Archive for September 11, 2013

Rouhani: Limited Time to Resolve Nuclear Dispute

September 11, 2013

Rouhani: Limited Time to Resolve Nuclear Dispute – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

Iran’s president says the time for resolving Iran’s nuclear dispute with the West is limited, urges world to seize the opportunity.

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 9/11/2013, 5:14 AM
Hassan Rouhani

Hassan Rouhani
AFP photo

Iran’s president said on Tuesday that the time for resolving Iran’s nuclear dispute with the West was limited, urging the world to seize the opportunity of his election.

“The world must know completely that this period of time for resolving the nuclear issue will not be unlimited. We have a specified period of time,” President Hassan Rouhani, who took office last month, said in a live interview on state television. The comments were carried by the Reuters news agency.

“The world must also use this period of time and this opportunity that our people created in this election. We will also use this opportunity. God willing, I am hopeful we can, step by step, solve this problem,” he added.

Rouhani, who succeeded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has pledged moderation in Iran’s foreign and domestic policies and called for “constructive interaction” with the world. At the same time he made it clear, in a speech to clerics earlier Tuesday, that Iran will not give up “one iota” of its nuclear rights.

Rouhani said he would meet with the foreign ministers from some of the six powers – Russia, China, France, Britain, the United States and Germany – when he attends the UN General Assembly in New York this month.

“I believe that if the opposite side has a serious will, the nuclear issue can be resolved in a not very long time,” he said.

“In the nuclear issue, the end of the game must be a win-win game. Win-lose has no meaning,” he added. “We can have a win-win game, we are ready for a win-win game. I think the beginning of this work will start in New York.”

Iran has been engaged in on-off negotiations with major world powers and the United Nations about its nuclear program for more than a decade, and has been subjected to several rounds of UN and Western economic sanctions.

The last round of talks with the big powers – the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany – was held in April in Kazakhstan, before Rouhani’s election but, just like previous rounds, ended with no progress.

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton are set to meet in New York later this month to discuss restarting negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

While the West has said that Rouhani is a moderate, Israel has warned that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, particularly when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program.

U.S. Eases Sanctions to Allow Good-Will Exchanges With Iran – NYTimes.com

September 11, 2013

U.S. Eases Sanctions to Allow Good-Will Exchanges With Iran – NYTimes.com.

The Obama administration on Tuesday eased longstanding restraints on humanitarian and good-will activities between Iran and the United States, including athletic exchanges. It was at least the second American government relaxation of Iranian sanctions this year and came as Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, has signaled his desire to improve relations.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees the sanctions on Iran, said in a statement that it had cut the bureaucracy for obtaining exemptions in order to expedite the provision of health services, disaster relief, wildlife conservation and human rights projects in the country. Also authorized are “activities related to sports matches and events, the sponsorship of sports players, coaching, refereeing and training, in addition to other activities.”

The Treasury statement said the action, which eliminates requirements for special exemption licenses on a case-by-case basis, reflected what it called “this administration’s commitment to reinforcing ties between the Iranian and American people.”

Advocacy groups welcomed the step. The National Iranian American Council, which is critical of Iran’s government but opposes the sanctions, said it had been working for years to loosen the restraints on humanitarian and athletic exchanges.

“Today’s action is critical in helping prevent broad sanctions from isolating ordinary Iranians and ensuring that humanitarian needs of ordinary people do not fall prey to political disputes between the U.S. and Iranian governments,” the group’s policy director, Jamal Abdi, said in a statement. “In lieu of formal diplomatic relations between the two governments, people-to-people diplomacy and athletic exchanges are crucial for bridging divides between the American and Iranian people.”

The Treasury action came only a few weeks after an Iranian tennis referee, Adel Borghei, hired in May to work at the United States Open, was blocked from taking the job because of sanctions regulations enforced by the Treasury Department. The Akrivis Law Group, a Washington firm that specializes in sanctions law, agreed to represent him and secured a license that enabled him to work after his story had been publicized by the Iranian and American news media.

An Akrivis lawyer, Farhad Alavi, said in a telephone interview that the timing of the Treasury’s easing of the rules “obviously follows on the coattails of the tennis case.”

Most Treasury sanctions concerning Iran in recent years have tightened restrictions as part of a broader American policy to pressure Iran into concessions over its disputed nuclear program. Iran insists the program is peaceful but the West and Israel suspect it is meant to enable Iran to make nuclear weapons.

Last May the Treasury and State Departments lifted sanctions on companies seeking to sell personal communications technology to ordinary Iranians.

Candidly Speaking: America’s isolationism and its implications for Israel

September 11, 2013

Candidly Speaking: America’s isolationism and its implications for Israel | JPost | Israel News.

There is currently a remote possibility that the Russian strategy will succeed in averting US military action by persuading Bashir Assad to hand over his chemical weapons of mass destruction for demolition by the international community.

US President Barack Obama in Cabinet Room of White House, August 30, 2013

US President Barack Obama in Cabinet Room of White House, August 30, 2013 Photo: REUTERS

There is currently a remote possibility that the Russian strategy will succeed in averting US military action by persuading Bashir Assad to hand over his chemical weapons of mass destruction for demolition by the international community.

But even if that happens, President Obama’s vacillating response to the horrors in Syria will still be considered manifestation of the ongoing erosion of America’s superpower role as guardian of the free world against the burgeoning forces of Islamic terrorism.

In the absence of effective presidential leadership, the American people have grown weary of shouldering the burden of policing the world and sending their youngsters to battle extremists in faraway places. Obama’s policies have dramatically revived America’s dormant isolationist inclinations.

This is fortified by the Europeans who, absorbed by post-modern moral relativism, refuse to share the burden and are now barely willing to even symbolically endorse the engagement of the United States in global military initiatives to contain Islamic terror.

Burying their heads in the sand, Western nations seem to deny that jihadism, much like nazism and communism, represents a fundamental threat to Western civilization that if not confronted, will ultimately wreak havoc in their own neighborhoods.

The procrastination and unpredictability of President Obama has already convinced US allies, including the so-called moderate Arab states, that America has become a paper tiger. Understandably, they no longer believe that they can rely on a vacillating, indecisive Commander-in Chief. In their eyes even the ineffective former president Jimmy Carter appears a valiant warrior compared to the dithering Obama.

This attitude is unlikely to change irrespective of whether Congress endorses Obama’s request to punish Assad for gassing his own people.

Even if Congress approves an American strike it will be a limited maneuver neither intended nor likely to produce regime change. It will probably have negligible deterrent effect and may even enable Assad to portray himself as the heroic victor who triumphed against the mighty US.

Israel stands in a difficult position in the midst of the tension. Understandably, it is unwilling to side either with the murderous Assad or the monstrous al-Qaida terrorists now dominant among the Syrian rebels. There is little doubt that we would wish a plague on both their houses.

But Israel recognizes that if, after Obama’s repeated promise to act if Assad crossed the “red lines” and employed chemical weapons, Congress rejects his request for a military response, the weakened president would suffer further humiliation, highlighting US impotence and strengthening the isolationist trends that have already dramatically impacted on American public opinion.

This would have severe negative ramifications on Israel and the entire region and, above all, embolden the Iranians towards attaining their nuclear objective.

Conscious of the overriding Iranian issue, Israel does not wish to see Congress humiliating the president in this context. But it is also highly concerned neither to become embroiled in the Syrian civil war nor lay itself open to accusations of dragging America into a new conflict.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is to be credited for acting with diplomatic astuteness. He has muzzled his traditionally outspoken and irresponsible ministers. He has succeeded in walking a diplomatic tightrope in avoiding humiliating Obama while simultaneously sending a clear message to the Syrians that were they to implement their threats to attack Israel, we would not remain passive as we did during the Iraq war.

American Jewish organizations find themselves in a bind. In a bizarre turn of events, the Obama administration has turned to Israel and AIPAC to lobby Congress on its behalf. The major American Jewish organizations reluctantly responded positively and urged Congress to endorse the president’s request but are attempting to distinguish this from their traditional pro-Israel lobbying.

However, it is a no-win situation.

Should Congress approve a military strike, they will face accusations of dragging their country into a new conflict. Conversely, should Congress reject Obama, the intervention will result in severely damaging the standing of the Jewish lobby in the American political arena.

As far as Israel is concerned, it is crucial that in conjunction with increasing Islamic fundamentalist threats in the region, we factor into our strategic planning the new US isolationism and European indifference.

We must absorb the reality that we are a people who stand alone and can depend on no one but ourselves to deter our adversaries.

Our greatest concern remains Iran.

If the US and the West are incapable of deterring Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, we will be obliged to make difficult decisions, weigh the diplomatic consequences and consider the practicality and chances of success in initiating independent action.

This must also serve to strengthen our resolve to bury any remaining delusions that we can rely on third parties to guarantee borders or intervene in a crisis in relation to the Palestinians. In this Alice in Wonderland environment, the US and the Western European countries are unlikely to ease pressures on us to make further unilateral concessions.

Even our “friends” are more inclined to focus on the construction of homes in the Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem than on Syrians massacring thousands of their own people.

Therefore, in the foreseeable future, in the absence of Palestinian leaders genuinely committed to peaceful coexistence, it would be insane for us to succumb to global pressures to make further unilateral concessions, ease security or cede additional territories without genuine reciprocity.

At the same time we should take solace in the fact that there are also positive developments that benefit us.

Despite the Obama administration’s retreat toward isolationism, the American people and Congress continue to enthusiastically support Israel. This is of critical importance because, whereas we have never asked the US or any other country to engage in wars on our behalf, the US backing ensures that we retain our edge, with access to the latest technological military equipment, and enables us to defend ourselves and effectively deter the barbarians at our gates.

This also makes it unlikely that US would totally abandon us in the diplomatic and political arena, and likely to continue acting as a barrier against those seeking to impose sanctions against us.

Despite the active presence of jihadists among our neighbors, at a time when the military power of some of our most committed adversaries has dramatically eroded, our military strength is at an all-time high. This significantly diminishes the threat of a conventional war of aggression against us. In fact, the IDF today is capable of deterring all our adversaries combined. We must of course continue to strengthen and develop our military superiority.

Another important positive development for Israel has been the Egyptian revolt against the Muslim Brotherhood regime, preventing the rise of an Islamic totalitarian dictatorship.

This represents a body blow to Hamas, effectively an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood and considered as such by the new Egyptian regime. It has already resulted in military action against the jihadists in Sinai, lessening a major threat to security on Israel’s southern border.

Overall, when one balances the positive developments within the regional turmoil, it is clear that despite frequent gloomy and pessimistic chatter, we can regard Israel’s position as one of strength.

Remembering 9/11

September 11, 2013

Remembering 9/11 | JPost | Israel News.

Gradually, like Communism, Islamist extremism would fade away.

National September 11 Memorial in New York.

National September 11 Memorial in New York. Photo: REUTERS
When the US launched its “war on terrorism,” the hope of many who cherished the freedoms offered by western societies was that al-Qaida and similar forms of reactionary Islam that aspire to reinstitute the ancient caliphate, and in the process slaughter or convert the infidels, would be ushered off the world stage.

It was said that al-Qaida’s own paranoia would devour it. The organization and others like it would fall victim to their own deluded worldview because such fundamentalist, totalitarian ideology is incapable of self-criticism.

Gradually, like Communism, Islamist extremism would fade away.

And for a time it seemed plausible to argue that the tide was turning. Osama Bin Laden had been eliminated.

The trove of information recovered from Bin Laden’s Abottabad hideaway seemed to confirm assessments that al-Qaida was suffering serious setbacks. Drone attacks were taking their toll, the network’s financial plight was critical, and increasing energies were being devoting to rooting out traitors and spies.

Even the Arab Spring – principally protests against economic inequalities – seemed to make the creation of a caliphate less likely.

It has been 12 years to the day since al-Qaida terrorists hijacked civilian airplanes, transformed them into weapons, and aimed them at population centers in Manhattan and Washington and Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, the US-led “war on terrorism” that followed – and was strongly supported by consecutive Israeli governments – has a mixed record.

The same al-Qaida that US President Barack Obama pronounced “decimated” and “on the path to defeat” during his successful 2012 campaign for reelection, is remarkably active.

Al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists are alive and kicking in Algeria and Somalia, in Mali and Yemen, in Pakistan and Iraq. And in Syria, the toppling of Bashar Assad’s despotic regime is not being discussed seriously, in part because there is a high likelihood that al-Qaida forces would be one of the central candidates to fill in the vacuum.

Admittedly, the toppling of Sadam Hussein which came in the wake of 9/11 has resulted in numerous benefits, many of them unnoticed or unacknowledged.

In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi’s fear at watching the fate of Sadam helped convince him to surrender his stockpile of WMD in 2003. And it is hardly coincidence that Iran reached what would be a short-lived agreement with Britain, France and Germany to suspend its nuclearenrichment work immediately after the western coalition forces marched on Iraq.

Meanwhile, Iraq has – albeit in rudimentary and tenuous form – a free press, a written constitution, and a parliamentary election system that are the minimum demand of Arab civil society. The changes in Iraq might even have been an impetus for the Arab spring. At the very least, the elimination of an oil-rich and heavily armed Arab state controlled by a sadistic crime family with a track record of aggression outside its borders and repression within has made the Middle East a slightly better place.

But the prolonged military interventions in Iraq and in Afghanistan launched in response to the 9/11 attacks have taken their toll. Generating the level of deterrence that intimidated Libya and Iran a decade ago is costly in both lives and resources and is impossible to maintain.

The West, and particularly America, is war-weary and rightly skeptical regarding the efficacy of even the most well-intentioned forced regime change.

Understandably, the same skepticism extends to the present debate over US military intervention in Syria.

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans think Congress should not authorize limited military action in Syria, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday. In a Gallup poll those surveyed oppose US military action 51 percent to 36 percent.

The US-led “war on terrorism” has a mixed record.

The ability of the West to truly influence the Middle East is limited. Totalitarian Islamist regimes and organizations – including al-Qaida – have proven to be remarkably resilient. Hopes that the Arab spring would lead to a more democratic Middle East have yet to materialize.

Instead, democratic election gave rise – temporarily in Egypt’s case – to Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated governments.

And this geopolitical reality – as we mark the 12th anniversary of 9/11 – presents serious challenges, not only for Israel, but for the rest of the freedom-loving world.

Analysis: The Syrian deal – More bad than good for Israel

September 11, 2013

Analysis: The Syrian deal – More bad than good for Israel | JPost | Israel News.

09/11/2013 01:57
If Assad is left standing, Iran retains a vital strategic ally.

Iranian Supreme Leader hosts Syria's Assad in Tehran [file]

Iranian Supreme Leader hosts Syria’s Assad in Tehran [file] Photo: REUTERS

The emerging Russian-brokered deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria to forestall any US attack is – from Israel’s point of view – a very mixed blessing.

The good news is that if Syrian President Bashar Assad honors the deal – a huge “if,” considering that Assad is a butcher who has killed tens of thousands of his own people to stay in power – then a very deadly weapon will be removed from Israel’s doorstep. Israel will no longer have to worry about chemical warfare with its bitter enemy to the north.

Moreover, if indeed the stockpiles are all destroyed or moved, then Jerusalem would also be relieved of the major headache of worrying that these weapons could be transferred to or “fall” into the hands of Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations.

While the assessments in Jerusalem have long been that Assad would be reluctant to use his chemical weapons against Israel because of fear of retribution, the concern is that the radical suicide terrorists might not harbor a similar fear or even care about the payback.

Chemical weapons out of Assad’s hands, therefore, is a net gain – that is the good news.

The bad news, however, is that Assad is left standing.

The message of his surviving this whole incident as president of Syria is that – yes – in the 21st century you can wipe out entire neighborhoods and cities, use missiles, planes, artillery fire and even sarin gas to indiscriminately kill your own people, and still be allowed to rule.

That Assad is left standing, and may even end up remaining in power, is bad for Israel because it sends the following reassuring message to those in the neighborhood – particularly Iran – either perpetrating heinous acts or contemplating them: No worries, this world won’t interfere, you can get away with it.

Even if Assad has to forfeit his WMD stockpile, he will still literally get away with murder because – to borrow loosely from Bruce Springsteen’s song “Born in the USA” – “He’s still there, they’re all gone.”

Ever since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war more than two years ago, many asked who Israel wanted to prevail. Did Jerusalem prefer Assad, the predictable “devil it knew,” or the motley crew of rebels fighting him who could conceivably bring to power Muslim Brotherhood elements or – worse – al- Qaida?

More than 100,000 dead Syrians later, including a few thousand killed by deadly gas, there is increasingly a feeling among some key policy makers in Jerusalem that it simply cannot get any worse than Assad.

Assad is one of the most brutal and dangerous leaders on the planet; one without restraints; one who is now turning his country from an Iranian proxy into an Iranian client state. If he survives, it will be because of Russian political cover and Iranian and Hezbollah physical and material assistance.

True, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida would definitely – if they ever gained control of Syria – cause Israel fits.

True, they could turn the Golan border, so quiet under Assad and his father since the Yom Kippur War in 1973, into a living hell.

But even though the Sunni terror and jihadist groups like Hamas and al-Qaida threaten Israel and cause enormous problems, the main peril to Israel right now is not the Sunni terrorists but rather the possibility of an Iranian-led Shi’ite axis – one that soon could be armed with nuclear weapons – stretching from Iran through Iraq, Syria and into Lebanon.

Let no one be distracted by the current events in Syria and Egypt: Iran remains Israel’s principal threat today, a threat that becomes existential if it gains nuclear arms. As such, anything that benefits Iran is bad for Jerusalem. Assad remaining in power benefits Iran, it is another link in the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis of evil.

As horrible as it might be, even a Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaida controlled Syria might be the lesser of two evils for Israel since at least the Iranian propelled Shi’ite arc would be broken, and Iran would be weakened. A toppled Assad is a weakened Hezbollah and a weakened Iran, and that is a net gain.

The bad news in the Russian-brokered deal currently under discussion is that Assad remains at the helm. This is bad not only because a man who murdered so many will remain standing to kill another day, but also because Iran will retain a vital strategic ally. And, of course, Iran is the much more significant game right now for Israel than even Syria.

Obama promised Putin not to strike Syria after scrapping its chemical arsenal. Russian arms for Assad

September 11, 2013

Obama promised Putin not to strike Syria after scrapping its chemical arsenal. Russian arms for Assad.

DEBKAfile Special Report September 10, 2013, 10:20 PM (IDT)
Secret detente on Syria

Secret detente on Syria

President Barack Obama’s two climb-downs on a US strike against Syria over its use of chemical weapons are turning out to be part of a deal which he forged secretly with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Obama is presenting it as a US-Russian accord for stripping Bashar Assad of his chemical arsenal, while Putin is using it as an expedient for saving the Assad regime in Damascus. Both are ready to sacrifice the Syrian rebel movement to their détente.

debkafile’s intelligence sources disclose that Moscow is pushing for more than a US pledge to back off using force against Syria, demanding that Washington also refrain from diplomatic action against the Assad regime.
The result was a major battle which forced the UN Security Council’s closed-door emergency session scheduled for Tuesday night, Sept. 10 to be postponed without a new date.
The French wanted to table a tough, binding resolution placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control and a timetable for their destruction spelt out – with “extremely serious” consequences for violations including a military option.

Washington warned it would not fall for “stalling tactics.”

Moscow balked, insisting on a declaration – not a binding resolution – in support of international control for the chemical stockpiles – and no sanctions for violations. China and Iran backed the Russian motion.

Addressing a Russian TV Arab broadcast Tuesday, Putin said he had urged Syria to hand over its chemical weapons for them to be destroyed. He added that the handover plan would only work if the US renounced the use of force.
Our sources disclose that in another part of his deal with the Russian president, Obama did not object to Moscow providing the Syrian army with a fresh supply of advanced weapons in substantial quantities to compensate Assad for giving up his chemical arsenal.
Friday, Sept. Moscow announced that the Nikolai Filchenko landing craft heading for the eastern Mediterranean would stop off at the Black Sea port of Novorossiisk to pick up a “special cargo” for Syria. This vessel, say our sources, was to carry the first shipment of the fresh arms supplies Moscow was sending Bashar Assad.
The coming DEBKA Weekly out Friday, Sept. 13, uncovers the full extent of the secret Obama-Putin transaction on Syria, including the two leaders’ secret undertakings.

President Obama Speech Today On Syria

September 11, 2013

▶ President Obama Speech Today On Syria | FULL SPEECH [09/10/2013] – YouTube.