Archive for February 7, 2013

Even Iran diplomat confirms nuke plant blast

February 7, 2013

Even Iran diplomat confirms nuke plant blast.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad says his bomb is ready if Israel attacks

Published: 5 hours ago

A European intelligence agency, an Iranian diplomat and a Latin American intelligence source have joined the growing list of those who have confirmed to WND the deadly explosions at Iran’s Fordow nuclear site.

Media and unofficial speculation points to Israel as the culprit in its efforts to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons. Several Iranian leaders have said repeatedly in the past it is their duty to wipe out the Jewish state.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in interviews Wednesday with media, said the Islamic regime has already achieved nuclear capability but is not interested in attacking the “Zionist entity.” If Israel attacks first, he said, Iran is ready destroy it.

WND reported the Jan. 21 explosions exclusively on Jan. 24, with updates on Jan. 27, 29, 30, 31, and Feb. 3. The blasts at first trapped 219 workers, including 16 North Koreans: 14 technicians and two military attaches. A Fordow security source told WND that as of three days ago, at least 40 people have been killed, including two North Koreans, and more than 60 injured, some in critical condition.

The foreign services division of a European intelligence agency, in confirming the explosions, said its information was verified by assets in Iran’s government. The Islamic regime is now cleaning up the site and assessing the damage. The agency above cannot be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, which could derail talks scheduled for Feb. 26 in Kazakhstan between Iran and the 5-plus-1 countries: the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.

A high-ranking Iranian diplomat serving in an Iranian consulate in Asia, whose name cannot be revealed due to security, told WND that an order from Iran’s Foreign Ministry was issued days after the explosion to all of its embassies, ambassadors, deputy chiefs and spokesmen that no interviews on Fordow can be given to news agencies and that any response to queries by reporters should refer only to a statement by the White House and a report by news agencies on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last week, “We have no information to confirm the allegations in the report and we do not believe the report is credible.”

Then in an unusual move, IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor emailed reporters a brief statement: “We understand that Iran has denied that there has been an incident at Fordow. This is consistent with our observations.”

However, when pushed by WND, Tudor could neither confirm nor deny the incident had taken place and would not say whether IAEA inspectors had visited the site after the explosions, despite some media reports that they had.

In fact, the IAEA has not visited the site since the explosions despite media rumors it has, said the security source at Fordow who originally provided the information on the explosions.

In a letter to the IAEA two days after the explosions, Iran said it plans to install thousands of its upgraded centrifuges at its Natanz facility. The source said this was a direct result of the explosions at Fordow. The White House called it a “provocation,” and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the addition of upgraded centrifuges at Natanz would be “unacceptable.”

The Islamic regime, while preparing for talks with the 5-plus-1 powers and bilateral talks with representatives of the Obama administration, is also preparing to retaliate against the U.S., some European countries and Israel, according to an officer in a Latin America intelligence agency who confirmed the explosions to WND.

This further verifies information provided by a former intelligence officer of the regime, Hamidreza Zakeri, and Iranian sources of the explosions.

Interestingly, in a Feb. 2 interview with Fars News Agency, an outlet of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Hossein Sepehr boasted that Iran is “the fourth biggest cyber power among the world’s cyber armies.”

Reports on Feb. 4 indicated that in a major cyber attack on the U.S. Department of Energy two weeks ago, 14 computer servers and 20 workstations were penetrated. The FBI is investigating the attack. Iran has previously been accused of conducting cyber attacks on U.S. banks and oil facilities in the Persian Gulf region.

Iran, through its official news agency IRNA,assailed WND as a media outlet “under the direct control of the CIA” and WND’s Reza Kahlili as a tool of the CIA to expand propaganda against the regime in the face of its nuclear progress.The Fordow nuclear site was central to the regime’s nuclear bomb program, built 300 feet under the belly of a mountain where over 2,700 upgraded centrifuges were enriching uranium to the 20 percent level. That level could within weeks be further enriched to nuclear weapons grade.

Documents on the explosions at Fordow and further verification will be revealed on WND soon.

Reza Kahlili, author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray”, served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI). He regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism

Tough Times For Hezbollah In Fast Changing Region

February 7, 2013

Tough Times For Hezbollah In Fast Changing Region : NPR.

February 06, 2013 3:18 PM

BEIRUT (AP) — These are tough times for Hezbollah. The Shiite militant group’s uncompromising support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and allegations that it attacked Israeli tourists in Bulgaria are both unpopular in Lebanon, where it is increasingly accused of putting the interests of longtime patrons Iran and Syria over those of its home country.

For many in the deeply polarized and war-weary nation, Hezbollah’s involvement in last year’s bus attack that killed five Israelis, if confirmed, constitutes further proof that the group is willing to compromise the country’s security for external agendas.

“Hezbollah uses the Lebanese people like sandbags, they don’t care about the people,” complained Michel Zeidan, echoing the views of others who called in to a talk radio show Wednesday.

“These are very serious accusations which would demonstrate once again that Hezbollah is completely driven by foreign agendas,” Ahmad Fatfat, a Lebanese lawmaker in the pro-Western camp opposed to Hezbollah, told The Associated Press.

Hezbollah has denied involvement in the Bulgaria attack and has not made any direct comments since the findings of an investigation were announced Tuesday.

Asked to comment at a cabinet meeting Wednesday, Hezbollah minister Mohammed Fneish said: “Israel has been pointing fingers at Hezbollah from the first moment of the explosion took place.”

The group’s deputy chief, Sheik Naim Kassem, said Israel is conducting an international terror campaign against Hezbollah because it failed to defeat it militarily.

“All these accusations against Hezbollah will have no effect, and do not change the facts or realities on the ground,” Kassem told supporters Wednesday, without referring to the Bulgarian charges directly.

Bulgarian officials said Tuesday that the Lebanese group has been linked to the sophisticated bombing carried out by a terrorist cell that included Canadian and Australian citizens. They said the two living suspects have been identified and are in Lebanon.

The announcement put pressure on European countries such as France and Germany, which haven’t designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization despite the urgings of Israel and the U.S.

“If the evidence proves to be true, that Hezbollah is indeed responsible for this despicable attack, then consequences will have to follow,” said Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

He didn’t say what those consequences could be. But a ban on Hezbollah’s activities in Germany, where authorities believe it has almost 1,000 members, could limit its ability to collect funds for the group’s main branch in Lebanon.

In Lebanon, there were calls for Hezbollah to come out with a clear statement outlining and responding to the accusations.

“We are waiting for Hezbollah’s response,” said Fatfat, the lawmaker.

The Bulgaria accusations come less than a week after an Israeli airstrike in Syria that U.S. officials said targeted a convoy of sophisticated weapons bound for Hezbollah.

A Lebanese radio talk show host on Wednesday morning fielded calls from people commenting on the fallout for the country from the airstrike in Syria and the Bulgarian findings.

“The economic repercussions on Lebanon will be disastrous,” said Zeidan.

Issam, a tour operator, said he was worried it would become harder for Lebanese to get visas to Europe if the group is declared a terrorist organization there.

“We don’t want to be involved in any proxy wars anymore,” he told the AP, declining to give his full name. His words reflected a view shared by many Lebanese who are not interested in further warfare with Israel. Even among supporters of the group who have seen their homes and villages destroyed too many times, there is reluctance to endorse anything that may be seen as provoking a war.

Fawaz A. Gerges, director of the Middle East Center at the London School of Economics, said there remained big question marks about whether Hezbollah was really involved in the Bulgaria attacks. He argued that the group was “too skilled and too intelligent” to carry out an operation in Europe that would play so bluntly into the hands of Israel and the U.S.

“By traveling this road, Hezbollah risks becoming a pariah organization, in particular given the importance of Europe to Lebanon and to the Hezbollah community,” he said.

Like others, he said Hezbollah must come out with a very clear statement outlining and responding to the Bulgarian claims and assertions about its role in the attack against tourists.

“Hezbollah doesn’t have the luxury to remain silent,” Gerges said.

Despite its formidable weapons arsenal and political clout in Lebanon, the group’s credibility and maneuvering space has been significantly reduced in the past few years.

The civil war in Syria, the main transit point of weapons brought from Iran to Hezbollah, presents the group with its toughest challenge since its inception in 1982.

Once lauded on the Arab street as a heroic resistance movement that stood up to Israel, it has seen its reputation and popularity plummet in the Arab world because of its staunch support for Assad.

The group has faced repeated accusations that its members were helping the Assad regime’s military crackdown against rebels in Damascus — a claim the group denies.

Officials and analysts say there is real anxiety within Hezbollah that if Assad falls, it might lose not only a crucial supply route for weapons but also political clout inside Lebanon, where it currently dominates the government, along with its allies.

Hezbollah still suffers from the fallout of the 2006 war, which many in Lebanon accused it of provoking by kidnapping soldiers from the border area. Since then, the group has come under increasing pressure at home to disarm. Sectarian tensions between its Shiite supporters and Sunnis from the opposing camp have often spilled over into deadly street fighting.

Furthermore, four Hezbollah members have been named suspects by a U.N.-backed tribunal in the 2005 Beirut truck bombing that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was then Lebanon’s top Sunni politician. Hezbollah denies the charges and has refused to hand over the suspects.

As the Assad regime in Damascus becomes weaker, analysts expect Hezbollah to come under more pressure and Israel to take advantage of the group’s perceived vulnerability at home, particularly ahead of parliament elections scheduled for this summer.

“Hezbollah remains preoccupied with domestic stability in Lebanon and will not want to shoot itself in the foot by launching an offensive against Israel prior to the 2013 general elections,” said Anthony Skinner, an analyst at Maplecroft, a British risk analysis company .

“Hezbollah may also want to keep its powder dry for an offensive against Israel if the Israelis launch airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities,” he said.

Israel Steps Into Syria | Foreign Affairs

February 7, 2013

Israel Steps Into Syria | Foreign Affairs.

What the IDF Air Strike Means for the Conflict

Last week, after two years of watching the Syria crisis unfold with quiet unease, Israel departed from its policy of restraint and staged an aerial raid near Damascus. The facts are still murky. Israel issued no statement and took no responsibility for the strike, although Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at a major security conference in Munich, came close to conceding involvement. The Syrian government, however, was swift to announce and condemn an Israeli raid on a “research center” in the vicinity of Damascus, as did the regime’s allies, Iran and Hezbollah. The international and Israeli press speculated that Israel had attacked a convoy of game-changing ground-to-air missiles that were about to be transferred by Syria to Hezbollah and that may have been stationed in that “research center” on their way to Lebanon.

The event underlined a curious aspect of the unfolding Syrian crisis: that unlike Syria’s other four neighbors — Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan — Israel has remained largely uninvolved in the country’s affairs, albeit with two noteworthy exceptions. First, in May 2011, hundreds of Palestinians crossed the undefended cease-fire line into the Golan Heights, with the encouragement, or at least the tacit agreement, of the Syrian authorities. Second, in November of that year, a few mortar shells fired from Syria landed in the Golan Heights. Both incidents proved to be insignificant, especially compared with the gravity of the Syrian civil war and its impact on regional and global politics.

Israel’s passive stance did not reflect a lack of interest in the future of Syria and President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. On the contrary, Israeli policymakers and analysts are acutely aware of the massive repercussions that Assad’s fall would have for Israeli security. But they also know that Israel’s ability to affect Syria’s domestic policy is limited, and that any Israeli intervention would deal great damage to the opposition. From the very outset of the conflict, Assad and his spokesmen have tried to depict the rebellion not as an authentic domestic uprising but as a conspiracy hatched by such external enemies as the United States and Israel. An Israeli intervention, even one with ostensibly humanitarian goals, would be seized upon by the regime and presented as proof that its position had been vindicated.

Although Israel has remained passive, it has closely monitored the course of events in Syria. It has been worried by several potential negative outcomes: that the Assad regime could be replaced by an Islamist, perhaps even a jihadist, one; that the regime’s fall could lead to anarchy, and that jihadists might launch terror attacks against Israel from north of the Golan Heights; that the regime could transfer some of its chemical and biological weapons to Hezbollah, or that such stockpiles could fall into the hands of radical rebels; and finally, that the regime itself, when its death knell has sounded, could fire missiles into Israel in a final act of Samson-like glory. In more general terms, Israel has feared that the regime and its allies might try to transform the crisis into another conflict with Israel. Israel has acted tacitly, often in coordination with Washington, in order to forestall some of these developments. On several occasions, it has released public statements regarding its “redlines” in the Syrian crisis.

The transfer of advanced weapons systems to Hezbollah has been one of these redlines. It seems that at the end of January, Israel’s leaders came to the conclusion that such a transfer was about to take place and decided to act. They were fully aware of the downside of a strike: the regime was likely to take political advantage of Israel’s military action, and the prospect of a response by Syria or Hezbollah and the provocation of a larger crisis could not be ruled out.

Such scenarios materialized only in part. The Syrian regime launched a full-scale propaganda campaign designed to depict the Israeli raid as a major component of the current crisis and portray the conflict as an Arab-Israeli one, not a Syrian civil war.

Iran and Hezbollah took a similar line and issued vague threats of retaliation. Assad’s regime, though, made it clear that it did not intend to respond with force. Syria’s minister of defense indicated that Damascus did not retaliate because Israel’s action was itself a retaliation for the damages inflicted on Israel by Syria. The whole episode stands in sharp contrast to the course of events in September 2007, when Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor that North Korea had been building for Syria. Israel kept silent in order to help Assad avoid the need to retaliate, and Assad played the same game. This time around, Assad had every interest in playing up the Israeli attack — but he is still proceeding cautiously. The political dividends of stoking tension with Israel are obvious, but given the sorry state of Syria’s armed forces, a military collision with Israel could provide the rebels with the golden opportunity that has eluded them so far.

It is difficult to determine at this time how successful Israel’s raid was. The political fallout has been limited, and the course of the Syrian civil war has not been affected. But the strike has not necessarily had the deterrent effect Israel sought, and the regime and its allies may still make further efforts to transfer sophisticated weapons systems to Hezbollah.

The current episode may well fade into memory, but there is still a real danger of a broader crisis drawing Israel more fully into the Syrian morass. Assad could still try to transfer sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah, and the future of the Syrian arsenal, including stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, is still in question. Israel may decide to act again, and if it does, Syria, Hezbollah, or Iran could well retaliate. Their calculus in such an event would be determined by the state of the Syrian civil war, Hezbollah’s predicament in Lebanon, and the state of Iran’s give-and-take with the United States and its allies over the Iranian nuclear issue. Their response, if any, would be more likely come in the form of a terrorist attack, such as the one perpetrated by Hezbollah against Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, rather than a conventional military attack.

Given these threats to regional stability, the need for the United States to take the lead in seeking a resolution to the Syrian crisis has never been more acute. U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to visit the region this spring and include the Syrian crisis on his agenda is a step in the right direction.