WarSclerotic

Washington Watch: Arabs to Netany… JPost – Opinion – Columnists.

US sets sanctions against firms … JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS

03/28/2012 21:00

Washington accuses IRGC of perpetrating a “nefarious infiltration of the Iranian economy”; says new measures send message to world that “Iran’s attempts to evade int’l sanctions will not go unnoticed.”

By REUTERS

WASHINGTON – The US Treasury Department on Wednesday set additional sanctions against Iranian engineering firms with ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), which it said has continued to expand its control of the Iranian economy.

It also sanctioned individuals and shipping companies with ties to the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL).

“By designating the individuals and entities today, Treasury is sending a clear signal to the international community that Iran’s attempts to evade international sanctions will not go unnoticed,” Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, said in a statement.

The department imposed additional sanctions on Iran Maritime Industrial Company SADRA, which it said has offices in Iran and Venezuela. It said SADRA was owned by Khatam al-Anbiya, an engineering company used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp to fund its operations.

It also sanctioned Deep Offshore Technology PJS, which it said was a subsidiary of SADRA.

The Revolutionary Guard is a primary focus of US and international sanctions against Iran because of the central role it plays in Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, its support for terrorism and its involvement in serious human rights abuses, the department said.

It also has expanded its control over the Iranian economy – particularly in defense production, construction and oil and gas industries – subsuming increasing numbers of Iranian businesses and pressing them into service in support of the Revolutionary Guard’s “illicit conduct,” the department said.

“We will continue to target the Iranian regime and specifically the IRGC as it attempts to continue its nefarious infiltration of the Iranian economy,” Szubin said.

In addition to freezing assets of the companies, any foreign financial institution that does business with the firms risk losing its correspondent account access to the United States, the department said.

It also designated Malship Shipping Agency Ltd and Modality Limited, which it said were affiliates of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), and two individuals, Seyed Alaeddin Sadat Rasool and Ali Ezati, who it said worked for IRISL.

“IRISL has played a key role in Iran’s efforts to advance its missile program and transport other military cargo,” the department said.

Iran Must Be Stopped.

By John Bolton

Recent advances in Iran’s nuclear weapons  program show that  events  are  moving extraordinarily swiftly, as Tehran nears  the end  of its decades-long quest  to possess  a lethal  WMD capability. One  thing  is certain: If Iran  succeeds, the Middle  East  – and  the world – will be far more dangerous  and  unstable, with  substantially  increased prospects for further nuclear  proliferation. That is why we are facing difficult, risky, and uncertain decisions.

Iran has pursued nuclear weapons since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 overthrew the shah, replacing the monarchy with an authoritarian, theocratic regime.

The mullahs placed the nuclear program (camouflaged as a “civil nuclear power” project) under the increasingly powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps  (IRGC),  a force independent of lran’s regular army, devoted  passionately to preserving the revolution.

Iran today is the world’s central banker for internation­al terrorism. It funds and arms terrorist groups worldwide, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Shia terrorists in Iraq,  and  the  Sunni Taliban and other  radical in Afghanistan.

In February, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Iran  even had  a “shotgun marriage, or marriage of convenience” with  al­ Qaida.

Given Iran’s global sponsorship of terrorism, a nuclear Iran could easily deliver nuclear weapons via ballistic missiles (which it has developed in cooperated with North Korea) and by providing them  to terrorists for use around the world.

Iran’s objectives in seeking nuclear weapons are clear.

First, Tehran prizes them as the ultimate trump card against Israel (the “little  Satan” in the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader  of the 1979 Revolution) and the United States  (the “great Satan”). President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has  called  for  Israel  to  be “wiped  off the map,” and  he has  speculated about  “a world without the United  States” or Israel.

Given  these  plainly stated intentions, if Iran  were  to achieve the capability to launch what former  Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called  a “nuclear Holocaust,” only the  hopelessly naive would  not see Iran  as an existential threat to Israel,  and  as a grave terrorist menace to America. For the United States, Iran would not be a serious military risk, but it would  constitute a classic  example of an asymmetric threat, aimed  at our innocent civilians rather than military targets.

Second, nuclear weapons would give Iran a firm foundation for Middle East hegemony, and would make it a significant global power. In the centuries-old regional struggle between Persians, Arabs, and other ethnic groups, these weapons would dramatically shift the local balance of power. The  threat posed  by a nuclear Iran  would  permit it to dominate the  small  Arab  monarchies across  the  Persian Gulf, increase its already  significant presence, malign  influence  over Iraq,  and  challenge Saudi  Arabia  for dominance throughout the  entire theater. Iran’s reach would be not only political, but also economic, as its clout grew dramatically within OPEC, with potentially enormous consequences for the international price of petroleum and the West’s economy.

Third, nuclear weapons would provide Iran   and   its Shiite faith an enormous advantage in the struggle against Sunni Muslims for dominance within Islam. This battle is currently being fought out in Syria, where Iran’s  support  for the Assad  family dictatorship constitutes a proxy war against the Sunni majority. In Bahrain, a small island off Saudi Arabia’s coast (and once a province of an earlier Iranian empire), the Sunni Arab king rules a population that is 70 percent Shiite.  There, “democratic” reform could well bring a pro-Tehran regime to power.

Already, even before Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the Obama Justice Department has indicted IRGC officials for conspiring to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington; one can imagine what Iran’s behavior will be once it crosses the nuclear finish line.

For these   reasons, Saudi   Arabia and the other oil-exporting nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council do not want Iran   to have nuclear   weapons any more than Israel does.

Many Westerners, whether or not intending to act as propagandists for Iran, downplay the threat, contending Iran would never actually use nuclear weapons. Some  argue  that  Iran  seeks nuclear  capabilities purely  for defensive  purposes, given  America’s massive atomic arsenal, and  the  nuclear assets   of  dangerous  neighbors  like Israel and Pakistan.

Of course, Iran itself, by joining the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), committed to eschew nuclear weapons – one of those ‘solemn treaty obligations” rogue states violate casually and with impunity.

But even more importantly, Iran does not actually need to use nuclear weapons to change the balance of power in the Middle. East (and globally) in profound way’s.

Consider, for example,   how Europe would have responded in the 1990s to the breakup of Yugoslavia, if President Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia  had  possessed  nuclear weapons. Merely holding such a capability gives Iran an advantage its aggressive use of terrorism and powerful conventional forces along cannot provide.

Faced with dangerous consequences of a nuclear Iran, the United States and others have tried for decades to prevent it. Nonetheless, despite rhetoric, diplomacy, and economic sanctions, Iran has .made steady progress.   Tehran is now at the point where even Leon Panetta, Obama’s secretary of defense, said in January that Iran could fabricate a nuclear weapon “within about a year.”

Many analysts believe   it   could come sooner.

Why have we allowed Iran to come so close to its goal? Successive U.S. presidents – Bill Clinton, George  W. Bush,  and   now  Obama have  repeatedly put  their  faith  in diplomacy to prevent  Iran  from  becoming a nuclear power.

Obama said in his inaugural  address,  “we will extend a  hand  if you are willing  to unclench your fist.” But this has always been delusional. Iran was never going to betalked  out  of its nuclear program, no matter how many carrots were placed  before it.

Iran  understood that  Russia and China were  fully prepared to fly political cover for it in the U.N. Security Council and   elsewhere, and   that   it could  play “the  Israel  card”  by arguing  its  nuclear weapons were  purely defensive, a favorite line of Iran’s Western friends.

Of course,   it is  more  than   ironic that   these  Westerners are  justifying a  “defensive” nuclear  weapons  program  that  Iran  has repeatedly denied it even has.

During George W. Bush’s administration, Britain, France, and Germany repeatedly tried to persuade Iran to give up its uranium-enrichment efforts (a key element in the  nuclear fuel cycle, and the route to nuclear weapons through highly-enriched uranium).   Iran simply used the lengthy negotiation process to overcome the scientific and technological obstacles it faced.

In  2006, Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s former   nuclear  negotiator, disdain­ fully  and   publicly   declared: “While we were  talking  to the  Europeans in Tehran,  we  were   installing  equipment  in  parts  of the  [uranium conversion] facility, but  we still had a long way to go to complete the project.

“In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work at Isfahan.”

Iran’s successful strategy of deception shows   that  negotiations have costs  as  well  as benefits. Europe and the United States   – which   continuously supported and encouraged Europe’s diplomacy failed to recognize this.

Iran gained both time and  legitimacy,  and  made progress   toward obtaining nuclear  weapons. In return, the West gained nothing.

By 2006, faced with the potentially catastrophic failure of these negotiations, the Europeans and the United States turned to the U.N. Security Council to adopt economic sanctions against Iran. Russia, China, and other council   members, however,   watered    down   the   sanctions,   rendering them weak.  To be effective, sanctions must be comprehensive and swiftly applied and vigorously enforced, none of which has been true to date of the penal­ ties against Iran.

Even oil sanctions recently adopted by the Europeans, and financial- institution sanctions forced on the Obama ad- ministration by Congress, are filled  with  loopholes, exemptions,  and   waiver   provisions. Many key countries with  important oil and  other  business dealings with Iran,  such  as China, India, and  Turkey, have essentially said  they will simply  ignore  any  sanctions not  imposed by the Security Council.

Clapper testified to the   Senate in January that “The sanctions as imposed so far have  not  caused [the Iranians] to change their  behavior or their  policy.” Accordingly, all the spin and hype about  the  impact of sanctions  to date  has been  just that, with­ out any substance whatever.

Even now, the goal of Obama’s sanctions policy is simply to get Iran back to the negotiating table.

The administration does not even try to argue that sanctions will stop or roll back the  nuclear  weapons program  itself. What if diplomacy did resume? It may well be in Iran’s interest to restart negotiations, given its previous successes in buying time and political legitimacy. But what is the acceptable “compromise” between Iran, clearly striving to   acquire    nuclear weapons, and the West, which  wants to prevent  just that?  Iran gets to keep a, small nuclear weapons program? That is plainly unacceptable.

Iran gets to have a “peaceful” nu­ clear power program? That would be a fool’s paradise. Given  its  decades­ long  duplicity  and   complete  indigenous mastery over  the  nuclear  fuel cycle, Iran could “break out” of any commitment to purely  civil use  with relative ease.

International monitors could not prevent cheating, as rogue states like North Korea have shown, by hiding extensive nuclear weapons programs even with U.N. inspectors in-country. And if Iran expelled   the inspectors and   renounced the NPT,  as  Pyong­yang did in 2003, what then?

The unpleasant reality is that both diplomacy and sanctions have failed, are failing, and will fail to halt’s Iran’s steady march toward nuclearization. Indeed, the most likely outcome today is that  Iran  will achieve nuclear weapons, perhaps even earlier  than predicted by Defense Secretary Panetta. The only surprise is that its progress has been so stately and measured, thereby showing Iran  simply does not fear outside interference.

In February, on the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Ahmadinejad announced what was already suspected: advanced centrifuges were enriching uranium at  the  hardened . and  deeply  buried  centrifuge halls  at Fordo,  near  Qom,  and  that  Iran  had successfully fabricating fuel  rods  for the Tehran Research Reactor.

Could regime change, overthrowing the Islamic Revolution, succeed before Iran gets nuclear weapons? While   it   should obviously   be   our goal, regime change is not like turning a light switch  on or off. The IRGC brutally   suppressed   unarmed   civilians demonstrating against Iran’s obviously fraudulent June 2009 presidential elections, which gave Ahmadinejad a second  term.   Had earlier U.S. administrations worked more extensively and effectively to aid Iran’s opposition, President Obama might have been capable in  2009 of using the massive  popular unrest  in Iran  to overthrow the regime.

Unfortunately,  no  such   preparation  had  been  made,  and  Obama himself,  apart from  rhetorical flourishes,  did  little  to  oust  the  mullahs. Sanctions could facilitate regime change and warrant support for that reason. But regime change will not come in time to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear finish  line.

In fact, the  regime  is  wildly  unpopular. Economic mismanagement since 1979 (and not recent sanctions) has              thwarted                economic growth   in this   potentially powerful, wealthy country, creating shortages of goods and    services that   regularly prompt strikes  and other  disruptions.

Iran’s      young    people (those   under 30 constitute over two-thirds of the total   population)  are  educated    and    sophisticated, and    know    from    foreign media and their own travels that they could enjoy a vastly different lifestyle if the Islamic Revolution collapsed.

Finally, there is widespread ethnic dissatisfaction. Persians constitute only half of Iran’s people.  The Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, and   others have long  chafed   under discriminatory policies.

While  these  sources of discontent do not .coincide exactly, their very magnitude  shows   why   the   regime must  cling  to power  through military force,  which  it  is  perfectly  prepared to do. After all, the mullahs represent God’s view. Why worry about mere popular opinion?                                 .

The unfortunate reality is that the only real alternative to a nuclear Iran is pre-emptive military force to break its control over the nuclear fuel cycle. The Obama administration has made it plain that it does not plan  to take military action, which leaves Israel to take the initiative.

Israel  has twice before struck  preemptively  against  hostile  governments seeking nuclear weapons, first against Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor  outside  of Baghdad  in 1981, and then  in September  2007,  against a nuclear  reactor in Syria being constructed by North Koreans.

If anything, Israel may have already waited too long, by allowing Iran’s Bushehr reactor to be loaded with nuclear fuel rods and operations to begin,  thus  potentially  providing Iran with the plutonium  route to nuclear weapons.

Even more seriously, Iran may already have built deeply buried, hardened facilities beyond the reach of Israel’s military capacity.  Israel and the United States may be completely unaware of them.

There is no doubt that Washington could shatter Iran’s nuclear program, thus potentially buying years of valuable time. Israel acting alone, how­ ever, would be straining at the limits of its capacity.  And time is growing short as the window for a military option closes.

Israel does not have  to  destroy Iran’s  entire   nuclear  infrastructure, but only break it at key points. These include the little-publicized, but absolutely vital, Esfahan uranium-conversion plant, the uranium-enrichment halls at Natanz, and the heavy-water production facility and reactor under construction at Arak.

All but Natanz are above ground, and  even  Natanz’s  buried  facilities are well known,  having been subject to repeated IAEA inspection.

The highly sensitive centrifuges there are the key targets, not the physical structures.

Israel knows exactly what it must do to destroy or irreparably damage the centrifuges, even if the hardened steel-and-concrete works largely survive an attack. The Fordo nuclear facility is harder, but it can be severely impaired, its tunnel entrances closed, and repeatedly closed in subsequent months and years should Iran try re­ opening them.

Obviously, everyone worries about Tehran’s potential response, and a regime not rational in Western military terms is capable of almost anything. Careful analysis, however, shows that Iran’s  real options, post-attack, are limited. Retaliating against  U.S. military personnel  or facilities in the region (including Iraq or Afghanistan), or launching terrorist attacks  worldwide, would all invite a devastating  American  response – as would any Iranian  effort to blockade the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s most likely answer would be to unleash Hezbollah and Hamas to rocket innocent Israeli civilians, thus posing a fearful threat. That is why Israel must count on the prompt re­ supply of planes and ordnance lost or expended over Iran, so it can control the airspace over Lebanon and Gaza to thwart Hezbollah or Hamas.

While the Obama administration has implicitly threatened to with­ hold that resupply to pressure Israel against using force, Congress will overwhelmingly come to Israel’s side if it strikes Iran.  Nonetheless, even the risk of a delay in replenishment causes Israel enormous concern, obviously complicating its decision on whether to attack.

Panetta’s  recent  prediction  to The Washington Post that an Israeli attack would  be  in  the  April-June   period likely shows that private pressure has failed and that,  not squeamish about squeezing a close ally faced with an enormous  threat,  Obama  has turned to pressuring Israel publicly.

Contrary to the Obama view, how­ ever, the United States can and should support Israel, and there would be enormous public support to do so. But ideology, not strategy, drives Obama, and his antipathy to Israel is strong and deep.  He apparently fears an Israeli strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon.

President Obama’s plan B is to contain and deter a nuclear  Iran. This is delusional. A regime prizing life in the hereafter more than life on earth does not play by classic deterrence theories. The Soviets’ atheist mindset in  the  Cold  War at  least  made  them more  sensitive to  entering the  darkness  of nuclear war, a sensitivity the mullahs do not register. The complexity of deterrence strategies obviously goes beyond simple psychology, but relying on deterrence against anti­ Western religious fanatics is not a winning play.

Moreover, Obama’s   decision to withdraw U.S. combat forces  from Iraq and radically shortening our time horizons in Afghanistan hardly  lends credence to an Obama “commitment” to long-term containment.

But even if, contrary to all the evidence, a nuclear Iran could be contained and deterred, that is still in­ sufficient. The nuclear threat doesn’t stop with Iran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and perhaps others in  the region  would  get  nuclear weapons if Iran  did.

Thus, in  a  relatively  short period of time  as these  things go, five to 10 years,  the  volatile  Middle  East  could have over half a dozen  nuclear weapons  states, an  inherently dangerous and  unacceptably risky outcome.

And,  of  course,  even  regime change that  results  in  representative government in  Tehran will not  allay fears of a nuclear Iran in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.

Their incentive to obtain their own nuclear weapons will persist, thus emphasizing the imperative of stop­ ping Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place.

We are thus   down   to very unattractive options. Unfortunately, the choice is not between the world as it is today versus a world after a pre- emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. That choice would be easy. Unfortunately, however, the world as it is today is disappearing, soon to be replaced by a world where Iran has nuclear weapons.

The choice in reality, therefore, is between that nightmare world, and a world after a pre-emptive strike.  As dangerous and   hostile   as the world after a strike might be, a world where Iran has nuclear weapons would  be far more dangerous and  hostile.

Israel will soon have to make that choice, and America, either under Obama or under his successor, will have to deal with it.

Time will tell -and time may well be growing short.

John Bolton currently is a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute and a Fox News contributor.

This article was originally published by Newsmax.

Monkey in the Middle: IDF Cancelling All Passover Leaves.

Some thing’s up.  Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has done something that hasn’t been done in many years.  He has cancelled ALL leaves for Passover.

Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has ordered all IDF units to cancel their traditional Passover breaks so that they can operate in full capacity over the upcoming holiday, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Wednesday.

The implication of the decision is that for the first time in many years, all IDF units will maintain their regular operations and remain on full alert throughout the holiday.

As result of the unexpected decision, thousands of soldiers at various IDF headquarters and bases will have to report for duty as usual in order to allow their units to operate with no interruption.

IDF officials dismissed suggestions that the decision is related to operational circumstances or preparations for military maneuvers. The army said Chief of Staff Gantz made the call after asserting that he does not accept the notion of an army-wide Passover vacation.

However, IDF soldiers who received the news Tuesday could not be convinced that the timing of the decision was arbitrary.

Notably, German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere on Tuesday said that after meeting Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak, he was more concerned about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran.

Over the years, an army-wide break during Passover became a tradition followed by all major military units, including the Air Force, Navy and intelligence corps. The IDF’s headquarters in Tel Aviv is also traditionally deserted during the holiday.

But as noted, the longtime tradition will be broken this year, as soldiers will have to divide their vacation days among themselves in order to ensure that their units maintain their full capacity to operate if needed.

Source

Every military man will tell you that if you want rumors to run rampant you cancel all leaves.  I could speculate for hours on this but I won’t.  I’ll let you, my truth seekers to put 2+2 together.  I hope it equals 4.

Clandestine war’s pressure on Iranian leaders – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The series of mysterious bombings at key locations throughout Iran and assassinations of nuclear scientists over the last few months have obviously got under the skin of the regime’s intelligence services.

This morning, the official FARS News Agency tells us of a “terrorist team” that was arrested in an operation by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC); the news was also broadcast last night on Iranian state television.

	Members of Iranian Revolutionary Guards outside Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2012.
	Photo by: AP

There are very few details in this report that allow us in any way to ascertain its veracity, but a few details are intriguing. In the past, similar reports have usually indicated the source of such groups, (the U.S, Israel, Britain), but today the Iranians are ascribing them to “the arrogant powers.”

The location of the operation is also interesting: southeastern Iran, which would mean probably Balochistan, somewhere near Iran’s borders with Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has been waging a low-key campaign for independence against both the Iranian and Pakistani governments, and Tehran and Islamabad have accused foreign powers for aiding it.

But this is a region of Iran that is far removed from the centers of nuclear research, so it is hard to see how it could be connected to the current crisis, unless someone is simply interested in creating yet another headache for the regime.

Perhaps the most interesting detail in the report is the fact that it names the Iranian Quds Force as the specific agency that carried out the operation against the “terrorist team.” The Quds Force is normally Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) special department tasked with furthering the Islamic revolution outside of the country’s borders, and is also responsible for arming and training Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad – as well as supporting Iran-backed terror operations around the world.

The appearance of the Quds Force as an anti-terror unit within Iran is new, and indicates a need to burnish its credentials. It will be interesting to see if any new details emerge about this operation, including the identity of those arrested and pictures of the “enormous amount of equipment, flammable material and grenades” which were apparently captured.

The fact that Iran’s intelligence services feel the need to defend their record was made clear from another FARS report about a speech made by Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi Tuesday in Medina, in which he claimed that “Iran has the most powerful intelligence service in the region” and that they had “identified and disbanded large U.S. and Israeli spy networks with tens of branches, centers and nodes in different world countries, and has arrested a large number of spies during its operations.”

Moslehi’s speech came in the wake of a rare public appearance two weeks ago by the mastermind of Iran’s intelligence network himself, the commander of the Quds Force, Major General Qasem Suleimani, who said that “the armed forces will show Iranian zeal in the face of any possible aggression against the country.” It is unclear to whom and where he said this, though the quotes appeared days after the Lebanese media published that Suleimani had visited Hezbollah in Beirut, a report strenuously denied by the Iranian government.

Whatever the truth regarding his movements, this is the second time in two months that the Iranian media has published quotes from Suleimani which indicate that he is under increasing pressure to show results while the clandestine war against Iran is intensifying.

On the same issue, the Sunday Times reported this week that “Israel is using a permanent base in Iraqi Kurdistan to launch cross-border intelligence missions in an attempt to find ‘smoking gun’ evidence that Iran is building a nuclear warhead.” The report by the paper’s Tel Aviv correspondent is based on “western intelligence sources,” and was preceded two months ago by a similar story in Le Figaro informed this time by “a security source in Baghdad.”

There is no way that an Israeli news organization can independently and professionally verify these reports without breaching the military censorship’s guidelines. Whether or not all the details in the Sunday Times report are accurate, the story is not outlandish considering Israel’s historic relations with the Kurds in northern Iraq – dating back to the early 1960s – and the basic geography of the region which makes it an ideal base for operations into Iran.

Israel’s engagement with the Kurds, which included military training and advisers, ended in 1975 following the signing of agreement resolving Iran-Iraq border disputes with the U.S.’s blessing – but the reports of an Israeli return to the region have been circulating for nearly a decade. The deterioration of Israel’s strategic alliance with Turkey – the Kurds’ traditional enemy – and the urgency of launching clandestine missions against Iran could only have increased the impetus to rejuvenate the relationship (The connection between Israel and the Iraqi Kurds is not only of a security nature, at least one Israeli NGO is also building other bridges – have a look at the moving stories of Iraqi-Kurdish children treated in Israeli hospitals through Save a Child’s Heart).

The fragile internal situation in Iraq – and Jerusalem’s desire to salvage relations with Ankara – mean that any Kurdish connection will by necessity remain secret. But Israel is making less of an effort to hide its burgeoning relationships with two other of Iran’s neighbors – Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, exploiting both countries’ disagreements with Iran over Caspian Sea resources and their fears of Islamic intervention in their secular dictatorships.

The timing of the public announcement last month – of the mammoth sale of Israeli weapon systems to Azerbaijan is just another stage in the alliance which has seen the country become one of Israel’s main oil suppliers – was hardly coincidental. The unmanned aerial surveillance drones and radar systems will not only cement the defense ties between the two nations, it will also allow Israel an eye across the border. The security services both countries have cooperated to prevent Iranian-backed terror attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets in Baku. Last month, an alleged Israeli agent working in Azerbaijan was quoted in a Times report saying that “this is ground zero for intelligence work. Our presence here is quiet, but substantial. We have increased our presence in the past year, and it gets us very close to Iran. This is a wonderfully porous country.”

Ties with Turkmenistan have taken longer to get off the ground. The Turkmen government refused two potential Israeli ambassadors due to their former intelligence ties but recently has been warming up. Two months ago, an Israeli Foreign Ministry delegation publicly visited Ashgabat. Tehran cannot have failed to notice.

Erdogan: Peaceful nuclear progra… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By JPOST.COM STAFF, REUTERS

03/28/2012 19:00

In visit to Tehran, Turkish PM says any wise man against nuclear arms and there should be no opposition to peaceful nuclear activities; Erdogan says Iran, Turkey look to up bilateral trade to $35b. by 2015.

By REUTERS/Umit Bektas

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan met Iran’s leaders in Tehran on Wednesday, speaking out against  any attack on a country “pursuing a peaceful nuclear program,” Iranian state news agency, IRNA reported.

IRNA quoted Erdogan as saying any wise man is against the use of nuclear technology as arms and there should be no opposition to peaceful nuclear activities.

Erdogan held talks about Iran with US President Barack Obama on Sunday in South Korea, raising speculation Turkey was taking a message from Washington to Tehran – although a Turkish official dismissed that.

Obama said in Seoul there was time to resolve the dispute through diplomacy but the window was closing. Iran says it has the right to develop a peaceful nuclear program but the US and its allies suspect it is trying to develop atomic weapons.

“There is no new message on the nuclear issue,” the Turkish official said. “Turkey is not the messenger. That is just speculation. Our message is what we have said many times before.”

Turkey has offered to host the next round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries which Salehi and Western diplomats say are expected to take place on April 13. No location has yet been confirmed.

“We have offered to host the meeting but it’s not important where it takes place, only whether it is successful,” the official said.

Wednesday’s talks also concern economic cooperation. Trade between the two states has rocketed to $16 billion dollars over the last ten years. Iran is keen to build trade relations to minimize tough new sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union against its financial and energy sectors.

In a joint news conference with Iranian vice president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, Erdogan said the trade goal was $35 billion dollars by 2015, the Iranian state news agency reported.

Iran and Turkey have agreed to appoint mutual special envoys to further cooperation between the two neighbors.

Such a policy risks relations with the West. Last week Ankara failed to secure an exemption from Washington on its purchase of Iranian crude oil.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

DEBKAfile Special Report March 28, 2012, 6:19 PM (GMT+02:00)

Fake dollar bills

Two suitcases crammed with counterfeit $100 bills were seized in Kuala Lumpur this week from two Iranian traders who flew in to the Malaysian capital on direct flights from Tehran. One contained 153,000 forged dollars and the second 203,000. The traders claimed they were issued the bills by tellers at the Iranian central bank CBI to finance their business transactions and had no notion they had not been dealt genuine greenbacks.

debkafile’s sources report that alert local businessmen spotted the fake currency despite its quality workmanship when they used it to pay for their purchases.
According to a Malaysian source, the bills were finely printed on special paper. The initial investigation identified the paper as made in China especially for use in printing currency and a supply recently reached Iran.
Malaysian authorities have not identified the Iranian traders who were taken in custody except by their initials – H.M. and A. G.
Kuala Lumpur finds itself in the middle of an international scandal developing around the affair and involving the US, China and Iran. The Iranian embassy is leaning hard on the government to keep it hushed up, threatening to cut off commercial ties if the story is made public, or if the two traders are forced to stay in the country until the legal proceedings take their course.
Tehran fears the embarrassment attending disclosure of its suspected traffic in counterfeit US currency as the April 13 date approaches for important nuclear negotiations with the six world powers. Iran would find itself badly compromised on world financial markets on top of the difficulties it already faces as a result of the tough international financial sanctions clamped down by America and Europe.
debkafile’s intelligence sources disclose that American undercover agents are in Malaysia trying to get hold of some of the fake bills on order to have them tested in their US laboratories for clues to their provenance. They could then be compared with other forged $100 bills seized last year in several Middle Eastern countries.
Comparison with fake bills impounded recently in Iraq, for example, or in the Persian Gulf countries, might shed light on dark corners of Iran’s industry for the counterfeiting and circulation of American dollars and establish whether it is run by criminal mafias or clandestine elements tied to the Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Chinese secret agents have also arrived to track the paper’s trail to Iran The special paper used for the dollar bills seized in Kuala Lumpur is exported from China only under special license..
Evidence that the Islamic regime of Iran was responsible for the wholesale forgery of the emblematic American dollar would have harsh consequences. Washington would not pull its punches and would convince a widening circle of world governments to step up sanctions against Tehran for the crime of undermining international currency.
Since the international money transfer firm SWIFT severed its ties with most of Iran’s banks, the traders have had to travel abroad in person carrying suitcases full of cash for contracting their business operations.

Five months ago, Western intelligence circles issued a warning that Iran would try and overcome the shortage of available foreign currency reserves caused by sanctions by printing counterfeit $100 bills.

In 2010, when US forces were still present in Iraq, they captured several million American dollars suspected to have been forged in Iran and smuggled into Iraq.
In 2010, the US Federal Reserve Board had a new $100 bill designed to defeat counterfeiters. Its release was delayed by printing defects.

U.S. Policy May Drive Saudis Into Alliance Of Convenience With Israel | JewishPress.

Saudi Arabia is, to use a term the royals would, “greatly displeased” with the United States. Displeased with U.S. foreign policy regarding Iran and equally displeased with the decisions the White House is making about Syria.

From the Saudi point of view, the United States coddles Iran and indulges Syria. And the Saudis want the United States to suffer for that.

The current U.S. policy of advancing talks with Iran is seen by the Saudis as nothing more than another way of giving the Iranians more time to enrich their uranium and develop nuclear weapons. And the “wait and watch’” policy the U.S. has adopted toward Syria is, according to Saudi Arabia, destructive to the region.

Saudi Arabia believes that what is best for Syria right now is to oust Bashar Assad. It would save the lives of innocent Syrians and, just as important, it would send a message to Assad’s best friend and ally, Iran. The Saudis believe it should be incumbent on the U.S. stop Iran. But if the U.S. is unwilling to accept that mantle, Saudi Arabia will do it together with other players in the region. And that move might be very upsetting to Washington.

The Saudis’ frustration is so intense that it may even drive Saudi Arabia into some kind of defense and intelligence alliance with Israel.

On February 24 a meeting called The Friends of Syria was held in Tunis. The U.S. joined Saudi Arabia and more than seventy other Western and Middle East countries and international organizations to discuss the future of Syria and offer support for the opposition forces there. Hillary Clinton spoke to the group and gave voice to the U.S. view in support of continuing discussions with Iran and against military intervention, even limited, in Syria.

Prince Saud al Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, was so livid that he walked out on Clinton’s presentation.

Al Faisal only a short while before had reviewed with President Obama what the Saudis consider America’s gross misunderstanding of events in the Middle East. The Saudi had attempted to persuade the American president that Iran wants to topple Middle East regimes and harm the U.S. He explained that the U.S. need look no further than the strings Iran pulled in Bahrain just a few months ago and the strings they are pulling right now in Syria. As he walked out on the secretary of state, he reportedly said: “If that is the case then I can only assume that you will not take any action. We will find ways to solve these to problems.”

When it comes to Iran and to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel are now on the same page. The ideal alternative for Saudi Arabia right now is to resume the intelligence cooperation with Israel that had been broken off. Several months ago the Saudis gave tacit approval to Israel to fly over Saudi Arabia in order to strike Iran. That permission was later rescinded. Today, it looks like Saudi Arabia with again give Israel the green light.

The Saudis see the Iranians as mortal enemies. They are religious and cultural enemies. The Iranians are not Arabs. The Saudis and the Iranians share neither the same religion nor the same culture. Because of this tension the Saudis regularly work to undercut and even topple Iran’s Shiite regime.

The U.S. is not the only world power not in sync with Saudi Arabia on issues concerning Iran and Syria, but it is the only power Saudi Arabia thought it could work with. The Saudis have thrown up their diplomatic hands when it comes to Russia. While the Saudis want to oust Assad in Syria to teach Iran a lesson, the Russians want just the opposite. The Saudis feel that if they can neither unseat nor destabilize Iran itself, they must unseat Iran’s proxy in Syria. That policy is a direct tit-for-tat for Iran’s effort last year to oust Bahrain’s Sunni leaders and Saudi Arabia stepped in to save them.

Russia is, both militarily and scientifically, deeply invested in Syria and has no intention of jeopardizing that investment. Saudi Arabia does not care about Russia investments; for the Saudis, it is all about pride. The Saudi investment goes toward sponsoring all anti-Assad activity in Syria – even sponsoring al Qaeda in Syria. Russia recently reported that 15,000 foreign al Qaeda fighters have entered Syria. Their objective is to oust Assad at all costs.

The Saudis are so upset by with what they consider to be immature diplomatic decision-making by the White House that the royal family is threatening Washington with exactly what Washington fears most from Iran – skyrocketing oil prices. The Saudis have said the U.S. must act seriously on the Iranian issue or the price of oil will hit $150 per barrel. Everyone, including the Saudis, knows this is a presidential election year in the U.S.. And they all know that higher gas prices may just be the kiss of death for Obama’s reelection campaign.

Go easy on Iran by advancing dialogue and upset Saudi Arabia, which will increase the price of oil – or please the Saudis and go hard on Iran, which will increase the price of oil. This is the no-win situation into which Barack Obama has maneuvered the U.S.

Micah D. Halpern is a columnist and social and political commentator. He maintains The Micah Report website (www.micahhalpern.com). His latest book is “Thugs: How History’s Most Notorious Despots Transformed the World through Terror, Tyranny, and Mass Murder” (Thomas Nelson).

Netanyahu and Barak Forge a Bond on Israel’s Iran Crisis – NYTimes.com.

By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have turned into the odd couple of Israeli politics in whose hands sits the prospect of an attack on Iran. From opposite political traditions with distinct experiences and worldviews, the two have forged a tight bond, often excluding the rest of the Israeli leadership.

For Mr. Netanyahu, an Iranian nuclear weapon would be the 21st-century equivalent of the Nazi war machine and the Spanish Inquisition — the latest attempt to destroy the Jews. Preventing that is the mission of his life. For Mr. Barak, who spurns talk of a second Holocaust and fear for Israel’s existence, it is a challenge about strategy: “zones of immunity” and “red lines,” the operational details of an assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“All leaders have kitchen cabinets, but Netanyahu and Barak have established a kitchenette of two,” remarked Nahum Barnea, a columnist for the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, in an interview. “They haven’t discussed Iran with the rest of the government in weeks and have convinced themselves there is only one way to deal with Iran — their way.”

A top Israeli official who works closely with both leaders and spoke on the condition of anonymity confirmed that the cabinet had not talked lately about Iran, but noted that detailed and long-standing preparation had gone into the possibility of a military strike. Of the two men, he said: “One views himself as a savior, the other lives for a good operation. They’re a strange pair who have come to appreciate each other. Together they control this issue.”

Mr. Netanyahu is the leader of the right-wing Likud Party and grew up in the revisionist Zionist tradition of maximizing territory, standing up aggressively to Israel’s opponents and rejecting the quasi socialism of David Ben-Gurion, the founding prime minister. Mr. Barak grew up on a collective farm deep within the heart of Labor Zionism, and after a long and decorated military career became chairman of the Labor Party. He served briefly as prime minister before losing popular support and an election to Ariel Sharon in 2001.

“On the surface they appear very different,” commented Daniel Ben-Simon, a left-leaning Labor Party member of Parliament who worked with Mr. Barak. “Netanyahu cannot disconnect Israel from the Holocaust. He sees himself as the prime minister of the Jewish people. Barak is the ultimate Israeli, the prince of Zionism. Many thought Barak would rein in Netanyahu on Iran. Instead he joined with him into a two-man show.”

While many here fear a catastrophe if Israel strikes at Iran, Mr. Barak and Mr. Netanyahu increasingly argue that there may be no other option. Their view is that given a choice between an Iran with nuclear weapons — which they say could use them against Israel directly or through proxies, as well as spur a regional arms race — and the consequences of an attack on Iran before it can go nuclear, the latter is far preferable. There will be a counterattack, they say; people will lose their lives and property will be destroyed. But they say it is the lesser of two evils.

“Rockets will fall on this building, but things would be far worse if Iran got the bomb,” said a top former official who has worked for both men, as he sat in a seaside Tel Aviv hotel lobby.

He added that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak were “meeting one on one with certain cabinet ministers in order to shape a majority in the 14,” referring to the 14-member security cabinet.

They have known each other a long time and have developed a strong mutual dependence. Mr. Barak’s political career, which once seemed so promising, now relies heavily on his relationship with Mr. Netanyahu. And given Mr. Netanyahu’s limited military experience, without the backing of Mr. Barak, who is seen as a military mastermind, he would have trouble winning support for his policy.

Mr. Barak, 70, was a commander of Mr. Netanyahu, 62, in the elite Sayeret Matkal unit in which they both served in the early 1970s. Both have also grown relatively wealthy in recent years from speeches and consulting when not in government, and both feel they understand American politics especially well.

If they did decide to attack, they would need the backing of a majority of the security cabinet. Most estimates are that they would get that support, although the vote might be as close as 8 to 6. But by keeping the issue off the cabinet’s agenda for now, they could be counting on seeking an 11th-hour vote, when it would be harder for ministers to oppose the attack.

Earlier cabinet meetings offer clues as to why they might be avoiding the issue. In its three years, the cabinet held a number of meetings devoted to Iran, according to top officials who add that defense officials and several ministers opposed military action, at least so far.

“They haven’t done it until now,” a top official who is unenthusiastic about an attack said. “Ask yourself why.”

Iran says its nuclear program is purely for civilian use, although Western powers believe its goal is to produce weapons. Israel points to repeated statements by Iranian leaders calling for its destruction and by Iran’s financing and arming of groups fighting Israel. Still, the United States says that diplomacy and sanctions against Iran’s financial and energy industries need time before military action should be considered.

Mr. Netanyahu’s recent trip to Washington is widely thought to have gained President Obama some of that time, with no attack expected in the next few months.

Both Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak say they will be delighted if pressure on Iran leads it to drop its nuclear program. Neither thinks it likely, however, because of the short time frame as Iran moves its centrifuges underground, beyond Israel’s military ability to destroy them.

Public opinion on the matter is unclear, although Mr. Netanyahu remains very popular and Mr. Barak is widely respected as defense minister. In polls about Iran, different questions produce different results. One poll asked Israelis if they favored an attack without American help and a sizable majority, 63 percent, said no. But another asked whether Israelis considered an attack on Iran riskier than “living in the shadow of an Iranian nuclear bomb” and 65 percent preferred the attack, in keeping with the Netanyahu-Barak argument. Some say it is the unusual combination of Mr. Netanyahu with Mr. Barak that could lead to an attack, and while some are grateful, others are terrified. Meir Dagan, a former head of the Mossad spy agency, has complained that the two leaders cannot be trusted to make the right decision.

Ben Caspit, a political columnist for the Maariv newspaper, a former Likud activist and a harsh critic of Mr. Netanyahu’s, wrote in the paper last weekend that he viewed them as dangerous.

Using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname, he said: “Bibi is a messianist. He believes with all his soul and every last molecule of his being that he — I don’t quite know how to express it — is King David. He’s not cynical in the least. The cynic here is Barak. The fortunate thing is that Bibi’s a coward. The dangerous thing is that he’s got Barak beside him.”

Army chief cancels IDF-wide Passover vacation – Israel News, Ynetnews.

(Yikes!  For my non-Israeli readers, understand that this is an extreme move that will cause much sadness in the country.  It would never have been taken lightly. – JW)

For first time in many years, all IDF units to be on full alert during Passover holiday; army officials insist decision not related to any planned military operations

Yossi Yehoshua

Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has ordered all IDFunits to cancel their traditional Passover breaks so that they can operate in full capacity over the upcoming holdiay, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Wednesday.

The implication of the decision is that for the first time in many years, all IDF units will maintain their regular operations and remain on full alert throughout the holiday.

  As result of the unexpected decision, thousands of soldiers at various IDF headquarters and bases will have to report for duty as usual in order to allow their units to operate with no interruption.

No break for army – IDF tanks (Photo: AFP)

IDF officials dismissed suggestions that the decision is related to operational circumstances or preparations for military maneuvers. The army said Chief of Staff Gantz made the call after asserting that he does not accept the notion of an army-wide Passover vacation.

However, IDF soldiers who received the news Tuesday could not be convinced that the timing of the decision was arbitrary.

Notably, German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere on Tuesday said that after meeting Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak, he was more concerned about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran.

Over the years, an army-wide break during Passover became a tradition followed by all major military units, including the Air Force, Navy and intelligence corps. The IDF’s headquarters in Tel Aviv is also traditionally deserted during the holiday.

But as noted, the longtime tradition will be broken this year, as soldiers will have to divide their vacation days among themselves in order to ensure that their units maintain their full capacity to operate if needed.