Posted tagged ‘Middle East’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

There is no better deal with Iran

April 9, 2015

There is no better deal with Iran, Israel Hayom, Prof. Efraim Inbar, April 9, 2015

If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb (this was always a dicey proposition), that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.

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

The debate over the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear framework agreement negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran at Lausanne (April 2, 2015) is simply irrelevant. The search for truth in the conflicting versions about the details of the deal coming out of Washington and Tehran is of no consequence. And the steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of the deal (by more stringent inspections and so on) will not change much. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected outright.

The deal permits Iran to preserve stockpiles of enriched uranium, to continue to enrich uranium, and to maintain illegally-built facilities at Fordow and Arak. Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the U.S. and its negotiating partners already have awarded legitimacy to Iran’s nuclear threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to get a formal deal, will make additional concessions in order to have a signed formal deal — which won’t be worth the paper on which it is printed.

This outcome has been a foregone conclusion since November 2013, when the U.S. agreed to the “Joint Plan of Action” on Iran’s nuclear program. Already back then, the U.S. decided not to insist any longer on the goal of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, ignoring several U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding no uranium enrichment, as well as discarding the security concerns of American allies in the Middle East (primarily Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt — who better understand the regional realities).

Middle Easterners clearly discern an Iranian diplomatic victory in this accord, which should not surprise anybody. Iranians are much more adept at negotiating than Americans. Iran is getting more or less what it wanted: the capability to produce enriched uranium and to research weapon design; agreement to keep its missile program intact; and no linkages to Iranian behavior in the region. The deal is a prelude to nuclear breakout and Iranian regional hegemony.

Indeed, with no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, as was done in Libya, we are progressing toward the North Korean model. Those two are the only options in dealing with nuclear programs of determined states such as Iran. Iran’s nuclear program benefited in many ways from assistance that originated in Pakistan and in North Korea (both are nuclear proliferators despite American opposition). Compare the recent statements by President Obama to the speeches of President Clinton justifying the agreement with North Korea (October 1994). Their similarities are amazing; an indication of the incredible capacity of great powers for self-delusion.

What counts is not the Obama’s administration expression of satisfaction with the prospective deal, but the perceptions of Middle East actors. For example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have deplored the fact that the U.S. is bestowing international legitimacy on Iran’s status as a nuclear threshold state. They probably believe the interpretations of the deal offered by Tehran more than those professed in Washington. Therefore, they will do their best to build a similar infrastructure leading inevitably to nuclear proliferation in the region — a strategic nightmare for everybody.

Unfortunately, no better deal is in the offing. Whatever revisions are introduced cannot change its basic nature. The accord allows Iran to have fissionable material that can be enriched to weapons grade material in a short time and Tehran can always deny access to inspectors any time it chooses. This is the essence of the North Korean precedent.

Obama is right that the only alternative to this deal is an Iranian nuclear fait accompli or the bombing of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Obama’s penchant for engagement, his reluctance to use force, and his liberal prism on international relations (which adds rosy colors to international agreements) has led to this miserable result.

Netanyahu is wrong in demanding a better deal because no such deal exists. Yet denying its ratification by the U.S. Congress could create better international circumstances for an Israeli military strike. In fact, criticism of Obama’s deal with Iran fulfills only one main function — to legitimize future military action. Indeed, Netanyahu is the only leader concerned enough about the consequences of a bad deal with the guts and the military capability to order a strike on the Iranian key nuclear installations.

If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb (this was always a dicey proposition), that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Israel, Israeli attack on Iran nukes, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, Obama administration, P5+1, Peace in our time, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Can and should Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities?

April 5, 2015

Can and should Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? Dan Miller’s Blog, April 5, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or any of its other editors. — DM)

It has been suggested that Israel should seriously consider destroying Iranian nuclear facilities, but Israeli officials obviously haven’t said, and won’t say, if, how or when she might.

Iran fenced in

Speaking to Arutz Sheva Friday, Professor Efraim Inbar, who heads the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, said the deal had realized Israel’s worst fears by leaving Iran’s nuclear program essentially intact.

The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program has been granted “legitimacy” by the agreement, which still allowed it to continue enriching uranium and to maintain a reactor capable of producing enriched plutonium, he said. “And that’s what worries Israel, that they (Iran) will be able within a short time frame to reach a nuclear bomb.”

“I hold the view that the only way to stop Iran in its journey to a nuclear bomb is through military means,” Inbar maintained, suggesting that “Israel needs to seriously consider striking a number of important nuclear facilities” to head off the threat.

On March 28, former U.S. Ambassador Bolton said that it should be done.

The P5+1 nuclear “deal,” proudly announced by President Obama on April 2nd, is a sham. There is no “deal,” and public announcements by Iran and Obama cast it in very different lights. According to Iran, all sanctions will be lifted immediately when an agreement is reached on or before June 30th. According to Obama, sanctions relief will be gradual and based on Iran’s compliance with invasive inspections and other conditions. Even National Public Radio (NPR) has pointed out differences. NPR observed that, according to Iran,

all sanctions relief – U.N., EU and U.S. – would be immediate. It was unequivocal. It stated that Iran under the deal was free to pursue industrial scale enrichment to fuel its own reactors – unequivocal. It stated that Iran was unhindered in its ability to conduct centrifuge R&D.

Iran has also emphasized that its intention to destroy Israel is non-negotiable, and the Obama Administration has rejected any efforts to make Iran recognize Israel’s right to exist, on the ground that

“This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters on Friday night, according to Fox News. “This is an agreement that doesn’t deal with any other issues, nor should it.” [Emphasis added.]

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable.

Iran is very unlikely to retreat from its perception of the “deal,” Obama is very likely to retreat in Iran’s favor, and Israel is very unlikely to retreat from its perceptions about Iran, the “deal” or Israel’s right to exist.

What should Israel do?

In Martin Archer’s novel Islamic War, which I reviewed here, Israel dispatched elderly, large and substantially refurbished remove controlled aircraft, full of high explosives, from Somalia to half dozen nuclear facilities operated by hostile nations. They flew circuitous routes at varying altitudes to avoid detection until it was too late to stop them. Over a period of weeks, they crashed into and destroyed their targets, amid speculation about who had done it and why. Israel was not suspected. Would that have been possible then? Now? I don’t know.

It has been reported that Saudi Arabia has given Israel clearance to use her airspace for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Fox News reports that US Defense sources claim the Saudis are conducting tests on their air defense systems after giving Israel permission to to enter a narrow corridor to shorten the distance to attack Iran.

The testing would make sure that Saudi jets don’t get scrambled when Israel entered Saudi airspace. Once the IAF planes complete their mission and exit Saudi airspace, Saudi defenses would go back online again. [Emphasis added.]

Might Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps other Gulf States go beyond not interfering with an Israeli attack to provide air support and other help? They seem to be as displeased with the “deal” as Israel is.

Assuming that Israel is not overly concerned about being identified as the attacker and is willing to act alone, she might:

Detonate one or more high-altitude atomic bombs to emit sufficient electromagnetic pulses (EMP) to fry all above-ground Iranian electronics. That would substantially disable Iranian above-ground command and control facilities as well as other communications, hence diminishing (but not eliminating) the possibility of counter-strikes by Iran and/or its proxies. Perhaps she has other, non-nuclear, means of generating EMPs; she hasn’t said.

Immediately thereafter, drop whatever suitable bombs she may have on all Iranian military and nuclear facilities. Does Israel have bunker-buster bombs? Probably not of U.S. manufacture, but that does not mean that she has not developed her own. It would be surprising if she had not.

Obama and other “leaders of the free world” would complain and the U.N. would emit fits of angry censures. However, that happens with great frequency in any event, and would be an insufficient reason for Israel to commit national suicide through inaction against Iran.

I am no “military expert” and would appreciate any comments on the suggestions I have made as well as any other suggestions anyone might care to offer.

Categories: Diplomacy, Egypt, Foreign policy, Free world, Gulf states, Iran, Iran / Israel War, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Israel, John Bolton, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, Obama administration, P5+1, Sanctions, Saudi Arabia, State Department
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 10 Comments

Egypt sends large naval-marine force to Bab el-Mandeb

April 5, 2015

Egypt sends large naval-marine force to Bab el-Mandeb , DEBKAfile, April 5, 2015

(Please see also, Khamenei sends Iranian navy to Bab el-Mandeb Straits. Iran arms store for Hamas bombed in Libya. — DM)

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Egypt Sunday transferred war ships and marine forces as reinforcements for securing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait against Iranian-backed Houthi control. Egypt now deploys six warships and at least 1,000 marines at the vital shipping gateway.

Egypt will defend its Gulf allies “if we have to,” said President Abdel-Fatteh Al-Sisi Saturday night after a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. He stresse that Bab Al-Mandab Strait was a national security issue for Egypt and Arab countries. Arab national security would only be protected by Arab countries, said the president.

Egypt has closely monitored the civil war in Yemen, especially since the Saudi-led Operation Decisive Storm began to end the Iranian-backed Houthi rebellion. The disruption of shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait would directly affect traffic, including energy shipments, to and from the Gulf and Far East through Egypt’s Suez Canal.

Categories: Egypt, Gulf states, Houthi, Iran, Middle East, Sisi
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Arabs Blast “Obama’s Deal” With Iran

April 4, 2015

Arabs Blast “Obama’s Deal” With Iran, Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh, April 4, 2015

“This is a dangerous agreement…[It ]provides Iran with what it needs most to pursue its wars and expansionism against the Arabs: funds.” —Salah al-Mukhtar, Ammon News”

“Iran has tried to intervene in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and it is seeing that it’s not paying any price…There is also a feeling in Tehran that the U.S. is avoiding a military confrontation with the Iranians.”– Hassan al-Barari, Al-Sharq

The deal means that the international community has accepted Iran as a nuclear power.” — Hani ala-Jamal, al-Wafd

Many Arabs have expressed deep concern over the nuclear deal that was reached last week between Iran and the world powers, including the US.

Arab leaders and heads of state were polite enough not to voice public criticism of the agreement when President Barack Obama phoned them to inform them about it. But this has not stopped Arab politicians, political analysts and columnists reflecting government thinking in the Arab world from lashing out at what they describe as “Obama’s bad and dangerous deal with Iran.”

The Arabs, especially those living in the Gulf, see the framework agreement as a sign of US “weakness” and a green light to Iran for Iran to pursue its “expansionist” scheme in the Arab world.

“Some Arab countries are opposed to the nuclear deal because it poses a threat to their interests,” said the Egyptian daily Al-Wafd in an article entitled, “Politicians: (President Barack) Obama’s deal with Iran threatens Arab world.” http://www.alwafd.org/838527

The newspaper quoted Hani al-Jamal, an Egyptian political and regional researcher, as saying that the deal means that the international community has accepted Iran as a nuclear power. He predicted that the framework agreement would put Iran and some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt on a course of collision.

Al-Jamal advised the Arab countries to form a “Sunni NATO” that would guarantee Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power Arab ally in face of the “Iranian and Israeli threat.”

Jihad Odeh, an Egyptian professor of political science, said that Obama’s “achievements are designed to dismantle the Arab world. Obama wants to make historic achievements before the end of his term in office by destroying Al-Qaeda, seeking rapprochement with Cuba and reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran.”

http://www.alwafd.org/838527

Although Saudi Arabia, which is currently waging war on Iranian-backed Houthi militiamen in Yemen, “welcomed” the nuclear agreement, it has privately expressed concern over the deal.

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/public-saudi-welcome-for-iran-nuclear-deal-but-unease-remains-1.1485119

Similarly, several Gulf countries that initially welcomed the agreement are beginning to voce concern over its repercussions on the region. For the past several months, the Arabs have been warning against Iran’s ongoing effort to take control over their countries.

“The US surely does not want to see a more powerful Iranian hegemony in the region, but at the same time, it does not appear to mind some kind of Iranian influence in the region,” said Nasser Ahmed Bin Gaith, a United Arab Emirates researcher. “Iran has been seeking to reclaim its previous role as the region’s police.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/saudi-arabia-israel-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-150401061906177.html

Bin Gaith said that it was clear that a Western recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf countries.

“The Gulf states should build strategic partnerships with the regional powers of Pakistan and Turkey, who share the Gulf nations’ fears of Iranian ambitions in the region,” he added.

Echoing widespread fear among Arabs of Iran’s territorial ambitions in the Middle East, political analyst Hassan al-Barari wrote in Qatar’s daily Al-Sharq against the policy of appeasement toward Tehran.

“Iran has tried to intervene in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria and it is seeing that it’s not paying any price; on the contrary, there are attempts by the big powers to reach understandings with Iran,” al-Barari pointed out. There is also a feeling in Tehran that the US is avoiding a military confrontation with the Iranians and their proxies. The Gulf countries have learned from the lessons of the past in various areas. The policy of appeasement has only led to wars. Any kind of appeasement with Iran will only lead it to ask for more and probably meddle in the internal affairs of the Arab countries and increase its arrogance.”

http://www.al-sharq.com/news/details/324014#.VR7KLjuUevV

Even Jordanians have joined the chorus of Arabs expressing fear over Iran’s growing threat to the Arab world, especially in wake of the nuclear deal with the US and the big powers.

Salah al-Mukhtar, a Jordanian columnist, wrote an article entitled, “Oh Arabs wake up, your enemy is Iran,” in which he accused the US of facilitating Tehran’s wars against the Arab countries.

http://www.ammonnews.net/article.aspx?articleno=225764

Describing Iran as “Eastern Israel,” al-Mukhtar said that the most dangerous aspect of the framework agreement is that allows Iran to continue with its “destructive wars” against the Arabs. “This is a dangerous agreement, particularly for Saudi Arabia and the opposition forces in Iraq and Syria,” the Jordanian columnist cautioned. This agreement provides Iran with what it needs most to pursue its wars and expansionism against the Arabs: funds. Lifting the sanctions is America’s way of backing the dangerous and direct wars against Arabs; the lifting of the sanctions also provides the Iranians with the funds needed to push with their Persian advancement. The US wants to drain Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf countries in preparation for dividing them.”

Lebanon’s English language The Daily Star newspaper also voiced skepticism over the nuclear deal. “For all the talk of this deal contributing to making the world safer, if Obama is truly concerned with his legacy, especially in the Middle East, he must now work with Iran to encourage it to become a regular member of the international community once again, and not a country which sponsors conflict, whether directly or via proxies, across the region,” the paper editorialized. “Otherwise, this deal could just leave Iran emboldened in its expansionist designs.”

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Editorial/2015/Apr-03/293201-a-deal-or-legacy.ashx

In addition to the Arabs, Iranian opposition figures have also come out against the nuclear deal.

Maryam Rajavi, an Iranian politician and President of the National Council of Resistance, commented that the a “statement of generalities, without spiritual leader Khamenie’s signature and official approval, does not block Tehran’s path to a nuclear bomb nor prevent its intrinsic deception.

“Continuing talks with religious fascism in Iran – as part of a policy of appeasement – will not secure the region and world from the threat of nuclear proliferation,” Rajavi warned. “Complying with UN Security Council resolutions is the only way to block the mullahs from obtaining nuclear weapons. Leniency and unwarranted concessions by the P5+1 to the least trustworthy regime in the world today only grants it more time and further aggravates the dangers it poses to the Iranian people, to the region and to the wider world.”

http://irannewsupdate.com/news/nuclear/2047-iran-maryam-rajavi-fearful-mullahs-reluctantly-take-one-more-step-backward-toward-drinking-the-chalice-of-nuclear-poison.html

Categories: Arab nations, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Gulf states, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iraq, Islamism, Israel, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Syria, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

COLUMN ONE: The diplomatic track to war

April 3, 2015

COLUMN ONE: The diplomatic track to war, Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick, April 4, 2015

Iran negotiationsIran negotiations. (photo credit:REUTERS)

No one trusts Washington when Obama claims that he is committed to the security of Israel and the US’s Sunni allies in the region.

Iran is far more powerful than the PLO. But the Americans apparently believe they are immune from the consequences of their leaders’ policies. This is not the case for Israel or for our neighbors. We lack the luxury of ignoring the fact that Obama’s disastrous diplomacy has brought war upon us. Deal or no deal, we are again about to be forced to pay a price to maintain our freedom.

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

Through their nuclear diplomacy, Obama and his comrades started the countdown to war.

The world powers assembled at Lausanne, Switzerland, with the representatives of the Islamic Republic may or may not reach a framework deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program. But succeed or fail, the disaster that their negotiations have unleashed is already unfolding. The damage they have caused is irreversible.

US President Barack Obama, his advisers and media cheerleaders have long presented his nuclear diplomacy with the Iran as the only way to avoid war. Obama and his supporters have castigated as warmongers those who oppose his policy of nuclear appeasement with the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism.

But the opposite is the case. Had their view carried the day, war could have been averted.

Through their nuclear diplomacy, Obama and his comrades started the countdown to war.

In recent weeks we have watched the collapse of the allied powers’ negotiating positions.

They have conceded every position that might have placed a significant obstacle in Iran’s path to developing a nuclear arsenal.

They accepted Iran’s refusal to come clean on the military dimensions of its past nuclear work and so ensured that to the extent UN nuclear inspectors are able to access Iran’s nuclear installations, those inspections will not provide anything approaching a full picture of its nuclear status. By the same token, they bowed before Iran’s demand that inspectors be barred from all installations Iran defines as “military” and so enabled the ayatollahs to prevent the world from knowing anything worth knowing about its nuclear activities.

On the basis of Iran’s agreement to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, the US accepted Iran’s demand that it be allowed to maintain and operate more than 6,000 centrifuges.

But when on Monday Iran went back on its word and refused to ship its uranium to Russia, the US didn’t respond by saying Iran couldn’t keep spinning 6,000 centrifuges. The US made excuses for Iran.

The US delegation willingly acceded to Iran’s demand that it be allowed to continue operating its fortified, underground enrichment facility at Fordow. In so doing, the US minimized the effectiveness of a future limited air campaign aimed at significantly reducing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

With this broad range of great power concessions already in its pocket, the question of whether or not a deal is reached has become a secondary concern. The US and its negotiating partners have agreed to a set of understanding with the Iranians. Whether these understandings become a formal agreement or not is irrelevant because the understandings are already being implemented.

True, the US has not yet agreed to Iran’s demand for an immediate revocation of the economic sanctions now standing against it. But the notion that sanctions alone can pressure Iran into making nuclear concessions has been destroyed by Obama’s nuclear diplomacy in which the major concessions have all been made by the US.

No sanctions legislation that Congress may pass in the coming months will be able to force a change in Iran’s behavior if they are not accompanied by other coercive measures undertaken by the executive branch.

There is nothing new in this reality. For a regime with no qualms about repressing its society, economic sanctions are not an insurmountable challenge. But it is possible that if sanctions were implemented as part of a comprehensive plan to use limited coercive means to block Iran’s nuclear advance, they could have effectively blocked Iran’s progress to nuclear capabilities while preventing war. Such a comprehensive strategy could have included a proxy campaign to destabilize the regime by supporting regime opponents in their quest to overthrow the mullahs. It could have involved air strikes or sabotage of nuclear installations and strategic regime facilities like Revolutionary Guards command and control bases and ballistic missile storage facilities. It could have involved diplomatic isolation of Iran.

Moreover, if sanctions were combined with a stringent policy of blocking Iran’s regional expansion by supporting Iraqi sovereignty, supporting the now deposed government of Yemen and making a concerted effort to weaken Hezbollah and overthrow the Iranian-backed regime in Syria, then the US would have developed a strong deterrent position that would likely have convinced Iran that its interest was best served by curbing its imperialist enthusiasm and setting aside its nuclear ambitions.

In other words, a combination of these steps could have prevented war and prevented a nuclear Iran. But today, the US-led capitulation to Iran has pulled the rug out from any such comprehensive strategy. The administration has no credibility. No one trusts Obama to follow through on his declared commitment to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

No one trusts Washington when Obama claims that he is committed to the security of Israel and the US’s Sunni allies in the region.

And so we are now facing the unfolding disaster that Obama has wrought. The disaster is that deal or no deal, the US has just given the Iranians a green light to behave as if they have already built their nuclear umbrella. And they are in fact behaving in this manner.

They may not have a functional arsenal, but they act as though they do, and rightly so, because the US and its partners have just removed all significant obstacles from their path to nuclear capabilities. The Iranians know it. Their proxies know it. Their enemies know it.

As a consequence, all the regional implications of a nuclear armed Iran are already being played out. The surrounding Arab states led by Saudi Arabia are pursuing nuclear weapons. The path to a Middle East where every major and some minor actors have nuclear arsenals is before us.

Iran is working to expand its regional presence as if it were a nuclear state already. It is brazenly using its Yemeni Houthi proxy to gain maritime control over the Bab al-Mandab, which together with Iran’s control over the Straits of Hormuz completes its maritime control over shipping throughout the Middle East.

Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Eritrea, and their global trading partners will be faced with the fact that their primary maritime shipping route to Asia is controlled by Iran.

With its regional aggression now enjoying the indirect support of its nuclear negotiating partners led by the US, Iran has little to fear from the pan-Arab attempt to dislodge the Houthis from Aden and the Bab al-Mandab. If the Arabs succeed, Iran can regroup and launch a new offensive knowing it will face no repercussions for its aggression and imperialist endeavors.

Then of course there are Iran’s terror proxies.

Hezbollah, whose forces now operate openly in Syria and Lebanon, is reportedly active as well in Iraq and Yemen. These forces behave with a brazenness the likes of which we have never seen.

Hamas too believes that its nuclear-capable Iranian state sponsor ensures that regardless of its combat losses, it will be able to maintain its regime in Gaza and continue using its territory as a launching ground for assaults against Israel and Egypt.

Iran’s Shiite militias in Iraq have reportedly carried out heinous massacres of Sunnis who have fallen under their control and faced no international condemnation for their war crimes, operating as they are under Iran’s protection and sponsorship. And the Houthis, of course, just overthrew a Western-backed government that actively assisted the US and its allies in their campaign against al-Qaida.

For their proxies’ aggression, Iran has been rewarded with effective Western acceptance of its steps toward regional domination and nuclear armament.

Hezbollah’s activities represent an acute and strategic danger to Israel. Not only does Hezbollah now possess precision guided missiles that are capable of taking out strategic installations throughout the country, its arsenal of 100,000 missiles can cause a civilian disaster.

Hezbollah forces have been fighting in varied combat situations continuously for the past three years. Their combat capabilities are incomparably greater than those they fielded in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. There is every reason to believe that these Hezbollah fighters, now perched along Israel’s borders with Lebanon and Syria, can make good their threat to attack and hold fixed targets including border communities.

While Israel faces threats unlike any we have faced in recent decades that all emanate from Western-backed Iranian aggression and expansionism carried out under a Western-sanctioned Iranian nuclear umbrella, Israel is not alone in this reality. The unrolling disaster also threatens the moderate Sunni states including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The now regional war in Yemen is but the first act of the regional war at our doorstep.

There are many reasons this war is now inevitable.

Every state threatened by Iran has been watching the Western collapse in Switzerland.

They have been watching the Iranian advance on the ground. And today all of them are wondering the same thing: When and what should we strike to minimize the threats we are facing.

Everyone recognizes that the situation is only going to get worse. With each passing week, Iran’s power and brazenness will only increase.

Everyone understands this. And this week they learned that with Washington heading the committee welcoming Iran’s regional hegemony and nuclear capabilities, no outside power will stand up to Iran’s rise. The future of every state in the region hangs in the balance. And so, it can be expected that everyone is now working out a means to preempt and prevent a greater disaster.

These preemptive actions will no doubt include three categories of operations: striking Hezbollah’s missile arsenal; striking the Iranian Navy to limit its ability to project its force in the Bab al-Mandab; and conducting limited military operations to destroy a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear installations.

Friday is the eve of Passover. Thirteen years ago, Palestinian terrorists brought home the message of the Exodus when they blew up the Seder at Netanya’s Park Hotel, killing 30, wounding 140, and forcing Israel into war. The message of the Passover Haggada is that there are no shortcuts to freedom. To gain and keep it, you have to be willing to fight for it.

That war was caused by Israel’s embrace of the notion that you can bring peace through concessions that empower an enemy sworn to your destruction. The price of that delusion was thousands of lives lost and families destroyed.

Iran is far more powerful than the PLO. But the Americans apparently believe they are immune from the consequences of their leaders’ policies. This is not the case for Israel or for our neighbors. We lack the luxury of ignoring the fact that Obama’s disastrous diplomacy has brought war upon us. Deal or no deal, we are again about to be forced to pay a price to maintain our freedom.

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Free world, Funding terrorism, Hezbollah, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Islamism, Israel, Javad Zarif, Kerry, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Sanctions, Shiite crescent, Supreme Leader, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Obama blinked, Iran didn’t

April 3, 2015

Obama blinked, Iran didn’t, Legal Insurrection, , April 3, 2015

Iran celebrates

Well that “Framework” negotiation was fun.

For the Iranians, who got a great deal at least as far as a Framework goes.

As this WaPo editorial points out, the Obama administration gave up on key parameters:

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

In his speech after the announcement, Obama took care not only to repeat the false rhetorical device of the only choice being between this deal and war, he blamed that choice on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. David Horvitz at The Times of Israel writes, Defeatist Obama’s deal with the devil:

Extolling the virtues of his deal with Iran on Thursday, President Barack Obama made a false and extremely nasty assertion: “It’s no secret,” he claimed, incorrectly, “that the Israeli prime minister and I don’t agree about whether the United States should move forward with a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue.”

It is indeed no secret that Obama and Netanyahu don’t agree on how to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. It is emphatically not the case, however, that Israel’s prime minister opposes “a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue.” It is emphatically not the case, despite Obama’s insinuation, that Israel’s leader regards military intervention as the only means to thwart Iran.

Netanyahu has not been saying no to diplomacy. His endlessly stated contention is not that war is the only alternative to the deal so delightedly hailed by Obama as “the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” Rather, in Netanyahu’s insistent opinion, what is needed is simply a different, far more potent deal.

 

Why throw Netanyahu under the bus again? There are plenty of people, including Democrats in Congress, who don’t view this deal as the only non-war choice.

Netanyahu issued the following statement after the announcement of the Framework deal:

Statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
April 3, 2015

I just came from a meeting of the Israeli cabinet. We discussed the proposed framework for a deal with Iran.

The cabinet is united in strongly opposing the proposed deal.
This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the State of Israel.

The deal would not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not destroy a single centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D on Iran’s advanced centrifuges.

On the contrary. The deal would legitimize Iran’s illegal nuclear program. It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. A vast nuclear infrastructure remains in place.

The deal would lift sanctions almost immediately and this at the very time that Iran is stepping up its aggression and terror in the region and beyond the region.

In a few years, the deal would remove the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, enabling Iran to have a massive enrichment capacity that it could use to produce many nuclear bombs within a matter of months.

The deal would greatly bolster Iran’s economy. It would give Iran thereby tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the Middle East.

Such a deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb.

Such a deal paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

And it might very well spark a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East and it would greatly increase the risks of terrible war.

Now, some say that the only alternative to this bad deal is war.

That’s not true.

There is a third alternative – standing firm, increasing the pressure on Iran until a good deal is achieved.

And finally let me say one more thing.

Iran is a regime that openly calls for Israel’s destruction and openly and actively works towards that end.

Just two days ago, in the midst of the negotiations in Lausanne, the commander of the Basij security forces in Iran said this: “The destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.”

Well, I want to make clear to all. The survival of Israel is non-negotiable.

Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period.

In addition, Israel demands that any final agreement with Iran will include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

Thank you.

Meanwhile, the Mullah regime crowed at how they got what they wanted (see also tweets in yesterday’s post):

Twitter-Rhouani-Iran-Deal-Centrifuges-spin
Twitter-Bill-Hemmer-Rhouani-Iran-Deal-Enrichment
Twitter-Fars-News-Agency-Iran-Deal-Rouhani

Seems to me the Mullahs know something we don’t.

And Iranians took to the streets to celebrate:

 

There was a better deal to be had. The sanctions were hurting. Obama blinked, the Iranians didn’t.

Categories: Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islamism, Israel, Kerry, Mad Mullahs, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Theocracy, U.S. Congress, Zarif
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Iran’s remarkable achievement

April 3, 2015

Iran’s remarkable achievement, Washington Post, Michael Gerson, April 3, 2015

Will Iran continue to hold U.S. policy in the Middle East hostage — causing the United States to hush its reactions to Iranian aggression for fear the regime will walk out of a nuclear deal? This is precisely what American friends in the region fear. The real test — for allies and for members of Congress — will be whether Obama can accompany a final nuclear agreement with a much more aggressive resistance to Iranian ambitions in places such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Otherwise, Iran will simply use the wealth that comes from lifted sanctions to cause more havoc.

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

Whatever else the Obama administration accomplished in the Iran nuclear framework, it did a good job keeping the bar of expectations low and then clearing it.

Many assumed various provisions would last 10 years or less; most are for 15 years or more. Many expected the number of operating centrifuges to exceed 6,000; the target is lower. Many expected the total amount of fissile material Iran is allowed to keep to be higher than the agreed 300 kilograms. These achievements created an initial halo of success.

But as former national security adviser Stephen Hadley emphasized to me, “things that seem too good to be true usually are.” In the days of Cold War arms-control agreements, Soviet negotiators would join in the announcement of notional goals. Later, they would claim that some elements would not fly with Moscow. The strategy was to pocket elements of consensus, then use this as the starting point for new negotiations and additional U.S. concessions.

Tehran can be expected to use every ambiguity in the agreement to its advantage as goals are converted into the language of a final deal. Disagreements are already emerging between the Obama administration and the Iranians on how and when sanctions will be lifted in exchange for compliance, with Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif essentially accusing the White House of deception.

Given the months of hard negotiations ahead, the self-congratulatory tone of President Obama’s speech announcing the agreement was extremely premature. “Depending on what we learn about critical details,” says professor Peter Feaver of Duke University, “this is not spiking in the end zone. It is spiking on the 5-yard line.”

A number of issues seem murky. What becomes of all the fissile material Iran has apparently agreed to export? What is done with the decommissioned centrifuges and infrastructure to make sure they can’t be easily reinstalled during a breakout attempt? What is the pace and ordering of sanctions relief by the United States, the European Union and the United Nations? How fully will Iran be required to account for past military dimensions of its nuclear programs?

But the largest question will not be answered by the next stage of nuclear negotiations. Will this agreement give the Iranian regime cover for what it is currently doing in the Middle East — actively spreading its influence and threatening our allies? Negotiations on the nuclear issue have taken place in isolation from the ballistic missile issue, the terrorism issue and the regional destabilization issue.

For all the praise Obama is claiming, the Iranian regime counts the most remarkable achievement. It has engaged in nuclear negotiations with the United States while actively engaged in a regional conflict against American friends and proxies. Since Obama has prioritized the nuclear negotiations — the only alternative to which, he constantly reminds us, is war — other concessions have seemed small in comparison. Opposition to Bashar al-Assad has become muted, even as he crosses every blood-red line of brutality, to avoid disrupting relations with his Iranian patron. Human rights issues within Iran have become secondary to avoid giving offense. Obama has sometimes seemed more tolerant and empathetic toward Iranian positions than those of allies and partners such as Israel.

Will Iran continue to hold U.S. policy in the Middle East hostage — causing the United States to hush its reactions to Iranian aggression for fear the regime will walk out of a nuclear deal? This is precisely what American friends in the region fear. The real test — for allies and for members of Congress — will be whether Obama can accompany a final nuclear agreement with a much more aggressive resistance to Iranian ambitions in places such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Otherwise, Iran will simply use the wealth that comes from lifted sanctions to cause more havoc.

If Iran is treated as a normal nation simply because of its nuclear cooperation — if it interprets a deal as a green light for its actions in the region — neither our traditional allies nor members of Congress will sustain Obama’s nuclear agreement in the long term. And the support of Congress could be dramatically helpful in surrounding a deal with snapback sanctions and the pre-authorization of military force in the event of an Iranian breach.

To secure his nuclear deal with Iran, Obama must show resistance to Iranian aggression across the range of our relationship.

Categories: Arab nations, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Free world, Funding terrorism, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islamism, Israel, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Sanctions, Terrorism, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Benghazi, Bergdahl, and the Bomb

April 3, 2015

Benghazi, Bergdahl, and the Bomb, Washington Free Beacon, , April 3, 2015

Column: President Obama’s stories haven’t held up before. How is the Iran deal any different?

ObamaAP

What the president and Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled Thursday was another fancy, another fairy-tale, another fable about what might happen in an ideal world where enemies and allies share common interests and objectives, autocratic and theocratic regimes adhere to compacts, and moral sincerity is more important than results. Best be skeptical—these so-called triumphs of Obama’s diplomacy have a way of falling to pieces like ancient parchment. And keep in mind this rule: When the president enters the Rose Garden, run for cover.

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

President Obama strode to the lectern in the Rose Garden Thursday to announce a “historic” agreement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The preliminary deal made in Lausanne, Switzerland, the president said, “cuts off every pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.” I hope he’s right.

But I’m not counting on it. The president has a terrible record of initial public pronouncements on national security. He has a habit of confidently stating things that turn out not to be true. Three times in the last four years he has appeared in the Rose Garden and made assertions that were later proven to be false. He and his national security team have again and again described a world that does not correspond to reality. No reason to assume these concessions to Iran will be any different.

The U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked on September 11, 2012. Four Americans were killed, including our ambassador. Obama delivered remarks on the attack in the Rose Garden the following day. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,” he said. What he didn’t say was that the killings in Benghazi specifically were a “terrorist attack” or “terrorism.” On 60 Minutes,when asked if he believed Benghazi was a “terrorist attack,” the president replied, “It’s too early to know how this came about.” On September 14, neither the president nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called what had happened a terrorist attack. On September 15, Obama referred to Benghazi as a “tragic attack.” On September 16, Susan Rice, then U.N. ambassador, called it a “spontaneous attack.”

By September 24, when Obama recorded a campaign interview with The View, he again refused to say Benghazi was an attack by terrorists. “We’re still doing an investigation,” he told Joy Behar. It was not until two days later that administration officials began referring to Benghazi as a terrorist attack—something the Libyan government had been saying since September 13.

The story originally put out by the White House, that Benghazi was the result of spontaneous anger at an Internet video offensive to Muslim extremists, fell apart in a matter of days. Yet the White House persisted in its false description of reality, declining to confirm what was widely accepted as a premeditated terrorist assault on a U.S. compound, and chose to ascribe responsibility for the events in question to anti-Islamic bias. The evidence continues to mount that Ansar al-Sharia, the Qaeda affiliate in lawless Libya, was behind the events of September 11, 2012, not the stupid video.

In August 2013 President Obama announced in the Rose Garden that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad had crossed the “red line” by gassing his own people. “Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” the president said. Then he punted the issue to Congress. But no action against Syrian regime targets was ever taken, because the president reversed himself and accepted a Russian proposal to ship Assad’s WMD out of Syria. “This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies,” Obama said in a September 10, 2013, televised address. Almost two years later, Assad is dropping barrel bombs filled with chlorine gas on civilians. Success.

Last May, President Obama again walked purposefully to a lectern in the Rose Garden, and informed the world that he had released five Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held prisoner by the Islamic militia for almost half a decade. “Right now,” the president said, “our top priority is making sure that Bowe gets the care and support that he needs and that he can be reunited with his family as soon as possible.”

Criticism of the prisoner swap was immediate, and intensified when Bergdahl’s platoon-mates said he had deserted his post. The White House, as usual, struck back against the critics and repeated its story. On June 2, Susan Rice, now national security adviser, went onThis Week with George Stephanopoulos and said Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction.”

The Government Accountability Office concluded that the Obama administration’s actions were illegal. Bergdahl himself was kept isolated as the Army reviewed the circumstances of his capture by the enemy. Completed in the fall of 2014, the report by Brigadier General Kenneth Dahl still has not been released to the public.

Last week, however, the Army charged Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Has the White House reevaluated its trade? Of course not. On the contrary: Pentagon officials suggested on background that Bergdahl wasn’t a deserter, he was a whistleblower!

Three stories that collapsed under the weight of the evidence, three instances of the White House doggedly sticking to its policy line despite everything. This president’s resistance to events in the actual world of space and time is more than ideology, however. It’s also good politics: By refusing to concede the facts of the case, Obama is able to hold his base and stay on offense against his true adversaries: Republicans, conservatives, and Bibi Netanyahu.

And now we have the Iran story. Iran, the president says, will reduce its centrifuges, dilute its enriched uranium, open its nuclear sites to inspectors, and turn its fortified underground reactor into a “research” facility in exchange for sanctions relief. The only alternatives, Obama goes on, are bombing Iran or ending negotiations and re-imposing sanctions. “If, in fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking for the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, this is the best option. And I believe our nuclear experts can confirm that.”

Sure they can. Though I believe other nuclear experts, such as Charles Duelfer, can also confirm that this agreement has major holes, such as the spotty effectiveness of inspections and the failure to get Iran to disclose fully the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. And there’s always the tricky issue of sanctions relief: The United States says the process of lifting sanctions will be gradual and contingent on Iranian compliance, but Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif says it will be immediate.

What the president and Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled Thursday was another fancy, another fairy-tale, another fable about what might happen in an ideal world where enemies and allies share common interests and objectives, autocratic and theocratic regimes adhere to compacts, and moral sincerity is more important than results. Best be skeptical—these so-called triumphs of Obama’s diplomacy have a way of falling to pieces like ancient parchment. And keep in mind this rule: When the president enters the Rose Garden, run for cover.

Categories: Benghazi, Bergdahl, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islamism, Israel, Javad Zarif, Kerry, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Terrorism, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Victory Against ISIS in Tikrit Will Embolden Iran

April 2, 2015

Victory Against ISIS in Tikrit Will Embolden Iran, Front Page Magazine, , April 2, 2015

370x270xtikrit-450x328.png.pagespeed.ic.9xBCkeIFLH

The downside to playing on the same team as the Iranian regime, even in just this one military campaign against ISIS, is that we are helping to enable a far more dangerous power than ISIS to extend its hegemonic dominance throughout the entire region.

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

Iraq’s defense minister Khalid al-Obeidi is claiming victory over ISIS forces in the city of Tikrit, which ISIS had captured last summer as its forces advanced across large swaths of territory in northern and western Iraq. “We have the pleasure, with all our pride, to announce the good news of a magnificent victory,” Obeidi said. The Pentagon and a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition were a bit more cautious, noting some residual ISIS resistance. However, they too reported that significant progress had been made in wresting control of Saddam Hussein’s birthplace from ISIS’s grip.

The next strategic military objective in pushing ISIS back from the territories it controls in Iraq is to re-take Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul.

Iran supplied significant military support to the Shiite militia forces, who were a major part of the Iraqi counter-offensive on the ground. At the same time, U.S. air strikes seemed to have helped in supporting the Iraqi ground forces’ advance into Tikrit. The precise extent of any behind-the-scenes direct or indirect coordination between the U.S. and Iran is unknown at the present time. However, according to DebkaFile {March 26, 2015), “In the last two weeks of the Tikrit operation, liaison between the US and Iranian military in Iraq was routed through the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister in Baghdad.”

There is little question that without the Iranian-backed Shiite militia and substantial military support on the ground from Iran, ISIS would most likely still be in control of Tikrit today. U.S. airstrikes may have been necessary to soften ISIS’s resistance, but only ground troops with Iran’s support could dislodge them.

The downside to playing on the same team as the Iranian regime, even in just this one military campaign against ISIS, is that we are helping to enable a far more dangerous power than ISIS to extend its hegemonic dominance throughout the entire region.

As General David Petraeus, who certainly knows something about Iraq, told the Washington Post recently:

In fact, I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran… Longer term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.

Without downplaying ISIS’s horrific acts, its rapid-fire successes in Syria and Iraq (even with the setback in Tikrit), and its growing allegiances in Libya, Nigeria and areas further away from its home base including Afghanistan, the fact is that ISIS’s ambitions far exceed its current means for achieving them.  ISIS is proficient in using social media for recruitment, propaganda and intimidation purposes, but that can only take ISIS so far.

Iran, by contrast, has built up its military capabilities to the point that it can back up its aggressive threats in the region. And that’s even without the nuclear arms capability that President Obama seems to be willing to risk allowing Iran to achieve in order to secure his legacy with a deal.

As a result, America’s traditional Sunni allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states are doubting whether they can continue to count on the United States for support. And they are taking matters into their own hands, including a decision to form a multinational Arab military force to respond to Iranian aggression and other perceived threats.

As explained by Gamal Abdel Gawad Soltan, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo and quoted by the New York Times: “The U.S. is much less trusted as an ally, as an insurance policy towards the security threats facing the governments in the region, and so those governments decide to act on their own.”

These governments know their neighborhood well and see Iran as a much graver threat to regional peace and security than ISIS. Iran’s military and financial support of the Shiite Houthi rebels in taking control of major parts of Yemen was the last straw. Saudi Arabia on its own initiative decided to launch an air campaign against Houthi positions in Yemen and has not ruled out a ground attack along with the military forces of other Arab countries.

In response to the air and sea blockade of Yemen that Saudi Arabia is imposing on Yemen, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei decided to dispatch “two naval task forces to sail to the Red Sea,” according to DebkaFile (March 31, 2015). “The naval task forces are being sent to draw a sea shield around the Houthi forces to defend them against Saudi-Egyptian assaults. This maneuver was orchestrated by the Al Qods Brigades chief Gen. Qassem Soleimani,” DebkaFile reported.

Soleimani certainly gets around. Earlier this month he popped up in Iraq to lead the Shiite militias in their fight against ISIS. Now the man who fought on the same side as us against ISIS in Iraq is apparently coordinating Iran’s fight to hold onto the Houthis’ gains in Yemen where they forced the American and Saudi Arabian-backed president to flee.

Soleimani is “the puppet master controlling numerous Iranian surrogates in various countries,” said Jim Phillips, Middle East analyst for the Heritage Foundation. “His organization is drenched in American blood,” Phillips added. “It’s infused with an anti-American philosophy and a cooperation with him or his followers would not be on a sustainable basis. The U.S. would regret it.”

The Obama administration is now scrambling to catch up with Iran’s multi-pronged offensives, some of which are under Soleimani’s coordination. Thus, President Obama decided to support the Sunni Gulf coalition and Egypt against Iranian-backed action by the Shiite Houthi rebels to take control of Yemen.

However, the Obama administration’s reactive tactics in dealing with the crisis in Yemen are too little too late. Saudi Arabia is reportedly looking to Pakistan for help in acquiring its own nuclear arms to counter the Saudis’ well-founded suspicions that any deal negotiated by the Obama administration with Iran will not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear armed power. And while Obama finally lifted the arms freeze he imposed against Egypt two years ago, clearing the way for the delivery of F-16 aircraft, Harpoon missiles and tanks, he also decided to end Egypt’s ability to finance purchases of American arms by drawing credits in advance based on future aid Egypt expects to receive starting in the 2018 fiscal year. Obama also wants to reduce Egypt’s flexibility in what it can purchase with the future military aid. Thus, the Egyptian government can be expected to continue on its course to find other sources for military aid and weapons including Russia, because of doubts that the U.S. will remain a reliable supplier.

The Obama administration has been willing to sacrifice the confidence of its Arab allies, not to mention the United States’ historically close alliance with Israel, in a vain effort to lure the Iranian regime into acting as a responsible party in the Middle East that can help stabilize this volatile region. Instead, Obama should listen to the expert on Iraq, General Petraeus, whose surge victory Obama undermined completely with his precipitous withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011:

The current Iranian regime is not our ally in the Middle East. It is ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. The more the Iranians are seen to be dominating the region, the more it is going to inflame Sunni radicalism and fuel the rise of groups like the Islamic State…Iranian power in the Middle East is thus a double problem. It is foremost problematic because it is deeply hostile to us and our friends. But it is also dangerous because, the more it is felt, the more it sets off reactions that are also harmful to our interests — Sunni radicalism and, if we aren’t careful, the prospect of nuclear proliferation as well.

We can rejoice in the pushback of ISIS out of Tikrit. Perhaps it is a sign of more victories over ISIS to come. However, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we have more in common with the Iranian regime in combatting ISIS in Iraq or Syria than the Iranian regime ultimately has in common with ISIS. They may be bitter enemies in the struggle over which set of fanatical jihadists should get to rule the global Islamic ummah or caliphate they both fantasize about. However, both fervently believe in the fundamental ideological goal of universal Islamic supremacy. And both are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to reach that goal, no matter how long it takes them. The difference is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be much more capable of carrying out its jihadists’ apocalyptic vision than ISIS and in a much shorter period of time.

Categories: Caliphate, Foreign policy, Gulf states, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iraq, Islamic State, Islamism, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Peace process, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, Syria, Tikrit, Yemen
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dozens of troops disembark at Yemen’s Aden port

April 2, 2015

Dozens of troops disembark at Yemen’s Aden port

Witnesses and port officials report seeing troops of unknown nationality arrive at port hours after Houthi fighters advanced into heart of city.

Reuters

Latest Update: 04.02.15, 14:11

via Dozens of troops disembark at Yemen’s Aden port – Israel News, Ynetnews.

 

Dozens of troops disembarked at a port in Aden on Thursday, hours after Houthi fighters advanced into the heart of the southern Yemeni city, witnesses and port officials said.

It was not immediately possible to verify the nationality of the troops, but a Saudi-led coalition which has been trying to stem advances by the Iran-allied Houthis says it is in control of the waters around Aden.

Houthi forces pulled back from positions in central Aden after air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition at dawn on Thursday, residents of the southern Yemeni port city said.

They said a unit of Houthi and allied fighters, who had advanced in tanks and armored vehicles through Aden’s Khor Maksar district 24 hours earlier, pulled back, although they remained in parts of the neighborhood.

Witnesses said Thursday afternoon that dozens of troops were disembarking at Aden’s port, and that their nationality was unclear.

The Houthis’ recent gains in Aden, the last major foothold of supporters of Saudi-backed President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, have happened despite a week of air strikes by Saudi Arabia and a coalition of mainly Sunni Arab allies.

 

People stand on a tank that was burnt during clashes on a street in Yemen's southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)
People stand on a tank that was burnt during clashes on a street in Yemen’s southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)


Hadi’s foreign minister Reyad Yassin Abdulla appealed on Wednesday for more effective international action to halt the Shiite, Iran-allied fighters before they take over the city entirely.

In the Arabian Sea port city of Mukalla, 500 km (300 miles) east of Aden, soldiers loyal to Hadi clashed on Thursday with militants suspected of being al-Qaeda fighters, residents said. Security officials said the militants in  stormed the center of the city and freed about 300 inmates, including scores of militants.

Meanwhile, food imports into the Arab world’s poorest country are grinding to a halt as the conflict puts fragile supply chains under growing strain and commercial suppliers stay away.

Several ports are in rebel hands and fighting has made travelling by road perilous.

Yemen imports more than 90 percent of its food, including the lion’s share of its wheat and all its rice, to feed a population of about 25 million.

A man stands by the wreckage of a van hit by an air strike in Yemen's southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)

A man stands by the wreckage of a van hit by an air strike in Yemen’s southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)

It has enough basic food stocks for six months in all provinces and wheat stocks stood at 930,100 tons on the day air strikes began, the official Saba news agency said on Monday.

But the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said stocks could start to diminish quickly.

“Although government sources reported sufficient stocks to last the country about six months, the conflict will likely negatively impact distribution, market availability and prices of foodstuffs sooner than earlier expected,” the FAO representative in Yemen, Salah ElHajj Hassan, told Reuters on Wednesday

The collapse of central authority and fighting on several fronts including Aden, one of Yemen’s main ports, has already disrupted imports as well as the processing and distribution of wheat and other staples, food industry sources said.

 

Militants loyal to Yemen's President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi man a checkpoint on a street in the country's southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)
Militants loyal to Yemen’s President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi man a checkpoint on a street in the country’s southern port city of Aden (Photo: Reuters)

“The port is not functioning, it has been a few days now since our imports have stopped and we are not receiving any more wheat,” a source at the Yemen Company for Flour Mills and Silos in Aden said.

“Workers can’t come to work so they are not operating the mills. The fighting and gunfire has stopped them from showing up and the roads are blocked,” he added.

An explosion at a dairy factory at the Houthi-controlled west coast port of Hodaida port on Wednesday morning killed at least 25 people and dealt a blow to food production.

Mohamed Alshamery, manager of the Yemen Company for Sugar Refining in Hodaida, told Reuters his refinery and the port were still operational but fighting was making it difficult to take sugar to market.

Before the conflict, nearly half of Yemenis were ‘food insecure’, lacking sufficient food for their needs, and one in four was undernourished, the FAO said.

An international trade source said it was becoming difficult to deliver shipments of food.

“Houthi militias are in control of the major ports including Aden. Traders are unable to open letters of credit with banks. We are starting to see shipments being diverted to other locations,” he said.

“What this means is that across Yemen they will need to be drawing their strategic stocks.”

Ship tracking data showed only a few ships were located close to Aden, with two bulker vessels most likely to be carrying food supplies anchored off the city’s coast for several days.

“The port of Aden is virtually closed but for some oil shipments which berthed at Aden Refinery. Dry cargo shipments are stopped because no stevedores are available because of clashes,” shipping and logistics agency GAC said.

A spokesman for the UN agency the World Food Program said fighting in Aden had disrupted their loading operations. A local partner was still going ahead with distribution of food to refugees in camps in the Aden area.

In Lahj, north of Aden, authorities loyal to Hadi posted a notice ordering shopkeepers to keep prices at their previous levels and not to hoard their stocks.

Residents in the capital Sanaa and other parts of the country said there were widespread fuel shortages that coupled with heavy fighting and air strikes could also hamper efforts to distribute food.

“Petrol stations have started hoarding fuel. There are queues outside petrol stations and the people are anxious about the war carrying on,” said Ali Salih, a car owner in the central province of Ibb.

The Houthis, allied to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, took over the Yemeni capital Sanaa six months ago and control much of the country, which also faces a southern secessionist movement, tribal unrest, and a powerful regional wing of al-Qaeda based in the centre and east of the country.

Residents also reported air strikes overnight Wednesdat in the coastal town of Shaqra, which is under Houthi control and lies on the coast between Aden and Mukalla.

First Published: 04.02.15, 11:07

Also on BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32157994

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »