Archive for July 2012

Security and Defense: The Chinese connection

July 7, 2012

Security and Defense: The Ch… JPost – Features – Week in review.

By YAAKOV KATZ07/05/2012 23:31
Israeli-Sino military ties have entered a new period of warmth, although their content mostly remains a mystery.

IDF Chief of Staff with his Chinese counterpart. Photo: Nir Elias/Reuters

In 2010, commander of the Israel Navy Adm. Eliezer Marom was invited to China. The invitation had special significance for Marom, whose German father and Chinese mother had met and lived in China until 1955.

The seventh of eight children, Marom was born just weeks after his family moved to Israel but quickly earned the nickname “Chiney” due to his Asiatic features.

When the invitation arrived at his office in the Kirya Military Headquarters in Tel Aviv, Marom understood what it was for and that the trip would need to be approved by the chief of staff and the defense minister.

After years of being locked out from the Israeli defense market, the Chinese were looking for someone inside Israel who could help advance their cause and get the ban on Israeli defense exports to China lifted. They thought Marom – the so-called “Chinese-Israeli admiral” would help out.

They were wrong.

While the ban on Israeli defense exports appears to still be in place, there is no question that Israeli-Sino military ties have entered a new period of warmth – although the content of those ties largely remains a mystery.

Just take a look at the frequency and level of state visits back and forth between Jerusalem and Beijing. In May, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz was in China for high-level talks with the Chinese defense establishment.

Last August, Gen. Chen Bingde, Chief of the General Staff of the People’s Liberation Army, visited Israel. It was the first time that a Chinese military chief visited the country.

Two months before Bingde’s trip, Ehud Barak traveled to China for the first visit of an Israeli defense minister in a decade.

Weeks before his trip, Barak had met with Adm. Wu Shengli, commander of the PLA Navy, during his visit to Israel.

In the summer of 2010, Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan, then head of the Home Front Command, headed an Israeli military delegation to China a few months after Amos Yadlin – then head of Military Intelligence – had flown to Beijing together with Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is now reportedly also planning a trip to Beijing and next month Matan Vilnai, the current Home Front Defense minister and former deputy chief of staff, will take up his new post as Israel’s new ambassador to China.

The increase in ties, which comes after nearly a decade of disconnect between the PLA and the IDF, has not gone unnoticed in Washington. There, a number of senior officials in the State Department and the Pentagon have raised eyebrows over the tightening of ties between China and Israel.

Israeli officials are quick to stress that all of the visits – whether to Israel or to China – are first cleared with the United States.

“We never outright request permission but we are sure to always call and update the Pentagon about the trips and the scheduled itineraries,” explained a former senior defense official who had worked closely with the US.

Historically, China’s connection to the Jewish people dates back hundreds of years. An ancient Jewish enclave still remains in Kaifeng, a cosmopolitan center on the Silk Road and an attraction for Sephardic Jews from India and Persia between the 10th and 12th centuries.

In the 1930s and ’40s, around 20,000 Jews fleeing from the Nazis escaped to China, establishing a large Jewish community in Shanghai. Both countries were also established within a year of one another – Israel in 1948 and the People’s Republic of China in 1949. But while Israel was quick to recognize chairman Mao Zedong’s regime, official diplomatic ties and Chinese recognition for the Jewish state would have to wait more than 40 years.

Military ties flourished in the 1980s and ’90s. The Chinese military was largely based on old Soviet platforms and Israeli defense firms were experts in modernizing tanks and combat aircraft.

One defense official, who has worked in China, explained that the interest in ties with Israel was based on three key elements: appreciation of a fellow ancient culture, a genuine belief that Jews are some of the smartest people in the world and interest in Israeli military tactics and technology that helped defeat its various Arab enemies.

But in the late 1990s everything changed with the finalization of a $1 billion deal for the sale of Phalcon early-warning aircraft and systems to the Chinese. It was around the same time that US-Sino relations began to deteriorate but Israel – first under Netanyahu as prime minister and then under Barak – thought it could convince the White House and Pentagon of the importance of the deal. They were both wrong, and in 2000 Barak had no choice but to cancel the deal.

In late 2004, Israel again was caught in American crosshairs after it received for maintenance a number of Harpy drones it had sold to China several years earlier. The US accused Israel of upgrading the Chinese drones with American systems. Israel denied the accusations but saw an immediate downgrade in defense ties with Washington.

“The dispute between Israel and the US stemmed from their respective assessments regarding the nature of the Chinese military-strategic threat,” Uzi Eilam, former head of research and development at the Defense Ministry, wrote in a paper analyzing the crisis. “According to the American perception… China constitutes a significant strategic threat to the United States and its interests, particularly in eastern Asia. Israel did not perceive early enough the seriousness with which the US relates to the provision to China of weapon systems that it regards as strategic.”

Either way, the crisis finally ended in the summer of 2005 with an agreement according to which Israel granted the US veto rights over arms sales to select countries – like China – which Washington felt compromised its national security.

“Our policy remains the same today,” a senior defense official explained recently.

“We do not sell them anything that is defense related and that would jeopardize our ties with the US.” If that is the case then the question many are asking is about the content of the meetings that Gantz, Barak, Yadlin, Ya’alon, Marom, Golan and others are holding with their Chinese counterparts.

For the time being, this appears to be a case of mutual interests. Beijing’s interest in upgrading ties with Israel stems from a hope that one day Israeli technology will once again be available to China but also due to a desire to be involved in what is happening in the Middle East, particularly after it was caught by surprise with the ongoing upheavals in the region.

The main issue the Israel brings up with China is Iran and its continued pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Israel looks to China as a key player in stopping Iran’s nuclear program by cutting its dependency on Iranian oil and by stopping to supply the Islamic Republic with weapons and missile components.

There is also an Israeli interest in expanding its economic reach – particularly to an economic superpower like China – and to forge security and diplomatic ties that could be called on in dire times. On Tuesday, for example, Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz was in Beijing to sign a historic cooperation deal with China to build a multi-billion dollar railway to Eilat.

Armed with dossiers with intelligence on Iran, including documents and satellite photos, the delegations that have traveled to Beijing make a number of arguments.

Firstly, the officials argue that Saudi Arabia could fill the gap in Chinese energy demands if it was willing to cut off its supply from Iran.

The Israelis have also tried to impress upon the Chinese what would happen to their economy if Israel goes ahead and attacks Iran. That is why, for example, Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer joined one of the delegations a couple of years ago.

For the time being, the discussions with the Chinese focus mostly on regional issues but also on low-scale military cooperation.

The Chinese, for example, are concerned that their military might be rusty after not fighting a major war in several decades. Since Israel has, they are looking to the IDF for guidance on military doctrine, instruction and training.

This could explain why Maj.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, commander of the National Defense College, accompanied Gantz to Beijing in May – probably to discuss military education and also possibly intelligence (Baidatz had previously served as head of Military Intelligence’s Research Directorate).

Israel is extremely sensitive to US concern over its ties with China. In 2010, the Chinese had initially invited Israel Air Force commander Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan to visit but the IDF decided that a visit of the IAF commander – a key post involved in operations and the development of technology – would not be perceived well in Washington. That is how Golan – then head of the Home Front Command – found himself on a flight to Beijing.

“Golan can talk about civil defense, preparations for an earthquake and medical issues,” a senior IDF officer explained at the time. “Humanitarian is okay. Operations is not.”

The increase in ties with China, though, particularly with Iran in the background, has some people wondering whether Israel might be planning to try to use its technology for diplomatic purposes. This happened in 2010 when Israel announced it was selling drones to Russia. Several months after the deal was signed, Moscow announced it was canceling the sale of the sophisticated S- 300 air defense system to Iran.

The government claims that such a deal is not in the works but, as one senior cabinet minister explained after a trip to China, “If we could sell them technology, they would buy everything we have to offer.”

For the time being Israel is committed to its alliance with the United States, but it will need to maneuver carefully so as not to make the same mistakes of the last decade as it moves forward in its relationship with China.

A scapegoat for Syria? – The Washington Post

July 7, 2012

A scapegoat for Syria? – The Washington Post.

By Editorial Board, Saturday, July 7, 2:17 AM

IT WAS just a week ago that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton cheerfully reported that Russia was ready to “lean” on the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad as part of a new United Nations plan for a transitional government.

“They have told me that,” she assured one interviewer following a June 30 conference in Geneva. “They’ve decided to get on one horse, and it’s the horse that would back a transition plan that Kofi Annan would be empowered to implement,” she told another.

Oops. It immediately became clear that Moscow had no such intention. In the past week, the official Ms. Clinton cited as her source — Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — has said repeatedly that his government will not pressure Mr. Assad to leave power. “This is either an unscrupulous attempt to mislead serious people who shape foreign policy or simply a misunderstanding of what is going on,” Mr. Lavrov said Thursday. Western policy, he added, “is most likely to exacerbate the situation, lead to further violence and ultimately a very big war.”

At yet another conference on Syria, in Paris on Friday, Ms. Clinton had changed her tune. Now she is accusing Russia and China of “blockading” progress on Syria, insisting that is “no longer tolerable” and warning that they “will pay a price.” She pleaded with participating governments to lobby Vladi­mir Putin to change course. This raises an interesting question: Was Ms. Clinton taken in by Mr. Lavrov? Or did she know all along that the new U.N. plan she has been promoting was stillborn?

Either way, the Obama administration’s Syria diplomacy is making it look foolish as well as feckless. U.S. officials, apart perhaps from Ms. Clinton, appear to have no faith in their own policy. Conceding that the plan to appoint a transitional government is going nowhere, while Syrians die by the score every day, they resort to blaming Russia — as if they are shocked to discover that the Kremlin doesn’t want to support a pro-Western, pro-democracy agenda.

In fact Mr. Putin’s intransigence was entirely predictable. Apart from the fact that the Assad regime is a longtime Russian client and arms purchaser, the KGB-trained strongman seethes at the notion of Western intervention to support a popular revolution against a dictator. Blocking such action — and being seen to do so — ­is his overriding priority. The more Ms. Clinton blames him for “blockading,” the more Mr. Putin preens.

The administration does have reason to pretend that Russia is cooperating or can be induced to do so. Were it to acknowledge that that cause is hopeless — and that action at the United Nations is therefore impossible — it might come under pressure to consider other measures. One would be the protection of an rebel safe zone in northern Syria, which could help turn the military tide against the regime. The Turkish government reportedly proposed — again — at a NATO meeting last week that preparations for such a step be made. According to the Hurriyet newspaper, the idea was rejected by the United States, among others.

So which government is preventing effective action on Syria, and which will pay the price? Ms. Clinton’s attempt to pin the blame on Russia looks like a diversion.

Why Russia Supports Syria – NYTimes.com

July 7, 2012

Why Russia Supports Syria – NYTimes.com.

MANY in the West believe that Russia’s support for Syria stems from Moscow’s desire to profit from selling arms to Bashar al-Assad’s government and maintain its naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus. But these speculations are superficial and misguided. The real reason that Russia is resisting strong international action against the Assad regime is that it fears the spread of Islamic radicalism and the erosion of its superpower status in a world where Western nations are increasingly undertaking unilateral military interventions.

Since 2005, Russian defense contracts with Syria have amounted to only about $5.5 billion — mostly to modernize Syria’s air force and air defenses. And although Syria had been making its scheduled payments in a fairly timely manner, many contracts were delayed by Russia for political reasons. A contract for four MiG-31E fighter planes was annulled altogether. And recently it became known that Russia had actually halted the planned delivery of S-300 mobile antiaircraft missile systems to Syria.

Syria is among Russia’s significant customers, but it is by no means one of the key buyers of Russian arms — accounting for just 5 percent of Russia’s global arms sales in 2011. Indeed, Russia has long refrained from supplying Damascus with the most powerful weapons systems so as to avoid angering Israel and the West — sometimes to the detriment of Russia’s commercial and political ties with Syria.

To put it plainly, arms sales to Syria today do not have any significance for Russia from either a commercial or a military-technological standpoint, and Syria isn’t an especially important partner in military-technological cooperation.

Indeed, Russia could quite easily resell weapons ordered by the Syrians (especially the most expensive items, like fighter jets and missile systems) to third parties, thus minimizing its losses. And even if the Assad government survives, it will be much weaker and is unlikely to be able to continue buying Russian arms.

The Russian Navy’s logistical support facility at Tartus is similarly unimportant. It essentially amounts to two floating moorings, a couple of warehouses, a barracks and a few buildings. On shore, there are no more than 50 seamen. For the Navy, the facility in Tartus has more symbolic than practical significance. It can’t serve as a support base for deploying naval forces in the Mediterranean Sea, and even visits by Russian military ships are carried out more for demonstrative purposes than out of any real need to replenish supplies.

Russia’s current Syria policy basically boils down to supporting the Assad government and preventing a foreign intervention aimed at overthrowing it, as happened in Libya. President Vladimir V. Putin is simply channeling public opinion and the expert consensus while playing his customary role as the protector of Russian interests who curtails the willfulness of the West.

Many Russians believe that the collapse of the Assad government would be tantamount to the loss of Russia’s last client and ally in the Middle East and the final elimination of traces of former Soviet prowess there — illusory as those traces may be. They believe that Western intervention in Syria (which Russia cannot counter militarily) would be an intentional profanation of one of the few remaining symbols of Russia’s status as a great world power.

Such attitudes are further buttressed by widespread pessimism about the eventual outcome of the Arab Spring, and the Syrian revolution in particular. Most Russian observers believe that Arab revolutions have completely destabilized the region and cleared the road to power for the Islamists. In Moscow, secular authoritarian governments are seen as the sole realistic alternative to Islamic dominance.

The continuing struggles in Arab countries are seen as a battle by those who wear neckties against those who do not wear them. Russians have long suffered from terrorism and extremism at the hands of Islamists in the northern Caucasus, and they are therefore firmly on the side of those who wear neckties.

To people in Moscow, Mr. Assad appears not so much as “a bad dictator” but as a secular leader struggling with an uprising of Islamist barbarians. The active support from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey’s Islamist government for rebels in Syria only heightens suspicions in Russia about the Islamist nature of the current opposition in Syria and rebels throughout the Middle East.

Finally, Russians are angry about the West’s propensity for unilateral interventionism — not to mention the blatantly broad interpretation of the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council and the direct violations of those resolutions in Libya.

According to this view, the West, led by America, demonstrated its cynicism, perfidy and a typical policy of double standards. That’s why all the Western moralizing and calls for intervention in Syria are perceived by the Russian public as yet another manifestation of cynical hypocrisy of the worst kind.

There is no doubt that preserving his own power is also on Mr. Putin’s mind as his authoritarian government begins to wobble in the face of growing protests that enjoy political approval and support from the West. He cannot but sympathize with Mr. Assad as a fellow autocratic ruler struggling with outside interference in domestic affairs.

But ideological solidarity is a secondary factor at best. Mr. Putin is capitalizing on traditional Russian suspicions of the West, and his support for Mr. Assad is based on the firm conviction that an Islamist-led revolution in Syria, especially one that receives support through the intervention of Western and Arab states, will seriously harm Russia’s long-term interests.

 

Ruslan Pukhov is director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a research organization. This essay was translated by Steven Seymour from the Russian.

 

Are Israeli Agents Assassinating Iranian Scientists? A New Book Argues

July 7, 2012

Are Israeli Agents Assassinating Iranian Scientists? A New Book Argues – The Daily Beast.

Jul 7, 2012 4:45 AM EDT

In an excerpt from their new book, Spies Against Armageddon, Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman argue that Mossad special agents are behind the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. But will it be enough to stop Iran from getting nukes?

Executions are just a matter of time, as Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) is out to show that it is not completely helpless in the face of four assassinations and one failed attempt in the streets of the capital, Tehran, over the last two years. Israeli officials refuse to comment on who specifically might be guilty or innocent, but they publicly expressed their joy that “God’s finger” had acted against Iran’s nuclear program. They also indicate that no credence should be placed in the “confessions” that will doubtless be televised by Iran.

Before Majid Jamali Fashi was hanged two months ago, as the convicted “murderer” of a nuclear scientist in January 2010, the 24-year-old kick boxer was shown on official TV reciting a tale of having been flown to Israel for training by the Mossad. His interrogators, who probably wrote the confession for him, had seen far too many B-movies about spies and were wrong on many details, including the location of Mossad headquarters.

Our in-depth study of fifty years of assassinations by Israel’s foreign espionage agency—including conversations with current and former Mossad operatives and those who work with them in countries friendly to Israel—yields the conclusion that Fashi and the twenty other suspects now being held were not the killers. The methods, communications, transportation, and even the innovative bombs used in the Tehran killings are too sensitive for the Mossad to share with foreign freelancers.

Instead, the assassinations are likely the work of Israel’s special spy unit for the most delicate missions: a kind of Mossad within the Mossad called Kidon (Bayonet). Kidon operatives are even more innovative, braver, and physically fitter than other Mossad men and women. Again and again, they have fulfilled their missions without leaving much of a trace.  The Israeli government has never confirmed Kidon’s existence or its actions.

The assassinations of physicists and nuclear scientists in Iran have been what Israelis call “blue and white” operations, referring to the colors of their nation’s flag. Without giving full details, senior Israeli officials have revealed that fact to counterparts in the CIA and the White House. In at least one instance, U.S. officials were obviously displeased that the Mossad took action at a delicate juncture in multilateral nuclear talks with Iran.

iran

Mourners carry the coffin of Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, during his funeral in Tehran on January 13, 2012, one day after he was killed when two men on a motorbike slapped a magnetic bomb on his car while it was stuck in Tehran traffic. (Atta Kenare / AFP / Getty Images)

Although Iran has no diplomatic relations with Israel and bans any visits by Israelis, Mossad operatives seem to have no trouble entering and leaving the country. Despite being a heavily patrolled police state, Iran has long borders that stretch across mountains and wasteland. Two of the neighboring former Soviet republics, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, provide an excellent launching pad for cross-border penetrations. Also, for over half a century now, the Mossad has cultivated close cooperation with Kurds— who were stateless, but now run the Kurdish autonomous zone of northern Iraq which borders Iran. Israel used to secretly help Kurds when they were oppressed by Iraq’s government, and the Mossad has excelled in living by the ancient dictum that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Israeli intelligence has also expressed an interest in collaborating with disaffected minority groups inside Iran. Meir Dagan—the director of the Mossad from 2002 through 2010—was quoted in a State Department cable obtained and released by Wikileaks. He is said to have told a senior American official in 2007 that disaffection among Baluchi, Azeri, and Kurdish minorities could be exploited by the United States and Israel. In addition, Dagan suggested supporting student pro-democracy activists, if only to cause unrest inside Iran.

The official summary said Dagan felt sure that the U.S. and Israel could “change the ruling regime in Iran and its attitude toward backing terror regimes,” and that “we could also get them to delay their nuclear project.” According to the cable, Dagan said, “The economy is hurting, and this is provoking a real crisis among Iran’s leaders.” The minority groups that the Mossad and CIA could support or exploit are “raising their heads and are tempted to resort to violence.”

Economic woes and high unemployment have only become worse in Iran, as U.S.-led sanctions have begun to bite. From the Mossad’s perspective, unhappy and aimless young males in Iran represent an opportunity to recruit sources of information, agents who can be trained, and even mercenary or rebel armies.

Yet for such a sensitive, dangerous, and daring mission as a series of assassinations in Iran’s capital, the Mossad would not depend on hired-gun mercenaries. They would be considered far less trustworthy, and there was hardly any chance that the Mossad would reveal to non-Israelis the unique methods developed by the Kidon unit.

Naturally, no one in Jerusalem was talking about any operational details of how Israelis entered and left Iran—or where they stayed while inside the Islamic Republic. Since the beginning of the State of Israel in 1948, its covert operatives have never found it difficult to masquerade as locals in every corner of the vast Middle East.

There were many possibilities. Obviously, Israeli operatives traveled using the passports of other countries, including bogus documents produced by skilled Mossad forgers and genuine passports where the photographs might be altered slightly. The spy agency’s use of phony, borrowed, and probably stolen non-Israeli passports has been inadvertently revealed several times, over many years. After a Mossad team led by Kidon assassins killed a Palestinian Islamist militant in a hotel in Dubai in January of 2010, the local police chief gleefully displayed video footage from security cameras that showed surveillance teams doing their shadowy work –frequently changing wigs and eyeglasses—and even the men wearing tennis whites, shorts, and others with baseball caps who were almost certainly the killers.

spies against armageddon
“Spies Against Armageddon.” By Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman. $16.99; Levant Books; 356 pages.

The police chief, General Dahi Khalfan, showed the visages of 27 men and women, displaying photos from their apparently bogus passports. Although the British, Australian, and Irish governments expressed anger at the Mossad for abusing their passports, diplomatic damage to Israel was minimal. In fact, Meir Dagan was fully satisfied with the outcome of the Dubai operation: The target—Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in charge of arms acquisition for Hamas—was dead. All the Mossad operatives returned safely to Israel. And no one was arrested or even accurately named.

Over the years, some stories about Kidon’s prowess have leaked to the public. With the little that was known about them, The Team’s operatives were considered synonymous—in Israel and outside—with assassins, liquidators, and murderers.

More broadly, there is a Mossad mythology that is based on decades of half-truths and rumors. Many of those stemmed from the secret agency’s “war of the spooks” against Palestinian radicals in the 1970s all over Europe—as a response to the massacre of eleven Israeli athletes at the Summer Olympic games in Munich, Germany, in September of 1972.

“Our attitude was that in order to defend ourselves, we have to go on the attack,” former Mossad chief Zvi Zamir told us. “Those who accuse us of being motivated simply by revenge are talking nonsense. We didn’t wage a vendetta campaign against individuals. It was a war against an organization, aiming to halt and prevent concrete terrorist plans. We concentrated on what was expected to happen.”

Zamir’s analysts found it satisfying that PLO activists in Europe and at their headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon—rather than devoting their energies to terrorist planning—were now looking over their shoulders, out of fear that they themselves were about to be attacked.

The truth, however, about the myth is that since the Mossad’s creation in the early 1950s, it has been involved in only a few dozen killing operations—certainly fewer than 50. But the public imagination worldwide has been captured by the notion of constant assassinations, and the Mossad might find it difficult to refute the image with facts. So it does not bother.

Dagan clearly believed in assassinations, and he did not shy away from planning missions in the heart of enemy countries. A Kidon squad managed to plant itself in Damascus, Syria, long enough to locate and kill Imad Mughniyeh in February of 2008. Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah faction’s military chief and a veteran hijacker and bomber, had long been on America’s list of most wanted terrorists.

Overall, Dagan could be proud that during his eight years in charge, there were more killings by the Mossad in enemy or “target” countries—Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates—than ever before. In the past, such activities had mostly been confined to the safer “base” countries where Israelis did not necessarily have to pretend to be something else. The change to a bolder pattern was the “dagger between the Mossad’s teeth” that Ariel Sharon, the prime minister who appointed Dagan, had demanded.

Despite tactical successes in Iran, the Mossad and its top political master—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—know that the entire Iranian nuclear weapons program will not be demolished by assassinations of nuclear scientists and military officers.

Yet, any delay in Iran’s nuclear work represents an achievement for Israel. Their strategic thinking—exercised in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere—holds that temporary disruptions to an enemy’s dangerous projects are sufficient cause for taking significant risks.

This was even truer when it came to killing Iranian specialists, who worked on unique tasks that required years of study.  These men were not available in abundant supply, despite Iran’s relatively large and advanced technological infrastructure. The assassinations have also had a strong psychological objective: sending a loud and clear message to scientists that working for the nuclear program was dangerous. The Mossad was telling them, in effect: Stay in your classrooms. Do your academic work. Get your research published. Enjoy the university life. But do not help Iran go nuclear. Otherwise, your career could be cut short by a bullet or a bomb.

Indeed, Israeli intelligence noticed that the assassination campaign was paying off, with what it called “white defections”: Iranian scientists were scared, many contemplated leaving the program, and some actually did.

With rare exceptions, they did not depart Iran and defect to the Western or Israeli side, but they dissociated themselves from the nuclear program. There were also indications of scientists being reluctant to join the program, despite lucrative terms offered by the Iranian government.

The intimidation campaign definitely showed an impact on foreigners. While in the past, Chinese, Russians, Pakistanis and others were happily accepting invitations—and high pay—to work in Iran, the only ones who still seemed attracted were North Koreans.

Mossad chief Dagan was pleased by the missions in Iran and the “cleanliness” of their execution: no clues, no fingerprints, not even motorcycles left behind. Iranian authorities could only guess who was attacking, in broad daylight, in their capital.

Yet the deeply intimidating impact that Dagan aimed to create in Iran seems to be exhausted. This is apparent to Tamir Pardo, the new head of the Mossad who had been Dagan’s deputy. (Dagan actually advised Netanbyahu to appoint another candidate.) The baby-faced Pardo is soft spoken, but his body language is misleading. Pardo is no less shrewd and cunning than his predecessor.

But the new director has a reputation for knowing that one should not push one’s luck too far. Iran is becoming more dangerous for Mossad and other foreign intelligence operatives. One can expect a halt, at least temporarily, of the assassination campaign.

Dagan, in retirement, has become outspoken in his opposition to a military strike by Israel against Iran. He warns that retaliation by Iran and its proxies could be highly damaging to normal life in the Jewish state. Dagan also believes that an attack by Israel would unite most Iranians around their regime and would give Iran’s scientists and engineers a major reason to speed up their underground nuclear work.

His private advice boils down to pointing out that there is still plenty of disruption to be accomplished within Iran by sabotage, assassinations, and a truly innovative weapon—cyberwarfare. The worm called Stuxnet, that took over Iranian nuclear lab computers, was a product of Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies working together; and it was not the only computer virus created by the highly skilled programmers in both nations.

While Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak seem highly skeptical that international economic sanctions will persuade Iran to cancel its nuclear bomb program, Dagan and other former and current intelligence officials believe that sanctions are biting and could be a major factor in the ayatollahs’ thinking.

Dagan, in particular, seemed unconcerned by Barak’s public warning that Iran was entering a “zone of immunity”—a situation in which air raids by Israel’s limited air force could not reliably destroy a good deal of Iran’s nuclear potential. Dagan seems confident that, in order to prevent Iran from developing nukes, the United States would attack Iran. His analysis is guided by years of close ties with the George W. Bush and the Obama administrations. “I always prefer that Americans will do it,” he told the very few journalists he has met since he left office.

Dagan sees a strong possibility that, depending on circumstances, the United States will strike at Iran. He told Mossad staff members that economic factors in the modern world are powerful. He explained that he carefully studied the motivations of American leaders in formulating foreign policy and realized that the United States went to war in Iraq—twice—because of energy interests.

Dagan, it seems, has reached the conclusion that the U.S. would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons—not only out of concern that a messianic Shi’ite regime might use the bomb or intimidate Israel—but mainly because Iran would become the most powerful nation among energy producers.

The United States, in the world according to Dagan, would not permit that to happen.

 

Iran Nuclear Program Should Be Abandoned, State TV Viewers Say

July 7, 2012

Iran Nuclear Program Should Be Abandoned, State TV Viewers Say.

Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A television poll conducted by Iranian state television backfired on Wednesday when 63 percent of respondents said they wanted to abandon Iran’s nuclear program, according to a report by The Telegraph. The results led the channel to hastily shut down voting and accuse the BBC of manipulating results.

The poll, which was conducted online by state broadcaster IRIB, asked viewers how Iran should respond to a new oil embargo imposed by the European Union. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has criticized the new sanctions, calling them “the strongest ones that have ever been applied against a country” and vowing not to cave to Western pressure.

“Our enemies assume that they are able to corner Iran in a weak position with these sanctions,” he told IRIB earlier this week.

But contrary to Ahmadinejad’s defiant stance, Iranians overwhelmingly backed the poll’s option for “giving up uranium enrichment in return of the gradual removal of sanctions.” Only 20 percent of respondents said they supported closing the Strait of Hormuz, the passage for oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, in retaliation.

IRIB blamed the results on Western interference, accusing the BBC of having hacked into their website to alter the poll. The Daily Telegraph reported that “the Iranian broadcaster insisted the true figure supporting uranium enrichment suspension was only 24% while the rest backed retaliatory measures.”

The BBC issued a statement on Thursday calling the accusations “both ludicrous and completely false.”

The channel also claimed that the poll did not represent the views of Iranians because only 2000 people had participated.

However, the aftermath of the poll seemed to suggest otherwise. According to the Telegraph, the channel pulled down the poll on Wednesday, but suffered more embarrassment when a follow-up question on closing the Strait found 89 percent of voters against the move. The polls then disappeared in favor of an article on Persepolis, a popular Tehran soccer club.

Sanctioning true believers

July 7, 2012

Stopping Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons – chicagotribune.com.

As economic sanctions on Iran tighten, we will find out if that nation’s quest for nuclear weapons can be stopped. Sanctions worked on South Africa — so why not Iran?

Here’s why not: Very few South African whites were willing to die for apartheid. Most aspired to a normal, bourgeois life and understood their system of racial oppression could no longer be legitimated or sustained.

In contrast, Iran is ruled by messianic leaders who believe apocalyptic struggle against the Great and Little Satans — “a war of Islam against blasphemy,” according to Ayatollah Khomeini — is the path to utopia. The belief in the return of the 12th, or hidden, imam will not be undone by the falling value of the rial.

Perhaps ordinary Iranians have ordinary aspirations. But ordinary Iranians are not making the decisions. The leadership’s commitment to nuclear weapons is evident in their having endured an inflation rate of more than 50 percent, anemic economic growth and a 2011 unemployment rate of 15.3 percent, according to The World Factbook of the CIA.

It takes a short memory to believe that Iran’s leaders are what we consider to be rational actors. Recent history provides ample evidence of the indifference of ideologically driven regimes to human suffering. Communist regimes murdered millions of their own citizens in pursuit of their apocalyptic fantasies. Andrew Roberts’ history of World War II, “The Storm of War,” provides striking examples of this sort of commitment. British Major-Gen. Douglas Gracey, who commanded Indian troops in Burma in 1943, believed 99 percent of Japanese soldiers “prefer death or suicide to capture,” a judgment precisely confirmed in the battle for Iwo Jima: After 30 days of bitter fighting, 212 of 21,000 Japanese defenders survived. On Okinawa, 130,000 Japanese died and just 7,400 surrendered. In the closing days of the war: “With no allies left, and ultimate defeat certain, still the Japanese fought on with seemingly undiminished ardor,” Roberts wrote.

This indifference to costs extended to the civilian population. The March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo killed more than 80,000 people. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed another 140,000. Still, the Japanese government chose to fight on. Three days later 75,000 died in the bombing of Nagasaki. While Emperor Hirohito finally had enough, a group of Army officers attempted a coup to prevent his surrender.

This fanaticism was replicated in Germany. With the failure of the attack on the Soviet Union and German cities being bombed to rubble, it was clear that by the end of 1943 Germany was doomed. The Russian offensive of June 1944 lasted 68 days producing an average of 11,000 German casualties per day. But with nearly 7 million Red Army soldiers massed at their borders, “the Wehrmacht continued to operate as an efficient disciplined fighting force well into the spring of 1945 … showing astonishing resilience in the face of utter hopelessness,” according to Roberts. Starving, with no cooking gas, water, electricity or sanitation, the defenders of Berlin fought “with an efficiency that was utterly remarkable given the hopelessness of the situation.”

There is good reason to believe that Iran is capable of this sort of ruthlessness. Echoing Ayatollah Khomeini’s belief that much of the Iranian population “was looking forward to martyrdom,” Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran, has said that Iran could survive a nuclear exchange that would obliterate Israel.

There is a natural tendency to interpret others by our own standards, to believe that what would deter us will deter those who are profoundly not like us. Seeing others as “others” is rejected as ethnocentrism, even a kind of racism. But grave errors have been made by failing to see how different others can be. A suitable response to Nazism was slow to develop because many thought that Hitler couldn’t really mean what he said or that cooler heads would eventually prevail.

Even if we consider Iran’s leaders to be “rational actors” — dismissing all that apocalyptic talk as just talk — this hardly guarantees that sanctions will work. There is nothing irrational in the belief that if economic hardship — small beer compared to what the Germans and Japanese withstood — can be endured, an Iranian nuclear weapon will be a game-changer. The Iranians have surely noticed that under the protection of a nuclear umbrella, North Korea can get away with sinking a South Korean ship and shelling an island. The consequence? An offer of food aid.

Whether we see Iran’s leaders as rational or irrational, there are scant grounds for confidence that sanctions will deter their quest for nuclear weapons.

David Rubinstein is a professor emeritus in the department of sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He lives in Boulder, Colo.

My despairing fantasy of war

July 6, 2012

via My despairing fantasy of war.

( A leftist’s lament. – JW )

Larry Derfner

Nothing else has ended the occupation, nothing else is about to, so I’ve begun imagining that an Israeli attack on Iran would do it.

Thinking rationally, I’m against an Israeli attack on Iran 100%, always have been. But over the last several months, a fantasy has been creeping into my mind – a desire that we start the war, and that it go horribly wrong – for Israel, for Iran, for the Middle East, for America, for Europe – directly or indirectly, for the whole world. Something like World War III, just without nuclear weapons, without doomsday; this fantasy has a happy ending, which, after what I’ve described, seems irrational, but that’s the attraction of fantasies – you don’t have to be rational.

So what put this crazy, perverse daydream about runaway war in my head? Despair. Despair that nothing anybody’s tried, and nothing anybody’s thinking of, will end the occupation and change Israel from the oppressive country it’s become into a relatively decent country, which it used to be.

Everything that I, and not just I, once thought would end the occupation, or at least generate momentum toward that goal, has failed. I used to think a hunger strike would be a really effective tactic for the Palestinians; it was recently employed against a universally condemned Israeli practice – detention without trial – and it barely coaxed a sympathetic comment out of Catherine Ashton.

Before that it was the Palestinians going to the UN – that failed last September. Before that it was the popular resistance, unarmed protest – nobody cares. Before that it was the Goldstone Report – an in-depth condemnation of the occupation at its worst by an internationally respected judge who is even a Zionist Jew – but Israel and organized Jewry defeated it.

Before that, it was Obama and “tough love.” Before that, and continuing to this day, it was the Palestinian Authority’s crackdown on terrorism. Before that, it was Israeli unilateral withdrawal. Before that, it was the Labor-Meretz peace camp. Before that, it was the Oslo Accord.

What’s left to hope for now? A third intifada, Palestinian “people power”? Ultimately, the only way the Palestinians can throw off the occupation is by getting the West to pressure Israel into giving it up – and the West, as should be clear by now, doesn’t give a shit. Against that monolith of indifference, all this BDS stuff is marginal; the Western world will not do what’s necessary to force Israel to get off the Palestinians’ necks. I truly believe the Palestinians could begin starving themselves to death en masse in protest against a half-century of Israeli tyranny, and the powers-that-be in the West, the only part of the world with any power over Israel, would let it happen.

So if the Palestinians want to throw off the occupation, the only way is to defeat Israel militarily. That seems unlikely (and anyway it’s not my idea of a solution). Or they have to convince Israel to give them citizenship and the vote, which seems no less unlikely (and which I don’t think would work out, either).

Did I miss anything? Any arguably realistic path to justice for the Palestinians and decency for Israel that hasn’t been tried? I’m at a loss. So what I’m left with is despair. And in that despair, I imagine the one thing that would get the West to force Israel into line, to force it to let the Palestinians be free and, additionally, to stop attacking foreign countries in the name of self-defense – which is for Israel to do something that severely hurts the West, like starting a war with Iran that draws in the U.S. and maybe Europe, that gets American and NATO soldiers killed, that disrupts the world oil market, that sets off global Islamic terrorism, that destabilizes the Middle East.

If such a set of consequences were put in motion by an Israeli attack on Iran, which everyone in the world opposes, that might do it. How many people would die, whether the world backlash against Israel (and Diaspora Jews) would suffice with an end to the occupation, whether Israel would survive the war and its aftermath as a place Jews want to live in – none of that is part of the fantasy I entertain. Those are all rational considerations. No, I indulge strictly in the irrational – Israel attacks Iran, the world goes dark, the world glares at Israel, Israel realizes it’s done terrible things that it must undo, Israel finally learns the meaning of humility and respect. The End.

And so much for fantasy. In reality, I think Israel will attack Iran soon, and while the war probably won’t go as apocalyptically as I describe above, I imagine it will go badly enough, and not only won’t it end happily, it won’t really end at all. I think a war will crank up the hatred and violence in the Middle East to a significantly higher level.

By ruling the Palestinians and enforcing its military superiority by attacking other countries, Israel is not acting in self-defense, but in aggression. This is no future for a Jewish state in the Middle East, but that’s the future it’s chosen. Sooner or later Israel is going to start one war too many – maybe against Iran, maybe against Lebanon, or Gaza, or Egypt, or who knows who. And then it will no longer be a country where Jews want to live, and the occupation will end, together with the rest of the Jewish state.

That, for me at least, is not a happy ending. It’s not a fantasy at all – I don’t see anything irrational about it.

After 8,763 soldiers killed and a stream of defectors, Assad believes he can win

July 6, 2012

After 8,763 soldiers killed and a stream of defectors, Assad believes he can win.

Brig.-Gen Manas Tlass deserts his master

In its 17-month crackdown on dissent, the Syrian army had by early July, lost 8,763 dead and 21,357 wounded. Some units lost a quarter of their manpower. Around 600 tanks and APCs – six percent of the Syrian armored corps fleet – were crippled. Around 200 can be fixed but repairs will take three months.

Defections from all ranks up to general are depleting combat divisions. All in all, the Syrian army has never been hit with this scale of casualties and losses. Yet Bashar Assad and his ruling family, some members of whom hold high military, security and intelligence command, show no cracks or fear of impending failure.

Just the reverse: President Assad boasted to the Turkish Hurriyet in a recent interview that were it not for the majority support he enjoys from the Syrian people he would have fallen like the Persian Shah in 1979.

The Syrian ruler is generally unfazed by the stream of high officers defecting to the rebels because, as debkafile reported on July 2 – he has quietly made a clean sweep of long-serving elite commanders, especially Sunnis, and replaced them with younger Alawite officers, drawn from security and intelligence agencies and the loyal, exceptionally brutal Alawite Shabiha militia.
Some of the defectors are generals who were quietly retired on full pay; others, mid-ranking officers who see their prospects of promotion vanishing in the incoming surge of young Alawite officers awarded top jobs.
The latest high-ranking defector, Brig.-Gen. Manaf Tlass, 105th Brigade commander of the Republic Guard belongs to the second category, debkafile’s intelligences disclose. His desertion is potentially a lot more damaging to the regime –politically rather than militarily.

He did not abscond to rebel ranks in Turkey as the Syrian opposition reported Friday, July 6, but headed for Paris to join his father, Gen. Mustafa Tlass, former Syrian Defense Minister who served Bashar Assad and his father for 40 years, and his daughter Nahed Ojjeh, widow of the leading Saudi arms dealer Akkram Ojjeh.
Both have good connections around the Arab world and are close to the Russian ruling elite in Moscow.
Mustafa Tlass left Syria five months ago over a conflict of loyalties: The prominent Sunni Tlass clan spearheaded the anti- Assad revolt in Rastan, a town near Homs. To avoid taking sides, Tass senior decamped.

His son, Brig.-Gen. Manaf, served in the Republic Guard defending the presidential place on Mount Qasioun, the nerve center of Assad’s vicious campaign to suppress dissent. As a member of the presidential inner circle, he was certainly part of the military establishment running that campaign.

Indeed, Assad rewarded his loyalty by letting him keep his job, only putting his promotion to general on hold.
Manaf, realizing his career prospects as a Sunni had been overtaken by the advancing Allawitization of the top Syrian command, decided to join his father.
According to our sources, he actually flew out of Damascus on June 26, not this week as widely reported.
From their new base in Paris, the heads of the Tlass clan have yet to decide which way to jump – whether to make use of their excellent connections in Moscow or join up with the pro-Western “Friends of Syria” Western-Arab group whose latest meeting in Paris, Friday, July 6, was chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Assad regime would suffer a serious setback if the Tlasses opted for the West and its Arab enemies.

US diplomats are therefore going out of their way to rope them in. They have turned to Firas Tlass, the powerful Syrian clan’s Dubai-based “finance minister,” for help. Above all, they are going to great lengths to dissuade these prominent Sunnis from gravitating toward their old ties in Moscow.

Iran Nuclear Talks Stagger On With Little Progress

July 6, 2012

Iran Nuclear Talks Stagger On With Little Progress.

Talks with Iran on its nuclear work have continued but little progress has been made. A diplomat close to the lower-level meeting of technical experts in Istanbul last Tuesday told me “a large gap” remains between the positions of Iran and the six nations negotiating with it – the United States, Russia, China, Britain, Germany and France.
*
It is still not clear if senior-level, political talks designed to win guarantees that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons will resume. 
*
These talks had started dramatically in Istanbul in April and continued in Baghdad in May, presenting an alternative to what looked like a growing escalation to a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s atomic installations. But the peace initiative stalled at a June meeting in Moscow, when the two sides were unable to reach agreement on any of the issues at hand. Meanwhile, sanctions against Iran escalatedthis month when a European Union embargo on Iranian oil and US measures against those who buy Iranian oil went into effect. Iran’s oil exports are already down by some 40 percent.This week’s new talks in Istanbul were designed to save negotiations and had the modest aim of exchanging information on proposals from the two sides. The one-day experts-level meeting lasted 13 hours, ending after midnight. It is to be followed by a talk between Helga Schmid, the deputy for EU representative Catherine Ashton, who speaks for the six nations, and Ali Beghari, the deputy for Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili. If this goes well, then Ashton and Jalili will talk.

The diplomat said the two sides had in Istanbul “explored positions on a number of technical subjects. There were no further developments in the Iranian position compared to Moscow.” He added: “The onus remains on Iran. Iran needs to decide whether it is prepared to engage in substantial negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement on concrete confidence building steps.”

Iran provided its point of view in a 10-page document entitled “Some Facts Regarding Iran’s Nuclear Talks with 5 + 1 [P5 plus 1, a label for the six nations], 3 July 2012.” The document confirms just how far apart the two sides are.

The six nations, led by the United States, want Iran to end its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, a level closer to weapon-grade and far above the level needed for fuel for civilian power reactors. This would be a so-called “stop, ship and shut” operation, namely stopping current 20-percent enrichment, shipping out of the country the over 100 kilograms of uranium already enriched to this level, and shutting the Fordow facility where most of this enrichment was to take place.

Iran’s reaction:
— Fordow cannot be shut since there is also enrichment to five percent (needed for power reactor fuel) also taking place there.
— Fordow “is not a military base,” as the P5 plus 1 claims.
— Fordow is indeed heavily fortified, as the P5 plus 1 claims, but this is needed to have “a back-up facility to safeguard our enrichment activities” in the face of the threat of attacks.
— 20-percent enriched uranium is under UN nuclear safeguards and so there is no need to ship it out of the country.
— The 20-percent enriched uranium is being made to provide fuel for a research reactor which makes medical isotopes, and so it is too late for the P5 plus 1 to offer fuel for this reactor.

Beyond these technical issues, Iran insists that its right to enrich be unequivocally recognized, even though the United Nations has called on Iran to suspend enrichment until suspicions about its nuclear work are answered. Iran also wants all sanctions against it lifted, in return for cooperating with the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on questions about possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

The United States, however, wants the 20 percent enrichment halted as a confidence-building measure, which once done would lead to talks on Iran’s suspending all enrichment in order to get sanctions lifted. This key difference is blocking progress in the negotiation. The two sides simply re-confirmed this basic disagreement in Istanbul.

Once again, the main accomplishment is that the two sides are talking, and continue to have a forum for discussion. Iran made clear in its 10-page document a big-picture driver for talks it sees. It wants dialogue with “mutual respect” and for the two sides to reach “a comprehensive agreement on collective commitments in the areas of economic, political, security and international cooperation.” In short, it wants to be sure that the United States is not seeking to topple the Islamic regime. Israel may fear Iran with the bomb as an existential threat, but the Islamic Republic has some existential concerns of its own.

Talks remain, however, a double-edged sword, since the United States and Israel worry that Iran is using them to defuse action against it while it continues to develop its nuclear program. And so, while these talks proceed, the United States is reinforcing its military presence in the Persian Gulf, especially around the Strait of Hormuz, though which a third of the world’s seaborne oil shipments pass and which Iran has threatened to close. Iran, meanwhile, has carried out military exercises, firing missiles which it says can reach both Israel and US military bases in the Gulf.

Both these moves are as much political signals as they are military preparations. They are also clear signs of just how much is at stake and why there is an undeniable logic towards reaching a negotiated settlement which avoids war. The jury is still out on whether the gap between the two sides is unbridgeable or whether this really is a negotiation. It is an uncertain process, influenced by hidden and hard to calculate factors. In particular, Iran may well be waiting until after the US election in November to see whether it would be dealing with a Democratic or Republican administration.

Michael Adler, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, is writing a book on diplomacy in the Iranian nuclear crisis. Michael covered this extensively for five years while in Vienna, where he reported on the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Clinton urges pressure on Russia, China for defending Assad

July 6, 2012

Clinton urges pressure on Russia, China fo… JPost – Middle East.

By REUTERS

 

07/06/2012 13:27
US secretary of state wants countries holding up UNSC resolution on Syria to “pay a price,” repeats call for int’l sanctions against Assad; Britain’s Hague: There is no sitting on the sidelines on this issue.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Photo: REUTERS

PARIS – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged world powers on Friday to show Russia and China they would pay a price for impeding progress toward a democratic transition in Syria.

“It is frankly not enough just to come to the Friends of the Syrian People (meeting) because I will tell you very frankly, I don’t think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime,” Clinton said at a gathering of countries seeking to speed the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price because they are holding up progress – blockading it – (and) that is no longer tolerable.”

Russia and China have in the past vetoed UN Security Council resolutions designed to pressure Assad, who has sought to crush a rebellion against his family’s 42-year rule.

In her comments, Clinton repeated the US call for a Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows the council to authorize actions ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military intervention.

US officials have repeatedly said in the case of Syria they are talking about sanctions and not military intervention.

“We should go back and ask for a resolution in the Security Council that imposes real and immediate consequences for noncompliance, including sanctions under Chapter 7,” Clinton said. She also called for countries to better enforce existing bilateral sanctions on Syria.

“Let me also add that confronted with the regime’s noncompliance, it is difficult to imagine how the UN supervision mission can fulfill its responsibilities without a Chapter 7 enforcement mechanism,” she said. “It is clear unarmed observers cannot monitor a ceasefire that does not exist.”

British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Friday echoed Clinton’s call for increased action on Syria, saying that countries that do not impose sanctions on Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government are effectively allowing killings to continue.

“There is no way of sitting on the sidelines on this,” Hague told a meeting in Paris of the Western and Arab states that back a rebel uprising against Assad and want him out of power.

“If you don’t impose sanctions and implement them thoroughly you are allowing the provision to the Assad regime of the means to go on killing the Syrian people,” Hague said.