran, terrorism, and the Middle East, is a senior analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Our World: America and the Arab S… JPost – Opinion – Columnists.

    A year ago this week, on January 25, 2011, the ground began to crumble under then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s feet. One year later, Mubarak and his sons are in prison, and standing trial. This week, the final vote tally from Egypt’s parliamentary elections was published. The Islamist parties have won 72 percent of the seats in the lower house.

The photogenic, Western-looking youth from Tahrir Square the Western media were thrilled to dub the Facebook revolutionaries were disgraced at the polls and exposed as an insignificant social and political force.

As for the military junta, it has made its peace with the Muslim Brotherhood. The generals and the jihadists are negotiating a power-sharing agreement. According to details of the agreement that have made their way to the media, the generals will remain the West’s go-to guys for foreign affairs. The Muslim Brotherhood (and its fellow jihadists in the Salafist al-Nour party) will control Egypt’s internal affairs.

This is bad news for women and for non-Muslims. Egypt’s Coptic Christians have been under continuous attack by Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist supporters since Mubarak was deposed. Their churches, homes and businesses have been burned, looted and destroyed. Their wives and daughters have been raped. The military massacred them when they dared to protest their persecution.

As for women, their main claim to fame since Mubarak’s overthrow has been their sexual victimization at the hands of soldiers who stripped female protesters and performed “virginity tests” on them. Out of nearly five hundred seats in parliament, only 10 will be filled by women.

The Western media are centering their attention on what the next Egyptian constitution will look like and whether it will guarantee rights for women and minorities. What they fail to recognize is that the Islamic fundamentalists now in charge of Egypt don’t need a constitution to implement their tyranny. All they require is what they already have – a public awareness of their political power and their partnership with the military.

The same literalist approach that has prevented Western observers from reading the writing on the walls in terms of the Islamists’ domestic empowerment has blinded them to the impact of Egypt’s political transformation on the country’s foreign policy posture. US officials forcefully proclaim that they will not abide by an Egyptian move to formally abrogate its peace treaty with Israel. What they fail to recognize is that whether or not the treaty is formally abrogated is irrelevant. The situation on the ground in which the new regime allows Sinai to be used as a launching ground for attacks against Israel, and as a highway for weapons and terror personnel to flow freely into Gaza, are clear signs that the peace with Israel is already dead – treaty or no treaty.

EGYPT’S TRANSFORMATION is not an isolated event. The disgraced former Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh arrived in the US this week. Yemen is supposed to elect his successor next month. The deteriorating security situation in that strategically vital land which borders the Arabian and Red Seas has decreased the likelihood that the election will take place as planned.

Yemen is falling apart at the seams. Al-Qaida forces have been advancing in the south. Last spring they took over Zinjibar, the capital of Abyan province. In recent weeks they captured Radda, a city 160 km. south of the capital of Sana.

Radda’s capture underscored American fears that the political upheaval in Yemen will provide al- Qaida with a foothold near shipping routes through the Red Sea and so enable the group to spread its influence to neighboring Saudi Arabia.

Al-Qaida forces were also prominent in the NATO-backed Libyan opposition forces that with NATO’s help overthrew Muammar Gaddafi in October. Although the situation on the ground is far from clear, it appears that radical Islamic political forces are intimidating their way into power in post-Gaddafi Libya.

Take for instance last weekend’s riots in Benghazi. On Saturday protesters laid siege to the National Transitional Council offices in the city while Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the NTC, hid inside. In an attempt to quell the protesters’ anger, Jalil fired six secular members of the NTC. He then appointed a council of religious leaders to investigate corruption charges and identify people with links to the Gaddafi regime.

In Bahrain, the Iranian-supported Shi’ite majority continues to mount political protests against the Sunni monarchy. Security forces killed two young Shi’ite protesters over the past week and a half, and opened fired at Shi’ites who sought to hold a protest march after attending the funeral of one of them.

As supporters of Bahrain’s Shi’ites have maintained since the unrest spread to the kingdom last year, Bahrain’s Shi’ites are not Iranian proxies. But then, until the US pulled its troops out of Iraq last month, neither were Iraq’s Shi’ites. What happened immediately after the US pullout is another story completely.

Extolling Iraq’s swift deterioration into an Iranian satrapy, last Wednesday, Brig.-Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps Jerusalem Brigade, bragged, “In reality, in south Lebanon and Iraq, the people are under the effect of the Islamic Republic’s way of practice and thinking.”

While Suleimani probably exaggerated the situation, there is no doubt that Iran’s increased influence in Iraq is being felt around the region. Iraq has come to the aid of Iran’s Syrian client Bashar Assad who is now embroiled in a civil war. The rise of Iran in Iraq holds dire implications for the Hashemite regime in Jordan which is currently hanging on by a thread, challenged from within and without by the rising force of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Much has been written since the fall of Mubarak about the impact on Israel of the misnamed Arab Spring. Events like September’s mob assault on Israel’s embassy in Cairo and the murderous cross-border attack on motorists traveling on the road to Eilat by terrorists operating out of Sinai give force to the assessment that Israel is more imperiled than ever by the revolutionary events engulfing the region.

But the truth is that while on balance Israel’s regional posture has taken a hit, particularly from the overthrow of Mubarak and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists in Egypt, Israel is not the primary loser in the so-called Arab Spring.

Israel never had many assets in the Arab world to begin with. The Western-aligned autocracies were not Israel’s allies. To the extent the likes of Mubarak and others have cooperated with Israel on various issues over the years, their cooperation was due not to any sense of comity with Jewish state. They worked with Israel because they believed it served their interests to do so. And at the same time Mubarak reined in the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas because they threatened him, he waged political war against Israel on every international stage and allowed anti-Semitic poison to be broadcast daily on his regime-controlled television stations.

Since Israel’s stake in the Arab power game has always been limited, its losses as a consequence of the fall of anti-Israel secular dictatorships and their replacement by anti-Israel Islamist regimes have been marginal. The US, on the other hand, has seen its interests massively harmed. Indeed, the US is the greatest loser of the pan-Arab revolutions.

TO UNDERSTAND the depth and breadth of America’s losses, consider that on January 25, 2011, most Arab states were US allies to a greater or lesser degree. Mubarak was a strategic ally. Saleh was willing to collaborate with the US in combating al- Qaida and other jihadist forces in his country.

Gaddafi was a neutered former enemy who had posed no threat to the US since 2004. Iraq was a protectorate. Jordan and Morocco were stable US clients.

One year later, the elements of the US’s alliance structure have either been destroyed or seriously weakened. US allies like Saudi Arabia, which have yet to be seriously threatened by the revolutionary violence, no longer trust the US. As the recently revealed nuclear cooperation between the Saudis and the Chinese makes clear, the Saudis are looking to other global powers to replace the US as their superpower protector.

Perhaps the most amazing aspect to the US’s spectacular loss of influence and power in the Arab world is that most of its strategic collapse has been due to its own actions. In Egypt and Libya the US intervened prominently to bring down a US ally and a dictator who constituted no threat to its interests. Indeed, it went to war to bring Gaddafi down.

Moreover, the US acted to bring about their fall at the same time it knew that they would be replaced by forces inimical to American national security interests. In Egypt, it was clear that the Muslim Brotherhood would emerge as the strongest political force in the country. In Libya, it was clear at the outset of the NATO campaign against Gaddafi that al-Qaida was prominently represented in the antiregime coalition. And just as the Islamists won the Egyptian election, shortly after Gaddafi was overthrown, al-Qaida forces raised their flag over Benghazi’s courthouse.

US actions from Yemen to Bahrain and beyond have followed a similar pattern.

In sharp contrast to his active interventionism against US-allied regimes, President Barack Obama has prominently refused to intervene in Syria, where the fate of a US foe hangs in the balance.

Obama has sat back as Turkey has fashioned a Syrian opposition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Arab League has intervened in a manner that increases the prospect that Syria will descend into chaos in the event that the Assad regime is overthrown.

Obama continues to speak grandly about his vision for the Middle East and his dedication to America’s regional allies. And his supporters in the media continue to applaud his great success in foreign policy. But outside of their echo chamber, he and the country he leads are looked upon with increasing contempt and disgust throughout the Arab world.

Obama’s behavior since last January 25 has made clear to US friend and foe alike that under Obama, the US is more likely to attack you if you display weakness towards it than if you adopt a confrontational posture against it. As Assad survives to kill another day; as Iran expands its spheres of influence and gallops towards the nuclear bomb; as al- Qaida and its allies rise from the Gulf of Aden to the Suez Canal; and as Mubarak continues to be wheeled into the courtroom on a stretcher, the US’s rapid fall from regional power is everywhere in evidence.

Iran says sanctions to fail, rep… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

    TEHRAN – Iranian politicians said on Tuesday they expected the European Union to backtrack on its oil embargo and repeated a threat to close the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane if the West succeeds in preventing Tehran from exporting crude.

“The West’s ineffective sanctions against the Islamic state are not a threat to us. They are opportunities and have already brought lots of benefits to the country,” Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi told the official IRNA news agency.
Speaking a day after the EU slapped a ban on Iranian oil – to take full effect within six months – in a move to press Tehran into curbing its contested nuclear program and engage in negotiations with six world powers, the tone in the Islamic Republic was defiant, even skeptical.

“The global economic situation is not one in which a country can be destroyed by imposing sanctions,” Moslehi said, repeating Iran’s stance that with the EU in economic and monetary crisis, it needs Iran’s oil more than Iran needs its business.

A spokesman for the oil ministry said Iran had had plenty of time to prepare for the sanctions and would find alternative customers for the 18 percent of its exports that up to now have gone to the 27-nation European bloc.

“The first phase of this (sanctions action) is propaganda, only then it will enter the implementation phase. That is why they put in this six months period, to study the market,” Alireza Nikzad Rahbar said, predicting the embargo could be rescinded before it takes force completely.

“This market will harm them because oil is getting more expensive and when oil gets more expensive it will harm the people of Europe,” Iranian state TV quoted him as saying. “We hope that in these six months they will choose the right path.”

The embargo will not kick in completely until July 1 because the bloc’s foreign ministers who agreed the ban at a meeting in Brussels were anxious not to penalize the ailing economies of Greece, Italy and others to whom Iran is a major oil supplier.

The strategy will be reviewed in May to see if it should proceed.

Iran, which denies international suspicions that it is trying to design atomic bombs behind the facade of a declared civilian atomic energy program, has scoffed at efforts to bar its oil exports as Asia lines up to buy what Europe rejects.

‘Illogical, reckless decisions’

Iran’s foreign ministry summoned the Danish ambassador on Tuesday to complain about the EU’s “illogical decision,” accusing Europe of doing the bidding of the United States.

“Some elements in the European Union, following America’s policies, are seeking to create tension in relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Ashghar Khaji told Danish Ambassador Anders Christian Hougaard.

“Europe should be responsible for the consequences of these reckless decisions,” he said, according to IRNA.

Emad Hosseini, spokesman for parliament’s energy committee, said that if Iran encountered any problem selling its oil, it would store it.

“If we don’t export our oil to Europe, our oil will be saved and storage of oil will not harm us but we will have rich storage of oil,” he told the semi-official Fars news agency, adding Iran retained its threat to shut the Gulf to shipping.

“Closing the Strait of Hormuz is one of the country’s strategies against the West’s threats, especially an oil embargo,” he said.

The United States, which sailed an aircraft carrier through the strait into the Gulf accompanied by British and French warships on Sunday, has said it would not tolerate the closure of the world’s most important oil shipping gateway.

Arab League will ask UNSC to back its Syri… JPost – Middle East.

    The head of the Arab League has asked to meet the United Nations secretary-general to seek the UN Security Council’s support for its latest plan to resolve the crisis in Syria, the League said in a statement on Tuesday.

It said Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby and Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, who heads the League’s committee on Syria, sent a joint letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon giving details of the plan for a political solution to end the violence.
The letter asks for a “joint meeting between them in the UN headquarters to inform the Security Council about developments and obtain the support of the Council for this plan,” the statement added.

Earlier Tuesday, the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) said it had decided to follow Saudi Arabia’s lead and withdraw its monitors from the monitoring mission in Syria.

The League had urged Syrian President Bashar Assad on Sunday to step down over his bloody crackdown on a 10-month-old revolt, in which thousands of Syrians have been killed. Saudi Arabia had already withdrawn its monitors, and called for “all possible pressure” to be placed on Damascus.

“The GCC states have decided to respond to the decision of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia to withdraw its monitors from the Arab League delegation to Syria,” the GCC said in a statement.

It said the GCC was “certain the bloodshed and killing of innocents would continue, and that the Syrian regime would not abide by the Arab League’s resolutions.”

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem said that taking the plan to the United Nations was a new stage in the League’s moves against the country.

“I believe that this new stage of their planning against Syria is a call for internationalizing (the Syria issue),” he told a news conference.

Mouallem also said that Syria would hold a referendum on a new constitution soon as part of reforms promised by Assad. “The new Syrian constitution will be put to a referendum within a week or more.”

But he also warned that Russia would not accept any foreign intervention in its old ally. “Our relations with Russia are deep-rooted,” he told a news conference in Damascus. “That is a red line.”

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report January 24, 2012, 3:10 PM (GMT+02:00)

Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak

The new round of sanctions will not stop Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon, said Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a radio interview Tuesday, Jan. 24, stressing that Israel’s hand was always near the trigger. His comments aimed at cooling the optimistic notes emanating from Washington, Europe and some Israeli circles Monday after the European Union foreign ministers approved an oil embargo against Iran from July 1 and froze its central bank’s assets. The US then applied sanctions to Iran’s third biggest bank, Bank Tejerat.
Barak said that because Iran had not stopped developing a nuclear weapon Israel had not removed any options from the table. We say this “very seriously,” he stressed.
Monday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu greeted the European sanctions by saying that they were positive but would not stop or interrupt Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapon.

The defense minister agreed that the Europeans had started out in the right direction. But he saw no reason to hold off until July before the oil embargo went into effect or to delay a boycott on transactions by Iran’s central bank.  Oil shortfalls can be made up within weeks, Barak pointed out, from Saudi Arabia’s huge reserves, from the oil produced by Libya and from expanded Iraqi production.

debkafile‘s sources report that, seen from Israel, Obama administration and the European Union are holding sanctions off until summer to give US, European and Iranian back-channel emissaries using Turkey’s good offices enough space to get nuclear negotiations resumed.
Iran is being offered to chance to repeat the old tricks, say Israeli sources, after repeatedly and successfully pulling them off in the last seven years, of sitting the world powers down for talks while carrying on blithely with plans for the first Shiite Muslim nuke. The extra six months will be a useful grace time for Iran to secrete its nuclear facilities in fortified underground bunkers.

According to the same old scenario, when July comes around, the US and European powers will seek to postpone sanctions so as not to jeopardize the talks with Iran.

Barak’s words about the sanctions not being tough enough and “too far off” reflected his government’s belief that the oil embargo cannot gain enough momentum by July to seriously upset the Iranian economy; another six months would be needed, so taking the new sanctions drive up to early 2013.
The Netanyahu government was also disappointed by President Barack Obama imposing sanctions on Iran’s third largest bank – not its central bank. This left Tehran with enough leeway to activate bilateral financial mechanisms for dodging the oil embargo and financial penalties in conjunction with the governments which have opted out of the US-EU sanctions and continue to trade with Iran.

Sunday, debkafile reported exclusively that Tehran, New Delhi, Moscow, Beijing and Ankara were already transacting oil deals through those mechanisms.
In another part of his interview, the Israeli defense minister said Iran had climbed down over its first threat to shut the Strait of Hormuz to US aircraft carriers. Heeding the US pledge to use its might to guarantee free passage through the strait, Tehran let the USS Abraham Lincoln escorted by British and French warships pass through Jan. 22 without incident.

Barak was convinced the Iranians would not make good on their current threat to close the strait if its oil transactions were embargoed. And if they tried, it would not be for long because American and European fleets would reopen to Hormuz so that one-fifth of the oil shipped to world markets would leave for its destinations.

In the defense minister’s view, therefore, Iran is in no position to hold the world’s oil markets to ransom.