WarSclerotic

Sudan says it declined Iran air defense offer after alleged Israeli attack | JPost | Israel News.

By REUTERS

05/29/2014 16:15

Iran offered to set up air defense platforms on the Western coast of the Red Sea after 2012 air strike attributed to Israel.

DUBAI – Sudan turned down an Iranian offer to set up air defenses on its Red Sea coast after a 2012 air strike Khartoum blamed on Israel, fearing they would upset Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia, Sudan’s foreign minister was quoted as saying on Thursday.

In an interview with the Saudi-owned al-Hayat newspaper that seemed aimed at improving frosty ties with Riyadh, Ali Karti played down Khartoum’s links to Iran and to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed in Saudi Arabia.

“Iran, in truth, offered to set up air defense platforms on the Western coast of the Red Sea after the latest Israel raid, but Sudan rejected that because this would require Iranian arms experts (on the ground),” Karti said during a recent visit to Saudi Arabia, al Hayat reported.

“We rejected that because it is an Iranian presence against Saudi Arabia, something which we do not accept,” he added.

The 2012 air strike killed four people and partially destroyed an arms factory in Khartoum. Sudan blamed Israel, which did not comment at the time on the accusations.

Israeli officials have in turn accused Sudan of funneling weapons from Iran to the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Iranian officials were not immediately available for a comment on Karti’s comments.

Sunni-powerhouse Saudi Arabia, a key regional ally of the United States, has been locked in a contest with non-Arab Shi’ite power Iran for influence in the Middle East.

The rivalry has effectively divided the region into two camps, with countries either allied to Saudi Arabia or to Iran.

QATAR FACTOR

Sudan has been entangled in a complex web that put it at odds with Saudi Arabia when the world’s top oil exporter tried to shore-up Egypt’s military-backed government in its struggle with the Muslim Brotherhood after the army ousted Islamist President Mohamed Morsi from power last year.

Sudanese media have said Karti traveled to Saudi Arabia two weeks ago for talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal to improve ‘lukewarm’ ties between the two countries.

Karti denied that Khartoum supported the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been outlawed by Egypt as well as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Brotherhood’s embrace of the ballot box challenges the principle of dynastic rule in the Gulf.

“There is a belief in the Gulf states that we have feelings towards the Muslim Brotherhood in any country in the Gulf or even in Egypt. But Sudan has refused to join the Muslim Brotherhood group,” Karti said, according to al-Hayat.

Sudan said last month after a visit by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani that Doha would deposit $1 billion at Sudan’s central bank as part of an aid package to Khartoum – a move likely to be seen in the region as evidence of Sudan’s ties to Qatar, an ally of the Brotherhood.

In his interview with al-Hayat, Karti also played down Sudan’s relationship with Tehran. “Our ties with Iran are quite ordinary,” Karti said.

Israel Warns Cruz Against U.S.-Iran Deal | TheBlaze.com.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) came away from meeting with Israeli leaders struck by their unanimous opposition across political lines to the U.S. negotiations with Iran.

“I met with roughly a dozen senior officials in Israel across political parties and across political views, and every single leader with whom I met, number one viewed the prospect of Iran gaining nuclear weapons capability as the gravest national security threat facing Israel and facing the United States,” Cruz said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday.

“Number two, every single leader across the political spectrum viewed the current deal being negotiated in Geneva, as in the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu, a very, very bad deal and a historic mistake,” Cruz added.

While in Israel Tuesday, Cruz met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, Defense Minister Moshe “Bogi” Ya’alon, opposition leader Bogie Herzog, Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz and Israeli Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser.

It was the first leg of Cruz’s international trip. The rest was in Eastern Europe where he met with government and religious leaders in Ukraine Wednesday, including recent President-elect Petro Poroshenko. He was set to fly to Poland Wednesday night before going to Estonia on Thursday. The swing through international hot spots could bolster the conservative freshman senator’s expected 2016 presidential campaign.

The Obama administration is working with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to prevent the Islamic republic from getting nuclear weapons capabilities. But critics of the deal fear easing of sanctions on Iran could pose risks.

Cruz supports a bill sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) to establish triggers for re-imposing sanctions on Iran. He blamed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for blocking the bipartisan bill. The Obama administration opposes the sanctions based on concerns it will harm the negotiations.

“With respect to Iran, I believe we are repeating the same mistakes of the Clinton administration in 1990s with respect to North Korea,” Cruz said. “In the 1990s, we relaxed our sanctions against North Korea response to vague and worthless promises just like those in Geneva now. As a consequence, billions of dollars flowed to North Korea and North Korea used those funds to develop nuclear weapons.”

In addition to meeting with Poroshenko Wednesday, he also met with Jewish and Catholic leaders in Ukraine, and talked about the “awakening of the Russian bear,” regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military aggression toward the country.

The next legs of his trip were to Poland and Estonia, which he said are “on the frontlines of being next.”

“A great many of our allies in Eastern Europe are watching what’s happening in Ukraine, this renewed aggression and feeling considerable unease that they may well be next,” Cruz said.

Iran’s Strategy to Develop Nuclear Weapons, Gatestone Institute,  Harold Rhode and Joseph Raskas, May 29, 2014

Western concessions have . . .  only bolstered the determinations of the Iranians to maintain their nuclear program until they can run out the clock on negotiations and achieve their goal of acquiring nuclear capability. But it is we in the West who are eagerly allowing them to do so.

[T]he Iranians have extracted substantial, irreversible concessions from the West in exchange for illusory, reversible limits on its nuclear program. Western concessions have therefore only bolstered the determination of the Iranians to maintain their nuclear program until they can run out the clock on negotiations and achieve their goal of acquiring nuclear capability.

Westerners seem to have a massive capacity to ignore bad news – as if dispensing with information that is either harmful or inconvenient will simply make problems go away. The Europeans and Americans seem to know perfectly well what Iran’s strategy is, but appear to have chosen to ignore how the Iranians are succeeding at pursuing their goals.

When the Iranians, then one of the most advanced and mightiest empires on earth, were conquered in 636 CE by what they deemed one of the most primitive peoples on earth – the Muslim Arabs – they felt deeply shamed. Ancient Persian descriptions reportedly refer to Arabs as “rodent eaters and lizard eaters.”[1]

At that time, Iranians, also known as Persians, who had ruled over countless ethnic and religious nationalities for more than 1,110 years, may have felt superior to the nomads inhabiting the border areas of their vast empire.

It was these desert nomads, however, the Muslim Arabs, who, within 100 years after the death of their prophet, Muhammad, in 632 CE, transformed the Middle East into today’s Arab World – except for Iran.

Although possibly devastated by the rapid spread of Arab culture and influence, the Iranians soon developed effective measures to bend this arc of Arab influence towards Iranian culture. The Iranians apparently indicated to the Arabs that it was all right to be ruled by them, but, as they, the Iranians, had more than a millennium of experience in ruling a vast empire, kept offering to show them how do it properly.[2]

Persian culture eventually defeated the culture that the victorious nomadic Arab Muslims had brought with them from Arabia. Although the rulers were Arab Muslims, pre-Islamic Persians would have had no trouble recognizing the cultural similarities between both empires.

But the indigenous Arabs may not have been willing recipients of this gift; the Iranians began smothering the Arab desert culture by deception – essentially superimposing Persian culture on the Abbasid Empire.[3] Even the name of the capital of the great Abbasid Empire, Baghdad,[4] is Persian (meaning, “God gave”).

Eventually, the Persians seem to have perfected the “art of deception” (in Persian: ketman or taqiyah). Taqiyahmeans dissimulation; ketman means paying lip service to someone in a position of authority while disagreeing with what they are saying. Both methods consist of telling someone who might harm you what you think they want to hear, as telling the truth might be dangerous.[5] The Persians also perfected ta’arof – the use of extremely polite gestures to demonstrate to others that you are superior to them.[6] As one pursues dominance and control, the enemy becomes overpowered. One rarely even grasps that he or she is being humiliated – and ultimately defeated – until it is too late. This concept is totally alien to Western culture.

Iran’s President, Hassan Rouhani, is likely wielding this strategy against President Obama and the other European leaders, with whom Iran is “negotiating” over its nuclear program. Iranian rulers have employedketman and ta’arof to lull their modern day opponents – the P5+1 – into a false sense of complacency. They have been using deception, obfuscation, and extreme outward politeness to outmaneuver their opponents. This is especially clear from the way Rouhani constantly talks about the chances of success for the negotiations, while at the same time setting demands which the West cannot tolerate. If things go as the Iranians plan, Iran will have the time it needs to acquire nuclear capability. In turn, America and its P5 +1 allies will be humiliated.

In the meantime, the Iranians have extracted substantial, irreversible concessions from the West in exchange for illusory, reversible limits on its nuclear program. Western concessions have therefore only bolstered the determination of the Iranians to maintain their nuclear program until they can run out the clock on negotiations and achieve their goal of acquiring nuclear capability.

Westerners seem to have a massive capacity to ignore bad news – as if dispensing with information that is either harmful or inconvenient will simply make problems go away. The Europeans and Americans seem to know perfectly well what Iran’s strategy is, but appear to have chosen to ignore how the Iranians are succeeding at pursuing their goals.

With patience and a deep sense of history, the Iranians apparently miss nothing. They, along with everyone else, can recall that the U.S. failed to prevent India, Pakistan, and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. They may well have decided that they can acquire nuclear capability as well. Other countries in the Middle East seem to be deciding that, too.

The Iranians also appear to understand the nature of their opponents. They, along with everyone else, have observed President Obama, who has emphatically repeated that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon on his watch. Indeed, the president has said, “all options are on the table” regarding Iran, including the “military component.”[7]

But any threat of military force is credible only if the opposing party believes it is. President Obama has never displayed any credible action to back up his alleged threats.

He showed little support for the people of Syria when their government attacked them with chemical weapons, or for the people of Ukraine when Russia invaded. The latter was a clear violation of the Budapest Treaty, in which the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear program in exchange for guarantees of international of protection. They might now regret ever signing it.

The president did nothing either to protect, help, or retaliate against an attack on a U.S. Ambassador and four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12. The only person to spend time in jail for it was a filmmaker, scapegoated by the administration.

Indeed, the President has displayed behavior that has actually undermined his threats, not bolstered them. In 2012, President Obama was caught by a live microphone telling Russia’s then-President, Dmitri Medvedev, that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate missile defense after the 2012 U.S. presidential election. The Iranians must have wondered on what other issues the president might be “flexible.”

Rather than project strong U.S. leadership with key American allies, President Obama’s intentions seem to be a willingness to back down in front of any opponent for supposed political gain, even though the costs of addressing these accumulating threats later are growing every day.

Obama’s policies toward Egypt, Libya, and Syria have further undermined America’s influence in the Middle East, as well as the confidence of any country to count on America to protect it. In every upheaval, instead of making strong cases for either American intervention or non-intervention, President Obama described his overall foreign policy approach as “hitting singles,”[8] a cautious, diplomacy-first approach.

The Iranians do not seem to be deterred by a president who appears unwilling to use the levers of hard power to deter his enemies. More likely, the Iranians will bring in someone who will give up a few singles – although, so far, they have not even had to do that – in favor of long-term home runs.

In supporting the candidacy of Hassan Rouhani – a so-called “moderate,” whose self-described negotiating strategy was to create “gaps in the Western front”[9] – Tehran has made its intention to accelerate its lunge toward nuclear capability unmistakably clear.

While some cultures stab their enemies in the back, the Iranians stab their enemies in the stomach. With a straight face, the Iranians have looked the West in the eye and effectively said: Hey, you don’t mind if we enrich while you talk, do you?

To reassure the West after the failure of each round of talks, Rouhani has “expressed optimism” that an agreement will be reached in the future.[10] Such statements, among others, are the Iranian way of pacifying its enemy, while the Ayatollahs quietly continue enriching uranium and building intercontinental ballistic missiles – even faster.

A visibly delighted Mohammad Javad Zarif, Foreign Minister of Iran, chats with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Geneva on Nov. 24, 2013, after announcing the nuclear agreement with Iran. (Image source: Iranian Students News Agency).

The gap between Western and Iranian demands is evidently unbridgeable. Iran cannot accept what the West generally, and Israel especially, are prepared to allow: at a minimum, removing 15,000 centrifuges, shutting down its uranium enriching underground military bunker at Fordo, downgrading the reactor at its plutonium-production facility at Arak, and agreeing to a 20-year inspection regime. Iran would also have to export its entire stockpile of enriched uranium, which can produce approximately six bombs.[11]

A “good” deal for the West would consist of compelling Iran to comply fully with IAEA demands and six mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions, which demand that Iran suspend all enrichment, reprocessing, and heavy water activity. Parchin – a site which the IAEA believes contains “strong indicators” of having been used for explosives tests related to “possible nuclear weapon development”[12] – would be put under international scrutiny.

Many Iranians, however, have made clear they intend to expand their nuclear program – not restrict it. Ali Akbar Salehi, for instance, the head of Iran’s nuclear energy agency, said he wants to install 30,000 additional centrifuges to enrich enough uranium to fuel Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power station.[13] On May 25, 2014, Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, Iran’s defense minister, rejected the demands of U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who demanded that Iran’s missile program should come under negotiation in the talks. Dehqan described Iran’s missile capability as “defensive and not negotiable.”[14]

Meanwhile, the centrifuges keep spinning.

Should this activity continue, Iran’s Sunni neighbors fear that they will have to kowtow to the Shiites – a major goal of Shiite Iran. Humiliating the Sunnis has been a Shiite goal since their prophet Muhammad died in 632 CE.[15]

Ketman and ta’arof have effectively enabled Iran to defeat its enemies, the Sunni Arabs, yet again – as well as the West. The Iranians have, in the words of one observer, sold us the same rug twice. But it is we in the West who are eagerly allowing them to do so. [16]

[1] In Persian “Mush-Khor” and” Marmulak-Khor”
[2] For a description of how the Persians explained the methods of kingship to the Arabs, see Nizam al-Mulk. His book is called Siyasat nameh, i.e. “Book of Government”or “Rules for Kings.”
[3] Ibid.
[4] Baghdad was the capital of the Abbasid Empire from its founding in 750 until the Mongols sacked the city in 1258.
[5] For more on this concept, see Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, The Source of Iranian Negotiating Behavior, Example #4, Ketman/Taqiyah: Masking One’s True Thoughts – Dissimulation
[6] For example, if three people are walking toward a door, one of them might rush ahead to open the door, meanwhile causing the other two to have a collision that will humiliate them.
[7] New York Times, Obama Says Iran Strike Is an Option, but Warns Israel
[8] Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by President Obama and President Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines in Joint Press Conference
[9] Times of Israel, Iran’s plan: Isolate US in P5+1 talks to gain advantage
[10] Press TV, Final nuclear agreement benefits all: Rouhani
[11] Institute for Science and International Security, Defining Iranian Nuclear Programs in a Comprehensive Solution under the Joint Plan of Action
[12] International Atomic Energy Agency, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards: Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran
[13] Press TV, Iran must build 30,000 more centrifuges to feed Bushehr: AEOI
[14] Fars News Agency, DM: Iran’s Missile Program Not for Negotiations
[15] Khomeini himself alluded to this when he first stepped onto the tarmac, when he returned to rule Iran in February 1979. He stated that he had come to rectify a wrong that had taken place 1400 years ago.
[16] For more information on how Iranians negotiate, see: The Sources of Iranian Negotiating Behavior.

Obama: ‘Very real chance’ of agreement with Iran, Times of Israel, Rebecca Shimoni Ssoil, May 28, 2014

(“America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.” Israel, on the other hand, should ask permission before doing such things? — DM)

US president pushes international partnerships in confronting Tehran, Assad, and a decentralized but still dangerous al-Qaeda

 Obama delineated the boundaries for American military action, telling the graduating cadets that “the United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it – when our people are threatened; when our livelihood is at stake; or when the security of our allies is in danger.”

“In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our action is proportional, effective and just.”

Striking an anticipated chord balancing between US engagement and internationalism, Obama told the graduates that “international opinion matters. But America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.” [Emphasis added.]

US President Barack Obama delivers the commencement address to the 2014 graduating class at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, Wednesday, May 28, 2014 (photo credit: AFP/ Jim WATSON)Read more: Obama: ‘Very real chance’ of agreement with Iran

WASHINGTON — In a much-anticipated speech delineating his foreign policy for the remainder of his term in office, US President Barack Obama said Wednesday that his administration’s refocus toward international cooperation provided a new opportunity to resolve tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. While warning that the odds of success are “still long” in getting Iran to give up its nuclear weapons development, he said that “for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement.

Despite frequent warnings from the United States, Israel, and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years,” Obama recalled, explaining why his new policy emphasized cooperation rather than unilateral American action. “But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government.”

Obama said that the US-led international coalition has afforded “an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully” with Iran.

“The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement – one that is more effective and durable than what would be achieved through the use of force,” he argued. “Throughout these negotiations, it has been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.”

During his speech to the 2014 graduating class at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Obama delineated the boundaries for American military action, telling the graduating cadets that “the United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it – when our people are threatened; when our livelihood is at stake; or when the security of our allies is in danger.”

“In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our action is proportional, effective and just.”

Striking an anticipated chord balancing between US engagement and internationalism, Obama told the graduates that “international opinion matters. But America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.”

Obama said that the “threshold” for military action “must be higher” in situations that are of “global concern” but “do not pose a direct threat to the United States.” In the president’s vision, the higher threshold means that the US must seek international partnership and collective action in such cases.

“We must do so because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, and less likely to lead to costly mistakes,” Obama explained.

Terrorism, said the president is “the most direct threat to America at home and abroad” for the foreseeable future. He warned, however, that “a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable.”

Instead, Obama said that he drew upon “the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan” to shift Washington’s counterterrorism strategy to one that will “more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.”

Obama described al-Qaeda as a decentralized threat with extremist affiliates, many of whom have focused their energies on targets in their host countries rather than on far-off targets on American soil.

“This lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but heightens the danger to US personnel overseas,” he explained. “We need a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military thin, or stir up local resentments.”

Obama discussed successes in combating the core of al-Qaeda and “an insurgency that threatened to overrun the country” in Afghanistan, but noted that the military successes had to be reinforced by strengthening Afghan institutions.

A day after announcing that the US was moving toward what he described Wednesday as a “train and advise mission” in Afghanistan, the president emphasized that the reduced presence in the country “will allow us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Obama called on Congress to support a Counterterrorism Partnership Fund of up to $5 billion to bankroll a plan for what he termed “a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel” in which the US will train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries facing counterterror challenges.

Among those missions, he listed “training security forces in Yemen who have gone on the offensive against al-Qaeda, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia, working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya, and facilitating French operations in Mali.”

Obama said that one “critical focus” of the US’s effort would be the three-year-old crisis in Syria.

“As president, I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian civil war, and I believe that is the right decision,” he explained. “But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his people. And in helping those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we also push back against the growing number of extremists who find safe-haven in the chaos.”

Obama said that the additional resources would be used to support Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq — both in supporting refugees and battling extremists spilling over their borders.

“I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and a brutal dictator,” he promised, while assuring that the US would seek to do so as part of an international partnership.

Obama spoke to his more interventionist critics, saying that his new policy did not preclude taking direct action against terrorists. He did, however, warn that “in taking direct action, we must uphold standards that reflect our values. That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is near certainty of no civilian casualties.”

US actions, he warned “must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.”

The president said that the US should be “more transparent about both the basis for our actions, and the manner in which they are carried out – whether it is drone strikes, or training partners.” In order to do so, Obama said, he would “increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts.”

“When we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government,” he warned.

International cooperation was a major theme in Obama’s speech, with the president still seeking to dispel international images of American unilateralism that plagued the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

He called for reexamining institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, in order to “evolve these institutions to meet the demands of today.” Obama said that international monitoring and cooperation on both the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and in confronting the Iranian nuclear threat had achieved positive results, if not yet resolutions to either situation.

Climate change, Obama said, was one non-military application for his redirection toward international cooperation. The president said that in 2015, America intends to present a global framework for combating climate change. At the same time, he slammed Republicans in Congress, complaining that “we can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if so many of our political leaders deny that it is taking place.”

American leadership, he continued, demands that Washington conform to international norms and the rule of law. In an effort to do so, he said, he would continue to push to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and to “place new restrictions on how America collects and uses intelligence – because we will have fewer partners and be less effective if a perception takes hold that we are conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens.”

Obama acknowledged that the Arab Spring had challenged American policy and its commitment to reinforcing democratic values worldwide.

“In capitals around the globe – including some of America’s partners – there has been a crackdown on civil society. The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies, and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares. Watching these trends, or the violent upheaval in parts of the Arab World, it is easy to be cynical,” he noted.

America’s fraught relationship with successive governmental successors to deposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak earned a special mention, with Obama emphasizing that Washington’s relationship with Cairo “is anchored in security interests – from the peace treaty with Israel, to shared efforts against violent extremism” rather than shared values. He warned, however, that US would continue to “persistently press for the reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.”

Is the U.S. Willing to React Effectively? Gatestone Institute, Peter Huessy, May 28, 2014

Supporters of a deal with Iran assume three things, all questionable.

The clandestine production of nuclear weapons by rogue states promises to create what Yale Professor Paul Bracken terms an “exceedingly volatile poly-nuclear Middle East.”[1]

Against the backdrop of negotiations between the United States, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany, (known as the P5+1), on the one hand and Iran on the other, his warning is particularly important.

In 1961, a leading defense analyst, Fred Ikle, wrote, “In entering into an arms-control agreement, we must know not only that we are technically capable of detecting a violation but also that we or the rest of the world will be… in a position to react effectively if a violation is discovered.”

At least five states have sought to build nuclear bombs clandestinely: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea. All are or were signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], which prohibits all except the permanent five members of the UN Security Council from acquiring nuclear weapons.

During the past few decades they were given clean bills of health by the International Atomic Energy Administration, [IAEA], the UN organization monitoring nuclear energy programs to prevent them from being secretly transformed into parallel nuclear weapons programs.

The reason Iraq and Syria did not succeed in becoming nuclear weapons states was due to Israeli air strikes on their nuclear reactors in 1981 and 2007.

Iraq failed again in its quest for nuclear weapons because — in the immediate aftermath of the 1991 Desert Storm campaign, which ousted Iraq’s Saddam Hussein from the occupation of Kuwait — the U.S. discovered and destroyed Baghdad’s nuclear program.

As for Libya’s nuclear program — more advanced than the UN’s IAEA had assumed — the heart of it was interdicted at sea by the U.S. and Great Britain when they seized thousands of nuclear centrifuge parts destined for Libya. The centrifuge parts had been manufactured in Malaysia by the Pakistani nuclear smuggling network led by A.Q. Khan, the father of Islamabad’s nuclear weapons program.[2]

But North Korea?

In 1994 the Agreed Framework agreement between North Korea and the United States called for Japan and South Korea to fund the construction of two nuclear power plants in North Korea, in return for Pyongyang remaining in the NPT and making transparent its nuclear program. The agreement included North Korea’s ending any pursuit of nuclear weapons.[3]

What if Israel had not destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981? Saddam Hussein might very well have had a nuclear weapons capability when, in 1990, he invaded Kuwait. Might Saddam, armed with such weaponry, have continued south to seize the oil fields in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? And would a U.S.-led coalition then even have tried try to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait or even Saudi Arabia?

Today, we either naïvely or venally assume Iran is open to a simple trade. That is, the U.S. and its allies eliminate economic sanctions in return for Iran being transparent about its nuclear program.

This assumption misses why we have a problem in the first place.

Iran has been sanctioned because it is a terrorist-sponsoring state seeking nuclear weapons, not the other way around.

Iran is seeking nuclear weapons for what reason?

Most probably to fulfill its constitutional mandate to a) Destroy Israel; b) Stop America from protecting the Persian Gulf and our allies there; and c) Become the hegemonic power in the region. And, into the bargain, to control some two thirds of the world’s proven reserves of conventional oil and one third of its natural gas.

With Iran, we face either the North Korean 1994 spurious-deal option, which permits it to acquire nuclear weapons capability, or the Israeli 1981 and 2007 Iraq and Syria option of a military strike.

David Albright writes that if we choose the “deal” route, we have to ensure that any agreement with Iran totally ends its nuclear weapons capability, unlike the 1994 deal with North Korea.

Proliferation expert Professor Matthew Kroenig, of Georgetown University, alternatively argues that we should simply destroy as much of Iran’s nuclear program as possible.

However attractive a diplomatic agreement with Iran might be, its supporters assume three things, all questionable.

First, most assume we will know in a timely way of any significant Iranian breach of a new agreement.

Second, many assume that, once we find out about violations, we will muster the will to take appropriate action to end the violation. To date, however, Iran has declared the Parchin military facility off-limits, in the face of considerable evidence that suspect nuclear warhead design work has taken place there.

Third, much of conventional wisdom says “don’t worry”. For example, Spencer Ackerman of the Guardian and former CIA analyst Paul Pillar both claim that even if Iran acquires a nuclear warhead, it cannot deliver it to the U.S.

They both thus assume we have sufficient time to protect ourselves even if Iran does get a bomb.

This is wrong on two counts.

The consensus of the US intelligence community is that Iran will have an intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] by 2015, according to Congressional testimony on February 14, 2014 by Lt Gen Michael Flynn, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Why is this?

Most Americans seem to forget that less than a year ago, North Korea showed that its missiles can now reach the U.S. if launched in a southerly direction — and demonstrated its ability to do precisely that.

Given North Korea’s extensive cooperative missile work with Iran, and that North Korea can now mate its nuclear warheads to its missiles, Iran will most likely soon learn to do likewise.

What can history tell us?

On one side, in 1981 and 2007, Israel warplanes respectively struck an Iraqi and Syrian nuclear reactor.

Great Britain and the United States in 2003 seized a Libya-bound nuclear centrifuge shipment aboard the ship BBC China after it was diverted to an Italian port.

And in 1991 the U.S. liberated Kuwait — also discovering and dismantling Iraq’s nuclear program — while using a coalition of military forces.

On the other side, in 1994 the U.S. made a “deal” with North Korea. Pyongyang cheated immediately, now has a small arsenal of nuclear weapons, and is assisting other countries in acquiring nuclear weapons.

If one is concerned about the future of the U.S. and the free world, the choice seems clear. Will politicians have the courage to make it?

[1] “The Second Nuclear Age: A Conversation with Professor Paul Bracken“, Luncheon Series, The Hudson Institute, May 6, 2014.
[2] See, for further discussion of these cases, the website of The Wisconsin Project on Arms Control, “Libyan Timeline;” “Iraq’s Real Weapons Threat” by Rolf Ekeus, Former Head of UN Inspections Effort in Iraq, The Washington Post June 29, 2003; and Micah Morrison, “New A.Q. Khan Documents Suggest Pakistan Spread Nuclear Weapon Technology“, Fox New, November 18, 2011.
[3] For an excellent chronology of these events, see “North Korean Nuclear Developments: An Updated Chronology” and “CRS Issue Brief for Congress, North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program“.

Israel threatened by U.S. after rejecting call to attack Syrian advance – World Tribune | World Tribune.

( Not sure WHAT to make of this… – JW)

Special to WorldTribune.com

Geostrategy-Direct.com

WASHINGTON — The United States has launched a campaign against Israel in wake of its refusal to attack Syria.

Diplomatic sources said Israel rebuffed a request by President Barack Obama to attack the Syrian Army as it advanced toward rebel strongholds in the Golan Heights in May 2014. The sources said Obama’s aides, including National Security Adviser Susan Rice, warned Israeli leaders that they would regret their decision.

“The Israelis were warned that their refusal to attack [Syrian President Bashar] Assad’s forces would be very costly, and over the last few weeks there has been increasing evidence of U.S. retaliation,” a source said.

The sources said Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel rejected Israel’s explanation that an attack on the Syrian Army could spark a war that would include Iran.

Obama about-turns on Syria: US military training and weapons for moderate Syrian rebels, DEBKAfile, May 27, 2014

President Barack Obama turns back to

Arab watchers around the Middle East are waiting agog for US President Barack Obama’s address at the US Military Academy at West Point Wednesday, May 28, as forecasts abound that he will unveil a major policy U-turn on the Syrian conflict. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the new policy is in fact in motion ahead of the presidential disclosure. It is a program to expand US involvement in the war against the Assad regime and al Qaeda elements by providing moderate rebels with military training and a regular supply of sophisticated weapons, instead of the widely-spaced dribs and drabs hitherto. It may even include anti-air systems which Washington has withheld so far.

The Arab world sees Obama as moving to counteract Russian, Iranian and Hizballah intervention in the Syrian conflict. It is seen in some quarters as also payback for Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

At all events, a Saudi source commented in Riyadh: “For the first time in years, president Obama is ready to take direct action against Iran’s strategic interests in the Middle East.”

The West Point speech will also be watched carefully in Moscow, where expanded US input in support of the rebels is seen as a direct assault on the Russian position in Syria. DEBKAfile’s sources report that Moscow is preparing to beef up and upgrade its arms consignments to Syria so as to arm Assad for contending with the advanced American hardware incoming to the rebels.

Obama will unveil his plan for Syria the day after announcing his decision to leave 9,800 in Afghanistan – after the US combat mission is over at the end of 2014 – to train Afghan forces and support counter-terrorism operations. That decision is contingent on the next Afghan president signing a bilateral security agreement, which the incumbent Hamid Karzai refused to do. Washington appears confident that both of the candidates facing the June 14 run-off will agree to approve the accord.

The latest DEBKA Weekly 636 of May 23 disclosed President Obama’s revised approach to US military intervention in Syria, offering details of his plan. The US military training camps are already up and running, we reported. The rebel trainees arrive through Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, take the US courses and then cross into Syria.

The US army has furthermore laid out the secret routes for sending the new weapons supplies to the fighters in Syria.

By this policy reassessment, the Obama administration aims to achieve the following strategic objectives:

1. Creating a distance between the Israeli and Jordanian borders and the threats posed to those countries by the Syrian Army and its allies, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the Lebanese Hizballah and Iraqi Shiite militias.

2. Keeping those hostile forces at bay additionally from US military facilities in Jordan and Israel.

3. Establishing a US military intelligence foothold on the Damascus periphery to challenge Russian and Iranian exclusivity as the only major powers with operational access to the Syrian capital.

4. US military intelligence agents on the spot would seek to establish ties with high-ranking Syrian general command officers and the field commanders of units deployed in and around Damascus.

5. Creating a barrier to stave off Al Qaeda encroachments on Damascus or the Syrian-Jordanian and Syrian-Israeli borders and so preventing the jihadis from gaining jumping-off positions for attacks inside those countries.

Will Secret Diplomacy Seal Iran Appeasement? Commentary Magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin, May 27, 2014

(President Obama is the world’s greatest celebrity and therein lies his power. Rouhani and the Supreme Leader will swoon at his slightest hint of displeasure and all will be well. Right? — DM)

The Iranians’ strong negotiating position stems directly from the interim agreement that was brought about as the result of secret U.S.-Iran talks. It is difficult to imagine an international community that was reluctantly dragged into enacting sanctions in the first place, raising the pressure on Iran if no deal is reached. Nor does anyone seriously imagine President Obama ordering the use of force if the talks continue to be stalemated. As a result, there is very little reason for the ayatollahs to think they have much to worry about in the talks.

The Obama administration proved last fall that it could sell even a weak deal with Iran to the American public and brand skeptics as potential warmongers. It may be thinking that it can do the same with an even flimsier agreement negotiated in similar secrecy this year. If so, Obama may think he may have gotten himself off the hook for his many promises to stop the Iranians from getting a weapon. But such drives for appeasement that contain within them the seeds of future conflict rarely end well for the appeasers.

The latest round of nuclear talks between the West and Iran ended earlier this month without the progress toward an agreement that many had anticipated. Though the United States and its allies seem eager to sign a deal that will put a fig leaf of non-proliferation on an Iranian nuclear program that they are content to leave in place, Tehran has picked up on Washington’s zeal for a deal and is doing what its negotiators have done best for over a decade: stalling. With the international sanctions regime already starting to take on water after last November’s interim agreement that loosened the economic restrictions on Iran, the Islamist regime knows it is in a far stronger position than its Western counterparts.

But rather than reacting to this dismal situation by rethinking his approach, President Obama seems determined to double down on his determination to get a deal. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, the president is revisiting the tactic he used last year to revive the moribund P5+1 talks with Iran. Rather than continuing to work with his European partners, it appears the U.S. will once again leave the multilateral negotiations and conduct bilateral talks. The assumption is that on their own, American diplomats will be able to entice the Iranians to sign on the dotted line with concessions that even the French and the British wouldn’t consider. If true, this illustrates that what the president started last year with the interim deal is a process that has one goal and one goal alone: getting a deal with Iran no matter what the price.

The Iranians’ strong negotiating position stems directly from the interim agreement that was brought about as the result of secret U.S.-Iran talks. It is difficult to imagine an international community that was reluctantly dragged into enacting sanctions in the first place, raising the pressure on Iran if no deal is reached. Nor does anyone seriously imagine President Obama ordering the use of force if the talks continue to be stalemated. As a result, there is very little reason for the ayatollahs to think they have much to worry about in the talks.

Having already won the West’s acceptance of its “right” to enrich uranium, ending the Iranian nuclear program, as President Obama pledged during his reelection campaign, is off the table. The Iranians are now only negotiating about how long it would take them to “break out” from a deal and race to a bomb. At this point the only objective of the Western negotiators appears to be to lengthen that period from a few weeks to a few months, but even this victory has not lessened Iran’s determination to drag out the talks even further.

That is why the possibility of more secret talks is such a dangerous development. Though the current multilateral negotiations have created a negotiating track that has given the Iranians much of what they wanted in the talks, the open nature of these monthly talk fests make it difficult for the Americans to sweeten the pot even further for the Iranians. Since Tehran has already openly mocked requests to include their ballistic weapons program in the talks and continue to make it hard for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor their facilities, including their military research sites, transparency would appear to favor at least the pretense that the purpose of the negotiations is to actually stop the Iranians from getting a bomb. But secret talks offer the possibility that Obama can go even further than his partners, who have at times balked at the open desire of Washington for an end to the confrontation with Iran at almost any price.

Iran went into this process hoping that it could achieve by Western consent what it appeared it was well on its way to achieving in spite of the push for sanctions: American approval for a nuclear program that could easily be converted to military use. If, as the Journal reported today, Iran’s weapons research scientists are still hard at work at getting closer to a bomb, the margin of error for the U.S. in this process is very small. Having conceded that Iran could amass enough nuclear fuel for a bomb, it will be harder still to craft a deal that could prevent it from taking that next inevitable state to a weapon.

The Obama administration proved last fall that it could sell even a weak deal with Iran to the American public and brand skeptics as potential warmongers. It may be thinking that it can do the same with an even flimsier agreement negotiated in similar secrecy this year. If so, Obama may think he may have gotten himself off the hook for his many promises to stop the Iranians from getting a weapon. But such drives for appeasement that contain within them the seeds of future conflict rarely end well for the appeasers.

‘As of early June, IDF will begin ceasing various activities,’  Israel Hayom, May 27, 2014

“The significance of the emerging 2015 budgetary outline is that we will not be able to begin the year at all,” says Defense Ministry Director-General Maj. Gen. (res.) Dan Harel • “We won’t have money for the elements that produce security,” he says.

As of early June, the Israel Defense Forces will begin ceasing various activities, while certain military functions, such as vehicle repairs, are expected to dwindle one after the other, officials in the defense establishment said on Monday.

“The significance of the emerging 2015 budgetary outline is that we will not be able to begin the year at all,” Defense Ministry Director-General Maj. Gen. (res.) Dan Harel said on Monday in an interview with military correspondents at IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv, known as the Kirya.

 According to Harel, “There will be money for elements pertaining to rehabilitation and retirement, because that is the law, but we won’t have money for the elements that produce security.”

Based on the figures, the Defense Ministry’s budget for 2014 stands at 51 billion shekels ($15 billion), and the “rigid” portion of the budget, which cannot be touched, includes among other things 7.4 billion shekels ($2.1 billion) for pensions and 1.1 billion shekels ($320 million) to pay the salaries of soldiers during their mandatory service.

The areas of “flexibility” pertain to the budget for the IDF and Defense Ministry bodies. The Defense Ministry operates with a yearly budget of 1.5 billion shekels ($430 million), while the IDF operates with a budget of 26.5 billion shekels ($7.63 billion) per year. In 2015, this number is expected to drop to 22.4 billion shekels ($6.45 billion).

The defense establishment has asked that the Finance Ministry keep its promises regarding the 2014 budget, which it says were broken unilaterally. These promises, say defense officials, pertain to an agreement by the Finance Ministry to give the defense establishment parts of the amount needed to purchase new submarines and for the removal of land mines to facilitate the transfer of IDF bases to the Negev Desert. The sum of money being unilaterally withheld by the Finance Ministry stands at 2.15 billion shekels ($620 million). The defense establishment is also demanding an additional 750 million shekels ($216 million) for minimum subsistence. Regardless, according to defense officials, these funds are also not sufficient enough to reinstate training exercises for 2014.

According to Harel, “The statement that the IDF and the Defense Ministry do not know how to manage their budgets, or that there are enormous surpluses in the defense establishment that can be cut from, is blind to the facts. For years, the defense budget has gradually dropped, while instead we have seen a welcome rise in the social budget.”

State Department Apologizes for Promoting Muslim Cleric Who Backed Killing of U.S. Soldiers, Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo, May 27, 2014

Tweet promoting controversial cleric sparks widespread outrage

“This administration is continuing to push extremist clerics like Bin Bayyah as part of a fantasy foreign policy that somehow they are somehow a counter to al Qaeda,”

Secretary of State John Kerry / AP

The State Department’s Counter Terrorism (CT) Bureau apologized on Tuesday for promoting a controversial Muslim scholar whose organization has reportedly backed Hamas and endorsed a fatwa authorizing the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The apology came on the heels of a Friday Washington Free Beacon report detailing the CT Bureau’s promotion of Sheik Abdallah Bin Bayyah, the vice president of a radical Muslim scholars group that was founded by a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader who has called “for the death of Jews and Americans.”

Bin Bayyah himself is one of several clerics who endorsed a 2004 fatwa, or religious order, endorsing the killing of U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq.

The CT Bureau apologized multiple times on Tuesday for tweeting in favor of Bin Bayyah and promoting an article on his website.

“This should not have been tweeted and has since been deleted,” the CT Bureau tweeted at users who expressed anger over the original message.

“It was wrong and should not have been tweeted,” the bureau later tweeted in response to other outraged individuals.

Bin Bayyah has long been a controversial figure and his attendance at a 2013 meeting at the White House sparked a fury among critics of the Obama administration.

Bin Bayyah has served as the vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), which was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leader “who has called for the death of Jews and Americans and himself is banned from visiting the U.S.,” according to Fox News.

Bin Bayyah also has “urged the U.N. to criminalize blasphemy,” according to reports, and spoke “out in favor of Hamas,” the terror group that governs the West Bank.

The controversial cleric also took heat for issuing a fatwa in 2009  “barring ‘all forms of normalization’ with Israel,” according to Fox.

The 2004 fatwa allowing for the murder of U.S. troops in Iraq reportedly stated that “resisting occupation troops” is a “duty” for all Muslims, according to reports filed at the time.

Terrorism analyst Patrick Poole condemned the State Department’s tweet last week, stating that it must more carefully vet the Muslim leaders it promotes.

“This administration is continuing to push extremist clerics like Bin Bayyah as part of a fantasy foreign policy that somehow they are somehow a counter to al Qaeda,” Poole said. “But in Bin Bayyah’s case, it was his organization that issued the fatwa allowing for the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and said it was a duty for Muslims all over the world to support the Iraqi ‘resistance’ against the United States that gave religious justification for al Qaeda’s terrorism.”