Archive for May 2012

Tehran to stand by Lebanon against any Israeli attack: Iranian official

May 25, 2012

.ADAISSEH, Lebanon: Iran’s military attaché said Friday that Tehran would stand in the face of any Israeli aggression against Lebanon.

“We stand in the face of any Zionist aggression on Lebanese territory. We will support the [Lebanese] Army, the people and the resistance,” Saeed Karimi told The Daily Star on the sidelines of a ceremony marking Resistance and Liberation Day at the southern border village of Adaisseh.

He was responding to a question on growing fears Israel might carry out an attack on south Lebanon.

“Not only that, but Iran will stand by all the defeated [people] in the world and shall waste no time in supporting them,” Karimi said.

The ceremony was attended by representatives of Lebanon’s three top leaders – President Michel Sleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Najib Mikati – as well as representatives of Hezbollah and Amal and a number of senior military officers and local deputies.

During the ceremony, participants unveiled a statue commemorating Lebanese soldiers who were killed in the village during cross-border clashes with Israeli troops in 2010.

The uprooting of a tree by the Israeli army sparked shooting that left two Lebanese soldiers dead. A reporter for the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, Assaf Bou Rahhal, was also killed, and Al-Manar TV correspondent Ali Shuaib was wounded. One high-ranking Israeli officer was also killed in the exchange.

The statue – three hands holding an army helmet up high – was unveiled in the presence of Lebanese Army Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Walid Salman, representing Lebanese Army head Gen. Jean Kahwagi.

As the ceremony proceeded, Israeli troops in armored vehicles patrolled the border along the one-kilometer-stretch between Adaisseh and Kfar Kila.

Also Friday, Work by Israel on a cement wall along the border with Lebanon that commenced weeks ago neared completion. Israel claims it needs the wall to boost security to its border town of Metula.

In the southern coastal city of Tyre, Interior Minister Marwan Charbel held a meeting Friday with senior Lebanese security officials and local mayors.

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn urged Lebanese to rally behind the Lebanese Army and support the resistance.

“On the 12th anniversary of the victory over the Israeli enemy which was forced out of our land, Lebanon is going through a delicate and sensitive period in its history – a period which requires all of us to … rally behind the national army and support the resistance,” Ghosn said in statement.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/May-25/174670-tehran-to-stand-by-lebanon-against-any-israeli-attack-iranian-official.ashx#ixzz1vscvMg1J
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb

Nearly weapon-grade uranium traces found at Iranian nuclear site

May 25, 2012

Nearly weapon-grade uranium traces found at Iranian nuclear site | The Times of Israel.

BAGHDAD (AP) — Diplomats say the UN nuclear agency has found traces of uranium at Iran’s underground atomic site enriched to higher than previous levels and closer to what is needed for nuclear weapons.

The diplomats say the finding by the International Atomic Energy Agency does not necessarily mean that Iran is secretly raising its enrichment threshold.

They say the traces could be left during startup of enriching centrifuges until the desired level is reached. That would be a technical glitch only.

But they say the agency is investigating the find because the higher the level of enrichment, the easier it is to turn uranium into nuclear warhead material.

The diplomats demanded anonymity from The Associated Press because their information is confidential.

U.S. nuclear official in Israel after Iran talks

May 25, 2012

U.S. nuclear official in Israel after Iran talks.

Wendy Sherman’s, the head of the U.S. delegation to nuclear talks visit is the latest in a series of meetings between U.S. and Israeli officials over Iran’s nuclear program. (Reuters)

Wendy Sherman’s, the head of the U.S. delegation to nuclear talks visit is the latest in a series of meetings between U.S. and Israeli officials over Iran’s nuclear program. (Reuters)

The head of the U.S. delegation to nuclear talks with Iran arrived in Israel on Friday to brief officials after a meeting in Baghdad that achieved little other than arranging more talks.

Wendy Sherman’s visit is the latest in a series of meetings between U.S. and Israeli officials over Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran insists is peaceful but much of the international community suspects is a cover for attempts to obtain nuclear weapons.

U.S. officials were coy about the purpose of her visit but it was clear that the aim was to brief officials in Israel, whose government is highly skeptical about whether diplomacy can prevent Iran obtaining the bomb, about the Baghdad talks.

The two-day meeting in the Iraqi capital saw huge differences emerge over dealing with the key issues in a decade-old standoff over Tehran’s program, with the sole tangible outcome being plans to meet again in Moscow on June 18-19.

The government of Israel, the only if undeclared atomic power in the Middle East, sees the country’s very existence under threat if its arch foe goes nuclear. Like Washington, it has refused to rule out bombing Iranian nuclear sites.

The U.S. State Department said in a statement that the visit was for “consultations on bilateral and regional issues with senior officials and to reaffirm our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”“She has arrived,” said U.S. embassy spokesman Kurt Hoyer. “I’m not 100 percent sure what her schedule is,” he added, when asked whom Sherman would be meeting while in the country.
Israeli public radio however said Sherman was to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to report on the Baghdad talks, at which world powers noted “significant differences” with Iran but agreed to meet again in Moscow next month.

Israel sees itself as Tehran’s number-one target if Iran acquires the bomb and is highly skeptical that diplomacy will work.

Later on Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna was expected to circulate a report detailing Iran’s latest advances in expanding its nuclear activities.

Iran and world powers have failed to bridge their differences over Tehran’s controversial uranium enrichment program at extended talks that concluded on Thursday in Baghdad.

The parties agreed to meet again in Moscow on June 18-19 as the July 1 deadline for the enforcement of an EU embargo on Iranian oil looms.

Nuclear talks with Iran, the sequel to failed talks with North Korea

May 25, 2012

Israel Hayom | Nuclear talks with Iran, the sequel to failed talks with North Korea.

The fruitless negotiations, evasive stall tactics, and false compromises that are supposedly being made while underground nuclear facilities continue to be constructed — we have seen it all • Talks with Iran are just a repeat of negotiations that failed with North Korea.
Boaz Bismuth
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.

|

Photo credit: Reuters

<< 1 2 3 >>

While all eyes look to the skies, navy prepares its own surprises

May 25, 2012

Israel Hayom | While all eyes look to the skies, navy prepares its own surprises.

When Lt. Col. Eyal screams “FIRE!!!” at the top of his lungs, everyone takes him seriously, even though the intended target is imaginary. Military drills aboard a naval gunship are not like tank exercises, where dozens of tanks fire at targets at the order of numerous commanders who must navigate the plumes of smoke and the chaos on the ground. At sea, everything is sterile. At most there are a handful of (the most cutting edge) battleships, several fighter jets simulating imaginary missiles and one naval helicopter that lands on the gun ship like it was an airport, only to immediately take off again to gather more intelligence, like a bird flying to gather food for its fledglings.

The drill is nothing more than a sophisticated computer game. No missiles are launched, mainly because every Harpoon costs more than $1 million – an expenditure that is too pricey for an exercise. The soldiers go through the motions of battle, but it is the closest thing to actual war, including everything but actually pressing the launch button.

The scripted back story is all too familiar. The IDF has been engaged in fighting in Lebanon for 48 hours. Syria has joined the hostilities in the last 24 hours. Hezbollah doesn’t really have a navy, so the only military threat at sea is that posed by Syria. The Syrians have over 25 gunships in service, all of them either Soviet-era or post-Soviet era, nearly all of them antiquated.

These antiquated vessels are facing a fleet of 13 Israeli gunboats belonging to the Shayetet 3 naval commando unit. Most of the gunboats are Sa’ar 4.5 class missile boats, and three of the boats are Sa’ar 5 class, the newest model, which were manufactured in the United States in the 1990s. Despite the numerical disadvantage, it is clear that the good guys will win. Did anyone really think otherwise?

The Lebanon trauma

Lt. Col. Eyal is the deputy commander of the Shayetet commando gunship unit. He is overseeing the drill, since the commander of the unit was not supposed to be present. We are on the INS Hanit, the ship whose mention causes quite a number of navy and military figures to grow queasy. Nearly six years have passed since that tragedy that claimed the lives of four soldiers who did not survive the maritime missile attack launched by Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War. The wound is still fresh, even though the hole that was blown open in the rear of the ship has since been sealed up and the soldiers who were aboard the ship during the war have either long been discharged or promoted to other positions.

Over the last 18 months, the commanding officer of the Hanit has been 38-year-old Lt. Col. C., married, with three children. He lives in the Haifa suburb of Nesher, not far from the naval base. He is not too eager to discuss the disaster that befell the Hanit during the Second Lebanon War.

“One of the main reasons that the strike on the ship resonated so much was because the public believed that gunships could not be damaged,” he said. “People need to understand that just like tanks can be hit, and just like soldiers in Golani are vulnerable to attack, the same goes for battleships. It is easier to understand this when you are running up a hill with a weapon and you are being shot at, but at sea the threat is ever present.”

The commanders huddle in what is termed a “battle information center”, a dark war room that looks a lot like the setting of a scene in a movie, only this one is real. Black computer monitors adorn the walls, and the screens show colorful dots that move around. “It looks like a computer game, but this is really a game of wits,” said Col. David Salameh, the commander of Shayetet 3. Salameh is using a pointer which he aims at the computer screens. “It may look like we are waging war with computer and plasma screens, but these dots represent actual boats, and only here can we get a complete picture,” he said.

Our glimpse into the inner workings of this drill is extraordinary. An exercise on this scale, which is staged once every few months, is usually kept secret. A special “administrative committee” headed by an officer bearing the rank of lieutenant-colonel is responsible for organizing the drill, and the scenario is “played out” on the computer screen. For an observer, it could be quite difficult to grasp what is going on, although it’s clear that the red dots on the screen represent the Syrians and we are the blue dots. All of the “friendly ships” are yellow, friendly meaning that they are merchant ships and those belonging to the U.S. naval fleet. Intelligence officials say the Americans have increased their presence in the region as of late. It is not difficult to guess why.

Obviously not all warships in the Shayetet missile boat fleet are taking part in the drill. A few of them are on active duty. Some of the participating ships are simulating the actions of the Syrian fleet in order to make the exercise as real as possible. Aside from the missile boats, a number of ships from the commando naval unit and a submarine – one of four Dolphin subs current in commission – are also integrated into the drill. At times it is assigned the role of “good guys” while at other times it plays “the bad guys.”

The maneuvers undertaken by the “Syrian” vessels are mapped out by the drill’s administrative council, which relies on a portfolio full of possible “situations and responses” that accurately and credibly simulate the capabilities of the Syrian fleet. The council commanders, who are overseeing the drill from the Hanit’s combat information center, are also responsible for the launch of hostile missiles at naval ships from Syrian boats as well as warplanes. They also decide which Israeli vessels are hit during battle, the severity of the blow, and the number of casualties.

The commanders of the Israeli ships have no prior knowledge of what actions the “Syrian” vessels will take, where they will take them, and when they will take them, so the element of surprise is very real. The drill takes place within Israel’s maritime boundaries, though the names of the towns along the Israeli coast are replaced with Syrian town names for the purposes of this exercise.

The most advanced means: Secrecy

While calibrating the electronic systems aboard the Hanit, Lt. Col. C. tells us that this steel monstrosity, the Sa’ar 5, boasts a number of layers of defense intended to shield it from a missile attack. It is equipped with electronic combat systems, a diversionary mechanism designed to cheat radar-guided cruise and heat-seeking missiles, and Barak missiles designed to intercept other missiles. The Sa’ar also possesses significant offensive capabilities, including eight Harpoon sea-to-sea missiles, torpedo missiles, and a Vulcan rotary cannon.

Lt. Col. C. is interrupted by a strong jolt which rocks the ship. “What’s that?” someone in the dark war room asks. Lt. Col. C. wastes no time in bolting for the rear of the ship. After a few minutes, he returns, out of breath. He said that it appears to have been a supersonic boom created by one of the fighter jets which flew above. “Such booms are heard on the ships often,” he said. “Even a large wave can create them. But you have to make sure that nothing actually happened.”

Air force fighter jets are tasked with simulating Yakhont cruise missiles, the Russian-made projectile that was procured by Damascus despite massive diplomatic efforts by Israel to prevent the deal from being carried out. For the Syrians, the Yakhont is a significant upgrade from the C-802, the missile that hit the Hanit during the Second Lebanon War, inflicting tremendous damage.

The Yakhont is capable of hitting warships from a maximum distance of 300 kilometers from the coast, but the biggest challenge that it poses the Israel Navy is its speed. The Yakhont is a supersonic missile, making it difficult for warships to evade it. The fact that it is also capable of traveling at an altitude of 10 meters above the surface of the sea makes it nearly undetectable by radar.

The commander of Shayetet 3 says that the navy has developed new and improved methods to cope with this advanced missile. “The question is who will catch up to whom from a technological standpoint,” he said. “We have become familiar with the Yakhont for months now, and that is a long time when talking about missiles. We have a number of missiles that are capable of countering the Yakhont as well as other enemy missiles.”

Praise from the IDF chief of staff

The time is now 4:30 P.M. We are three hours away from zero hour, when the Israeli fleet will strike the “Syrian” fleet. Commanders aboard the warships that are simulating Syrian vessels have no idea when an attack will occur.

Now all of the systems are calibrated and online, ready for action. The waiting period allows the commanders and soldiers to read a bit and eat a late lunch in the gunship’s mess hall. The food here isn’t bad at all. Some may even say it’s better than what other units have to offer. The menu here includes two kinds of meat, rice, potatoes, and a choice of salads.

During periods of combat, the mess hall could be quickly converted into a makeshift floating hospital. On board one can find the most advanced equipment that the Medical Corps could offer. “Theoretically, if the Shayetet 13 brings us a seriously wounded person from a distant operation, we could treat him on the spot and buy enough time so that a helicopter could evacuate him and transport him to a hospital on land,” said Lt. Col. C.

Salameh, the commander of Shayetet 3, relishes the atmosphere of secrecy that enshrouds his unit. “We can be found at every basin in the Middle East, including the south,” he said. “It’s no secret that we sail the Suez Canal. I mean, we are seen there often, but what happens beyond the canal is classified. If people found us there, then you would hear about it more often. We have perfected the art of doing things underneath the ‘noise threshold.’ We are always either preparing for an operation, or in the midst of one.”

Salameh, 43, is one of the more promising and valued officers currently moving up the Navy’s chain of command. He cut his teeth in Shayetet 13, where he spent 10 years. After his stint there, he took up a post in gunships. He also commanded the naval base in Ashdod. The sea courses through his veins. He named his oldest daughter Dolphin, his middle daughter Dar (which means “mother-of-pearl” in English), and his youngest daughter Reef.

“The Shayetet participates in every naval operation,” Salameh said. When he says Shayetet he means only Shayetet 3. “If you hear about something in the media, it’s about Shayetet 13. Nobody talks about us. But there are almost no naval operations that don’t involve a gunboat. The public doesn’t understand the possibilities that are out there at sea, the strategic depth it gives us. There are things that one can see only from the sea, and not from any point on land. The air force has its limitations, like the weather and the short duration that planes can remain in the air. For us, weather conditions are almost no factor, and we can stay in one place for an extended period of time without anyone noticing us. We recently returned from such an operation – the mission was accomplished successfully.”

Naval officers proudly recalled how the IDF chief of staff recently paid a visit to the Hanit, where he told soldiers that the navy was the most active of all the commissioned departments in the military and that Shayetet 3 was the most active unit in the entire IDF. Because of the sensitive nature of its operations and the secrecy surrounding its activities, the unit’s soldiers often times do not know the nature of what they are doing.

“When an operation begins, the mood changes,” said First Lt. Elad Levy. “Everybody knows exactly what they need to do, but we don’t always know the big picture. Sometimes they keep us out of the loop, let us try to imagine what is taking place. Other times we know what is going on, but they keep our subordinates out of the loop. Everybody knows what job it is they have to do, nothing more.”

“Usually, the sailors on board only know which coast they are facing,” said Lt. Col. C. “Sometimes the commander of the gunship doesn’t even know the target of the operation.”

“The Bat helicopter is a part of us”

The clock reads 18:30, just 45 minutes before zero hour. The commanders are once again huddled in the combat information post, where they are synchronizing the electronic warfare equipment, the communications equipment, and the radars. “We need to get to zero hour when we are capable of launching an effective attack on the Syrian targets,” Salameh says. “We need to synchronize all the equipment. It’s an operation that requires planning ahead. We need to envision where the enemy will be and the most effective way to hit him. They won’t just stand still like sitting ducks in one spot and at a time that is convenient for us. We need to find that precise window of opportunity that will allow us to hit them in the best possible way.”

The combat information post is beginning to develop a clear “maritime picture” that will allow the commanders to determine the precise location of the Syrian ships. This information will make an attack on these ships easier. To that end, the navy deploys “The Bat” – a naval reconnaissance and patrol helicopter that until now has been parked in the rear of the ship in the exact spot damaged by the missile in 2006.

The Bat plays an important role in spotting targets, or, as Lt. Col. C. calls it, “seeing beyond the horizon.” The chopper obtains invaluable intelligence on the location of warships, which is sometimes impossible to ascertain solely through standard equipment. It can also be utilized in search and rescue operations.

The Bat is deployed on Sa’ar 5 warships as well as one of the older Sa’ar 4.5 models. It has been in commission since the mid-1990s, when the navy replaced the older Dolphin model choppers. The helicopter is operated by two pilots and another naval officer on board to assist. There are instances in which an IAF search and rescue officer is added to the staff. All on board are experienced in piloting helicopters, and have undergone training in landing choppers aboard gunships, a skill that requires a great deal of practice. They are constantly vacillating between the terrestrial-based air squadrons and the gunships at sea. Although they technically report to their commanders in the IAF, their activities and training are done under the auspices of the navy.

“The synchronization between the soldiers aboard the gunship and the pilots of The Bat is very complex and it entails a great deal of training,” says Lt. Col. C. “From our standpoint, The Bat is a part of the gunship. It’s part of us.”

The commanders aboard guide the helicopter to a number of points suspected of being the locations of Syrian vessels. This information is critical in planning the attack. Our photographer joins a Bat sortie and, for the first time ever, brings us aerial photographs of the gunboat.

A few minutes into the aerial patrol, the helicopter returns to the ship. The troops on board move into high alert. The gunboat slows down, the doors leading to the rear of the ship close shut, and a sign forbids sailors from approaching the landing area. The officer responsible for landing the chopper, First Lt. Levy, stands alongside the landing pad dressed in a bright-orange vest, signaling for the helicopter to land. His movements are sharp and direct, long enough and forceful enough to be seen from the air. The minute he suspects that the helicopter’s landing conditions are optimal, he will make a sharp gesture downward, and the helicopter will hit the landing pad in one fell swoop. Touch down.

Levy gives the signal to a few soldiers who are standing behind him holding ropes to approach the landing pad and anchor the chopper to the ship. He signals again for the soldiers to fetch more ropes to tie down the helicopter. It is only after the second round of rope that the pilots disembark from the helicopter and are greeted by warm hugs and pats on the shoulder.

“The landing on the ship is very challenging and difficult,” says the pilot, Major Erez. “Think of it as trying to park a car, while everything that can move around you, is in fact moving. The highway, the car. You have no control over your car. This is what happens here. The gunship continues to sail, the sea is moving, there are gusts of wind, and the helicopter is airborne. It is a very extreme situation. A tiny mishap could end very badly.” Try it once on a computer game and you will understand what we are dealing with.

“Not all ships see what is seen in the command room, and this can be at times frustrating,” the deputy commander of Shayetet 3, Lt. Col. Eyal says. “The communication system is complex, and there are mishaps. As a commander it is important that everyone understands who is in charge, who directs whom, and what the priorities are. The big challenge is to get everyone to see the complete maritime picture in the same way.”

The assault is meticulously planned. Capt. Yoav, 24, a tall, blonde officer, is responsible for providing the target lists to each of the participating warships in the exercise. He decides which ship shoots at which target, and when. The officer who approves the target list is the commander of the exercise.

Just like a computer game

The time is 7:15 P.M. Darkness slowly descends on the water. We are 100 kilometers off the Israeli coast. Nothing but sea is visible on the horizon. IDF warships form an attack position, and wait. Then, the signal is given.

“All troops, pay attention: Go to your target now!” Lt. Col. Eyal can be heard screaming through the radio system. As Salameh put it, “Everyone is in a frenzy.” All of the warships launch a barrage of virtual Harpoon missiles aimed at enemy targets that were chosen for destruction on the initial wave. The helicopter is once again sent into the air.

A few minutes later, the warships accelerate. The goal is to cut off enemy boats in order to destroy them.

Not everything goes smoothly, of course. If it did, there would be no point in holding the exercise. The “Syrians” are no suckers. Just a short time after the initial barrage of missiles, they retaliate with everything they have in their arsenal, including Yakhont missiles, C-802 and C-704 land-to-sea missiles, as well as the less sophisticated missiles in their arsenal.

“They’re shooting at us!” screams a loud voice that can be heard coming from the combat information post. Then somebody yells: “Yakhont airborne!” For a moment, it feels like the real thing. The thought that an advanced missile is about to strike the ship is not a pleasant one, even if it the whole thing is just an exercise.

Everyone’s eyes remain glued to the computer screens, monitoring the red dots – enemy ships – with apprehension. The dots flash on and off, just like in a computer game. The adrenaline in the room is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Code names are thrown about, warship numbers, names of missiles. Commands and instructions can be heard coming from every direction, all jumbled together with the communication radios.

“What about 11?”

“Guys, there’s a Yakhont in the air, 6 is down.”

“Get assault assistance!”

“Two missiles are out!”

“Yoav, prepare an attack,” Capt. Yoav is instructed by the Shayetet commanders. They go from target to target in a surgical manner, making sure to destroy each and every one of them.

The watchmen report a direct hit on enemy targets, but the “Syrian” army is beefing up its forces in the combat zone. Its soldiers are firing land-to-sea missiles and sea-to-sea missiles that are hitting some of the Israeli vessels, causing them extensive damage.

The dot was stopped, and the battle won

The clock reads 7:55 P.M. After 40 minutes in which both sides exchanged volleys of missiles, most of the red dots on the computer screens of the combat information post are no longer flashing.

“Guys, we are missing one target,” someone from the command post says. Suddenly, all eyes are affixed to the screens.

The Bat, which was hovering over the combat zone for the entire duration of the battle, is sent to track down the missing target. Within a short period of time, it spots the target. The Israeli gunboats open fire, and it, too, ceases moving.

The battle has been decided, and the reds were defeated. This is the time for a casualty count, a time to fix the damage and to rearm. We ask how many casualties there were and how much damage was done, but this is information that they are not ready to divulge. As Salameh put it, “Like in all wars, it’s impossible to expect everyone to return home safely. But I have no doubt that even if there are casualties, our victory will be clear and decisive.” We didn’t think otherwise.

A few moments later, Salameh retires to a tiny room nearby and takes a telephone call. The commander of the navy is on the other end of the line. He speaks quietly, and those present realize that the next mission has changed. To be more precise, it has been moved up. By the gist of his remarks, we can ascertain that this is another one of the classified missions assigned to the gunships of the Shayetet.

“Are you all serious?” the commander whispers into his earpiece, breaking out a half-smile. No change in mission surprises him. Judging by his hand motions, his people know what he is talking about. Just before hanging up the phone, they leave the room and “go to work.” In other words, they head out to give instructions for the next operation. Ostensibly, it is an operation you won’t hear anything about.

Behind Iranian calculations

May 25, 2012

Israel Hayom | Behind Iranian calculations.

 

Dan Margalit

The next time International Energy Agency Director General Yukiya Amano leaves Tehran with an agreement in his hands, he can borrow an umbrella and a quote from Neville Chamberlain, who in 1938 told the world after meeting with Hitler that he had brought back “peace in our time.”

It’s not as if Iran will let him inspect its nuclear facilities, and the centrifuges won’t stop spinning. IAEA inspectors will get to see the secret installation near Qom only after the main activity and materials produced there will have been transferred and stashed in another secret nook. The Iranians are world champion confidence artists.

Amano knows. World leaders know. Tehran has lied and cheated too many times for the world to not understand. Unless, of course, the democratic West has come to terms with Iran’s nuclear program and has decided to turn a blind eye.

The five superpowers and the IAEA will likely sign an agreement and lower Iran’s enriched uranium levels from 20 percent to five percent. They will also transfer some of the enriched uranium to a storage facility in Germany. It’s true that this sets Iran’s nuclear program back somewhat, but it’s not worth the cost of easing the sanctions imposed against it.

Tehran will continue along its path toward a nuclear weapon, and Israel will need to stretch its capabilities in order to once again provide hard evidence of a “smoking gun” — that the Iranian bomb is being built far away from prying eyes.

And what will the West do? It will do what it did to the North Koreans, absolutely nothing.

Why is Iran taking the risk?

It’s not just because Europe’s economy is in dire straits and the United States is preparing for presidential elections. Iran is brazen because it has identified that democracy has exhausted itself and people have lost their faith and interest in the system. The defense of their liberties and culture isn’t as important to them as in the past, and they aren’t worth sacrificing anything for.

It’s easier to turn the other way. It’s more pleasant to believe that the problem has been solved. To hope that even if the collapse of the West is inevitable, it won’t happen in our lifetime — some kind of thinking akin to “after the flood.” It is an expression of indulgence and focus entirely on individuality.

The Iranian nuclear endeavor is merely the most convenient battleground (for both sides) in their clash of civilizations, which Prof. Samuel Huntington envisioned but never got to witness himself.

With Syria in Turmoil, Iran Seeks Deeper Partner in Lebanon – NYTimes.com

May 25, 2012

With Syria in Turmoil, Iran Seeks Deeper Partner in Lebanon – NYTimes.com.

TANNOURINE, Lebanon — The Islamic republic of Iran recently offered to build a dam in this scenic alpine village, high in the Christian heartland of Lebanon.

Farther south, in the dense suburbs of Beirut, Iranian largess helped to rebuild neighborhoods flattened six years ago by Israeli bombs — an achievement that was commemorated this month with a rollicking celebration.

“By the same means that we got weapons and other stuff, money came as well,” the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, exclaimed to roars of approval from the crowd. “All of this has been achieved through Iranian money!”

Iran’s eagerness to shower money on Lebanon when its own finances are being squeezed by sanctions is the latest indication of just how worried Tehran is at the prospect that Syria’s leader, Bashar al-Assad, could fall. Iran relies on Syria as its bridge to the Arab world, and as a crucial strategic partner in confronting Israel. But the Arab revolts have shaken Tehran’s calculations, with Mr. Assad unable to vanquish an uprising that is in its 15th month.

Iran’s ardent courtship of the Lebanese government indicates that Tehran is scrambling to find a replacement for its closest Arab ally, politicians, diplomats and analysts say. It is not only financing public projects, but also seeking to forge closer ties through cultural, military and economic agreements.

The challenge for Iran’s leaders is that many Lebanese — including the residents of Tannourine, the site of the proposed hydroelectric dam — squirm in that embrace. They see Iran’s gestures not as a show of good will, but as a stealth cultural and military colonization.

“Tannourine is not Tehran,” groused Charbel Komair, a city council member.

The Lebanese have largely accepted that Iran serves as Hezbollah’s main patron for everything from missiles to dairy cows. But branching out beyond the Shiites of Hezbollah is another matter.

“They are trying to reinforce their base in Lebanon to face any eventual collapse of the regime in Syria,” said Marwan Hamade, a Druse leader and Parliament member, noting that a collapse would sever the “umbilical cord” through which Iran supplied Hezbollah and gained largely unfettered access to Lebanon for decades.

“Hezbollah has developed into being a beachhead of Iranian influence not only in Lebanon, but on the Mediterranean — trying to spread Iranian culture, Iranian political domination and now an Iranian economic presence,” Mr. Hamade said. “But there is a kind of Lebanese rejection of too much Iranian involvement here.”

That has not stopped Iran from trying. Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, Iran’s first vice president, arrived in Beirut a couple of weeks ago with at least a dozen proposals for Iranian-financed projects tucked under his arm, one for virtually every ministry, Lebanese officials said. The size of the Iranian delegation — more than 100 members — shocked government officials. Lebanese newspapers gleefully reported embarrassing details of the wooing; in their haste to repeat their success in forging closer ties with Iraq, for example, the Iranians forgot to replace the word Baghdad with Beirut in one draft agreement.

Iran offered to build the infrastructure needed to carry electricity across Iraq and Syria into Lebanon. It offered to underwrite Persian-language courses at Lebanon’s public university. Other proposals touched on trade, development, hospitals, roads, schools and, of course, the Balaa Dam in Tannourine.

Yet virtually no substantial new agreements were signed. The Iranian ambassador, Ghazanfar Roknabadi, reacted like a spurned suitor, grumbling publicly that Lebanon needed to do more to carry out agreements. The embassy here rejected a request for an interview, but Iran’s state-run Press TV quoted Mr. Roknabadi as saying, “The Iranian nation offers its achievements and progress to the oppressed and Muslim nations of the region.”

Therein lies the rub. Syria, run by a nominally Shiite Muslim sect, fostered its alliance with Iran as a counterweight to Sunni Muslim powers like Saudi Arabia. The alliance was built more on confronting the West and its allies than on any sectarian sympathies.

In Lebanon, a nation of various religious sects, many interpret Iran’s reference to “Muslim” as solely “Shiite Muslim.” Hezbollah insists that that is not the case and that the money comes with no strings attached and is for the good for all Lebanese.

“The Iranians say, ‘If you want factories, I am ready, if you want some electricity, I am ready,’ and they do not ask for any price in return,” said Hassan Jishi, the general manager of Waad, the organization that rebuilt the southern suburbs. (The name means “promise” in Arabic, referring to Mr. Nasrallah’s promise to reconstruct the area.) It cost $400 million to build apartments and stores for about 20,000 people, Mr. Jishi said.

Half the money came from Iran, Mr. Nasrallah said in his speech, adding that he had telephoned the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to ask for reconstruction aid even before the August 2006 cease-fire with Israel. Both Ayatollah Khamenei and PresidentMahmoud Ahmadinejad responded generously, he said.

“We owe a special thanks to the leaders of the Islamic republic of Iran, to the government, to the people, because without Iranian funding, we could not even have begun to achieve what we did,” Mr. Nasrallah said.

In the southern suburbs, what was once a jumble of haphazard construction is now neat rows of handsome tangerine-and-rose-colored apartment blocks with elevators, generators and parking. But anarchic power lines still crisscross the streets like so many cobwebs, because the electricity supply remains hit-or-miss. Lebanon suffers from a chronic shortage of electricity, generating just 1,500 megawatts against a peak summer demand of 2,500 megawatts.

Iran’s project to finance the dam appeared to be aimed at addressing such problems — and winning hearts and minds by meeting a need the government has so far failed to address.

Here in Tannourine, the sound of rushing water ricochets off the high valley walls, riven with caves where the first Christian monks sought sanctuary from prosecution centuries ago. Restaurants built over the Joze River draw a weekend crowd from Beirut, 45 miles south, for long lunches of meze and shish kebab washed down with smooth, locally made arrack. Local springs also feed one of Lebanon’s most popular bottled-water brands, called Tannourine.

The idea of a dam proved popular among the 35,000 inhabitants because it would both generate electricity and provide for irrigation, said its mayor, Mounir Torbay.

The dam was included in Lebanon’s 2012 budget and the contract was awarded to a Lebanese company, the mayor said. Then it got embroiled in local politics.

A prominent Christian politician trying to one-up his rivals asked the Islamic republic for $40 million for the dam, and Iran agreed last December, provided an Iranian company built it. Most of the solidly Christian area’s population was horrified by the prospect that the Iranians would move in, said Mr. Torbay, most likely bringing their mosques, their wives and perhaps even their missiles. Many suspect that some company with links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps will get the contract.

“We want the dam badly, but we don’t want an Iranian company to build it,” the mayor said. “They are from a different religion, a different social condition.”

There are still about 70 churches in Tannourine, with 22 dedicated to the Virgin Mary, and most Christians feel that their culture and tradition face enough of a threat already throughout the Middle East, residents said.

“One of the dreams of Iran is to gain a foothold over the mountains,” the mayor said. “It is important for them to oversee the Mediterranean. So Lebanon is a full part of their strategy.”

The fate of the project remains uncertain. The cabinet is inclined to accept the $40 million, not least because most foreign aid has dried up since a Hezbollah-dominated alliance formed the government last year.

As to Iranian plans to prevail in Lebanon, many Lebanese point out that the Christians and Sunni Muslims have failed at that endeavor before.

“I think the Iranian project to control Lebanon is a candidate for failure, too,” said Sejaan M. Azzi, vice president of the Lebanese Forces, a political party and once a Christian militia. “We don’t have confidence in Iranian economic aid; we consider it part of a political, security, military project.”

Hwaida Saad contributed reporting.

Not Nuclear Negotiations. Just One Big Mess

May 25, 2012

DEBKA.

The shambles at the resumed nuclear negotiations between six world powers and Iran in Baghdad (May 23-24) reflected the profusion of secret diplomatic steps rushed forward this week to prepare the way for an accord. These exchanges took place, often at cross purposes, between the US and Russia, Russia and Iran, Iran and the US, Europe and Iran and Israel and the US.
The four key events prior to the meeting’s failure Thursday are uncovered here for the first time by DEBKA-Net-Weekly.
1. Saturday, May 19, at the G-8 summit at Camp David, President Barack Obama turned to Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev without warning and informed him that he had decided to bring Moscow in on the back-channel dialogue Washington had been conducting with Tehran since March.
Taken aback, Medvedev politely asked how this would be accomplished. Obama said he wanted to start relaying his secret messages to the Iranian leadership via Moscow.
Obama’s decision was reported to the Kremlin by two members of the Russian delegation, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Russia’s Federation Council Mikhail Margelov, who is Moscow’s senior policy-maker on Iran’s main ally, Syria.
They came back with the answer that Russian president Vladimir Putin was not opposed. If this is what Obama wanted, then fine, he said
Thereupon, Obama moved fast, say DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s sources in Washington.
He handed Medvedev a note addressed to Iran’s leaders in Tehran with the following message: If after reaching understandings or agreements in nuclear negotiations, Iran continues to cheat, President Obama will shut down all negotiating channels and leave the military option as the sole remaining course.

Russia tags its comments onto Obama’s note to Tehran

The Russian prime minister then informed Obama that Sergey Ryabkov had been given the task of carrying communications to Tehran. He did not reveal that a Russian postscript had been attached. It came to light when the messenger, Ryabkov, said to reporters on the plane flying the Russian delegation back to Moscow Sunday night, May 20: “It is one of many various signals coming from various sources that the military option (against Iran) is considered as realistic and possible,” he said. “We are receiving signals, both through public and intelligence channels, that this option is now being reviewed in some capitals as more applicable in this situation. We are very worried about this. We do not want the region and the world to fall into new divisions and bitter political arguments.”
Moscow did not mind performing this postal service for the US president for various reasons, especially as it offered an opportunity for tagging on exegesis to enlighten Tehran on the Russian standpoint.
It was no coincidence that after two false starts, the Baghdad talks ended Thursday night, May 24, with agreement to reconvene next month in Moscow – but not much else.
In Washington this week, theories abounded to explain the president’s turn to Russia. Some insiders suggested he was angling for the revival of Putin’s former partnership in US policy on Iran; others called it a misstep on the same lines as the Afghanistan blunder he made at the NATO summit in Chicago by presenting his pact with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai as a success when everyone present knew it had crashed before the ink dried on their signatures.

Tehran uses nuclear talks for free-for-all on Afghanistan, Arab revolts

2. The Iranians did not leave Obama without an answer. On Tuesday, May 22, using the new Russian channel he established, Tehran sent him a detailed reply. But it omitted to address any nuclear issues. DEBKA-Net-Weekly‘s sources in Tehran and Moscow reveal exclusively that the message addressed Iran’s deep concern about the situations in Afghanistan and the Arab world.
The letter, most probably dictated by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for his own convoluted reasons, carried an explicit threat: If the US persists in its Afghan policy – which Tehran views as helping the spread of Taliban – Iran will step into the conflict and perform actions which the Americans have avoided.
This was taken by US sources as an unprecedentedly blunt Iranian threat of military intervention in Afghanistan even before the departure of US and NATO troops at the end of 2014.
The same message also reviled the US policy of encouraging Arab revolts, accusing Washington of helping to bring Muslim extremists to power. Any connection between the Arab revolutionaries and the Taliban in Afghanistan was termed “toxic.”
As we wrote this, the nuclear talks in Baghdad broke up. Experts in Washington were trying meanwhile to decipher Iran’s important letter and plumb the message it sought to convey to the Obama administration.
Even without expert analysis, the note should have alerted the six powers at the talks to Iran’s surprise tactics: Of the five points nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili put on the table in Baghdad, only two addressed the nuclear controversy and three concerned international issues, including Afghanistan.

Israel revives its military option for 2012

3. Kept at arm’s length from diplomacy, Israel has gone back to its threat of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear program in the coming months, i.e. before the US presidential elections in November. This was first reported exclusively by debkafile Thursday, May 24. (See HOT POINTS below)
Israel never pledged formally to allow Barack Obama to campaign for reelection undisturbed by an Israeli-Iranian war. But it was tacitly agreed between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, at the top level, and between Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, at the operational level, that Israel would not surprise Washington with an attack during the campaign.
But Israel decided to abandon this unwritten pledge when the Netanyahu government was informed through Panetta that President Obama had vetoed all Israel’s demands of the negotiations: a total halt of Iranian uranium enrichment from 3.5 to 20 percent; the removal of highly-enriched uranium stocks from Iran, and the closure of the Fordo underground nuclear plant.
Netanyahu assigned Barak to notify the Obama administration that those conditions were sine qua non for Israel. If they were denied through or in the course of negotiations, Jerusalem would go back to its military option, with or without the United States.

Obama’s diplomatic maze leads to confusion

4. President Obama established a diplomatic network of multiple paths planned to converge at the Baghdad talks as a neatly-tied, agreed package for the coherent resolution of the nuclear controversy with Iran.
But the objective got lost in the maze of secret channels winding in too many directions and the talks broke down without accord.
Wily Iranian strategists found all these intersecting paths fair game for use in sowing confusion and planting misinformation in the US and Western capitals.
Jalili was in fact asked by US and European officials what had become of the secret US-Iranian accords negotiated privately between Washington and Tehran. They referred to the secret meetings in Paris led by Dr. Ali Bagheri, Deputy Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and closely involved in Iran’s nuclear diplomacy, and Mohammad Hoseyn Moussavian. They also wanted to know what had happened to the accords Hassan Rohani finalized with US officials in Vienna.
Jalili simply shrugged and said he didn’t know what they were talking about.
After three months of hard, back-channel White House negotiations ended in the debacle in Baghdad, and all his diplomatic forays on Iran and Afghanistan led to dead ends, will Barack Obama finally review his tactics for resolving international issues?

Iran is still buying time for nuclear program

May 25, 2012

Iran is still buying time for nuclear program | The Post and Courier | Charleston SC, News, Sports, Entertainment.

Talks in Baghdad on Iran’s nuclear program produced one area of agreement Thursday: The negotiations will resume next month in Moscow.

But considering Iran’s track record of obfuscation on its quest for a nuclear arsenal, it appears to be simply extending a delay game. Last month’s negotiations in Istanbul produced a similar result — the scheduling of this week’s talks in Baghdad.

In this replay, Iranian officials meeting with representatives of six major nations, including the United States, demanded that economic sanctions be lifted and that a looming U.S. and European embargo of Iranian oil abandoned. In exchange, the Iranians said, international inspectors would gain more access to their nation’s nuclear sites.

The negotiators for the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany rightly balked at that pre-emptive retreat. After all, the current sanctions — and the threat of more to come — were all that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton gamely accentuated the positives after the talks ended Thursday, asserting that the scheduled resumption of negotiations on June 18 and 19 in Moscow makes it “clear that we both want to make progress, and that there is some common ground.” Still, she conceded that “significant differences remain.”

So, unfortunately, do significant concerns that Israel will launch air strikes aimed at derailing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly — and understandably — emphasized that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an intolerable menace to Israel.

Iran’s leaders have consistently hailed the goal of Israel’s destruction. In response, Mr. Netanyahu has consistently warned that Israel will take any action it deems necessary to counter the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Israeli officials panned the talks this week, pointing out that Iran has long bought time by pretending to negotiate while pressing forward with its nuclear program. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak added that even if Iran grants inspectors more access to its nuclear facilities, Israel retains the air-strike option.

While Iranian leaders insist their nuclear program is designed only for generating electric power, ample evidence suggests otherwise. Iran is now producing uranium enriched at a level far above that needed for energy production. As The Associated Press put it Thursday, Western leaders fear the material Iran already has “can be turned into warhead grade in a matter of months.”

Clearly, it would be foolish to drop or even ease the economic sanctions merely on the basis of Iran’s dubious assurances of future access for inspectors. The international group must maintain that position when talks resume in Moscow.

And additional agreements to schedule future negotiations will not suffice.

A U.S. official said Thursday: “Every day we don’t figure this out is a day they keep going forward with a nuclear program. We still think we have some time for diplomacy, but it’s not indefinite.”

This, however, is definite:
As the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal rises, so does the risk of an Israeli military attack on Iran, with potentially devastating consequences in the Mideast, and beyond.

US to reaffirm commitment to Israel’s security

May 25, 2012

US to reaffirm commitment to Isra… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

 

By REUTERS

 

05/25/2012 03:40
State Department official heads to Tel Aviv on Friday following decision to extend Iran talks into June; Clinton vows no let up in sanctions as talks continue.

Iran- P5+1 nuclear negotiations in Baghdad

Photo: REUTERS

WASHINGTON – A senior State Department official will travel to Tel Aviv on Friday to reaffirm the US commitment to Israel’s security following just-concluded talks between world powers and Iran over its nuclear program.

Wendy Sherman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, will discuss bilateral and regional issues with senior Israeli officials during her visit, the State Department said in a statement on Thursday.

Sherman will also “reaffirm our unshakable commitment to Israel’s security,” the statement said without mentioning the just-concluded Iran talks in Baghdad.

Two days of negotiations made little headway in resolving main sticking points around the dispute over Iran’s nuclear efforts, but the sides agreed to another meeting next month in Moscow.

Iran says it has the right to enrich uranium and that its nuclear aims are peaceful. But the United States and other powerful nations suspect the goal is a nuclear weapon.

Major powers have imposed sanctions on Iran’s energy and financial sectors and insist Teheran halt enrichment activities before easing them. Iran wants the sanctions lifted before it would stop nuclear activities.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that there would be no let up in sanctions even as talks continue