Archive for May 21, 2015

« WarSclerotic home page

The Check’s in the Mail

May 21, 2015

Israel Ordered to Pay Iran Over $1 Billion for Oil
By: Lauren Calin, World Israel News May 21, 2015, 7:43


(To think Israel and Iran once had a partnership in the past is amazing. My, how times have changed since the mad-dog mullahs took over. – LS)

In 1979, Iran declared Israel an enemy and severed all business ties. Now, a Swiss court has ruled that Israel must compensate Iran for its half of a joint oil production program that existed before the Islamic revolution.

A Swiss court has ordered an Israeli company to pay Iran $1.1 billion in compensation for taking over the Iranian share of a business partnership that was cancelled by Iran following the Islamic Revolution.

Israel rejected the court’s ruling. Israel’s Finance Ministry indicated that the money would not be paid as it is a violation of Israeli law to transfer funds to an enemy state. The ministry issued a statement, saying: “Without relating to the heart of the matter, we point out that according to the Law for Trading with the Enemy it is prohibited to transfer money to an enemy country including the Iranian National Oil Company.”

The Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC) was established in 1968 as a joint partnership between Israeli fuel companies and the Israeli and Iranian governments. Iran cancelled its contract in 1979 following the Islamic Revolution. In response, Israel expropriated Iran’s share.

Iran launched three lawsuits in Swiss and French courts in order to claim a share of the profits to which it would have been entitled, compensation for expropriated property and payment for crude oil that was delivered to Israel, but not paid for at the time of the Revolution. According to IRNA, the official Iranian news agency, this specific judgment deals with the matter of the crude oil.

Israel argues that Iran is not entitled to compensation due to having been the party to violate the partnership agreement. Israel and Iran maintained close business ties under the Shah, but the Islamic Republic rescinded Iran’s recognition of Israel and ended all diplomatic relations. Ayatollah Khomeini declared Israel an “enemy of Islam” and the “little Satan.” Since the revolution, it has been Iranian government policy to call for the destruction of Israel and to fund its enemies, especially the Hezbollah and Hamas terror organizations.

The legal intricacies of the case are complicated by the fact that the lawsuits were launched in 2004, whereas Israel only officially declared Iran an enemy state in 2011. Furthermore, Iran did not sue EAPC directly, but rather Trans-Asiatic Oil (TAO), which is owned by EAPC but registered in Panama.

Categories: Mad Mullahs
Tags:

Comments: 3 Comments

Relying on the U.S. for security is a mistake

May 21, 2015

Relying on the U.S. for security is a mistake, Al Arabiya News, Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor, May 21, 2015

(Al Arabiya is based in the United Arab Emirates and is majority-owned by Saudi broadcaster Middle East Broadcasting Center.– DM)

Obama says Iran’s newfound wealth will be used to improve lives rather than end up in the treasure chests of Hezbollah, the Shiite Yemeni Houthis, or other troublemakers under the Iranian wing. Sorry, but to me that smacks of naivety at best, snake oil at worst.

According to a Daily Telegraph investigation, Iran’s Supreme Leader controls “a financial empire” estimated to be worth $95 billion, more than even the grandiose Shah had managed to accumulate. That alone should tell Mr Obama that Iran has no intention of prioritising the needs of its people over its regional mischief makers.

****************

At a passing glance, President Barack Obama’s meetings with the leaders of the Arab Gulf States have borne fruit in terms of furthering mutual respect and as a building block to closer cooperation. But when one digs beneath the flimflam and the verbal pledges – with the exception of a joint missile defense system and a promise that deliveries of U.S. weapons would be fast-tracked – the recent Camp David Summit delivered few tangible benefits.

Indeed, more than a few commentators have described the meeting as a U.S.-hosted arms bazaar, one that will fill the coffers of American weapons manufacturers with billions of dollars. Plus the P5+1 – Iranian nuclear deal is set to enrich and empower Tehran once economic sanctions are lifted.

Obama says Iran’s newfound wealth will be used to improve lives rather than end up in the treasure chests of Hezbollah, the Shiite Yemeni Houthis, or other troublemakers under the Iranian wing. Sorry, but to me that smacks of naivety at best, snake oil at worst.

According to a Daily Telegraph investigation, Iran’s Supreme Leader controls “a financial empire” estimated to be worth $95 billion, more than even the grandiose Shah had managed to accumulate. That alone should tell Mr Obama that Iran has no intention of prioritising the needs of its people over its regional mischief makers.

Eradicating terrorism

The question is whether the leaders of the GCC countries should rightly feel secure from Iranian aggression now that the U.S. President has promised to come to their defense, militarily if deemed necessary. Naturally, that assessment would be made by the White House, not by the threatened states.

Without a signed and sealed security pact and in light of Obama’s track record of hesitancy in ending regional conflicts or eradicating terrorism, I don’t think so. Are we seriously to believe that the U.S. would declare war on Iran were we to be menaced?

Obama’s rhetoric speaks otherwise when he told the New York Times that internal threats to Gulf States are “bigger than Iran” and, at Camp David, he warned his guests not to “marginalise” Tehran. And even if Obama’s undertaking was rock solid, his term expires in just over 18 months. What happens then?

In any case, while there is nothing wrong with cementing better relations with the U.S., we must not on any account rely on its protection or that of any other world power. Yemen proves that we are able and willing to protect ourselves and our allies and when the proposed Joint Arab Force comes into play, our capabilities will be strengthened. We have no need of guardians or bosses in foreign capitals. We have strong, well equipped armies and air forces. We are not helpless, underage youths pleading to be defended, as characterised by sectors of the media.

Merely a public relations exercise

I would urge GCC heads of state to put Camp David under a microscope to ascertain whether it was a genuine attempt on Obama’s behalf to induce closer ties or merely a public relations exercise to bring Gulf States on board a bad deal rewarding Iran for its hostility, regional interference and its backing of terrorists.

In my opinion, trusting the Obama administration to rein in Iran would be a huge mistake. U.S. engagement with Iran was exactly the legacy Obama was after even before he moved into the Oval Office. And to that end he surrounded himself with pro-Iranian officials, such as Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy Secretary-of-State Bill Burns, who have all been championing détente with Iran for many years.

Obama’s personal adviser and family friend, Valerie Jarrett grew up in Iran, speaks Farsi, and was a main player along with Bill Burns in U.S.-Iranian secret talks to pave the way for official negotiations. The President’s National Security Council Director for Iran, Sahar Nowrouzzadeh is a former employee of the National-Iranian American Council, a pro-Iranian lobbying organisation.

The President’s own behaviour with regards to America’s long-time sworn enemy was suspect since the beginning. He has been sending the Iranians video Nawrus (New Year) messages and letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader. This year, Obama actually celebrated the Persian New Year at home with his wife and daughters.

Just as strange was Obama’s silence concerning Iran’s crackdown on street protests following elections. And if he condemns Tehran for its human rights abuses and lack of civil liberties, he must be whispering. Because all we hear from him is condemnation of predominately Sunni Arab states on those issues.

“The greatest supporter and plotter of terrorism”

Stranger still, while Obama comes across as the ayatollahs’ new best friend, just days ago, the Ayatollah Khamenei attacked the U.S. as “the greatest supporter and plotter of terrorism” and accuses Washington of pursuing its own interests making the region insecure, while branding America as the enemy of both Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Far from committing to stay out of Arab affairs, Khamenei stressed that his country would continue supporting “the oppressed people of Yemen, Bahrain and Palestine in every way possible.”

Are we really going to place our trust in America’s Commander-in-Chief when he claims backing the Free Syrian Army against the Syrian regime partnered with Iran and Hezbollah, even as his Air Force provides air cover to Iran’s Quds Force and pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq’s Anbar province? This rabble with blood-stained hands – officially known as Popular Mobilisation Forces (Al-Shaabi) – has been deployed by Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi and is directed by the commander of Iran’s Quds Force Qassem Soleimani. What is worse is that Iran is poised to send in ground troops as soon as it receives the go ahead from the government.

And what does Mr Obama say about the shocking news revealed by the Times and other papers to the effect that the government in Baghdad is turning away tens of thousands of desperate Sunni refugees fleeing the city of Ramadi, recaptured by ISIS? Nothing much as far as I can tell! Iraq families with nowhere to go are being treated worse than foreign foes, barred entrance into their own capital city unless they happen to have a local “guarantor.” This is a plan to reduce the Sunni population by sending them into the fray to die; there is no other explanation.

In reality, Saudi Arabia’s towns bordering northern Yemen are under direct threat from Houthis, while Iran, close to being literally under the Iranian boot, constitutes a grave threat to Gulf States. Does the Obama administration plan to wait until the horse has bolted before acting? The Iranian plot to dominate the region is taking shape before our eyes. We are being surrounded. Yet the U.S. president asks us to play nice with the plotters.

Qualitative military edge

The bottom line is we did not get what we asked for. Obama’s commitment to intervene in Syria to stop the regime’s killing spree was off the table along with a joint defense pact on the lines of those the U.S. has with Israel, Japan and South Korea. Moreover, he has turned down the Saudi request to purchase state-of-the-art F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors.

And we certainly did not get what we need. Most importantly, any final agreement with Iran should be negotiated with the participation of Gulf states and co-signed by our leaders. Such agreement should not be limited to nuclear issues, but should be conditional upon Tehran’s commitment to quit meddling in the affairs of Arab countries, notably Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain whether directly (in the case of Iraq and Syria) or via its armed proxies (Lebanon and Yemen).

We should not trust any other countries but our own. We must not await instructions from the White House on how to pursue our own interests, as it is well-known that U.S. friendship is not proffered without strings. We must proceed with our mission to free Yemen of Houthi rabble, continue with our efforts to destroy ISIS and lend every support to that sector of the Syrian opposition fighting for a democratic, inclusive state – as opposed to terrorist groups that seek to drag Syria back to the Middle Ages.

Lastly, we should insist upon the stringent terms outlined above. And if those terms are not put in writing, the GCC should work to weaken the Iranian regime once and for all, beginning with material support for the oppressed Ahwazi Arab citizens of Iranian-occupied Arabistan – a region Iran now calls Khuzestan, which supplies the country with most of its oil and gas.

I fear that Camp David was a well-timed bluff and its weapons bounty no more than candies to sweeten the pill. I trust and believe that our leaders understand the score and will maintain independent strategies to counteract threats to our very existence. We cannot gamble with tomorrow on the words of one man, even if that man is the U.S. president.

Our region has been burned many times before. If the past is a good predictor of the future, we should recognise that ultimately we must become the masters of our own destiny, which is far too precious to be handed to the safekeeping of fair-weather friends.

Categories: Arab nations, Foreign policy, Gulf states, Iran, Iranian proxies, Iraq, Islamic State, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, Saudi Arabia, Shia, Sunni, Support for terrorism, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 5 Comments

Richard Engel on Obama’s Strategy Against Islamic State: The Definition of Stupidity

May 21, 2015

Richard Engel on Obama’s Strategy Against Islamic State: The Definition of Stupidity, Washington Free Beacon via You Tube, May 21, 2015

 

Categories: Airstrikes, Caliphate, Department of Defense, Foreign policy, Ideology, Iranian proxies, Iraq, Iraqi military, Islamic State, Obama, Palmyra, Syria
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Strategic Failures, the US and the Fall of Ramadi

May 21, 2015

Strategic Failures, the US and the Fall of Ramadi, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, May 21, 2015

Islamic-State-Victory-Parade-HPIslamic State fighters celebrate their take over of Ramadi with a victory ‘parade.’ (Photo: Islamic State social media)

The U.S. must correct its strategy by sidelining Iranian-backed militias and terrorists, leveraging influence with the Iraqi government and significantly increasing assistance to the Anbar tribes, Kurds, Iraqi government and to the persecuted Christian minority that is forming its own self-defense force.

Recent history has shown that the Iraqi government will choose the U.S. over Iran if compelled.

********************

The Islamic State (ISIS) has captured Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province, reportedly “terrifying” Iraqi officials who now foresee a “tsunami of international terror.” It is an important achievement for the terrorist group aimed at pre-empting a potential Sunni tribal uprising.

The Sunni tribes in Anbar Province were critical to the success of the 2007 “surge” that ousted the Islamic State’s predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The deterioration in the relationship between these tribes and the central Iraqi government was likewise critical to the terrorists’ comeback in Iraq.

The Islamic State remembered these lessons and acted quickly as the Iraqi government began training tribal fighters and the U.S. defense budget allotted $179 million to Kurdish and Sunni tribal forces. The U.S. forgot these lessons and has long rejected Sunni and Kurdish pleas for direct aid to fight the Islamic State.

The Obama Administration is now planning to change course and directly arm and train the Iraqi Sunni tribes after the fall of Ramadi. The White House previously chose to work only through the central Iraqi government that has given the Kurds and Sunnis inadequate support.

A delegation of 11 Sunni tribal leaders, including Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha, the President of the Anbar Awakening Council, flew to the U.S. on January 18 to plead for direct assistance. Former President George W. Bush called Abu Risha and listened to his complaints for 20 minutes and offered to help. Administration officials were less willing. One tribal official said, “I wouldn’t call it the ‘cold shoulder,’ but it certainly was a cool one.”

The Obama Administration told them that it would only work through the elected central government. Its viewpoint was that working with forces outside the government’s authority undermines the Iraqi leadership and threatens the country’s unity.

That standpoint ignores what was learned after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Nothing threatens Iraq’s unity and the government’s authority more than instability. Direct U.S. aid to the Sunni tribes helped save Iraq from disintegration into sectarian enclaves ruled by terrorists and militias.

The Islamic State struck Ramadi during a sandstorm that delayed American air support. Former U.S. Central Command advisor Ali Khedery says that a Kurdish member of parliament informed him that 6,000 Iraqi Security Forces fled when faced with a mere 150 Islamic State fighters. About 500 Iraqi security personnel and civilians died in two days. The Iraqi officials spoke straight forwardly and  admitted that the current strategy is failing.

The Pentagon says it has finished training about 7,000 Iraqi Security Forces and another 3-4,000 are in the process of training, but training won’t solve the problem of collapsing Iraqi forces. The U.S. trained the Iraqis from 2003 until the withdrawal in 2011. The strategy of waiting for the Iraqi security forces to become strong enough to stabilize the country is the same strategy that failed before the surge.

Iraqi personnel flee because they don’t want to die for a lost cause or to fight for a replacement worse than the Islamic State.

The Iraqi Security Forces face a fundamental disadvantage when battling the Islamic State: They want to live and their enemies want to die. This disadvantage is further compounded by a lack of confidence. If given the choice to die fighting in a losing battle or to flee and perhaps regroup later with better chances of victory, they will choose the latter.

An Anbar official placed the blame on the Iraqi government, telling CNN, “If 10% of the government’s promises had been implemented, Ramadi would still in our hands and the Islamic State wouldn’t dare to be anywhere near the city.”

Iraqi Sunnis are faced with a terrible choice. The Iranian-backed Shiite militias are often nicknamed “Shiite ISIS” because their crimes are comparable to ISIS but are less known by the West because they aren’t broadcasted. However, the Anbar Provincial Council is officially welcoming them now out of desperation and perhaps an awareness that their opposition will be ignored anyway.

The Shiite militias should be expected to mistreat the local Sunnis the second after the Islamic State is expelled or even during the fighting. Tribal support is far from unanimous. The son of the largest tribe’s leader is in the U.S. asking for support right now and bluntly warned that sending the Shiite militias into Anbar Province “will cause a civil war.”

The New York Times has noticed the change in American attitude towards the Shiite militias. Pentagon spokesperson Col. Steve Warren said, “As long as they’re controlled by the central Iraqi government, there’s a place for them.” Yet, only two months ago, Central Command Commander General Austin said, “I will not—and I hope we will never—coordinate or cooperate with Shiite militias.”

The U.S. must correct its strategy by sidelining Iranian-backed militias and terrorists, leveraging influence with the Iraqi government and significantly increasing assistance to the Anbar tribes, Kurds, Iraqi government and to the persecuted Christian minority that is forming its own self-defense force.

Recent history has shown that the Iraqi government will choose the U.S. over Iran if compelled.

In March, the U.S. withheld support to Iraqi forces fighting the Islamic State in Tikrit because of the involvement of Iranian-backed militias and the Revolutionary Guards Corps. The Iranian proxies stalled and could move no further, displaying the value of U.S. air support. The Iraqis chose America and the Iranians were removed from the battle. U.S. aid delivered the victory that the Iranians could not.

The Iraqis had been asking for U.S. for more help including possibly advisors on the ground since October 2013. By March 2014, the Iraqis were asking for airstrikes on the Islamic State. The Islamic State blitz into Iraq began in June.

The Iraqi ambassador complained that the U.S. had denied requests for help including Apache helicopter sales, thereby putting Iraq “in an uncomfortable position in seeking support from whoever is available on the ground.” He emphasized that the “U.S. is our strategic partner of choice.”

Iran opposed the return of U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq as advisors. The Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr threatened to attack the advisors and two other Iranian-backed militias alsoforcefully opposed U.S. involvement. The Iraqi government went ahead anyway.

Even now, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is in Russia and talking to China and Iran about delivering arms that the U.S. refuses to provide.

The U.S. needs to give the Iraqi government a clear choice: Iran or us.

The Iraqi government should be put on notice. If it is willing to restrain the Shiite militias and work with us to disband them, then we will provide all necessary aid. We will help negotiate with the Sunni tribes so their local forces operate within a national framework.

If the Iraqi government chooses Iran, then we will cut our aid and redirect it towards our Sunni, Kurdish and Christian partners while maintaining contact with friendly Shiites. We will not act as the air force for Iranian proxies. If necessary, we will talk about a role for the forthcoming Arab force led by Egypt to replace yours.

It is positive news that the Obama Administration is reversing its stance and will directly help the Sunni tribes, but the anti- Islamic State strategy requires an anti-Iran strategy.

Categories: Airstrikes, Baghdad, Department of Defense, Egypt, Foreign policy, Human rights, Iran, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Kurdish fighters, Kurds, Obama, Peshmerga, Ramadi, Shiite, Sunni
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran Runs Crying to UN

May 21, 2015

Iran to UN: Israeli defense minister threatened to nuke us
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF May 21, 2015, 7:43 am


(After calling for the destruction of Israel countless times, just what do you expect Iran? – LS)

Tehran claims Ya’alon’s comments on ‘steps’ Israel may take, alongside references to Hiroshima bombing, were an implicit threat.

Iran on Wednesday accused Israel of threatening the Islamic Republic with a nuclear strike, telling the UN Security Council that recent comments by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon were proof of “the regime’s aggressive nature,” according to Iranian media.

Ya’alon’s comments, made earlier this month at a conference hosted by a Tel Aviv-based nonprofit that seeks justice for victims of terror, mentioned “certain steps” Israel could take if it were out of other options, and referenced the US’s use of atomic weapons in Japan.

Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Gholam Ali Khoshrou, sent a letter on Wednesday to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as well as to the UN Security Council in which he wrote that Ya’alon’s comments were tantamount to an admission that Israel has nuclear weapons and is willing to use them against other countries, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

“Moshe Ya’alon’s recent remarks and the Zionist official’s implied reference to the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Islamic Republic like what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki…shows more than ever the regime’s aggressive nature,” Khoshrou wrote.

“The impudent remarks have challenged the primary principles ruling the armed conflicts and the international humanitarian rights and weaken the international peace and security and therefore, the UNSC is expected to condemn these irresponsible remarks and clear threats of using nuclear bomb and massacre of civilians,” the letter added.

Israel has complained to the United Nations several times over explicit comments made by Iranian officials it says threaten the country’s extermination, as it has lobbied for world pressure to prevent Tehran from gaining nuclear capabilities.

While Jerusalem has engaged in saber-rattling against Iran in the past, and top officials still say they maintain the right to defend the country using whatever means necessary, most analyses estimate an Israeli strike would consist of conventional weapons used to thwart the country’s nuclear program.

Ya’alon’s comments, made in Jerusalem on May 5 at a conference hosted by the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, do not explicitly mention Iran or nuclear weapons. Instead the defense minister, speaking in English, made vague comments about “certain steps” Israel might consider against tyrannical regimes threatening the nation’s security.

Referring to “cases in which we feel like we don’t have the answer by surgical operations,” the defense minister said “we might take certain steps that we believe…should be taken in order to defend ourselves.

“Of course, we should be sure that we can look at the mirror after the decision, or the operation. Of course, we should be sure that it is a military necessity. We should consider cost and benefit, of course,” he said. “But, at the end, we might take certain steps.”

He then said he was reminded of US president Harry Truman who “was asked, How do you feel after deciding to launch the nuclear bombs, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, causing at the end the fatalities of 200,000, casualties? And he said, When I heard from my officers the alternative is a long war with Japan, with potential fatalities of a couple of millions, I thought it is a moral decision.

“We are not there yet,” Ya’alon then added.

Israel maintains a policy of what it calls nuclear ambiguity regarding its reported stocks of nuclear weapons, which it does not officially admit to having. Foreign reports, however, claim the country is in possession of thousands of atomic warheads.

A top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that over 80,000 Iranian missiles “are ready to rain down on Tel Aviv and Haifa” should Israel attack the Islamic Republic, in apparent response to Ya’alon’s comments.

Yahya Rahim Safavi, a former commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, told Fars Iran would “ruin” Israeli cities if faced with aggression by the Jewish state.

“The Zionists and the US are aware of the power of Iran and Hezbollah,” Safavi said, referring to the Lebanese terror organization backed by Tehran. “The Zionists have many problems and they know that Iran is too powerful for them grapple with.”

“We have displayed part of our military capabilities while we have kept many of our achievements and capabilities hidden to outsiders,” Safavi warned. “Our response will be crushing not just to the Zionist regime, but to any other aggressor who intends to take action against us.”

Categories: Nukes
Tags:

Comments: 5 Comments

US approves massive sale of bunker-buster bombs to Israel

May 21, 2015

Israel Hayom | US approves massive sale of bunker-buster bombs to Israel.

The $1.87 billion arms deal represents a significant boost to the Israeli Air Force’s capabilities • Package to include Hellfire missiles, bunker-buster bombs, and kits to convert “dumb bombs” into precision-guided weapons • Deal pending Congressional approval.

Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff
A U.S. Air Force F-15E aircraft releases a GBU-28 bunker-buster 5,000-pound laser-guided bomb during a training mission [Archive]

|

Photo credit: Reuters

The U.S. State Department approved the sale of $1.87 billion in munitions and precision guidance kits to Israel this week to improve the capability of existing systems and make it easier for U.S. and Israeli military forces to work together.

The sale represents a significant boost to the Israeli Air Force’s airstrike capabilities and includes 3,000 Hellfire missiles for the Israel Air Force’s Apache helicopters, as well as hundreds of GPS and laser-guided bombs and missiles.

The transfer of Hellfire missiles was suspended in the summer of 2014, amid Operation Protective Edge.

If the deal is approved by Congress, Israel will also receive other tactical weapons, including 50 BLU-113 Super Penetrator and 700 BLU-109 Penetrator bunker buster missiles.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency said Israel had requested 14,500 KMU-556C/B Joint Direct Attack Munitions tail kits built by Boeing to convert “dumb bombs” and make them precision-guided weapons, as well as assorted bombs, missiles and other munitions.

In a statement, the agency said that “The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability.”

The Pentagon agency, which implements and oversees foreign military sales, notified lawmakers on Tuesday of the proposed deal. It said the main contractors would include Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., General Dynamics Corp., and Raytheon Co.

Lawmakers have 15 days to block the potential sale, but such action is rare since deals are carefully vetted before they are formally presented to Congress.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

The High Cost of Office Space in Tehran

May 21, 2015

New Documents Reveal Bin Laden Wanted to Set Up Shop in Iran
By Katy Zavadski May 20, 2015, Via The Daily Beast


(Business is business, right? Makes you wonder what else Iran is hiding. – LS)

New documents taken from his compound show the group was much more tolerant of the Shiite state than its successor, ISIS. It even contemplated opening an office there.

An undated report on Al Qaeda’s external operations reveals that the group tried to establish a recruitment office in Iran but backed off because it was deemed to be too expensive.

“[W]e have thought to open an office for ourselves in Iran, to receive whoever comes to join us or someone traveling, but we have backed off this idea because it will be very expensive,” the document reads (PDF). Though undated, it is likely from 2006 or later, given a later passage’s emphasis on attacking Danish targets, presumably over Muhammad cartoons.

Another document, however, concerns itself with the group’s public image, and gives instructions for a would-be spokesman for the group.

“It is better if he comments on what Saudi Arabia channels have been circulating, incorrect news that stated al-Qa’ida has links to Iran,” it reads.

Those are just revelations from a massive document dump by the U.S. of files it obtained during the 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Dubbed “Bin Laden’s Bookshelf,” the document dump includes the sheikh’s English-language library and correspondence with close associates and family. Many of the sources point to a complicated history between Iran and Al Qaeda, which included mass imprisonment and strategic permissiveness.

Many al Qaeda members and families found themselves in Iranian custody after fleeing Afghanistan during the U.S. invasion in 2001. In one account, the Iranians are referred to as “people whose mannerisms resemble those of the Jews and hypocrites.” A detailed inventory of arrests suggests that Iran detained many high-level members of the terrorist group, including Abu Ghaith and Sayf al Adl.

“I think it’s irrefutable that Iran would turn a blind eye to al Qaeda activities” when it benefited them, Brookings Institution fellow Will McCants told The Daily Beast. Al Qaeda didn’t have as hardline an anti-Shia stance as some of its successors like ISIS because “they understand they have to make compromises.”

Despite some sharp language, McCants said al Qaeda leaders seemed to be sometimes happy with a “detente” with Tehran.

“I think it’s irrefutable that Iran would turn a blind eye to al Qaeda activities.”
The Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Clint Watts, however, told The Daily Beast that the documents show Al Qaeda members “seem to be pretty hating on Iran.”

Among those held in Iran appear to be Bin Laden’s wife and son, Umm Hamzah and Hamzah. One letter states that they are to be kept in a safe house once they leave the country, until Bin Laden decides whether to send the boy to Qatar. Another letter shows a concerns that Iran would spy on Bin Laden’s family after they leave:

Before Um Hamzah arrives here, it is necessary for her to leave everything behind, including clothes, books, everything that she had in Iran… Everything that a needle might possibly penetrate. Some chips have been lately developed for eavesdropping, so small they could easily be hidden inside a syringe. Since the Iranians are not to be trusted, it is possible to implant a chip in some of the belongings that you might have brought along with you…”

Documents revealed much more about Al Qaeda.

Tree-Huggers

A letter apparently addressed to a senior Al Qaeda urges leaders to tell fighters to not “cut down trees on a large scale […] without replacing them.” “Cutting down trees should be limited to the needs of the people and local consumption and not for export,” the August 2010 letter reads. “I am sure that you are aware that climate change is causing drought in some areas and floods in others.”

Another document, a “Letter on the implications of climate change,” calls on Muslims to participate in relief work and to prepare in advance for future natural disasters. At the same time, however, the letter takes time to critique an “Islamic” London-based NGO for providing aid to Christians and Hindus, and for employing female aid workers. It notes that the NGO said it would be unlikely to be able to help mujahideen in Pakistan.

Conspiracy Theories

“Jews were able to control world forces with these two sciences, sociology and psychology,” reads one. (Another document released from that trove instructs members to “avoid talking about the Jews and Palestine when talking to the Germans. This subject is very sensitive to in Germany, and it will bring negative results to our goal.”)

About half of the 38 English-language books Bin Laden possessed were about conspiracy theories, from freemasons to even 9/11.

Human Resources

The U.S. also released an official application form for Al Qaeda.

“Please enter the required information accurately and truthfully,” it reads. “Write clearly and legibly. Name, age, marital status. Do you wish to execute a suicide operation?”

Thirst for Poison

In an English-language document taken from bin Laden’s compound, Al Qaeda said it planned to use cyanide and ricin in terrorist attacks.

“A few grams of Cyanide (easily manufactured and sold by the kilo in third world countries) or Ricin diluted in water and injected randomly in anything ingested on super markets shelves, picnics, restaurants etc […] are just examples of what multinational Terror Franchises need to disseminate NONSTOP, UNPREDICTED, INVISIBLE SUDDEN DEATH,” a document said. It includes a terrorist wishlist including explosives, toxic agents, electronics, and more. The author is believed to be Abu Hafez, the leader of Al Qaeda’s external special ops.

Categories: Al Qaeda, Iran scam
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

Saudi Arabia vs Iran: What should we expect?

May 21, 2015

Saudi Arabia vs Iran: What should we expect? – Opinion – Jerusalem Post.

The Saudi military operation, called Decisive Storm, was the first time – this century – that an Arab state took the initiative to attack Iran’s interests anywhere.

Saudi Arabia’s war on Houthis, Iranian loyalists in Yemen, was least expected. The Saudis did not speak much about their plans, nor did they even issue a warning. They have taken the Houthis by storm and have fully mobilized their advanced air force – the second largest in the Middle East after Israel’s.

Saudi Arabia had openly pre-set targets for the campaign: disabling Houthi militias and targeting their caches of weapons, which it achieved in a relatively short time. Now, while the Houthis still offer some resistance they no longer have the ability to operate freely in Yemen as they did before. But this is not the end of the story. The war, which was quick, has had very deep effects that will impact the region for years to come and that will have a major influence on many countries here including Israel.

First, the Saudi military operation, called Decisive Storm, was the first time – this century – that an Arab state took the initiative to attack Iran’s interests anywhere. The Houthis are generously financed and equipped by their fellow Shi’ites, the Iranians. They are considered Iran’s army in the Arab Peninsula, just like Hezbollah is Iran’s puppet in Lebanon.

Before the Saudi strikes, Houthis had taken control of most of Yemen, including the capital, thus stretching Iran’s influence to the mouth of the Red Sea, something Iran has never been able to do before; Iran could have disrupted navigation through the Red Sea and targeted Saudi towns bordering Yemen.
Saudi Arabia’s choice to fight Houthis was least expected by Iran itself – in fact, it could have never happened were it not for the 30-something Saudi deputy crown prince, Muhammad bin-Salman.

The young Saudi royal has led a campaign to convince the Saudi monarchy to fight Iran single- handedly. At the same time, he had to convince the Obama administration to support the war, and was able to present a good argument: the war has put Iran in a much weaker position at the negotiation table with the US over its nuclear program, especially as Iran’s allies Assad and Hezbollah are losing more ground to Syrian rebels.

The American contribution to the war centered around vital intelligence, as the Saudis did not need any jets, having enough of their own. In fact they are one of only four countries that operate F-15s.

But what does all of this mean? It means a young Saudi royal, Muhammad bin-Salman, was able to humiliate Iran before the world by ruthlessly attacking its only allies in Arabia, the Houthis, and Iran could not do a thing for them. Just before the war, Iran’s media was speaking of sending soldiers to support the Houthis, and also of sending military supplies. None of that materialized; Salman has shown Iran that Saudi Arabia can inflict serious damage on it. This is unprecedented in modern Arab history.

For one, Salman’s war in Yemen has exposed Iran’s weakness. Iran has been verbally threatening everyone in the region in recent years, and after the nuclear talks began with the US seemed to some to be untouchable. Salman has shown this not to be the case, slapping Iran in the face and not even worrying about any so-called consequences, despite the fact that Iran has always warned it could “fire up Saudi Arabia” and “destabilize the Saudi throne.”

What does this mean for Israel? It means that Israel is not the only state in the region willing to punish Iran militarily; it also means Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right when he addressed the US Congress warning it of Iran.

Also, it means any future military moves, or attacks, Israel could make against Iran will be welcomed and in fact praised by Arabs, not only with words, but with action. While Saudi Arabia may not have political ties to Israel, still Iran now has to worry that an Israeli military strike could be combined with Saudi strikes on Iran’s loyalists anywhere, including Syria.

The Saudis, Salman in particular, have been candid about their willingness to extend their operations to Syria, which means Assad, Hezbollah and Iran’s loyalists in general have never been in a more fragile position – not because of Saudi Arabia’s military might but because Saudi Arabia has public Arab support for its military operations in Yemen. In fact, Arab social media has been overflowing with praise for Salman and Saudi Arabia.

Before the Saudi operations began, many called Israel crazy for wanting to counter Iran’s hostility with military action. now Saudi Arabia has set an example of possibly the best method to silence Iran.

Also, the Saudi deputy crown prince, has established himself as a strong man willing to take the fight to Iran rather than just await Iran’s actions.

While his father is known for his very close sympathy with the Palestinians, both he and his son are known for their ruthlessness toward terrorist and political recklessness in general.

Yes, there may never be “peace talks” between Saudi Arabia and Israel, nonetheless, the world and Israel know there is a sane and capable power in the Arab world now, called Saudi Arabia under King Salman and his son, Muhammad.

On the other hand, the war is not exactly over; since the Saudis announced the end of operations in Yemen, the Houthis had been trying to target Saudi border towns, and Saudi jets have ruthlessly responded each time. Nonetheless, Saudi Arabia seems to still have the upper hand there, and that is more bad news for Iran, which is now going through more or less attrition in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and possibly soon Lebanon.

A bold Saudi confrontation with Iran, even if by proxy, is the last thing Iran needed now, as is the prominence of a strong Saudi heir to the throne, who seems to hate Iran’s bullying with a passion.

In short, for now, there is good news for all of us concerned about Iranian destabilization of our region.

Mudar Zahran is a Jordanian Palestinian who resides in the UK.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Exclusive: Iranian embassy blown up in Damascus: Nusra Front suspected

May 21, 2015

Exclusive: Iranian embassy blown up in Damascus: Nusra Front suspected.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 21, 2015, 1:11 AM (IDT)
Iranian embassy in Damascus - before bomb blast

Iranian embassy in Damascus – before bomb blast

A mighty explosion struck the Iranian embassy in Damascus Wednesday night, May 20, debkafile’s exclusive intelligence and counter-terrorism sources reveal. First reports are of “heavy casualties” and serious damage to the embassy compound. The Iranian and Syrian governments have clamped a curtain of secrecy down over the disaster, although the thunder of the explosion and rush of special forces and relief teams to the scene in the Syrian capital could not be concealed.

debkafile’s sources add: The explosion has initially been attributed to the Syrian arm of al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra. A day earlier, Tuesday, Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was known to be present at the embassy building in Damascus. It is not known whether he was still there when the explosion occurred or had meanwhile departed for Tehran.

The Iranian embassy is a pivotal point for the Syrian conflict. As the Revolutionary Guards general staff center, it is the venue for the joint Iranian-Syrian military and logistic decisions taken in the conduct of the war. It also served as the Iranian command center for its operations in Lebanon, including military liaison with the Lebanese Hizballah, whose forces are fighting with Bashar Assad’s army in Syria. From there, Al Qods Brigades chief Gen. Qassem Soleimani issued his war directives when he was present in the Syrian capital.
The embassy building was therefore one of the most heavily fortified and guarded premises in the Syrian capital.
Its destruction by a bomb explosion came on the heels Wednesday of the fall of the ancient city of Palmyra to the Islamic State – the second devastating blow for the Assad regime and its backers in a single day. The fate of its rare heritage sites is not the only concern. With Palmyra ((Tadmor – est. pop. 120,000), the Islamic State also gained access to important military sites, including the biggest Syrian air force base.

The disaster may be compared to the ISIS conquest in January of the northern Syrian town of Raqqa, today the Islamists’ headquarters in the country. Palmyra is the second major Arab city to fall to the group this week after the Iraqi town of Ramadi on Sunday.

For Iran, the loss of Palmyra is a major setback in the sense that it removes from Syrian military control the main air base where Iranian flights delivered war materiel for the Syrian army and Hizballah day by day.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment