Author Archive

Report: Syria deploys anti-aircraft missile batteries along Turkish border

March 31, 2014

Report: Syria deploys anti-aircraft missile batteries along Turkish border – Jerusalem Post.

“Syria is ready to deal with any hostile Turkish plane that enters Syria’s airspace,” Syrian army sources say.

By ARIEL BEN SOLOMON 03/31/2014 16:30

Forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar Assad.

Forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar Assad. Photo: REUTERS/George Ourfalian

Syria deployed anti-aircraft missile batteries along the Turkish border in what seems to be a response to an incident last week when a Turkish fighter jet shot down a Syrian plane, a Kuwaiti newspaper reported.

Syria deployed the anti-aircraft weapons and “is ready to deal with any hostile Turkish plane that enters Syria’s airspace,” sources from the Syrian army and Hezbollah told Al-Rai on Monday.

Meanwhile, Syria’s Minister of Information, Omran al-Zoubi, criticized Turkey in an interview on Syrian TV Sunday evening, saying that the country is facilitating the continual entry of armed terrorist groups into the Kassab area in Latakia, the Syrian Arab News Agency SANA reported on Monday.

Latakia is a stronghold of Bashar Assad’s regime.

Zoubi accused some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey of backing terrorism.

Syrian air defense systems have “harassed” Turkish F-16 fighter jets patrolling their own airspace by repeatedly putting them under “radar lock”, suggesting they were about to be fired at, the Turkish military said on Thursday.

The incident, which took place on Wednesday, comes only days after Turkey downed a Syrian warplane that Ankara said had violated its airspace, in an area where Syrian rebels have been battling President Bashar Assad’s forces.

Reuters contributed to this report.

PM: No new prisoner release without something of value in exchange

March 31, 2014

PM: No new prisoner release without something of value in exchange – The Times of Israel.

Netanyahu says any further deal would need government approval; issue likely to be resolved in days

March 30, 2014, 12:07 pm

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during the weekly cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem on February 23, 2014. (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during the weekly cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem on February 23, 2014. (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/POOL/Flash90)

Israel won’t release additional Palestinian prisoners without receiving something of value in return, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday, addressing a weekend report that Jerusalem had offered to free up to 400 additional long-serving prisoners in exchange for Palestinians agreeing to continue talks past their April 29 deadline.
The prisoner issue will be resolved within a few days, when it “will be closed or it will blow up,” Netanyahu said, addressing a meeting of lawmakers, many of whom are opposed to releasing prisoners, held before the regular weekly cabinet meeting.
“In any case, there won’t be any deal without receiving something of clear value [in return],” the prime minister added.

Any deal involving a further prisoner release would be brought to the government for approval, Netanyahu added, and said the deliberations around the prisoners release could go on for several days.

President Shimon Peres said Sunday that in his estimation there would be developments in the peace talks by Sunday evening or Monday morning, and added that both sides were working hard to overcome the obstacles. Peres addressed the controversy from Vienna, where he was beginning a three-day state visit in Austria.

On Saturday, Jerusalem refused to release a batch of about 26 Palestinian inmates who were supposed to be set free at the end of March as per an original understanding between Jerusalem and Ramallah at the start of peace talks in August.

The release was to include 14 Israeli-Arab citizens, which has caused consternation among some members of the government. Israel has refused to release the 26 unless talks, which are due to end in April, are extended.

On Saturday, it was reported by The Times of Israel that Israel had offered to release up to 400 prisoners, to be chosen by Israel, in exchange for an extension of the talks and a pledge by the Palestinians not to take unilateral action at the UN.

With the talks teetering on the brink of collapse, Washington has been fighting an uphill battle to coax the two sides into accepting a framework proposal which would extend the negotiations beyond April to the end of the year.

But the matter has become tied up with the fate of the veteran Palestinian prisoners whom Israel was to have freed this weekend under terms of an agreement which brought about a resumption of talks.

Israel on Friday informed the Palestinians via a US mediator that it would not release the fourth and final batch of prisoners, with the US State Department confirming it was working “intensively” to resolve the dispute.

The Palestinians say they will not even consider extending the talks without the prisoners being freed, but Israel has refused to release them without a Palestinian commitment to continue the talks, prompting a fresh crisis of confidence between the parties.

Issa Karawe, the Palestinian prisoners minister, on Saturday told AFP that the crisis was likely to be resolved quickly.

“There are efforts to solve the crisis and I believe that in 24 hours everything will be clearer,” he said.

Under a deal that relaunched peace talks last July, Israel agreed to release 104 prisoners held since before the 1993 Oslo peace accords in exchange for the Palestinians freezing all efforts to seek further international recognition.

So far, Israel has freed 78 of them in three batches, and the last group was to have been released on March 29.

Obama tells Saudi king U.S. will not agree bad deal with Iran

March 31, 2014

Obama tells Saudi king U.S. will not agree bad deal with Iran – Chicago Tribune.

(More political comedy. – Artaxes)

March 28, 2014|Reuters
 

RIYADH (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama and Saudi King Abdullah discussed “tactical differences” in their approach to some issues during a meeting in Riyadh on Friday, but agreed both sides remain strategically aligned, a senior U.S. official said.Obama also assured Abdullah that the United States would not accept a bad nuclear deal with Iran, the official said, adding that Washington remained concerned about providing some shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft weapons to Syrian rebels.

In the run-up to his visit to the kingdom, officials had said Obama would aim to persuade the monarch that Saudi concerns that Washington was slowly disengaging from the Middle East and no longer listening to its old ally were unfounded.

Last year senior Saudi officials warned of a “major shift” away from Washington after bitter disagreements about its response to the “Arab Spring” uprisings, and policy towards Iran and Syria, where Riyadh wants more American support for rebels.

The official said the two leaders had spoken frankly about a number of issues and “what might be or might have been tactical differences or differences in approaching some of these issues, but President Obama made very clear he believes our strategic interests remain very much aligned,” the official said.

The official added that Obama had assured the king that “we won’t accept a bad deal” on Iran and that the king “listened very carefully” to what Obama said. The official said it was important for Obama to come and explain the U.S. position face-to-face with the king.

(Reporting By Jeff Mason, Steve Holland and Lesley Wroughton,; Writing by Angus McDowall, Editing by Sami Aboudi and William Maclean)

Syrian Rebels Deny Bid to Thwart Chemical-Arms Removal

March 31, 2014

Syrian Rebels Deny Bid to Thwart Chemical-Arms Removal – Global Security Newswire.

A Syrian opposition fighter takes part in a training exercise in the city of Deir Ezzor last week. A Syrian rebel group reportedly denied a Russian assertion that opposition forces are seizing coastal territory in a bid to thwart the removal of warfare chemicals from the country.

A Syrian opposition fighter takes part in a training exercise in the city of Deir Ezzor last week. A Syrian rebel group reportedly denied a Russian assertion that opposition forces are seizing coastal territory in a bid to thwart the removal of warfare chemicals from the country. (Ahmad Aboud/AFP/Getty Images)

Syrian rebels rejected a Russian claim that they are seizing coastal territory to disrupt their country’s chemical disarmament, Turkey’s Anadolu Agency reports.

The Russian Foreign Ministry reportedly issued the accusation after Syrian opposition forces fought for control of areas in the embattled country’s Latakia province, the news service indicated on Saturday. Danish and Norwegian cargo vessels have been picking up government warfare chemicals arriving at the provincial capital — a port city of the same name — in an effort to remove and destroy the regime’s entire stockpile before July.

Hisham Marwah, legal committee head for the opposition’s Syrian National Council, said Moscow’s assertions are intended to excuse any failure by its Damascus ally to eliminate the “chemical weapons within the allotted deadline.”

Marwah asserted that Russia’s comments throw doubt on Moscow’s commitment to eliminating the lethal materials stockpiled by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government.

Meanwhile, a former British military officer said he believed that rebel forces have attacked “every single” chemical-arms shipment to the port city to date, ABC News reported on Saturday.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon added that Damascus “has put massive military resources into these convoys, supporting them with tanks and air protection. They also put forces down the road before the convoys, almost blasting through to Latakia.”

Faisal Mekdad, Assad’s deputy foreign minister, voiced concerns about rebel threats to the disarmament effort in a Sunday meeting with Sigrid Kaag, the special coordinator of a U.N.-OPCW mission overseeing the project, according to the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency.

The discussion of possible threats to the chemical-arms shipments came as President Obama considered whether to supply certain Syrian rebel groups with portable anti-air missiles, the Australian Associated Press reported.

John Kerry’s departure from reality – Washington Post

March 31, 2014

John Kerry’s departure from reality – Washington Post.

(Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press) – Secretary of State John Kerry in Rome on Thursday.

By , Monday, March 31, 1:43 AM

During a tour of the Middle East in November, Secretary of State John F. Kerry portrayed the region as on its way to a stunning series of breakthroughs, thanks to U.S. diplomacy. In Egypt, he said, “the roadmap” to democracy “is being carried out, to the best of our perception.” In Syria, a peace conference would soon replace the Assad regime with a transitional government, because “the Russians and the Iranians . . . will make certain that the Syrian regime will live up to its obligation.”

Last but hardly least, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was on its way to a final settlement — by April. “This is not mission impossible,” insisted the secretary of state. “This can happen.”

Some people heaped praise on Kerry for his bold ambitions, saying he was injecting vision and energy into the Obama administration’s inert foreign policy. Others, including me, said he was delusional.

Four months have passed, and, sadly for Kerry and U.S. interests, the verdict is in: delusional. Egypt is under the thumb of an authoritarian general. The Syrian peace talks imploded soon after they began. Kerry is now frantically trying to prevent the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which are hanging by a thread — and all sides agree there will be no deal in April.

It might be argued that none of this is Kerry’s fault. It was Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi who hijacked Egypt’s promised political transition. It was the Assad regime that refused to negotiate its departure . It was Benjamin Netanyahu who kept building Jewish settlements in the West Bank. It was Mahmoud Abbas who refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

All true; and yet all along the way, Kerry — thanks to a profound misreading of the realities on the ground — was enabling the bad guys.

Start with Egypt. Since last summer the State Department and its chief have been publicly endorsing the fiction that the military coup against the elected government of Mohamed Morsi was aimed at “restoring democracy,” as Kerry put it. As late as March 12, Kerry — spun by his friend Nabil Fahmy, the regime’s slick foreign minister — declared that “I’m very, very hopeful that, in very short order, we’ll be able to move forward” in certifying that Egypt was eligible for a full resumption of U.S. aid.

Twelve days later, an Egyptian court handed death sentences to 529 members of the Muslim Brotherhood after a two-day trial. Two days after that, Sissi appeared on television, in uniform, to announce that he would “run” for president.

Kerry was no less credulous of Vladi­mir Putin. Having taken office with the intention of boosting support for Syrian rebels as a way of “changing Assad’s calculations,” Kerry abruptly changed course last May after a visit to the Kremlin. Russia and the United States, he announced, would henceforth “cooperate in trying to implement” a transition from the Assad regime. “Our understanding,” Mr. Kerry said of himself and Putin, “is very similar.”

Only it wasn’t. Putin, who loathes nothing more than U.S.-engineered regime change, spent the next nine months pouring weapons into Damascus, even as Kerry continued to insist that Moscow would force Assad to hand over power in Geneva. When the Geneva conference finally convened, Russia — to the surprise of virtually no one, other than Kerry — backed Assad’s contention that the negotiations should be about combating “terrorism,” not a transitional government.

That brings us to the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire, which Kerry made his personal cause even thoughthe Obama administration already had tried and abjectly failed to broker a deal between Netanyahu and Abbas and Israel and the Palestinian territories are currently an island of tranquility in a blood-drenched Middle East. Ignoring the counsel of numerous experts who warnedneither side was ready for a deal, Kerry lavished time on the two men, convinced that his political skills would bring them around.

Predictably, that didn’t happen. The leaders have not budged a millimeter from the positions they occupied on Palestinian statehood a year ago, and Abbas has been strident in publicly rejecting terms Kerry tried to include in a proposed peace “framework.”

Kerry offered an answer to my first critique of him in an interview with Susan Glasser of Politico: “I would ask” anyone “who was critical of our engagement: What is the alternative?” Well, the alternative is to address the Middle East as it really is. Recognize that Egypt’s generals are reinstalling a dictatorship and that U.S. aid therefore cannot be resumed; refocus on resuscitating and defending Egypt’s real democrats. Admit that the Assad regime won’t quit unless it is defeated on the battlefield and adopt a strategy to bring about that defeat. Concede that a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace isn’t possible now and look for more modest ways to build the groundwork for a future Palestinian state.

In short, drop the delusions.

Jackson Diehl

The Post’s deputy editorial page editor, Diehl also writes a biweekly foreign affairs column and contributes to the PostPartisan blog.

Iran Names 1979 U.S. Embassy Hostage-Taker Its UN Envoy

March 30, 2014

Iran Names 1979 U.S. Embassy Hostage-Taker Its UN Envoy – Bloomberg.

(This very fitting representative of the criminal regime in Iran has been chosen by, drumroll please … , the wonderfully ‘moderate’ Hassan Rouhani. – Artaxes)

By Kambiz Foroohar       Mar 30, 2014 6:00 AM GMT+0200

Iran has named a member of the militant group that held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days to be its next ambassador to the United Nations.

The Iranian government has applied for a U.S. visa for Hamid Aboutalebi, Iran’s former ambassador to Belgium and Italy, who was a member of the Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line, a group of radical students that seized the U.S. embassy on Nov. 4, 1979. Imam was an honorific used for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution.

Relations between the Islamic Republic and the U.S. and its allies are beginning to emerge from the deep freeze that began when the self-proclaimed Iranian students overrun the embassy and took the hostages. The State Department hasn’t responded to the visa application, according to an Iranian diplomat.

A controversy over Aboutalebi’s appointment could spark demands on Capitol Hill and beyond during this congressional election year for the Obama administration to take the unusual step of denying a visa to an official posted to the UN. It also could hamper progress toward a comprehensive agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. and five other world powers are seeking to negotiate with Iran by July 20.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani chose Aboutalebi to serve at the UN, which is headquartered in New York City on international, soil after the interim nuclear deal was forged last Nov. 24.

Compensation Issue

“There’ll not be any rapprochement with Iran until hostages are compensated for their torture,” said Tom Lankford, an Alexandria, Virginia-based lawyer who’s been trying to win compensation for the hostages since 2000. “It’s important that no state sponsor of terror can avoid paying for acts of terror.”

Anyone connected with the hostage-takers shouldn’t get a U.S. visa, said a former hostage and U.S. diplomat. He requested anonymity to avoid renewed attention.

Aboutalebi has said he didn’t take part in the initial occupation of the embassy, and acted as translator and negotiator, according to an interview he gave to the Khabaronline news website in Iran.

“On a few other occasions, when they needed to translate something in relation with their contacts with other countries, I translated their material into English or French,” Aboutalebi said, according to Khabaronline. “I did the translation during a press conference when the female and black staffers of the embassy were released, and it was purely based on humanitarian motivations.”

He referred to the release of some embassy staff members during the first few weeks of the crisis in November 1979.

Photo Displayed

Although Aboutalebi downplays his involvement, his photograph is displayed on Taskhir, the website of the Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line. Taskhir can mean both capture and occupation in Persian.

According to Mohammad Hashemi, one of the students who led the occupation of the embassy, Iran’s revolutionary government sent Aboutalebi and Abbas Abdi, another architect of the occupation, as emissaries to Algiers. The Algerian capital at that time was a mecca of third-world liberation movements, including the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Hamid Babaei, a spokesman for the Iran’s UN Mission in New York, declined to comment.

“We don’t as a matter of practice comment on visa applications.” said Marie Harf, deputy State Department spokeswoman. “People are free to apply,” and the U.S. has a process to review all visas, she said.

Asked if the U.S. is aware that Aboutalebi was a member of the hostage-taking group, Harf declined to comment.

No Speculation

“Anyone can submit a visa application, and it will be evaluated as we do all visa applications, in accordance with our procedures,” she said. “We don’t speculate on what the outcome might be.”

The U.S. is obliged to grant entry visas to representatives of UN member-states in accordance with an agreement signed in 1947.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir decided not to attend last year’s General Assembly session after not receiving a response to his visa application from the State Department. Bashir is subject to outstanding arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and referral for trial in The Hague. While the U.S. isn’t a party to the ICC, the court has asked American authorities to surrender Bashir if he enters U.S. territory.

Abkhazia Dispute

Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin accused the U.S. of denying a visa for Abkhazia’s then-foreign minister Sergei Shamba in 2007, when he sought to attend a Security Council meeting. Then-National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack, now a vice president of Chicago-based Boeing Co. (BA), said Shamba withdrew his visa request before the U.S. made a decision on his application.

The U.S. doesn’t recognize Abkhazia as an independent territory because it broke away from Georgia in 2008.

Some U.S. foes have received visas in the past, said Gary Sick, the top Iran expert on President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council staff during the hostage crisis.

“All kinds of leaders from Cuba to Africa who could be accused of horrible crimes and opposing U.S. policies have received visas,” Sick said. “There is no way to know why some people get the visa and some don’t.”

Some of the students who took the hostages formed the backbone of Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, according to the book “Guests of the Ayatollah,” by Mark Bowden.

Others have had extended political careers. Masoumeh Ebtekar, a former spokeswoman for the hostage-takers, is a vice president in Iran under Rouhani and head of the Department of Environment.

Others fell out of favor amid shifting political developments in Iran. Abdi, one of the first to enter the embassy compound, became the editor of reformist newspaper Salaam, which was shut down in 1999. He was sentenced to five years in prison in 2003, and released in 2005.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kambiz Foroohar in New York at kforoohar@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net; Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net Don Frederick

Bandar Is Back

March 28, 2014

Bandar Is Back – The Weekly Standardk.

And in Friday’s meeting between Obama and King Abdullah, he’s poised to stand against Obama administration policy on Iran and Syria.

2:38 PM, Mar 27, 2014 • By HUSSAIN ABDUL-HUSSAIN

Kuwait City
Friday’s meeting in Riyadh between King Abdullah and President Obama is likely to be a tense one. First, there’s the fact that the Saudis and the White House differ on a host of regional issues, from Egypt and Bahrain to Syria and Iran. Moreover, there are also the secondary players likely to be in attendance, one of which from each side the other considers a nuisance.  The Saudis think that newly named National Security Council staffer Robert Malley is an irritant, and the White House doesn’t like Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi intelligence chief and formerly longtime ambassador to Washington.

Bandar bin Sultan

Bandar bin Sultan

For the Saudis’ taste, Malley, who worked on the Arab-Israeli peace process in the Clinton administration, got too close with Syrian regime officials when he was program director for Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group. From Riyadh’s perspective, Malley’s appointment merely confirms their worst fears about Obama’s regional strategy—U.S. rapprochement with a host of figures it considers deadly adversaries, from Assad to Iran and Hezbollah, and at the expense of the Saudis and other longtime U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf.

For the Obama administration, Bandar, a former Washington power player and Bush family confidante, is a thorn in its side. First, he’s been publicly critical of White House policy, frequently leaking anti-Obama tidbits to the U.S. press. He’s also reached out to Vladimir Putin in an effort to buy arms from the Russians—and show up the White House. Speculation in Saudi circles is that the last straw was when Secretary of State John Kerry requested a meeting with him during a trip to Riyadh only to be told that since Bandar was on his way out of town that they meet at the airport. From the administration’s perspective, the problem with US-Saudi relations isn’t the White House’s and Riyadh’s diverging regional policies, but Bandar himself. The White House allegedly pushed to have Bandar put on administrative leave, and suddenly the man who had revived Riyadh’s Syria policy was out of the headlines. While Saudi spokesmen repeatedly explained that the prince was on travel for health reasons, in Marrakesh most recently for shoulder surgery, rumor was that the kingdom had succumbed to U.S. pressure by sidelining its top spy.

Now that Bandar appears to be back, perhaps Friday he’ll ask the American side why it compelled Jordan to shut down its border to arms shipments going to rebels in southern Syria. This action may have tipped the balance of power against the rebels and on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s allied forces in the battle for Yabroud.

The Syrian opposition had believed that opening a southern front might distract Assad from his siege of Yabroud, a town northwest of Damascus, and force him to redeploy some of his assets. Rebels therefore launched an offensive from areas they control around the town of Quneitra and scored some successes. When they sought rearmament through a cross point they control on the Syrian border with Jordan, Amman shut down the arms route, and the Quneitra front faltered as Assad managed to retake control without having to reinforce his own troops. Less than two weeks later, the joint Assad-Hezbollah-Iraqi forces swept through Yabroud.  

Even if Jordan takes its orders from Washington to shut down its borders, Turkey might be a different story. Gulf sources believe that Turkey has an interest in preventing a linkup between the Alawis of northern Syria and those in its southern province of Hatay, and thus has facilitated a rebel advance to the strategic border crossing of Kasab, which overlooks the coast. Sources also argue that the Syrian MiG shot down earlier this week was brought down not by Turkish ground fire but an F-16—moreover, Gulf sources say, the Syrian jet was targeted not in Turkish airspace, but Syrian and when the pilot ejected he went down in Syrian territory. In other words, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems to be eager to revive his pro-Syrian revolution credentials and play a more active role in the crisis—to cut Turkey’s Alawi community off from their Syrian brethren, and perhaps in order to deflect attention away from corruption scandals that are hitting him hard at home.

Way Off Topic: Valerie Jarrett to Hollywood to Get Obamacare in Movie, TV Scripts

March 28, 2014

Way Off Topic: Valerie Jarrett to Hollywood to Get Obamacare in Movie, TV Scripts – The Weekly Standard.

(Disgusting! Shows you how the totalitarian mindset works. You’re just too stupid to know what’s good for you. That’s why you have to be brainwashed until you do what they want. – Artaxes)

‘I’m a really good nag.’

11:46 AM, Mar 28, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER

A top of advisor to President Barack Obama is in Los Angeles to try to get Obamacare written into scripts of TV shows and movies. Valerie Jarrett explained in an appearance on Top That! on PopSugar.com:

“That’s the cool thing,” a host said to the presidential advisor. “You’ve been reaching out to people that are, you know, outside of the norm of what the president might work with. Who else are you working with? Like celebrities, personalities, things like that?”

“You name it,” said Jarrett. “That’s part of why I’m in L.A. I’m meeting with writers of various TV shows and movies to try to get it into the scripts.” When Jarrett says “it into the scripts,” she’s referring to getting references to Obamacare, the president’s signature legislation, into the scripts of TV shows and movies.

She continued: “We’re talking to celebrities. We’re talking to athletes, because obviously they get injured a lot and many of them are the same age as the market we’re going after. And what they can say is, ‘Look, you never know when life is going to throw you a curve ball. You’re walking down the street, you’re a little clumsy, you trip, you fall — where do you end up? Emergency room. A couple grand just to walk in the door.”

“Right,” said the host.

“Who can afford that?” asked Jarrett.

“Nobody,” said a host.”

Jarrett would explain that mothers are really good at nagging — which is why mothers have been promoting the health care bill. “What do moms do?” asked Jarrett. “We try to take care of our children. Even when they’re grown. And what we want to do here is like nag. We’re really good at nagging. I’m a mom so I know. I’m a really good nag. And I can come at the same issue like 20 different ways until my daughter goes, ‘Ok, I’m cool, I’ll just do it.'”

The Supreme Leader is getting the gang back together

March 28, 2014

The Supreme Leader is getting the gang back together – American Enterprise Institute.

Image Credit: AslanMedia (Flickr) CC

Image Credit: AslanMedia (Flickr) CC

As the Syrian crisis enters the beginning of its fourth year, Iran’s Supreme Leader is taking stock of the sectarian and political conflicts in the region. By expending vast resources to bolster the Bashar al-Assad regime and Lebanese Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic has been able to prevent its ally’s overthrow. Meanwhile, Khamenei appears to be looking elsewhere in the Levant and among the Gulf countries to rebuild Iran’s alliances with Sunni states and groups that were lost during the upheaval of the Arab Spring in 2011.

Changing dynamics in the Levant

The Syrian crisis is jeopardizing the position of Iran’s most valuable regional asset—Lebanese Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s support for Assad has proved unpopular and Khamenei has surely noted with concern the recent uptick in targeted violence against Hezbollah strongholds and Iranian assets in Lebanon. These attacks are direct spillovers from Syria in response to the fall of the last rebel stronghold near the Lebanese border in Qalamoun last week. The Lebanese people increasingly see Hezbollah as neglecting its social obligations to the Shia communities at home to fight someone else’s – Iran’s – war. This erosion of Hezbollah’s domestic support is a long-term threat to the Supreme Leader’s interests.

However, there are some positive trends developing in the Levant for the Islamic Republic. Hamas and Iran have recently renewed their bilateral relations after a three-year freeze. Khamenei is reportedly receiving Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Tehran soon. Amidst these recent diplomatic overtures, Israeli Defense Forces intercepted advanced Iranian munitions bound for Gaza earlier this March. Indeed, this shipment signals Khamenei’s commitment to the Islamist group as the US-brokered April deadline for the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks approaches.

Exploiting a split in the GCC

One thing the Supreme Leader will be keeping an eye on during this week’s Arab League summit is the growing foreign policy rift between Qatar and Saudi Arabia that has led to the split of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are determined to combat Iran’s regional ambitions, whereas Oman and Qatar are on the best terms with the Islamic Republic since the Arab Spring and see Tehran as a manageable partner in a volatile region. Qatar’s unwillingness to buy into the Sunni narrative on the existential threat posed by the Islamic Republic to the Gulf countries was in part behind the Saudi decision to recall its ambassador from Doha. The Supreme Leader may attempt to exploit this split in the GCC via economic and cooperative agreements with Oman and Qatar. Iran’s recent $60 billion 25-year contract with Oman, for example, shows the Supreme Leader’s willingness to employ an array of economic incentives to reshape the GCC and more importantly the regional dynamics in Iran’s favor.

Looking Ahead 

The Supreme Leader or his surrogates will likely have some choice words for the US and the Saudi leadership, as President Obama arrives in Riyadh on Friday. Khamenei has enjoyed watching the Saudi-American alliance fray as negotiations for a final deal on the Iranian nuclear program proceed and the US commitment to the region is increasingly questioned. Expect some subtle, or not so subtle, hints from Iran that the US is a fickle friend and the Arab World would do better without it.

This is the twelfth post in the series titled “What is keeping the Ayatollah up at night?” Written in collaboration with Katherine Earle. Special thanks for assistance from Iran interns Mehrdad Moarefian and Amir Toumaj.

Follow AEIdeas on Twitter at @AEIdeas.

Opinion: Tehran and the temptation of a power grab in Lebanon – Asharq Al Awsat

March 28, 2014

Opinion: Tehran and the temptation of a power grab in Lebanon – Asharq Al Awsat.

Written by :
on : Friday, 28 Mar, 2014

Until recently, the consensus among analysts of regional politics was that none of the powers involved in Lebanon’s tangled politics had an interest in plunging the country into a major crisis. Three reasons were cited to back that view. The first was that neither of the rival blocs in Lebanon had the initial advantage needed to seek total power. The second was that rival regional and global players were too busy elsewhere, including in Iraq and Egypt, to want to open a new arena of crisis in Lebanon. Finally, the conflict in Syria meant that both sides—that is to say, the Russo–Iranian tandem and the Arab bloc backed by the West—had to prioritize their options by focusing on the struggle for control in Damascus.

Now, however, the three reasons cited above may no longer be convincing.

To start with, the bloc led by Iran clearly feels that it now has the edge. The Islamic Republic has succeeded in hooking the United States into endless negotiations over the nuclear issue, thus removing any possibility of military action against it by either Israel or the US. Tehran’s leaders know that once President Barack Obama’s term ends, US policy may well change radically. Thus they feel they have a maximum of two years in which to exploit America’s confusion and weakness, consolidating their regional gains. That assumption may tempt the mullahs into redeploying their Lebanese pawns in a bid for total domination.

Next, though still full of imponderables, the situation in both Egypt and Iraq has achieved a measure of stability. Even if it proves to be a temporary stratagem, the elimination of the Muslim Brotherhood from the Egyptian scene allows the Arab bloc that is worried about Iranian ambitions to shift its attention back to the Levant. In Iraq, Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, though no admirer of the mullahs in his heart of hearts, knows he has no choice but to temporize with Tehran, even if that means antagonizing the Arab bloc.

The third reason things might have changed as far as Lebanon is concerned is the course of the conflict in Syria. The Russo–Iranian tandem that maintains the present Syrian regime in power is now convinced that it could achieve some kind of military victory. The current strategy is to focus on “useful Syria,” that is to say, Damascus and its southern hinterland, providing the link with Lebanon and the Mediterranean coastline. That is similar to the strategy the French adopted when faced with a series of anti-colonial rebellions during their occupation of Syria. With “useful Syria” under control, the Russo–Iranian axis could go after other gains, and why not in Lebanon?

At the other end of the spectrum, the Arab bloc that wants Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad out may come to the conclusion that crushing the despot’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon is a crucial step towards liberating Syria.
Signs that Tehran is not shy of throwing its weight around in and around Lebanon are everywhere. Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei has pointedly rebuffed Obama’s attempts at drawing Iran into talks over Syria and has ordered President Hassan Rouhani to limit talks with the P5+1 group of major powers to the nuclear issue.

Maj. Gen. Hassan Firuzabadi, the chief of staff of the Islamic Republic’s armed forces, has repeatedly described Syria and Lebanon as “part of our glacis.”

“We need those places so that we could fight our enemies far from our own borders,” Firuzabadi told a meeting of the military in Tehran last February.

Ayatollah Mahmoud Nabawian, a member of the Security Commission of the Islamic Majlis (Iran’s ersatz parliament), goes even further. “Some say we are making sacrifices for Syria,” he said in a speech at the Jihad Conference in Tehran last February. “The truth is that it is Syria that makes sacrifices for us.”

Claiming that Iran was on the verge of a “great victory” in Syria, he said: “We brought 150,000 Syrians to Iran and gave them military training. We also sent 50,000 fighters from the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah to fight alongside them. We also gave Hezbollah 80,000 missiles with which to hit Israel, and that ensured America’s defeat.”

The expected “victory” in Syria is only a prelude to “the greatest victory” (fath al-mobin) that awaits the Islamic Republic, according to the Quds Corps’ deputy commander, Gen. Ismail Qaanai. “We cannot stop at Syria,” Qaanai said last month. “Our aim is and has always been to lead the whole Muslim world.” He added: “It is obvious that no other power has the capabilities needed to assume leadership in the Muslim world.” Part of the cockiness in Tehran is due to the belief that the US has knocked itself out of the regional, if not international, equation. “The Americans know that we could hit them hard everywhere, including inside their own territory,” says Islamic Revolutionary Guards Commander Mohammad-Ali Jaafari.

However, some senior mullahs have injected an openly sectarian tone into Tehran’s expression of hubris. For example, Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, godfather of the radical faction in Tehran, claims that Iran ought to gain control of Syria to “efface the damage done to Islam by the Umayyads.”

Last January, in a bitter attack on Othman, the third Caliph of Islam, Mesbah-Yazdi claimed that Muawyyah, a relative of Othman, tricked Ali Ibn-Abi Talib, the fourth caliph, and managed to set up a dynasty that “falsified” Islam. Now Iran’s task was to restore “true Islam” everywhere.

“Syria and Lebanon are the forward positions of our revolutionary Islam,” Mesbah-Yazdi said.” Whatever we spend there must not be regarded as an ordinary military budget, as is the case with American and Russian military expenditure, for we are spending on defense of true religion.”

As things stand today, Lebanon seems vulnerable. Its army is not yet in a position to ensure law and order is maintained throughout the country. Thanks to Iranian investment, the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah often has more modern weapons and in greater quantities than the Lebanese army.

Worse still, Hezbollah leaders appear to have no independent will of their own and are kept on a tight leash by Tehran. The party’s official organs no longer operate, as strategy is set in Tehran and executed by Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, who is treated by Iranian media as a functionary of the Islamic Republic. Covering Nasrallah’s latest visit to Tehran, official news agency IRNA reported that the Lebanese politician had been “granted an audience by the Supreme Guide” to “give a report of the situation in Lebanon and receive the necessary instructions.”

A power grab in Lebanon might enable Khamenei to divert attention from the concessions he is forced to give on the nuclear issue to prevent economic meltdown in Iran. And, if that happens, it could be bad news for Lebanon.

Amir Taheri

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. Mr. Taheri has won several prizes for his journalism, and in 2012 was named International Journalist of the Year by the British Society of Editors and the Foreign Press Association in the annual British Media Awards.