WarSclerotic

Diplomats: Iran boosts nuclear w… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By Raheb Homavandi / Reuters

VIENNA – Iran is believed to be expanding uranium enrichment activity deep inside a mountain, diplomatic sources said on Monday, a move likely to add to tension with Western powers that suspect Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

The move to increase sensitive nuclear work at the Fordow underground site near the Shi’ite Muslim holy city of Qom, even if expected, underlines the Islamic state’s defiance in the face of intensifying Western pressure to curb such activity.

Iran last month confirmed it had begun refining uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent at Fordow, shifting its highest-grade enrichment from an above-ground location to better protect it against any strikes by Israel or the United States.

Washington, which has not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to resolve the long-running nuclear dispute, on Jan. 9 denounced the start-up of the Fordow plant as a further escalation of Iran’s “ongoing violations” of UN resolutions.

At that time, diplomats said Iran was operating at Fordow two so-called cascades, each of 174 centrifuges – machines that spin at supersonic speed to increase the ratio of the fissile isotope. More centrifuges were being installed, they said.

Enriched uranium can have both civilian and military uses.

One Vienna-based diplomat said two more cascades, like the first pair connected with each other to make the process more efficient, had now also been deployed to enrich uranium.

“The second set of cascades is operational … my understanding is they are both operational and (have) no problems,” the diplomat said.

Another diplomat accredited to the IAEA also painted a picture of expanding activity at Fordow, without giving details.

Neither Iran nor the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Vienna-based UN agency that regularly inspects Iranian nuclear sites including Fordow, was immediately available for comment.

Iran said last year that it would transfer its highest-grade uranium refinement work to Fordow from its main enrichment plant at Natanz, and sharply boost capacity.

The decision to move work which the UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend to an underground facility could further complicate diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff peacefully.

US Policy on Israel’s Potential Attack on Iran.

Israel has signaled once again that it is weighing an attack, if all else fails, to halt Iran’s advancing nuclear weapons program as an act of anticipatory self-defense. This time, more officials in Washington and other capitals are listening. Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that Tehran will retaliate against the U.S. in the event that Israel launches a strike. The U.S. should have a clear and unambiguous policy on how it will respond if Israel undertakes legitimate action for its self-defense.

Before an Attack

To mitigate the threats posed by Iran to U.S. national security and to protect U.S. interests, the United States should:

• Recognize Israel’s right to self-defense against a hostile Islamist dictatorship that also threatens U.S. interests and regional stability. Washington should not seek to block Israel from taking what it considers to be necessary action against an existential threat. The U.S. does not have the power to guarantee that Israel would not be attacked by a nuclear Iran in the future, so it should not betray the trust of an ally by tying its hands now. Although an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program would entail increased risks for U.S. interests in the Middle East, these risks would be dwarfed by the threats posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Moreover, a nuclear Iran would induce many other Middle Eastern states to seek their own nuclear weapons. This cascade of nuclear proliferation would enormously increase the risks of a future nuclear exchange.
• Continue to deploy missile defenses to defend Israel and other U.S. allies from Iranian missile attacks. The Pentagon has already deployed an X-Band radar to Israel to support missile defense interceptors. In addition, the U.S. should make preparations to deploy or transfer to Israel the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and sea- or land-based versions of the Standard Missile-3 interceptors. U.S. Navy Aegis-class warships should be deployed to protect Israel and other threatened U.S. allies against a possible Iranian ballistic missile attack. The Obama Administration should also offer to further deploy land- or sea-based missile defense systems in the greater Persian Gulf area with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council—the alliance formed in 1981 by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to provide collective defense against Iran and other threats.
• Hold more frequent missile defense exercises with Israel and other nations. The Juniper Cobra joint missile defense exercises conducted with Israel in 2009, for example, involved up to 2,000 personnel and some 17 U.S. Navy warships that simulated a joint defense against a missile attack on Israel from all directions. Such exercises provide valuable hands-on experience necessary to maintaining an effective overall missile defense system.
• Enhance deterrence against Iranian attacks. To deter Iran from following through on its threats to attack American targets in response to an Israeli preventive attack, the Obama Administration should make it clear to Tehran beforehand that such attacks would make a bad situation much worse for the regime. Since the Islamist dictatorship’s highest priority is its continued domination of Iran, Washington should privately warn the Supreme Leader that if the Ahmadinejad regime launches attacks against U.S. targets, the U.S. would respond with devastating strikes against not only Iran’s military and nuclear targets but regime leaders and the institutions that keep the regime in power—particularly the Revolutionary Guards, intelligence agencies, and internal security forces.
• Warn Tehran that if it takes action to disrupt Arab oil production in the Persian Gulf or attacks American targets, the U.S. would prevent any Iranian oil from being exported through a naval blockade. Communicating this ahead of time could help to deter Iran, as the loss of oil income would be a major blow that would threaten the survival of the regime.

If an Attack Occurs

• Respond robustly to any Iranian military or terrorist attack against American targets. If Tehran attacks the U.S. people or property, then Washington should respond in a forceful way that leaves Iran in a much worse situation. The Pentagon should activate contingency plans for air strikes against Revolutionary Guard bases, ballistic missile production and launch facilities, air bases, naval bases, and Iran’s nuclear weapons program infrastructure. If Iran persists, then the U.S. and its allies should launch air strikes on Iran’s top leaders and impose a naval blockade on Iran’s oil exports. No Iranian regime could survive long without oil export revenues, which furnish the bulk of Iran’s government income.
• Defend against and attack Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist surrogates. Tehran is likely to use Hezbollah to attack American targets around the world and possibly inside the U.S. The Pentagon should target Hezbollah bases and leaders and cooperate with other U.S. government agencies and U.S. allies to uproot Hezbollah drug smuggling, money laundering, and other fundraising activities. Tehran should also be clearly warned that it will be held responsible for any surrogate terrorist attacks.
• Veto any Security Council resolution that does not acknowledge Iran’s provocations and continued defiance of U.N. resolutions. The Ahmadinejad regime has frequently stoked tensions with Israel by threatening to “erase Israel from the page of history” and a constant stream of other threats that are tantamount to incitement for genocide. Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust while building weapons for another possible holocaust was unwisely provocative as well. Israel, whose unofficial motto is “Never again,” is especially sensitive to such bellicose rhetoric, particularly when it is backed up with concrete signs that Tehran is developing a nuclear capability and the missiles to deliver it. Washington should point out to members of the Security Council that are critical of the veto that the U.N.’s weak and ineffective response to Iran’s nuclear program helped to sow the seeds of conflict with Israel.

Be Prepared

The U.S. should stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in confronting Iran’s growing nuclear menace. If Jerusalem decides to exercise its right of self-defense, then the U.S. and its allies should support that decision, not condemn it. The brutal dictatorship in Tehran has been given ample warning that its longstanding violations of its legal obligations under international treaties will have a progressively heavy cost, yet it defiantly continues to enrich uranium, issue threats, and order terrorist attacks, including one plot to bomb a restaurant in Washington, D.C. If Iran is willing to risk such an attack before it gains nuclear weapons, what threats is it likely to pose after it attains nuclear weapons? The U.S. and its allies cannot afford to find out.

James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy Director of the Davis Institute and Director of the Allison Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Majority of U.S. Voters Advocate Military Strike on Iran, Concerned About Potential Terrorist Attack – International Business Times.

By Ashley Portero

Lebanon news – NOW Lebanon -New Opinion: Calling in favors.

Flames rise from the fuel tanks at Beirut International Airport after an Israeli strike during the July War. Hezbollah needs to tell the Lebanese if it would fight Israel again were the Jewish State to attack Iran. (AFP photo)

Would Arabs do that for the Syrian people?.

Al Arabiya

The stance of Arabs on the brutality of the Syrian regime, which has been mercilessly escalating, is at its worst and in its most helpless forms. Hesitance and inaction are the best words that describe the position of Arabs, represented by the Arab League and its secretary general, towards the Syrian crisis no matter how high the number of the dead is becoming and how far the smell of death is reeking.

The Syrian regime that was condemned by the whole world was not met with the necessary deterrent measures on the part of Arabs nor was it duly isolated in the region.

Why don’t all the Arab countries summon back their ambassadors in Damascus like Saudi Arabia did? Why don’t the Arab countries ask Syrian diplomats to leave their territories?

Why don’t they immediately start ostracizing this unwanted regime, stop the observers’ committee farce, freeze Syrian accounts and memberships in Arab and Islamic organizations?

The only remaining solution to alleviate the tragedy awaiting Syria is political and economic isolation of its regime. Political isolation through calling back diplomats and expelling all representatives of the Syrian regime from Arab countries is a step that will be emulated by Western and other foreign countries. No one will remain except the ambassadors of Russia and Iran.

Let us always remember how the withdrawal of ambassadors and diplomatic missions contributed to the fall of Qaddafi’s regime in Libya.

But Bashar al-Assad’s regime is one based on hate and vengeance and what is mostly delaying such steps at isolating it is extreme fear for the safety families and compatriots inside the Syrian territories. It is a regime that is willing to ruthlessly retaliate against an entire village or neighborhood or family no matter how big.

Geographical isolation is very important for the protection of civilians. I pointed out in a previous article the emergence of new reality manifested in the presence of liberated areas in area, a condition that materialized within only two weeks. With the support of the Free Syrian Army, dissidents will increase and the regime’s power will start diminishing and this will speed up its demise.

Yet geographical isolation of the Syrian regime and securing areas that were liberated by the revolutionaries require regional and international intervention and this, unfortunately, is not expected to happen soon. True areas like Daraa in the south, Idlib in the north, and Deir al-Zor are isolated from the regime, but they need international protection and a no-fly zone.

Even Russia that is now supporting the Syrian regime will eventually abandon it after striking the deals it is seeking at the expense of the Syrian people. Then it will not be able to do anything to help Assad’s regime and will only keep issuing its traditional statements.

Let us remember that the most Yeltsin could do after NATO started its strikes against Serbia, which it supported and to which it is racially linked, was to say, “They made a big mistake.” That was it and the NATO strikes went on as planned.

(The writer is head of media at Al Arabiya. This article was first published in al-Jazirah on February 5, 2012 and translated from Arabic by Sonia Farid)

Failing to hunt Assad in NY.

Al Arabiya

It is an illusion to believe that the Security Council, in its current state, could give legitimacy to ousting the Syrian regime. It is yet another illusion to think that the Arab League decision, even before it was vetoed by Russia and China at the Security Council, would have changed politics in Syria.

The key solution is not in New York, but in two locations; namely Cairo and Damascus. The Arab League could punish the Syrian regime, for the mass killings clearly committed against its civilians, by ousting it from the Arab organization and granting the Syrian opposition the right to represent the country. The Arab League, and not the Security Council, is the one that can grant legitimacy to the opposition, then other organizations will follow. That’s how the Arab League did in reaction to the crimes committed by the Qaddafi troops while quelling the rebellious Libyan cities.

It is not true that the League’s decision to the Security Council, as some legal experts think, would permit to haunt the Syrian bear; on the contrary, it placed them in a dilemma as failing in New York gave Assad legitimacy to stay. Furthermore, it extended extra weeks and months to the brutal regime for more killings and destruction.

The failed decision was based on Arab League plan, already full of faults. It proposed for a joint government by the regime and opposition, but it did not name which opposition that will take part. Accordingly, this ambiguity will drag the argument for months. Syria and its allies, Iran and Russia have identified — by name — which opposition group would they recognize, including some of their loyalists. Secondly, the plan didn’t either explain responsibilities. For example who will run the sovereign ministries: Defense, Interior, Foreign and Finance; and moreover, who will be in charge of the Intelligence agencies, and there are so many of them?

Even the celebrated text of the Arab decision was written in a way contradicting with the statements of the Arab ministers. They claimed that President Assad should relinquish his powers to the Vice President and, accordingly, he would lose the authority, right? Wrong.. The written text has talks about limited authority…“the President should authorize his first vice president, with complete liabilities, to fully cooperate with the national unity government to be able to carry out its duties during the transitional period.” This means that Bashar would authorize his deputy to cooperate with a joint government with the opposition. Thus it is an authorization to cooperate not to rule the country. The original text was watered down to the point that it became toothless.

The post of the President in Syria is different than the limited responsibilities of the prime minister. The former is responsible for managing security and military apparatus while the government runs service ministries such as Health, Agriculture, Transportation….etc.

Why is the Arab League behaving badly? I believe the League is bullied by supporters of the Syrian regime; namely governments like Algeria, Sudan and Iraq. And it fears criticism due to the false campaign against any kind of international intervention, even the one that has saved the Libyan people.

The Arab League should oust Assad’s regime as a member state, as a first step, and should clearly support the Syrian people in their right to defend themselves. Those two steps are enough to change the situation on the ground, and convince the international community to follow the path of the Arab League. Afterwards, Arab governments and organizations will find the means to confront the atrocities of the Syrian regime. Most of Arab governments still have their embassies operating in Damascus, and all the representatives of Bashar are still working normally at their nineteen embassies in the Arab countries. So how could the Security Council be keener to halt the Assad massacres?

(The writer is the General Manager of Al Arabiya. The article was published in the London-based Asharq al-Awsat on Feb. 5, 2012, and was translated by Abeer Tayel.)

Syria at the crossroads between settlement and division.

Al Arabiya

As Russia and China vetoed in the Security Council on an Arab-Western resolution that forces Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand power to his vice president as Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh did, many wondered why Moscow and Beijing are adamant on supporting the Assad regime.

Russian interests:

There are several reasons that make Russia give full support to the current Syrian regime. The relationship between the two countries goes back to more than four decades at the time of the former Soviet Union. The Tartus naval base is the only one Russia has outside its territories and constitutes its sole access point to the Mediterranean Sea. Syria pays billions of dollars to purchase Russian arms and the last Yak-130 warplanes deal amounted to 550 million U.S. dollars.

Russia has not yet been able to get over the Libyan trauma and is not willing to reenact the same scenario in Syria. Russia has realized that by abstention from voting for Resolution 1973 on Libya, the United States and its allies were able to pass an agreement that was initially meant to protect civilians then turned into a plot to topple Qaddafi, a strategic ally of Moscow and one of its most prominent arms importers.

Moreover, the United States, France, and Britain gained easy access to the Libyan territories while the Libyan interim council showed no keenness to maintain relations with Russia. Russia is worried that the same might happen in Syria especially if Islamists come to power and the impact this is bound to have on the oil and gas rich Caucasus populated by a Muslim majority and especially in the light of the growing Turkish influence in the region.

China’s concerns over Islamists:

China’s support of the Syrian regime is closely linked to its relations with Iran, an ally of Syria, and which exports to the People’s Republic one quarter of the oil it imports from the region. In addition, Beijing lost a lot of investments in Tripoli following the fall of the Qaddafi regime and more than 20,000 Chinese workers were deported from Libya.

Complexities of the Syrian crisis:

A lot of talk is now going on about possible scenarios for resolving the Syrian crisis and many believe that the Assad regime’s fall would be a reenactment of what happened in Libya, Egypt, or Tunisia. Comparing Syria with these countries is not possible for many reasons. On the international level, there is a Russian-American conflict over this region. On the regional level, there is an Iranian-Gulf conflict in addition to Turkey’s hopes in reviving the Ottoman Empire after losing home in EU membership. On the domestic level, it is not possible to compare Syria with Libya or Egypt. The Syrian society is pluralist in a way that makes it quite similar to Lebanon and Iraq even though the majority of its population is Muslim Sunni.

The possible settlement:

Despite the blood bath in which Syria has been drenched for more than 10 months, there is still a possibility of reaching a settlement similar to the Taef Agreement on Lebanon and which was signed in and under the auspices of Saudi Arabia with the approval of Syria and the United States. The agreement resulted in constitutional amendments that transferred some of the powers to which the Maronite president is entitled to the Cabinet, which is headed by a Sunni, and in dividing administrative positions in the public sector equally between Muslims and Christians. The same could be done in Syria through reducing the powers of the Alawite president while increasing those of the cabinet, headed by a Sunni, and an agreement can be reached about the distribution of official positions fairly amongst different echelons of society.

The repercussions of the failure of the agreement:

In case the agreement fails to reach a political settlement, civil war will be the only alternative. Sunnis will gain more power in their areas and Alawites and their allies from the Baath Party will also retreat to theirs. Other minorities, like Christians, Druze, Kurds, and Ismailis, will start isolating themselves. Meanwhile, deportations among cities with mixed population will take place like what is happening now in the neighborhoods of Homs.

What is worrisome is that the civil war in Syria might extend to neighboring countries, especially Iraq and Lebanon, in the light of the tension in the region and the Arab Spring revolutions. This could lead to the creation of several federalist systems within the same state or maybe even statelets. The presence of sectarian entities in the entities will make it easier for Israel to confirm itself as a Jewish state like its leaders want and in the light of the emerging ethnic and sectarian entities in the region, this would be done without any awkwardness on the part of Israeli officials.

(The writer is a producer with Al Arabiya. This article was translated from Arabic by Sonia Farid)

Russia criticizes ‘hysteria’ over Syria veto; defectors form higher military council.

Monday, 06 February 2012

The Associated Press: US levies new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a fresh swipe at Iran, President Barack Obama has ordered new sanctions on the Islamic republic, including its Central Bank, moving to enforce a law he signed in December.

In a letter to Congress Monday, Obama said more sanctions are warranted “particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks.” He said the problems included the hiding transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies of Iran’s anti-money laundering regime and the unacceptably high risk posed to the entire international financial system posed by Iran’s activities.

The Central Bank sanctions were included as an amendment in the wide-ranging defense bill Obama signed into law at the end of 2011. The White House said Obama signed the executive order approving the sanctions on Sunday.

The new measures come as the White House tries to both ratchet up pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear program and dissuade Israel from launching a unilateral strike on Iran, a move that could roil the Middle East and jolt the global economy.

Obama said Sunday that he does not believe Israel has yet decided whether to attack Iran. The president said he still believes a diplomatic solution is possible.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuit is for peaceful purposes, but the West accuses Iran of developing the know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the Islamic republic’s nuclear program.

In recent weeks, both the U.S. and European Union have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran’s oil sector, the lifeblood of its economy.

In Washington, the Senate Banking Committee easily approved yet more penalties on Tehran last week. The sweeping measure, which is not yet law, would target Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, require companies that trade on the U.S. stock exchanges to disclose any Iran-related business to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expand penalties for energy and uranium mining joint ventures with Tehran.

Saudi Arabia calls for ‘critical measures’ against the Syrian regime.

Monday, 06 February 2012

Saudi Arabia has appealed to the international community to continue exerting efforts to find a solution to the crisis in Syria. (Reuters)

inShare2