Archive for July 2, 2012

Iran drafts bill to block Hormuz for Gulf oil tankers | Reuters

July 2, 2012

Iran drafts bill to block Hormuz for Gulf oil tankers | Reuters.

 

(Reuters) – Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee has drafted a bill calling for Iran to try to stop oil tankers from shipping crude through the Strait of Hormuz to countries that support sanctions against it, a committee member said on Monday.

“There is a bill prepared in the National Security and Foreign Policy committee of Parliament that stresses the blocking of oil tanker traffic carrying oil to countries that have sanctioned Iran,” Iranian MP Ibrahim Agha-Mohammadi was quoted by Iran’s parliamentary news agency as saying.

“This bill has been developed as an answer to the European Union’s oil sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Agha-Mohammadi said that 100 of Tehran’s 290 members of parliament had signed the bill as of Sunday.

Iranian threats to block the waterway through which about 17 million barrels a day sailed in 2011 have grown in the past year as U.S. and European sanctions aimed at starving Tehran of funds for its nuclear program have tightened.

A heavy western naval presence in the Gulf and surrounding area is a big impediment to any attempt to block the vital shipping route through which sails most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq and nearly all the gas exported from Qatar.

A European Union ban on imports of Iranian oil started on Sunday.

(Reporting By Yeganeh Torbati and Daniel Fineren, editing by Jane Baird)

The Region: On China

July 2, 2012

The Region: On China – JPost – Opinion – Columnists.

07/01/2012 22:36
On a strategic level, Israel and China have some differing interests, but these are less important than they may appear to be.

Liberman looks on as Chinese VP greets Rotem
Photo: Reuters/China Daily
There is a remarkable amount of interest in China about Israel and Jews, as I discovered during a trip to China sponsored by the Sino-Israel Global Network and Academic Leadership (SIGNAL) and the Bar- Ilan University Asia project. What’s really interesting is how important this is and why it is so.

The most obvious answer is that the Chinese perceive that Israel in particular and the Jewish people in general have been success stories. Ten or 20 years ago this would have been less salient. But now, sad to say, it stands out more because the United States and Europe, perhaps only temporarily, are not working very well.

OF COURSE, on a strategic level, Israel and China have some differing interests, but these are less important than they may appear to be.

China wants to have commerce with everyone, including Iran, and is protecting Syria in the international framework. Yet China has significantly reduced energy imports from Iran in order to show support for the international efforts against Iran’s nuclear drive and clear signals have been sent to Tehran. Clearly, Chinese interests don’t benefit from Tehran having a nuclear arsenal and being a destabilizing force in the region. As for Syria, Israel’s own position on whether the current regime should be overthrown has not been unambiguous.

Having said this, Israel and China have many parallel interests, among them the desire for stability in the Middle East and the hope that revolutionary Islamism doesn’t spread. And China’s policy of dealing with all other countries has another side, since it will not let its relationships with Israel be interfered with by any possible Arab or Iranian demands.

Another factor which should not be underestimated is the lack of prejudice toward Jews and prejudgment against Israel that has become such a huge obstacle in Israel’s dealings with the West.

Most important of all is the emphasis on economic and social development, the priority on raising living standards and achieving national success rather than such typically regrettable goals as expanding territory, getting revenge for past grievances, and preferring pragmatic solutions to imposing ideological rigidity on problems.

There is a huge amount of cooperation, far more than many people realize, on joint projects. While hi-tech is the most obvious area of such activity, there are many others. Energy issues are equally paramount. China shares with Israel a great interest in finding alternative energy sources, not so much due to environmental considerations but to financial and security ones. Some impressive ideas and pilot programs are underway that seem more imaginative and likely to succeed than what I’ve seen in the American debate.

Several Israel and Jewish programs have opened in various Chinese universities; students are studying Hebrew and other relevant topics; Chinese bookstores contain multiple volumes about Jewish and Israeli achievements without – unlike some other Asian countries – exhibiting anti-Semitism. Obviously, those interested in these things are only a tiny fraction of the world’s most populous country. But this sector has reached a size significant enough to sustain itself and to influence the broader society.

On a humorous level, when a Chinese colleague told me (accurately or otherwise) that his people’s culture entailed always being optimistic and believing in a better future, I responded that the Israeli and Jewish characteristic was to be pessimistic and then make jokes about it.

Seriously, though, there are a number of important points – certainly seen as such by those Chinese who think about it – in common. Among the points that figure on this list are a mutual experience of a long history of civilization, wide dispersion, emphasis on the importance of education, readiness to work hard, focus on family, and suffering persecution. If contemporary Jews and Israelis have lost some of these values, perhaps we can learn something from China.

Of course, we can have criticisms of contemporary Chinese politics and policies but it is also important not to cling to outdated notions. I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on China – though I once thought seriously of pursuing that career path – but my visits to the country go back to 1974, when the word totalitarian could accurately have been applied.

BUT CHINA is no longer the country of the Cultural Revolution and the time of great repression. It has turned toward capitalism and opened up a much wider margin of freedom. The real power of personal initiative has been unleashed and the results have been awesome.

I doubt whether any country in history has made such rapid progress in social and economic development.

But here’s an equally important point. While these changes are theoretically reversible, I – and a lot of Chinese people – don’t think this is going to happen. A course seems set in which freedoms will continue to expand in the decades to come. Equally, there seems to be a genuine appreciation – as there has been in the West but certainly hasn’t been in the Middle East – that the old strategies of war to seize territory and empirebuilding abroad are obsolete.

An Egyptian friend visited China a few years ago and asked a counterpart, “China has been the victim of so much oppression and imperialism. How do you deal with that?” The response was, “We got over it.”

The Egyptian was astonished, but as a liberal Arab he realized that his own society would be far better off if it eschewed the politics of revenge, bitter hatred, and the angry assertion of superiority on the basis of an inferiority complex. Of course, the Arabic-speaking world has unfortunately been moving in the opposite direction with predictably terrible results.

What’s important, then, is to work with this process of events in China rather than to pretend it isn’t happening or focus on a negative side that is becoming smaller over time. Yet there is something very big for our change of attitudes as well. It is easy to say that Israel should become increasingly oriented toward Asia in comparison with Europe. Yet given Europe’s regrettable decline and hostility – which should not be overestimated but must be seriously evaluated – a growing willingness to look east should be something discussed most seriously.

The writer is the director of Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. He also publishes the Rubin Report blog and is the author of Israel: An Introduction.

Liberman says missile drill is proof Iran is pressured by EU oil embargo

July 2, 2012

Liberman says missile drill is proof Iran is pressured by EU oil embargo | The Times of Israel.

Foreign minister says Tehran playing for time in nuclear talks but within a month or two will have to face up to the determination of the international community

 

July 2, 2012, 9:05 am 0

 

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said Iran is being forced to face the facts of international opinion. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/FLASH90)

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said Iran is being forced to face the facts of international opinion. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/FLASH90)

 

Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said he is satisfied with the European oil embargo on Iran that began in earnest on Sunday.

 

In an interview with Israel Radio, Liberman said that Iran is beginning to feel the pressure from the oil embargo and other international sanctions as is evidenced by the start of major military maneuvers on Monday.

 

On Sunday, Iran announced it would hold a three-day drill that will include firing various strategic missiles at mock “foreign bases.”

 

Liberman predicted that within a month or two the Iranians will be forced to face up to the unrelenting position of the international community that opposes Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

 

The foreign minister, who on Sunday traveled to Italy for an official visit, said that at the end of three rounds of talks held over Iran’s nuclear research program it is clear to the world powers that Tehran is just playing for time in an effort to complete as much development as possible in the time it has left.

Regarding Egypt, Liberman said Israel must respect the choice of Egyptian people and give credit to the new government, while keeping a close eye on developments

No Danger in a Nuclear Iran? Seriously?

July 2, 2012

No Danger in a Nuclear Iran? Seriously? — The Patriot Post.

Are you concerned about Tehran’s drive for nuclear weapons? Political scientist Kenneth Waltz isn’t. A senior research scholar at Columbia University and former president of American Political Science Association, Waltz writes in the new issue of Foreign Affairs that it’s time we learned to stop worrying and love the Iranian bomb.

Waltz’s piece — prominently featured on the cover of the Council on Foreign Relations’ flagship journal — is headlined “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” The US government and its allies in Europe, Israel, and the Arab world may regard the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran may as the gravest security threat the world currently faces. But Waltz, a leader of the neo-realist school of international relations, urges all of them to take a chill pill. Nukes in the hands of the mullahs would not be the worst outcome of the present crisis, he argues. “In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.”

In a nutshell, Waltz’s view is that what makes the Middle East dangerously unstable is that while Israel has nuclear weapons, its most fanatical enemies don’t. “It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis,” he writes. “Power, after all, begs to be balanced.”

But wouldn’t a violent and extremist regime like Iran’s — a key patron of international terrorism, a brutal suppressor of human rights, an exporter of jihad, and an open exponent of wiping Israel “off the map” — be even more dangerous if its ballistic missiles were topped with nuclear warheads? On the contrary, says Waltz: “History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action.”

Nor does Waltz lie awake at night worrying about a nuclear proliferation spiral should Tehran get the bomb. “Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply,” he assures his readers. “No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate.”

If Waltz’s breezy nonchalance (a condensed version was published under the headline “Iranian nukes? No worries”) strikes you as outlandish, you aren’t alone. Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum calls it “the single most preposterous analysis by an allegedly serious strategist of the Iranian quest for a nuclear weapon.” To the American Enterprise Institute’s Gary Schmitt, a former staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, it recalls Alfred E. Neuman’s mantra: “What, me worry?” The notion that Israel’s nuclear capability destabilizes the Middle East is almost self-refuting: Would a non-nuclear Israel be less vulnerable to attack — or more so?

As for the calming effect of an Iranian bomb, that’s hard to square with the Arab world’s alarm at the prospect: “If Iran develops a nuclear weapon,” Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal has warned, “we will have to follow suit.”

Yet the appeal of Waltz’s view should not be underestimated, especially as the West approaches the ultimate red line — the moment when Iran’s nuclear facilities will be too far advanced to be taken out in a pre-emptive strike. Faced with the prospect of military action to stop an evil regime, there will always be those hungry for reassurance that everything will work out as long as we do nothing.

Waltz has been preaching his more-nukes-are-safer-nukes sermon for quite some time. “It’s been proven without exception,” he insisted in 2007, “that whoever gets nuclear weapons behaves with caution and moderation.” As far back as 1981 he was arguing that “the measured spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared.”

But Iran is not like Russia, India, China, or the other existing members of the nuclear club. Time and again Iran has called explicitly for the extermination of Israel, while making clear that it sees nuclear weapons as a practical means to that end. “The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything,” Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani baldly explained in 2001. “However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” Tehran still contemplates it. Just weeks ago, a news release from Iran’s FARS News Agency was headlined: “Top Commander Reiterates Iran’s Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel.”

Let a regime that hungers for apocalypse and genocide get the bomb? Welcome it? Even Dr. Strangelove wouldn’t go that far.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe. His website is http://www.JeffJacoby.com).

Assad to Kremlin: I can finish the revolt in two months, replaces army chiefs

July 2, 2012

Assad to Kremlin: I can finish the revolt in two months, replaces army chiefs.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 2, 2012, 10:05 AM (GMT+02:00)

 

Turkish military convoy heading for Syrian border

In a phone call to the Kremlin Sunday, July 1, Syrian President Bashar Assad said he needed just two months to finish off the revolt against his regime. “My new military tactics are working,” he said in a secret video-conference with Russian intelligence and foreign ministry officials who shape Moscow’s policy on Syria.

Reporting this exclusively, debkafile’s intelligence sources also register the fleeting life span of the new plan for ending the Syrian war which UN envoy Kofi Annan announced had been agreed at a multinational Action Group meeting in Geneva on Saturday, June 30. Within 24 hours, the principle of a national unity transitional government based on “mutual consent” was rejected by the regime and the Turkish-based opposition leaders alike, as the violence went into another month.

On the first day of July, 91 people were reported killed in the escalating Syrian violence after a record 4,000 in June.
The new military tactics to which Assad referred are disclosed here:
1.  The sweeping removal of most of the veteran Syrian army commanders who led the 16-month bloody assault on regime opponents and rebels. They were sent home with full pay to make way for a new set of younger commanders, most of them drawn from the brutal Alawite Shabiha militia, which is the ruling family’s primary arm against its enemies.
The regular commanders had shown signs of fatigue and doubts about their ability to win Assad’s war. Their will to fight on was being badly sapped by the mounting numbers officers and men going over to the opposition camp in June.
One of the tasks set the new commanders is to stem the rate of defections.
To keep the veteran commanders from joining the renegades and reduce their susceptibility to hostile penetration, the officers were not sacked but retired on full pension plus all the perks of office, including official cars.
2.  But a higher, unthinkable level of violence is the key to Assad’s “new tactics.” He has armed the new military chiefs with extra fire power – additional tank and artillery units, air force bombers and attack helicopters – for smashing pockets of resistance and unlimited permission to use it. Already the level of live fire used against the rebels has risen to an even more unthinkable level which explains the sharp escalation of deaths to an average of 120 per day.
On the Syrian-Turkish border, tensions continue to mount. Monday morning, Turkey was still pumping large-scale strength including tanks, antiaircraft and antitank guns, artillery, surface missiles and combat helicopters to the border region.
Saturday, half a dozen Turkish jets were scrambled to meet Syria helicopters approaching their common border.
In Tehran, Brig. Gen. Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, commander of Iran’s IRGC Aerospace Division, warned Ankara that if its troops ventured onto Syrian soil, their bases of departure would be destroyed. The threat was made during Hajizadeh’s announcement of a three-day missile exercise starting Monday in response to the European oil embargo.  He reported that long-, medium- and short-range missiles would target “simulations of foreign bases in the northern Semnan Desert,” without mentioning any specific nation except Turkey.