WAR 03/15 to 03/21 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2...l_Shabaab_temporarily_seize_Dhuso_Mareb.shtml

Last Updated: Mar 20, 2012 - 11:07:55 AM
Somalia

Somalia: Al Shabaab temporarily seize Dhuso Mareb
20 Mar 20, 2012 - 11:03:19 AM

DHUSO MAREB, Somalia Mar 20 2012 (Garowe Online) – After temporarily seizing the capital of Galgudud region, Dhuso Mareb, Al Shabaab insurgents fled the city after Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jama troops entered, Garowe Online reports.

The morning raid on Dhuso Mareb by Al Shabaab militia according to the operations manager was a successful venture for the terrorist group. A bloody battle ensued between Al Shabaab and Ahlu Sunnah militants who govern large areas in Galgudud region. That casualties which could still be seen on the streets of Dhuso Mareb were 31 people and 51
others injured. Thousands fled the city after the morning raid by the terrorist group.

After holding on to Dhuso Mareb for a few hours reinforcements from Guri’al a nearby town were sent by Ahlu Sunnah officials and the Al Shabaab insurgents fled.

Al Shabaab’s operations director Abdiaziz Abu Musab who released a statement said that the organization achieved their goal in the operation killing 15 Ahlu Sunnah troops and stealing 6 vehicles some being military vehicles. “After a small skirmish between our (Al Shabaab) agents and Ahlu Sunnah we were able to seize control of Dhuso Mareb and the agents were able to capture 6 vehicles … and they were given an order to leave the city,” said Abu Musab.

Abu Musab did not mention the casualties on the Al Shabab side. Ahlu Sunnah spokesman’s Ahmed Hersi who spoke to the media said that for a few hours Al Shabaab had controlled the city but were forced out after reinforcements had arrived.

Local sources on the ground say that before departing from Dhuso Mareb that the terror group kidnapped some city elders.

This is not the first time that Al Shabaab insurgents attacked the city of Dhuso Mareb last November they attempted to seize Dhuso Mareb but were warded off by Ahlu Sunnah troops. At least six people were killed in the attack and 15 others injured.

GAROWE ONLINE

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://allafrica.com/stories/201203201406.html

Capital FM (Nairobi)
Somalia: 100 Shabaab 'Dead' in Battle
By Bernard Momanyi, 20 March 2012

* Comment

Nairobi — More than 100 Al Shabaab militants were killed during intense fighting Tuesday with fighters of the Ahlusunna Waljamaa in the town of Dhusamareb in Central Somalia.

The Head of the Political Section of Ahlusunna Waljamaa, Abdisalan Adan Hussein told Capital FM News in Nairobi that at least ten of their members were killed during the fighting, and thirty more wounded.

"There a lot of Al Shabaab bodies littered in the town as we speak," Hussein said in an interview in Nairobi.

Hussein said "the fighting started at 5am when the Al Shabaab raided our town, but we were prepared and our forces were able to defend the town and our people."

"The casualties on our part are very minimal, but the Al Shabaab have suffered major casualties, they have left behind a lot of their fighting equipment," he added.

Tension remained high in the town of Dhusamareb which was littered with bodies by late Tuesday.

Al Shabaab however, tweeted claiming that their forces had not suffered major casualties during the Tuesday fighting.

Their claims were immediately dismissed by officials of Ahlusinna Pajama as "propaganda."

"They are not telling the truth, they are the ones who have been beaten, we were well prepared and we knew they were coming. Our forces were prepared," Hussein said.

The fighting occurred when Al Shabaab fighters on pickup trucks mounted with machine guns stormed Dhusamareb town at dawn.

They were aiming to drive out the pro-government militia Ahlusunna WalJamaa, an Ethiopia-backed force who follow Somalia's traditional Sufi branch of Islam.

Dhusamareb is a strategic town in the central Galgadud region controlling a key road.

The Shebab face increasing pressure from pro-government forces and regional armies, and last month lost control of their strategic base of Baidoa to Ethiopian troops, the second major loss in six months after abandoning fixed bases in capital.

Kenya sent its troops into southern Somalia to fight them in October, blaming the Al Shabaab for the abductions of several foreigners. Its troops have now been incorporated into the AU force.

Ethiopian forces entered Somalia a month later in the west, as international diplomatic, military and relief efforts focus on ending the conflict in the south.

The Shebab and other militia groups have tried to exploit the power vacuum in Somalia, which has had no effective central authority since plunging into war 21 years ago when president Mohamed Siad Barre was toppled.

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/NC21Dg01.html

Korea
Mar 21, 2012
Pie in the sky, Pyongyang style
By Donald Kirk

SEOUL - North Korea's claim of a serious scientific reason for planning to fire off a long-range missile next month with a satellite for a payload is couched in such sincere-sounding lingo that one has to wonder if the North's scientists and engineers actually may have something in mind there.

Kwangmyogsong-3, as North Korea has dubbed the satellite, "is a precious result of scientific researches conducted by scientists and technicians". The sole reason for wanting to put it in orbit, according to Pyongyang's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), is "to develop and utilize working satellites indispensable for the country's economic development, pursuant to the government's policy for the peaceful development and use of space".

But what, one might ask, is the significance of the number 3 after Kwangmyogsong, which means "brilliant star"? The answer is that North Korea claims to have already launched numbers 1 and 2 when the DPRK, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, shocked the world by firing off earlier versions of the same missile with the satellite on board.

And "when the DPRK launched two experimental satellites, it strictly abided by relevant international regulations and practice", said KCNA. Those claims sounded so sincere at the time that Daniel Pinkston, the International Crisis Group's guru in Seoul, staged a well-attended press conference, put out releases and wrote commentaries telling everyone the North Koreans had every right in the world to go launching satellites, just like every other self-respecting country with big dreams.

The only problem was that the satellites were never seen in orbit by scientists in the US, Russia, South Korea and Japan and everywhere else they monitor that stuff. The DPRK mentions them only occasionally - and then to give the impression they're comfortably circling the Earth doing whatever they were supposed to be doing, presumably to the same patriotic music they were said to be emitting when they were launched.

In truth, however, the real question is whether any satellites were launched at all - or whether the missiles that bore them in arcs over the western Pacific were carrying satellites or simply some shiny material designed to look like satellites at the time of liftoff. Why should an impoverished country like North Korea, begging for food from foreign donors bother to build a satellite when it could just as easily fabricate a dummy and convince its people the enormous investment is paying off?

This time, however, the story may be a little different. The occasion for the launch is the vast celebration for the 100th birth anniversary on April 15 of the North's founding leader, and still "eternal president", Kim Il-sung.

The North Koreans have been planning for this event for the past five years, at least. I saw bright lights shining with the anniversary date when I last attended the Arirang show in May Day stadium by the Daedong River in the capital Pyongyang three-and-a-half years ago. The Arirang show, featuring 50,000 people on one entire side of the stadium flashing cards to form mosaics of heroic scenes while another 50,000 prance, dance, parade and pirouette on the field, normally goes on nightly for weeks. It's hard to imagine any show more grandiose and glorious, but for sure the North Koreans will do their best to outdo past performances.

What could be better, then, than to put on a live launch for the whole world to see? As the KCNA dispatch, keeping a straight face, solemnly informed its readers regarding the launch of what it portentously called "the working satellite", the North has already "sent necessary information to the relevant international bodies according to international regulations and procedures". Not only that, but the DPRK also "expressed the will to invite experts and journalists of other countries to view the launching station".

In other words, unlike the previous launches, which no one knew about until the missiles-***-satellites were airborne, hurtling far above the main Japanese island of Honshu, much to the annoyance of the Japanese, the next launch will be very much a public event. Public, that is, except that it strains all credibility to think that anyone with any expertise would be able to get close enough to the contraption pre-launch to see if the thing it's carrying was really a satellite.

The North Koreans, nothing if not skilled at bamboozling American negotiators, know they have to put up a bold front to pull this one off without seriously jeopardizing the deal they supposedly made in talks in Beijing on February 29. Remember that one? That was when the neophyte US special envoy, Glyn Davies, got succored by the wily North Korean veteran Kim Kye-gwan into more or less believing the North Koreans had agreed to a "moratorium" on testing of long-range missiles and, of course, nuclear devices.

Or did they? Is this thing down in writing, like a contract, or was it all wishful thinking, extrapolations from conversations, embroidered in agreed-upon announcements by both sides afterward? The bottom line for the North Koreans, regardless of what they do, is that they still want to be sure of getting 240,000 tons of food aid that the US promised in the same talks - not rice for the North's 1.1 million troops but biscuits and soy sauce and the like for pregnant women and kids below the age of five.

How are the North Koreans going to get the US to begin shipping in all that food, at the rate of 20,000 tons a month over the course of a year, if they've just fired a long-range missile that's capable in theory of carrying not merely a dummy satellite but a weapon of mass destruction, nuclear, biological or chemical, as far as the US west coast? And would they still have a chance if they happened to follow up the missile-***-satellite launch with a third underground nuclear test - just as they did in May 2009 the month after their last missile launch?

Sure, no problem. For starters, the North Koreans can make a show of inviting in inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to sniff around their main nuclear complex at Yongbyon, 96 kilometers north of Pyongyang.

The North Koreans kicked them all out, for the second time, three years ago before their last round of long-range-missile-and-nuclear tests, but there's no harm in having them back if that's what it takes to appease foreign critics. They won't go near the sites for launching missiles and testing nukes - they're nowhere near Yongbyon.

As for getting all that food, the next step would be, fine, let's all return to the six-party talks, last held in Beijing in December 2008, including the US, Japan and Russia plus the two Koreas. Eventually, the talks would end in another statement, another agreement, and the shipments would begin.

Only this time, the North Koreans might bargain for the kind of food they want the most - fodder for the troops, not baby food for little kids. That might be a hard bargain, but the North's got a little time on its side.

Americans and South Koreans are both electing new presidents later this year, and new governments in Washington and Seoul may want to forgive and forget - that is, until the next crisis and the next cycle of talking and testing.

Donald Kirk, a long-time journalist in Asia, is author of Korea Betrayed: Kim Dae Jung and Sunshine.

Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved

Iran presses ahead with dollar attack


Last week, the Tehran Times noted that the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in currencies other than the dollar from March 20. [/B]This long-planned move is part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vision of economic war with the west.

“The dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the US to use threats to protect the 'reserve currency’ status of the dollar,” the newspaper, which calls itself the voice of the Islamic Revolution, said.

“Recall that Saddam [Hussein] announced Iraq would no longer accept dollars for oil purchases in November 2000 and the US-Anglo invasion occurred in March 2003,” the Times continued. “Similarly, Iran opened its oil bourse in 2008, so it is a credit to Iranian negotiating ability that the 'crisis’ has not come to a head long before now.”

Iran has the third-largest oil reserves in the world and pricing oil in currencies other than dollars is a provocative move aimed at Washington. If Iran switches to the non-dollar terms for its oil payments, there could be a new oil price that would be denominated in euro, yen or even the yuan or rupee.

India is already in talks with Iran over how it can pay for its oil in rupees.

Even more surprisingly, reports have suggested that India is even considering paying for its oil in gold bullion. However, it is more likely that the country will pay in rupees, a currency that is not freely convertible.

Posted for fair use only
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/9077600/Iran-presses-ahead-with-dollar-attack.html

=

Letter:
Iran's actions could spur attack by Israel, US

1:18 PM, Mar. 20, 2012 |
http://www.floridatoday.com/article...could-spur-attack-by-Israel-US?nclick_check=1​

In the Mideast, war clouds are gathering over the lands Abraham traveled.

There is a real risk of events exploding into a shooting war if a belligerent chunk of the old Persian empire, Iran, continues to support and entice Hezbollah. The aim seems to be to try to assassinate Israeli diplomats or other high-ranking officials wherever they can be found.

Even more risky is Iran’s continuing attempt to produce enough highly enriched uranium to produce a thermonuclear weapon.

Apparently, Iran’s clerics fear their control over their own people is in danger of being overturned by external forces if they don’t arm themselves with fearsome atomic weapons.

Iran’s stonewalling to keep inspectors away from experimental weapons facilities or to hide them is sure to invite attack by Israel or even the U.S. in the not-too-distant future.

Hopefully, Iran’s leaders will soon recognize the extreme danger their nation faces if they continue on their present path before it’s too late.





=

OldArcher said:

Thanks for sounding another alarm, Dutch! Americans are too clueless as to the large Islamofascist presence here. When these cells go active, there will be widespread carnage that the LEO community, as well as the National Guards, will not be able to rapidly, and effectively, neutralize... We're in trouble deep, Pard, and it can only get worse, before it might get better... These bastards have been here for at least a generation, and are able to walk about us, without our even knowing... Too bad the PTB already knew this, and didn't do a damned thing about it...

OA, out...

Click to expand...

x 1000 ^^

=

U.N. chief says Syria faces
"extremely dangerous" crisis

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/syria-ban-annan-idUSL3E8EL1DS20120321?rpc=401​

JAKARTA, March 21 (Reuters) - Syria faces a profound and extremely dangerous crisis that has potentially massive repercussions for the region and the world, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday, adding that U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan will return to Damascus "very soon".

"We do not know how events will unfold. But we do know that we all have a responsibility to work for a resolution of this profound and extremely dangerous crisis," Ban said in a speech in Jakarta.





=

=

Syria toll rises as Russia says Assad made 'mistakes'

AFP
Wed Mar 21 2012 09:02:45 GMT+0400 (Arabian Standard Time) Oman Time
http://www.timesofoman.com/innercat.asp?detail=1791​

Syria: The death toll in Syrian protests rose Tuesday as long-time Damascus ally Russia said President Bashar al-Assad had made "a lot of mistakes" in clamping down on the year-old demonstrations.

Fresh clashes broke out in the capital and security forces killed at least 30 people, all but two of them civilians, in violence elsewhere across the country, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

The capital's security clampdown follows what activists said was a hit-and-run attack in the heavily guarded Mazzeh neighbourhood on Monday that killed at least three rebels and a member of the security forces.
It also came on the heels of deadly twin suicide car bombings targeting security buildings in Damascus on Saturday.

The violence, however, is not all one-sided: Syria's armed opposition is kidnapping, torturing and executing security force members and government supporters, according to the New York-based Human Rights Watch.

"The Syrian government's brutal tactics cannot justify abuses by armed opposition groups," said Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW's Middle East director.
"Opposition leaders should make it clear to their followers that they must not torture, kidnap,or execute under any circumstances."

The rights watchdog group said the peaceful uprising had transformed into an armed insurgency, especially since early February, when the government attacked opposition strongholds throughout the country.

The Syrian National Council deplored the reported rights violations.
"We oppose any form of violence and support all the international conventions and treaties on the protection of human rights," the SNC said in a statement issued by spokeswoman Bassma Kodmani.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Assad made "a lot of mistakes" since peaceful protests began in March 2011.

"We believe that the Syrian leadership responded incorrectly to the very first manifestations of the peaceful protests," he told Russia's Kommersant FM radio in a pre-recorded interview.

"The Syrian leadership -- despite the numerous promises it has made in response to our calls -- is making a lot of mistakes."

Russia has increasingly hinted it could drop its support for Assad after a year of violence that Syrian opposition activists say has claimed more than 9,100 lives.
Russia said it was ready to back either a UN Security Council statement or resolution on UN-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan's proposal on ending the crisis as long as it contained no ultimatums.

Last week, Lavrov also accused Assad of making errors and moving too slowly on reforms, but the latest comments suggest that Russia was unhappy with his leadership from the early stages of the bloody conflict.

Lavrov even hinted that Moscow would not be opposed to the idea of Assad being offered safe haven by another country.

"Perhaps that is the case, but that is something for Assad to decide," he said in response to a question about whether Syria's president should step down before being toppled and killed like Libyan dictator Moamer Kadhafi.

At the United Nations, diplomats from the 15-nation Security Council held four hours of talks on a Western-drafted presidential statement seeking to reinforce international backing to Annan's efforts to halt the bloodshed.

Russia led resistance to part of the statement that said the council would "consider further measures" if Assad does not act upon the envoy's peace plan, diplomats said. Russia and China have already vetoed two full resolutions on Syria.

With no agreement made, the talks moved up to ambassador level. "There are major political issues at stake so we will see whether we can solve them," French envoy Gerard Araud told reporters as he entered the talks.

The proposed statement, obtained by AFP, does not condemn the violence but would express "gravest concern" at the deteriorating crisis in Syria and "profound regret" at the thousands of dead.

Araud had expressed hope that the statement -- which carries less weight than a full resolution -- could be adopted on Tuesday.

In Geneva, Annan briefed Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi on the mission in Damascus, UN spokeswoman Corinne Momal-Vanian said.
"Both men underscored the importance of a unified message from the international community," Momal-Vanian said.

Separately, UN officials named former peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno as a deputy to Annan in his mission to end the Syrian crisis.
French-born Guehenno joins former Palestinian diplomat Nasser al-Qudwa as Annan's deputies on the tough mission.






=

=

Exemptions show US in 'retreat' over Iran: key MP

21 March 2012, 13:02 CET
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/us-iran-japan-oil.frl​

(TEHRAN) - A US decision to exempt nations from tough new sanctions on Iran showed Washington is in "retreat" in its stance against the Islamic republic, a key lawmaker said in a report Wednesday.

The United States said Tuesday it was exempting 11 countries including European Union members and Japan from new punitive measures on Iran while praising them for reducing dependency on oil from the Middle East country.

"Due to decisive stances taken by the Islamic republic, such a move (by Washington) is an overt retreat from earlier stances," Aladin Borujerdi said, quoted by ISNA news agency.

Borujerdi, the head of parliament's foreign policy and national security commission, said the US decision was influenced by concerns about "rising oil prices which harmed the European consumer nations and the tumbling economies of the West."

Under a tough new law aimed at pressing Iran over its nuclear program, the United States plans to penalise foreign financial institutions that deal with Iran's central bank, which generally handles oil purchases.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington would exempt financial institutions from 11 nations -- Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain.

Borujerdi reiterated Iranian policy that it would not "retreat from its stances on the nuclear programme," as it is within the framework of the non-proliferation treaty.

His comments precede expected talks agreed to by Iran and the P5+1 group of powers -- the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany.

Iran has formally requested a date and venue for the negotiations, the previous round of which collapsed in Istanbul in January last year.

Throughout, Tehran has maintained its nuclear programme is purely peaceful, denying Western suspicions it was conducting military research towards designing atomic weapons.

Borujerdi also called on the European Union not to go ahead with sanctions on Iranian oil as it is a "logical move," which would "save them from future crisis."

The 27-member EU bloc announced a ban on Iranian crude oil on January 23, which would come fully into effect on July 1 as part of Western sanctions against Tehran's nuclear programme.

Iran in late February halted oil sales to France and Britain and threatened to extend the ban to other nations.

The country exports about 20 percent of its crude -- some 600,000 barrels per day (bpd) -- to the European Union, most of which goes to Italy, Spain and Greece.






=

=

Israel clears out its embassy in Egypt

By AYA BATRAWY
The Associated Press
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/israel-clears-out-its-1393160.html​

CAIRO — Egyptian airport officials say Israel has cleared out its embassy in Egypt, six months after its offices were attacked and ransacked by protesters.

The officials say two Israeli military planes left Cairo before sunrise on Wednesday, loaded with documents and equipment removed from the embassy. They say the Israeli ambassador and staff also left.

An Israel diplomat says the embassy had not been in use since September, when protesters broke into one of its lower floors and dumped documents out of the windows.

All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information.

Lawmakers in Egypt's new Islamist-dominated parliament last week called for expelling Israel's ambassador and a review of the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.






=

=








Statements made by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak led analysts to say that the assassination of Zuhair al-Qaisi was not about direct prevention [AFP]

Beer-Sheva, Israel - In response to the recent assassination of Zuhair al-Qaisi, the Secretary General of the Popular Resistance Committees in the Gaza Strip, along with another fighter, Palestinians fired rockets at southern Israel and the Israeli military launched air strikes at targets throughout the Strip.

Within hours, the media fanfare began. Israeli news outlets began glorifying the interception missiles by repeatedly showing images of an Iron Dome battery, often with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak standing in front of the defence system. Reporters continuously emphasised the Iron Dome's high rate of success in intercepting the short-range rockets launched from Gaza towards Israel. One columnist characterised it as a "system that provides the goods, authentic Israeli brilliance, true pride", while another columnist stated that this "weekend Israel took its hat off [to salute] Iron Dome".

Initially, the government and security establishment claimed that "al-Qaisi was assassinated in order to prevent an attack that was in the final stages of preparation". Two days after Israel carried out the extra-judicial execution, however, the claim that al-Qaisi presented an imminent danger dissipated.

On March 11, Ofer Shelah reported that "even from the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Defence one got the sense that the assassination was not about direct prevention: Barak clearly stated that it is not totally clear what was being planned, from where, and whether the attack had been foiled. From this, it can be assumed that the attack was more about deterrence".

'Planned escalation'

As the days passed, several commentators revealed that the assassination had been planned well in advance and that the military had made the necessary preparations, including deployment of the Iron Dome batteries. "A Planned Escalation," read the title of one article in Yedioth Ahronoth and in the text, the analyst explained that the "IDF had prepared an ambush" for al-Qaisi. Yoav Limor, an "expert on military affairs", wrote that in essence "al-Qaisi was alive-dead for over a week, and his assassination was delayed until the prime minister completed his diplomatic campaign in Washington, and until after the Purim Holiday and the weather cleared up". Most analysts intimated that Israel knew that the assassination would lead to an escalation. And this, it almost seems, is what it wanted.

The question, of course, is why?


There are those who totally misunderstood Israel's goals. Ma'ariv's top political analyst Ben Kaspit called for an extensive attack against the Strip, portraying the residents of southern Israel as hostages of a "terrorist gang that has infested Gaza… [and] that can spray the whole south with rockets". In his view Barak had stopped the IDF at the beginning of Operation Cast Lead ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, but fortunately the operation turned out to be successful not least because in its midst "the leaders of Hamas cut their beards and went down to the tunnels". Kaspit concludes that it is now time to "complete the job". "We need to understand," he tells his readers, "that no one will clean Gaza for us… and terror, unfortunately, understands only one language."

Judy Nir Moses Shalom, the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom, is not the most sophisticated thinker either. "I hope," she wrote on her Facebook page, "that during the cabinet meeting a decision will be reached to enter Gaza and to liquidate all those responsible for the nightmare which the south is undergoing. Enough silence. The time has come to make Gaza's passive residents suffer like [Israel's southern] residents." As if this kind of beastly reaction was not enough, she also tweeted to her followers: "Have a good week. I hope that today it will be decided to demolish Gaza if the shooting does not stop. So that they will suffer too."

Most analysts wittingly or unwittingly intimated, however, that there were other reasons for initiating the current cycle of violence, and justifying a major offensive on Gaza was not one of them.

Message for Iran

The majority of reporters and columnists served as the mouthpiece for the security establishment, calling on the government to allocate more funds to buy additional Iron Domes. Or Heller from Channel Ten is a good example. He asked his audience to "imagine how this cycle would have looked without the success of three Iron Dome batteries… imagine the tanks that would have had to enter Gaza's mud… a fourth battery is on its way.

What about a fifth battery? God is great and the budget is small. It is clear to everyone today that we need more and more Iron Domes." Ofer Shelah from NRG put it succinctly: "The prime minister must decide unequivocally… that Iron Dome, like other defence mechanisms, is beyond the realm of the budget debate." Another more reflective reporter pointed out that the Grad rockets “flying from the Strip serve as the best lobbyist for the defence budget".

The recent attack is, however, not only about allocating more money to the military; it is also about Iran. The media continuously drew a connection between the Islamic jihad, which launched most of the rockets against Israel, and Iran. The IDF spokesperson pointed an accusing finger towards Teheran, claiming that it is transferring weapons and money to the Islamic Jihad. A couple of days later a headline in Yisrael Hayom declared, "Iran is Behind the Jihad's Rocket Attack". Hence, another objective was to show the Israeli public that Iran, by means of a proxy, had already begun attacking Israel.

Next, a link was drawn between Iron Dome's success and the perceived Iranian threat. Ynet cited a military general who stated that the escalation is about Gaza today, "but I am not sure that this is the scenario for which I am preparing the fighters. There are threats from the north and threats from further away". A columnist noted that Iron Dome's effectiveness "helped demonstrate to everyone that the Israeli home front enjoys a relatively good defense today... Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran will have to reconsider their strategy of missile terrorism..."

Indeed, many analysts emphasised that only a handful of Israelis had been injured, but none fatally. The fighting, they accordingly claimed, produced relatively little pressure on the home front. Alon Ben David from Channel Ten summed up this perspective when he wrote: "There is no doubt that Iron Dome alongside the population's exemplary behaviour prevented casualties on the Israeli side and enabled Israel to come out of this cycle - I would say - with a sense of satisfaction. Twenty-two [combatants] were killed on the other side, and another three or four civilians; we have zero losses… under these conditions we can conduct a monitored [fray] that we initiate…"

Zvi Barel from Haaretz was one of the lone critical voices, providing readers some insight into Israel's real objectives. He exposed the logic behind the Iron Dome's glorification, claiming that it helps Netanyahu "sell" the planned attack against Iran: "After Iron Dome demonstrated its 95 per cent effectiveness, there is no better proof to Israeli citizens that they will not suffer serious damage following an assault against Iran. Escalation in Gaza is good for Israel, meaning for those who support attacking Iran".

In a slightly different context and using Netanyahu's duck allegory, Haaretz's editor-in-chief Aluf Benn wrote, "what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war, and not just a 'bluff' or a diversion tactic".






=

=

*Off Topic News:​

March 20, 2012 12:38 PM

]Satellites spy 1000s of ancient human settlements

ByWynne Parry
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57400847/satellites-spy-1000s-of-ancient-human-settlements/​

Science Senior Writer . Archaeologists inspect the mound at Tell Brak, in northeastern Syria. The 283 million cubic foot (8 million cubic meter) mound is entirely artificial, accumulating over 6,000 years, as residents built on top of old mud brick buildings. (Jason Ur)

(Livescience.com) Ancient humans have changed the landscape around their settlements in such ways that even today archaeologists can distinguish between "lived in" spots and those never occupied by humans.

Now, two scientists have figured out a more efficient way of locating these sites, via their footprints, from space.

The scientists relied on two distinct features of ancient settlements in the Near East: soils altered by human activity and little hills that formed over time as residents successively built on top of older structures. By examining satellite images for these two features, they have found evidence of about 9,500 possible human settlements across an area of 8,880 square miles (23,000 square kilometers) in northern Mesopotamia, located in the northeast of modern Syria.

Data recorded by satellites as they orbit the Earth has been used in archaeological surveys before.

However, this new survey, produced by looking at soil and mounds, is "to the best of our knowledge, the largest systematic satellite-imagery-based survey in archaeology," they write in a study published March 19 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Clustered settlements built on artificial mounds appeared along this northern edge of the Fertile Crescent around 7000 B.C. Buildings were made of mud brick, with new buildings constructed on top of the remains of older ones. As a result, the settlements grew upward from the alluvial plains for hundreds or thousands of years, so long as they were occupied, according to the researchers. Large mounds are called Tells.

So far, mounds left by ancient settlements in the Near East have received little attention, according to Bjoern Menze, a research affiliate in MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and Jason Ur, an associate professor of anthropology at Harvard University. But the mounds are key to the technique they devised. [Aerial Photos Reveal Mysterious Stone Structures]

Soil provides the other defining feature of ancient settlements. Soils at these sites are lighter, finer and composed of more organic material than the surrounding soils, according to Menze and Ur. They first used a computer algorithm to look for these changes. As a result, they found more than 14,000 potential sites.

When they looked at the volume of the settlement site - reflected by the size of the mound - about 9,500 sites had a significant elevation above the ground. The researchers interpreted the size of a mound as evidence of how attractive it was as a settlement site, with larger mounds being able to attract and sustain residents for a longer time.

Using this approach to look at large areas all at once, it may be possible to explore how environmental factors - like water availability - influenced ancient human settlements in the Near East, they write.




=

=

U.S. reluctant to call al-Assad war criminal

U.S. lags behind European rhetoric

Author: By Elise Labott CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter
Mar 21 2012 04:00:11 AM CDT
Reuters TV / Reuters
(CNN) -
http://www.ksat.com/news/U-S-reluct...minal/-/478452/9645732/-/ea4399z/-/index.html​

With the brutal crackdown in Syria having reached a full year, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is drawing comparisons to some of recent history's most brutal dictators, several of whom have been indicted as war criminals.

The words "war criminal" and "crimes against humanity" are increasingly being used to describe al-Assad and the violence against the Syrian people, most recently at the United Nations.

Francis Deng, the secretary-general's special adviser on the prevention of genocide, and Edward Luck, special adviser on the responsibility to protect, found "strong and growing evidence that crimes against humanity are being committed in Syria," an assessment backed up by last month's commission of inquiry by the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Yet the Obama administration has been reluctant to label the crisis in Syria as such.

Even as British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for al-Assad to be brought to trial for war crimes, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it rather clear recently that she didn't see that as particularly helpful to unlocking his grip on power.

Here's what she said to a Senate Appropriations subcommittee:

"Based on definitions of war criminal and crimes against humanity, there would be an argument to be made that he would fit into that category. People have been putting forth the argument. But I also think that from long experience that can complicate a resolution of a difficult, complex situation because it limits options to persuade leaders perhaps to step down from power."

As a former lawyer, Clinton was cautious to make a statement about the seriousness of the situation without drawing a legal conclusion.

When former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in 2004 that the government of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was responsible for genocide in Darfur, he did so against the advise of the administration's lawyers who weren't ready to draw that legal conclusion. With such enormous political stature, Powell was not challenged in making the assessment, which most of the world shared and ultimately led to al-Bashir's indictment at the International Criminal Court in 2009.

A determination by the United States that crimes against humanity are taking place in Syria could rally the international community to send al-Assad to the Hague. But senior U.S. officials say the administration's lukewarm attitude toward international justice in Syria stems from a series of complications ranging from the technical and legal to the practical and political:

1) Syria is not a party to the International Criminal Court. That means the ICC has no jurisdiction in Syria. Taking al-Assad to the Hague would require either a referral by the U.N. Security Council -- which is next to impossible because of a probable veto by Russia and China -- or a voluntary accession to the court by al-Assad himself, which is inconceivable.

2) Chain of command is hard to prove. Even with the assumption al-Assad bears full responsibility for the violence being perpetrated against the Syrian people, a case would need to be made that al-Assad himself gave the orders and direct activity took place as a result. The difficulties of a criminal investigation that could lead to a conviction are plenty, given the current lack of access by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian and human rights groups.

3) The conflict in Syria isn't easily defined. The terms "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" refer to specific conditions under the Geneva Conventions governing armed conflict. The situation isn't a war between states, along the lines of World War II, nor is it yet an internal armed conflict between the government and another party, like the battle in Colombia between FARC rebels and government forces. In Syria, there is not a single opposition group fighting the government forces. and it is unclear day-to-day who the "other" party is.

4) Labeling al-Assad a war criminal could harden his resolve. The administration found in Libya that referring Moammar Gadhafi to the ICC in the midst of conflict only caused him to dig his heels in. In Yemen, the U.S. supported a deal that gave outgoing Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh immunity from prosecution in return for stepping down. The U.S., Europe and the Arab League are hoping for a similar solution in Syria, a plan which officials say an ICC referral could complicate.

"As much as advocates of international justice would like to believe there is no tension between international justice and ending a conflict, unfortunately, there often is," said John Bellinger, a former State Department legal adviser for the administration of George W. Bush. "We try to say peace and justice go hand and hand, but often there is really a tradeoff."

For now, officials say the Obama administration is trying to illustrate its outage at the events in Syria without putting the conflict into a legal category.

Officials are calling the violence "atrocities," which has a clear political meaning, but not a legal meaning as does the term "crimes against humanity." It is not, they say, because there is no interest in seeing al-Assad in the Hague. Rather the administration wants to keep its options open to all possible solutions and does not want to box itself in. The bigger concerns are stopping the violence and getting al-Assad out of office. That, officials say, has to be the priority.

But al-Assad's exit and accountability for his actions are not enemies. Officials point to the case of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, who stepped down from power but was ultimately sent to the Hague. They also note al-Assad could well be subject to "Gadhafi-style accountability," a victim of the same type of crime for which he was accused of many times over.






=

=

UN chief says Syrian crisis could have global fallout;
militant group claims 2 recent bombings

By Associated Press
Wednesday, March 21, 7:24 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...epercussions/2012/03/21/gIQA2wcGRS_story.html​

BEIRUT — The “extremely dangerous” conflict in Syria could have global repercussions, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday as fresh violence erupted and an al-Qaida-inspired group claimed responsibility for two recent suicide bombings in the capital.

The uprising that began a year ago has transformed into an armed insurgency that is pushing the country toward civil war. Because of Syria’s close alliances with Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, there are deep concerns that the violence could spread beyond its borders, especially if other nations arm the rebels or send in their own troops.

An international human rights group accused Syria’s armed opposition on Tuesday of carrying out serious abuses, including the kidnapping and torture of security forces, in a sign of the growing complexity of the year-old uprising against President Bashar Assad.

“We do not know how events will unfold,” Ban said during a speech in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. “But we do know that we all have a responsibility to work for a resolution of this profound and extremely dangerous crisis ... that has potentially massive repercussions for the region and the world.”

The rebel Free Syrian Army, which includes thousands of army defectors, is the most potent armed group challenging the regime, but it is outgunned and disorganized.

Still, few countries are openly considering arming the opposition, fearing that it would make the conflict worse. The U.N. estimates that more than 8,000 people have been killed since the uprising began.

A string of large-scale bombings near government security buildings in the capital, Damascus, and the northern city of Aleppo have added a new element to the anti-government revolt.

U.S. officials have suggested al-Qaida militants may be joining the fray and exploiting the chaos.

In a statement posted Wednesday on a militant website, an Islamist group called the Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant claimed responsibility for twin suicide bombings in Damascus on Saturday. The blasts, which targeted the air force intelligence building and the criminal security department, killed at least 27 people, the state-run news agency said.

The Associated Press could not verify the authenticity of Wednesday’s statement, which said the attacks were in retaliation for the Syrian regime’s shelling of residential areas in opposition strongholds in Homs, Idlib, Hama and Daraa.

“We tell the (Syrian) regime to stop the massacres against the Sunnis, otherwise, you will bear the sin of the Alawites,” the Al-Nusra Front said. “What is coming is more bitter and painful, with God’s will.”

The group also has claimed responsibility for earlier suicide attacks.

Al-Qaida’s involvement could further fuel the sectarian tensions that the uprising already has stoked.

Al-Qaida’s supporters are largely Sunni Muslim extremists. Syria’s military and political leadership is stacked heavily with members of the minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam to which Assad and the ruling elite belong. The Alawite leaders of Syria are closely allied with Shiite Iran.

Sunnis make up the majority of Syria’s 22 million people, as well as the backbone of the opposition.

The Syrian uprising began with mostly peaceful protests against the government, inspired by the Arab Spring uprisings across the region. But the regime cracked down violently, opening fire on demonstrations and rounding up thousands of protesters. Assad has justified the crackdown by saying terrorists and foreign extremists are driving the revolt.






=

=

Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria

By KIRIT RADIA (@KiritRadia_ABC) and RYM MOMTAZ
MOSCOW, Russia, March 19, 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/russian-anti-terror-troops-arrive-syria/story?id=15954363#.T2eMQdnAHud​

A Russian military unit has arrived in Syria, according to Russian news reports, a development that a United Nations Security Council source told ABC News was "a bomb" certain to have serious repercussions.

Russia, one of President Bashar al-Assad's strongest allies despite international condemnation of the government's violent crackdown on the country's uprising, has repeatedly blocked the United Nations Security Council's attempts to halt the violence, accusing the U.S. and its allies of trying to start another war.

Now the Russian Black Sea fleet's Iman tanker has arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea with an anti-terror squad from the Russian Marines aboard according to the Interfax news agency. The Assad government has insisted it is fighting a terrorist insurgency. The Russian news reports did not elaborate on the Russian troops' mission in Syria or if they are expected to leave the port.

The presence of Russian troops in Syria could be a "pretty obvious" show of support to the regime, according to Russian security expert Mark Galeotti.

"No one thinks of the Russians as anything but Assad's last friends," said Galeotti, professor of global affairs at New York University.

The Iman replaced another Russian ship "which had been sent to Syria for demonstrating (sic) the Russian presence in the turbulent region and possible evacuation of Russian citizens," the Black Sea Fleet told Interfax.

RIA Novosti, a news outlet with strong ties to the Kremlin, trumpeted the news in a banner headline that appeared only on its Arabic language website. The Russian embassy to the U.S. and to the U.N. had no comment, saying they have "no particular information on" the arrival of a Russian anti-terrorism squad to Syria.

Moscow has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Assad regime, to which it sells billions of dollars of weapons. In return Russia has maintained a Navy base at Tartus, which gives it access to the Mediterranean.

Last week Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia had no plans to send troops to Syria.

"As for the question whether I consider it necessary to confront the United States in Syria and ensure our military presence there… in order to take part in military actions -- no. I believe this would be against Russia's national interests," Lavrov told lawmakers, according to RIA Novosti.

Russia's Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov denied reports that Russian special forces were operating inside Syria. He did say, however, that there are Russian military and technical advisors in the country.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said the U.S. government had not heard of the reports of Russian troops in Syria and declined to comment.





=

=

Russian special forces arrive in Syrian port: opposition sources

Monday, 19 March 2012
By Al Arabiya With Agencies
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/19/201791.html​

Russian special forces have arrived in the Syrian Mediterranean port city of Tartus, opposition sources told Al Arabiya on Monday.

Israeli-based open source military intelligence website DEBKAfile has also reported that two Russian naval vessels have anchored at the Syrian port of Tartus.

The website cited reports from the Russian Black Sea headquarters at Sevastopol. The mission of the vessels was not disclosed, but one was reported to be carrying a unit of “anit-terrorist marines” and the other, a military tanker which joined “a Russian naval reconnaissance and surveillance ship already tied up in Tartus.”

The Syrian port of Tartus is now the only naval base Russia has outside the former Soviet Union. A Russian navy squadron made a call there in January in what was seen by many as a show of support for Assad.

Also in January, a Russian ship allegedly carrying tons of munitions made a dash for Syria after telling officials in EU member Cyprus, where it had made an unexpected stop, that it was heading for Turkey. Turkish officials said the ship had instead charted course for Tartus.

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly previously said that Russian military and technical personnel were present Syrian and said his country will abide by existing contracts to deliver weapons to Syria despite Assad’s yearlong crackdown on the opposition.

Antonov said Russia’s supply of weapons to Syria is in line with international law and will continue. “Russian-Syrian military cooperation is perfectly legitimate,” he said.

“The only thing that worries us today is the security of our citizens,” Antonov said in a reference to Russian military personnel in Syria that are training the Syrians in the use of weapons supplied by Russia.

He declined to say how many of them are currently stationed in Syria.

“It’s part of our contractual obligations,” said Antonov, who oversees military technical cooperation with foreign countries. “When we supply weapons, we have to provide training.”

Antonov dismissed previous allegations that Russia has sent special forces officers to assist government forces. “There are no (Russian) special forces with rifles and grenade launchers running around,” he said.


Support for daily ceasefires


Russia’s foreign minister, meanwhile, voiced clear support for a plan for daily humanitarian ceasefires in Syria and promised Moscow would press President Bashar al-Assad’s government to accept it, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Monday.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov "clearly agreed to and was supportive of" the idea of a daily two-hour cessation of hostilities to allow for life-saving aid operations, ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger told Reuters after talks with Lavrov.

Asked whether Lavrov had promised that Russia would pressure Syria’s government to accept the plan, he said: "Yes, very much so."
Russia has shielded Syria, its last ally in the Arab world, from U.N. sanctions over the Assad regime’s bloody suppression of an uprising against his government.

Moscow has been a steadfast ally of Syria since Soviet times, when it was led by the current president’s father, Hafez Assad, and has long supplied Damascus with aircraft, missiles, tanks and other heavy weapons





=

=








Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) warned Wednesday that there are hundreds — maybe even thousands — of Hezbollah agents inside the United States capable of launching a terror attack if U.S.-Iran tensions continue to escalate.

“The American intelligence community … believes we are very much at risk for an attack by Iranian operatives, which would be Hezbollah, that is a terrorist-trained force in this country. It really is the ‘A’ team of international terrorism — far more sophisticated than Al Qaeda,” the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee said on CNN’s “Starting Point.”

King, whose committee is holding a hearing Wednesday to “educate” Americans and members of Congress about the threat of Iran, explained that Hezbollah has had agents and operatives inside the U.S. for many years for the purpose of fundraising and recruiting.

And while the conventional wisdom until recently has been that they were not necessarily stationed in the U.S. to carry out terrorist attacks, the Republican congressman warned Wednesday that especially given the recent tension between Israel and Iran, as well as questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear aspirations, a scenario in which Hezbollah agents mobilize an attack remains a real possibility.

“We do know that a number of them have been trained as terrorists, so the question is,how quickly they can be made operational, and would they carry out an attack?” he said. “We estimate it to be at least in the hundreds, maybe the thousands of Hezbollah agents here in this country. And again, especially if things intensify between Israel and Iran, between the United States and Iran, could Iran take preemptive action in this action through Hezbollah?”

King cited a murder plot allegedly directed by the Iranian government to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. last year as a further warning sign of the potential threat that the country poses to Americans.

And if Israel attacks Iran, the congressman warned that the U.S. could certainly “find itself implicated or involved” in the crisis.

“Having said that, I don’t think we can rule out an Israeli attack,” King said. “ I think we have to keep all the pressure out there. … The fact that there can be complications is not a reason why Israel shouldn’t do it or we shouldn’t do it. We have to make sure whatever we do that it is going to work … and realize that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.”

Wednesday’s congressional hearing will include witnesses from the New York Police Department and others from the intelligence community.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74298.html#ixzz1plPO58kr



=

=

21 March 2012, Wednesday
LALE KEMAL

Erdoðan to Obama:
You left Iraq in Iran's hands

http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-274942-erdogan-to-obama-you-left-iraq-in-irans-hands.html​

An advisor to a senior Turkish state official quoted Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan as telling US President Barack Obama following the US withdrawal of troops from Iraq in late December of last year that “you [US] left Iraq in the hands of Iran once you withdrew.”

In other words, Erdoðan was reflecting his displeasure over Iran's influence in Iraq growing after the US withdrew its troops from the country. This anecdote the advisor shared with me also hints at a divergence of opinion between Prime Minister Erdoðan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoðlu, the architect of Ankara's controversial policy on Iran.

In an earlier column published on Nov. 16 of last year, I argued that Turkey's current policy on Iran, which can be summarized as being too supportive of this country against, for example, international pressure exerted on Tehran over its alleged nuclear arms development policy, is problematic from several perspectives.

In the same column, I said Turkish Energy and Natural Resources Minister Taner Yýldýz reportedly ran out of patience during a Cabinet meeting in which he complained about Iran, accusing the country of being unappreciative of Turkey's gestures, and allegedly criticized Davutoðlu over his handling of the Tehran regime.

Yýldýz, who has long been uneasy over Iran's policy of charging too much on gas that it has been supplying to Turkey, announced on March 14 that Turkey has decided to take this country to an international court of arbitration over the price of Iranian natural gas as Tehran refused to offer a discount.

“The price paid for gas imports from Iran is above international prices,” Yýldýz stated.

Turkey imports 10 billion cubic meters of gas each year from Iran, making it Turkey's second-biggest supplier after Russia.

However, Yýldýz ruled out that Turkey's decision to take Iran to court will have a negative impact on relations in general between the two countries.

I am now told by an advisor of a senior state official that Prime Minister Erdoðan also does not see eye-to-eye with Davutoðlu when it comes to Iran. Erdoðan's unease with Tehran, according to the advisor, became more explicit after Turkey voted in 2010 against sanctions imposed by the United Nations on Iran over its alleged nuclear arms development plans, raising questions about whether Turkey had become the weakest link in NATO by siding with Tehran.

Erdoðan allegedly wished for Turkey to cast an absentee vote instead of a veto against sanctions on Iran. But Davutoðlu's desire for a veto trumped Erdoðan's absentee vote choice. Erdoðan allegedly mistrusts Iran in general and is not happy with Iran's influence in Iraq and Syria, or the Assad regime.

Turkey has already written off Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, once a good friend of Ankara, since he ordered his military to crack down on the opposition.

The majority of Turkey's population is Sunni, while Iran's is Shiite. This sectarian split widened since the start of conflicts in the Middle East last year as uprisings by the people against their autocratic regimes continued in a number of countries in the region.

Ankara, meanwhile, believes that Iran has been behind a recent deterioration of relations between Turkey and Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite and close to Iran, harshly criticized Turkey on Jan. 14 for what he termed was its “surprise interference” in his country's internal affair, claiming that Turkey's role could bring disaster and civil war to the region -- something Turkey will itself suffer. Ankara believes Iran motivated Maliki to make his critical remarks about Turkey which, diplomatic sources say, are baseless.

At the moment, Turkish-Iraqi relations are quite bad, some Turkish diplomatic sources admit.

Foreign Minister Davutoðlu is also aware of Iran's animosity toward Ankara. However, he still sticks to a policy of dialogue with Tehran, sometimes at the expense of angering Erdoðan and a number of other ministers.





=

=

Kuwait Says Iran Vows Not to Shut Strait of Hormuz

10:54 AM, Mar 21, 2012
Written by
WGRZ Web Staff
http://www.wgrz.com/news/national/a...-Says-Iran-Vows-Not-to-Shut-Strait-of-Hormuz-​

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - Kuwait's ruler says Iran has assured its Gulf neighbors that it will not block the vital Strait of Hormuz.

A fifth of world's oil supplies pass through the strait at the edge of the Gulf. Iran has threatened to close the strait in retaliation for Western-led efforts to thwart its nuclear program.

Kuwait's emir, Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah, was quoted by the official news agency Tuesday as saying Kuwait and other Arab Gulf countries contacted officials in Iran to ensure the vital waterway is not closed.

He said, "We have received assurances from Iran that it will not take this step."

The state news agency, KUNA, says the emir made the comments to a Japanese newspaper during a visit to Tokyo.





=

=

Is IAEA Greasing Skids to Iran War?

The U.S. press corps has embraced the integrity of the International Atomic Energy Agency as central to the case for bombing Iran. But WikiLeaks documents revealed how the IAEA’s new leader is a pawn of the West, and Gareth Porter explains at Inter Press Service how the IAEA has escalated the confrontation with Iran.

March 21, 2012
By Gareth Porter
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/21/is-iaea-greasing-skids-to-iran-war/​

The first detailed account of negotiations between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran last month belies earlier statements by unnamed Western officials portraying Iran as refusing to cooperate with the IAEA in allaying concerns about alleged nuclear weaponization work.

The detailed account given by Iran’s permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, shows that the talks in February came close to a final agreement, but were hung up primarily over the IAEA insistence on being able to reopen issues even after Iran had answered questions about them to the organization’s satisfaction.

It also indicates that the IAEA demand to visit Parchin military base during that trip to Tehran reversed a previous agreement that the visit would come later in the process, and that IAEA Director General Yukia Amano ordered his negotiators to break off the talks and return to Vienna rather than accept Iran’s invitation to stay for a third day. [For more on Amano’s bias, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Slanting the Case on Iran’s Nukes.”]

Soltanieh took the unprecedented step of revealing the details of the incomplete negotiations with the IAEA in an interview with IPS in Vienna last week and in a presentation to a closed session of the IAEA’s Board of Governors March 8, which the Iranian mission has now made public.

The Iranian envoy went public with his account of the talks after a series of anonymous statements to the press by the IAEA Secretariat and member states had portrayed Iran as being uncooperative on Parchin as well as in the negotiations on an agreement on cooperation with the agency.

Those statements now appear to have been aimed at building a case for a resolution by the Board condemning Iran’s intransigence in order to increase diplomatic pressure on Iran in advance of talks between the P5+1 and Iran.

Soltanieh’s account suggests that Amano may have switched signals to the IAEA delegation after consultations with the United States and other powerful member states which wanted to be able to cite the Parchin access issue to condemn Iran for its alleged failure to cooperate with the IAEA.

Parchin had been cited in the November 2011 IAEA report as the location of an alleged explosive containment cylinder, said by one or more IAEA member states to have been used for hydrodynamic testing of nuclear weapons designs.

The detailed Iranian account shows that the IAEA delegation requested a visit to Parchin in the first round of the negotiations in Tehran Jan. 29-31 and that it asked again at the beginning of the three “intercessional” meetings in Vienna for such a visit to take place at a second negotiating round in Tehran Feb. 20-21.

Soltanieh recalled, however, that during three “intercessional” meetings in February with IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards Herman Nackaerts, and Assistant Director General for Political Affairs Rafael Grossi, the two sides had reached agreement that the IAEA request for access to Parchin would be postponed until after the Board of Governors meeting in March.

But when the IAEA delegation arrived Feb. 20, it renewed the demand to visit Parchin, according to Soltanieh’s account. “At the beginning of the meeting the first day, they said the director general had instructed them to give a message to us that they wanted to go to Parchin today or tomorrow, despite what we had clearly agreed two weeks earlier,” Soltanieh told IPS.

Soltanieh told the Board of Governors that the negotiating text on which the two sides were working at the Feb. 20-21 meeting provided specifically for a visit to Parchin as well as other sites in conjunction with Iran’s actions to clear up the issue of “hydrodynamic experiments” – the allegation by an unnamed member government published in the November 2011 IAEA report.

In response to the renewed request for a visit to Parchin, Soltanieh offered to let the delegation visit the Marivan site, where the same November report said the agency had “credible” evidence Iranian engineers worked on high-explosives testing for a nuclear device.

“We offered Marivan because it was the next priority,” Soltanieh told IPS, referring to the list of priority issues on which Iran was expected to take actions to be specified by the IAEA under the provision of the negotiating text. But the IAEA delegation rejected the offer, claiming that it had been given too little time.

Soltanieh’s account reveals that the IAEA also turned down a request to stay one additional day to complete the negotiations of the new action plan. “At lunch hour the second day, we wanted them to stay another day,” he told IPS, and the delegation told them it might be possible. But after consulting with Amano, the IAEA delegation said it could not stay.

Amano’s change of signals on Parchin and refusal to stay for a third day of negotiations were followed by condemnation of Iran as uncooperative by a “senior Western official” shortly before the IAEA Board of Governors meeting. The official was quoted by Reuters on March 2 as saying, “We think there needs to be a resolution that makes clear that Iran needs to do more, a lot more, to comply with the agency’s requests.” The official called Iran’s stance during the talks a “gigantic slap in the face of the IAEA.”

In the end, no resolution was passed by the Board. Instead the P5+1 – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany – issued a joint statement urging Iran to allow access to Parchin but not blaming Iran for the failure to reach agreement. The negotiating text as it stood at the end of the February round of talks, which Soltanieh showed IPS, had relatively few handwritten deletions and additions.

A key provision in the draft text, which IPS was allowed to quote, says, “Iran agrees to cooperate with the Agency to facilitate a conclusive technical assessment of all issues of concern to the Agency. This cooperation will include inspections by the Agency, additional meetings, including technical meetings and visits, and access to relevant information, documentation and sites, material and personnel.”

The primary issue standing in the way of final agreement, according to Soltanieh, was whether the IAEA could reopen issues once they had been resolved. The text shown to IPS includes a provision that IAEA “may adjust the order” in which issues were to be resolved and “return” to issues even after they had been resolved.

The Iranians accepted the right of the IAEA to adjust the order but did not agree that it could reopen issues once they were completed satisfactorily, Soltanieh recalled, because Iran feared that giving the IAEA that power would lead to “an endless process.”

The other major issue, according to Soltanieh, was Iran’s demand that the IAEA “deliver” all the intelligence documents alleging that it had carried out covert weaponization activities to Iran before asking it for definitive answers to the allegation. The IAEA delegation said they couldn’t produce all the documents at once, he told IPS.

Iran then agreed that the agency could provide only those documents relevant to each issue when it comes up, the Iranian diplomat recalled. It is not clear, however, whether the IAEA has agreed to that compromise.

The United States has refused in the past to agree to turn over the “alleged studies” documents to Iran – a policy that Amano’s predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei had argued made it impossible to demand that Iran be held accountable for explaining those documents.

After Soltanieh’s presentation to the Board of Governors, Amano told reporters that some of Soltanieh’s statements had been inaccurate but appeared to confirm the main points of his presentation. “In fact, the February talks initially took place in a constructive spirit,” he said. “Differences between Iran and the Agency appeared to have narrowed.”

On the second day, Amano said, Iran had “sought to re-impose restrictions on our work,” which he said “included obliging the Agency to present a definitive list of questions and denying us the right to revisit issues, or to deal with certain issues in parallel, to name just a few.”

Amano’s spokesperson Gill Tudor declined to comment on the accuracy of Soltanieh’s account for this story, saying “(W)e would prefer to let the director general’s words speak for themselves.”

In response to a request for comment on this story, the U.S. State Department deferred to Amano’s account on the talks but said, ” (D)espite the IAEA’s best efforts, Iran was unwilling to reach such an agreement” and had “failed an initial test of its good faith and willingness to cooperate by refusing an IAEA request to visit Parchin.”





=

=

Preparing Israel for War

Recent raids on Gaza were not just about allocating more
money to defense - they were also about war with Iran.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 by Common Dreams
by Neve Gordon
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/21-7​

In response to the recent assassination of Zuhair al-Qaisi, the Secretary General of the Popular Resistance Committees in the Gaza Strip, along with another fighter, Palestinians fired rockets at southern Israel and the Israeli military launched air strikes at targets throughout the Strip.Israeli soldiers. (File)

Within hours, the media fanfare began. Israeli news outlets began glorifying the interception missiles by repeatedly showing images of an Iron Dome battery, often with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak standing in front of the defense system. Reporters continuously emphasized the Iron Dome's high rate of success in intercepting the short-range rockets launched from Gaza towards Israel. One columnist characterized it as a "system that provides the goods, authentic Israeli brilliance, true pride", while another columnist stated that this "weekend Israel took its hat off [to salute] Iron Dome".

Initially, the government and security establishment claimed that "al-Qaisi was assassinated in order to prevent an attack that was in the final stages of preparation". Two days after Israel carried out the extra-judicial execution, however, the claim that al-Qaisi presented an imminent danger dissipated.

On March 11, Ofer Shelah reported that "even from the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Defense one got the sense that the assassination was not about direct prevention: Barak clearly stated that it is not totally clear what was being planned, from where, and whether the attack had been foiled. From this, it can be assumed that the attack was more about deterrence".

'Planned escalation'

As the days passed, several commentators revealed that the assassination had been planned well in advance and that the military had made the necessary preparations, including deployment of the Iron Dome batteries. "A Planned Escalation," read the title of one article in Yedioth Ahronoth and in the text, the analyst explained that the "IDF had prepared an ambush" for al-Qaisi. Yoav Limor, an "expert on military affairs", wrote that in essence "al-Qaisi was alive-dead for over a week, and his assassination was delayed until the prime minister completed his diplomatic campaign in Washington, and until after the Purim Holiday and the weather cleared up". Most analysts intimated that Israel knew that the assassination would lead to an escalation. And this, it almost seems, is what it wanted.

The question, of course, is why?

There are those who totally misunderstood Israel's goals. Ma'ariv's top political analyst Ben Kaspit called for an extensive attack against the Strip, portraying the residents of southern Israel as hostages of a "terrorist gang that has infested Gaza… [and] that can spray the whole south with rockets". In his view Barak had stopped the IDF at the beginning of Operation Cast Lead ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, but fortunately the operation turned out to be successful not least because in its midst "the leaders of Hamas cut their beards and went down to the tunnels". Kaspit concludes that it is now time to "complete the job". "We need to understand," he tells his readers, "that no one will clean Gaza for us… and terror, unfortunately, understands only one language."

In a slightly different context and using Netanyahu's duck allegory, Haaretz's editor-in-chief Aluf Benn wrote, "what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war, and not just a 'bluff' or a diversion tactic".

Judy Nir Moses Shalom, the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom, is not the most sophisticated thinker either. "I hope," she wrote on her Facebook page, "that during the cabinet meeting a decision will be reached to enter Gaza and to liquidate all those responsible for the nightmare which the south is undergoing. Enough silence. The time has come to make Gaza's passive residents suffer like [Israel's southern] residents." As if this kind of beastly reaction was not enough, she also tweeted to her followers: "Have a good week. I hope that today it will be decided to demolish Gaza if the shooting does not stop. So that they will suffer too."

Most analysts wittingly or unwittingly intimated, however, that there were other reasons for initiating the current cycle of violence, and justifying a major offensive on Gaza was not one of them.

Message for Iran

The majority of reporters and columnists served as the mouthpiece for the security establishment, calling on the government to allocate more funds to buy additional Iron Domes. Or Heller from Channel Ten is a good example. He asked his audience to "imagine how this cycle would have looked without the success of three Iron Dome batteries… imagine the tanks that would have had to enter Gaza's mud… a fourth battery is on its way. What about a fifth battery? God is great and the budget is small. It is clear to everyone today that we need more and more Iron Domes." Ofer Shelah from NRG put it succinctly: "The prime minister must decide unequivocally… that Iron Dome, like other defense mechanisms, is beyond the realm of the budget debate." Another more reflective reporter pointed out that the Grad rockets “flying from the Strip serve as the best lobbyist for the defense budget".

The recent attack is, however, not only about allocating more money to the military; it is also about Iran. The media continuously drew a connection between the Islamic jihad, which launched most of the rockets against Israel, and Iran. The IDF spokesperson pointed an accusing finger towards Teheran, claiming that it is transferring weapons and money to the Islamic Jihad. A couple of days later a headline in Yisrael Hayom declared, "Iran is Behind the Jihad's Rocket Attack". Hence, another objective was to show the Israeli public that Iran, by means of a proxy, had already begun attacking Israel.

Next, a link was drawn between Iron Dome's success and the perceived Iranian threat. Ynet cited a military general who stated that the escalation is about Gaza today, "but I am not sure that this is the scenario for which I am preparing the fighters. There are threats from the north and threats from further away". A columnist noted that Iron Dome's effectiveness "helped demonstrate to everyone that the Israeli home front enjoys a relatively good defense today... Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran will have to reconsider their strategy of missile terrorism..."

Indeed, many analysts emphasized that only a handful of Israelis had been injured, but none fatally. The fighting, they accordingly claimed, produced relatively little pressure on the home front. Alon Ben David from Channel Ten summed up this perspective when he wrote: "There is no doubt that Iron Dome alongside the population's exemplary behavior prevented casualties on the Israeli side and enabled Israel to come out of this cycle - I would say - with a sense of satisfaction. Twenty-two [combatants] were killed on the other side, and another three or four civilians; we have zero losses… under these conditions we can conduct a monitored [fray] that we initiate…"

Zvi Barel from Haaretz was one of the lone critical voices, providing readers some insight into Israel's real objectives. He exposed the logic behind the Iron Dome's glorification, claiming that it helps Netanyahu "sell" the planned attack against Iran: "After Iron Dome demonstrated its 95 per cent effectiveness, there is no better proof to Israeli citizens that they will not suffer serious damage following an assault against Iran. Escalation in Gaza is good for Israel, meaning for those who support attacking Iran".

In a slightly different context and using Netanyahu's duck allegory, Haaretz's editor-in-chief Aluf Benn wrote, "what looks like a preparation for war, acts like a preparation for war, and quacks like a preparation for war, is a preparation for war, and not just a 'bluff' or a diversion tactic".






=

=

Egypt’s Brotherhood eyes end to Gaza blockade

(Reuters)
21 March 2012
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/display...ddleeast_March498.xml&section=middleeast&col=​

CAIRO/GAZA - The Muslim Brotherhood aims to open the Egyptian border with Gaza to commerce, a shift that would transform life for Palestinians there but which is hitting resistance from Egyptian authorities reluctant to change a longstanding policy.

The biggest party in Egypt’s new parliament, the Islamists are not yet in government but have been seeking ways to ease the impact of restrictions imposed by Israel and Egypt on what passes in and out of the territory run by the Hamas group, an idelogical offshoot of the Brotherhood.

Aiming to ease chronic power shortages in Gaza, the Brotherhood recently lobbied the Egyptian government to conclude a deal to supply fuel for the territory’s sole power station.

However, the blackouts still plaguing Gaza several weeks after the deal was declared show that changing policy is easier said than done in Cairo, where government is still largely run by remnants of Hosni Mubarak’s administration.

“It’s the continuation of the Mubarak method in dealing with the Palestinian issue,” said Gamal Hishmat, the deputy chair of the Egyptian parliamentary committee on foreign affairs and a Muslim Brotherhood MP.

The fuel has yet to arrive because of a dispute over how it should be delivered, according to Hamas and Brotherhood MPs familiar with the details. Hamas wants it to come across Gaza border with Egypt, a precedent that could lead to broader trade through the only Palestinian frontier not controlled by Israel.

Egypt had initially backed this but then said it should go via Israel, the Hamas and Brotherhood sources said. Officials at the Egyptian oil ministry could not be reached for comment.

Home to 1.7 million people, Gaza has been under tight embargo since Hamas took control in 2007. Hamas is deeply hostile to Israel, which signed its peace treaty with Egypt in 1979. Under international pressure, Israel eased import curbs on Gaza in 2010 but for the most part businesses cannot export.

Protests organised by Hamas at the border this week over the power crisis have signaled growing impatience with restrictions Palestinians feel should have ended with Mubarak’s rule.

Egypt’s ruling military led by Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi eased restrictions on the passage of travelers last year, but the change fell short of what Palestinians were seeking.

“The Field Marshal of Egypt and the government of Egypt and the whole world stand silent as Gaza remains under blockade,” Mohammed Ashour, a local official in Gaza, told a rally, his voice booming from loud speakers across the frontier.

A brotherhood priority

Commerce has been forced underground into tunnels under the border. Mubarak’s last years in power were marked by suspicion bordering on outright hostility towards Hamas, an ideological cousin of the Brotherhood group that was banned under his rule.

“I want the crossing to open completely, so that whoever wants to travel from Gaza can come to Egypt,” said Mahmoud Ghozlan, spokesman for the Brotherhood. “We support opening the crossing for import and export.”

Hamas wants the same. “We are not happy with the tunnels,” Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a Hamas leader from Gaza, told Reuters.

For the Brotherhood, the first justification is moral. The Gaza blockade is one of the most emotive issues in the Arab world. There would also be an economic benefit for northern Sinai, one of the poorest parts of Egypt.

For Israel, the idea does not appear a cause for concern.

“The Israeli foreign minister has suggested that we do everything we can to help Gaza stop depending on Israel for anything and instead deal directly with Egypt,” an Israeli diplomat said. He added that checks would be needed on the Egyptian side to prevent arms reaching Gaza but said the fuel deal did not raise any alarm.

The Egyptian position has long been shaped by concern Israel would relinquish all responsibility for Gaza were the border with Sinai opened. With the rise of Hamas in Gaza, Cairo was also guided by concern Palestinian militancy could spill over.

A diplomat familiar with Gaza policy said Cairo’s worry was now that yielding to Hamas demands would weaken Egypt’s leverage over the group and undermine efforts to nudge it towards reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Some Palestinians share the fear that opening the border with Egypt would allow Israel to wash its hands of Gaza while also entrenching the divide with the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority.

Zahar did not expect any serious change in policy until Egypt elects a new president, completing the transition from army rule at the end of June. “In this interim period I do not believe fundamental changes will happen,” he said.






=

=

Moscow irked by Israeli action in Lebanon

Published: March. 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special...Israeli-action-in-Lebanon/UPI-21581332341580/​

MOSCOW, March 21 (UPI) -- Russia views Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace as a blatant and "regular" violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution, the foreign minister said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, during talks in Moscow, that Israel was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 for its failure to respect Lebanon's sovereignty.

"We consider violating this resolution unacceptable, especially as far as respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and airspace is concerned," he said in a statement. "Regrettably, this is a regular violation by the Israeli air force."

Resolution 1701 secured a cease-fire in a 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. The measure calls on Hezbollah to disarm while reminding Israel of its obligation to respect Lebanon's sovereignty.

Israel maintains a defensive posture given the presence of Hezbollah along Lebanon's southern border. Beirut has complained repeatedly to the United Nations that the Israeli military was violating its airspace with frequent overflights.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour said security forces have arrested at least 27 Syrians suspected of smuggling weapons to anti-regime forces across the border.

He added, however, that Lebanon has been able to maintain the security along its western border with Syria.


Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special...-in-Lebanon/UPI-21581332341580/#ixzz1plhU8v9g



=

=

Russia and China join
UN council in call for Syria peace

Kofi Annan, US urge swift, positive
response from Damascus

By Reuters
Published Wednesday, March 21, 2012
http://www.emirates247.com/news/reg...l-in-call-for-syria-peace-2012-03-21-1.449788​

In a major diplomatic blow for Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, Russia and China joined the Security Council on Wednesday in voicing support for U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan's bid to end violence that has brought Syria to the brink of civil war.

Western diplomats said the agreement on a statement voicing the "gravest concern at the deteriorating situation in Syria" should be a wake-up call for Assad, who has counted on support from Russia to fend off international criticism of his yearlong attempt to crush anti-government protests.

The statement threatens Syria with "further steps" if it fails to comply with Annan's six-point peace proposal, which calls for a cease-fire, political dialogue between government and opposition, and full access for aid agencies.

Unlike resolutions, which are legally binding and need nine votes in favour and no vetoes from the five permanent council members to pass, statements are generally non-binding but require unanimous support from the council.

Although the statement does not explicitly back an Arab League plan calling for Assad to step aside, it does include Annan's call for a political process that echoes that plan.

It voices "full support for the efforts of (Annan) to bring an immediate end to all violence and human rights violations, secure humanitarian access, and facilitate a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system."

The statement also demands the Syrian government stop fighting first - something Annan and the West have called for.

"The Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centers, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres," it said.

Once the government forces stop fighting, Syrian authorities "should work with (Annan) to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties."

"PRAGMATIC LOOK"

Annan spokesman Ahmad Fawzi said the former U.N. chief was "encouraged by the united support of the Security Council and urges the Syrian authorities to respond positively."

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice echoed Fawzi, saying, "We urge the Syrian authorities to respond swiftly and positively."

Western powers diluted the 15-nation council's "presidential statement" on Tuesday in an effort to secure the support of Russia, which had disliked language in an earlier version that it said sounded like an ultimatum for Syria, diplomats said.

Speaking at a news conference in Berlin shortly before the statement was agreed to, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made clear that Moscow fully supported the amended text.

"The council text reflects the reality in Syria and supports Annan's aims," Lavrov said after talks in Berlin with his German and Polish counterparts. "We support it fully."

"The most important thing is that there are no ultimatums ... and no suggestions as to who carries more blame," he said.

In New York, Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the council had "finally chosen to take a pragmatic look at Syria."

British U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said the statement sends a "strong and united message to the government and all other actors in Syria that they need to respond ... immediately" to Annan's peace proposals.

The council also approved informal remarks to the press that Russia had asked the council to issue condemning bomb attacks last weekend in the cities of Damascus and Aleppo.

The presidential statement is separate from a U.S.-drafted resolution calling on Syria to allow access to humanitarian aid workers in the country.

The last time the council passed a presidential statement on Syria was August 2011, although council members reached a rare unanimous agreement on informal remarks to the press on March 1 to rebuke Damascus for not allowing U.N. humanitarian aid chief Valerie Amos into the country.

Shortly after the council approved those remarks to the press, Amos was allowed to visit Damascus.






=

FUNG RED ALERT: March 20th-Iranians Stop Trading Oil in Dollars
Started by doctor_fungcool‎, Yesterday 03:02 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...rch-20th-Iranians-Stop-Trading-Oil-in-Dollars


Jewish School Shooter Cornered by French Police, Officers Injured, Standoff Lingers
Started by Red Baron‎, Today 03:03 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ench-Police-Officers-Injured-Standoff-Lingers

Coup in Beijing, Says Chinese Internet Rumor Mill
Started by China Connection‎, Yesterday 10:00 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...p-in-Beijing-Says-Chinese-Internet-Rumor-Mill

Wall of Supertankers Heads For US
Started by Racing22‎, Yesterday 06:45 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?401663-Wall-of-Supertankers-Heads-For-US

Interesting Read From An American Doomer Who is Now In Switzerland
Started by China Connection‎, Yesterday 10:35 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-An-American-Doomer-Who-is-Now-In-Switzerland

Destroy all churches: Obama silent while Saudi grand mufti targets Christianity
Started by China Connection‎, Yesterday 02:22 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-while-Saudi-grand-mufti-targets-Christianity

U.S. exempts Japan, ten European nations from Iran sanctions
Started by Chocolatier‎, Yesterday 12:55 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...apan-ten-European-nations-from-Iran-sanctions

Welcome To World War III
Started by shane‎, 03-17-2012 11:43 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?401516-Welcome-To-World-War-III

WikiLeaks: US and China in military standoff over space missiles
Started by MC2006‎, Yesterday 07:06 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...hina-in-military-standoff-over-space-missiles

China Will Ensure Tankers Can Haul Iran Oil
Started by MC2006‎, 03-19-2012 09:11 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?401605-China-Will-Ensure-Tankers-Can-Haul-Iran-Oil

Israelis agree Iran hasn't decided on atom bomb
Started by Hfcomms‎, 03-18-2012 01:09 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?401528-Israelis-agree-Iran-hasn-t-decided-on-atom-bomb

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/bric-countries-the-imagined-alliance-4647/

Situation Reports
8
BRIC Countries: The Imaginary Alliance
Zachary Fillingham - Mar 20, 12

March 21st, 2012
Geopoliticalmonitor.com

Summary

The BRIC acronym has served to add a dramatic flair to shifting global power structures by envisioning a club of up-and-coming BRIC countries challenging a world order built on the bedrock of imperialism. But this isn’t accurate. The accord that is assumed in the BRIC grouping is imaginary. It doesn’t exist.a BRIC Countries summit in Hainan, China.

Analysis

Of course, that’s not to say that the sum economic power of the BRIC countries is not impressive. Quite the contrary, combined GDP growth in BRIC countries since 2001 is tantamount to the appearance of one new Japan plus a new Germany in the global economy [1]. But that’s just a development success story, not an international organization. The combined economic clout of the BRIC countries does not engender any kind of sustained foreign policy coordination, whether in political, military, or even economic affairs. And this shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. After all, this is a bloc borne not of diplomatic negotiation, shared ideology, or overlapping interests, but rather the turn of phrase of a Goldman Sachs analyst back in 2001; an analyst who, at the time, hadn’t even visited three of the four countries in question [2].

Consider the case of China and Brazil. Both are developing countries with the same presumed end-point: a highly-developed and diversified economy that is globally competitive. But, is it possible for both these countries to achieve this goal when they’re essentially following the same track and competing for the same markets, or will one of them be left behind? It’s quite possible that the truth lies in the latter.

Although China became Brazil’s largest trading partner in 2009, Sino-Brazilian economic relations have evolved somewhat of a north-south dynamic over the course of the past two decades. In other words, Brazil’s resource wealth has been used to fuel China’s industrial development. So far, the results have been a mixed blessing for Brazil. Its primary exports like soy and iron ore have boomed at the expense of value-added industries such as footwear and aircraft manufacturing [3]. Similarly, while China may be a valuable source of foreign investment, most of this money is targeted at infrastructure that can facilitate higher levels of primary exports [4].

These problems are so pronounced that Brazil’s manufacturing capacity is actually shrinking. In the 1980s, manufacturing accounted for 27 percent of Brazil’s GDP. By 2011, the number had shrunk to a mere 15 percent [9]. January of this year alone saw a month-on-month fall of 2.1 percent in industrial production [5].

Brazil thus finds itself in the unenviable position of riding an economic wave that might very well be short on long-term economic benefits. The deeper Brazil sinks into economic interdependence with China, the more domestic job creation opportunities it loses [9].

The government in Brasilia seems to be taking note of this. Just last week, Brazil’s foreign minister threatened to hold down the value of the real in order to help Brazil’s domestic industries compete with cheap foreign imports. As justification, he declared “we are not going to just sit by and watch while other countries devalue their currencies to give them a competitive advantage.” It’s pretty obvious who the ‘other countries’ in question are; or rather is.

Interestingly, the economically corrosive nature of this BRIC linking may come to be a boon for Brazil’s relationship with the United States- a country that is paradoxically a better balanced trade partner by virtue of it being a market for Brazilian manufactured goods. The Obama administration delivered a massive snub to Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff this week by declaring that the United States won’t be extending the formality of a state visit for her visit in April because it’s an election year. This stance might have been forgivable had it not been announced during a state visit from British Prime Minister David Cameron. Yet, the Brazilian government has been relatively silent on the snub, and Rousseff seems willing to proceed without the pomp of a state visit. This seems to indicate a willingness on the part of President Rousseff to repair the damage done by her predecessor. Perhaps Brazil is eyeing an escape from the noose of BRIC economics.

And then there’s the military overlap between India and China. These two BRIC countries are currently locked in what might be termed as an ‘arms race: lite,’ behavior that’s not becoming of supposed close partners. Beijing recently announced that its annual defense budget would be $106 billion in 2012, excluding foreign procurement [6]. As always, analysts can only guess at what the real number will end up being. On the other side of the Himalayas, the Indian government jacked up its defense budget by 17 percent and it’s currently locked in negotiations over what could become the largest fighter-jet purchase that the world has seen in 15 years [7].

The list of geopolitical sticking points between these two BRIC countries is extensive. It includes China’s ‘string of pearls’ in the Indian Ocean and its patronage of Pakistan, a long-standing border dispute, and the continued existence of the Tibetan government-in-exile in India. But in the interest of brevity, there’s one overarching point that should be emphasized: both countries are starved for energy imports. They compete for the same sources and are desperate to ensure the security of shipping lines that snake through each other’s backyard. This is a strategic reality that precludes the two countries ever getting too close, no matter how catchy the proposed acronym is.

As for where Russia fits into all of this, a simple question will suffice: Will a nationalistic, re-assertive Russian foreign policy commit itself in any real way to the matrix of byzantine and often antagonistic interests stemming from three other developing countries? Probably not, and if for whatever reason the newly-coronated Putin government decided to do so, it would mark a radical departure from how Russia has historically viewed itself in world affairs.

The BRIC concept, birthed in the gilded halls of Goldman Sachs, had a kind of infectious logic to it ten years ago. It was like an ideological set of training wheels, preparing us all for international multi-polarity. However, its relevance as an analytical tool never extended beyond a brief period when fear of American hegemony was enough to smooth out conflicting interests among BRIC members. Fast-forward to the present and this is a bloc of four developing countries can’t even decide on the establishment of a BRIC development bank [8]. It is as it always has been: every BRIC for itself.


Sources:

[1] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/NB25Cb01.html

[2] http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2010/01/ftcom-how-bric-was-born.html

[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/24/us-brazil-economy-china-idUSTRE68N1YB20100924

[4] http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/20...-may-be-the-better-partner-for-latin-america/

[5] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b1d9f05a-6f8b-11e1-b368-00144feab49a.html#axzz1pYar0DoI

[6] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120319a1.html

[7] http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-98596-Indias-arms-mostly-target-Pakistan

[8] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/99ed...lished_links/rss/global-economy/feed//product

[9] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032109

=

Iran MP: Sanctions exemptions show U.S. in retreat

March 22, 2012 01:14 AM
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mi...mptions-show-us-in-retreat.ashx#axzz1pntkMYwG​

WASHINGTON/TEHRAN: A U.S. decision to exempt nations from tough new sanctions on Iran showed Washington is in “retreat” in its stance against the Islamic Republic, a key Iranian lawmaker said in a report Wednesday.

The United States said Tuesday it was exempting 11 countries including European Union members and Japan from financial sanctions because they had significantly cut purchases of Iranian oil, but Iran’s top customers China and India remain at risk of such steps.

“Due to decisive stances taken by the Islamic Republic, such a move [by Washington] is an overt retreat from earlier stances,” Aladin Borujerdi said, quoted by ISNA news agency.

Borujerdi, the head of parliament’s foreign policy and national security commission, said the U.S. decision had been influenced by concerns about “rising oil prices which harmed the European consumer nations and the tumbling economies of the West.”

The decision means banks in the 11 countries have been given a six-month reprieve from the threat of being cut off from the U.S. financial system under new sanctions designed to pressure Iran over a nuclear program the West suspects is intended to produce weapons.

The list did not include China and India, Iran’s top two crude oil importers, nor U.S. allies South Korea and Turkey, which are among the top 10 consumers of Iranian oil.

Japan, China and India combined buy close to half of Iran’s crude exports of 2.6 million barrels a day, providing crucial foreign exchange for the OPEC member.

But the U.S. sanctions and an EU oil embargo have cut Iran out of financial networks, making it difficult to transfer funds to pay for trade and disrupting some oil shipments due to the difficulty of securing shipping insurance. Domestic prices in Iran have spiraled higher and the rial has slumped in value.

Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azumi welcomed the U.S. decision, saying Wednesday that Japan would continue to cut its imports of Iranian oil at a set rate in the future.

“The decision takes account of Japan’s steps on Iranian oil, including its future response,” he told reporters.

Indeed, Japan’s government wants the nation’s crude buyers to cut Iran imports by 10 percent to 20 percent a year, said Akihiko Tembo, the chairman of the Petroleum Association of Japan.

A U.S. official held up Japan’s estimated 15-22 percent cut in oil purchases from Iran in the second half of last year as an example for other nations.

Underlining U.S. efforts to tighten the financial noose around Iran, a state department official said 12 other countries might eventually be subject to U.S. sanctions unless they cut Iran crude purchases. He did not list them.

South Korea will soon hold another round of talks with the United States on significantly reducing its imports from Iran, a source at the Korea’s Economy Ministry said Wednesday.

In contrast to Japan, South Korea, the world’s fifth-largest oil importer, increased its imports from Iran in 2011 by 20 percent. Its refiners have signed deals to import a little more crude from Iran in 2012.

South Africa’s energy minister said last week she hoped to have a plan by the end of May for replacing supplies from Iran, which currently make up a quarter of its crude imports.

But Turkey’s energy minister, Taner Yildiz, told reporters Wednesday the country could not stop buying Iranian crude unless alternative oil sources were found.

The 10 nations from the European Union, which has already decided to stop importing Iranian oil from July, were Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain, the State Department said.

“The actions taken by these countries were not easy,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. “We commend these countries for their actions and urge other nations that import oil from Iran to follow their example.”

While China and India and others remain exposed to possible financial sanctions, U.S. law gives President Barack Obama the ability to waive such steps if this is in the national interest.

China, Iran’s top trade partner and crude buyer, has made it clear that it rejects in principle the unilateral U.S. sanctions, while trying to maintain its energy ties with Tehran. It says Washington and the EU should not go beyond U.N. resolutions on Iran.

India’s government says it is not under any obligation to observe U.S. sanctions, but privately has asked its refineries to cut Iran imports by at least 15 percent, industry sources have said.

The U.S. has tightened sanctions due to Iran’s failure to answer questions about its nuclear program, which Washington and its allies suspect is a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says it is solely to generate power supply.

World oil prices have surged on the growing Iran tensions – stoked by fears that Israel might launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities – and on worries sanctions will tighten global oil supplies.


Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mi...mptions-show-us-in-retreat.ashx#ixzz1pntqOCpK
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)



=

=

Thursday, March 22, 2012

U.S. grants exemption on Iran sanctions

Japan rewarded for efforts to
cut imports of crude from Tehran

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120322a1.html​

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the United States has decided to exempt Japan and 10 European countries from its new financial sanctions against Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program, because they have significantly reduced their oil imports from Tehran.

On Japan, Clinton said that Tokyo's significant reductions in crude oil purchases are "especially noteworthy considering the extraordinary energy and other challenges it has faced over the past year," referring to the natural and nuclear disasters last March.

A senior State Department official said Clinton has reported to Congress that the sanctions under the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 will not apply to financial institutions based in these countries for a renewable period of 180 days.

Alongside Japan, Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain will be exempted. Clinton praised the efforts of all 11 countries over cutting oil imports from Iran.

"They had to rethink their energy needs at a critical time for the world economy and quickly begin to find alternatives to Iranian oil, which many had been reliant on for their energy needs," Clinton said.

The State Department official, who declined to be named, also underscored Japan's efforts to cut back oil purchases from Iran during "the hardships and the loss of energy capacity" following the Fukushima No. 1 plant disaster.

Japan reduced oil imports from Iran by 15 to 22 percent in the second half of 2011, the official said.

Tokyo was seeking an exemption for Japanese banks from the U.S. sanctions on condition that it promised to cut its crude oil imports from the Middle Eastern country.

In her statement, Clinton also stressed the significance of the European Union's embargo on Iranian oil imports, saying it "demonstrates their solidarity and their commitment to holding Iran accountable for its failure to comply with its international obligations."

"We commend these countries for their actions and urge other nations that import oil from Iran to follow their example," she said.

The unnamed State Department official also told reporters that a major factor behind the U.S. decision to exempt the 10 European countries was an EU decision Jan. 23 to immediately ban all new contracts for the import, purchase or transport of Iranian crude oil and petrochemicals.

The efforts by Japan and the 10 European nations "serve as a model, as a benchmark that others can look at and determine whether they are able to make commitments to deny Iran export markets for its crude oil," the official said.

President Barack Obama has until March 30 to determine whether oil prices and supplies are sufficient enough to levy sanctions later this year on countries that still buy oil from Iran. Pending that decision, another 12 nations — including India, China and South Korea — that are deemed to be major importers of Iranian oil have until June 28 to take similar steps or face sanctions.

The sanctions target foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank. The measures bar them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. This would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The petroleum penalties only apply if the president determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil. It also allows the president to waive the penalties based on national security.

Clinton renewed her pledge to put pressure on Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions.

"Diplomacy coupled with strong pressure can achieve the long-term solutions we seek and we will continue to work with our international partners to increase the pressure on Iran to meet its international obligations," she said.






=

=

Wednesday,March 21 2012, Your time is 8:20:13 PM

Moscow, Berlin warn over strike on Tehran

MOSCOW / BERLIN
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/mo...ehran.aspx?pageID=238&nid=16533&NewsCatID=359​

Russia warned on March 20 that Iran would have no option but to develop nuclear weapons if it came under attack from either the United States or Israel over its contested atomic program. Germany also warned Israel that any military escalation with Iran could bring incalculable risks.

“The CIA and other U.S. officials admit they now have no information about the Iranian leadership taking the political decision to produce nuclear weapons,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Moscow’s Kommersant FM radio. “But I am almost certain that such a decision will surely be taken after (any) strikes on Iran,” Lavrov said.

Lavrov’s remarks came shortly after Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei warned that his country was ready to strike back against either the U.S. or Israel “at the same level as they attack us.” Lavrov added that Israel’s threats against Iran were only pushing other nations to consider pursuing their own nuclear weapon drives. “This happening... around Iran are forcing a lot of Third World countries to pause and realize that if you have a nuclear bomb, no one will really bother you,” Lavrov said.

He particularly raised the case of North Korea and its decision to both develop and test nuclear weapons.

6th submarine from Germany

German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere, however, said on March 20 that it will sell Israel a sixth military submarine and shoulder part of the cost. Maiziere also said he shared Israel’s fear of a nuclear-armed Iran and he was convinced Tehran aimed to make nuclear weapons, but he called for caution.

“A military escalation would bring incalculable risks for Israel and the region, to the detriment of Israel,” he told reporters at a press conference in Berlin with his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak. Barak by contrast said all options regarding Iran should remain on the table, apart from containment.





=

=

Iron Dome Gets Congressional Boost

Submitted by Douglas Bloomfield
Wed, 03/21/2012 - 15:23
http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/iron_dome_gets_congressional_boost​

In the wake of Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile success record in knocking down Palestinian missiles and rockets fired from Gaza earlier this month and the smuggling of more power Iranian missiles into Gaza, Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced legislation to increase American funding for the advanced weapon defense system.

The legislation, which authorizes the President to provide additional funding if requested by the Israeli government, sets no dollar amount, but a formal request is expected shortly. Last year the United States provided $205 million for Iron Dome.

Cosponsoring the bill are Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Ranking Member of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), and U.S. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY).

In responding to the recent round of attacks by terrorist groups in Gaza, the first operational test for the missile interceptor "achieved some notable successes," said Mark A. Heller of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. "It was able to discriminate between rockets likely to land in open areas and those headed for population centers, and to refrain from wasting itself on the former while intercepting about 80 percent of the latter." The IDF has put the success rate at 90 percent.

Israeli Amb. Michael Oren has said Israel needs at least 10 more Iron Dome batteries in addition to the three currently deployed and in southern Israel and two more under construction. The goal is 16 batteries to cover all of Israel, including the Syrian and Lebanese-Hizbullah borders in the north.

Iron Dome doesn't go after every missile fired at Israel but is able to determine which are headed for populated areas and ignore those that are most likely to strike harmlessly.

Dov Raviv, an Israeli expert in missile defense, has said that without Iron Dome interceptors the only way to stop the missiles and protect the residents of southern Israel "would be to occupy Gaza or go back to Operation Cast Lead."

Iron Dome is designed to defend against missiles fired from between 2.5 and 45 miles away but reportedly is not yet able to intercept longer-range Fajr missiles, supplied and built by Iran and capable of hitting Tel Aviv from Gaza.

Despite this month's success record, Iron Dome has not been tested against a massive barrage fired from Gaza or Lebanon, as happened prior years.

"The real test will come when the number of rockets is more significant and the potential damage also increases," said an Israeli air force commander.





=