WarSclerotic

High level EU and Iranian officials to meet over nuclear program | The Times of Israel.

Deputies to negotiate before top-level ‘contact’ aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions

Catherine Ashton (photo credit: courtesy EU)

VIENNA (AP) — A European Union official says EU and Iranian representatives will meet July 24 to discuss whether there is enough common ground to restart stalled talks over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Michael Mann says Helga Schmid, a deputy to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, will meet with Ali Bagheri, Iran’s deputy nuclear negotiator.

The statement Monday by Mann, Ashton’s spokesman, said the two would see how gaps could be narrowed. Their meeting will then be followed by a “contact” between Ashton and chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.

The U.S. and five other world powers want Iran to curb nuclear enrichment, which can produce both reactor fuel and nuclear warhead material. Iran refuses, saying its enrichment is only for peaceful purposes.

Recent high-level talks convened by Ashton failed to narrow differences.

Iran holds air defense drill, scrambling jets to intercept ‘enemy aircraft’ | The Times of Israel.

Second day of exercise sees military units training to protect sensitive industrial areas.

An Iranian nuclear facility. Iran has been practicing air defense for its sensitive industrial sites. (photo credit: CC-BY nanking2010/Wikipedia)

Iran entered into the second day of a large air defense exercise that simulated the penetration of enemy planes into its territory, the country’s Fars News Agency reported on Monday.

The spokesman for the current air defense drills, General Shahroukh Shahram, boasted that Iran’s military units are more than ready to defend the country against an air assault.

“Ground-to-air missile and artillery systems of Khatam ol-Anbia Air Defense Base of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Army are fully prepared to defend the Islamic homeland’s territory,” he declared.

During the course of the exercises, held in the northwestern region of Iran, radar units first practiced identifying invading aircraft attempting to reach sensitive industrial areas and then scrambling planes to head them off.

The three-day military maneuvers began on Sunday and focus on “defending the Islamic Republic of Iran’s vital national interests and national security,” Fars said.

Israel has long indicated that a military strike against Iran might be necessary to stop the regime’s nuclear program should diplomatic efforts fail.

Sanctions squeeze forces Iran to cut oilfield flow.

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Tough Western sanctions are forcing Iran to take drastic action and shut off wells at its vast oilfields. (Reuters)

  nShare

Russia calls for new Syria talks; SNC to tell Moscow no transition until Assad falls.

Syrian National Council said in a statement on the eve of a visit to Moscow by the opposition group’s chief that there can be no transition in Syria until President Assad falls. (Reuters)

  inShare

Annan’s attack on GCC and his defense of Russia.

By Abdul Rahman al-Rashed

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

When Kofi Annan was appointed as a special U.N. envoy to Syria, I had hastened to warn about him. I claimed that Annan was brought in to prolong the tenure of Assad regime. I said that this was the last comic act in the theater of the Arab League and the United Nations.

Annan quit the U.N. after serving as its secretary-general with a scandal involving his son who had allegedly played a role in the oil-for-food program with Iraq when economic sanctions were in place against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

After three months of futile efforts and more bloodshed, it was clear that Annan was virtually a dummy that was brought in to serve the interests of a group that wanted to split the international unity and save the Assad regime by quelling the Syrian revolution.

Now, things have become intolerable as far as this envoy was concerned to the extent where Annan lost his patience with the UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan when he criticized Annan. The minister said that it is disgraceful that the man who was entrusted to act as the U.N.’s envoy in Syria was absent at a major meeting on Syria in which representatives of nearly half of the governments in the world participated.

After this, Annan came out heavily against Al Nahyan in his latest interview with French daily Le Monde. In the interview, which showed his disposition clearly, Annan blamed Gulf states such as UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in clear terms. He said, “Very few things are said about other countries (meaning Gulf states) that send arms and money and weigh on the situation on the ground!” By this, he meant that they are arming the revolutionaries.

Annan was not at all bothered about putting into practice important elements of his initiative. He never called for prosecuting the Syrian regime which failed to stop military operations and pull back troops from cities. On the contrary, he asked the world to leave the people of Syria at the mercy of the oppressor.

In the interview, Annan ignored the world sentiment and presented his own arguments focusing on the criticism of Russia. “Focusing on Russia would disturb Russians too much. What surprised me was that most of the comments were focused on Russia while Iran was spoken about on a lesser degree!”

Singling out Russia in criticism was because it is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. As for Iran, it has no value as far as international decision-making was concerned. Had Russia not opposed, China also would not have been doing it because international intervention was inevitable to stop the genocide perpetrated by the Syrian regime forces since last summer. It was because of Russia and not because of Iran that the tragedy is going on in Syria where thousands of innocent people have already been killed and 1.5 million displaced.

Annan also called on inviting Iran to the negotiating table about the future of Syria. This would have been acceptable if the objective was to convince the Assad regime to carry out reforms. But we have passed this stage and now the only way to find a peaceful solution is to put an end to the regime without allowing it to do more harm. In this, Iran won’t play a positive role. Iran may have a future role if it was found later to be cooperating with the alternative government.

Annan then backed Russia’s supportive position to Syria by refusing to intervene and stop the genocide by the forces of Assad. He said that Russia and China were deceived in Libya in the name of a “responsibility to protect” civilians. He said that was then turned into a process to change the Qaddafi regime. Annan is now forgetting the Libyan situation that warranted an international decision. The forces of Qaddafi had been carrying out the same operations of killing, destruction and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people just like what Assad is now doing in Syria. Qaddafi was not governing a safe country. On the contrary, Libya was in a bloodbath that had to be stopped to protect the civilians. Had the Security Council resolution not been there during that night, the Qaddafi forces would have destroyed the besieged city of Benghazi.

An international intervention in Syria has become imperative to protect the Syrian people as well as the region, in addition to stop dismantling the region and prevent the emergence of terrorist groups to fill the vacuum following Assad regime’s collapse.

(The writer is the General Manager of Al Arabiya. The article was published in the Saudi-based Arab News on July 10, 2012)

Iran reaffirms full support for Annan’s Syria peace plan.

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

U.N. Syria peace envoy Kofi Annan did not spell out the agreement or say what kind of involvement he saw for Iran in resolving the Syrian crisis. (Reuters)

  inShare

PressTV – Iran capable of easily routing Israeli military.

( Forgive me.  I just couldn’t resist this headline. – JW )

There are serious issues, two in particular.
1. There is no reasonable proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and, to the contrary, vast proof that their current program can never yield weapons grade uranium. We have this from Clinton Bastin, a Veterans Today staffer and one of America’s top nuclear weapons designers for decades. Bastin says the IAEA inspectors, some he knows personally, have no weapons experience and are unqualified.

2. There is a very clear program to assassinate Iranian scientists but with no nuclear program, then who is being killed? Investigations show that Iran is a world leader in the development of benign fusion reactors, even working with some American companies. These new energy sources would bankrupt the oil companies overnight which, for some reason, has made scientists involved in totally peaceful “green energy” science targets for assassination.

Our next evidence comes from the version of the Putin statement given in some Israeli publications. Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Israel last week. He issued a very mild statement advocating a diplomatic solution between the US and Iran.

Israeli news took that to mean he openly advocated an immediate invasion. I wonder how Israel intends to invade Iran, certainly not them. Their military would be swept aside easily, has no capability of operating logistically and Israel itself is faced with a population that is currently asking for an end to compulsory military service.

When asked, young Israeli’s say they are tired of hearing the continual fear mongering and no longer find any of the “threats” the Likudist regime harps about credible.

With up to 50% refusing service and “ultra-orthodox” Jews exempt, Israel’s draft laws are no longer credible.

In an interview with a former US Military Attaché to Israel, I was told that only a few units of the Israeli army are “first rate” with the rest much less capable. This is the same operations and intelligence officer who drew up US war plans for the invasion of Iran.

“We have plans drawn up somewhere to invade any country. Iran has to be attacked through Baluchistan, which is logistically impossible. Attack through Iraq violates agreements with that country and any other attack on Iran is impossible except for an air campaign.”

Again, we look at the obvious issues:

1. Destroying air defenses would only allow more air attacks but if no nuclear program exists, what would potential targets be?

2. With no land attack remotely possible due to strategic limitations, not to speak of lack of UN authorization, America’s financial disaster, lack of troops and only real backing being Israel, an “ally” unlikely to bring a single soldier to the battle, chances for invasion are remote.

3. Several years ago, I was part of a study group asked to do an analysis on the Straits of Hormuz. We found that Iran was capable of blocking that key oil outlet as long as needed and sinking any ship, military or otherwise, within hundreds of miles of the Iranian coast. This being true, and, though dependence on oil from the Gulf is less than before, within 48 hours stock markets and currencies in the US and EU would collapse, brought on by predicted profiteering and speculation. Such an endeavor would be economically unrecoverable.

FALSE FLAG DANGER
The most likely scenario, should the Likudists in Israel find their stranglehold on that country, one held through propagandization, pouring millions into the American electoral system, much of it proceeds from drug sales, human trafficking and other areas of organized crime, some of it even America’s own foreign aid to Israel, used for “pump priming,” Israel is likely to try to precipitate a war on Iran by staging an attack on the US, its forces in the Gulf region or on a European NATO target, most likely the London Olympic games.

There has been highly credible information that an attack on the Olympics is planned.

Additionally, Dolphin submarines supplied to Israel by Germany have now been proven to have been specially modified to launch Cruise type and surface to air missiles.

This would allow Israel to attack American ships in the Persian Gulf, stage a nuclear attack on the London Olympics or shoot down commercial aircraft while blaming Iran.

Their powerful lobby in the US would back them up, their control of the press through much of the world would immediately blame Iran and any potential investigation would be rigged beforehand.

A critical component of the success of such an operation is that “highly informed sources” that might speak openly, would be threatened with any number of fates from immediate firing to the “accidental death” of their children.

In fact, we actually have statements from “highly informed sources” that this has happened before, more than once, in the US, United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe.

STRATEGIC REALITY CHECK
With so much blither from pundits, politicians and “armchair” military experts, no one has taken a realistic look at the situation itself.
Let us list the reasons that Israel and Iran have for going to war against each other. Normally, we end up with a series of economic or political considerations, fighting over resources, influence in the region or longstanding historical spats.

In this case, there are none.
Iran has, however, criticized Israel’s policy of using military force against Muslims within its borders and the use of the “holocaust” as justification for acts that most nations, according to dozens of UN votes, find to be “war crimes.”
Thus, Israel wants to censor Iran through the use of American military force.

To justify this, there has been a clear fabrication of claims of Iranian weapons programs, claims made by a nation that has, in itself, been the primary violation of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

One could safely make this statement: “We have nuclear weapons that we stole or were supplied with through espionage that we use to threaten, not just our Muslim nations but according to noted Israeli military advisor, Martin Van Creweld, can, “at any time we wish, be used against Rome or elsewhere in Europe.”

With world economies on the edge of general collapse, any major conflict, particularly one that could draw in China or, worse still, present the United States in the role of aggressor and Israeli military surrogate again, would be historically unsustainable.

Russia suspends new arms sales to Syria | The Times of Israel.

Military official says only spare parts for existing equipment will be provided to Assad until calm returns

A destoryed Syrian Army tank. Russia has indicated it will not provide Assad with any new weapons.

MOSCOW (AP) — A senior Russian official said that Moscow will not sign new weapons contracts with Syria until the situation there calms down.

Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, deputy chief of the Russian military and technical cooperation agency, told Russian news agencies on Wednesday at the sidelines of the Farnborough airshow south-west of London that Russia will continue, however, with previously agreed exports.

He said that so far Russia has been providing Syria’s army with spare parts and assistance in repairs of the weapons supplied earlier.

Syrian activists say that about 14,000 people have been killed in an uprising in the country since March 2011.

Dzirkaln said that Russia does not sell helicopters or fighter planes to Syria.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.

Iran plans to expand, not suspend, its nuclear program, according to position paper obtained by Times of Israel | The Times of Israel.

Iranian document, whose authenticity cannot be independently verified but accords with other reports in recent days, sets out Tehran’s ‘need’ for a ‘backup’ enrichment facility and 4 more research reactors.

Iran’s Chief Nuclear Negotiator Saeed Jalili at daylong talks with six world powers in Istanbul, on April 14, 2012. (photo credit: AP/Burhan Ozbilici)

A position paper obtained by The Times of Israel, understood to have been used by Iran’s negotiators at last week’s technical-level talks with the P5+1 powers in Istanbul, makes plain the Tehran regime’s unyielding rejection of international efforts to negotiate safeguards and restrictions that would prevent Iran attaining a nuclear weapons capability.

Far from indicating Iranian readiness for a suspension or scaling back of its nuclear program, indeed, the document, made available by an informed source on condition of anonymity, includes references to Iran’s expansion plans. “Facing constant threats, we need a back up facility to safeguard our enrichment activities,” it states at one point, when discussing the Fordow enrichment facility, the underground complex built beneath a mountain near Qom where Iran carries out its 20% uranium enrichment.

A later point, related to the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), refers to the need “for at least 4 other research reactors because of the territorial extent of Iran and the short lifetime of medical isotopes.” The next clause in the document declares an Iranian ambition “to sell fuel complexes to other countries.”

The position paper, dated July 3, first sets out Iran’s objectives in the diplomatic process — which include obtaining international recognition of what it claims are its rights to enrichment activities, and securing “total termination” of all sanctions against it. It then details Iran’s bitter response to proposals from the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) for a negotiated agreement, notably including rejection of the international demand that it shut down its enrichment facility at Fordow.

The paper includes the statement that “the Islamic Republic of Iran emphasizes… its opposition to nuclear weapons based on the Supreme Leader’s Fatwa against such weapons.” And it features language that could be read as hinting at an Iranian readiness to suspend uranium enrichment to 20% if supplies are made available from abroad, in a clause that states “Iran will cooperate with 5+1 to provide enriched fuel needed for TRR.” But it also demands recognition of Iran’s ostensible right to enrich as much uranium to 3.5% as it wants — a “right” that is disputed by the West.

Written in imperfect English, in language that is clear in some sections and appears deliberately vague in others, the document’s authenticity could not be independently verified. But its content appears to accord with references made by some Western reporters who claim to have been shown certain texts by Iranian officials and by other anonymous sources in the past few days.

The text suggests that gaps between Iran and the P5+1 negotiating teams are extremely wide after three rounds of ministerial level negotiations in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow, and provides little basis for optimism regarding future rounds of negotiation.

Some of the content is marked by a tone of grievance and outrage at the international community’s demands of Iran. In a section subheaded “Transparency Measures,” for instance, the document protests that “baseless accusations and ambiguities have been raised regarding Iran’s past nuclear activities” and asserts that “Iran is asked to answer such allegations beyond its legal obligations.”

Similarly, in the first paragraph of its response to P5+1 positions, it states: “Some of the propositions in the proposal of 5+1 are incorrect, some are ambiguous, some are in contradiction to international documents and some are not in conformity with the realities.”

Objecting to the P5+1 demand for stopping all activity at Fordow, the document acknowledges that the facility is “being used for 20% enrichment” and other activities, but asserts that “this facility is not a military base and there is no reason to consider it so.” Taking issue with the P5 description of Fordow as “heavily fortified,” it argues that “protection of nuclear facilities is not only permissible but necessary” and cites “the sustained threats against nuclear facilities and enrichment activities.” It also protests the “ongoing threats against nuclear scientists.” Because of those constant threats, it adds, “we need a back up facility to safeguard our enrichment activities.”

Responding to a long list of suggestions from the international negotiators for cooperation with Iran in the operation of the Tehran Research Reactor, in various technical projects and in other areas — presumed carrots from the West designed to encourage progress — the Iranian text is withering and gives a hint at the frustrations P5+1 negotiators may have felt in the negotiating rounds to date.

“First, using general terms such as ‘cooperation,’ ‘support,’ ‘adjustment,’ ‘review’ and ‘recommendation’ in these propositions are in contradiction with the basic goal of the very same proposal ‘which is creating confidence and trust in the first stage,’” the document states. “Second, the above-mentioned suggestions are not compatible with the requests such as “stopping enrichment,” “transferring of materials” and “shutting down the Fordo (sic).”

Russia hosts top Syrian dissident for talks.

Monday, 09 July 2012

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia was the only state talking to both the regime and the opposition about implementing the stalled peace plan. (Reuters)

inShare