WarSclerotic

Algerian assault ends crisis, 19 hostages dead.

AIN AMENAS, Algeria (AP) — Algerian special forces stormed a natural gas complex in the middle of the Sahara desert on Saturday in a “final assault” that ended a four-day-old hostage crisis, according to the state news agency and two foreign governments. At least 19 hostages and 29 Islamist militants have been killed.

The report, quoting a security source, didn’t say whether any hostages or militants remained alive, and it didn’t give the nationalities of the dead.

It said the army was forced to intervene after a fire broke out in the plant and said the militants killed the hostages. It wasn’t immediately possible to verify who killed the captives.

Seven hostages and 11 militants were killed in Saturday’s operation, adding to the previous tally of 12 captives and 18 kidnappers.

The Ain Amenas plant is jointly run by BP, Norway’s Statoil and Algeria’s state-owned oil company. The governments of Norway and Britain said they received confirmation the siege was over.

The entire refinery was mined with explosives and set to blow up, the Algerian state oil company Sonatrach said in a statement, adding that the process of clearing the explosives had begun. The Algerian media reported that the militants had planned to blow up the complex.

The siege transfixed the world after radical Islamists linked to al-Qaida stormed the complex, which contained hundreds of plant workers from all over the world.

Algeria’s response to the crisis was typical of the country’s history in confronting terrorists — military action over negotiation — and caused an international outcry from countries worried about their citizens. Algerian military forces twice assaulted the areas where the hostages were being held with minimal apparent negotiation — first on Thursday and then on Saturday.

The latest deaths bring the official Algerian tally of dead to 19 hostages and 29 militants, although reports on the number of dead, injured and freed have been contradictory throughout the crisis. Militants originally said they had seized 41 foreign hostages.

The al-Qaida-linked militants attacked the plant Wednesday morning. They crept across the border from Libya, 60 miles (100 kilometers) away, and fell on a pair of buses taking foreign workers to the airport. The buses’ military escort drove off the attackers in a blaze of gunfire that sent bullets zinging over the heads of crouching workers. A Briton and an Algerian — probably a security guard — were killed.

Frustrated, the militants turned to the vast gas complex, divided between the workers’ living quarters and the refinery itself, and seized hostages, the Algerian government said. The gas flowing to the site was cut off.

On Thursday, Algerian helicopters opened fire on a convoy carrying both kidnappers and their hostages, resulting in many deaths, according to witnesses.

In their final communications, the militants said they were holding seven hostages: three Belgian, two Americans, a Japanese and a Briton. They had threatened to kill them if the Algerian army attacked.

Algerian authorities estimated that about 30 militants occupied the Ain Amenas site Wednesday and with 18 already reported dead, it appeared Saturday that the hostage crisis was finally over.

The standoff has put the spotlight on al-Qaida-linked groups that roam remote areas of the Sahara, threatening vital infrastructure and energy interests. The militants initially said their operation was intended to stop a French attack on Islamist militants in neighboring Mali — though they later said it was two months in the planning, long before the French intervention.

The accounts of hostages who escaped the complex highlight the cavalier attitude toward their lives taken by both kidnappers and the military.

Ruben Andrada, 49, a Filipino civil engineer who works as one of the project management staff for the Japanese company JGC Corp., described how Algerian helicopter gunships had earlier opened fire on vehicles carrying hostages and the gunmen who used them as shields.

On Thursday, about 35 hostages guarded by 15 militants were loaded into seven SUVs in a convoy to move them from the housing complex to the refinery, Andrada said. The militants placed “an explosive cord” around their necks and were told it would detonate if they tried to run away, he said.

“When we left the compound, there was shooting all around,” Andrada said, describing the helicopters’ attack. “I closed my eyes. We were going around in the desert. To me, I left it all to fate.”

Andrada said when the vehicle he was in overturned, some of the passengers were able to escape. He sustained cuts and bruises and was grazed by a bullet on his right elbow. He later saw the blasted remains of other vehicles, and the severed leg of one of the gunmen.

The site of the gas plant spreads out over several hectares (acres) and includes a housing complex and the processing site, about a mile apart, making it especially complicated for the Algerians to secure the site and likely contributed to the lengthy standoff.

“It’s a big and complex site. It’s a huge place with a lot of people there and a lot of hiding places for hostages and terrorists,” said Col. Richard Kemp, a retired commander of British forces who had dealt with hostage rescues in Iraq and Afghanistan. “These are experienced terrorists holding the hostages.”

Casualty figures varied widely. The Algerian government now says 19 hostages and 29 militants have died since Thursday. Before the final assault, the militants claimed through the Mauritanian website ANI that the helicopter attack alone killed 35 hostages and 15 militants.

One American, from Texas, is among the dead, and the militants offered to trade two other American hostages for two terrorists behind bars in the U.S., an offer firmly rejected by Washington. At least one Briton, a Frenchman and Algerians have also died in the standoff. Escaped Algerian workers describe seeing people of many nationalities, including Japanese, shot down.

French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Saturday that there are believed to be no more French hostages in the gas complex. He said the Frenchman killed, Yann Desjeux, was a former member of the French Special Forces and part of the security team. The remaining three French nationals who were at the plant are now free, the Foreign Ministry said.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed that as of Saturday, there were “fewer than 10” British nationals still at risk or unaccounted for and “the majority of” Britons at the plant were now safe, he said.

Statoil CEO Helge Lund said Saturday that there were only six Norwegians unaccounted for, from the 17 at the plant at the time of the attack.

Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta said Saturday one Romanian hostage was killed in the course of the siege, while four escaped unharmed.

The attack by the Mali-based Masked Brigade had been in the works for two months, a member of the brigade told the online Mauritanian news outlet. He said militants targeted Algeria because they expected the country to support the international effort to root out extremists in neighboring Mali and it was carried out by a special commando unit, “Those Who Signed in Blood,” tasked with attacking nations supporting intervention in Mali.

The kidnappers focused on the foreign workers, largely leaving alone the hundreds of Algerian workers who were briefly held hostage before being released or escaping.

Several of them arrived haggard-looking on a late-night flight into Algiers on Friday and described how the militants stormed the living quarters and immediately separated out the foreigners.

Mohamed, a 37-year-old nurse who like the others wouldn’t allow his last names to be used for fear of trouble for himself or his family, said at least five people were shot to death, their bodies still in front of the infirmary when he left Thursday night.

Chabane, who worked in food services, said he bolted out the window and was hiding when he heard the militants speaking among themselves with Libyan, Egyptian and Tunisian accents. At one point, he said, they caught a Briton.

“They threatened him until he called out in English to his friends, telling them, ‘Come out, come out. They’re not going to kill you. They’re looking for the Americans,'” Chabane said.

“A few minutes later, they blew him away.”

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

American isolationism: Obama’s unfolding signature policy.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis January 19, 2013, 4:51 PM (GMT+02:00)

Al Qaeda in Mali armed with Grad missiles from Libya

  Whereas in his first term as president, Barack Obama opted for “leading from behind,” in international military operations, he enters his second term – even before being sworn in this week – by expanding this step-back precept into American isolationism proper – even when it comes to countering Islamist terrorism.
debkafile’s analysts note that this stance was heralded in December 2012 by his abrupt order to the USS Eisenhower strike group and the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group to withdraw from stations opposite Syria.
Washington had already then decided to ignore the Syrian chemical war threat, and brush aside the report from the US consul in Istanbul that the Syrian ruler Bashad Assad had already fired chemical bombs against rebels.
And so French military intervention in Mali on Jan. 12 and Al Qaeda’s massive attack on an international Algerian gas field four days later found the United States without a single carrier, landing vessel or marine force anywhere in the vicinity, to be available for aiding in the rescue of scores of Western hostages from ten countries, including the United States.

The USS John Stennis carrier is the only vessel left at a Middle East battle station. It is tied down at the Strait of Hormuz to secure the flow of Gulf oil to the West.
It is therefore hardly surprising to find Pentagon and top US military experts leveling sharp criticism at the White House’s policy of non-intervention in the Mali conflict, where France is fighting alone, or in Algeria’s In Amenas gas field, where Algerian forces are battling a multinational al Qaeda assault and multiple hostage-taking raid for the third day.
The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday, Jan. 20 that the sharp debate between the Pentagon and White House is over the “danger posed by a mix of Islamist militant groups, some with murky ties to Al Qaeda that are creating havoc in West Africa” and whether they present enough of a risk to US allies and interests to warrant a military response.

Many of Obama’s top aides say “it is unclear whether the Mali insurgents, who include members of the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, threaten the US.”
As to the question, “What threat do they pose to the US homeland? The answer so far has been none.”

Some top Pentagon officials and military officers warn that without more aggressive US action, Mali could become a haven for extremists, akin to Afghanistan before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

debkafile’s counterterrorism sources report that these assertions are misleading.

Whereas the US homeland may not be in immediate peril from the Mali and Algeria episodes, it is important to remember the far-reaching interconnectivity of al Qaeda’s operations. Seven years ago, the suicidal jihads who on July 7, blew up London trains and a bus, used explosives provided by the same Al Qaeda cells of Sahel Desert which are now threatening Mali and which struck the Algerian gas field.

No US official can guarantee that such explosives from the same source won’t be used in 2013 against American targets in Europe or be smuggled into the American homeland by al Qaeda cells in Europe.
The Algerian gas field hostage siege was carried out after all by a multinational group that included Algerians, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, a Frenchman and a Malian.

It is true that Al Qaeda terrorists are engaged in vast smuggling rackets – especially of drugs and cigarettes – across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, as well arms trafficking through networks covering Egypt, Sinai, Arabia, the Gulf, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan – all of which are direct threats of US national security. But to write them off as criminals and smugglers is simplistic: “… some are diehard terrorists with more grandiose visions,” as Pentagon officials point out.

The way the Al Qaeda menace is being handled by Washington has a ripple effect in the wider context. Tehran and Damascus are avidly watching the Obama administration’s stand-aside stance on military involvement in external crises – even emergencies posed by the Al Qaeda terrorist threat encroaching on continental Europe and Africa and the Middle East up to and including the Persian Gulf.
Washington should therefore not be surprised when its diplomatic efforts – overt and secret – to rein in Iran’s military nuclear ambitions run into the sand. The Iranians know they have nothing to fear from the Obama administration. The next surprise, our Middle East sources are now reporting, will come from Damascus where, according to a hint President Bashar Assad threw out this week to his intimates.

Our Situation Has Never Been More Complicated.

Amir Rapaport

18/1/2013

The main characteristics of the regional situation picture at the start of 2013 are an absence of stability (since 2011) and complexity. Therefore, the claim that Israel’s strategic situation has improved is simplistic (not to say expressly: incorrect).

Let us start with the good news: the analysis recently presented by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is accurate with regards to at least two issues. Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis has indeed weakened considerably in the past year due to the Syrian civil war; and the pragmatism displayed by the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt (and its influence on Hamas in Gaza) is encouraging and even very surprising. In the short range, there is no danger of war against a regular army following the disintegration of the Syrian military, and due to the internal affairs in which Egypt finds itself immersed.

Now for the not so good news: the main reason Hezbollah has been holding its fire since the Second Lebanon War is not Israeli deterrence, but rather a strategic decision by Iran not to let Hebzollah get into trouble in any entanglement with Israel until “judgment day.” Iran strengthened Hezbollah’s strength in recent years, but only as a threat to Israel’s home front, for the day that it is attacked. This threat is not like the weapon arsenal possessed by Hassan Nasrallah in 2006, nor is it like Hamas’ fire from Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defense.

Hezbollah’s weapon stockpiles include missiles with warheads of hundreds of kilograms and precision of up to dozens of meters. Meanwhile, Iran is advancing towards acquiring a nuclear weapon according to its strategy. Next spring, it can announce the suspension of the uranium enrichment, thus neutralizing any option for an attack against it (the short route to a bomb will be continued far from the eyes of the UN inspectors, even if it takes several years). There should be no mistake: even if an attack eventually occurs, Iran and Hezbollah are capable of attacking Israel with heavy weaponry, at a scope that the Iron Dome and Arrow systems will find it difficult to confront.

The situation in Egypt is not encouraging either: when the Muslim Brotherhood establishes its rule, it might gradually dissolve the peace treaty with Israel, and even gradually become an enemy again. The situation in Jordan is not stable, and the possibility of the collapse of the Hashemite rule is no less than a defense nightmare from Israel’s perspective. The situation in Syria might be encouraging in the long range (if a moderate Sunni government will be established after Assad), but in the short range, the instability might lead to terror attacks and even the fire of missiles towards Israel. What about the Judea and Samaria region? There a wave of popular terror has begun, in part due to the growing perception in the Palestinian street that the path of struggle against Israel is the correct path.

Worst of all is the fact that Israel’s strategic support, the US, is no longer the only all-capable superpower as in the past. Furthermore, for the first time in decades, Israel does not even have one significant ally in the Middle East (after initially losing Iran, and later Turkey and Egypt). Is there anyone in Israel that wouldn’t want to return the situation in the region back by at least a few years? Perhaps only in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A Morsi moment in the media | Simon Plosker | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

While it took the New York Times days before it reported on anti-Semitic comments made by Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi in 2010, it took only a few hours before the story made it all the way to the top.

The White House Press Secretary Jay Carney condemned Morsi’s comments in no uncertain terms, saying: “The language that we have seen is deeply offensive. We completely reject these statements, as we do any language that espouses religious hatred.”

Coming as they did with a congressional delegation in Cairo where Egypt’s aid package and security cooperation with the US will be on the table, the elevation of Morsi’s comments made some three years ago before he could ever have dreamt of rising to the Egyptian presidency, have the power to affect Egyptian-US relations in a deeply negative way.

So what have we learned from a media perspective from this episode?

Firstly, the fact that this story became a hot issue for the White House has demonstrated that the New York Times is still the paper of record. Only after the Times saw fit to publish the story of Morsi’s comments did it break out into the wider mainstream media and beyond.

That it took some eleven days before the paper woke up and published the piece also speaks volumes. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) as well as Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) both regularly expose incidents of Arab anti-Semitism and incitement to such an extent that statements such as those of Morsi are clearly not an exception but the norm.

Why do the mainstream media have such an aversion to covering what is potentially a key issue when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict? The material that both of these organizations produces doesn’t need to be hyped up or manipulated. The anti-Semitism and incitement are straight from the horses’ mouths. The videos say it all.

In the Morsi case, it was only when the New York Times picked up on the story that others felt that it had a “kosher certificate” that made it publishable, making its way into other media outlets such as the BBC, Reuters and AP.

But what did it take before the Times published? Bureau chiefs in Jerusalem could hardly have failed to notice the story, which made headlines in the English-language Israeli press such as the Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel. The story, however, failed to take off until Forbes writer Richard Behar started to ask questions of the American media, particularly the New York Times.

Nobody likes to be criticized by their peers. The New York Times is no different and evidently started to investigate further. Furthermore, when Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, a commentator with good ties to the White House, also weighed in, the story grew legs and ran.

While this is a potentially “teachable moment” for the media, it is probably too early to say whether or not this is the wake-up call that defines future coverage. For this to happen, entire frameworks and worldviews will have to be shattered.

Irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with Israeli policies, particularly those which have been deemed “obstacles to peace” in the prevailing discourse, the media has singularly failed to question the motivations behind the other side, namely the Arab world and the Palestinians.

Placing the entire focus on issues such as settlements turns the Middle East conflict into a black and white dispute over territory. If only it were so simple. For even if the Palestinians were to be given a state on the majority of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and even if workable agreements could be found to core issues such as Jerusalem and the so-called Palestinian right of return, it may be generations before the Arab people can be detoxified from the hatred that they have been raised on.

If the conflict, inspired by radical Islamism and anti-Semitism, cannot be brought to an end through peace treaties and land swaps, then the entire prism through which the media and politicians view it becomes far more complex.

On a more basic level, it means that the media should start asking the difficult questions of the Arab world concerning attitudes towards Israel. Morsi’s comments, after all, indicated a visceral hatred of Israel and Jews that goes far deeper than the Palestinian issue.

How can the media and ultimately the public, possibly begin to understand the currents within the Arab world when only statements from Arab politicians made in English to an international audience are reported? All too often, what is said, broadcast or written in Arabic bears no relation to the statements specifically aimed for western consumption.

History tells us, however, that Arab rejectionism does little to promote sympathy towards Israel. From the three no’s of Khartoum in 1967 (no peace, no recognition and no negotiations with Israel) to the Hamas Charter, Arab and Muslim attitudes and motivations are simply skipped over. While Yasser Arafat’s rejection of Ehud Barak’s peace proposals met with an outbreak of violence and terror which was accompanied by the most vicious anti-Israel media coverage.

Will this latest Morsi moment break new ground? Perhaps it will have a major bearing on how the US handles a Muslim Brotherhood-led Egypt. For the media, however, we can only hope, wait and see.

President Obama’s appalling silence on Syria | Shmuley Boteach | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

Surely the first African-American president has a special responsibility to promote human freedom and the infinite worth of the human person. The same obligation would be incumbent upon the first Jewish President, whoever he or she may be. Two communities who have experienced wholesale decimation have a special responsibility to promote the infinite value of human life. 

Why is President Obama so silent on Syria? The report on Tuesday that 80 students were blown to smithereens was particularly appalling. President Obama taught at the University of Chicago. Having attended some of the world’s leading universities, he has a special feeling for academia, as indeed he should. So can he really turn a blind eye to the image of a female hand with a pen still in it, dismembered from the rest of her body?

I’m genuinely puzzled. Manhattan is a one hour flight from Washington. Can’t the President come up to the UN and deliver the following speech:

People of the world, I am here to discuss the greatest humanitarian tragedy in the world today. Our Arab brothers and sisters of Syria are being mowed down by machine-gun fire, slaughtered from the air by planes and helicopters, and murdered in their homes with gun shots at point blank range to the head. College students are being killed in their dorm rooms. Their crime? To wish to live as free men and women, which is their God-given right.

But standing in the way of that most basic of all human desires is a tyrant who will hold on to power at all costs. If it takes brutalizing small children and having them shot at the family dinner table, he will do that. If it means shooting pregnant women to enforce his brutal will, he will do that too. He will stop at nothing to hold on to the levers of power.

As the President of the United States I am here today to tell Mr. Assad – I will not call him President because any man who slaughters who is own people has lost all legitimacy to rule – that my nation regards him as a war criminal responsible for crimes against humanity. I am urging the United Nations to immediately pass a resolution proclaiming the same.

Mr. Assad, I’m here today to tell you that the long arm of international justice will catch up with you. Today you’re a brutal dictator killing men, women, and children in order to stay in power. But one day, in the not too distant future, we will catch up with you. You will be arrested for crimes against humanity and tried for your butchery and mass murder. It may not happen today or tomorrow. But I assure that you one day, in the not too distance future, in the dead of night when you least expect it, it will happen. Soldiers of civilized nations will apprehend you and take you to the International Court of Justice at The Hague where you will stand trial before the world for your cruelty. And you will be held accountable for your appalling crimes.

My country is right now engaged in a difficult war in Afghanistan. We are fighting terrorists with the help of Pakistan and other nations around the world and we still have not extricated ourselves fully from our decade-long war in Iraq. In short, we are overextended. And while we may not be able to act against you, Mr. Assad in the short term, I want you to know that the blood of so many innocents that you have spilled cry out for justice. And they will receive their justice.

Mr. Assad, the eyes of the world are upon you and brutal regime. You will not get away with it. I am personally telling you today that if it’s the last thing I do as President, I will ensure that you are arrested and tried for these unspeakable crimes. When we Americans say “Never Again” we mean every word. We will never allow unpunished, wholesale slaughter to transpire in the world ever again.

And to back up my  pledge, I am today putting a bounty of $25 million dollars on the head of Mr. Assad. We will pay this amount to the individual, or individuals, responsible for the arrest of Mr. Assad so that he can stand trial.

Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg recently reported that President Obama said that Israelis don’t know what’s good for them. Bibi wants to build in Jerusalem but doesn’t realize that he is isolating Israel further in the international community.

I appreciate the President’s concerns. No doubt Israelis are especially grateful for the American President’s ability to divine Israel’s security needs even better than their chosen leaders. But perhaps our President should focus less on construction of apartments and homes and do something instead about the bombs and rockets that are killings tents of thousands of innocent Arabs. Syria is arguably the greatest humanitarian crisis that President Obama has had on his watch and, with all due respect, he is failing miserably in doing anything about it.

Arabs are my brothers. Arabs are my sisters. I believe with all my heart that they will one day see the democracy of the State of Israel as the best friend they have in the Middle East, not the tyranny of Saudi Arabia or the murderous designs of Hamas and Hezbollah.

But regardless of my prediction for the future, I am today calling upon the President of the United States to employ his considerable mastery of words to take up the mantle of Martin Luther King and be a drum major for justice, a beacon for freedom. Sound the clarion call for liberty, Mr. President.

In the book of Genesis God asks Cain where his brother Abel is. Cain has just killed him and, in an effort to protect himself, famously asks, “Am I brother’s keeper?” God’s response is ferocious. “What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.”

We who witnessed the repeated genocides of the twentieth century – from Armenia and the Holocaust to Cambodia and Rwanda – will one day be called to account for our silence in the face of dead students and children.

Get off the fence, Mr. President, and stand up for Arab life and liberty. Stop the slaughter in Syria. You owe it to the brave African-Americans who died yearning and fighting for equality and liberty. You owe it to American patriots who founded the first modern Republic by casting off British tyranny. And you owe it to the people of the world who look to America for leadership, hope, and change.

Don’t be fooled: Iran wants the bomb | Ahmad Hashemi | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel.

Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili recently said his country has agreed to resume talks on its nuclear program later this month. At the same time, the IAEA and the international community, particularly the European countries, have stepped up efforts to revitalize the futile negotiating process. 

During my four and a half years as an employee of the Iranian foreign ministry, I learned beyond doubt, that my country’s participation in talks is purely a stalling tactic. Having fled to Turkey to seek political asylum, I know that I’m far from the first Iranian to try and warn the world of Tehran’s determination to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

It was almost a decade ago that the People’s Mujahedin, Iran’s leftist opposition in exile, first revealed the clandestine nuclear activities carried out by the regime, providing the exact addresses of some of the facilities, and letting the world know about the Islamic theocracy’s true ambitions for acquiring nuclear bombs. Since then, Iran has attended dozens of negotiating rounds merely to convince naïve politicians and dewy-eyed peaceniks that it is telling the truth. Within this context, Tehran maintains that it is trying to use diplomatic means to prove that Iran is merely working to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in order to meet increasing domestic energy demand as it runs out of fuel. Iran likewise exploits the matter at home, whipping up populist nationalism with leftist-style demagoguery that depicts its nuclear program as a cardinal matter of national pride.

The author (center) with President Ahmadinejad and Azerbaijani official, October 2011 (photo: Iranian President’s website)

But a lie remains a lie, whether it is repeated ceaselessly in international forums or broadcast all day to the Iranian masses. While at the Iranian foreign ministry, I served as interpreter for visiting dignitaries, diplomats and officials. I paid close attention to public proclamations and official statements. And I was present at inner-circle conversations in which a number of high-profile Iranian officials made no secret of their intention to go atomic. I personally witnessed the following examples:

Former Revolutionary Guards commander: ‘Holy Islamic bomb is a must’

In April 2005, after organizing several meetings in his office at the Discernment Council headquarters, I was invited to a meeting at the home of Mohsen Rezai, the Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council and a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) during the Iran-Iraq war. I was invited in my capacity as a founding member of of the short-lived Islamic Association for Students and Academicians (IASA, which was dissolved the next year), together with Ruhollah Solgi, the IASA secretary general. (Today, Solgi is the governor of Aran va Bidgol County in the Isfahan region.) We were asked to come and exchange views on the overall situation on the upcoming presidential election campaign in which Mr. Rezai was preparing to run as a presidential nominee.

Rezai’s home was located in the Shahrak Shahid Daghayeghi Complex at the outskirts of the Lavizan forests in northeast Tehran. We went to a spacious, concrete villa on the last block of the fenced in and tightly patrolled neighborhood, which provides housing primarily for IRGC officers and other high-profile officials.

When we arrived, Rezai was busy meeting various military and political figures, including generals from the IRGC. At this private meeting in his house, while castigating former reformist president Khatami for his compromising approach towards the West, Mohsen Rezai strongly advocated the idea of acquiring nuclear bombs for “deterrent purposes.” He referred to such a weapon as a “holy Islamic bomb” needed to defy the bullying approach of global arrogance. Mentioning that even Khomeini approved of acquiring an atomic bomb to safeguard the interests of Islam during Iran-Iraq war, he argued that everything is allowed for the sake of Islam, including using WMDs and the mass killing of civilians.

The A-bomb and Iran’s National Security Council

In early 2012, Ali Bagheri, the deputy secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, was meeting his Indian counterpart at a dinner reception at India’s embassy in Tehran. While we waited for the Indian official, who had been delayed in traffic, to arrive, I heard the Iranian foreign ministry’s director for Europe and America, Ahmad Sobhani, ask Mr. Bagheri about the Supreme Leader’s latest views on the 5+1 negotiations. Bagheri replied that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remained adamant and increasingly convinced that “we should expedite our efforts and diversify our secret facilities to achieve our goal before it is too late.”

The author with WHO regional director Ala Alwan and Vice President Rahimi (photo: Iranian President’s Website)

North Korea’s contribution

In early February 2012, I was present at a confidential meeting at which Iran’s deputy head of the Islamic Revolution Mostazafan Foundation was negotiating with the North Korean ambassador in order to obtain nuclear technology for Iran in exchange for financial support.

The chemical weapons precedent

In my foreign ministry position, I interpreted at meetings between my country and international chemical weapons inspectors. The Iranian side, known as the Escort Team, included officials from the Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Intelligence, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Industry. They met with representatives from the Hague-based chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, known as Inspection Team.

I was present throughout these encounters, which included a Pre-Inspection Briefing prepared for the visitors by Iran, on-site visits at chemical production plants, and summation deliberations and conclusions.

I witnessed Iranian involvement in the mass production of chemical weapons at a variety of installations including Pakshooma, Arak Petrochemical Complex and in particular the Shahid Meisami Complex located in the city of Karaj, which were designated as producers of chemical material for civilian use, such as detergents, but were also producing chemical weapons for the Defense Industries Organization, which is affiliated with the Ministry of Defense.

From an official Iranian presentation for the Pre-Inspection Briefing for the Pakshoo Chemical Co., September 2010 (scan: Ahmad Hashemi)

I interpreted as the Iranian defense officials misinformed and deceived the inspectors. With such a history of producing weapons of mass destruction in the form of chemical weapons, why should anyone believe that Iran is not intent on producing an atomic bomb?

Another futile round of talks

All previous meetings between Iran and the 5+1 failed because Iran was never serious about curbing its nuclear programs. After seven years, the West and particularly the Obama administration are still hopeful that they can achieve progress through negotiations. Tehran may have slowed down tactically, but undoubtedly, as the former commander of Iran’s revolutionary guards Mohsen Rezai once said, “Iran’s long-term policy and strategic vision is to acquire a holy Islamic atomic bomb.”

Only a real and result-oriented negotiation with a specific agenda with the Ayatollahs, smarter economic sanctions, more unified diplomatic isolation around Iran, and actual support for the demands of the Iranian people may bring real change.

Using a well-known concept in Shiite jurisprudence known as the expedient or altruistic lie, Iranian officials are perfectly willing to lie when it comes to their intentions and programs. The enlightened nations would do well to understand the religious underpinnings of Iranian diplomats’ big lies in contrast with European negotiators. Once the extent of the deception is understood, the question should be not whether Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful but rather when and how the program can be safely terminated.

–

Ahmad Hashemi, was born in Qom in 1977. He earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science at the University of Tehran and has a Master’s Degree in American Studies from the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s School of International Relations. In January 2008, he joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an English, Turkish and occasionally Arabic interpreter. When the popular uprising began in 2009, he was actively involved in the pro-democracy Green Movement protests. For this and other reasons, he was summoned and dismissed from his job in May 2012. From early May 2012, he began to contribute articles for the leading reformist dailies such as Shargh and Etemaad newspapers. Because of his classified information with regard to some of the regime’s proliferation programs, Ahmad Hashemi says he was subject to constant threats, mental torture and restrictions. He fled his country and currently is seeking political asylum in Turkey. In his work as a writer and freelance journalist, he contributes to Persian-language and international media.

Mali conflict exposes White House-Pentagon split – latimes.com.

Officials disagree on the degree of danger posed by Islamist militants in West Africa. Some top U.S. military officials warn aggressive action is needed.

A cellphone image shows a militant convoy in the Malian desert. The French military intervention in Mali and a terrorist attack on a gas complex in neighboring Algeria have prompted debate in Washington over whether the threat warrants a military response. (AFP/Getty Images / January 19, 2013)

Official: Iran won’t stop uranium enrichment – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Despite international community’s demands that Islamic Republic halt nuclear program, diplomat states his country will continue with uranium enrichment

Associated Press

An Iranian diplomat says Tehran will not stop uranium enrichment “for a moment,” defying demands from the UN and world powers to halt its suspect nuclear program.

The comments by Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, come just two days after senior IAEA investigators ended two days of intensive talks with Iranian officials on allegations the Islamic Republic may have carried out tests on triggers for atomic weapons.

His remarks reiterate Iran’s longstanding assertion that its enrichment program is for producing nuclear fuel and other peaceful purposes, and thus is Tehran’s right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Soltanieh’s comments were reported by the official IRNA news agency Saturday. Iran and the IAEA agreed to hold another round of negotiations on Feb. 12.

On Friday, UN experts returned from Tehran without sealing a long-sought deal that would restart a probe of suspicions that Iran worked on atomic arms, adding to doubts that upcoming talks between six world powers and the Islamic Republic will succeed.

Al Qaeda offers to swap 2 US hostages for 2 jailed terrorists.

DEBKAfile Special Report January 18, 2013, 6:46 PM (GMT+02:00)

Long-sought Algerian terrorist Moktar Belmoktar

The North Afrfican Al Qaeda group which seized hostages from 10 nations at the remote Algerian gas field in In Aminas Wednesday, Jan. 16, has addressed its first demand to the United States: The release of two American hostages for two high-profile Islamist terrorists jailed in the US: Egyptian Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh convicted of masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Pakistani-American neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui, convicted for trying to kill US troops and FBI agents in Afghanistan in 2009.

The offer from Moktar Belmoktar, head of al Qaeda’s Signed-in-Blood Battalions, was relayed by a Mauritanian news site Friday afternoon Jan 18. Until now, their most pressing demand was for France to end its military operation in Mali.
The Obama administration has not released information about the Americans held hostage at the gas field. They are believed to number seven.

Friday afternoon, as Algerian special forces were still unable to overpower the terrorists holed up with hostages at a gas facility, US military transports began lifting foreign nationals out of Algeria. Most are oil and gas facility personnel and their families. Their evacuation, which will badly affect the operation of Algeria’s energy industry, indicates fears that more terrorist attacks on oil and gas sites are still to come, with devastating impact on world energy markets.

Military sources in London reported that a British MI6 secret service plane has landed near the Algerian hostage site carrying a command and control team specializing in terrorist situations.
British Prime Minister David Cameron called the Cobra emergency cabinet into session Friday night, its third since the hostage crisis erupted. Addressing Parliament earlier, Cameron promised the UK would hunt down the terrorists responsible for the brutal and savage attack in Algeria.

According to the first tentative hostage figures released by Algeria Friday afternoon, the second day of its rescue operation, a total of 650 hostages were taken, of whom 573 were freed – most of them Algerian – indicating that 77 were killed or missing. A total of 132 foreign nationals from 10 nations were taken of whom 66 were freed, which leaves 66 dead or unaccounted for.
None of these figures will be final before the gas field is finally cleansed and secure.
debkafile:  Al Qaeda’s demand for the Blind Sheikh’s release from an American jail is intended to embarrass Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, who has said he would press for this when he visits Washington soon. This now puts Morsi on the same side as al Qaeda.
Bucked up by their success in keeping the Algerian army at bay and dragging out their first  multinational hostage crisis into another day, Al Qaeda in North Africa upped the ante by directly confronting the United States in what is unlikely to be their last demand.