04/03: "The Winds of War" - Iran Could Wait for Blair To Go, America Fears

=



04/02: "The Winds of War" - The War of Humiliation
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=236044




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Iran Could Wait for Blair To Go, America Fears </font>

April 02, 2007
New York Sun
Eli Lake
http://www.nysun.com/article/51606 </center>
WASHINGTON -- American officials, hoping for a tougher line from Europe and Britain, fear the Iranian government will hold hostage the 15 royal marines seized on March 23 until Prime Minister Blair is out of office this summer.

That was a concern this week as Iran hardened its line in negotiations, demanding an official apology from London and airing an alleged apology from one of the seamen captured last month, the second such televised confession of a British captive. </b>

Yesterday, an American intelligence official said the combination of the provocative aired confessions and changing demands made in diplomatic channels has led the Pentagon and military to conclude that the Iranians intend to drag out any negotiations for the release of the hostages until Mr. Blair is out of office, a move in line with the negotiation tack favored by the mullahs in the hostage crisis with the Carter administration. The Iranians waited until after the 1980 election to release the diplomats they had held for 444 days.

While Mr. Blair has not yet announced when he will step down as prime minister, the British press wrote in September that he is preparing to step down as the head of the Labor Party on May 31 and will leave 10 Downing Street on July 26. If the Iranians hold onto the hostages until Mr. Blair is out of office, it would also be a blow to American prestige, as Mr. Blair was the most vocal ally of America's war to topple Saddam Hussein.

The concern that the mullahs are playing for time was influenced in part by promises by the Iranian foreign ministry to begin a show trial of the 15 sailors in the coming weeks. Through diplomatic channels, the Iranians have demanded the release of five members of their Quds Force taken hostage. That could set the stage for a swap. But the demand for a hostage exchange has also varied widely depending on the diplomatic channel.

"There is no hard intelligence right now on the motivations behind this," the intelligence official told the New York Sun yesterday. "It is an informed analysis that circulated in the intelligence community. It is one of the explanations thrown out to explain what they are doing right now."

Other possibilities discussed in the analysis include a response to the vote in Congress to set a date for withdrawal from Iraq and a warning to other great powers that have recently cooperated with the United Kingdom and America diplomatically and financially on sanctioning the Islamic Republic for its defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This source yesterday said, "No conclusions have been made on this."

The British defense minister, on a trip in Afghanistan, which borders Iran, said that his country was taking the diplomatic route for now. In an interview yesterday with the BBC, Des Browne said, "There is no reason to continue to keep them there. We are anxious that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible and that it be resolved by diplomatic means and we are bending every single effort to that."

One such effort was scuttled on Friday when Germany, the European country that does the most trade with Iran, refused a British request to suspend trade with the Islamic Republic. Mr. Blair over the weekend condemned the airing of the public confessions of the sailors. President Bush demanded Saturday from Camp David that the Iranians release the hostages, calling the seizure "inexcusable."

The British people appear to favor a diplomatic route for winning the release of the hostages. A poll published Sunday by the Sunday Telegraph found only 7% of Britons favored military action today. Of those polled, 44% favored military action as a last resort, while 48% opposed military action as a last resort.

In Tehran yesterday, local press reports said 200 people protested outside the British embassy chanting "death to Britain," and "death to America." The regime has cracked down on almost all protests against it, and the protests yesterday are likely to have been coordinated in part with the state and its allied militia known as the Basij.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>The Mullahs Scoff at Geneva ... Again</font>

April 02, 2007
Human Events
Andrew C. McCarthy
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20061 </center>
For what seems like the millionth time since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has perpetrated an act of war against the West, reaffirmed its hostile, revolutionary intentions, and demonstrated that it is a rogue state which scoffs at the civilizing impulses of international law, including the laws and customs of war.
</b>
For what seems like the millionth time in just the last few months, the Iranians have shown that their word is worth nothing.

So will our diplomat class suggest, yet again, that perhaps more negotiations will bring them around?

The mullahs have abducted 15 uniformed members of Her Majesty’s regular armed forces, the British navy and marines. At the time, the Brits were conducting military patrol operations in Iraqi waters with the approval of the Iraqi government and under the auspices of several United Nations Security Council resolutions. Further, when this lawless kidnapping occurred, Iran was about to be sanctioned, yet again, by the Security Council for the nuclear weapons program it has pursued, for years, in violation of its solemn obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

It is an old pattern. The Iranians make commitments. The Iranians break commitments.

We would all like to pretend that there is some rationale for this other than the obvious one -- some economic or political explanation that would suggest a solution, accomplishment of which would somehow bring the Islamic Republic within norms of behavior among civilized nations.

Alas, it is not the case. The regime is an Islamic sharia state bent incorrigibly on exporting its revolution. As such, one of its guiding principles is al-Takiyya, the conceit that Muslims are free -- indeed, encouraged -- to lie and break oaths whenever it is expedient in the belligerent quest to spread the faith. War, Mohammed famously taught, is deception.

As we watch the latest outrage unfold in the Persian Gulf, it bears continuous reminding that Iran is a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, including Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The mullahs have never renounced the treaty since coming to power nearly 30 years ago. But, then again, why would they? Like the Nonproliferation Treaty, it is but a parchment promise: readily breakable if given to infidels, readily breakable as necessary to advance the jihad -- and a revolutionary Islamic state considers itself in a full-time state of war until all obstacles to imposition of Islamic law have been removed. Death to America and Death to the West are not just slogans for these folks; they are guiding principles.

So in just the last few days, reports abound that the Iranians are busily interrogating their captives about the circumstances surrounding their apprehension. Despite the British government’s global positioning satellite records proving that its personnel never left Iraqi waters, the mullahs falsely maintain that the Brits had strayed into sovereign Iranian territory. On no evidence, they accuse the marines and naval personnel of conducting espionage operations (a capital offense).

And now, we have the spectacle of the only female captive, 26-year-old Leading Seaman Faye Turney. As part of their propaganda campaign, the Iranians have begun broadcasting footage of the kidnapped Britons. This includes Seaman Turney who, since her captivity, has been forced to don a headscarf, the compulsory dress of women in a sharia state. Worse, Turney has transparently been coerced into a contrived “confession.” The airwaves are filled with her tape-recorded declarations that the captives “[o]bviously … trespassed into their [Iranian] waters,” and that their captors -- who seized them forcibly -- are “very friendly, very hospitable and very thoughtful, nice people” who have inflicted “no hurt or harm,” and, in fact, have been “very, very compassionate.”

All of this blatantly violates Geneva. The British personnel are clearly prisoners of war seized in an armed conflict. They were in uniform, openly conducting patrol operations as part of a national military force. There need be no formal state of war for the conventions to be triggered. Under Article 2, they apply in “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” (Emphasis added.) Even if Iran had not for years been abetting the Iraqi insurgency against coalition forces, the seizure itself was an armed conflict on the high seas between two Geneva signatories -- had it not been, the Britons would not have been captured.

Consequently, Iran is obliged to accord its captives the privileges of honorable combatants. For example, prisoners must, under Article 13, be treated “humanely” at all times; they “must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity”; and even when, unlike the Iranians, a capturing nation has a particular, justifiable quarrel with its foes, “[m]easures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.”

Under Articles 14 and 16, moreover, women, who are equally entitled as prisoners “to respect for their persons and their honour[,]” must not be discriminated against and retain “the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture,” meaning their rights must not be infringed “except in so far as the captivity requires.” That this patently includes the free exercise of a prisoner’s religion -- and freedom from being compelled to observe Islam or any other religion -- is underscored by Article 34’s injunction that “[p]risoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties.”

Most fundamentally, lawful, honorable combatants, such as the 15 Britons, may be questioned but they may never be coerced. They are privileged under Article 17 to limit their disclosures to “surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.” The captors may ask for more, but only gently and must take no for an answer. Leaving aside that torture is independently prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment (of which both England and Iran are members), Article 17 elaborates:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Iran, as always, is in gross violation of these standards -- standards which it has given its worthless word to abide by. Parading prisoners of war on television is a violation of their dignity. Patently abusing a woman by imposing Iran’s own religious customs on her and giving her markedly different treatment than the male prisoners may be the norm in fundamentalist Islam, but it is a black-and-white offense against international law. And British forces are rigorously disciplined, well-aware that they need reveal nothing beyond name, rank and serial number. Even if there were a scintilla of proof beyond the say-so of serially lying zealots that the Brits were actually in Iranian waters engaged in espionage, is there an infidel’s chance in the Kaaba that any of these marines and seamen would have confessed to such activities absent intimidation and coercion? The kind of intimidation and coercion we know for a fact the Iranians practiced against British military captives the last time something like this happened, a scant three years ago.

Regardless of how this provocation is resolved, there is no negotiating with this barbarous regime. Negotiation, to be meaningful, connotes a measure of trust that each of the parties will do what it commits to do. It connotes a commitment to certain minima of civilized behavior. How many times must the mullahs illustrate that it is a dangerous mirage to see such things in them?

The Iranians believe that they are at war, that war is deception, and that the conduct of their war is governed by 7th Century notions of humanity. The regime has to go.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/03/wiran403.xml


Hopes were rising last night for an early release of the 15 sailors and Royal Marines held in Iran after one of the country's most senior politicians said they would not face a show trial.

During an interview on Channel 4 News, Ali Larijani said the situation was "quite resolvable".

There were grounds for further optimism when the chief of the Iranian National Security Council said the 11-day crisis could be resolved by diplomatic means.

"I definitely believe that this issue can be resolved and there is no need for any trial," Mr Larijani said in the interview with Jon Snow.

"Our priority is to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels. We are not interested in having this issue get further complicated."

A path for a resolution to the impasse appeared to be mapped out by Mr Larijani after he ruled out a trial.

He suggested Britain would need to send a diplomatic delegation to Teheran, admit that its Navy had made a mistake by straying into Iranian waters and guarantee that the error would not be repeated.

The politician gave further hope to the anxious families of the eight sailors and seven Marines, saying it was "our interest to solve the problem as soon as possible".

There was "no benefit" in keeping British troops "away from their families from a humanitarian view", he said.

However, he insisted that the Navy had strayed into Iran and had GPS evidence to prove it.

The Government says it has documentary proof that the boarding party of two fast boats was two miles inside Iraqi territorial waters when they were arrested on March 23. After telling Parliament that the boats had not violated Iran's sovereign territory it would be a humiliating climb-down for Tony Blair if he was forced to admit the error.

Mr Larijani said Britain should be "brave enough" to admit "their mistake, confess to it and leave".

"The solution is very clear," he said. "First of all they have to put aside the irrational moves and resorting to the language of force.

"Secondly, there is a difference of view between the UK Government and the Iranian government and this issue should be resolved bilaterally.

"They should clarify the fact of whether they have been in our territorial waters or not."

He appeared irritated by the Government accusing Iran of taking the service personnel hostage and said the European Union had "started to condemn Iran without knowing the facts".

He accused the EU of using "the language of force" by expressing "unconditional support" for Britain and threatening "appropriate measures" unless the captives were released quickly.

Before Mr Larijani's interview the Prime Minister's spokesman said there was "a lot going on behind the scenes".

It appeared that the Iranian politician's appearance on live British television was Iran's response after an exchange of notes with the British embassy in Teheran.

"The Iranians know our position. They know that stage-managed TV appearances aren't going to affect our position," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

Mr Larijani appeared to indicate that there would be no further televised appearances by British personnel confessing and apologising for entering Iran.

It had been claimed that all 15 British service personnel had confessed to illegally entering the country's waters but state-run radio in Iran reported that any further confessions were not being broadcast because of "positive changes" in Britain's stance.

A Foreign Office spokesman said last night: "We are still studying Dr Larijani's remarks.

"There remain some differences between us but we can confirm that we share his preference for early bilateral discussions to find a diplomatic solution to this problem.

"We will be following this up with the Iranian authorities tomorrow."

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Larijani Rules Out Trial for British Sailors</font>

April 02, 2007
The Financial Times
Daniel Dombey in London
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0abca7d0-e1...age=4e612cca-6707-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html </center>
Ali Larijani, Iran’s top security official, said on Monday Tehran wanted a speedy diplomatic solution to its dispute with Britain and had no wish to put the 15 British naval personnel it has captured on trial.

After a day in which the two sides appeared to make more progress than at any time since the dispute began 11 days before, the UK said it shared Mr Larijani’s desire to begin talks soon. </b>

“Our shared interest is to solve this problem as soon as possible...There is no interest or benefit in keeping British soldiers in Iran,” Mr Larijani told Britain’s Channel Four News on Monday night. “There is a difference of view between the UK government and the Iranian government and this issue should be resolved bilaterally...Our priority would definitely not be a trial, unless the UK insists on not solving this problem through diplomatic channels.

Some British diplomats have welcomed Mr Larijani’s involvement as a sign that Iran’s political elite is seeking to resolve the dispute. But they also expressed doubts over whether Iran’s fractured government had agreed to a common negotiating line.

“There remain some differences between us but we can confirm we share his preference for early bilateral discussions to find a diplomatic solution to this problem,” the British Foreign Office said on Monday night. It added that it would make contact with the Iranian authorities on Tuesday.

Mr Larijani said that London should send a delegation to clarify whether the 15 British sailors and marines had entered Iranian waters but that the Iranian government believed “100 per cent” that they had done so.

“After that there is a diplomatic channel...that could help to solve the problem,” he added, specifying that he would accept negotiations with either British ministers or the UK ambassador in Tehran.

“A number of soldiers have made a mistake, have violated the other country’s territorial waters,” he said. “They should be brave enough to admit the mistake, confess to it, and leave.” Iranian television has already screened a number of “confessions” by the British personnel, which UK officials suspect were obtained by coercion. Tehran says all 15 have now confessed.

The UK says its personnel remained within Iraqi territory but the matter is complicated further because there is no agreed maritime border between Iran and Iraq.

“A guarantee must be given that such violations will not be repeated,” said Mr Larijani, indicating possible terrain for compromise between London and Tehran.

While steering clear of an apology, Margaret Beckett, British foreign secretary, has expressed “regret” over the incident in which Iran captured the 15 British sailors. In a reply to an Iranian letter sent late last week, Ms Beckett also suggested that Iran and the UK seek to prevent such disputes from recurring.

On Monday, Iranian media welcomed what it said was the more “positive” approach from Britain, although Mr Larijani accused London of having “behaved irrationally” in its initial approach to the dispute.

“It seems that Britain has shifted a little bit from its stance,” Iranian state television said on Monday as it screened the latest footage of the UK prisoners on Monday. “If this path continues, one can hope that the issue would be resolved in a bilateral process and far away from fuss and clamour and with achieving Iran’s logical demands.”

Iran’s student news agency ISNA said because of Britain’s alleged change of stance, Tehran would not broadcast “details” of the video of the detainees. Unlike earlier clips, which included the prisoners’ “confessions,” the latest videos were screened without sound.

The UK has already been considering the possibility of sending a team of diplomats and naval staff to begin talks with Iran. One avenue would be to set up a “parallel process” in which the two sides would simultaneously discuss the status of the detainees and a mechanism for dealing with potential future disputes over naval operations in the northern Gulf.

“I would not find fault with the British response. They have played it by the book,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, a fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. But he added: “Iran did not respond positively when Britain went public. I think it is more likely that Tehran will respond to pleas from other Islamic countries.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/03/wmid03.xml


Israel was accused of blocking a pan-Arab peace plan yesterday after the prime minister Ehud Olmert ruled out holding talks with any country it does not consider to be "moderate".

At the weekend Mr Olmert expressed a willingness to attend a regional peace summit with "moderate" Muslim leaders following the adoption by Israel's neighbours of a Saudi Arabian-conceived plan for peace with the Palestinians.

Veiled Hamas supporters hold copies of the Koran, Israel has been accused of blocking a pan-Arab peace plan
Hamas supporters hold copies of the Koran. Mr Olmert has ruled out meeting the Palestinian government

But he was criticised yesterday for imposing a major hurdle on potential progress for the plan.

An unnamed Syrian official told the Saudi Arabian newspaper al Watan that Mr Olmert was stalling for time by being selective about the Arab nations he would sit down with.

Mohammed al-Madhoun, senior adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister in the Palestinian Authority, criticised Israel's refusal to discuss the return of Palestinian refugees to land now claimed by Israel.

Diplomats had sensed the possibility of progress in the Middle East peace process, centred around the Arab Peace Plan which was first mooted five years ago. The plan, which promises normal Arab relations with Israel in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from land occupied in 1967, was re-energised when it was endorsed unanimously at last week's Arab League summit in Riyadh.
advertisement

It was in response to this that Mr Olmert spoke of a willingness to meet with erstwhile Arab enemies. He said: "If the Saudi King will initiate a meeting of the moderate Arab states, and invite me and the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, and present us the Saudi ideas, we will come to hear them and be happy to articulate our ideas as well."

A major problem is that Mr Olmert rules out meeting the Palestinian government led by Hamas, the militant movement that does not recognise Israel's right to exist. Other Arab nations regard the Hamas government as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

Meanwhile, local journalists marked the third week since BBC journalist Alan Johnston, 44, was kidnapped with demonstrations at the weakness of the Palestinian government. In Gaza 300 local journalists donned gags to protest at the kidnapping.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Former FBI Agent Missing in Iran</font>

April 02, 2007
The Associated Press
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iran-Missing.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin </center>
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. is seeking information from Iran about a former FBI agent who was reported missing while on a business trip there several weeks ago.

FBI spokesman Rich Kolko said Monday the agent had retired nearly a decade ago and appeared to be in Iran on private business. He said the missing man was last seen there in early March and was not working for the FBI as a contractor.
</b>
''At this time, there are no indications that this matter should be viewed other than as a missing person case,'' Kolko said.

Kolko also said the former agent had worked on traditional criminal issues such as organized crime cases -- drawing a distinction between those and international terrorism or intelligence work that could have taken him to Iran.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States saw no connection between the missing man and the current crisis between Iran and Britain over 15 British sailors and marines seized last month by Iranian forces.

The department has sent a letter to the Iranians through diplomatic intermediaries, asking if authorities there have any information about the man, McCormack said.

He said the State Department had been in constant contact with the man's family and his employers since he was reported missing, but the spokesman did not say why it had taken three weeks to get in touch with Iran about the case.

''It's an American private citizen who is in Iran on private business about whom we are pursuing welfare and whereabouts (information),'' McCormack told reporters. ''We have been monitoring this situation for a couple of weeks now.''

The Bush administration has increased diplomatic and other pressure on Iran in recent months, including added naval power in the Persian Gulf, while also making new overtures. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to sit down soon for international talks with Iran's foreign minister over the violence in neighboring Iraq.

Washington and Tehran do not have diplomatic relations and U.S. interests in the country are represented by Switzerland.

Citing privacy concerns, McCormack declined to give details about the name, age or occupation of the missing man.

The man was last heard from around March 11 while in a coastal area of southern Iran on or near Kish Island, where he was apparently working on a project for an independent filmmaker.

U.S. citizens are not barred from traveling to Iran but must obtain a visa, although Kish Island is a Persian Gulf resort area and free-trade zone for which no Iranian visa is required.

A State Department official said the man is not of Iranian descent and that ''welfare and whereabouts'' requests for U.S. citizens reported missing in Iran average about two to three per year.

Housecarl said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/03/wiran403.xml

Iranian security chief raises hopes of deal
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:24am BST 03/04/2007​

Hopes were rising last night for an early release of the 15 sailors and Royal Marines held in Iran after one of the country's most senior politicians said they would not face a show trial.

During an interview on Channel 4 News, Ali Larijani said the situation was "quite resolvable".

There were grounds for further optimism when the chief of the Iranian National Security Council said the 11-day crisis could be resolved by diplomatic means.

"I definitely believe that this issue can be resolved and there is no need for any trial," Mr Larijani said in the interview with Jon Snow.

"Our priority is to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels. We are not interested in having this issue get further complicated."

A path for a resolution to the impasse appeared to be mapped out by Mr Larijani after he ruled out a trial.

He suggested Britain would need to send a diplomatic delegation to Teheran, admit that its Navy had made a mistake by straying into Iranian waters and guarantee that the error would not be repeated.

The politician gave further hope to the anxious families of the eight sailors and seven Marines, saying it was "our interest to solve the problem as soon as possible".

There was "no benefit" in keeping British troops "away from their families from a humanitarian view", he said.

However, he insisted that the Navy had strayed into Iran and had GPS evidence to prove it.

The Government says it has documentary proof that the boarding party of two fast boats was two miles inside Iraqi territorial waters when they were arrested on March 23. After telling Parliament that the boats had not violated Iran's sovereign territory it would be a humiliating climb-down for Tony Blair if he was forced to admit the error.

Mr Larijani said Britain should be "brave enough" to admit "their mistake, confess to it and leave".

"The solution is very clear," he said. "First of all they have to put aside the irrational moves and resorting to the language of force.

"Secondly, there is a difference of view between the UK Government and the Iranian government and this issue should be resolved bilaterally.

"They should clarify the fact of whether they have been in our territorial waters or not."

He appeared irritated by the Government accusing Iran of taking the service personnel hostage and said the European Union had "started to condemn Iran without knowing the facts".

He accused the EU of using "the language of force" by expressing "unconditional support" for Britain and threatening "appropriate measures" unless the captives were released quickly.

Before Mr Larijani's interview the Prime Minister's spokesman said there was "a lot going on behind the scenes".

It appeared that the Iranian politician's appearance on live British television was Iran's response after an exchange of notes with the British embassy in Teheran.

"The Iranians know our position. They know that stage-managed TV appearances aren't going to affect our position," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

Mr Larijani appeared to indicate that there would be no further televised appearances by British personnel confessing and apologising for entering Iran.

It had been claimed that all 15 British service personnel had confessed to illegally entering the country's waters but state-run radio in Iran reported that any further confessions were not being broadcast because of "positive changes" in Britain's stance.

A Foreign Office spokesman said last night: "We are still studying Dr Larijani's remarks.

"There remain some differences between us but we can confirm that we share his preference for early bilateral discussions to find a diplomatic solution to this problem.

"We will be following this up with the Iranian authorities tomorrow."

Click to expand...

Just more games being played. The Brits have become a pathetic spineless society, like ourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/world/middleeast/02qaeda.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin


WASHINGTON, April 1 — As Al Qaeda rebuilds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a new generation of leaders has emerged under Osama bin Laden to cement control over the network’s operations, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

The new leaders rose from within the organization after the death or capture of the operatives that built Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leading to surprise and dismay within United States intelligence agencies about the group’s ability to rebound from an American-led offensive.

It has been known that American officials were focusing on a band of Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan’s remote mountains, but a clearer picture is emerging about those who are running the camps and thought to be involved in plotting attacks.

American, European and Pakistani authorities have for months been piecing together a picture of the new leadership, based in part on evidence-gathering during terrorism investigations in the past two years. Particularly important have been interrogations of suspects and material evidence connected to a plot British and American investigators said they averted last summer to destroy multiple commercial airliners after takeoff from London.

Intelligence officials also have learned new information about Al Qaeda’s structure through intercepted communications between operatives in Pakistan’s tribal areas, although officials said the group has a complex network of human couriers to evade electronic eavesdropping.

The investigation into the airline plot has led officials to conclude that an Egyptian paramilitary commander called Abu Ubaidah al-Masri was the Qaeda operative in Pakistan orchestrating the attack, officials said.

Mr. Masri, a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan, is believed to travel frequently over the rugged border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. He was long thought to be in charge of militia operations in the Kunar Province of Afghanistan, but he emerged as one of Al Qaeda’s senior operatives after the death of Abu Hamza Rabia, another Egyptian who was killed by a missile strike in Pakistan in 2005.

The evidence officials said was accumulating about Mr. Masri and a handful of other Qaeda figures has led to a reassessment within the American intelligence community about the strength of the group’s core in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and its role in some of the most significant terrorism plots of the past two years, including the airline plot and the suicide attacks in London in July 2005 that killed 56.

Although the core leadership was weakened in the counterterrorism campaign begun after the Sept. 11 attacks, intelligence officials now believe it was not as crippling as once thought.

That reassessment has brought new urgency to joint Pakistani and American intelligence operations in Pakistan and strengthened officials’ belief that dismantling Al Qaeda’s infrastructure there could disrupt nascent large-scale terrorist plots that may already be under way.

In February, the deputy C.I.A. director, Stephen R. Kappes, accompanied Vice President Dick Cheney to Islamabad to present Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, with intelligence on Al Qaeda’s growing abilities and to develop a strategy to strike at training camps.

Officials from several American intelligence agencies interviewed for this article agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity because the Qaeda assessments are classified.

Many American officials have said in recent years that the roles of Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants in Pakistan’s remote mountains have diminished with the growing prominence of the organization’s branch in Iraq, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and with the emergence of regional terrorism networks and so-called home-grown cells.

That view, in part, led the C.I.A. in late 2005 to disband Alec Station, the unit that for a decade was devoted to hunting Mr. bin Laden and his closest advisers, and to reassign analysts within the agency’s Counterterrorist Center to focus on Al Qaeda’s expanding reach.

Officials say they believe that, in contrast with the somewhat hierarchical structure of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, the group’s leadership is now more diffuse, with several planning hubs working autonomously and not reliant on constant contact with Mr. bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri, his deputy.

Much is still not known about the backgrounds of the new Qaeda leaders; some have adopted noms de guerre. Officials and outside analysts said they tend to be in their mid-30s and have years of battlefield experience fighting in places like Afghanistan and Chechnya. They are more diverse than the earlier group of leaders, which was made up largely of battle-hardened Egyptian operatives. American officials said the new cadre includes several Pakistani and North African operatives.

Experts say they still see Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as largely independent of Al Qaeda’s hub in Pakistan but that they believe the fighting in Iraq will produce future Qaeda leaders.

“The jihadis returning from Iraq are far more capable than the mujahedeen who fought the Soviets ever were,” said Robert Richer, who was associate director of operations in 2004 and 2005 for the C.I.A. “They have been fighting the best military in the world, with the best technology and tactics.”

Officials said other operatives believed to be plotting internationally are Khalid Habib, a Moroccan, and Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi. Mr. Iraqi, a Kurd who served in Saddam Hussein’s army, moved to Afghanistan to fight Soviet occupiers. Officials believe that he was dispatched to Iraq by Mr. bin Laden to deal with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose terrorist group allied with Mr. bin Laden. It took the name Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia before Mr. Zarqawi was killed in an American bombing in June of last year. American officials say they believe that Mr. Iraqi is now back operating inside of Pakistan.

American officials say they still know little about how operatives communicate with Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri.

“There has to be some kind of communication up the line, we just don’t see it,” one senior intelligence official said.

American counterterrorism officials said they did not believe that any one figure had taken over the role once held by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the operations chief who was arrested in Pakistan in 2003 and is being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

During a recent legal hearing, Mr. Mohammed claimed responsibility for planning dozens of attacks over more than a decade.

One reason that Mr. Mohammed proved so valuable to Al Qaeda was his experience as a college student in the United States, which allowed him to train several Sept. 11 hijackers to assimilate into American society.

American officials said the seeming elevation of a California-born operative named Adam Gadahn to a more prominent role might be an effort to replicate Mr. Mohammed’s experience.

Mr. Gadahn has appeared on several Qaeda videos in recent years. The United States offers a $1 million reward for information leading to his capture. But American officials are divided about how important a role he plays, or whether top Qaeda leaders are merely using him for propaganda.

Officials are also divided and somewhat puzzled about Iran’s role in pursuing Qaeda figures.

Intelligence officials say they believe that the Iranian government has in some cases been quite active in the hunt and has put under house arrest a number of top operatives who fled from Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, including the Egyptian operations chief Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden, one of the Qaeda leader’s sons.

But officials say they believe that several other important Qaeda figures may be operating in Iran, including an Egyptian known as Abu Jihad al-Masri and a Libyan explosives expert named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, who is thought to travel between Iran and Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Top American officials said that, despite the damage to the structure of Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks, concern is still high that the group is determined to attack globally.

“We have been very concerned that over time the leaders of Al Qaeda would try to rebuild a chain of command and an organizational structure,” said Robert S. Mueller III, director of the F.B.I, in a statement provided for this article.

Mr. Mueller said Al Qaeda was clearly committed to carrying out “major complex operations.” Some experts who have studied the group since its inception said American officials had in the past too readily assumed that Al Qaeda’s decision to wait long periods of time between attacks was a sign of weakness.

“To say that Al Qaeda was out of business simply because they have not attacked in the U.S. is whistling past the graveyard,” said Michael Scheuer, a former head of the bin Laden tracking unit at the C.I.A. “Al Qaeda is still humming along, and with a new generation of leaders.”

Car Bomb Kills 3 Children

KABUL, Afghanistan, April 1 — A suicide car bomb hit an Afghan Army convoy in the eastern province of Laghman on Sunday, killing at least three children playing nearby and a mullah from a local mosque, Afghan officials said. Thirteen people were wounded, including eight soldiers, the Defense Ministry said.

The attack occurred in a bazaar in Mehtarlam, the provincial capital. The convoy was passing the market, carrying food for the army.

David Rohde and Margot Williams contributed reporting from New York.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company


http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/04/al_qaedas_generational_shift.php


Today’s issue of the New York Times features an article about a new generation of Al Qaeda leaders that has apparently emerged under Osama bin Laden. Citing U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials, the article suggests that the new leaders “rose from within the organization after the death or capture of the operatives that built Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leading to surprise and dismay within United States intelligence agencies about the group’s ability to rebound from an American-led offensive.” The article also reports that the investigation into the August 2006 airline plot involving liquid explosives “has led officials to conclude that an Egyptian paramilitary commander called Abu Ubaidah al-Masri was the Qaeda operative in Pakistan orchestrating the attack.”

If the reports are true, this latest piece of news further underscores how U.S. officials have continuously underestimated the resilience of Al Qaeda and associated entities. After 9/11, when a U.S.-led coalition dealt a heavy blow to Al Qaeda’s infrastructure in Afghanistan and captured or killed a large percentage of its membership, analysts were too quick to jump to the conclusion that Al Qaeda morphed, in its entirety, into a movement. While it is beyond doubt that Al Qaeda has branched out after 9/11 by empowering its affiliates and encouring them to carry out more independent attacks, most analysts assumed too quickly that Al Qaeda’s core was too eroded after 9/11 to pose a serious threat.

As Peter Bergen, Bruce Hoffman, and a select few other analysts have correctly noted, however, the 7/7 bombings and the August 2006 plots, in addition to other plots to hit targets in New York, New Jersey, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., have made it clear that the Al Qaeda core is back, and perhaps has never been gone in the first place.

The implication is that Al Qaeda’s most dangerous attribute may not be its hateful Salafi-Jihadist ideology or its ability to carry out mass casualty attacks, but its proven ability to first take a hit, and then adapt itself to persistent counterterrorism efforts. Like other formidable organizations, Al Qaeda is a learning entity—a conclusion that implies that unfortunately, there is no silver bullet solution to the Al Qaeda problem. What makes Al Qaeda special is its ability to learn and adapt far more quickly than other terrorist entities.

Thus, rather than a revolutionary change in the structure of Al Qaeda’s ruling elite, the leadership shift reported in today’s New York Times should be seen in the larger context of two mutually related issues that are vital for Al Qaeda’s ability to wage a protracted war against the ‘infidels’—its need to survive, and its need to adapt.

April 2, 2007 07:12 PM

=
<i>This bit of news makes "it a whole other ball game now!" The Israelis waited untill Saddam was at the point of "loading fuel rods" into his nuclear power station back in 1981; then they "Put the Nuclear Power station out of commission" ~ Dutch</i>



<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Iran Bushehr nuclear power plant ready, awaits Russian fuel</font>

Iran-Russia, Politics, 4/2/2007
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070402/2007040207.html </center>
The logistic units of Bushehr nuclear power plant including its pump house and 400-KW power station will be commissioned tomorrow in the presence of First Vice President Parviz Davoudi, Vice President and Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Reza Aqazadeh as well as his deputies.

The logistic units of the power plant were primarily expected to be commissioned on March 13, 2007, but it was postponed to April 3.</b>

Meanwhile, the fuel units of Bushehr nuclear power plant are also ready for operation.

Deputy Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) for international affairs, Mohammad Saeedi, had also declared earlier that the technical and legal grounds have been prepared for dispatch of fuel to Bushehr nuclear power station.

The Russian Atom Stroi Export Co. started the construction of Iran's first nuclear power plant in Bushehr in 1995.

Based on the fifth agreement signed by Iran and Russia on September 26, 2006, the Russian contractor accepted commitment to finalize the power plant project in September of 2007.

Though it also accepted to supply the required fuel six months prior to its commissioning, namely in March 2007, Atom Stroi Export Co. has not yet dispatched it.

The Russian company claimed towards the end of the past Iranian year (ended March 20) that it was unable to complete the project on schedule, given that Iran had not complied with its financial commitments on time.

In response to the Russian contractor, Iran dismissed such a claim and declared that it had fully fulfilled its commitments on schedule.

Following extensive talks between Iran and Russia on the issue, despite the developments taking place over the past weeks, the Russian side declared that Iran has resumed paying the relevant funds to the Russian contractor and is attempting to carry out its commitments.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Iranian official: plan by Israel to keep US forces in Iraq</font>

Regional-Iran-USA, Politics, 4/2/2007
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070402/2007040204.html </center>
Iran's Armed Forces Chief of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi said that the international Zionism and the Israeli government, being supported by American neoconservatists, are determined to implement a new plan in the center of Palestinian occupied territory.</b>

The remark was part of a speech delivered on Saturday at the Armed Forces General Headquarters. He added that such a plan will not be beneficial to any country and urged that the heads of the state and "Muslim brothers of Palestine's neighbors face the serious threat of the Zionists attacks."

"In the first place, neither Lebanon nor Syria, and not even Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be immune to the attacks of Zionists," he added.

Firouzabadi said that the plan, which is due to be implemented in the coming summer, aims to prevent withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and the region, given that in addition to exploitation of the regional oil reserves, the incentive for US presence in the Middle East is to support the Israeli Zionists.

He urged that agreement on a national coalition government should soon be reached in Lebanon among its leaders and domestic solidarity should be developed in the country to resist against such conspiracy.

Firouzabadi called on heads of state ofIsrael's neighboring countries to fortify their front in the face of Israel, "defend the oppressed Palestinian nation and take the necessary decisions to thwart the Zionist plan."

Meantime, Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps on Wednesday dismissed rumors that the US had staged wargames in the Persian Gulf. "Based on the IRGC observations in the region over recent days, the US forces have not staged any military exercise," said IRGC navy commander Rear Admiral Tangsiri while denying a US navy commander's claim that the US had launched an unusual and unprecedented wargame in Persian Gulf, involving 100 navy aircraft.
The US officials have also claimed that the US' "unusual" exercise over recent days involved two US aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Ahmadi-Nejad speaks of nuclear program success</font>

Iran-UN, Politics, 4/2/2007
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070402/2007040209.html </center>
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had said on Friday that Iran's nuclear standoff should be resolved through political means.

Speaking to reporters, he said "We always try to resolve Iran's nuclear standoff as well as other disputes through peaceful means." On probable US attacks on Iran, he said Russia does not believe in application of military forces in resolving Iran's nuclear issue.</b>

The Russian foreign minister had already expressed the hope that Iran would show a suitable reaction to UNSC 1747 resolution and the joint statement issued by the Group 5+1.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said on Thursday night that Iran is not considered as a nuclear threat to the world.

In an interview with Al-Arabia television network, he said the country poses no nuclear threats to any country around the globe.

Iran's problems should be resolved through comprehensive talks with all parties, he underlined.

Military conflict does not help resolve the issue, he said, adding that it only will lead to a regional catastrophe and will make the situation more complicated.

UNSC resolution only conveys a message that the international community is concerned about Iran's goals and calls for confidence building between the two sides, he said.

There is no doubt that the issue should be merely resolved through dialogue, he said. The international community should differentiate between technical duty of IAEA and political evaluations of UNSC, he pointed out.

"Although we declared that there is no evidence of existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq but they did not give us enough chance to accomplish our task and ignited the war," he said.

"On Iran's case, we hope that the international community will listen to our words and provide chances to help resolve the issue through dialogue," he said.

Meantime, an Iranian cabinet ratification on the Safeguards Agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was officially communicated to IAEA Director General Mohamed Elbaradei on Thursday.

Iran's envoy to the agency confirmed that he had submitted the letter to Elbaradei. After issuance of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1747 to impose new sanctions on Iran, the Iranian cabinet in a ratification restricted cooperation between Iran's Atomic Energy Organization and IAEA. According to the ratification, a safeguard agreement with IAEA to expand cooperation with the agency, approved on February 25 2003, was suspended.

During the UN vote on Iran, and perhaps in a surprise position, Indonesia voted to support the sanctions. However, a recent poll by Indonesian news agency Antara showed that 72 percent of Indonesian people are against the United Nations Resolution 1747 which escalated sanctions against Iran, polls said. The Indonesian political party, "al-Tahrir", criticized the government for casting such a vote for the anti-Iran resolution of the United Nations.

Despite the resolution, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Wednesday that Iran will not give up its legitimate nuclear right even one iota. "Iran's nuclear activities are fully clear and transparent and we will continue our activities until restoration of our nation's legitimate rights," said Mottaki in a meeting with Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani on the sidelines of the Arab summit in Saudi Arabia.

The United Nations Secretary General Ban ki Moon said on Thursday that Iran's rights to attain peaceful nuclear technology should be respected. Ban made the remarks in a meeting with Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki in Saudi Arabia on the sidelines of the a summit of Arab heads of states.

The UN top official noted that holding discussions and using political and diplomatic ways to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program are the best choices in this respect.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad yesterday renewed his former statement on success of the nuclear program and said the people will hear good news in this respect.

Iranian nuclear program is currently at Research and Development level to produce fuel for the power plants primary stage of which needs commissioning of at least 1,000 centrifuges.

Iran has planned to establish 20 nuclear power plants with total capacity of 20,000 megawatts by 2015 to meet the growing demand for electricity.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>US ready for direct Iran talks if enrichment stops: Rice</font>

Posted: 03 April 2007 0925 hrs
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/268159/1/.html </center>
WASHINGTON : US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday she was open to direct talks with Iran if it froze its sensitive uranium enrichment work.

"If Iran suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities and we go to six-party talks...you would never rule out that it might be useful at some point to have a bilateral encounter that moves forward those (talks)," Rice said.
</b>
"But what you don't want to do, I think, is make this US-Iranian negotiations over the Iranian nuclear weapon," she said.

Rice has previously said she was open to talks on Iran that would include major negotiators Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, but has until now excluded the possibility of bilateral talks with Iran.

The UN Security Council resolution has imposed sanctions on Iran for failing to suspends uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but also produces material for atomic bombs.

But Iran continues to defy the international community and has vowed to increase its enrichment capacity, arguing that its nuclear program is strictly for civilian energy purposes.

Iran also says it will not halt enrichment as a precondition to talks on its nuclear program.

The United States and Iran have had no diplomatic relations since Washington severed ties in 1980 in the wake of the seizure of its embassy in Tehran by Islamist students.

A rare meeting between representatives of Iran and the United States took place last month at conference of Iraq's neighbours in Baghdad, when US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad challenged his Iranian counterpart over Tehran's alleged interference in Iraq.

Tehran rejected accusations that it was supplying arms and other support to Iraqi insurgents, while Khalilzad described the exchange as not "substantive" and lasting only a few minutes.

A new Iraq conference on the ministerial level is being prepared - though no final date has been set - at which Rice could have the opportunity to speak with her Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki. - AFP/ch

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=511322007


TENS of thousands of people have fled Mogadishu amid the heaviest fighting seen in the Somali capital in 15 years of anarchy.

Families used a brief lull in the violence yesterday to pack their bags or bury relatives killed in four days of fierce street battles.

People used whatever transport they could find, travelling by donkey, car or cattle truck to escape the bloodshed, which human rights observers said had claimed the lives of 381 people with a further 565 wounded.

Ethiopian helicopters and tanks have been deployed against the insurgents, who comprise elements of the ousted Islamic Courts movement.

Yesterday, a Somali government minister warned families to leave their homes so forces could continue their offensive against "al-Qaeda elements" ahead of a reconciliation conference due to be held in two weeks time.

The UN refugee agency says 47,000 people, mainly women and children, have fled in the past ten days. Almost 100,000 have left since February.

Abdullahi Ali Hassan, director of the Centre for Development and Education, a Somali non-governmental organisation, said markets had closed, leaving families who had decided to tough it out without access to food or water.

"There are no safe places left in Mogadishu," he said. "People don't know where to go. Many are trying to find whatever shelter they can in the open because they have lost their homes."

On Friday, insurgents downed an Ethiopian helicopter gunship - a vivid reminder of Mogadishu's darkest days when militias shot down two American Black Hawks in 1993. Dead Ethiopian soldiers have also been dragged through the streets.

Somalia has been beset by violence since the overthrow of the dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. Clan-linked warlords carved the country into personal fiefdoms, making it all but impossible for any authority to take control.

That changed last year when militias linked to a network of Islamic Courts seized control of Mogadishu and a swath of southern and central Somalia. But they were ousted at the end of December by a whirlwind Ethiopian assault in support of an internationally recognised, but weak, government.

Michael Ranneberger, the US ambassador to Kenya, described the situation in Mogadishu as an "insecurity soup", with three elements to blame for the surge in violence: bandits, militias linked to warlords and the rump of the defeated Islamic Courts who are receiving support from al-Qaeda.

However, Mohamed Guyo, of the Institute for Security Studies in Nairobi, said a more widespread insurgency was growing along clan lines. "The Islamic Courts war machine is still intact, so the question is who else will be attracted to the conflict? Even now it is being driven by clan factors," he said.

He added that Mogadishu's population, drawn from the Hawiye clan, feared being sidelined by a president from the Darod clan, a long-standing enemy. "If things are quiet today then it is really the lull before the storm," said Mr Guyo.
CLAN SYSTEM AT CORE OF VIOLENCE

CLAN loyalty is a crucial factor in Somalia with the main struggle pitting the powerful Hawiye against all-comers.

The Hawiye and their 40-odd sub-clans are Mogadishu's dominant grouping. Along with the Darod, Rahanweyn and Dir they are one of the four main ethnic groups that make up the Somali population.

Many in Mogadishu watched in disgust as president Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, of the Darod clan, marched triumphantly into their city when the Union of Islamic Courts was ousted in December.

The Hawiye remember only too well how the last Darod president, Siad Barre, plundered their city until he was forced out by Mogadishu's militias in 1991.

Last updated: 03-Apr-07 01:02 BST

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=635&language_id=1


The latest crisis between Iran and the United Kingdom, which started when British sailors boarded an Indian-flagged commercial ship suspected of being involved in car smuggling in the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, shows no sign of abating. British sailors and marines, numbering 15, were seized by Iranian naval forces as they were conducting operations on the Indian ship; the Iranians claimed that the British sailors were in Iranian territorial waters, an assertion refuted by the British. The dispute sparked anti-British protests in Iran, raised Middle East tensions, which were already high over concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and sent shockwaves through the oil market. Iran is now planning to put the British military personnel on trial and has declared that legal proceedings against them have already commenced (although there is some confusion on this account).

Background to the Controversy

Shatt al-Arab is a 193-kilometer (120 miles) stretch of salt marsh at the head of the Persian Gulf that forms the boundary between Iran and Iraq. Iraq had ceded control over parts of the waterway to Iran in 1975, which it renounced in 1980 and declared Shatt al-Arab as part of Iraqi territory, leading to the eight year war between the two neighbors.

Since Iran and Iraq have never signed any agreement fixing the boundary at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the British statements of great certainty about their operations may be exaggerated. Yet the same logic dictates that the Iranian evidence showing the alleged British incursions with great precision is also problematic. The British Royal Navy is part of the coalition that is charged with the protection of Iraqi offshore oil infrastructure and the security of merchant vessels, as well as maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of Iraqi territorial waters under the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723.

The latest incident harks back to a similar incident in 2004 when Iran held eight British sailors captive for three days who were subjected to mock executions as well as paraded blindfolded and forced to apologize on television before their release. In 2004, Iran's president was Mohammed Khatami, considered a moderate and a pragmatist. With the current political dispensation in Tehran being led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the situation appears all the more ominous.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (I.R.G.C.), which is suspected of having conducted the operation against the British naval forces this time, has emerged as a central part of the Iranian regime in recent years under the direct control of Ayatollah Khamenei and is now widely considered to be Iran's main instrument in projecting power and influence across the Islamic world.

Britain swiftly reacted by making public previously secret navigational coordinates that seem to certify that the British vessel was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when it was apprehended. The initial longitude and latitude coordinates that the Iranian authorities provided supported the British contention that its naval personnel were indeed in Iraqi waters. When the Iranians were apprised of this, however, they provided a new set of coordinates that put the British team in Iranian waters.

The captain of the Indian ship that was being detained by the British military has also provided a statement that his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time it was stopped by the British forces. The Iraqi government has also supported the British position that the British sailors were in Iraqi waters and has called for their release.

Iran, on its part, is now claiming that the British military personnel entered its territorial waters six times before they were arrested and has suggested that it also has videotapes and documents to support its claims.

Britain, meanwhile, has gone ahead and frozen all bilateral business with Iran after Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that Britain's campaign to free hostages would move into a "different phase" if they were not released soon. The cessation of official business with Iran, however, is more symbolic than substantive as the British direct official bilateral ties with Iran were extremely limited to begin with. Iran has so far responded by displaying some British prisoners on state television, by making public several letters supposedly written by the sole female sailor to her family back in the United Kingdom in which she expressed remorse for having strayed into Iranian waters, and by broadcasting footage of a British marine seeming to apologize for straying into Iranian territory.

International Reaction

Meanwhile, global cracks have been visible as the U.N. Security Council was only able to express its grave concern over the incident and did not oblige Britain with the tough language that it had sought. Russia did not support the wording that implied that the British had been seized in Iraqi waters while serving under a United Nations mandate. Other members of the Security Council -- such as China, Congo, Indonesia, Qatar, and South Africa -- were also reluctant to blame Iran.

Therefore, the result was a non-binding statement calling for an early resolution of the crisis. Yet even this infuriated the Iranians who contended that Britain's decision to internationalize the crisis would only delay its resolution and decided to postpone the release of the female sailor that was promised a day before.

The European Union, on the other hand, has provided stronger backing to Britain than expected by expressing unconditional support for the United Kingdom's position. The significance of this support in concrete terms, however, remains an open question. After keeping quiet for a few days, presumably not to add fuel to the fire, U.S. President George W. Bush finally came out strongly in support of the United Kingdom and demanded the immediate release of the sailors.

Tensions Increase

The timing of Iran's act, on the eve of a Security Council resolution against its nuclear program, suggests that it may have been an attempt to distract the international community. Some have suggested that Iran's strategic objective may be to isolate the United States in the region by forcing the British to get out of Iraq.

There is some speculation that the British sailors may have been seized as bargaining chips to press for the release of Iranians held by U.S. forces in Iraq. Earlier this year, the U.S. military had arrested six officers, allegedly of the I.R.G.C., in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil, five of whom are still detained. Iran also suspects that one of its senior intelligence officers has defected to the United States. Washington and London have made it very clear that such an exchange remains out of the question as the Iranian forces that were inside Iraq were breaching the U.N. mandate and undermining the democratically elected government of Iraq. Britain, so far, has also refused to admit, as suggested by Iran, that its naval forces had strayed into Iranian waters by accident.

Tensions, however, are rising on all sides. The British government is coming under attack for what is being perceived as its weak response. The Times of London reflected a growing view in the country when it editorialized condemning "the pusillanimous timidity of British officials and politicians, who have failed disgracefully to confront Iran with the ultimatum this flagrant aggression demands." There is a growing revulsion and disgust at the way the British sailors are being seen to be exploited by the Iranian regime for propaganda purposes.

At its core, this is a political, not a territorial, dispute and the 15 British military personnel are just pawns in a much bigger strategic game between Iran and the West over the future of the Middle East. This standoff comes just days after the U.N. Security Council had unanimously voted to impose tougher sanctions against Iran because of its defiance on the nuclear issue and after U.S. warships were deployed in the Persian Gulf for their biggest naval exercises there since the invasion of Iraq four years ago.

As Iran has become more confrontational in recent months, there is growing nervousness among the Gulf States, and speculation has increased about a potential war between the United States and Iran. The U.S. naval exercises are as much about sending a message to Iran that despite Iraq and Afghanistan Washington is fully capable of responding to other threats, as it is about reassuring its nervous allies in the region.

Yet Iran is also upping the ante. The Iranian navy is conducting its own war games and is reportedly using "rocket-launching ships, heavy warships, and logistic ships, as well as surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles" along with electronic warfare and simulations of "attacking surface and sub-surface targets" in the northern and middle Gulf. There is growing concern about the beefing up of naval forces by the Iranians in the Gulf. There was an incident a few weeks back when the Saudis discovered an Iranian submarine near the coastal city of Jubail. The latest capture of British sailors only underscores the rising tensions between Iran and the West.

While the British government has come under attack domestically for not being tough enough against Iranian intransigence, there is a danger that the escalation ladder that it is trying to climb by trying to ratchet up pressure might backfire if Iranians decide to dig in their heels. It is clear that the West can only escalate it up to a point, since the West holds very few cards that it can play against Iran in the present strategic context.

For Tehran, it is an ideal time to take on the West as the United States and the United Kingdom seem bogged down in Iraq with the U.S. public losing interest in costly military interventions. Iran also realizes that it enjoys great leverage in the political and security environment in Iraq and has the capability to intensify its sabotage activities there. The global situation is also working in Iran's favor. The credibility of the United States and the United Kingdom is at an all time low in the comity of states as a result of the Iraq crisis. Few states will be willing to place their bets on their pronouncements even if they are accompanied by evidence.

Meanwhile, Iran's standing in the Islamic world seems to be at an all time high, especially after the perceived victory of Hezbollah over the more powerful Israeli military. Iran is today exerting power and influence in the strategic vacuum created by the overthrow of its foes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite suggestions in some quarters that a military confrontation is inevitable, even some neo-conservatives now concede that military options against Iran are unworkable and might even be counter-productive.

For some, Iran's latest act is reminiscent of Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers last year and one of the lessons of the Lebanon war was that Iran, if only through proxies, was capable of causing serious damage. A military attack might also serve to increase domestic nationalistic sentiment and unifying diverse forces in Iran against the United States, thereby strengthening the hand of Ahmadinejad who has been under some pressure domestically for poor economic performance. A military action might serve to postpone, rather than eradicate, Iran's perceived nuclear ambitions.

Yet the limits of diplomacy are also clear for all to see as so far it has failed on producing any significant change in Iran's behavior. The Security Council has so far passed several resolutions against Iran's nuclear program and has tightened sanctions against the regime, garnering support not only from the West but also from states seen as sympathetic to Iran, yet the Iranian work on uranium enrichment has continued unabated. Furthermore, the more Iran is threatened by the outside world, the more its stature in the Islamic world grows as a "crusader" against "Western imperialism."

Conclusion

The present crisis between the United Kingdom and Iran may finish soon once the Iranians have squeezed whatever propaganda benefit they can from the squabble. Diplomatic contacts between the two sides are already underway and may yield some result once a face-saving formula is found for both sides.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that tensions between Iran and the West will cease anytime soon. The present crisis is just one of the manifestations of the changing balance of power in the Middle East wherein Iran is emerging as the main power in the region. Its leaders know this and they are exploiting the present strategic environment to their advantage.

For the West, the unfortunate reality is, be it diplomacy, bilateral or multilateral, or the threat of force, there are no good options left. While some creative thinking may help, Western policy toward Iran in the coming days and weeks will be about choosing an option that minimizes damage as much as possible.

Report Drafted By:
Dr. Harsh V. Pant

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of enquiries@pinr.com. PINR reprints do not qualify under Fair-Use Statute Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All comments should be directed to comments@pinr.com.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>Iranian Gambit May Force US into a Move</font>

April 03, 2007
The Times
Gerard Baker
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article1604923.ece </center>
Since they invented the game we now call chess, Iranians are generally deemed by outsiders to be unusually well equipped at dealing with situations that require complex mental gymnastics. The ability to see several moves ahead of your opponent is key to winning at chess, and Iranian political thinkers are believed to be fiendishly clever at outmanoeuvring their enemies on the chequered board of geopolitics. </b>

Applying this thinking to current events, some observers think that Iran is in the middle of a cleverly executed gambit. The seizure of the 15 British hostages by Iran looks to them like some brilliant move designed to block British and US attempts to prevent the Iranians achieving nuclear weapons status.

Count me sceptical. Empirical evidence about his behaviour inclines me more to the Ahmadinejad-is-an-absolute-madman school of thought than the idea that we are in the early stages of some brilliant geopolitical execution of the Sicilian Defence. But I could be wrong.

Intentional or otherwise, however, this engineered crisis has had one impact that must leave the Iranians feeling quite pleased with themselves. By raising fears of shortages in oil supply from the Gulf, it has led to a sharp spike in prices. And here Iran’s sense of timing at least seems impeccable. Crude prices had been rising for more than a month before these latest developments.

A number of factors — especially the belated arrival of winter in the United States and Western Europe and miscellaneous refining problems — have pushed prices higher since late January. Spot crude prices were up by more than 15 per cent in the six weeks to mid-March; the British hostage crisis has added another 5 per cent to that in just a week.

The timing is exquisite from another point of view — the potential impact of higher oil costs on the US economy. Financial markets are now frail with fear that America is at an inflexion point that could herald a recession. The first quarter was bumpy enough as it was, what with volatile equity prices and nervousness about the health of some parts of the financial system, without another bout of concerns about energy prices.

But since late January, wholesale prices are almost 50 per cent higher than they were eight weeks ago and retail petrol prices are up by 25 per cent. The Iranians may or may not succeed in frustrating their potential enemies in the Middle East, but how sweet would it be if they could undermine the US economy and, at least for a while, pocket a few million extra from higher oil prices in the meantime?

Of course, much sharper increases in energy prices last year did not derail the US economy and nor should this sudden rise — especially if it proves temporary, as most analysts think it will. Yet there is a broader question about whether the US is now in a much more vulnerable condition than it was when crude prices were more than $70 a barrel late last summer.

The economic outlook has clearly deteriorated in the past few weeks. Although it was clumsily handled, the Federal Reserve’s recalibration of the risks it sees facing the economy at its last open market committee meeting two weeks ago demonstrated that policymakers are more concerned than they have been for a long time about the risk of recession. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed, explained in better detail what the central bank was trying to do when he testified before Congress. Although the FOMC’s members remain of the view that the risks are weighted still towards higher inflation than recession, he said, they acknowledge that risks of economic weakness are greater than they were.

The challenge for the Fed, leaving aside the issue of a rate of inflation that is persistently and irritatingly higher than it would like, is that the signals from the US economy are especially mixed at present. On the one hand the housing market’s weakness is persisting longer than the Fed had hoped. The problems in the sub-prime mortgage market may not spread, as feared, to the broader market, but they do not have to. February was another weak month for housing in general, with new home sales at their lowest level since 2000.

More worrying, perhaps, because it suggests a degree of caution among companies in the broader economy, is the weakness in capital spending. Non defence-related capital goods spending in January and February was 9 per cent below the monthly average in the final quarter of 2006. On the other hand, the consumer, as he has done pretty consistently for the past 15 years, continues to spend with steady abandon, despite probable declines in the first quarter in both his housing and equity market wealth.

The key to determining which of these positive and negative forces prevails in the US economy is employment. Consumers remain buoyant because job growth has been solid for the past year and wages have been edging up. Corporate profits, which reached record levels as a share of GDP at the end of last year, may be starting to edge down now. The big uncertainty is whether companies will respond by continuing to trim investment or whether they might start taking a harder look at payrolls. On Friday — Good Friday of all days — we should get a clearer sense of where this is headed, with the publication of the employment report for March. If jobs still look plentiful and wage growth still seems solid, fears about recession will ebb.

Yet if the data show the labour market softening at last, then expect something of a full-scale panic to break out in financial markets. The demand for American workers, rather than the designs of Iranian mullahs or the incarceration of British sailors will matter most in what happens next in the US economy. gerard.baker@thetimes.co.uk

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Islamic Fighters Heading to Iranian Training Camps</font>

April 03, 2007
DEBKAfile
DEBKAfile Exclusive

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Damascus airport has become the hub for thousands of Hizballah, Hamas, Jihad Islami fighters heading out to Iranian training camps

April 2, 2007, 6:05 PM (GMT+02:00)


Vital link between terrorist recruits and Tehran


http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4006 </center>
According to DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources, in the last several weeks, Damascus international airport main has become the main transport hub for a stream of Lebanese and Palestinian terrorists heading for Revolutionary Guards installations in Iran. </b>

Hence Israel military intelligence chief’s pessimistic briefing to the Israeli cabinet Sunday, April 1. Damascus airport is also the transit point for returning terrorists to gather and pick up their assignment for various Middle East countries, as well as Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Syrian military intelligence and Iranian RG officers have set up a joint depot at the Syrian airport for directing the incoming and outgoing traffic - much of it ferried by Syrian Airways.

A high-ranking Western intelligence source in the Middle East told DEBKAfile that the number of such terrorist-trainees commuting between Damascus and Tehran has grown to more than three times the volume of Muslim and al Qaeda fighters heading out from Syria into Iraq. This source calculates Iran is running a crash program to prepare an army of trained terrorist strength to retaliate for a potential US attack on its nuclear installations. That will be the signal for these men to ignite a regional war of terror across Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and out to Sinai and Egypt.

Four Iranian command centers have been set up at home, in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, to coordinate the movements of fighting men and the arms consignments that are being shipped through marine smuggling routes to their various destinations.

According to our intelligence and military sources, new training methods are employed for the new intake of terrorists. They are no longer being trained at special facilities provided for them at the camps run by the Al Quds Brigades, the RGs international branch. From the beginning of 2007, they have been integrated in regular RG training facilities and are taking basic training along with Iranian recruits in line with a revised Iranian military doctrine. The entire Middle East is deemed henceforth a single integrated line designed to defend the ayatollahs’ regime in Tehran in case of American attack. This line will be manned entirely by units which underwent training in the same combat tactics and operate the same weapons systems and communications.

Syria’s high command and military intelligence are pivotal to the construction, administration and control of this new fighting-terrorist machine. The personal say-so of president Bashar Assad would have been necessary for this project. Damascus airport facilities are a pivotal link in the mechanism wiring Tehran to the terrorist groups and transporting them from training centers to operating bases ready to fight for the Islamic Republic. Without Damascus’ aid, the operation would have taken much longer.

Israel’s AMAN chief, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin views this burgeoning war-***-terror machine as a dangerous element that could tip the region over into a full-blown conflict without prior warning. No one outside Iran, even seasoned military intelligence observers, can know for certain when, why or for which location, some high-up in the wildly-radical Revolutionary Guards will decide to push the button to activate it.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Blair Warns Iran Tough Decisions Loom Over Captive Crisis</font>

April 03, 2007
Agence France Presse
Yahoo News!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070403/wl_uk_afp/iranbritainmilitary;_ylt=A0WTUf3HRxJGtmQBjA9vaA8F </center>
Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Iran on Tuesday that his government would have to take increasingly tough decisions if 15 captive sailors are not quickly released.

Blair also said the next 48 hours could be crucial in the 12 day old crisis, which Iran's Vice President Parviz Davoudi said could be resolved if Britain admitted the naval personnel had illegally entered Iranian waters. </b>

The prime minister said Britain has had "two very clear tracks" throughout the 12-day crisis, which has further strained relations between Iran and the West.

"One is to try and settle this by way of peaceful, calm negotiation, get our people back as quickly as possible ... The other is to make it clear that if that's not possible, then we have to take increasingly tougher decisions."

In Tehran, senior officials appeared to be taking a more conciliatory tone over the 14 men and one woman who were seized in the northern Gulf on March 23 accused of trespassing into Iranian waters.

"London has changed its attitude for several days now and is acting on the basis of negotiations," Vice President Davoudi told reporters in the southern city of Bushehr where he was opening a new installation at Iran's first nuclear power station.

"London must give guarantees and say that there was a violation and there will be no other errors in the future. I think that the problem heading in this direction and God willing will be resolved soon."

Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani also said new talks had started with Britain for resolving the crisis, which he described as the first step towards finding a solution.

"The British government has started diplomatic discussions with the foreign ministry to resolve the issue of the British military personnel," Larijani told state television's central news agency.

"It is at the beginning of the path. If they continue on this path then logically conditions can change and we can go towards ending this issue."

Larijani also gave a rare interview to British television in an apparent attempt to cool the boiling controversy over the capture of the 15 marines and sailors.

He told Britain's Channel Four television there was "no need" to put the group on trial, describing the stand-off as "quite resolvable."

"I've read the transcripts of the interview (Larijani) gave and that seems to offer some prospect but the most important thing is to get these people back," Blair responded.

Britain, which unlike its ally the United States has diplomatic relations with Iran, has kept up bilateral contacts throughout the crisis and ambassador Geoffrey Adams was to meet foreign ministry officials later Tuesday.

London maintains the group was carrying out routine anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi waters. Iran says that their Global Positioning System (GPS) devices show they intruded into its waters. Britain says their GPS information shows the crew were in Iraqi waters.

The crisis has come at a perilous time for Iran's relations with the West, with the United States refusing to rule out military action over the Iranian nuclear programme and the United Nations imposing tough new sanctions.

The atmosphere had also been soured by Iran's broadcast of televised "confessions" of the sailors admitting that they crossed into Iranian waters which have infuriated London.

However, in a possible sign of rapprochement, Iran refrained from broadcasting the sound on more images of the sailors that were shown on state television on Monday.

State television said all 15 sailors had given "frank confessions," and admitted to illegally entering its waters.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been scheduled to give a keenly anticipated news conference on Tuesday but this has been postponed "at the request of journalists," an official said.

In one of the first press comments on the crisis after the Iranian New Year, the reformist Etemad Melli daily accused Britain of deliberately intruding on Iranian waters.

"London's insistence on repeating such violations shows this country was prepared to pay the price -- which is the detention of its forces -- for carrying out this pre-meditated scenario."

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Next 48 hours will be critical, says Blair</font>

April 4, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ne...ical-says-blair/2007/04/03/1175366240235.html </center>
AdvertisementLONDON: The next two days will be crucial to resolving the dispute over a navy crew held by Iran, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has said, after Iran's chief international negotiator offered a new approach to end the stand-off with Tehran.</b>

Ali Larijani's suggestion of talks offered the hope of an end to the crisis, Mr Blair told Scotland's Real Radio yesterday. "If they want to resolve this in a diplomatic way the door is open," Mr Blair said. "The next 48 hours will be fairly critical."

But if negotiations to win the quick release of the 15 sailors and marines stalled, Britain would "take an increasingly tougher position," he said.

The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will also discuss the crisis today state television said, after his planned news conference was postponed by 24 hours "based on journalists' request", the Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry said.

Mr Larijani, the chief of the Iranian National Security Council, said on Monday that Iran sought "to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels" and proposed having a delegation determine whether British forces had strayed into Iranian territory in the Persian Gulf. He did not say what sort of delegation he had in mind.

Mr Blair told reporters in Scotland he hoped the Iranian Government realised "the best way to deal with this is in a diplomatic way, in order to get those people released".

Britain had two options in its approaches with Tehran, he said, "one is to try settle this by way of peaceful and calm negotiation to get our people back as quickly as possible. The other is to make it clear that if that is not possible that we have to take an increasingly tougher position."

Mr Larijani said in an interview with Britain's Channel 4 News that Iranian officials "definitely believe that this issue can be resolved and there is no need for any trial".

"Our priority is to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels. We are not interested in having this issue get further complicated," he said.

An Iraqi foreign ministry official meanwhile said yesterday that the Government was "intensively" seeking the release of five Iranians detained by the US military more than two months ago in northern Iraq.

"This will be a factor that will help in the release of the British sailors and marines" held by Iran, the official said.

The US military has said the five Iranians, who were arrested on January 11 in the northern city of Irbil, were part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard force that provides funds, weapons and training to Shiite militias in Iraq.

Iran had insisted that the five were engaged exclusively in consular work.

Associated Press, Reuters; Telegraph, London

Never mind, someone jsut started a thread about it here on main.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Iran Opens 2 Plants at Bushehr Nuclear Reactor</font>

Tuesday, April 03, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263600,00.html </center>
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran inaugurated two minor plants at its Bushehr nuclear reactor on Tuesday, showing it is determined to get the power plant running despite a delay caused by a dispute with Russia.</b>

The official Islamic Republic News Agency reported that First Vice President Parviz Davoodi performed the ceremonial launch of a 400-kilowatt power station at Bushehr and a water purification and cooling system.

"This indicates our determination to build and improve power plants," the report quoted Davoodi as saying. "The plant enjoys high-standard safety measures and is ready to receive fuel."

Iran's first nuclear power plant, Bushehr was due to come on stream in September, but early last month Russia announced that the final elements of its construction was being delayed because Iran had fallen behind on payment. Russia also said the shipment of enriched uranium fuel for the plant would be delayed by at least two months.

Iran denied it had failed to pay Russia, saying it has paid even more than was due, and accused Moscow of politicizing the issue.

Later last month, Russia joined the West in voting at the U.N. Security Council to expand sanctions on Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

"There is no doubt that Bushehr nuclear power plant has been politicized," the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, told the news agency Tuesday. "A political debate has postponed the move toward operating the plant."

However, Aghazadeh said he believed the issue would be resolved.

"Russia has some limitations, but it cannot continue to postpone the matter forever. Iran is a good market for Russia, and the Russians do not want to lose it."

The United States and some of its allies fear that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program under cover of its civilian nuclear program.

Iran denies this, insisting that its program is entirely devoted to the peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy.

=




<B><center>Apr 3 2007 5:37PM

<font size=+1 color=purple>Military actions near Russian borders, including against Iran, unacceptable - ministry</font>

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11705708 </center>
MOSCOW. April 3 (Interfax) </b>- Russian First Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov said that Russia is "very negative" over plans to hold a military operation against Iran.

"Any military action near Russia's borders is unacceptable. We view this negatively and we will do everything to prevent this," the diplomat said at a press conference on Tuesday in Moscow.

=





<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>U.S. could strike Iran but not win: Russian general</font>

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3003599 </center>
Apr 3, 2007 — MOSCOW (Reuters) - The United States cannot inflict a military defeat on Iran and any attack would be a huge political mistake, Russia's top general said on Tuesday.

"It is possible to damage Iran's military and industrial potential, but it is impossible to win," Russian news agencies quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky, head of the Russian general staff, as saying. </b>

"The United States has a contingent in the region capable of launching a strike on Iranian territory.

"However, such possible strikes would be a huge political mistake. Shockwaves from this attack could be felt around the world."

Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of wanting to build nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies. Tensions have been further aggravated by Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines in the northern Gulf on March 23.

Russia sells weapons to the Iranian military and is helping Tehran build a nuclear power station on the Gulf although work there is on hold over a payment dispute.

Russian media late last month quoted unnamed sources in Russian military intelligence as saying the United States could launch a strike on Iran as early as April 6.

RIA news agency quoted a Russian security source as saying Moscow has military intelligence reports that the U.S. has already approved a list of Iranian targets for bomb and missile strikes. The source said a land operation could follow.

U.S. President George W. Bush has said he will pursue diplomatic means to persuade Iran to drop its uranium enrichment plan but he has refused to rule out the use of force.

Baluyevsky said military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan showed the United States would face a fiasco if it took on Iran as well.

"The Americans must think twice (about attacking Iran)," he said. "They have already got stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq."

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>U.S. could strike Iran but not win-Russian general </font>

REUTERS
1:38 a.m. April 3, 2007
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070403-0138-iran-usa-russia.html </center>
MOSCOW – The United States could not defeat Iran although its military forces in the Gulf are capable of striking the Islamic republic, Russia's top general told local media on Tuesday. </b>

'It is possible to damage Iran's military and industrial potential, but it is impossible to win,' Interfax news agency quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky, head of the Russian general staff, as saying.

'However, such possible strikes (on Iran) would be a huge political mistake,' he said.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Russia anxious about military action against Iran near its border</font>

18:25 | 03/ 04/ 2007
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070403/63027715.html </center>
MOSCOW, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is concerned about a possible attack on Iran and insists that military action near its border is totally unacceptable, the first deputy foreign minister said Tuesday. </b>

Russia, which is separated from Iran in the south by three tiny South Caucasus nations and shares a sea border with the Islamic Republic, has been actively promoting a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue.

"Any military action near our border is totally unacceptable," Andrei Denisov said. "We are strongly against it and we are doing our best to prevent it from happening."

Media reports in late March said Washington was preparing to strike at Iran in early April but Denisov denied the information.

"Our partners say movement of military structures in the Persian Gulf is part of a planned rotation," the diplomat said.

Yury Baluyevsky, the head of the Russian General Staff, warned Washington earlier Tuesday that it should think twice before launching a military campaign against Tehran as it would have global implications.

"Our strategic partners have already got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.

The U.S. Administration sees Iran as a "rogue state" and is determined to stop the Islamic Republic, diplomatically or otherwise, from obtaining nuclear weapons. Washington now plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe allegedly to protect itself from potential missile strikes from Iran or North Korea.

The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran March 24 toughening economic sanctions against the country suspected of a covert nuclear program. Russia, which is building a $1-billion nuclear power plant in Iran, has resisted any strict sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

=
<i>I have taken the priviledge of ENLARGING the article's title - IMO, it is important for us to *see* the Arab Minds' take on the Speaker of the Huse' defying POTUS and going to Syria! *Not good* - us giving the arabs an impression that we are a "house devided" with respect to our policy on the Middle East (and State terror sponcers) ~ Dutchman</i>




<B><font size=+3 color=red><center>Bush rival breaks Syria boycott</font>

April 03 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6522743.stm </center>
Ms Pelosi has already visited Israel, the West Bank and Lebanon
US House speaker Nancy Pelosi has arrived in the Syrian capital for a visit which the White House has criticised as undermining US policy.

She was received in Damascus by Foreign Minister Walid Muallim and is expected to meet President Bashar al-Assad. </b>

The top Democrat brushed off criticism, saying dialogue with Syria was key to solving the Iraq and Lebanon crises.

The Republican Bush administration has boycotted Syria since the 2005 murder of Lebanon's former PM Rafik Hariri.

Ms Pelosi is reported to be the highest-ranking US politician to visit Syria since bilateral relations deteriorated in 2003, when the US invaded neighbouring Iraq.

'Wrong message'

Syrian state media have hailed the visit as "positive", with the Syria Times describing Ms Pelosi as a "brave lady".

"American legislators, Democrats as well as Republicans, are aware that US policy in the region, especially the war in Iraq and its ties with Syria, is a fiasco that must be repaired," said Tishrin.

"(Syria) is ready for serious and sincere dialogue with the US officials," it added, saying it saw "great hopes of a rebalancing of US policy in the region".

A UN investigation has implicated Syrian officials in the killing of Mr Hariri, despite a strong denial from Damascus.

The White House said Ms Pelosi's visit "sends the wrong message... that Assad then exploits".

Ms Pelosi has already held talks in Israel, and correspondents say she is expected to transmit Israel's views on the long-stalled Syria-Israel peace track.

Syria demands the return of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel in 1967.

Bump

=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Bush Says 'No Quid Pro Quos' with Iran over British Hostages</font>

April 03, 2007
AFX News
Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/04/03/afx3578347.html </center>
WASHINGTON -- President George Bush said there should be 'no quid pro quos' with Iran in Britain's standoff with Iran over 15 captive sailors. Asked if five Iranians held in Iraq should be released to favor a possible release of the Britons, Bush said: 'I also strongly support the prime minister's (Tony Blair's) declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages.' </b>

Blair earlier said the standoff with Iran over the captive sailors was in a 'critical' phase, after a top Tehran official said new contacts could help end the crisis.

But Blair also warned that he may be forced to take 'tougher decisions' if the naval personnel are not freed, while Iran's vice-president reiterated that London must admit they were in Iranian territorial waters when seized.

=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Iranian Gambit May Force US into a Move</font>

April 03, 2007
The Times
Gerard Baker
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article1604923.ece </center>
Since they invented the game we now call chess, Iranians are generally deemed by outsiders to be unusually well equipped at dealing with situations that require complex mental gymnastics. The ability to see several moves ahead of your opponent is key to winning at chess, and Iranian political thinkers are believed to be fiendishly clever at outmanoeuvring their enemies on the chequered board of geopolitics. </b>

Applying this thinking to current events, some observers think that Iran is in the middle of a cleverly executed gambit. The seizure of the 15 British hostages by Iran looks to them like some brilliant move designed to block British and US attempts to prevent the Iranians achieving nuclear weapons status.

Count me sceptical. Empirical evidence about his behaviour inclines me more to the Ahmadinejad-is-an-absolute-madman school of thought than the idea that we are in the early stages of some brilliant geopolitical execution of the Sicilian Defence. But I could be wrong.

Intentional or otherwise, however, this engineered crisis has had one impact that must leave the Iranians feeling quite pleased with themselves. By raising fears of shortages in oil supply from the Gulf, it has led to a sharp spike in prices. And here Iran’s sense of timing at least seems impeccable. Crude prices had been rising for more than a month before these latest developments.

A number of factors — especially the belated arrival of winter in the United States and Western Europe and miscellaneous refining problems — have pushed prices higher since late January. Spot crude prices were up by more than 15 per cent in the six weeks to mid-March; the British hostage crisis has added another 5 per cent to that in just a week.

The timing is exquisite from another point of view — the potential impact of higher oil costs on the US economy. Financial markets are now frail with fear that America is at an inflexion point that could herald a recession. The first quarter was bumpy enough as it was, what with volatile equity prices and nervousness about the health of some parts of the financial system, without another bout of concerns about energy prices.

But since late January, wholesale prices are almost 50 per cent higher than they were eight weeks ago and retail petrol prices are up by 25 per cent. The Iranians may or may not succeed in frustrating their potential enemies in the Middle East, but how sweet would it be if they could undermine the US economy and, at least for a while, pocket a few million extra from higher oil prices in the meantime?

Of course, much sharper increases in energy prices last year did not derail the US economy and nor should this sudden rise — especially if it proves temporary, as most analysts think it will. Yet there is a broader question about whether the US is now in a much more vulnerable condition than it was when crude prices were more than $70 a barrel late last summer.

The economic outlook has clearly deteriorated in the past few weeks. Although it was clumsily handled, the Federal Reserve’s recalibration of the risks it sees facing the economy at its last open market committee meeting two weeks ago demonstrated that policymakers are more concerned than they have been for a long time about the risk of recession. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed, explained in better detail what the central bank was trying to do when he testified before Congress. Although the FOMC’s members remain of the view that the risks are weighted still towards higher inflation than recession, he said, they acknowledge that risks of economic weakness are greater than they were.

The challenge for the Fed, leaving aside the issue of a rate of inflation that is persistently and irritatingly higher than it would like, is that the signals from the US economy are especially mixed at present. On the one hand the housing market’s weakness is persisting longer than the Fed had hoped. The problems in the sub-prime mortgage market may not spread, as feared, to the broader market, but they do not have to. February was another weak month for housing in general, with new home sales at their lowest level since 2000.

More worrying, perhaps, because it suggests a degree of caution among companies in the broader economy, is the weakness in capital spending. Non defence-related capital goods spending in January and February was 9 per cent below the monthly average in the final quarter of 2006. On the other hand, the consumer, as he has done pretty consistently for the past 15 years, continues to spend with steady abandon, despite probable declines in the first quarter in both his housing and equity market wealth.

The key to determining which of these positive and negative forces prevails in the US economy is employment. Consumers remain buoyant because job growth has been solid for the past year and wages have been edging up. Corporate profits, which reached record levels as a share of GDP at the end of last year, may be starting to edge down now. The big uncertainty is whether companies will respond by continuing to trim investment or whether they might start taking a harder look at payrolls. On Friday — Good Friday of all days — we should get a clearer sense of where this is headed, with the publication of the employment report for March. If jobs still look plentiful and wage growth still seems solid, fears about recession will ebb.

Yet if the data show the labour market softening at last, then expect something of a full-scale panic to break out in financial markets. The demand for American workers, rather than the designs of Iranian mullahs or the incarceration of British sailors will matter most in what happens next in the US economy. gerard.baker@thetimes.co.uk

=




<B><center>US Defense Asia

-------------------------------------------------------

<font size=+1 color=green>'US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday'</font>
Posted: 2007/04/03
From: Source
http://mathaba.net/rss/?x=552546 </center>
The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month - perhaps ''from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6''


Staff (AP)
The Jerusalem Post

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.</b>

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."

The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as "myths." There was no immediate response from Washington.

The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."

"I warn the dear leaders and Muslim brothers in the neighboring countries of the occupied territories that this suicidal attack of the Zionists is threatening them," he said.

The countries in danger, he said, were "Lebanon and Syria, and later Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."

Also on Saturday, Russia urged Britain and Teheran to resolve the dispute over 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran last week, a local news agency reported.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin urged the two sides to provide the United Nations with their own assessments as to what happened and where exactly the detention occurred so that the body could conduct an independent probe.

"We hope these actions will provide a foundation for the soonest possible resolution of the crisis," Kamynin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that the captured British sailors and marines trespassed in Iranian waters and called world powers "arrogant" for failing to apologize, the country's official news agency reported.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk.

The European Union grappled with a double bind over Iran Saturday - the country's nuclear program and its seizure of the British troops - and reported no progress on either issue.

A debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions had been scheduled as a key agenda item but "was overshadowed to a certain extent by the issue of the sailors and marines," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after hosting a two-day EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany.

The Foreign Ministry in Iran dismissed the EU's "biased and meddlesome" comments on the captured troops, saying the dispute solely involved the governments of Iran and Britain.

Speaking to reporters in Bremen, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged Iran to resolve the crisis over the military personnel peacefully, saying London remains open to dialogue.

"We encourage Iran to peacefully resolve this issue," she said.

"We continue to express our willingness to engage in dialogue and discussions with Iran," she added. "That is very much in the best interest of our people and that is our foremost concern."

"I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," she said. "What we want is a way out of it."

AP contributed to this report.

I think Iran wants a war, maybe its time they got one. Look on the brite side When there infrastructure is demolished they don't need electricity or gas to play chess.

=



<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Britain cautious over 'swift resolution' with Iran</font>

3 April 2007 | 20:51
FOCUS News Agency
http://www.focus-fen.net/?id=n109364 </center>
London.</b> British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged caution Tuesday over hopes of a "swift resolution" to the crisis involving 15 naval personnel captured by Iran, AFP reports.

"I would urge you to be cautious in assuming that we are likely to see a swift resolution to this issue," she told reporters. "We are not seeking confrontation. We are seeking to pursue this through diplomatic channels."

=




<B><font size=+1 color=purple><center>No deal on British sailor swap, says Bush</font>

From correspondents in Washington
April 04, 2007 03:40am
Article from: Reuters
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21502309-38198,00.html </center>
US President George W. Bush said his administration was consulting with Britain on Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines but that there would be no swap of the Britons for Iranians held in Iraq.

The Iraqi Government is trying to secure the release of five Iranians detained by US forces in northern Iraq in January, as the British Government seeks freedom for the British military personnel seized by Iran on March 20 on charges of being in Iranian waters.</b>

Britain insists the sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters on a routine UN mission and Mr Bush said he supports Britain's effort to resolve the situation peacefully.

“The seizure of the sailors is indefensible by the Iranians,” Mr Bush said.

“I support the Blair Government's attempts to solve this issue peacefully so we're in close consultation with the British Government.

“I also strongly support the prime minister's declaration that there should be no quid pro quos when it comes to the hostages,” Mr Bush said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment on the release of an Iranian diplomat who had been kidnapped in Iraq in February. He said the United States had nothing to do with the Iranian's seizure, detention or release.

Mr McCormack declined to comment on the status of the five Iranians held by US forces in Iraq. Washington says they were detained because they were providing improvised explosives to Iraqi militants for use against US troops and Iraqis.

Asked about reports that Iraq was pushing for the United States to release the five Iranians in Baghdad in the hope of encouraging Iran to free the 15 British sailors and Marines held by Iran, Mr McCormack said the cases were not linked.

“We reject out of hand any attempt to link the two,” he said.

“To do so only creates a set of incentives that would encourage more such behaviour either by the Iranian government or others in unjustly seizing individuals.”

I find it interesting that some are reporting that the US will attack Iran on Good Friday and then this announcement from Blair:

Blair Says Next 2 Days 'Fairly Critical' to Resolving Dispute Over Seized British SailorsBy DAVID STRINGER
The Associated Press
LONDON - The next two days are "fairly critical" to resolving the dispute over a seized British navy crew, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday, after Iran's chief international negotiator offered a new approach to end the standoff with Tehran.

Blair told Scotland's Real Radio that Ali Larijani's suggestion of talks offered hope of an end to the crisis. "If they want to resolve this in a diplomatic way the door is open," the prime minister said.

But if negotiations to win the quick release of the 15 sailors and marines stalled, Britain would "take an increasingly tougher position," he said.

The navy crew was detained March 23 by naval units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards while the Britons patrolled for smugglers near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway that long has been a disputed dividing line between Iraq and Iran.

Iran says the team was in Iranian waters. Britain insists it was in Iraqi waters working under a U.N. mandate.

Iran has previously demanded an apology from Britain as a condition for the sailors' release.

Blair said Tuesday that Britain had two options in its approaches with Tehran.
"One is to try settle this by way of peaceful and calm negotiation to get our people back as quickly as possible," he said. "The other is to make it clear that if that is not possible that we have to take an increasingly tougher position."

On Monday, Larijani said that Iran sought "to solve the problem through proper diplomatic channels" and proposed having a delegation determine whether British forces had strayed into Iranian territory in the Persian Gulf. He did not say what sort of delegation he had in mind.

Larijani told Britain's Channel 4 news Monday through an interpreter that Iranian officials "definitely believe that this issue can be resolved and there is no need for any trial."

Earlier Monday, an Iranian state-run television station said all 15 of the detained Royal Navy personnel had confessed to illegally entering Iranian waters before they were captured.

However, Iranian state-run radio said the confessions would not be broadcast because of what it called "positive changes" in the negotiating stance of Britain, whose leaders have been angered by the airing of videos of the captives.

The radio did not elaborate on the supposed changes by the British. But in London, a British official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Prime Minister Tony Blair's government had agreed to consider ways to avoid such situations in the future.

The official insisted Britain was not negotiating with the Iranians and still wanted the captives freed unconditionally.

Over the weekend, The Sunday Telegraph of London said Britain was considering sending a senior Royal Navy officer to Tehran to discuss the return of the captives as well as to talk about ways to avoid future incidents.

Larijani also urged Britain to guarantee "that such violation will not be repeated," but avoided repeating Tehran's demand for an apology. British leaders have insisted they have nothing to apologize for.

The comments suggested the sides were seeking a face-facing formula in which each could argue its interests were upheld while the captives could go free. Under such a formula, Iran could claim Britain tacitly acknowledged the border area is in dispute, and Britain could maintain it never apologized.

A generation ago, such a formula helped free Americans held by Tehran for 444 days. The United States pledged not to interfere in Iranian affairs, enabling the hostage takers to claim they had achieved their goal.

The renewed diplomatic efforts between Iran and Britain followed tough rhetoric last week that prompted both governments to dig in their heels.

Britain suspended all other diplomatic contacts with Iran, froze work to support trade missions and stopped issuing visas to Iranian diplomats. It also sought help from the U.N. and other countries, including Muslim Turkey, to press Iran to free the captives.

Those moves prompted Iran to suspend plans to free the only woman captive, sailor Faye Turney, and to suggest the Britons might face trial.

To reinforce their claims, the Iranians also broadcast video footage that showed four of the crew saying they were captured in Iranian waters. In footage Sunday, two of the sailors used maps to show the purported location where they were seized.

Britain has released its own maps and GPS coordinates showing the captured team's location to be in Iraqi waters.

The videos enraged British officials, who said the broadcast confessions were clearly made under duress.

Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, and Robert H. Reid in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this report.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3003031