(More posturing? Is this the beginning of the end? – JW)
DEBKAfileExclusive ReportJuly 11, 2012, 11:44 AM (GMT+02:00)
French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle
NATO, which proclaims non-involvement in the Syrian conflict, and Russia, which vows to block foreign military action against the Assad regime, are both moving large naval forces into the eastern Mediterranean opposite Syrian shores.
A flotilla of at least 11 Russian warships has been detached from Caspian Sea, Black Sea and North Sea fleet bases and is on its way to the Syrian coast for a maneuver; NATO has consigned its rapid response Maritime Group 2 to the same stretch of sea – where also five Israeli warships are deployed. The Western alliance has also increased surveillance flights over the Mediterranean from the Geilenkirchen air base in Germany.
This rush of military movements is explained officially by the big air-and-sea exercise launched by Syria Sunday, July 8, to simulate outside aggression. It follows Iran’s practice of continuous military drills for repelling mock Western or Israel attacks.
The exercise began with a barrage of dozens of surface-to-sea missiles simulating naval and shore defense against approaching enemy craft and landing forces.
At about the same time, Iran embarked on a big air-cum-missile defense exercise in the south to fight off potential aggression from the direction of the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf of Aden, where US air force units are clustered.
debkafile’s military sources report that this is the first simultaneous, coordinated Syrian-Iranian military maneuver for drilling action against an advancing enemy. It is synchronized from a joint headquarters established for the purpose in Damascus.
While these coordinated maneuvers are being presented as designed to fend off foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict, our sources report that they are in fact preparing for a potential US attack on Iran’s nuclear program, which is now expected in Gulf and European military quarters to take place in October, three months hence.
High-ranking Saudi princes associated with their national military and intelligence agencies frankly confided to Arab and Western officials on recent visits to Riyadh that the US and, possibly Israel too, are on the verge of war on Iran. “It is already decided,” they say. The only question still open is the date, which could be before or after the US presidential election on November 6.
In line with this prediction, France is reported in Paris to be massing a large naval force in the United Arab Emirates. The French nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle-R91 is expected to dock soon at the French naval base in Port Zayid on Abu Dhabi’s northeastern coast opposite the strategic Strait of Hormuz. The French are also boosting their air units at Al Dhafra Air Base, stationing them alongside a large American air force presence.
MOSCOW — Russia said on Tuesday that it had dispatched a flotilla of 11 warships to the eastern Mediterranean, some of which would dock in Syria. It would be the largest display of Russian military power in the region since the Syrian conflict began almost 17 months ago. Nearly half of the ships were capable of carrying hundreds of marines.
The announcement appeared intended to punctuate Russia’s effort to position itself as an increasingly decisive broker in resolving the antigovernment uprising in Syria, Russia’s last ally in the Middle East and home to Tartus, its only foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union. The announcement also came a day after Russia said it was halting new shipments of weapons to the Syrian military until the conflict settled down.
Russia has occasionally sent naval vessels on maneuvers in the eastern Mediterranean, and it dispatched an aircraft-carrying battleship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, there for maneuvers with a few other vessels from December 2011 to February 2012. There were rumors in recent weeks that the Russians planned to deploy another naval force near Syria.
But the unusually large size of the force announced on Tuesday was considered a message, not just to the region but also to the United States and other nations supporting the rebels now trying to depose Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.
Tartus consists of little more than a floating refueling station and some small barracks. But any strengthened Russian presence there could forestall Western military intervention in Syria.
The Russian announcement got a muted response in Washington. “Russia maintains a naval supply and maintenance base in the Syrian port of Tartus,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “We currently have no reason to believe this move is anything out of the ordinary, but we refer you to the Russian government for more details.”
The announcement came as a delegation of Syrian opposition figures was visiting Moscow to gauge if Russia would accept a political transition in Syria that excludes Mr. Assad. It also coincided with a flurry of diplomacy by Kofi Annan, the special Syria envoy from the United Nations and the Arab League, who said Mr. Assad had suggested a new approach for salvaging Mr. Annan’s sidelined peace plan during their meeting on Monday in Damascus.
While the Kremlin has repeatedly opposed foreign military intervention in Syria, Russian military officials have hinted at a possible role in Syria for their naval power. The ships have been presented as a means either to evacuate Russian citizens or to secure the fueling station at Tartus.
A statement by the Defense Ministry said ships had embarked from ports of three fleets: those of the Northern, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, and would meet for training exercises in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Taking part, the statement said, would be two Black Sea Fleet landing craft that can carry marines: the Nikolai Filchenkov and the Tsezar Kunikov.
Russia’s Interfax news agency cited an unnamed military official as saying that an escort ship, the Smetlivy, would stop in Tartus for resupplying in three days — though it had presumably recently left its home port of Sevastopol, in the Black Sea.
Another contingent, from the Arctic Ocean base of Severomorsk, in the Murmansk Fjord, will take longer to arrive. That convoy includes three landing craft with marines escorted by an antisubmarine ship, the Admiral Chabanenko.
The voyage to the Mediterranean was unrelated to the Syrian conflict, the official said, but the boats laden with marines would stop in Tartus to “stock up on fuel, water and food.”
Visits on Tuesday by Mr. Annan to Iran, the Syrian government’s most important regional ally, and Iraq, Syria’s neighbor to the east, which fears a sectarian spillover from the conflict, came as a deadline of July 20 approaches. That is when the United Nations Security Council is to decide whether to renew the mission of 300 observers in Syria charged with monitoring the introduction of Mr. Annan’s peace plan. The observers’ work was suspended nearly a month ago because it was too dangerous.
At a news conference in Tehran, Mr. Annan reiterated his view that the Iranians had a role to play in resolving the conflict, despite objections from the United States. Mr. Annan also said Mr. Assad had proposed altering the peace proposal so that the most violent areas of the country would be pacified first. The current plan calls for an immediate cessation of all violence everywhere as a first step.
“He made a suggestion of building an approach from the ground up in some of the districts where we have extreme violence — to try and contain the violence in these districts and, step by step, build up and end the violence across the country,” Mr. Annan told reporters in Tehran.
There was no immediate word on whether the suggested new approach would be accepted by Mr. Assad’s opponents. But in Moscow, a delegation from the Syrian National Council, the umbrella opposition group in exile, suggested they had no interest in engaging with him.
“What brings together the opposition today is our consensus on the need to topple Assad’s regime and build a new political system,” Bassma Kodmani, a member of the delegation, said at a news conference in Moscow.
The delegation members, who are to meet on Wednesday with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov, also said they would not ask that Russia grant Mr. Assad asylum — something Russian officials have said they are not considering anyway.
Andrew E. Kramer reported from Moscow, and Rick Gladstone from New York. Reporting was contributed by Thomas Erdbrink from Tehran, Duraid Adnan from Baghdad, Peter E. Baker from Washington and Dalal Mawad from Beirut.
The stakes involved in an Israeli strike are even bigger than most assume.
Photo: Reuters
When debating whether or not to undertake a unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, one key consideration for Israeli decision makers will be whether such a strike will force the Iranian people to “rally around the flag,” supporting their otherwise hated regime?
This is essential because an Israeli strike on Iran, unlike an American-led strike, does not pose an imminent threat to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They realize that such an attack will not endanger their personal safety. What keeps them up at night is their fear of sharing the fate of Mubarak, Ben Ali, Saleh, or Gaddafi.
Today, Iran’s leadership has good reason to fear the renewal of mass protests, especially following the imposition of stiff international sanctions that are wreaking havoc on the economy, causing massive inflation and quickly strangling the government’s main source of revenue. As the population becomes more desperate, their willingness to challenge the regime again will grow.
Critics of a potential Israeli strike, like former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, hold that following an Israeli attack, the domestic opposition will be forced to give full-throated support to their despised leaders, eliminating the threat of regime change for many years to come. Evidence for this outcome is that all the groups who had opposed Khomeini following the revolution lined up squarely behind him once Iraq invaded their country in 1980.
Proponents of a strike generally reject this argument.
In their recent assessment, the Washington Institute’s Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights dismissed the comparison, pointing out that “In 1980, Iran was in the throes of a revolution that enjoyed widespread popular support, while today, the regime is extremely unpopular among large segments of the population and is liable to be held responsible for what many Iranians may believe is an avoidable conflict.”
The problem with this claim, as the Falkland War demonstrates, is that even a hated regime can still garner widespread domestic support when it goes to war.
INSTEAD, WHAT will determine whether or not a strike on Iranian facilities helps or hurts the regime in the long-run is whether or not Iranians conclude the fighting itself ended in victory or disaster.
In other words, what regimes of all stripes have difficulty surviving – again exemplified by the Argentinean junta – is an unequivocal and embarrassing loss on the battlefield. Such an assertion does not rely on one anecdote or another, but is supported by an impressive statistical analysis of all state leaders from 1919-1999 conducted by two American professors, Giacomo Chiozza and Hein Goemans.
Controlling for a large array of other factors, such as which side initiated hostilities, these authors found that defeat in a war “significantly reduces the tenure of leaders” – especially for dictators. Victory in war, it extends an autocratic regime’s lifespan considerably.
This conclusion has critical implications. Until today, Israeli military planners have focused on how to limit the fighting that would follow an initial Israeli strike. Yet, such a short campaign might allow the regime to paint a rosier picture of the outcome, thus reducing the likelihood of regime change (i.e. a “Persian Spring”). Instead, planners must consider how (despite limited resources) Israel can best end hostilities in such a way that Iranian military incompetence is laid bare. Iran’s failure must be so great that no amount of regime propaganda can sugarcoat it.
Understanding that whether an attack will bolster or weaken the regime’s domestic support cannot be known in advance means that the stakes involved in an Israeli strike are even bigger than most assume. If a strike is very successful, it will not only set back the clock on Iran’s nuclear program, but it could also move forward the clock on regime change. If a strike is an unambiguous failure, it would be a “double whammy”: it could bring us even closer to the day Iran goes nuclear while furthering the day the Iranian people get out from under the thumb of their oppressive theocratic regime.
The writer is Neubauer Research Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Tel Aviv University.
Report submitted to Congress also reveals Tehran has ‘methodically cultivated network of sponsored terrorist surrogates capable of targeting US, Israeli interests’
WASHINGTON – The Iranian army is continuing to improve the accuracy and destructive power of its long-and-short-range ballistic missile force, according to a Pentagon report that was submitted to the US Congress.
The report, which was obtained by Bloomberg News, said that as part of the improvements, Iran‘s military is designing a maneuvering weapon to target vessels.
The June 29 report, which was signed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, states that Tehran “has boosted the lethality and effectiveness of existing systems by improving accuracy and developing new submunition payloads” that extend the destructive power over a broader area than a solid warhead.
According to Bloomberg, the report found that the improvements are in tandem with routine ballistic- missile training that “continues throughout the country” and the addition of “new ships and submarines.”
Bloomberg said the report also addresses the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and the assistance it offers to Syria, Hezbollah, Hamasand Iraqi Shiite groups. It also repeated the US assessment that Iran with “sufficient foreign assistance may be technically capable of flight-testing” an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.
Iran test-fires Zelzal missile (Photo: EPA)
“There was a theme that Iran is improving the accuracy and lethality of its missiles,” Bloomberg quoted Congressional Research Service Iran analyst Kenneth Katzman as saying.
“US government reports have previously always downplayed the accuracy and effectiveness of Iran’s missile forces,” he added.
Senior diplomats from the European Union and Iran are scheduled to meet on July 24 for technical talks on Tehran’s disputed nuclear program to try to salvage diplomatic efforts to resolve the decade-long standoff.
The meeting in Istanbul will be the second in a series of discussions to clarify technical aspects of Tehran’s activity.
It follows an agreement by Iran and six world powers in June to use such talks to decide whether diplomacy tackling broader political issues should continue in the face of vast differences in views over the nature of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran, which denies its work has any military dimensions, wants international sanctions lifted before it makes any concessions, and formal recognition of a right to enrich uranium. But the six are loath to make concessions before seeing evidence of Iranian willingness to address their concerns.
New sanctions went into place in the past few weeks, with EU governments imposing an embargo on Iranian oil on July 1.
The Pentagon’s report predicted that Iran “would present a formidable force while defending Iranian territory.
“We assess with high confidence” that over the past 30 years Iran “has methodically cultivated a network of sponsored terrorist surrogates capable of targeting US and Israeli interests. We suspect this activity continues,” it said.
The report further claimed that the Islamic Republic is continuing to develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching regional adversaries, Israeland Eastern Europe, including an extended-range Shahab-3 and a 2,000 kilometer (1,240 mile) medium-range ballistic missile.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington was quoted by Bloomber as saying that the report appears to verify that Iran has actively deployed a new solid-fuel intermediate-range ballistic missile and that the Shahab-3 has improved accuracy and submunitions.
Cordesman said the report also revealed that Tehran is looking to improve its missile counter-measures against US and Gulf Cooperation Council missile defenses and poses a potential new threat to Gulf shipping.
Iran, like China, is “developing and claims to have deployed short-range ballistic missiles with seekers that enable the missile to identify and maneuver toward ships during flight,” the report stated.
“This technology also may be capable of striking land-based targets,” the Pentagon’s report said.
Only fraction of powerful explosive sent to east African country has been recovered; police ask court to deny the suspects bail for fear they could continue plotting attacks on Israeli, US targets
Two Iranians accused of planning attacks on Western targets in Kenya shipped more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of powerful explosive into this east African country, and most of it has not been recovered, a police officer told a court Tuesday.
Iranian nationals Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammad and Sayed Mansour Mousavi are charged with preparing to commit acts intended to cause grievous harm after they were arrested last month and led officials to a 15-kilogram (33-pound) stash of the explosive RDX.
Police Sgt. Erick Opagal, an investigator with Kenya’s Anti-Terrorism Police Unit, asked the court to deny the two suspects bail because more than 85 kilograms (187 pounds) of the explosive authorities say was shipped into Kenya has not been found.
Suspects at court earlier this month (Photo: AP)
“The police have information that the applicants (suspects) have a vast network in the country meant to execute explosive attacks against government installations, public gatherings and foreign establishments,” Opagal said in an affidavit.
Granting bail would allow the suspects to continue planning attacks, he told the court.
Officials in Kenya say the two suspects may have been planning attacks on Israeli, American, British or Saudi Arabian interests in Kenya. Security officials believe the two are members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, an elite and secretive unit that acts against foreign interests.
Israeli resorts possible targets
Iranian agents are suspected in several successful or thwarted attacks – especially against Israeli interests – around the globe over the last year.
Several resorts on Kenya’s coast are Israeli-owned, as is Nairobi’s largest and newest shopping mall. Militants in 2002 bombed an Israeli-owned luxury hotel near the coastal city of Mombasa, killing 13 people. The militants also tried to shoot down an Israeli airliner at the same time. An al-Qaida operative was linked to those attacks.
The two Iranian suspects arrived in Kenya June 12 and traveled to Mombasa on the same day to receive the explosives, Opagal’s affidavit said. They traveled back to Nairobi June 16 after receiving the explosive from an accomplice who is still at large, it said. Opagal said the two were arrested on June 19 in Nairobi and led officers to some of the explosives hidden at a Mombasa golf course.
One of the Iranian’s lawyers, David Kirimi, said Tuesday the prosecution was “blowing the matter out of proportion.” He said his clients were sickly men, one with a liver condition and the other a heart ailment, and their detention was further damaging their health.
Kirimi said the two were civil servants in Iran who were in Kenya on tourist visas.
Prosecutor Daniel Musangi urged the court to deny bail, arguing that they were likely to flee if released.
Magistrate Paul Biwott said he would rule on the bail application on Monday.
Amid talk of possible Iranian role in brokering Syria ceasefire, White House spokesman Carney says, “I don’t think anybody with a straight face could argue that Iran has had a positive impact on developments in Syria.”
Photo: Morteza Nikoubazl / Reuters
WASHINGTON – The White House criticized Tuesday the concept that Tehran could be constructive in resolving the conflict in Syria, after UN mediator Kofi Annan held meetings with Iranian officials.
“I don’t think anybody with a straight face could argue that Iran has had a positive impact on developments in Syria,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.
The comment came after weeks of discussion over Iran’s possible role in helping a UN-brokered attempt at a ceasefire in the strife-riven country in which the US has made it clear that it opposes Iranian participation.
Though Annan had overlooked US objections in reaching out to Iran, Carney still indicating US backing for his efforts.
“Broadly, on the Annan plan, we believe that it is essential that the international community come together behind the plan, that the plan be implemented,” Carney said.
He added, “We remain highly skeptical about Assad’s willingness to meet his commitments, which is another reason why Syria’s future cannot plausibly have Bashar Assad in the government. He’s long since lost his credibility.”
Carney also urged a change of course in countries like Iran that have supported the Syrian leader.
“We also call on other nations to recognize the obvious, which is that allying with Bashar Assad is allying with a tyrant and putting your nation on the wrong side of the Syrian people,” he said.
The last time the US navy sent three aircraft carriers into the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf was just a few short weeks before WTI broke above $110, and aggressive military tensions, coupled with concerns of an imminent invasion of Iran by Israel and/or ‘others’, were running high. Then summer arrived, as did the need to lower the price of gas and crude ahead of a veritable cornucopia of central banks easing into June and July, not to mention the need to keep gas as low as possible into the July 4th holiday. Now that the peak summer months are behind us this is all changing, and 4 months ahead of the presidential election, the need to have the “Wag the Dog” put option to round up the troops, not to mention votes, has arrived, as has the need to return to an outright aggressive military stance where Iran is concerned. Which is why we were not very surprised to learn that that Middle East veteran aircraft carrier, the CVN-74 Stennis, is going right back into Mordor, a few short months after it came back from its long stint in the Fifth Fleet, and will shortly complete the trio of aircraft carriers stationed within miles of Iran.
“Bremerton-based aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis is returning to the Middle East much sooner than expected. The Navy hasn’t officially announced the new deployment plan for the Stennis, said spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Zach Harrell.” The ship came home to Naval Base Kitsap on March 2 after seven months of launching planes into Iraq and Afghanistan. Generally, it wouldn’t go back to the Fifth Fleet area of responsibility for four to five years, after a deployment to the Western Pacific and a maintenance period. But with Iran making threats, crew members learned Saturday they’ll be leaving again in late August for eight months.”
Oh, it is Iran making threats? We get it. Just like Syria is making threats to Turkey after the country “aggressively” took down a Turkish jet which was amicably flying over Syrian territory.
At least with the Stennis back, the US public can sleep soundly because Iran will not feel at all threatened with not two but three carriers, not to mention however many supporting ships:
Two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups — USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise — are now in the Middle East. The Navy has doubled the number of minesweepers in the region, to eight, and moved a converted amphibious transport and docking ship, the USS Ponce, into the Persian Gulf to serve as a floating staging base for military operations or humanitarian assistance. Its first job will be as a hub for mine-clearing, according to Pentagon officials.
At least unlike the the Enterprise, which is currently on its final lifetime assignment for some reason in the Persian Gulf, the Stennis at least is veteran when it comes to all matters Middle Eastern.
The Stennis is familiar with Iranian threats. During its last deployment, which ran from August 2011 to March 2012, it exited the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. The chief of Iran’s military was quoted as telling “the American warship that passed through the Strait of Hormuz and went to the Gulf of Oman not to return to the Persian Gulf.” The Stennis just went about its business, launching planes to help troops in Afghanistan, though family and friends back home were worried by the news coverage.
U.S. officials said the ships were in international waters, and they won’t tolerate any effort by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-sixth of the world’s oil is transported.
During its last deployment, the Stennis air wing conducted 13,389 sorties in support of troops in both wars, and rescued Iranian cargo ship sailors from pirates.
( An interview with the son of the founder of Hamas. No Westerner dares say the truth like he does. Don’t miss this video. – JW )
*
Mosab Yousef in a candid interview about the prophet’s role in perpetuating terror.
The Jerusalem Post Mosab Hassan Yousef stepped out of the airport terminal in a dark suit and tie, looking every inch the Hollywood darling. It’s perhaps not surprising then, that his close friend and the man who accompanied him on his trip to Israel this month, is producer and actor Sam Feuer. Feuer played the role of Yousef Romano in Steven Spielberg’s Munich, a movie about the aftermath of the Black September. Full of intrigue, spies, and clandestine operations—not to mention terror attacks on Israeli citizens—the plot of Spielberg’s cloak-and-dagger movie is not unlike Mosab’s own life as a secret agent.
Most people know the story by now, so I’ll be brief: In 1978, Mosab is born to the son of one of Hamas’ seven founders, Sheikh Hassan Yousef. Prepped to follow in his father’s footsteps and become a terrorist, Mosab starts asking questions until gradually, over the years, he becomes convinced that the ways of Hamas cannot be the truth. He subsequently converts to Christianity. He becomes an agent for Shin Bet. The intelligence he provides prevents terror attacks and leads to the incarceration of Hamas terrorists. In 2007, he leaves the West Bank in favor of the west coast. He gains political asylum in the US and remains there before coming back to Israel for a surprise visit last month.
Something about his life story—and indeed, certain aspects of his personality, including the fearless chutzpah with which he deceived Hamas—is distinctly reminiscent of Frank Abagnale, the real-life protagonist of yet another of Spielberg’s classics, Catch Me If You Can. But unlike the notorious confidence trickster, the former Shin Bet agent did not do what he did to advance his own interests (and neither did he forge millions of dollars worth of checks.) In his own words, Mosab Yousef did what he did in order “to save lives.”
Upon first meeting Yousef, there were a number of things I was curious to discover about his personality. Is he naïve or a realist? Is he extraordinarily foolish or extraordinarily brave? Has playing with fire become a way of life for him or does he take risks out of a sense of moral duty? More than once I was asked by other people, “Is he normal?” Considering the mind-boggling events that have shaped the life of Hamas’ prodigal son, the question is forgivable.
Normal or not, one thing about Mosab Yousef is that he is no politician. When asked whether he has any political aspirations, Yousef answers with a categorical “no.” Given his personality, his answer is hardly surprising. Yousef doesn’t seem to have a single trait that is conducive to being a politician. He has no sense of political correctness, and even though he is polite and refined, he lacks the diplomatic airs and graces of successful politicians. With utmost sincerity and an almost child-like earnestness, Yousef simply states the truth as he sees it.
When one considers that his upbringing was entrenched in a black-and-white value system (Israel is evil, destroying the Jewish State and its citizens is a divinely righteous pursuit, and so on), Yousef’s 180 degree turnaround seems rather miraculous. But then again, perhaps it is precisely because of his black-and-white upbringing that Yousef is now able to view things in such an uncomplicated manner, untainted by the confusion and ideals that so often color Western sensibilities.
Devoid of underlying messages or double entendre, he states his opinions eloquently. “I love Israel because Israel is a democratic country,” he has said on more than one occasion. Attending a panel on Israel’s future borders at the President’s conference last month in Jerusalem, Yousef loudly applauded the following statement from one of the panelists: “The issue is not whether the world can accept the Jews’ right to this land. The issue is whether Jews will accept their right to this land.” Regarding sovereignty, Yousef maintains an unequivocal party line: “All I can say is that the Israeli historic right to this land is obvious and clear to any person who can read.”
At a press conference a few days prior, Yousef caused a flurry with his explosive comments. “Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of war,” he said. “If people don’t see the truth we will keep spinning an empty cycle of violence.”
But he balances his bombastic remarks by adding that Muslims themselves are a peaceful people. The problem, according to Yousef, is that most Muslims are not educated enough about their religion. “Out of 1.6 billion Muslims, perhaps only 300 million actually understand the language of the Koran,” he said. This is because for most Muslims, Islam is far more than a religion – “it is an identity and culture, it is everything they know.” He further posited that a full understanding of the text and of Mohammed’s life necessarily leads Muslims towards extremism and terrorism. According to Yousef, anyone who studies the life and the behavior of the prophet will arrive at the conclusion that Islam is a religion of war.
Yousef declares, “It is time to expose the life of Muhammed.”
The way that he proposes to do this is by making a feature film on the life of Islam’s apostle. Anyone who was around during the Danish cartoon controversy knows just how dangerous an endeavor this can be. According to the Muslim faith, depicting Muhammad is forbidden, and the violence that erupted following the Danish scandal resulted in over 100 deaths. But Yousef believes that the importance of the project overrides any fallout that may result from portraying Muhammad on the big screen. His aim is to challenge religious authorities by depicting the life of Muhammed in an objective and honest way, and as such it was imperative for the screenwriters to engage with Muslim theologians and remain true to the text of the Koran.
“We are not trying to offend Muslims, we’re trying to bring the truth,” he said. He hopes that the film will target the average Muslim and cause them to revisit the beliefs and ideology upon which they’ve been raised. “If this suicide bomber who is trying to kill many people is motivated by that ideology, I would love to seed [sic] doubt in his head, at least to be able to question before he goes to commit suicide.
“Today we have this powerful medium and the new generation can watch and see and make a judgment. They are looking for a difference in their life – they are looking for a better future. Let’s help them.”
Does Yousef harbor any fears that he may be risking his life by making a movie on Muhammed?
Yousef remains unfazed at the suggestion and answers simply: “There is nothing to be afraid about. We’re doing the right thing and we do it not through the power of conviction or the power of opinion, but through the power of truth.”
Finally, in answer to some of the aforementioned questions I had prior to meeting him, the impression I received is that Mosab Hassan Yousef is a remarkably courageous man with a bold vision and more than a hint of foolhardiness. And is he normal? It is, of course, all relative and perhaps in his new home of Los Angeles the answer might have been different. But here in this region at least, Yousef definitely comes off as one of the sane ones
Iran is copy-catting the deadly Russian Kornet anti-tank missile that Hizbullah used against Israeli soldiers in the Second Lebanon War.
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 7/10/2012, 3:06 PM
Aftermath of Kornet missile attack on school bus last year
Israel news photo: Flash 90
Iran is copy-catting the deadly Russian Kornet anti-tank missile that Hizbullah used against Israeli soldiers in the Second Lebanon War and which Hamas used to kill a student on a school bus last year.
Quoting defense sources in London and Moscow, the Gulf News website quoted a Russian defense advisor as saying that Iran may have obtained the design for the Kornet missile from Hizbullah. An analyst from Jane’s Defense suggested that Hamas and/ or Syria may have been the source for handing over the design to Iran, which does not have a license from Russia to produce the missile.
IDF intelligence failed to obtain advanced information that Hizbullah possessed the Kornet missile, and Israeli tanks were unprepared for missile attacks that killed dozens of soldiers and wounded hundreds more in the 34-day-old war.
The Kornet has a range of 5.5 kilometers, or 3.5 miles. Hizbullah has said the Kornet missiles destroyed two advanced Israeli Merkava-4 tanks during the war in 2006. The missiles were smuggled into Lebanon from Syria.
Over two years ago, Israel discovered that Hamas also has possession of the missile. In December 2010, former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi announced, “On December 6, a Kornet anti-tank missile fired for the first time in Gaza hit an IDF tank and penetrated its outer shell. Luckily, the missile did not explode inside the tank. We are talking about a massive missile, one of the most dangerous in the battlefield, which has already been used against the IDF in the Lebanon War.”
Hamas used the same missile to attack a school bus approximately a mile from Gaza last year, killing a student. Dozens of other children had stepped off the bus only a few minutes before the attack near Kibbutz Saad, in the western Negev.
Editor’s note: This op-ed by retired ABC News diplomatic correspondent Barrie Dunsmore first appeared in the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Rutland Herald Sunday edition. All his columns can be found on his website, www.barriedunsmore.com.
We are now entering what is often the silly season of an American presidential election campaign. We now know for certain who the presidential candidates will be – yet we’re nearly two months away from the nominating conventions. (The Republicans are convening in Tampa, Fla., beginning the week of Aug. 27. The Democrats will gather in Charlotte, N.C., the week of Sept. 3.)Of course the campaign doesn’t stop for a two month summer break. And the bombardment of broadcast campaign ads will continue. But it’s generally accepted that most Americans will not be hanging on every word the candidates speak in this period. That focus usually begins with the conventions and becomes more intense during the final two months until Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 6. So some subtle changes occur during the summer months.
The candidates themselves try to take a little down time and key campaign staffers take short breaks to freshen up for the final fall sprint. So too do some of the big names in the national news media, along with senior editors. Inevitably, with the second string at work, some mistakes are made. And while the replacement boys and girls on the campaign bus are simply trying to prove themselves professionally, in the dearth of real news, so called “controversies” very often get magnified. These pseudo stories are easily identified and rarely last more than one news cycle – although candidates on vacation must guard against the silly photo that can have lasting negative impact. (Think John Kerry windsurfing in his skintight wetsuit.)
However this doesn’t mean nothing important is going to happen in the presidential race during the dog days of summer. As someone who watches the campaign with more than casual interest, I have my list of “game changing” events which might well determine the outcome of the election- or at very least, be big enough to upset much of the conventional wisdom. One of the items on my list has already occurred, namely, the Supreme Court decision that the Affordable Care Act was indeed constitutional.
I believed that if the Court found even a portion of President Barack Obama’s most significant legislative accomplishment to be in violation of the Constitution, that would tip the scales in favor of Gov. Mitt Romney. I could picture the Republicans and their multi-million dollar Super PACs (financed by ultra-conservative billionaires thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision) deluging the airwaves with ads mocking Obama – the professor of constitutional law – for trying to foist an unconstitutional program upon the American people. It remains to be seen how important Health Care will be as a campaign issue. But in my view, Chief Justice John Roberts’ unexpected yes vote very likely saved Obama from defeat in November.
My most important potential game changer between now and November is an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
My second potential game changer is the collapse of the European economic union which uses the Euro as its common currency. Because the European Union is America’s largest trading partner, and because major U.S. banks are holding big chunks of European debt, the break-up of the Euro- zone would have major impact here. If it were to happen before the presidential election, that would be bad news for the president. In reality, the power of the American presidency over European economic policy is slim to none. But the Republicans would be eager to add a new global recession to the top of the list of failures of Obama’s management of the economy – and that would certainly strengthen Romney’s hand.But my most important potential game changer between now and November is an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And this has become more likely because the diplomatic effort to get Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions has faltered. The series of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have stalled over Iran’s claim of the legal right to reprocess its uranium to a level of 20 percent which is a relatively short step from nuclear weapons grade. And in spite of sanctions on its oil industry which a few days ago Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the most onerous in history, he insisted they would not affect Iran’s nuclear plans.
Iran earns 80 percent of its national budget though oil experts. And so far this year due to sanctions, exports have fallen 40 percent, costing Iranians billions of dollars each month. But Iran remains defiant. It has again threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz which is the choke point in the Persian Gulf through which much of the world’s oil supply must pass. This past week Iran also held a three day military exercise that included test-firing missiles capable of hitting targets in Israel and American bases in the Middle East. The Revolutionary Guard Corps commander of the exercise said he has contingency plans to hit 35 American bases within minutes of any attack against his country.
If the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should decide that all this means both diplomacy and sanctions have failed to halt Iran’s nuclear program, an Israeli strike against Iran could well take place before the American presidential election. Obama and nearly all former Israeli national security experts have argued against such a pre-emptive attack – because it would be a relatively minor setback to Iran’s nuclear program while it could ignite the entire Middle East in a major war. However Romney and his neo-conservative advisers apparently have no reservations about such a war, and have criticized Obama for even negotiating with Iran.
In fact, if the Israelis do attack Iran it will be assumed by all in the region, and certainly by the Iranians, that the United States was involved. Like it or not, Obama and America will be dragged in. So in terms of the presidential election, war with Iran might or might not be a game changer. But as for America’s vital national security and economic interests, such a war will be a disaster.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments