Archive for January 2012

Arab League will ask UNSC to back its Syria peace plan

January 24, 2012

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

Syria's empty seat at the Arab League


    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 Saudi Arabia had already withdrawn its monitors, and called for “all possible pressure” to be placed on Damascus.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.”

Barak slams EU oil embargo’s delay to July. Israel’s hand ever near trigger

January 24, 2012

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.

 

Syria signals crackdown will continue – CBS News

January 24, 2012

Syria signals crackdown will continue – CBS News.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem holds a press conference in Damascus, Nov. 14, 2011. (Getty)

CBS/AP)

BEIRUT – Syria’s foreign minister has signaled that his country will continue its 10-month crackdown on dissent.

Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday it’s the duty of the government to take any steps it sees necessary to protect against chaos.

His news conference came one day after President Bashar Assad’s regime rejected an Arab-brokered plan to end the country’s bloodshed.

“They are carrying out an external plan,” al-Moallem said of the Arab League on Tuesday. “They knew from the very start that we would not accept their proposal because it is a blatant infringement on Syria’s sovereignty and a flagrant interference in the internal policy of the state.”

The plan calls for a unity government within two months, which would then prepare for parliamentary and presidential elections to be held under Arab and international supervision.

Al-Moallem said Tuesday it was clear that some Arab countries have joined the conspiracy.

Syria blames the unrest that erupted in March 2011 on “terrorists” and armed gangs, which the regime claims are acting out a foreign conspiracy to destabilize the country, reports CBS News’ George Baghdadi.

Assad’s regime has responded to the uprising with a brutal crackdown that the U.N. says has left more than 5,400 people dead – most of them unarmed protesters.

In Presidential Politics Iran Must Be Center Stage

January 24, 2012

In Presidential Politics Iran Must Be Center Stage – Op-Eds – Israel National News.

The only method that may actually have some impact on Iran right now is a unified bad cop, bad cop message.

 

But as the threat of Iranian nuclear belligerence becomes more pronounced, President Obama has been forced to address growing international fear over Iran, exposing perhaps his even greater vulnerability. Republicans would do very well to push the issue.

For one, the subject of Iran is simple and fairly straightforward, as opposed to economic matters which are often complex and are reflective of multiple fluctuating components. The case for or against various economic initiatives allow much room for dispute and is at times highly subjective. Quantifying progress on Iran however, is fairly elementary. It is uncomplicated for candidates to explain and easier for the public to grasp.
Iran is also among the broadest issues, as it affects everyone. Of course, so does the economy, but in truth most people would gladly give up the opportunity to amass more wealth in favor of living safer, longer and without fear.
Republicans should move to consistently bring the issue of Iran to center stage, as President Obama has absolutely nothing substantial to show for himself. In fact there is a case to be made that he has effectively served – to the extent that he was practically able – as Iran’s blocking back in its mad dash toward nuclear armament. Most Republicans have already come out forcefully on the issue.
In dealing with the Iranian crisis, there are three primary options on the table, and as far as the public is concerned President Obama has fought against all three.
On the first path, sanctions, he has talked a big game, but bottom line implementations have been weaker than necessary and significantly protracted. So much so that usual staunch Obama ally New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez publicly expressed anger and frustration with the Administration last month over a crucial bill aimed at sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran. As Foreign Policy reported:
“Two senior administration officials testified……that the current bipartisan amendment to impose new sanctions on the CBI (Central Bank of Iran) and any other bank that does business with them is a bad idea that could alienate foreign countries.”
On Sunday, Israel’s largest daily newspaper Israel Hayom reported:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not pleased with the way the U.S. administration is managing its sanctions campaign against Iran, according to a senior Israeli diplomat. Netanyahu is said to be urging the U.S. to target Iran’s Central Bank and crude oil industry.”

This option, after much Israeli persuasion,  has just been moved on by the EU and the Treasury Department. It remains to be seen whether the EU will stand fast in the wake of economic pressures.

With the second path, covert action, it is harder to quantify Obama’s position as it is,of course,covert.  But reports and public statements made by the administration over the recent assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, it is apparent that the President has been far from supportive. “We condemn any assassination or attack on an innocent person, and we express our sympathies to the family,” said Victoria Nuland of the US State Department. Israel’s Channel 2 TV station quoted a source within “Netanyahu’s bureau”, claiming that Obama asked for an explanation regarding Israel’s involvement.
With regard to the third option, actually launching a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend:
“President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike.”
So one is compelled to wonder, what exactly is Israel’s recourse here? Should the country close its eyes and hold on to the hand of the American President in absolute faith and trust? It is the obliteration of Israel that Ahmedinejad has promised to deliver. Positioned within striking distance of Iranian long range missiles and within touching distance of Iranian proxies, Hamas and Heibulah, Israel can by no means take that risk.

Considering the overwhelming degree of solidarity that voting Americans feel with their Israeli counterparts, this is a point that candidates would do well to highlight time and again.

Obama defenders point to economic risk over oil prices as a reason to move slowly with Iran, but one thing we can be certain of, is that a nuclear Iran will create far greater economic instability. Additionally, forcing Iran into a limited oil market, would allow their primary customers such as China to offer far less for Iran’s oil, possibly even forcing the oil prices down around the world, rather than the expected rise.
Other supporters have expressed the possibility that Israel and the United States are actually working together in dealing with Iran, staging a good cop, bad cop ‘hold me back’ dynamic.

It is clear however that the only method that may actually have some impact on Iran right now is a unified bad cop, bad cop message.

Mitt Romney got the tone right in a November debate where he said “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

As the economy for now has shown signs (even if temporary) of improvement, for Republicans, continuing to push the Iran issue to the center stage may just be their safest bet.

The Author is the director of the Algemeiner Journal and the GJCF and can be e-mailed at defune@gjcf.com

Gulf states pulling monitors from Syria mission

January 24, 2012

Gulf states pulling monitors from Syria mi… JPost – Middle East.

Gulf Cooperation Council state leaders [file]

   

The six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) said on Tuesday it had decided to withdraw its monitors from an Arab League mission to Syria, following the lead of Saudi Arabia.

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” 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”.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia withdrew its monitors from the Arab League mission.

“My country will withdraw its monitors because the Syrian government did not execute any of the elements of the Arab resolution plan,” Prince Saud al-Faisal told Arab foreign ministers at a closed door meeting in Cairo. The statement was obtained by Reuters after he spoke.

“We are calling on the international community to bear its responsibility, and that includes our brothers in Islamic states and our friends in Russia, China, Europe and the United States,” Prince Saud said, calling for “all possible pressure” to push Syria to adhere to the Arab peace plan.

Saudi Arabia, the region’s political and economic powerhouse, exerts enormous influence over other Gulf countries which tend to fall in line with its policies.

Australia to follow EU lead in banning Iranian oil

January 24, 2012

Australia to follow EU lead in b… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

Australian FM Kevin Rudd

    Australia will follow the EU’s lead in banning oil imports from Iran, the country’s Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said on Tuesday.

“On the question of Iran, let me be absolutely clear (regarding) the actions taken in Brussels yesterday on sanctions by the European Union. We in Australia will undertake precisely the same parallel action for Australia,” he told reporters during a visit to London.
On Monday, the EU imposed a ban on Iranian oil imports beginning in July in an effort to increase pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program. The EU accounts for about about 20 percent of Iranian oil exports.

Following the EU decision, the US Treasury announced its own new sanctions on Iranian state-owned Bank Tejarat, accused of involvement in nuclear proliferation. According to an EU document published on Tuesday, Tejarat is among the entities it is blacklisting.

The EU said that Bank Tejarat had directly facilitated Iran’s nuclear efforts, for example by helping move funds to assist Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization in acquiring yellowcake uranium.

Bank Tejarat also has a history of helping designated Iranian banks circumvent international sanctions, the EU said.

By providing financial services to other banks, Bank Tejarat has also supported the activities of subsidiaries and subordinates of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and other Iranian military organizations, the EU said.

US President Barack Obama said on Monday that the new sanctions underlined the strength of the international community’s commitment to “addressing the serious threat presented by Iran’s nuclear program.”

Israel also welcomed the EU’s decision Monday to significantly step up sanctions against Iran, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu calling the moves a “step in the right direction.”

Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor said Tuesday that building an international coalition to pressure Iran over its nuclear program is the best way to move forward.

Speaking with Israel Radio, Meridor praised new sanctions imposed by the EU and US Monday, saying, “An international coalition is coming together, [which] understands both the importance and urgency of the situation.”

Meridor emphasized that all options are still on the table, saying that international pressure on Iran “is the way we have to go.” The question, he said, is whether Iran will find the cost high enough to change course.

A nuclear Iran, the minister said, would change the power dynamics in the region and could start arms race.

Iran on Monday rejected the new sanctions as “psychological warfare,” saying they would worsen the stand-off over the Islamic state’s nuclear program.

The Point of No Return

January 24, 2012

The Point of No Return » Publications » Family Security Matters.

 
Debkafile recently disclosed that it was Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, not the Obama administration, who decided to call off the largest joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise Austere Challenge 12 ever planned between the two countries. That exercise had been scheduled for April 2012, and was to have tested the level of coordination between the two armies in missile defense in the event of a war with Iran or a regional conflict.
Netanyahu’s concern was and is that the presence of a large U.S. military contingent in Israel would inhibit his country’s ability to conduct a preemptive strike on the Iranian nuclear reactors. It would appear that Israeli military strategists have concluded that the U.S. is unwilling to undertake such action regardless of how many “red lines” are crossed.
His decision to postpone the exercise was based on several recent developments not the least of which was Washington’s having taken no action against Iran for its capture of the RQ-170 stealth drone on December 4th; silence from Washington over Iran’s initiation of 20% uranium enrichment at the underground Fordo facility near Qom; Obama’s reluctance to send any U.S. aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz until March for fear of provoking a confrontation with Iran that could lead to skyrocketing oil prices in an election year and an increase in Iranian-backed terrorist attacks against U.S. military forces pending their withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan; U.S. Secretary of Defense Panetta’s recent condemnation of the latest assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran hinting at Israel’s involvement – a suggestion seen by many Israelis as an attempt to appease Iran, and Obama’s hesitation in approving immediate sanctions on Iran’s central bank and energy sector.
Netanyahu is also concerned that U.S. hesitation in striking at Iran’s nuclear reactors seems to be based on the assumption that Iran has not yet made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Even if true, reports on recent Iranian advances in uranium enrichment suggest that the time lag between a decision to construct a bomb and its actual construction may be only a matter of weeks. From Netanyahu’s perspective, by kicking the can down the road and postponing that decision, the U.S. is risking a dangerous eleventh hour nuclear confrontation given that Iran has already made the decision to become a nuclear power. The only question is when, and the reality is, it can do so whenever it chooses…..and quickly.
The U.S may be prepared to take that risk in the slim hope that it can force the Iranians to back down at the last moment, but Israel cannot accept such a risk given the existential nature of the threat posed by a fanatical Iranian Islamist regime that embraces the Shia tradition of martyrdom, is about to become armed with a nuclear weapon, and is ideologically committed to Israel’s destruction. Jewish history has taught the country that when an enemy says it intends to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” it must be taken seriously.
Even if the Iranians have not actually constructed a nuclear weapon, there is little doubt that they have chosen a path that will lead to its construction in a very short period of time. In February 2010, intelligence reports began surfacing that Iranian nuclear engineers, under deep cover, were working full speed on the uranium enrichment centrifuge facility at Natanz (producing 20% enriched uranium – far in excess of what Iran’s civilian needs required) and at the Parchine nuclear and military laboratories in northeast Tehran where much of the work on nuclear bomb components and operational warheads was being conducted – most notably research on a neutron initiator using Uranium Deuteride, the sole purpose of which is to trigger a nuclear reaction in a warhead. On August 25th, 2011, the German daily Suddeutsche Zeitung reported that North Korea had in fact supplied Iran with a highly precise computer to help simulate such a nuclear reaction.
Anticipating a possible attack on its nuclear facilities, Iran announced its intention to shift its uranium enrichment production to a deep underground mountain bunker at Fordow near Qom and to enrich uranium to 20% purity – far beyond the amount needed for nuclear power and about 90% of the way to nuclear-grade fuel.

Concern was expressed in a November 2011 Report issued by the Wisconsin Project. That Report noted: “Based on the amount of low-enriched uranium Iran has stockpiled, and the amount it is believed to be producing each month, the Wisconsin Project estimates that by December 2008, Iran had accumulated enough U-235 to fuel one bomb – assuming Iran decided to further enrich the low-enriched material to weapon-grade. The Project further estimates that by the end of 2009, Iran had enough U-235 to fuel a second bomb; that Iran had enough of this material for a third bomb by August 2010; that Iran had enough of this material for a fourth bomb by April 2011; and that Iran had enough of this material for a fifth bomb by November 2011 – in each case assuming that Iran decides to raise the level of U-235 in its low-enriched uranium stockpile (3.5% U-235) to weapon-grade (90% or more U-235).”
At the same time, an exhaustive report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just concluded that Iran’s atomic experiments are “specific to nuclear weapons” and “include the placing of radioactive material into a warhead and developing missiles.” “This information”, it said, “indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”
In January 2012, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization added fuel to the fire when he told Iran’s Kayhan daily that the Fordow Uranium enrichment site was about to become operational. In response,Olli Heinonen, former Deputy Director-General of the IAEA wrote: “If Iran decides to produce weapons-grade uranium from 20%-enriched uranium, it has already technically undertaken 90% of the enrichment effort required. Growing the stockpile of 3.5% and 20%-enriched uranium, as Iran is now doing, provides the basic material needed to produce four to five nuclear weapons.”
In short, Iran’s nuclear timeline no longer hinges on the calendar; it rests entirely upon a decision in Tehran to produce an atomic bomb – within weeks if desired.
Nor is the production of an atomic bomb the only area of interest to the Iranians. In February 2008, Heinonen gave a highly classified briefing in which he revealed Iranian documents that detailed how to design a warhead, possibly nuclear, for their 1,300-kilometer-range Shahab-3 missile that could be detonated at an altitude of 600 meters. Former CIA double agent Reza Kahlili who spent time as a member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps added in his book A Time to Betray that the Iranians have conducted numerous advanced ballistic missile tests off ships in the Caspian Sea – tests consistent with an electro-magnetic pulse-style attack.
For the U.S., these developments should represent the sum of all its fears – the possible detonation of an Iranian nuclear device high in the atmosphere off the East coast, the effect of which could send a massive electro-magnetic pulse over much of the eastern seaboard shutting down virtually all U.S.-based electronic defense systems, destroying America’s electrical grid, and shutting down everything from cars to computers to airplanes and refrigerators – not to mention the enormous loss of human life that would result from such a detonation. (Cynthia E. Ayers, “The First Battle of the Next War”, Family Security Matters, January 11, 2012)
With each passing day, it becomes more apparent that the sanctions designed to bring Iran’s economy to a stand-still and to force it to cease its nuclear enrichment efforts, combined with the covert campaign involving sabotaging parts of Iran’s nuclear supply chain, the string of explosions at Iranian missile testing sites, the assassination of key Iranian nuclear scientists, and the use of Stuxnet cyber attacks to stymie the logic board that controls the spinning centrifuges at its enrichment facilities have failed to stop the mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons.
Should Iran achieve its protective nuclear shield, it will be free to advance its Islamist revolution throughout the world with impunity from attack. The mullahs may be fanatics, but they are neither blind nor stupid. They understand the benefits of a nuclear shield and will not be dissuaded from their goal. After all, a nuclear-armed North Korea shelled a South Korean island, sank a South Korean destroyer, engaged in state-sponsored terrorism and criminal activities, and has committed gross violations of human rights, yet it has not only enjoyed impunity from any sort of military action, but it has engaged in high-level diplomacy with the world’s great powers to bargain for economic aid and fuel deliveries for its cash-strapped country.
For years, U.S. Administrations have assumed that economic sanctions and diplomacy would produce a pliable negotiating partner in Iran, but in the final analysis, Iran perceives U.S. and European efforts at compromise as symptomatic of Western fear and weakness. Enhanced incentives have not only failed to entice Iran to give up its nuclear program, but they have had the reverse effect of validating its uncompromising policy against making any concessions in the nuclear arena.
 
Iran’s messianic quest
To understand the Iranian quest for nuclear capability, one must understand the mindset of the regime that rules in Tehran. Iran has become a martyrdom-obsessed state run by religious fanatics bent on spreading Shiite Islam throughout the world. Any country that threatens to wipe out other countries, peoples or cultures should not be underestimated nor should the West assume that Iranian ambitions can be “contained”. An aggressive Islamic theocracy armed with the bomb would cast a dangerous shadow over the region’s political transition. Iranian hegemony in the Middle East under a nuclear umbrella will not only threaten the world’s oil supply, but facilitate Iranian Islamic influence throughout the world.
The twentieth century was the deadliest century in history primarily because the West failed to assess the danger posed by madmen. One insane leader can cause the death of millions of people, and Ahmadinejad’s intentions have always been clear. Difficult as it may be for Western leaders to comprehend, Ahmedinejad believes he is on a messianic mission to create the apocalyptic chaos necessary to lay the foundations for the Coming of the 12th Imam or Mahdi and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate – a mission that is expressed through the incessant hum of thousands of Iranian centrifuges enriching uranium in his hidden and rapidly hardening nuclear facilities.
Each day those centrifuges run brings Iran closer to achieving military nuclear capability and a nuclear shield under which it’s Islamic revolution will be exported to the world. Sixty million people died during World War II with weapons far more primitive than can be produced today. If lone suicide bombers are willing to sacrifice themselves for religious fanaticism, why then is it not beyond the realm of possibility that a leader like Ahmedinejad, protected by a nuclear shield would be willing to sacrifice millions for the same beliefs? 
These Islamists have done it before. This is the same regime that encouraged the “martyrdom” of thousands of Iranian children by placing yellow plastic “keys to Paradise” around their necks and having them run through Iraqi minefields during the Iraq-Iran War in the 1980s; the same regime that counts 15% of its population as “volunteer martyrs”; and whose President proudly states that no art “is more beautiful . . . than the art of the martyr’s death.”
An Iranian Islamist regime armed with nuclear weapons will trigger a regional nuclear arms race, destroy the non-proliferation treaty, and increase the danger of miscalculation that could bring on a nuclear exchange. A nuclear shield will allow it to escalate its destabilizing influence throughout the region and the world, threaten Israel and moderate Arab regimes, manipulate energy markets to its benefit and pose as “guardian” of Muslim communities even beyond the Middle East. Over time, it may even share its nuclear technology with its non-state proxies. Given the mindset of those who rule the Islamic Republic, containment and deterrence are pipe dreams.
The Wikileaks cables from last year reveal that our conflict with Iran is about more than the nuclear issue. It is a sweeping theological confrontation permeated with imperialist overtones. The mullahs have been at war with the West since seizing power in Iran in 1979. It is the West that has failed to appreciate the true nature of this war. We are confronted with a barbaric theological Islamist movement that will accept nothing less than the submission of Western civilization to Sharia law.
Time is running out, negotiations have proven fruitless, sanctions have yet to be proven effective, and Iran is stalling for time while enriching uranium to weapons-grade quality and closing in on a nuclear weapon, a delivery system, and a nuclear shield under which it intends to establish a global Islamic caliphate under its control. With Iranian Islamic imperialism on the march, we have reached the point of no return in deciding whether or not to allow such a regime to go nuclear.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel), he contributes to Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) and the New Media Journal and is a member of Hadassah’s National Academic Advisory Board. His book “The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad” and his articles have been archived under www.marksilverberg.com and www.analyst-network.com.

‘Unprecedented’ EU Sanctions on Iran a Farce

January 24, 2012

‘Unprecedented’ EU Sanctions on Iran a Farce | FrontPage Magazine.

The European Union has agreed to an “unprecedented” set of sanctions against Iran, banning the importation of Iranian oil to its member states while also imposing currency and commodity sanctions on Iran’s central bank. But far from forcing Iran into a corner, the latest sanctions leave a backdoor open to the regime, affording it more time and cover to pursue its nuclear objectives.

Three of the weakest economies in Europe will be hit hard by the oil embargo. Italy, Greece, and Spain import 68% of EU oil from Iran. All three nations are in the midst of a sovereign debt crisis that won’t be improved by the best debt consolidation strategies as they scramble to replace the supply of oil from Tehran.

The EU also agreed to ban sales of petrochemical supplies to the Iranians as well as freezing the assets of Iran’s central bank. Gold, silver, and other commodity deals will also be banned.

But, as proof that these tough sounding sanctions will have the bite of a toothless lion, the ban is not scheduled to take effect for several months — July 1 — as EU nations need time to replace the oil imported from Iran with other sources of supply. This will give the Iranians plenty of time to find other buyers for their oil — if they don’t close the spigot to Europe immediately. The official Fars News Agency quoted one Iranian official suggesting that Tehran should halt sales to Europe now “so that the price of oil soars and the Europeans … have trouble.”

The Iranians have also once again threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, but most analysts see that as a bluff since Iran doesn’t have the firepower to stand up to the US Navy, which would almost certainly be called upon to keep the Strait open.

Some states, such as Greece, pleaded with the EU not to impose any oil sanctions at all, or at least, radically alter the terms of the ban. The Greeks import about 20% of their oil from Iran on extremely favorable terms and covering the shortfall and getting the same deal from other oil producing states will almost certainly prove to be impossible. Considering the precarious nature of the Greek economy and an angry, restive populace, civil unrest is not out of the question if gasoline prices skyrocket.

Thus, another round of sanctions against Iran, designed to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table in order to convince the regime to halt its uranium enrichment program, continues to reveal the paralysis of the world community in the face of a determined, radical, terrorist state that is undeterred in its drive to possess the ultimate guarantee against mocking the prophet. The thought of the most powerful weapon on Earth in the hands of the most irresponsible nation on the planet doesn’t seem to elicit much in the way of urgency on the part of any nation in the world — except Israel, of course. And Prime Minister Netanyahu appears to be in a wait-and-see mode as far as sanctions are concerned — at least for the moment. Washington has warned Israel several times not to attack Iran on its own, but the Israeli government doesn’t seem confident that the sanctions will halt Tehran’s drive to possess nuclear weapons.

There have been 4 rounds of sanctions against Iran passed by the United Nations. Each round in itself is severely underwhelming. Beginning in December 2006, the Security Council banned the sale of nuclear related materials and froze the assets of some regime officials. In March 2007, the UN expanded the asset freeze and slapped an arms embargo on Iran. In March of 2008, the asset freeze was extended again, and member states were authorized to monitor ships and planes headed for Iran as well as individuals involved in the nuclear program.

The last round of international sanctions passed in June of 2010, froze the funds of individuals and businesses connected to the Revolutionary Guards and went after the financial sector of the Iranian economy.

In addition to international sanctions, about a dozen individual states — including the US, the EU, Japan, and Australia — have added their own national sanctions on everything from penalizing companies that do business with Iran to preventing the sale of oil and gas equipment to replace Tehran’s aging oil infrastructure.

The result? Pitifully minor annoyances to the Iranian economy and little evidence that it has slowed the mullahs’ drive to build a nuclear weapon. During the time that the sanctions have been in place, the Iranians have installed 5,000 working centrifuges at their main enrichment facility in Nantanz that is busy enriching hundreds of pounds of uranium, completed construction of the reactor at Bushehr and made it operational, constructed at least one and probably more smaller enrichment facilities such as the one built into a mountain outside of Qom, and, according to the nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, are rapidly developing the technical capability to marry a nuclear bomb to their missiles.

To be fair, there is some evidence that the last round of sanctions against Iran’s central bank have generated the kind of pain they were designed to cause. The only problem; it is ordinary Iranians who are feeling the pinch as inflation has soared 50% for some basic food items like meat and milk. The economy is a wreck — more a result of mismanagement by the government than the sanctions — and there is some indication that the oil sector of the economy is beset by supply problems as spare parts and new equipment are hard to come by.

But Ivan Eland, a senior fellow with the Independent Institute, writes in the Washington Times that sanctions rarely work:

The problem with all sanctions is that they erode over time as the target nation redirects its products to countries that aren’t participating in the sanctions or finds ways to trade illegally with entities in the sanctioning countries. With such market “reordering” and outright evasion, the target country is rarely starved of export revenues.

Specifically with regard to Iran, Eland notes that “despite the existing sanctions on Iran’s petroleum sector, the country exported some $71.6 billion worth of petroleum products in 2010, according to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).”  And the Iranians have said that 2011 was even better.

Noted above, the sanctions have had little effect on the ability of the Iranians to progress toward building a nuclear weapon, although there is some evidence that efforts to prevent the Iranians from upgrading their centrifuges, as well as continue their rapid development of ballistic missiles have achieved limited success. A recent UN report on the effectiveness of the international sanctions notes “sanctions are slowing Iran’s nuclear programme but not yet having an impact on the decision calculus of its leadership with respect to halting enrichment and heavy water-related activities.”

But it is far too little and it is becoming far too late. The chimera that the “decision calculus” of the regime factors in the suffering of ordinary people, or even the modernization of its aging oil sector is more of the same: the international community fooling itself into thinking that the Iranians can be deterred from possessing a nuclear weapon through the kind of sanctions that have been imposed thus far.

A total embargo of oil sales from Iran coupled with an attempt to interrupt its importation of gasoline would be more to the point as far as imposing sanctions with bite. But the world economy can ill afford to lose Iran’s 4 million bbl of oil a day without a serious shock to prices — a shock that the fragile economic recoveries in the West would be ill-prepared to manage. And while Iran used to import about a third of its refined gasoline, that has changed over the last 3 years, as rationing and a slowing economy have closed the gap between what Iran can refine in country and what it must get from outside sources.

In short, there is no magic combination of sanctions that can induce the Iranians to halt their enrichment activities. There never has been. As long as the current leadership is in power, Iran will continue its steady progress toward the inevitable. Even if the Iranians agree to sit down with the EU and US to negotiate, there is little the West can offer the Iranians that would change their minds. More likely, they would use the talks to buy time to create the capability of constructing a weapon in a matter of months — or weeks.

European Union leaders cannot really believe the additional sanctions they have imposed will act as a deterrence, or force the Iranians to the negotiating table, or do anything except make the creaky Iranian economy seize up with ordinary Iranians taking the brunt of the sanctions’ effects. It is more of the same from the international community — playing a myopic game of make-believe that by imposing sanctions on Iran, they are making a whit of difference in Tehran’s hegemonistic plans to dominate the region and wipe the state of Israel off the face of the Earth.

China Daily – Israel’s deputy PM welcomes China’s Middle East policy

January 24, 2012

Israel’s deputy PM welcomes China’s Middle East policy|Middle East|chinadaily.com.cn.

JERUSALEM – Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor said on Monday that he welcomes China’s policy on the Iranian nuclear issue and Israeli-Palestinian peace process, saying that Beijing is contributing to the stability of the Middle East and the world order.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Israeli-Chinese diplomatic relations. Speaking with Xinhua, Meridor said that the bilateral relationship is important to both countries. “The evident development of China into world power on one hand, the advanced scientific, technological, economic abilities of my country on the other hand, are good bases on which we could build good relationship,” he said.

“Relations are not only good, but potentially could be even better, in terms of political, economic, and cultural relationship, ” Meridor said, stressing that Israel and China have common concerns, and share common interests on many global issues.

Speaking of the recent tensions in the Persian Gulf, Meridor said that Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped, so as not to ” reach a point of no-return.”

“I hope we succeed, but all of us need to do it in a consulted way and with resilience, persistence and leadership,” he said.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, during a recent official visit to Qatar, said that China firmly opposes Iran producing and possessing nuclear weapons and will work with concerned parties to establish a nuclear-free Middle East.

Also being Israel’s Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Meridor agrees with Wen’s call for a nuclear-free Mideast, and ” this should be done in the Middle East in the context of peace, stability, and acceptance.”

“I think this is the time, in the coming months, to show the seriousness, resolve, and persistence of world powers to Iran that they cannot get nuclear (weapons),” he said.

The European Union on Monday decided to impose an oil embargo on Iran, the most severe measure against the country by far. Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that a high-ranking team from the nuclear watchdog will visit Iran between January 29 and 31 to discuss the Islamic republic’s disputed nuclear program.

Israel and the West have been accusing Iran of developing nuclear bombs. According to the latest IAEA report in November of 2011, “credible” evidence showed that Iran has engaged in projects and experiments relevant to the development of nuclear weapons. But Tehran rejected the report, insisting that its nuclear program was purely for peaceful purposes.

Meanwhile, Meridor said that China can help promote the Israeli- Palestinian peace process.

Negotiators from both sides met in Jordan’s capital Amman early January in a bid to resume direct peace talks, which have been stalled for over a year. But no concrete results have been achieved in the sessions.

“We are ready to start it (direct negotiations). We want to start it. So far we haven’t seen the reciprocity on the Palestinian side.” he said. “We need to do it by talking, not by pressuring one another.”

But the disagreement and mistrust between the two sides is still in the way. The Palestinians said last week that Israel had not presented any important ideas during the exploratory meetings, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the Palestinian envoy for not sticking to an agreement to not discuss the talks publicly.

How Iran May Trigger Accidental Armageddon: Jeffrey Goldberg – Bloomberg

January 24, 2012

How Iran May Trigger Accidental Armageddon: Jeffrey Goldberg – Bloomberg.

One of the arguments often made in favor of bombing Iran to cripple its nuclear program is this: The mullahs in Tehran are madmen who believe it is their consecrated duty to destroy the perfidious Zionist entity (which is to say, Israel) and so are building nuclear weapons to launch at Tel Aviv at the first favorable moment.

It’s beyond a doubt that the Iranian regime would like to bring about the destruction of Israel. However, the mullahs are also cynics and men determined, more than anything, to maintain their hold on absolute power.

Which is why it’s unlikely that they would immediately use their new weapons against Israel. An outright attack on Israel – – a country possessing as many as 200 nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems — would lead to the obliteration of Tehran, the deaths of millions, and the destruction of Iran’s military and industrial capabilities.

The mullahs know this. But here’s the problem: It may not matter. The threat of a deliberate nuclear attack pales in comparison with the chance that a nuclear-armed Iran could accidentally trigger a cataclysmic exchange with Israel.

Warp-Speed Escalation

The experts who study this depressing issue seem to agree that a Middle East in which Iran has four or five nuclear weapons would be dangerously unstable and prone to warp-speed escalation.

Here’s one possible scenario for the not-so-distant future: Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy, launches a cross-border attack into Israel, or kills a sizable number of Israeli civilians with conventional rockets. Israel responds by invading southern Lebanon, and promises, as it has in the past, to destroy Hezbollah. Iran, coming to the defense of its proxy, warns Israel to cease hostilities, and leaves open the question of what it will do if Israel refuses to heed its demand.

Dennis Ross, who until recently served as President Barack Obama’s Iran point man on the National Security Council, notes Hezbollah’s political importance to Tehran. “The only place to which the Iranian government successfully exported the revolution is to Hezbollah in Lebanon,” Ross told me. “If it looks as if the Israelis are going to destroy Hezbollah, you can see Iran threatening Israel, and they begin to change the readiness of their forces. This could set in motion a chain of events that would be like ‘Guns of August’ on steroids.”

Imagine that Israel detects a mobilization of Iran’s rocket force or the sudden movement of mobile missile launchers. Does Israel assume the Iranians are bluffing, or that they are not? And would Israel have time to figure this out? Or imagine the opposite: Might Iran, which will have no second-strike capability for many years — that is, no reserve of nuclear weapons to respond with in an exchange — feel compelled to attack Israel first, knowing that it has no second chance?

Bruce Blair, the co-founder of the nuclear disarmament group Global Zero and an expert on nuclear strategy, told me that in a sudden crisis Iran and Israel might each abandon traditional peacetime safeguards, making an accidental exchange more likely.

“A confrontation that brings the two nuclear-armed states to a boiling point would likely lead them to raise the launch- readiness of their forces — mating warheads to delivery vehicles and preparing to fire on short notice,” he said. “Missiles put on hair-trigger alert also obviously increase the danger of their launch and release on false warning of attack — false indications that the other side has initiated an attack.”

Then comes the problem of misinterpreted data, Blair said. “Intelligence failures in the midst of a nuclear crisis could readily lead to a false impression that the other side has decided to attack, and induce the other side to launch a preemptive strike.”

‘Cognitive Bias’

Blair notes that in a crisis it isn’t irrational to expect an attack, and this expectation makes it more likely that a leader will read the worst into incomplete intelligence. “This predisposition is a cognitive bias that increases the danger that one side will jump the gun on the basis of incorrect information,” he said.

Ross told me that Iran’s relative proximity to Israel and the total absence of ties between the two countries — the thought of Iran agreeing to maintain a hot line with a country whose existence it doesn’t recognize is far-fetched — make the situation even more hazardous. “This is not the Cold War,” he said. “In this situation we don’t have any communications channels. Iran and Israel have zero communications. And even in the Cold War we nearly had a nuclear war. We were much closer than we realized.”

The answer to this predicament is to deny Iran nuclear weapons, but not through an attack on its nuclear facilities, at least not now. “The liabilities of preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear program vastly outweigh the benefits,” Blair said. “But certainly Iran’s program must be stopped before it reaches fruition with a nuclear weapons delivery capability.”

Ross argues that the Obama administration’s approach — the imposition of steadily more debilitating sanctions — may yet work. There’s a chance, albeit slim, that he may be right: New sanctions are just beginning to bite and, combined with an intensified cyberwar and sabotage efforts, they might prove costly enough to deter Tehran.

But opponents of military action make a mistake in arguing that a nuclear Iran is a containable problem. It is not.

(Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist and a national correspondent for the Atlantic. The opinions expressed are his own.)