May | 2015 | WarSclerotic | Page 13

Archive for May 2015

Iran: We’ll Build Five More Underground Nuclear Plants

May 13, 2015

Iran: We’ll Build Five More Underground Nuclear Plants, Commentary Magazine, Michael Rubin, May 13, 2015

There has likely not ever been an administration that has politicized intelligence to the degree that Obama’s has, systematically ignoring any information that would undercut the White House and State Department narrative first on Russia, then on Syria, and now on Iran. As anyone who has ever dealt with intelligence knows, 90 percent if not more is what appears in the open sources every single day. And so, in that spirit, here is an interview with Mohammad Javad Larijani that the Iranian news agency Tasnim just published in Persian. Now, like Rouhani (and, for that matter, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini), Larijani spent time in the West. In Larijani’s case, it was to study mathematics at Berkeley. He has had quite a career, mostly in the judiciary, and today, he is among Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s most trusted advisors. So what did Larijani say earlier today with regard to the “historic” agreement that Obama and Kerry have embraced? “…Our facilities will not only remain underground, but will go deeper in the ground,” he said, expressing indignation at Vice President Joseph Biden’s assurances at a recent speech to the Washington Institute that all options remain on the table should Iran cheat on its commitments. He then condemned any slowdown of research and development at the once-covert nuclear enrichment center that Iran built under a mountain at Fordo, and called on Iran to build five new underground facilities.

As talks continue (and sanctions collapse apace), it is important to step back and consider a few broader patterns with regard to Iranian behavior.

First, what the Iranian government is doing is engaging in an elaborate game of good cop, bad cop. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif might whisper sweet nothings into Secretary of State John Kerry’s ear, and like a naïve schoolgirl on the night of the senior prom, President Barack Obama might believe that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s statement that if Obama gives up everything, Rouhani will love him for eternity, but there is ample evidence that Iran simply intends to screw the United States. Sincere partners do not play these games.

Second, it is Diplomacy 101 to only strike deals with those who can enact them. Bill Clinton’s Arab-Israeli negotiating team learned this the hard way in 2000, when they called the president to Camp David after Palestinian and Israeli negotiators agreed to a deal. When Palestinian chairman Yasir Arafat arrived, however, he not only flatly refused to agree to what his negotiators had committed him to, but he also refused to make a counteroffer. It was a lesson some of George W. Bush’s diplomats learned the hard way. When the United States negotiated with Zarif back in 2003, Iranian authorities did not abide by the deal that Zarif had struck. There are two possibilities: Either Zarif lied to Ambassador Ryan Crocker and then-National Security Council official Zalmay Khalilzad, or Zarif was sincere but he did not have the influence and ability to guarantee that all of Iran’s myriad power centers would abide by his agreement. And confusing the target with ever shifting power centers—the Iranian equivalent of Three Card Monte—is Iranian strategy 101, whether it comes to revising commercial contracts, undercutting diplomacy, or even negotiating a cultural exchange.

This brings us to the issue of who in Iran has committed themselves to resolving Iran’s nuclear program through negotiations. For a moment, let’s assume that Rouhani and Zarif are sincere (although there is ample evidence that they are not). Has the Supreme Leader really endorsed a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear deal as proponents of the talks have suggested? Take the issue of “heroic flexibility.” That doesn’t mean, as proponents of the deal have suggested, that Khamenei has thrown his weight behind the talks. His own advisors have explained that what Khamenei blessed was a change in tactics, not a change in policy. In other words, so long as Iran gets its nuclear capability, the Supreme Leader doesn’t care if it comes through subterfuge or if he holds his nose and has representatives talk to the Americans. How sad it is that Obama and Kerry have such faith in the Supreme Leader, when he refuses to meet American officials, and yet doesn’t hesitate to find time for Gambians, Belarusians, and Eritreans. What the White House and the news media have not realized, however, is that the term “Heroic Flexibility” also has religious connotations. It’s sad to see the State Department and the media—both bastions of multiculturalism—so myopic on issues of culture. Now, none of this even begins to touch the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that has said no to any deal from the very beginning.

So what to make of Larijani’s interview? His proximity to the Supreme Leader should concern anyone who does not have political blinders on. Whether because of personal ambition (in the case of some diplomats or Kerry’s destructive quest for a Nobel Peace Prize), ideological sympathy, or just naiveté, too many do. Simply put, it’s strange to see the White House and the State Department convince themselves that Khamenei is onboard with a substantive nuclear deal that will end Iran’s military nuclear program and illicit nuclear activities when so many statements that come from his office and his proxies suggest the opposite.

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran - underground sites, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Israel, Obama, P5+1, Palestinian Authority, Sanctions
Tags: Foreign Policy, Iran, Iran - underground sites, Iran Scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Israel, Obama, Palestinian Authority, Sanctions

Comments: Be the first to comment

In Advance Of Obama-GCC Camp David Summit, Saudi Press Warns: Iran’s Interference In Region Poses Greater Danger Than Iranian Nuclear Bomb

May 13, 2015

In Advance Of Obama-GCC Camp David Summit, Saudi Press Warns: Iran’s Interference In Region Poses Greater Danger Than Iranian Nuclear Bomb, MEMRI, May 12, 2015

(The linked Saudi press articles suggest that Obama’s efforts to reassure Saudi and other regional powers about Iran will not succeed. — DM)

May 14, 2015 is the date set for the summit at Camp David between U.S. President Barack Obama and heads of state of the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, and Oman. A meeting at the White House with President Obama and the conferees is planned for the preceding day, May 13.

The objective of the Camp David summit, as announced several weeks ago, is to reassure the GCC countries about the nuclear agreement slated to be signed with Iran next month, as well as to discuss tighter U.S.-Gulf security cooperation.[1]In advance of the summit, the GCC held several preparatory meetings at various diplomatic levels, including: an April 20 meeting of GCC foreign ministers; a May 4 summit of GCC heads of state which was attended also by French President François Hollande; a May 7 meeting in Riyadh of Saudi Foreign Minister ‘Adel Al-Jubeir and his U.S. counterpart Secretary of State John Kerry; and a May 8 meeting in Paris of all the GCC foreign ministers and Kerry.

However, on May 9, Saudi Arabia announced that Saudi King Salman would not be at the Camp David summit as planned, and that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would be participating in his stead. Saudi Foreign Minister ‘Adel Al-Jubeir explained that the monarch would not attend because he had to stay home to ensure peace and security in Yemen and to oversee the arrival of humanitarian assistance to the Yemeni people.[2]

Later, it was reported that the Bahraini king, the UAE president, and the Sultan of Oman would also not be attending the summit, sending representatives instead. As of this writing, the Emirs of Kuwait and Qatar are the only GCC heads of state who are planning to attend.

The downgrade of the level of representation at the summit appears to constitute a message to the U.S. that Saudi Arabia and the other GCC member countries were not pleased with the preliminary talks with Secretary of State Kerry, and also that they were disappointed at what the summit would achieve. According to a May 2, 2015 New York Times report, the Saudis had even then hinted that they would downgrade their representation if they felt that the summit was not going to produce results that conformed to their expectations.[3]

In fact, Arab press reports that preceded the announcement of downgraded representation pointed to what the GCC countries were demanding from the U.S., as well as to dissatisfaction on their part. At the May 4 summit of GCC heads of state with Hollande, Saudi King Salman called on the international community, especially the P5+1 that is negotiating with Iran, to “set stricter rules that guarantee the region’s security and prevent it from plunging into an arms race.” The king also stipulated that any final agreement with Iran must include unambiguous security guarantees.[4] Additionally, on May 7, UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba announced that the GCC would demand from the U.S. guarantees in writing that the latter would defend it from Iran.[5] Likewise, on May 9, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat reported that even at the May 8 meeting with Kerry, the GCC foreign ministers had demanded U.S. guarantees that their countries would havemilitary superiority over Iran.[6]

Elaph.com also reported, on May 9, that the Gulf heads of state, headed by the Saudi monarch, would not settle for aid, military contracts, and defense systems provided by the U.S., but that they were seeking “clear, honest, and practical clarification, by means of absolutely firm, long-term resolutions, that Iran would be prevented from actualizing its expansionist aspirations in the region and from developing nuclear weapons…” Elaph also reported that “the Gulf leaders are headed for confrontation with the American president, and they want answers and explanations about his positions on these burning issues…”[7]

On May 12, three days after the Saudis announced that King Salman would not be attending the summit, it was reported that President Obama and King Salman had spoken by phone about the preparations for the summit, and had discussed the agenda of the meetings that would take place during it.[8] Both the White House, in an announcement, and Saudi Foreign Minister ‘Adel Al-Jubeir, at a press conference, emphasized the continuing Saudi-U.S. partnership. According to the White House announcement, Obama and Salman had, in their phone conversation, “reviewed the agenda for the upcoming meetings” and had “agreed on the necessity of working closely, along with other GCC member states, to build a collective capacity to address more effectively the range of threats facing the region and to resolve regional conflicts.” The two also discussed “the importance of a comprehensive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran that verifiably ensures the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program” and “emphasized the strength of the two countries’ partnership, based on their shared interest and commitment to the stability and prosperity of the region, and agreed to continue… close consultations on a wide range of issues.”[9] Also, at a Washington press conference, the Saudi foreign minister stressed that King Salman’s “absence from the summit is not in any way connected to any disagreement between the two countries,” adding, “We have no doubts about the U.S.’s commitment to Saudi and Gulf security. The U.S. will present the Gulf countries with a new level of cooperation that will meet the needs on the ground.”[10]

At the same time, the Saudi press published numerous articles, including op-eds and editorials, fiercely attacking the Obama administration’s Middle East policy, stating that it had repeatedly disappointed the Arab countries, in its positions on Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, and Iran. The articles accused the Obama administration of reinforcing Iran’s power in the region – so much so that it was now threatening GCC interests – and claimed that it was not the Iranian nuclear bomb but Iran’s imperialism in the region and Iran’s interference in the affairs of the Arab countries that was the “real bomb threatening [the Arab countries’] security,” and called on the U.S. to curb these. These articles focused on the demands that the GCC countries would be presenting to Obama at the summit, including that he change his policy towards Iran and “restore the regional balance,” while at the same time he would undertake unprecedented security military cooperation with the GCC. The articles emphasized that “the Gulf countries no longer believe the U.S.’s promises and guarantees,” and that they would now demand guarantees in writing. Some of the articles even warned that U.S.-GCC relations were now at a point of a grave, even critical crisis of confidence, and that the Camp David summit was a chance for the U.S. to prevent the collapse of its alliance with the GCC. If this alliance did fall apart, they said, U.S. interests in the region would suffer, and the smoldering regional conflict would erupt into a conflagration.

Below are translated excerpts from some of the articles:

23277

‘Al-Sharq Al-Awsat’ Editor: The Dissolution Of The U.S.-Gulf Alliance Will Harm U.S. Interests In The Region

Salman Al-Dosari, editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, argued that the mutual trust between the US and the Gulf states had eroded to an extent that jeopardizes the alliance between them: “The upcoming Camp David summit may be the most important Gulf-U.S. meeting to take place in 50 years, [because] the U.S.-Gulf alliance is going through a phase of tension and a crisis of confidence… Washington is aware of this and it is no secret. Who knows, perhaps the summit will be an opportunity to put the train of this historic alliance back on the track from which it slipped in recent years. The summit will be an opportunity for the American administration to shift from talk to action, and quell the doubts in the region regarding its credibility, that has been put to the test [by a series of events,] starting with the Syrian crisis, continuing with [America’s]feeble position on the events in Bahrain, Egypt and Iraq, and culminating in the nebulous and secret agreement that is expected to be signed with Iran…

“All [U.S.] institutions are aware of the negative repercussions for American interests that will ensue if the alliance with the Gulf States is dissolved. Naturally, the two parties do not have to be [perfectly] coordinated in their policies. However, it is unreasonable for U.S. policy to threaten the interests of the Gulf States, and later we [are bound to] discover that U.S. interests in the region have been harmed as well. This proves that Washington’s policy in the region is completely misguided…

“President Obama undoubtedly has a clear plan that will translate American talk into action, as reflected in statements by a senior American official last Thursday, published in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, regarding ‘unprecedented military cooperation’ that will be revealed at the Camp David summit. It is also important that the U.S. give [the Gulf States] its assurances in writing… Only by such actions can the U.S. restore the cordiality to its relations with the Gulf States and truly demonstrate that the final nuclear agreement expected to be signed [with Iran] will not include ambiguous meanings and unclear details.

“The US wants to kill two birds with one stone, [namely achieve] excellent relations with the Gulf States and with Iran simultaneously. This equation is unacceptable, not because the Gulf States hate [Iran], but because the Iranian regime is predicated on hostility to its neighbors in the Arabian Gulf, and its entire policy is geared towards intervening in their internal affairs. This is the entire story, honorable President Barack Obama.”[11]

Al-Hayat Editor: U.S. Hesitation At Camp David Will Cause The Regional Conflict To Erupt

Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, wrote: “The U.S. is not interested in playing the role of the Middle East’s policeman. It does not wish to squander additional billions [of dollars] and blood. However, it certainly cannot wash its hands of the fate of this region of the world – not just because [it seeks to preserve] the security of oil and of Israel, but also for the sake of the security of the U.S. and the West. Experience teaches us that Middle East diseases are contagious, and that the terrorism that is taking root there threatens the safety of New York, Washington, Paris, Berlin, and so on.

“It would be no exaggeration to say that the U.S.-Gulf summit at Camp David creates an unusual encounter that will leave its mark on the fate of the Middle East for years or [even] decades to come. The summit demands more than just dispersing [messages of] reconciliation and calm [to alleviate Gulf fears]. The situation is too grave to be treated with painkillers and hopes. The framework of a new regional order must be outlined; [such an order] must restore the necessary balance and provide safety valves to stop the chain of collapses, coups, and infiltrations [of foreign elements]. It is clear that the Iranian specter will be at the summit, bearing two bombs [that is, both nuclear bomb and the bomb represented by the regional role that Iran is seeking]…

“The problem that the GCC countries have with Iran does not end with Iran’s nuclear program. The GCC countries maintain that Iran’s current interference… is the real bomb threatening the security of the GCC countries, and [also] threatening the stability and status of the Arabs in the region. Therefore, what the Gulf is demanding at Camp David is measures to curb Iran’s involvement in the region, in addition to curbing its nuclear ambitions…

“It appears, therefore, that the Camp David summit must clarify the American position vis-à-vis the two Iranian ‘bombs’ – the first being the nuclear program, and the second being the regional role [that Iran covets]. The GCC is against the view that an agreement concerning the first bomb is a character reference providing it with what it needs in order to protect and expand the second bomb. This goes beyond the issue of missile defense [to be provided by the U.S. to] the Gulf countries, and beyond providing it with a deterrent arsenal, and has to do with the U.S.’s perception regarding its own interests in the next stage, how committed it is to its allies, and how serious it is in thwarting Iran’s takeover of the region – as well as how [willing] it is to give [the Gulf countries] unequivocal [security] guarantees.

“It is impossible to establish a suitable regional order without first restoring balance to the region. The bomb of [the regional]role [for which Iran strives] contradicts the required balance, and the American hesitation to deal with it [i.e. with Iran] decisively and seriously will diminish the importance of the summit and increase the Gulf countries’ apprehensions about Obama’s ‘Iran policy.’ American hesitation will also cause the regional conflict to erupt, especially the Syrian link [in the chain]… That is, if the Camp David summit does not address these two bombs, it will add fuel to the alarming Middle East conflagration.”^{^[12]}

‘All-Hayat’ Columnist: We No Longer Believe Obama’s Promises; Saudi Arabia Has Alternatives To The U.S. – Such As China And France

George Sama’an, a columnist for the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat, wrote about the U.S. president’s dilemma, under the headline “Obama Stuck Between Losing Saudi Arabia and Stopping Iran’s Expansion”: “Iran. There is no other issue butIran on the agenda of the U.S.-Gulf summit set for this week in Washington and Camp David. The [Iranian] nuclear program has worried, and continues to worry, the members of the GCC. In their meetings in Paris with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the GCC foreign ministers did not focus on technical clarifications related to the program nor on those related to the mechanism of economic sanctions. What they fear is the day after the anticipated agreement between Iran and the five superpowers and Germany.

“Like many who oppose the approach of the American dialogue [with Iran], they fear Iran’s getting its hands on the region. [Iran] could gain from the lifting of the siege and of the sanctions on its frozen assets by continuing its regional expansionist program. Despite its [economic] distress, Iran has accelerated this expansionism, with brazen persistence. Its strategy relies on two main elements: the advanced, developed, and extensive arsenal of missiles in its possession, which are conventional weapons that are not subject to an international ban such as nuclear energy, and on continuing its expansion using its Shi’ite forces and militias in several Arab countries…

“The Gulf states are among the countries that no longer believe the promises and guarantees that the U.S. is providing these days. Obama has not kept any of the promises he made to the residents of the region since his speeches in Egypt and Turkey… The American indifference regarding the events in Iraq, for instance, left that country in Iran’s hands, and this scenario has been repeated in all the countries of the Levant [i.e. Syria and Lebanon]. The Obama administration has made no serious attempts to arrive at an arrangement [to resolve] the Syria crisis, leaving that country in [the hands of] Tehran and Moscow… [Obama] also kept out of the events in Yemen prior to [Operation] Decisive Storm…

“[The U.S.’s] partners did not have the sense that it wanted to end Iran’s lack of restraint and expansionism in the region, even if it led to damage to several Arab countries and their national unity. It [i.e. the U.S.] also did not do enough to address the conventional missile industry, at which Iran excels, possibly as a temporary substitute for the banned nuclear bomb…

“Today, the strategic arena is no longer solely in the hands of the U.S. and Iran. Arabs have a say and a policy [in them,]following Saudi Arabia’s establishment of the new coalition… No matter how far overboard the U.S. goes in relying on its future relations with Iran and on [Iran’s] role in the stability of the region, it can no longer ignore the positions of the residents of the Gulf, headed by Saudi Arabia – which has proven itself as the central player with regard to energy… Operation Decisive Storm has increased the Saudis’ ability to correct the imbalance in the power balance with Iran…

“In light of the changes in the regional and strategic arenas, it is not enough for President Obama to provide guarantees or attempt to calm the situation, to make do with talk about ABM [systems] for the Gulf as he did five years ago, or to focus on the war on terror. What [he] must do [now] is take an active role in a policy that will restore the balance among the region’s major powers, and reexamine his policy in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. Will he do this, and grow closer to the U.S.’s traditional partners instead of pushing them away?

“The Arab coalition will not stop. Many elements that could replace the U.S., from China to France, should be considered. [Likewise,] the Gulf states might possibly decide to initiate an arms race, for which they have the suitable economic capacities.”[13]

In the same vein, Saudi columnist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh wrote, in the Saudi Al-Jazirah daily: “Last Tuesday in Riyadh, a GCC consultation summit was held, led by King Salman; during it, the countries stressed the unity, adherence, and solidarity amongst them… At this summit, the participation of French President Hollande, as a guest of honor, stood out. It constituted a clear and highly significant message to the American president, Obama, who has been chasing down the Persian ayatollahs to get them to sign a final agreement regarding the peacefulness of the Iranian nuclear facilities and to remove the sanctions from them.

“The message [sent by Hollande’s presence] said clearly to Obama, prior to the summit with the Gulf heads of state at Camp David: ‘Gulf residents, there are other options. You are not alone in the arena. France is an independent decision-maker, as Francophones tend to be. France is a world power, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with a veto, and a major and advanced manufacturer of developed weaponry. And, some of the armament agreements and military deals of the Gulf countries are going to be [signed] with it.’

“This is an extremely clear message, and the [U.S.] Republican Party will necessarily use it against the Democrats, particularly in the upcoming presidential election campaign between the two parties.”[14]

Endnotes:

[1] Alarabiya.net April 3, 2015, April 6, 2015.

[2] Alarabiya.net, May 10, 2015.

[3] Nytimes.com, May 2, 2015.

[4] Arabnews.com, May 5, 2015.

[5] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), May 7, 2015.

[6] Al-Hayat (London), May 9, 2015.

[7] Elaph.com, May 9, 2015.

[8] Alarabiya.net; Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), May 12, 2015.

[9] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), May 12, 2015; Whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/11/readout-president-s-call-king-salman-bin-abdulaziz-al-saud-saudi-arabia. May 11, 2015.

[10] Telegraph (London) May 12, 2015; Usatoday.com, May 11, 2015; Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London) May 12, 2015.

[11] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), May 11, 2015.

[12] Al-Hayat (London), May 11, 2015.

[13] Al-Hayat (London), May 11, 2015.

[14] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia) May 10, 2015.

Categories: Arab nations, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Kerry, Middle East, Obama, P5+1, Saudi Arabia
Tags: Arab nations, Foreign Policy, Iran Scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Middle East, Obama, Saudi Arabia

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran Has Another Temper Tantrum and Threatens the Saudis

May 13, 2015

Iran Makes This Declaration To Saudi Arabia: ‘We Will Cut Off Your Hand And Ignite The Flames Of War.’ The Standoff Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Begins
by Shoebat Foundation on May 13, 2015

(Perhaps the blockade should be closer to Iran’s shores instead. – LS)

Last time Iran tried to send an Iranian plane to land in Sana’a airport under the guise of “humanitarian aid” to Yemen, Saudi Arabia responded by bombing the airport in Sanaa to prevent it from landing just to make a point that Iran cannot ignore Saudi warnings that a blockade on Yemen is enforced.

Now this is happening all over again at a much larger scale and a more dangerous posture. Iran’s latest attempt is sending a humanitarian ship The Shahed cargo ship as a flotilla to break the Saudi-enforced blockade, which departed Iran on Monday and is currently in the Gulf of Aden.

Iran is mimicking the Gaza aid Flotilla, which caused world attention in Israel in 2010, and this new Iranian flotilla is accompanied by a direct threat from Iran “we [Iran] will cut off the hand that touches it”. And to ensure they make good on their threat, they are accompanying this ‘Flotilla’ with two warships, Alborz and the Bushehr proclaiming by such posture that Iran will break the blockade despite warnings by Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The U.S. advised Iran to reroute such humanitarian efforts and use a United Nations distribution hub in Djibouti, which is the normal avenue for such humanitarian assistance. It has then become obvious that Iran is attempting a standoff with Saudi Arabia and a showdown between the two nations can become imminent.

Iran is also including civilian foreign activists onboard in order to mimic the Gaza flotilla and escalate the condemnation of Saudi Arabia in case of civilian casualties. The state-run IRNA news agency quoted Iranian Admiral Hossein Azad as saying that the 34th naval group “is present in the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab strait and has been given the specific mission of protecting the humanitarian aid ship.”

Tehran says the warships are necessary in case Saudi-led coalition forces from their naval blockade intercepts the humanitarian cargo ship.

But unlike Israel, Saudi Arabia is not known to have restraint. Just hours before the ceasefire’s beginning in Yemen, Saudi-led coalition forces pounded the Yemeni capital Sanaa with a massive attack on weapons installations.

Despite Saudi resolve to crush the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, a senior Iranian commander has stressed that attacking the Iranian aid ship heading to Yemen will “ignite the flames of war” in the region.

Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri made the remarks in an interview with Arabic-language news channel al-Alam on Tuesday.

Saudi Arabia, the United States, and their allies must keep in mind that if they want to block Iran’s humanitarian aid to the regional countries, “they will start a fire which they cannot put out,” the commander added.

“I clearly announce that the self-restraint of the Islamic Republic of Iran has its limits,” Jazayeri stated.

Meanwhile the US on Tuesday warned Iran against “provocative actions,” saying it was tracking the Iranian warships. There are some six U.S. warships already in the region around Yemen, including in the Gulf of Aden.

Categories: Iran scam, Iranian navy
Tags: Iranian Bluster

Comments: 1 Comment

Some 250 Hizballah dead in Qalamoun battle. Nasrallah pushes Lebanese army to enter Syrian war

May 13, 2015

Some 250 Hizballah dead in Qalamoun battle. Nasrallah pushes Lebanese army to enter Syrian war, DEBKAfile, May 13, 2015

Hezbollah-Qalamoun_15.8.14

Hizballah fighter on Mt. Qalamoun

Amid Hizballah’s rising war losses, its leader Hassan Nasrallah strongly urged the Lebanese chief of staff Gen. Jean Kahwagi to send his troops into battle over the strategic Qalamoun Mountain, alongside Hizballah and the Syrian army, DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose. Nasrallah argued that the time had come for the Lebanese army to take a hand in the fighting, since the Syrian rebels led by Al Qaeda’s Syrian arm, the Nusra Front, were shelling the eastern Beqaa Valley of Lebanon from their Syrian strongholds on the mountain that sits athwart the Syrian-Lebanese border. Thousands of jihadis, he said, were seizing land around the northeastern Lebanese villages of Arsal and Nahleh.

Another of Nasrallah’s demands was for Gen. Kahwagi to bring out the Lebanese army’s heavy artillery to shell rebel Qalamoun concentrations, positions and moving vehicles, because they endangered Lebanese national security.

The Lebanese general gave the Hizballsah chief a flat no. He declared the Lebanese army would not “slip” into any war inside the Syrian area of Qalamoun where Hizballah and the Syrian army are currently fighting jihadis, but added: “The army is ready to confront any assault on Lebanese sovereignty and push back any infiltration by militants.”

Tuesday, May 12, in Beirut, US Ambassador David Hale interceded in the argument: “I would say that ISIS posed no threat to Lebanon until Hizballah went into the war in Syria and that provided the magnet that drew these terrorists here.”

Listing the American weapons reaching Beirut of late, as Hellfire missiles fired from helicopters against ground targets, precision guided missiles and howitzers, the ambassador said firmly: “This is exactly what they (the Lebanese army) need to target this particular terrorism phenomenon.”

DEBKAfile’s military and counter-terrorism sources don’t believe that the Lebanese army chief will be able to hold out for long against the gradual ISIS and Nusra slide into his country. At the moment, the intruders are mostly fleeing Islamists, driven by the Syrian army and Hizballah from their mountain positions and out of the eastern Lebanese border districts close to the battle front.

But although the Syrian army and Hizballah are claiming to have taken strategic hills in the volatile border region last week, the battle is far from over and does not appear to be anywhere near a clear resolution.

Even when Syria and Hizballah do achieve a local gain here or there, fresh ISIS and Nusra forces keep on pouring back – mostly from the north – to constantly open up new battlefronts on the Qalamoun mountains. Their commanders have already grasped that no one will stop them slipping back and forth between Syria and Lebaon – both to escape Syrian and Hizballah fire and meanwhile to hit Hizballah’s rear strongholds in the Lebanese Beqaa.

Hizballah’s death toll in battle is soaring disastrously – at least 250 reported in the last few days, including 9 senior commanders.

Most military and intelligence experts agree that, as time goes by, however hard they try, the United States and Lebanese army will not be able to stem the jihadists’ spillover into the Beqaa Valley.

Categories: Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria
Tags: Hezbollah, Lebanese army, Lebanon, Nasrallah, Syria

Comments: Be the first to comment

A Preview of ‘Palestine’

May 12, 2015

A Preview of ‘Palestine’, Front Page Magazine, Ari Lieberman, May 12, 2015

Hamas-450x308

[W]hy is the Obama administration placing mammoth pressure on Israel to cede vital strategic territory and why is it besotted with the idea of dismembering Israel by tearing away parts of its ancestral heartland? The answer lies in a flawed foreign policy that rewards tyrannical regimes while back-stabbing allies; a foreign policy that favors Iranian Fatwas over concrete empirical evidence of malfeasance.

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

Anyone wishing to get a glimpse of what a future “Palestinian” state might look like, need look no further than recent actions taken and official statements made by both the Palestinian Authority and its rival Hamas this past month. While these two governing entities detest each other (perhaps even more so than the infidel Yahuds), it is difficult to discern why, since both of these governing bodies spew forth nearly identical xenophobic rhetoric and act with typical autocratic ruthlessness to stifle any whiff of internal dissent. In essence, they both act in a manner that is not dissimilar to the 20 or so chauvinistic, anti-democratic Muslim pseudo-states of the Middle East.

Most Israelis harbor deep reservations about the creation of an “independent Palestinian state” for a multitude of reasons. Chief among them is the fear that a Palestinian state would devolve into an entity similar to that found in Gaza and that’s a best case scenario. There are far worse, more frightening scenarios. But while Gaza is contained in the southwest corner of Israel and can, relatively speaking, be monitored and controlled, the same cannot be said about the West Bank with its long, torturous border along the imaginary Green Line (the 1949 armistice lines). Moreover, in contrast to the Gaza periphery, much of Israel’s population and industry faces the West Bank, which juts out like a bone into Israel’s throat.

But even if the Palestinian Authority, headed by its aging, autocratic leader Mahmoud Abbas, succeeds in rebuffing a Hamas takeover – an unlikely prospect – the Palestinian Authority’s leadership has proven to be just as extreme, xenophobic and malevolent as its rivals in Gaza. Palestinian Authority TV and media outlets as well as PA-backed NGOs, routinely spew forth ancient anti-Semitic canards involving ritualistic Passover blood libels and conspiracy theories involving Jewish attempts at world domination.

On April 5, in an official PA television interview, Fatah spokesperson, Osama Al-Qawasmi, invoked the notorious early 20^th century Czarist forgery known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to back up his spurious claims against Israel. For the sake of perspective, both Hitler’sMein Kampf and the Hamas Charter incorporate the Protocols to buttress repugnant supremacist views and reinforce ancient calumnies.

Al-Qawasmi comments, largely ignored by the West, represent views that are commonplace within the Palestinian Authority. In fact, most high-level officials within the PA subscribe to Hitleresque positions and this comes as no surprise given that the father of the modern “Palestinian” movement and the man who gave birth to Palestinian nationalism, Haj Amin al Husseini, was a Nazi collaborator and a dear friend of the Fuhrer. In January 2013, “President” Abbas, whose own ventures into Holocaust denial are well known, showered the Hitler-supporting Husseini with acclaim.

The Palestinian Authority has also been known to perpetuate ancient ritualistic Passover blood libels. In July 2014 Mahmoud Abbas’ official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, featured an op-ed which claimed that Jews use the “blood of [Palestinian] children” as a key ingredient in Matzah or unleavened bread used by Jews during the Passover holiday. Shortly thereafter, in a variation of that insidious theme, Palestinian Authority TV claimed that Israel was injecting poison into the Palestinian water supply.

In 2013, a Western funded Palestinian propaganda outfit called MIFTAH (which publishes in both English and Arabic) published an article in Arabic criticizing President Obama for speaking of Passover in a favorable light. The author then went on to invoke the ancient blood libel stating,

Does Obama in fact know the relationship, for example, between “Passover” and “Christian blood”..?! Or “Passover” and “Jewish blood rituals?!’ Much of the chatter and gossip about historical Jewish blood rituals in Europe are real and not fake as they claim; the Jews used the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover.

Palestinians routinely spew forth revolting babble and nonsensical conspiracy theories in Arabic but are substantially more reserved when addressing Western audiences who would find such utterances disquieting to say the least.

MIFTAH was founded by the Palestinian Authority’s spokeswoman and PLO Central Committee Member Hanan Ashrawi. Incredibly, when confronted with the outrage, Ashrawi, a seasoned politician who makes frequent guest appearances on Western news programs, refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing and actually attacked the blogger who exposed the incident claiming that she was the victim of a “smear campaign.” She also risibly noted that she was committed to “open dialogue” and in any event, a “disclaimer” in the publication absolved her and her organization of any culpability.

To a vile terror apologist like Ashrawi, blood libels are part of her concept of “open dialogue.” Only after drawing the ire of her Western donors did Ashrawi express contrition and posted an apologylaced with the requisite dose of crocodile tears. That served to placate MIFTAH’s gullible Western enablers.

But while Palestinians are free to spew forth the vilest canards against Israel and Jews, any whiff of criticism or dissention directed against any Palestinian body, Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, is ruthlessly dealt with. In April, a Palestinian civil servant was arrested for expressing views on Facebook critical of Yassir Arafat. More precisely, he failed to subscribe to the view that Arafat was a “martyr.” He was charged with “attacking and harming the martyr, eternal leader and symbol of the Palestinian people Abu Ammar,” Arafat’s nom de guerre. His niece was expelled from Birzeit University near Ramallah for expressing similar views and all other Palestinian universities have been instructed to deny her admission.

In Hamas-controlled Gaza, in a rare show of defiance, a group of between 150 to 200 Palestinians demonstrated against the governing authorities. The demonstrators were beaten with sticks and some were herded off in jeeps by thug-like Hamas enforcers.

These two incidents are demonstrative of the complete absence of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in areas governed by Palestinians. Conversely, Palestinians are completely free to let loose with the vilest canards as long as the objects of derision, defamation and ridicule are Jews.

A Palestinians state, whether governed by Hamas or the “moderate” Palestinian Authority, will almost certainly resemble the 20 or so Arab pseudo-states currently in existence. It will be dysfunctional, autocratic, xenophobic and unable to survive without massive financial assistance. That will be the nature of the state that lives alongside Israel’s long and tortuous border with the West Bank. That will be the state that will have full view of all commercial airlines that come and go from Ben Gurion International Airport. And that will be the state that juts into Israel’s narrow 9-mile wide waistline overlooking Israel’s heavily populated coastline.

Considering these facts, why is the Obama administration placing mammoth pressure on Israel to cede vital strategic territory and why is it besotted with the idea of dismembering Israel by tearing away parts of its ancestral heartland? The answer lies in a flawed foreign policy that rewards tyrannical regimes while back-stabbing allies; a foreign policy that favors Iranian Fatwas over concrete empirical evidence of malfeasance.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has just formed a governing coalition with a razor thin majority. Yet his coalition partners, cognizant of the dangers they face, both on the battlefield and in the political arena, appear to be solidly behind their Prime Minister. One can only hope that the Prime Minister will stand fast in the face of massive pressure he is sure to encounter from an extremely hostile Obama administration. Good luck Mr. Prime Minister, you’re going to need every bit of it for the next 18 months.

Categories: Abbas, Diplomacy, Fatah, Foreign policy, Gaza, Hamas, Ideology, Islamic slaughter, Israel, Netanyahu, Obama, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Peace process, Terrorists, Two state solution
Tags: Abbas, Fatah, Foreign Policy, Gaza, Hamas, Ideology, Islamic slaughter, Israel, Netanyahu, Obama, Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, Peace Process, Terrorists, Two state solution

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trading Our Security for Politics and Cash

May 12, 2015

Pentagon Report: China Deploys MIRV Missile
By Hans M. Kristensen Posted on May 11, 2015

(Did campaign contributions influence Clinton’s policy toward China years ago? Given their behavior today, I’d say yes. Now virtually all of the western world is in danger of a nuclear strike from China. Before the Clintons, China couldn’t even put a satellite in orbit. Now they’ve got MIRV’s and this constitutes a very serious threat. Thanks a lot Bill and Hillary Clinton. – LS)

For a little background to this dire situation, check out this article published back in 1998:
Red Face Over China

The biggest surprise in the Pentagon’s latest annual report on Chinese military power is the claim that China’s ICBM force now includes the “multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV)-equipped Mod 3 (DF-5).”

This is (to my knowledge) the first time the US Intelligence Community has made a public claim that China has fielded a MIRVed missile system.

If so, China joins the club of four other nuclear-armed states that have deployed MIRV for decades: Britain, France, Russia and the United States.

For China to join the MIRV club strains China’s claim of having a minimum nuclear deterrent. It is another worrisome sign that China – like the other nuclear-armed states – are trapped in a dynamic technological nuclear arms competition.

A Little Chinese MIRV History

There have been rumors for many years that China was working on MIRV technology. Some private analysts have even claimed – incorrectly – that China had developed MIRV for the DF-31 ICBM and JL-2 SLBM.

Fifteen years ago, CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate on foreign missile developments concluded that “China has had the technical capability to develop multiple RV payloads for 20 years. If China needed a multiple-RV (MRV) capability in the near term, Beijing could use a DF-31-type RV to develop and deploy a simple MRV or multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) for the CSS-4 in a few years.” (For a review of earlier information and assessments, see here.)

The Pentagon echoed this conclusion in July 2002, when it stated that any Chinese multiple warhead capability will “most likely [be] for the CSS-4.”

Chinese MIRVing of a mobile ICBM such as the DF-31 “would be many years off” the CIA told Congress. This was also the conclusion of the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate in 2001, which concluded that “Chinese pursuit of a multiple RV capability for its mobile ICBMs and SLBMs would encounter significant technical hurdles and would be costly.”

In an exchange with Senator Cochran in 2002, CIA’s Robert Walpole explained that MIRVing a mobile ICBM would require a much smaller warhead and possibly require nuclear testing:

Sen. Cochran. How many missiles will China be able to place multiple reentry vehicles on?

Mr. Walpole. In the near term, it would be about 20 CSS-4s that they have, the big, large ICBMs. The mobile ICBMs are smaller and it would require a very small warhead for them to put multiple RVs on them.

Sen. Cochran. … [D]o you think that China will attempt to develop a multiple warhead capability for its new missiles?

Mr. Walpole. Over time they may look at that. That would probably require nuclear testing to get something that small, but I do not think it is something that you would see them focused on for the near term.

What makes the Pentagon’s report on the MIRVed DF-5A payload noteworthy is that it was not included in several other intelligence assessments published in the past few months: the prepared threat assessment by the Director of National Intelligence; the prepared threat assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency; and STRATCOM’s prepared testimony.

Nor were a MIRVed DF-5A mentioned in the Pentagon’s report from 2014 or the Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) report from July 2013.

The Pentagon report also repeats an earlier assertion that “China also is developing a new road-mobile ICBM, the CSS-X-20 (DF-41), possibly capable of carrying MIRVs.” STRATCOM commander Admiral Cecil Haney also mentioned this, saying China is “developing a follow-on mobile system capable of carrying multiple warheads.”

“Possibly capable of” and “capable of” are not equal assessments; the first includes uncertainty, the second does not. Assuming CIA’s prediction from 15 years ago is correct, the DF-5 MIRV payload might consist of three warheads developed for the DF-31/31A.

Whatever the certainty, the MIRVed version of the DF-5 – which I guess we could call DF-5B – is not thought to be loaded with warheads under normal circumstances. In a crisis, the warheads would first have to be brought out of storage and mated with the missile.

Moreover, The Pentagon lists two versions of the DF-5 deployed: the DF-5A (CSS-4 Mod 2) and the new DF-5 MIRV (CSS-4 Mod 3). So only a portion of the 20 missiles in as many silos apparently have been equipped for MIRV.

Why Chinese MIRV?

The big question is why the Chinese leadership has decided to deploy MIRV on the silo-based, liquid-fuel DF-5A.

Chinese officials have for many years warned, and US officials have predicted, that advanced US non-nuclear capabilities such as missile defense systems could cause China to deploy MIRV on some of its missiles. The Pentagon report repeats this analysis by stating that China’s “new generation of mobile missiles, with warheads consisting of MIRVs and penetration aids, are intended to ensure the viability of China’s strategic deterrent in the face of continued advances in U.S. and, to a lesser extent, Russian strategic ISR, precision strike, and missile defense capabilities.”

Conclusions

Chinese MIRV on the DF-5 ICBM is a bad day for nuclear constraint.

Seen in the context of China’s other ongoing nuclear modernization programs – deployment of several types of mobile ICBMs and a new class of sea-launched ballistic missile submarines – the deployment of a MIRVed version of the DF-5 ICBM reported by the Pentagon’s annual report strains the credibility of China’s official assurance that it only wants a minimum nuclear deterrent and is not part of a nuclear arms race.

MIRV on Chinese ICBMs changes the calculus that other nuclear-armed states will make about China’s nuclear intensions and capacity. Essentially, MIRV allows a much more rapid increase of a nuclear arsenal than single-warhead missile. If China also develops MIRV for a mobile ICBM, then it would further deepen that problem.

To its credit, the Chinese nuclear arsenal is still much smaller than that of Russia and the United States. So this is not about a massive Chinese nuclear buildup. Yet the development underscores that a technological nuclear competition among the nuclear-armed states is in full swing – one that China also contributes to.

Although it is still unclear what has officially motivated China to deploy a MIRVed version of the DF-5 ICBM now, previous Chinese statements and US intelligence assessments indicate that it may be a reaction to the US development and deployment of missile defense systems that can threaten China’s ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

If so, how ironic that the US missile defense system – intended to reduce the threat to the United States – instead would seem to have increased the threat by triggering development of MIRV on Chinese ballistic missiles that could destroy more US cities in a potential war.

The deployment of a MIRVed DF-5 also raises serious questions about China’s strategic relationship with India. The Pentagon report states that in addition to US missile defense capabilities, “India’s nuclear force is an additional driver behind China’s nuclear force modernization.” There is little doubt that Chinese MIRV has the potential to nudge India into the MIRV club as well.

Indian weapons designers have already hinted that India may be working on its own MIRV system and the US Defense Intelligence Agency recently stated that “India will continue developing an ICBM, the Agni-VI, which will reportedly carry multiple warheads.”

If Chinese MIRV triggers Indian MIRV it would deepen nuclear competition between the two Asian nuclear powers and reduce security for both. This calls for both countries to show constraint but it also requires the other MIRVed nuclear-armed states (Britain, France, Russia and the United States) to limit their MIRV and offensive nuclear warfighting strategies.

Categories: China, Traitors
Tags: Foreign Policy

Comments: Be the first to comment

IDF sees no alternative to Hamas rule in Gaza

May 12, 2015

IDF sees no alternative to Hamas rule in Gaza

Southern commander says more rounds of fighting are inevitable, but status quo preferable to total chaos in the Strip

By Stuart Winer May 12, 2015, 12:47 pm

via IDF sees no alternative to Hamas rule in Gaza | The Times of Israel.

IDF Southern Region Commander Maj. Gen. Shlomo “Sami” Turgeman said on Monday that Hamas remains, effectively, the only option for governance in the Gaza Strip. He further accused Israeli media of handing the terror group propaganda victories during the war there last summer by revealing the number of southerners who left their home during the fighting.

Turgeman met with the heads of local authorities located near the Gaza border, where he reviewed the 50-day war with Hamas, which the IDF dubbed Operation Protective Edge.

He argued against the assertion — espoused by several senior Israeli ministers during the war — that the army should have worked to topple Hamas or take full control of the coastal enclave.

“There is an independent rule in Gaza that behaves like a state,” he said. “Inside that state there is a ruler, Hamas, and at the moment there is no alternative to Hamas. Aside from that, there is no one else who can hold things together. The alternative is the IDF or chaos.”

Turgeman assessed that the residents in Gaza were also not interested in ousting their Hamas rulers.

“Most of the citizens in the Strip see Hamas as the only address for their problems,” he said. “Anyone thinking about a popular uprising — it isn’t in sight. The chances that it’ll happen are not high.”

He said the Palestinian Authority, which rules in the West Bank, was also not a viable alternative to Hamas in Gaza, although he didn’t say why.

The conflict saw over 2,100 people killed in Gaza and tens of thousands more left homeless, according to Palestinian and UN tallies, and 72 people killed in Israel. Israel attributes the high civilian toll to the fact that Gazan fighters embedded their military infrastructure in residential areas. Eleven Israeli soldiers were killed inside Israel by Hamas gunmen emerging from the cross-border tunnels. Destroying the tunnel threat was one of Israel’s stated goals during the campaign.

Hamas also fired over 4,000 rockets at Israeli towns and cities, with the south taking the brunt of the fire. Media reports at the time said officials estimated that 70 percent of the 40,000 inhabitants of the farming communities along the Gaza border had left over the course of the fighting.

Turgeman criticized the Israel media for the way it reported events in the war, claiming that headlines reporting on the departure of residents of border towns were a propaganda coup for Hamas.

“There is no army that fights, it is a society that fights. When Channel 2 runs a report about people ‘abandoning the [Gaza] periphery,’ it is a victory for Hamas. Hamas doesn’t have a greater success than a headline like that.”

Turgeman warned that a similar problem existed vis-a-vis Israel’s ongoing conflict with the Lebanese militia Hezbollah in the north.

“It is the same thing with Hezbollah. When civilians and soldiers are being killed and the headline is ‘disaster’ — that is an achievement [for Hezbollah].”

The officer revealed that although the IDF realized that communities close to the Gaza Strip would suffer during a military campaign, he was reluctant to order an evacuation.

“I came to the operation with the preconception that evacuating the population was a victory for Hamas, which is why we didn’t rush to do that,” he said.

However, Turgeman admitted, in a future clash with Hamas it would likely be necessary to pull out “nonessential population” from the area. “There needs to be an organized plan and that is being worked on now,” he said.

Turgeman also hinted at possible developments in dealing with cross-border tunnels, which are very hard to detect and enabled some 45 Hamas fighters to enter into Israel during the conflict.

“Hamas wants to create a perception of victory with the underground mode of operation,” he said. “It is very hard to deal with that method because there is no technology to locate it in time. Happily, we are making some sort of significant advance.”

Turgeman explained that Israel had no real interest in interfering in events inside Gaza after the 2005 pullout, when the IDF evacuated all bases and Israeli settlements in the coastal enclave.

“Ever since the evacuation, the country has had a strategy of prevention and deterrence concerning the Gaza Strip,” Turgeman said. “We have no objective that we want to achieve there. The goal is prevention — to prevent chaos and a humanitarian crisis.”

Israel, he advised, should make the best of a bad situation.

“In my opinion we need to find as many quiet periods as possible, with the knowledge that occasionally there will be a [military] campaign, and so there is no need to be surprised when it happens every few years,” he said. “I hope that the period of quiet after Protective Edge will be prolonged.”

More

“Israel and Hamas have shared interests, including in the current situation, which is quiet and calm and growth and prosperity,” said the general, who is in charge of Israeli forces on the Gaza and Egyptian borders.

“There is no substitute for Hamas as sovereign in the Strip. The substitute is the IDF and chaotic rule … and then the security situation would be much more problematic,” he said.

An Israeli military spokesman did not contest the accuracy of the quotes attributed to Turgeman from the private meeting on Monday with the municipal leaders. Netanyahu’s office had no immediate comment. Nor did Hamas officials in Gaza.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-general-sees-common-interests-with-Hamas-402810

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

America’s Collapsing Alliances

May 12, 2015

America’s Collapsing Alliances | The Weekly Standard.

It was a long time ago and a galaxy far, far away: In July 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama made big, bold news by travelling to Berlin to – as The New York Times triumphantly recorded – “restore the world’s faith in strong American leadership and idealism.” With 200,000 Berliners waving campaign-provided American flags, Obama called for renewing America’s alliances and undoing the cowboy unilateralism of George W. Bush and Obama’s 2008 opponent Sen. John McCain.

Saudi King Salman

The events of recent months are an indication of how spectacularly Obama has failed to fulfill his 2008 promise. This week comes the news that Saudi Arabia’s newly installed King Salman and three of the other six Gulf monarchs are boycotting Obama’s Camp David summit – a meeting called by Obama to reassure the Arab states that the forthcoming nuclear deal with Iran was not a betrayal of their longstanding security relationship with the United States. Beyond their fears of Iran’s nukes, the Gulf states see the rise of an aspiring Persian hegemon – in Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq – taking advantage of, if not actively conspiring with, a retreating America. In this case “no show” means “no confidence.”

While the Middle East is where Obama has done the most damage to traditional U.S. alliances, the situation in Europe is not much better. The failure to respond to Vladimir Putin’s land grabs – which, to be fair, began with Georgia in the twilight of the Bush years – exposes NATO’s senility. The story of the post-Cold War Atlantic alliance, its late and limp performances in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in Europe itself, is one of continuous decline. Even with the victory of David Cameron’s Tories, Britain continues to shed whatever elements of greatness it retains; with the nationalists wiping out all opposition in Scotland, another secession vote is more than possible, and Britain’s army is on course to be smaller than the NYPD. While Europe deserves most of the blame for its disarmament and indecision, the Obama Pentagon is pressing forward with plans to further reduce America’s military posture in Europe. The president came to office figuring the peace of Europe was eternal and self-sustaining, and thus there was no need to maintain the alliance that has been the key vehicle for U.S. global leadership since World War II. It is no wonder that Eastern Europeans doubt the credibility of NATO’s Article V, collective-defense guarantees.

Which brings us to East Asia and Obama’s supposed “rebalance” or “Pacific Pivot.” To say that things aren’t quite so bad there would be the soft bigotry of low expectations, except it was the president who raised expectations of more energetic American leadership there. Further, as expressed in the 2012 Defense Guidance, the pivot marks the sole “doctrinal” bit of Obama thinking; it was more than a reaction to Bush-era policies. Our East Asian allies cheered the initiative but now regard more as rhetoric than a strategic reality. It’s not just that the administration’s efforts – such as the repositioning of Marines to northern Australia, the attempt to build a strategic partnership with Burma or to revive the stalled partnership with India – have been underwhelming. Indeed, since trumpeting the rebalance to Asia the administration has distanced itself from allies’ enthusiasms. Obama’s pledge of a “new era” in U.S.-Japan relations barely survived the departure of Prime Minister Abe for Tokyo. The visit of reformist Indian leader Narendra Modi was a decidedly low-key affair. More tangibly, the Chinese have resumed their various encroachments into the South China Sea. At the end of the day, the U.S. position in the region is no better now than in 2008, and arguably worse: an empty pivot is worse than no pivot.

Over six years in office, Barack Obama has gone along way to unraveling the alliances – both formal and informal – that have been the framework for American geopolitical leadership since the end of World War II. Watching the Gulf states, in particular, try to fend for themselves in the absence of American power – as the Saudis are trying to do in Yemen and Syria – is painful and looks as though it will make things worse rather than better. King Salman’s decision to pass up Camp David may be less an insult than a recognition that it would be a waste of time.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

With Plane Delivery, Iran Sanctions Collapsing Already – Bloomberg View

May 12, 2015

With Plane Delivery, Iran Sanctions Collapsing Already – Bloomberg View.

With a deadline to end nuclear negotiations less than two months away, the crippling sanctions against Iran are already beginning to collapse. The latest evidence came over the weekend when nine used commercial airliners arrived in Iran to bolster the fleet of Mahan Air.

The U.S. has threatened to sanction western companies that sell planes to Iran, although a prohibition against Iran acquiring airplane spare parts was lifted in an interim agreement signed with Iran at the end of 2013. U.S. officials have also said that sanctions to punish Iran’s support of terrorism and human rights violations will remain in place if the nuclear sanctions are lifted.

Mahan Air has been singled out before — not for its support for Iran’s nuclear program, but for its role in providing weapons and crowd control equipment to the Syrian regime in its brutal suppression of popular unrest. The delivery of the used airplanes comes at a moment when Iran is seeking to rejoin the international economy, even before it signs a final deal. Last month Russia’s president Vladimir Putin announced he would resume the sale of a sophisticated air defense system, known as the S300, to Iran. Western oil companies are already meeting with Iranian officials to discuss how to get back into the country’s lucrative oil and gas markets.

Abbas Akhoundi, Iran’s transportation minister, said Sunday that 15 planes had been acquired by Iran since February, with nine arriving over the weekend. Other Iranian media reported that the planes — which used to be part of the Virgin Atlantic fleet — were headed to Mahan Air. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that Western governments suspect Iraq’s Al-Naser Airlines to have been a front for Mahan to acquire the planes.

The airline, a private company based in Tehran, has come under scrutiny from the U.S. government before. In 2011, it was sanctioned by Treasury for supporting Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and its ballistic missile program. A 2012 press release from Treasury says, “Iran used Iran Air and Mahan Air flights between Tehran and Damascus to send military and crowd control equipment to the Syrian regime.” Those flights were then coordinated with Hezbollah, according to the press release, to re-supply Bashar al-Assad’s government during his attacks against civilians and his opposition that summer.

In 2008, according to a diplomatic cable declassified by Wikileaks, the State Department attempted to ground three Mahan Air planes that were receiving maintenance in South Korea. Eventually, the U.S. was able to recall those planes to the U.S. bases where they were manufactured The U.S. also collected $15 million in fines from the British company that sold the aircraft to Mahan Air.

A Treasury Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the news Monday about the delivery of airplanes to Iran. Some analysts, however, said the transaction showed how the sanctions against Iran were collapsing ahead of the June 30 deadline for a nuclear deal.

“Mahan Air’s case shows that U.S. sanctions no longer deter Western companies from doing big business with Iran – even with a company like Mahan Air, which Treasury targeted for its support of the Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ Corps,” said Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank that has advocated for tough sanctions on Iran.

“To preserve the credibility of its sanctions’ regime, the administration must move quickly to punish those companies involved in this blatant breach of U.S. sanctions,” Ottolenghi said. “Otherwise,” he added, “the argument that sanctions are still largely intact and can always be snapped back in the future loses all credibility.”

Avi Jorisch, a former Treasury Department official who has worked on mapping Iran’s illicit activities, said the purchase of the airplanes was a “gross violation” of the interim agreement reached by Iran, the United States and five other great powers at the end of 2013. “Such moves weaken the U.S. government’s ability to negotiate and make a credible case that if a good deal is not signed, Iran’s economy will continue to suffer,” added Jorisch, now a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council.

Despite the announcement last month of an agreed framework for a nuclear deal, much negotiation remains. Iran’s supreme leader has insisted that all sanctions on Iran must be lifted upon the signing of an agreement, and Iranian military leaders have pledged no international inspectors will be given access to military sites. President Obama and other western leaders have hoped that the burden of existing sanctions on Iran might give the U.S. some leverage to pressure Iran on these remaining issues. But it appears that leverage is weakening.

To contact the author on this story:
Eli Lake at elake1@bloomberg.net

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iranian Thugs Defend Their Favorite Fishing Spot

May 11, 2015

Iran claims its warships ‘shooed’ US, French forces in Gulf of Aden
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF May 10, 2015, 6:37 pm

(The message here is twofold. The U.S. Navy will dictate the time and place for confrontation with the Iranian Navy. The U.S. Navy adheres to the wisdom that one should choose their battles wisely. – LS)

Iran claimed Sunday that its warships had “shooed away” American and French military forces in the Gulf of Aden.

US and French “reconnaissance planes, helicopters and warships approached the Iranian warships in a provocative move” on Saturday night, the semi-official FARS news agency reported. “The vessels and aircraft then received a warning from Iranian Destroyer ‘Alborz,’ apologized and rapidly changed direction.”

The agency said the same thing happened last Monday, when “a US warship and military planes changed their direction as they were patrolling in the Gulf of Aden after they came close to an Iranian naval fleet and were warned to move away.”

The report said the Iranian Navy’s 34th fleet, comprising the Alborz destroyer and Bushehr helicopter-carrier warship, is conducting three months of “anti-piracy patrols” in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. It quoted the flotilla’s commander, Mostafa Tajeddini, saying, “Checking foreign warships in the international waters and surveillance of potential threats to Iran’s national interests is our essential responsibility.”

The report came amid a spate of belligerent anti-US rhetoric by Iranian leaders and military chiefs, and as US President Barack Obama seeks to reassure Gulf leaders unnerved by the emerging US-backed nuclear deal with Iran. Obama is holding a summit at Camp David on Thursday with Gulf Cooperation Council countries — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

Two top Iranian generals on Thursday had taunted the United States, saying the much-discussed military option to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities is “ridiculous,” that Washington knows it can’t be done, and that their country “welcomes war with the US.”

Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, said in an interview on state-run television that a battle with the US would only serve to highlight Iran’s strengths.

“We welcome war with the US as we do believe that it will be the scene for our success to display the real potentials of our power,” he said, according to a report by the semi-official Fars news agency. “We have prepared ourselves for the most dangerous scenarios and this is no big deal.”

Salami threatened that Iran would strike any airbase used as a launchpad for a strike on his country.

“We warn their pilots that their first flight [to attack Iran] will be their last one and no one will be allowed to go back safe and sound,” he warned.

The commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, gave a similarly belligerent warning during a ceremony in the city of Semnan, in the north of the country. Jafari reasoned that if the West really thought it could attack Iran at will, it would have done so already; instead world powers “kneel” before Iranian might, he boasted.

“The military option that the Westerners speak of constantly is ridiculous and they know that if the military option could have produced any result, they would have already used it many times, and today they have shifted their focus to other types of threats and to the soft war front,” Jafri said.

“Today, the Islamic Iran’s pride and might has made the world’s biggest materialistic and military powers kneel down before the Islamic Republic,” he proclaimed.

Iranian officials have recently ramped up their war of rhetoric in what local media said is a response to threats by US officials to bomb their country.

Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei bragged Wednesday that the US “can’t do a damn thing” to harm his country’s nuclear facilities.

Negotiations between Iran and six world powers — the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — are scheduled to resume on May 12 in Vienna, the European Union and Tehran said last week. The political leaders of the other world powers involved in the negotiations are to join the talks on May 15.

Iran and the world powers want to turn a framework accord reached in Switzerland on April 2 into a full agreement by June 30.

Israeli officials, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have harshly criticized the framework agreement, saying it paves the way to Iranian nuclear weapons.

Categories: Iran scam, No go zones, U.S. Navy
Tags: Iran Scam

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives