04/04:"The Winds of War"- Iran Warns Russia Over Nuclear Fuel Deliveries

=




04/03: "The Winds of War" - Iran Could Wait for Blair To Go, America Fears
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=236177




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Iran Warns Russia Over Nuclear Fuel Deliveries</font>

03.04.2007 14:24 MSK,
16 hours 29 minutes ago
MosNews
http://mosnews.com/news/2007/04/03/iranfuel.shtml </center>
Iran has warned that if Russia does not deliver atomic fuel for the Islamic Republic’s first power station, the move would justify Tehran’s controversial work to make its own nuclear fuel, the Reuters news agency reported on Tuesday.
</b>
Russia is building the atomic plant in Iran’s south-western port city of Bushehr, but did not deliver fuel as planned in March because of what it says was delayed payments by Iran. However, Tehran has said it is up to date with its commitments.

Iran’s own enrichment programme to make fuel for power plants is at the centre of a row with the West, which believes Tehran secretly wants to enrich uranium to levels which could be used to make material for atomic bombs.

“If the Russians do not want to deliver the fuel to us, it will prove the issue that we should seriously follow enrichment ourselves,” Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, told reporters.

He said “financial obstacles have been solved” in the dispute with Russia. Russian officials said last month that Iran had resumed payments to Russia for the power plant construction, but said Tehran was still in arrears.
 
=




<B><center>Apr. 3, 2007 23:26

<font size=+1 color=brown>Beckett: No swift Iranian solution</font>

By AP AND JPOST.COM STAFF
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879235810&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull </center>
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett on Tuesday urged caution over expecting a swift resolution to the crisis involving 15 detained naval personnel, hours after British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the next 48-hours would be critical to quickly resolving the standoff.

"We should be cautious in thinking we will see a swift conclusion," Beckett said. "Diplomatic efforts continue."</b>

Beckett said Britain still had not been granted consular access to the captive sailors and marines, who have been held by Iran since March 23.


'Iran wants a diplomatic solution'
Earlier Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that Britain would "take an increasingly tougher position" if diplomatic moves did not yield results.

Beckett said Blair was not talking about military action.

"He is not talking or attempting to imply anything about military action. We are not seeking confrontation," she said. "We are seeking to resolve this through diplomatic channels."

Also Tuesday, an Iranian diplomat kidnapped two months ago in Iraq has been freed, Iranian officials said Tuesday, as Teheran reported diplomatic talks were beginning to try to resolve the standoff over 15 British sailors seized in the Persian Gulf.

Jalal Sharafi, second secretary at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, was released Monday and has already left Iraq, an Iranian diplomat said in the Iraqi capital. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Iran said Sharafi had been abducted by a special Iraqi unit which reports directly to American forces, an allegation supported by several Iraqi Shi'ite lawmakers.

"The next 48 hours will be fairly critical," Blair told Scotland's Real Radio earlier. He said Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani's suggestion of talks offered the hope of an end to the crisis.

"If they want to resolve this in a diplomatic way the door is open," the premier 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.

Also Tuesday, the British Independent reported that the British hostage crisis was the result of hostilities between Iran and the coalition forces in Iraq set off in January by an alleged US attempt to abduct two of Iran's leading security figures in Iraq.

According to the report, the US raid on an Iranian liason office in Arbil, in which five of the office's employees were taken captive, actually intended to apprehend two officials of much higher rank - Muhammad Jafari, deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, head of Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence.

Kurdish officials said that Jafari and Frouzanda had been in Iraq for meetings with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

In Baghdad, a senior Iraqi foreign ministry official said on Tuesday that the government was "intensively" seeking release of the five Iranians.

"This will be a factor that will help in the release of the British sailors and marines" the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue is so sensitive.
 
=



<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Captors Release Kidnapped Iranian Diplomat in Baghdad </font>

By ALISSA J. RUBIN
Published: April 4, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin </center>
BAGHDAD, April 3 — An Iranian diplomat kidnapped by armed men wearing uniforms of the Iraqi security forces was freed here on Tuesday, Iraq’s foreign minister said, adding that he continued to work to free five Iranians held separately by American military forces and was optimistic that they would be released soon.
</b>
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, said in an interview that the freeing of the diplomat was unrelated to the negotiations over the 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iran, accused of trespassing into its waters.

“People are trying to link this to the British sailors’ case,” Mr. Zebari said. “Really, it has no connection whatsoever.”

“Even for the other Iranian detainees, we’ve been repeatedly asking the MNFI to release them,” he added, referring to the Multinational Forces in Iraq. “We have a sense they are going to be released; we have some good pledges that they will be released after the investigation is finished.”

Other Iraqi politicians thought the timing of the diplomat’s release was difficult to separate entirely from the negotiations over the British sailors and marines. “It’s a curious coincidence,” said Ahmad Chalabi, the Shiite politician who has ties to Iran and is in charge of the government’s de-Baathification commission.

The released Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at Iran’s mission in Baghdad, walked into the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad this morning, Mr. Zebari said, adding that Mr. Sharafi remained uncertain who had kidnapped him.

Mr. Sharafi was seized more than eight weeks ago as he emerged from a bank in the middle-class, predominantly Shiite Karada neighborhood. At the time, the Iraqi police managed to stop one of the cars in the convoy that had whisked the diplomat away.

The four men inside were taken to the police station. They said they worked for an Iraqi security service, but when pressed, the security services denied that the men worked for them in any official capacity, Mr. Zebari said.

“We went to our security services and said, ‘Do they work for you, do you have him?’ ” Mr. Zebari said. “They denied it. We went to the American military, the intelligence services. They all denied they had him. But my advice to my government was to keep the four in detention, until the diplomat was released.”

The four remain detained in an Interior Ministry facility, Mr. Zebari said. Though he said he still could not say for certain who kidnapped the diplomat, others familiar with the case said they believed that those responsible worked for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which is affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Zebari said that a separate case, of five Iranians captured in Irbil in January by United States forces, was similarly frustrating, but that at least in that case he knew where the men were being held.

The United States involvement in the detention of at least some of the Iranians has forced Iraq to undertake delicate and difficult negotiations with two powerful countries on which it relies for support: the United States and Iran. Mr. Zebari said the seizure of Mr. Sharafi, an accredited diplomat, had been “embarrassing for my government.”

“We are treading a very thin line,” he said. “We are in a very difficult position to balance these two conflicting interests,” meaning the United States and Iran.

Related to the de-Baathification effort, political jockeying continued around a plan to liberalize the law that currently puts sharp restrictions on access by former members of the old ruling Baathist party to positions in the current government.

An official spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani distanced the ayatollah from reports published Monday and Tuesday saying that the marjaiya, the most senior Shiite clerics, disagreed with the plan, which was proposed jointly by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani.

Since Ayatollah Sistani rarely speaks for himself, but makes his views known through written statements and clerics affiliated with him, it can be difficult to determine his true views. However, Tuesday’s comments suggested that he was backing away from wholesale criticism of the plan.

The proposed measure has the support of the United States government, which has made it more difficult for many Iraqis, including the marjaiya, to embrace it. Hamid al-Khafaf, the spokesman for Ayatollah Sistani in Beirut and one of the few people who is authorized to speak in his name, said, the news media’s depiction on Monday of Ayatollah Sistani’s view of the de-Baathification law was “absolutely untrue.”

Three Shiite politicians reached Tuesday said that the clerics agreed that a compromise had to be reached among the drafts, some of which took a far less liberal approach than the plan submitted by Mr. Maliki and Mr. Talabani.

Meanwhile, 17 people were killed in violence around Iraq on Tuesday, and 10 bodies were found in Baghdad and one in Diyala Province. The Iraqi government announced late Tuesday that the curfew in Baghdad would allow people to stay out until 10 p.m., instead of the previous 8 p.m.

The United States military announced Tuesday that a marine was killed Monday in Anbar Province.
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=blue><center>Man Missing in Iran Named; He Worked for DEA and FBI</font>

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 4, 2007; Page A09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...03/AR2007040301063.html?nav=rss_world/mideast </center>
A former FBI agent missing in Iran since early last month has been identified as Robert A. Levinson of Coral Springs, Fla., according to U.S. officials and a former colleague. Levinson was a 28-year veteran of both the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, according to a biography on the Web site of Business Integrity International, a consulting firm where he worked until two years ago.
</b>
The State Department has not received a response from Iran after a formal query about his whereabouts and welfare, an agency official said yesterday. It was the second message sent by Washington to Tehran through Swiss diplomatic intermediaries since Levinson was last heard from on March 8. The initial message was sent a few weeks ago, with a follow-up at a higher level on Monday, U.S. officials say. The Swiss Embassy in Tehran has represented U.S. interests in Iran since relations were cut off in 1980.


Business Integrity's Web site says Levinson has "extensive international experience and has focused on criminal activities, business intelligence projects, asset location and recoveries in Latin America, the Caribbean, Russia and Europe." It also says he represented the United States while serving on task forces dealing with organized crime and money laundering in Europe and the Eastern bloc. The site also says that Levinson, a graduate of the City College of New York, knows Russian and Spanish.

Levinson had been involved recently in investigations in Ukraine and Russia, according to a former colleague. Calls to Levinson's office and cellphone were not returned.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday that the United States does not have credible information about Levinson's situation. The State Department has been communicating with Levinson's family and has been trying to track his movements for more than two weeks, U.S. officials said. He was visiting Kish Island, an Iranian resort and free-trade zone off the southern coast that does not require a visa to visit. He had traveled to Iran from the United Arab Emirates, U.S. officials said.

The FBI and State Department have said that Levinson -- a tall, middle-aged man who retired from the FBI more than a decade ago -- was not working for the U.S. government. He worked in private investigations for corporate clients, according to FBI spokesman John Miller. As an FBI agent, Levinson was not assigned to Middle East issues, officials said.

The State Department said Levinson was in Iran to meet someone to set up an interview for a project involving a book and a documentary by a producer and author believed to be from Canada. A senior U.S. official said Levinson's project was "innocuous" and "had no connection with anything political." Levinson also may have been doing some consulting work, U.S. officials said.
 
=




<B><center>09:34, April 04, 2007

<font size=+1 color=purple>Iran warns UK not to choose "hue and cry" attitude on sailors issue </font>

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200704/04/eng20070404_363564.html </center>
A top Iranian official warned on Tuesday that the sailors detention issue would not be resolved in the near future if the British government continues to make "hue and cry", the Iranian semi-official Fars news agency reported. The country's First Vice President Parviz Dawoodi made the remarks on the sidelines of the inauguration of the back up systems of Bushehr nuclear power plant when answering questions from various reporters. </b>

"It (solution of the case) depends on Britain's attitude. If they accept that they have trespassed on our borders and guarantee that they will not repeat such aggressions, the issue will be solved through a logical trend. But if Britain continues making hue and cry, the issue will not be solved in the near future," Dawoodi was quoted as saying by Fars.

He further dismissed recent allegations that Tehran intends to swap the British marines with the Iranian diplomats arrested in Iraq, saying "a country has violated our laws and it must account for its actions. These issues should be solved within their separate frameworks."

On March 23, 15 British naval personnel were seized by Iranian forces when they were patrolling off the Iraqi borders.

Iran has insisted that the British boats illegally entered its territorial waters. But Britain said its soldiers were in Iraqi territorial waters.

Iran's tension with Britain has escalated dramatically since Tehran aired footage of the detained sailors for three times and a furious protest was staged Sunday outside British embassy in Tehran by the Islamist students.

However, after a 12-day standoff, some conciliatory tones have surfaced from both sides in the past 24 hours, raising hopes of resolving the crisis soon.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on Monday said Iran's priority is to resolve the problem through proper diplomatic channels, and "there's no need to have a trial on the detained sailors".

The British government responded later Monday by saying "we confirm we share his (Larijani) preference for early bilateral discussions to find a diplomatic solution to this problem".

Source: Xinhua
 
=
<i>At times like this - I think of the words "Boomer" and "Trident" - it gives me a comfortable feeling (unless Putin is willing to swap Moscow for Terhan) ~ Dutch</i>



<B><center>Wednesday 4 April 2007

<font size=+1 color=red>Russia warns US 'hands off Iran' </font>

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=176591&Sn=WORL&IssueID=30015 </center>
MOSCOW: With international tension building over the crisis in Iran, a Russian minister and the country's top general warned yesterday against military action against the Islamic republic.
</b>
"Any military action near our border is unacceptable. We will take that extremely negatively and everything we can to oppose it," said Andrei Denissov.

Chief of staff General Yuri Baluyevski said any military strike against Iran would be a serious political mistake and would not give victory to the US.

Meanwhile, the sudden release of an Iranian diplomat missing for two months in Iraq raised new hope that 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iran may soon be freed.

It also suggests the standoff over 15 captive Britons may end with a de facto prisoner swap - something both Tehran and London have publicly discounted. Diplomat Jalal Sharafi was seized on February 4 by uniformed gunmen in Karradah, a Shi'ite-controlled district of Baghdad.
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>The Hidden Sanctions</font>

April 04, 2007
Ha'aretz
Yossi Melman
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845107.html </center>
In Western eyes, Iran's conduct in the case of the British soldiers does not seem logical. In the West, it is hard to understand why the Iranians would need to capture the British sailors and marines, and why they do not quickly release them. After all, with the provocation they generated, they are playing into the hands of the United States and Britain, which are perceived by Iran as plotting to attack its nuclear sites (together with Israel). </b>

But Western logic is not necessarily Iranian logic. In capturing the British soldiers, in refusing to release them and in deciding to bring them to trial, Iran is seeking to signal to the world that it is determined to continue to advance its nuclear program, and not give in to international pressures, and to act resolutely against anyone who tries to harm it.

Nonetheless, it is also possible the case of the British soldiers reflects the power struggles that have been waging for many months in the top echelon of the Iranian government. For about a year and a half, two main camps have been facing off in Iran. One comprises the moderate conservatives led by former president Hashemi Rafsanjani; the mayor of Tehran, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf; and the secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security, Ali Larijani. All three competed in the presidential race about two years ago.

The second camp, the extreme conservatives, is led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who defeated the moderates. This camp is supported by clerics like the messianic ayatollah, Mesbah Yazdi, and by the popular militia Basiji and members of the Revolutionary Guards. Besides these two camps, there is the weakened reformist camp, symbolized by former president Mohammad Khatami. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, rules over all of these.

In its refusal to accede to the UN Security Council's demand to suspend its uranium enrichment activity, Iran is ostensibly trying to show the world that the sanctions imposed on it are not weakening its hand. But Iran's moves attest to panic and weakness more than strength. Iran fears the profound international isolation in which it is becoming mired. In addition to concerns about the overt and "official" sanctions of the Security Council, there is fear of hidden sanctions. These are sanctions that international corporations, primarily banks and financial institutions, are imposing on Iran without publicly declaring so.

These sanctions are mainly driven by secret activity by the U.S. Department of Treasury, designed to pressure companies in the U.S., Europe and Asia to refrain from commercial ties with Iran, or at least to reduce them. In recent months, some 50 of the world's leading banks and financial institutions have complied with these pressures. The most prominent are Swiss bank UBS, Germany's Commerzbank and London-based HSBC. Therefore, the Bush administration should continue to pressure the world's governments to cut back their commercial relations with Iran. India, for example, is being asked to cancel a project for laying a gas pipeline.

The boycott - both the overt one and mainly the hidden one - is intended to strike at the "soft underbelly" of Iran's economy: the oil and gas industries, which provide 80 percent of the state's revenues. And indeed, the economic stranglehold is bearing fruit. The oil industry and the gas industry, which desperately need billions in investments to renew their obsolete equipment, are finding it difficult to obtain financing. There is a significant decline in foreign investments in Iran. The religious establishment and the political establishment in Iran fear that the damage the sanctions are causing to the state's economy will stir public anger against them.

When the supreme leader realizes that Ahmadinejad's policy threatens the regime's survival, he will have to exercise his influence and authority, even at the price of painful concessions. The continued existence of Iran as an Islamic republic is the highest imperative guiding Khamenei. Whoever wishes to force Iran to back away from its nuclear program should further tighten the economic blockade on it.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson040207.html

April 2, 2007
Beyond Iraq
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

The threat from radical Islamic terrorists will not vanish when President Bush leaves office, or if funds for the Iraq war are cut off in 2008.

A frequent charge is that we are bringing terrorists to Iraq. That is true in the sense that war always brings the enemy out to the battlefield. But it's also false, since it ignores why killers like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the late al Qaeda chief in Iraq), Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas (Palestinian terrorists of the 1980s), and Abdul Rahman Yasin (involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) were already in Saddam's Iraq when we arrived.

Moreover, the unpopular war in Iraq did not create radical Islamists and their madrassas throughout the Middle East that today brainwash young radicals and pressure the region's monarchies, theocracies and autocracies to provide money for training and weaponry. All that radicalism had been going on for decades — as we saw during the quarter-century of terrorism that led up to 9/11. And rioting, assassination and death threats over artistic expression in Europe have nothing to do with Iraq.

Right now, most al Qaeda terrorists are being trained and equipped in the Pakistani wild lands of Waziristan to help the Taliban reclaim Afghanistan and spread jihad worldwide. These killers pay no attention to the fact that our efforts in Afghanistan are widely multilateral. They don't care that our presence there is sanctioned by NATO, or involves the United Nations, or only came as a reaction to 9/11.

These radical Islamists gain strength not because we "took our eye off Afghanistan" by being in Iraq, but because Pakistan's strongman, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, can't or won't do anything about al-Qaeda's bases in his country. And neither Bush nor Nancy Pelosi quite knows how to pressure such an unpredictable nuclear military dictatorship.

The Iraq war has certainly sharpened our relationship with Iran, but, of course, it's also not the cause of our tensions with Tehran. For decades, the Iranian government has subsidized Hezbollah, which during the 1980s and 1990s murdered Americans from Saudi Arabia to Beirut. It was not the current Iranian lunatic president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but an earlier more "moderate" president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who remarked, in 2001, that "one bomb is enough to destroy all Israel."

So Iraq is only one recent theater, albeit a controversial one, in an ongoing global struggle. This larger conflict arose not from the Iraqi invasion of 2003, but from earlier radical Muslim rage at the modern globalized world, the profits and dislocations from Middle East oil, and Islamic terrorism that ranges worldwide from Afghanistan to Thailand.

Should a peace candidate win the American presidency in 2008, prompting the U.S. to pull out of Iraq before the democracy there is stabilized, in the short term we will save lives and money. But as the larger war continues after we withdraw, jihadists will still flock to the Sunni Triangle. Hamas and Hezbollah will still rocket Israel. Syria will still kill Lebanese reformers. Iran will still try to cheat its way to a nuclear bomb. Ayman al- Zawahiri will still broadcast his al Qaeda threats from safety in nuclear Pakistan. The oil-rich, illegitimate Gulf sheikdoms will still make secret concessions and bribe increasingly confident terrorists to leave them alone. And jihadists will still try to sneak into the United States to kill us.

Critics of the present war can make the tactical argument that it is wiser to fight al Qaeda in Pakistan than in Iraq. Or that money spent in the frontline Iraqi offensive theater would be better invested on defense and security at home. Or that the human cost is simply too great and thus we should instead make diplomatic concessions to radical Islamists in lieu of military confrontation.

But, again, those are operational alternatives found in every war — as familiar as the old controversies over the French defensive Maginot Line of the 1930s or the American decision to defeat Germany first, Japan second. In the case of staying on in Iraq, at least, our long-term plan is to go on the offensive to confront radical Islamic terrorists on their own turf, and try to foster a democratic alternative to theocracy or autocracy.

That may be felt by the American public to be too expensive or too naive, but it is a direct strategy aimed at an enemy who seeks to terrorize the West and plans on being around well after 2008.

Depending on how we leave Iraq, this global war against radical Islamic terrorism will either wax or wane. But it will hardly end.

©2007 Tribune Media Services
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>The Secret War Against Iran </font>

April 04, 2007
ABC News Exclusive
Brian Ross and Christopher Isham
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html </center>
A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News. </b>

The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.

It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.

Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.

Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan.

The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.

"He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said.

Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.

Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack.

They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.

The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot.

A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group.

Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.

A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context.

Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Mr. Interception </font>

April 01, 2007
The Jerusalem Post
Yaakov Katz
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879228610&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull </center>
The Green Pine radar system identifies the incoming Iranian Shihab-4 ballistic missile moments after it is launched. With only minutes to spare, sirens wail throughout the country, sending the public into bomb shelters, while the Arrow ballistic missile defense system is automatically activated and an interceptor is launched from Palmahim air force base just north of Ashdod. Reaching speeds of up to Mach 7, the missile intercepts the Shihab outside the stratosphere after less than 60 seconds, thus preventing a nuclear attack. </b>

This moment is what Arieh Herzog has been working up to for the past 40 years. As head of the Homa Missile Defense Agency, it is up to Herzog to create the country's defense against enemy missiles. With Iran racing toward nuclear bombs and investing unprecedented amounts of money in missile development, this is not an easy task.

In an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post, Herzog provides an inside look at the decision-making process behind Israel's missile defense systems, led by the Israeli- and American-developed Arrow missile, one of the few operational ballistic missile defense systems in the world.

In the face of Iran's unrelenting race to obtain nuclear power, maintained in defiance of the UN, Herzog's job has never been more vital to the continued existence of the State of Israel. While the IDF Home Front Command recently drilled emergency services in a simulation of the aftermath of an Iranian missile strike, most senior officers are banking on the Arrow as the country's last line of defense.

With Military Intelligence predicting that diplomatic efforts to stop Teheran's race for the bomb will ultimately fail, senior defense officials believe that only a military strike will succeed in stopping or maybe even in just stalling the Iranian nuclear program. Some even believe that the strike should take place at the earliest possible opportunity. What is for sure is that if Iran's nuclear installations are bombed - by Israel or the US - Teheran would respond by firing its long-range Shihab missiles at Israel.

According to Herzog, 66, the Middle East is in the midst of an extraordinary missile race. Iran and Syria, he says, are investing unprecedented amounts of money in long-range ballistic missile capabilities - with the help of North Korea - and have all but forfeited attempts to build up a modern air force.

"The Iranians are continuously increasing the range of their missiles," he says. "They are buying technology and in some cases are even buying complete systems from North Korea and other countries."

This is where the recent batch of Arrow tests come in. Last week, the IAF launched a modified version of the interceptor from Palmahim - the 16th test of the Arrow - which Herzog explains is made of components that are significantly cheaper and can reduce production costs by 20 percent, and is also better equipped to intercept incoming missiles.

Last month, the IAF conducted its first night test of the Arrow under extreme conditions relating to the altitude of the interception and the type of the target - a missile specially designed to impersonate an Iranian Shihab.

This is where Herzog's job comes into play. He not only needs to oversee the continued development and upgrade of the Arrow but also needs to foresee future threats.

"Our goal is to always be a step ahead of the developments of the Iranians and the Syrians," he explains. "This is demonstrated by the different blocks of the system that we have developed since we define - years in advance - what is expected to be the future threat, and according to our assessment, we construct our multiyear program."

Herzog further reveals that while there might be missile systems in Iranian hands that the Arrow cannot intercept, all of its "currently operational" ballistic missiles can be destroyed by the system.

IN 2002, HERZOG sat with Military Intelligence and the IAF and analyzed the status of the Iranian missile and nuclear programs. "The goal was to define," he recalls, "what the character of the Iranian threat would be by the end of the decade." At the time, he and his men worked from weak intelligence but, he claims, succeeded in accurately predicting the Iranian rate of progress on its missile program and developed the Arrow to meet not only current but also future threats.

"Our Arrow operational system can without a doubt deal with all of the operational threats in the Middle East, particularly in Iran and Syria," he declares matter-of-factly.

A branch of the Defense Ministry's Research and Development Directorate, Homa was established in 1991 and given a mandate to oversee the development, procurement and the integration of missile defense systems, once needed for crude Iraqi Scuds and now for advanced long-range Iranian Shihabs.

Herzog has had a long career in the defense establishment and worked for 30 years at Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), where he served as head of the MABAT Division which develops space-based systems and technologies, before becoming head of Homa.

In addition to overseeing the development and production of the Arrow, he is also in charge of maintaining relations with the US Congress and administration to ensure that Israel's security needs remain on their agenda. Today, 50 percent of financing for the Arrow comes from the US government. While most of the Arrow's components are made by IAI, Boeing supplies 35% of the Arrow's main components and subsystems, including the warhead's electrical system, the radar shell (radome), missile casing and electronic subsystems.

Israel's first steps into the field of missile defense were taken in 1985, two years after US president Ronald Reagan launched his Star Wars missile defense initiative. Then, IAI began joint development with the Americans of a missile defense system called Arrow. At the beginning, Herzog says, the Defense Ministry was not directly involved, but in the late 80s everything changed because of the immediate Iraqi ballistic missile threat.

Close to 20 years ago, the Arrow project was established to address the threat posed by the relatively crude Scud missiles, like the 39 Iraq fired into Israel during the Gulf War. But as the project developed, the defense establishment was determined not to focus on past wars but to look ahead to future threats including faster rockets launched from further away, possibly with multiple and nuclear warheads. Nearly $3 billion has already been invested in the system, with two-thirds coming from the US Missile Defense Agency.

While the Arrow is the country's first line of defense against Iranian missiles, air force Patriot batteries - used during the Gulf War - serve as the backup interception system.

In the beginning, the Arrow project encountered some failures during testing. These hurdles were quickly overcome, and in 2000 Herzog reached his first milestone when the IAF declared "initial operational capability" upon delivery of the first Arrow battery. Since then, hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in the system, and the IAF - which already uses the Arrow 2 - is in the midst of developing a third and fourth block of the system.

Another project overseen by Homa and currently under development by Rafael - the Armament Development Authority - and the US-based Raytheon is called David's Sling and is a missile defense system that is capable of intercepting the medium-range rockets plentiful among Israel's neighbors. The system, Herzog says, could become operational by the end of the decade.

David's Sling provides a solution to the Iranian-made Zelzal and Fajr - both in Hizbullah hands before the Second Lebanon War - as well as the Fatah 110 and 300-mm. and 220-mm. Katyushas.

Another system - although not under Herzog's responsibility - is called Iron Dome and is being developed to intercept short-range rockets like the Kassam and the Katyusha.

"In the end we need a solution, since these medium-range rockets have the same effect on a family in Haifa as the longer-range missiles do," he says. "They have a range and destructive capabilities close to the Scud, but because of cost effectiveness, the current systems - Patriot and Arrow - are not appropriate and we needed to find something cheaper."

ISRAEL FACES a number of immediate threats from missiles in the region. Firstly in Iran, the Islamic Republic has developed a series of long-range ballistic missiles called the Shihab which started as 1 and is now at 3D with an estimated range of 2,200 kilometers.

The Shihab 4 and 5 are liquid-propelled missiles that are still in planning stages and are supposed to be Iran's first missiles capable of taking satellites into orbit. They will reportedly have a maximum range of close to 6,000 km. The technology for these missiles comes mostly from North Korea but also from Russia. Last April, OC Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin revealed that Iran had recently obtained North Korean BM-25 surface-to-surface missiles with a range close to 3,000 km and capable of reaching Europe armed with a nuclear warhead.

Syria's missile array is made up mostly of Scud-class missiles, led by the D class rocket with a range of 700 km. Syria recently conducted a successful test of the Scud D which western sources say was developed with assistance from North Korea. Syria is also believed to have chemical warheads available for a portion of its Scud missile force.

With the missile threat looming and possibly closer than ever to materializing, Israel is interested in beefing up its defense systems. While declaring that the country has no intention of stopping Arrow development or production, Herzog admits that he recently submitted a request to the Pentagon to receive information on two US-made missile defense systems - the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense and Aegis.

The idea, he explains, is to be able to prepare the infrastructure for the possibility that they will be purchased by the IDF or be deployed here in time of war. Last month, US Army officers from the European Command were here for the Juniper Cobra exercise held every two years during which the two countries run missile defense simulations.

"Our main goal is to determine interoperability between the Arrow and the other systems," Herzog says. "By this, we can guarantee that the systems will be interoperable and that a doctrine on how to use the systems together is in place. The decision of whether to deploy the systems in Israel will need to be made on a diplomatic level between the two governments."

He skirts the question of whether the US will deploy its missile defense systems here free of charge, as they did in the first Gulf War, but says that his recommendation is that the IAF buy the new upgraded version of the Patriot, called PAC-3. "This would definitely assist Israel and if there is a budget, it should be purchased," he says, adding that for the time being it does not appear to be at the top of the IAF's list of priorities.

Herzog is also in favor of selling the Arrow to allies. Both Turkey and South Korea have expressed interest. At the moment, however, a sale is not on the table and will only be made following a joint decision with the US.

Turning to the Second Lebanon War, Herzog says that an operational missile defense system against the short-range Katyusha - close to 4,000 pounded the North - could have changed the outcome.

"Active protection can dramatically reduce the number of casualties," he says, adding that as a result the government benefits from better "diplomatic maneuverability."

"If someone thinks that a large percentage of his missiles will be intercepted, he will think twice before attacking."

Although he, like all Israelis, wishes for peace, he says practically, "As long as there is a threat we will need to protect ourselves."
 
=
<i>:shkr: "I can't believe it! Bush-eroo from Crawford, Tx has "crawfished!" ~ Dutchman</i>



<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Envoy to Meet 5 Detained Iranians in Iraq </font>

April 04, 2007
The Associated Press
Yahoo News!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404..._iranians_1;_ylt=Aouy3qYWPFz6nPmx4kZRLiVSw60A </center>
TEHRAN -- Iranian state media reported Wednesday that an Iranian envoy will be allowed to meet the five Iranians detained in January by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil. </b>

"A representative from the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad will meet" the detained Iranians, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said.

In Baghdad, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver had no immediate comment.

The U.S. military has accused the Iranians of having links to a network supplying funds and weapons to insurgents in Iraq. Iran denies this, saying that its detainees are diplomats.
 
=





<B><center>04/04/2007 15:47

<font size=+1 color=blue>Iran warns UN of 'retaliation'</font>

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0404/breaking50.htm </center>
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned major world powers today that they could not deprive Iran of its right to nuclear technology by issuing UN resolutions.

Speaking at a news conference, Mr Ahmadinejad added that Iran, which says its atomic aims are entirely peaceful, could retaliate over sanctions imposed on Iranian banks abroad by the UN Security Council. </b>

"If they want to create disturbances ... for parts of our economy, (like) banks, we will retaliate there or in other places," he said.

Mr Ahmadinejad also said he would reconsider his country's relationship with the United States if President George W. Bush's attitude changed.

The US said in response that if Iran wanted to change its relationship with Washington it would have to suspend uranium enrichment.

"The behavior that needs to change is the Iranians, not the United States," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey when asked about the statement.
 
=





<B><center>04/4/06

<font size=+1 color=purple>Saudi Arabia Says Israel Must Accept Arab Peace Offer Before Talks</font>

By VOA News
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/apr/1037.html </center>
Saudi Arabia says Israel should first clearly accept Arab peace initiative before the kingdom would consider talks.

A statement from the Saudi cabinet Monday did not directly refer to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's invitation to Arab leaders to attend a Middle East peace conference. </b>

The statement said Israel first must end what it called constant violations and inhuman aggression against the Palestinian people.

It also said the Arab leaders made a clear commitment to peace at last week's summit in Riyadh, where they offered a broad land-for-peace plan.


French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, left, walks with Palestinian Foreign Minister Ziad Abu Amr after their talks in Paris, 3 Apr 2007 In Paris, visiting Palestinian Foreign Minister Ziad Abu Amr said Mr. Olmert's proposal skips over necessary steps in the peace process.

But in Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that interaction between Israel and potential Arab partners would be positive.

Mr. Olmert Sunday invited all Arab leaders to a peace conference, and called Saudi King Abdullah a "very important leader."

Last week, the Arab League re-launched a 2002 plan calling for normal relations with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to its 1967 borders, establishment of a Palestinian state and the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes inside Israel.

Mr. Olmert said Israel does not accept all parts of the plan. But he said the plan, with some changes, could be a basis for dialogue.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

<B><center>Diplomatic Momentum Builds in Effort to Resolve Arab-Israeli Dispute</b></center>
By Jim Teeple, VOA, Jerusalem
Diplomatic momentum is building in the Middle East. High-level international and regional initiatives are once again focusing global attention on efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute. VOA's Jim Teeple reports some Israeli and Palestinian observers say the diplomacy is helpful, but it is now up those who live in Israel and the Palestinian territories to move the process forward.

Diplomats are once again paying attention to the Middle East. Recent visits by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and European leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel have put the Arab-Israeli dispute back in the international spotlight.

Also for the first time in years there are regional efforts at conflict resolution - especially by Saudi Arabia which brought the Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah together in negotiations to form a unity government - and then brought Arab heads of state together to revive a 2002 peace plan with Israel.

Now the talk is all about "political horizons" or discussions leading to the creation of a Palestinian state and regional diplomatic recognition for Israel. However, beyond an agreement between Israeli and Palestinian leaders to meet on a regular basis there are few signs that all the diplomatic activity of the past two months is going to lead to a major breakthrough in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Nader Said, who teaches Sociology at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank city of Ramallah says the three key players who have to push for a settlement are in no position to do so.

"In relation to the Israeli situation, you have a very weak Israeli government," Said said. "The situation is volatile. It is expected that the current [Israeli] government might fall and a new election might take place. Within the United States itself, we have an upcoming election, and in the year of the election no one is willing to put pressure on the Israeli side - which is needed to achieve concessions from Israel. On the Palestinian side you have a great deal of exhaustion. The situation is also precarious between the two main political parties - no one is sure if the unity government will last for a long time."

Being in a weakened political position does not rule out making progress in Middle East peace efforts says Gidi Grinstein, the President of the Reut Institute, a public policy group that advises the Israeli government on strategic issues. Grinstein says peace efforts can get a boost in Israel when the country's leaders are at their weakest.

"There is a weak prime minister but there is also a structural problem here and that is we have a political system that generates short and unstable tenures, fragmented legislatures and fragmented executives," Grinstein said. "The outcome is that every Israeli prime minister has one major political move to make with the Palestinians. The moment he or she begins to embark on that process their coalition breaks down and they basically lose power. So prime ministers in Israel have to choose between political stability with immobility with the Palestinians, or making progress with the Palestinians and losing the political stability. This is why Israeli prime ministers go for the political move with the Palestinians usually towards the end of their political tenure, after they have exhausted all their other options."

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says he will meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas but he will not discuss anything other than "humanitarian issues. " Israel says it will have nothing to do with the new unity Palestinian government because it is dominated by Hamas. The group refuses to recognize Israel, disarm, or fully accept past peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians - three conditions Israel says are necessary for Israel to sit down and negotiate.

Nader Said of Bir Zeit University says that is unlikely to change anytime soon because while he says most Palestinians want peace with Israel, few are willing to push Hamas to publicly moderate its hard-line stance.

"The vast majority of Palestinians in the polling has been done through the years and especially last year are supportive of negotiations. The majority are supportive of a two-state solution," Said said. "The Palestinians are supportive of the Oslo agreement and mutual recognition between Israelis and Palestinians. However Palestinians are not in a rush to pressure Hamas as Palestinian group to recognize Israel at this time. Most Palestinians do not see that as symmetrical or as balanced or fair. They see it as you know we are pressured to recognize Israel when Israel at the same time only reinforcing its grip on Palestinian land."

With time running out on his political future and a Hamas-dominated Palestinian government unwilling to moderate its position, Gidi Grinstein of the Reut Institute says Ehud Olmert will likely be tempted to return to his election promise of last year - putting in place a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from much of the occupied West Bank.

"The national security objective of Israel is to end the control over the Palestinian population," Grinstein said. "This is widely agreed upon in the Israeli public and among legislators and members of the government. So the objective is to end control over the Palestinian population and we can do it either through negotiations or through unilateral measures. The prospect of negotiations at the moment are bleak. So this is why we believe the attention will be shifted again to unilateral actions."

Grinstein says Israel could move unilaterally to transfer powers to collect customs revenue, print currency and take other measures to shift responsibilities now performed by Israel to the Palestinians as a way of bringing the Palestinian territories closer to statehood. With diplomatic attention now once again focused on the Arab-Israeli dispute he says Israel could now move the peace process forward in a way that might ultimately benefit both Israelis and Palestinians.

... Payvand News - 4/4/06 ...
 
=

<i>Yuppers! :shk: this article makes it clear - Bush Crawfished!</i>


<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Brits Pardoned Only After Iranian Diplomat Released</font>

Daoud Kuttab
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...b/2007/04/brits_pardoned_only_after_iran.html </center>
The pardon of the sailors shows that neither Iran nor the United Kingdom live on an island. This decision came after news that an Iranian diplomat was released unexpectedly in Iraq!!!</b>

The saying goes that if your house is made of glass, don't go throwing stones at your neighbors. Clearly Britain did not do well in this last episode, and the Iranians showed them – and more importantly the Bush Administration – that they should count to a million before considering yet another misadventure in this region.
 

Unique

Inactive
=
<i>:shkr: "I can't believe it! Bush-eroo from Crawford, Tx has "crawfished!" ~ Dutchman</i>



<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Envoy to Meet 5 Detained Iranians in Iraq </font>

April 04, 2007
The Associated Press
Yahoo News!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404..._iranians_1;_ylt=Aouy3qYWPFz6nPmx4kZRLiVSw60A </center>
TEHRAN -- Iranian state media reported Wednesday that an Iranian envoy will be allowed to meet the five Iranians detained in January by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil. </b>

"A representative from the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad will meet" the detained Iranians, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said.

In Baghdad, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver had no immediate comment.

The U.S. military has accused the Iranians of having links to a network supplying funds and weapons to insurgents in Iraq. Iran denies this, saying that its detainees are diplomats.

Sinking Feeling.
 
=






<B><center>Middle East

Apr 5, 2007

<font size=+1 color=brown>US dangles tempting bait for Iran</font>

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID05Ak03.html </center>
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned that the standoff over the detained British sailors in Iran is on the verge of reaching a "critical stage" and has done so in the immediate aftermath of a conciliatory statement by Iranian National Security Adviser Ali Larijani regarding Iran's lack of intention to put the sailors on trial.
</b>
But what if the sailors are not released immediately? Is Blair really prepared to "take it to the next phase" and escalate it on all fronts? At the moment, both Blair and Foreign Secretary Margaret

Beckett insist they have economic and diplomatic, not military, pressures in mind. Yet a poll in Britain indicates that nearly half the population favors the military option "as a last resort", and this ratio may go up instead of down depending on what happens in the next few days or so.

Britain said in a statement on Tuesday that it was waiting for a response from Iran over a proposal for "direct bilateral discussions" to resolve the standoff. The statement said London and Tehran had had "further contacts", including directly with Larijani. A British team of high-level experts, including naval officers, lawyers and diplomats, is ready to fly to Iran at short notice should Tehran give the nod.

Meanwhile, the US has released Jalal Sharafi, a diplomat from the Iranian Embassy in Iraq, which is timely, but then again this can be interpreted in two ways. It could be a gesture of goodwill by the US, in light of the upcoming Iraq security summit in Istanbul, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates' stated willingness to engage with Iran on high levels. Or, alternatively, it could be "bait" that bolsters the hands of Iranian hardliners who are pushing for a quid pro quo, ie, a swap of Iranian hostages in the United States' hands with the British sailors apprehended by the Revolutionary Guards.

So the pertinent question is: What is the United States' true motivation, noble and peace-directed, or geared to lengthening what President George W Bush has already coined as a "hostage crisis"?

With Bush closing the cognitive gap between the Iranian "hostages" and the situation of the British sailors, and this at a time when even British officials are not using that description, and insisting that "there will be no quid pro quo", the desired result may have been none other than to promote the seductive notion of a tit-for-tat among the Iranians.

Iran might yet go for the bait. But for the moment, given the intense factional debate inside Iran over this subject, it is conceivable that the United States' initiative of releasing the Iranian diplomat will not serve the declared "noble" intention of crisis-deescalation but rather, in a curious twist, fuel it.

After all, now the Iranians are disposed to thinking: If after two weeks of holding on to the British sailors we got one of our own free, why not keep them longer to get the rest out?

The trouble with this thinking is that it misperceives the motives of the other side and the counterproductive results of a lengthy ordeal that will strengthen the hands of anti-Iran hawks in Washington and further isolate Iran at a delicate time in the nuclear row.

Already, a number of powerful Majlis (parliament) deputies affiliated with the majority hardline faction known as osoolgarayan have criticized Larijani for his "weak stance" and have rejected his assurance of "no trial" for the sailors as soft and inappropriate.

Henceforth, in the intense policy tug-of-war inside Iran, external catalysts such as the United States' move will play a decisive role in tipping the balance in favor of one or other faction. This is why it is incumbent on Iranian politicians not to misread the situation and to avoid any policy "traps".

The force of Iranian public opinion is equally important and, unfortunately, because of New Year holidays and the Iranian



press being on a 20-day vacation, it is difficult to gauge the dominant sentiments in Iran.

A report from the Christian Science Monitor cites a divergence in Iran's streets over the crisis with Britain, offering a glimpse of viewpoints. Many Iranians support the government's action and are at the same time apprehensive about the backlashes, particularly on the economic front. This in light of the European Union's solid backing of London and a dire warning of taking further action. A general war-weariness among Iranians is also discernable that factors in the government's response, articulated by Larijani and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

At the same time, Iran sees itself encircled by US power, and there is a siege mentality in reaction to the "psychological warfare" reflected in the daily bombardment of news regarding an impending US strike on Iran. Per a report in the Jerusalem Post, Russian military leaders have even pinpointed the exact date: Good Friday, April 6.

Many political analysts in Iran are not particularly sold to this kind of news and take it with a pinch of salt, some even dismissing the possibility of US military action against Iran in the foreseeable future. This is not universally shared by government policymakers, however, and pronouncements by Iran's military leaders indicate a readiness for defense against imminent attack.

So, in this volatile environment, if the United States' intentions toward Iran are non-antagonistic, as officially claimed, then the release of the Iranian diplomat must be backed by words of assurance by Washington. It must state that this is not a clever trap and the US is, in fact, eager to see an amicable, face-saving exit by both Iran and Britain in the crisis over the sailors.

The absence of such explicit signals simply reinforces the plethora of Iran conspiracy theorists who see the hidden hands of Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Council staff and White House adviser Elliott Abrams more than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iran officer, Nicholas Burns, in the shrewd move in Baghdad.

The chances are the US government is equally riveted by a spirited debate about the whole thing, with one faction in the State Department pushing for the path of dialogue and reconciliation and another for the exact opposite, and both wanting to use the Iran-British crisis to their advantage. For its turn, Tehran can do a lot to assist the moderate US faction that looks forward to the security summit in Istanbul as a further ice-breaker.

Should the release of the British sailors be delayed further, then the Istanbul summit can conceivably be used by both sides to use the intervention of the Iraqis, the Turks and so on for a mutually satisfactory settlement of the dispute.

Simultaneously, Iran could release the sailors on "bail" and put them in the custody of the British Embassy in Tehran, following the guidelines of international conventions on the laws of the sea.

An ideal alternative, however, is an immediate end to this controversy in which the sailors would be freed after an explicit pledge by the British government not to trespass into Iranian territory. That is not such a high price to pay for a peaceful settlement of a potentially dangerous crisis with so many trigger points, and it can be hoped that the logic of crisis prevention will prevail in both Tehran and London before it is too late.
 
=




<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>Israel troops launch incursion into Gaza</font>

16 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070404/wl_mideast_afp/mideastunrestgaza </center>
GAZA CITY (AFP) - Israeli soldiers entered the Gaza Strip and clashed with militants on Wednesday, the first incursion into the territory since a November ceasefire, Palestinian security sources said. </b>

Soldiers driving five tanks, bulldozers and jeeps, penetrated half a kilometre into farmland near the northern Gaza village of Beit Hanun, sparking sporadic gunfights with militants, the sources said.

Two Palestinians were injured, one of whom was subsequently arrested by Israel, according to the sources.

The first incursion by ground troops into the Gaza Strip since a November 26 ceasefire follows a call by Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz for the army to take "decisive action" against Gaza militants to halt the firing of homemade rockets into the Jewish state.

On March 28, Israel launched a first strike against Palestinians firing rockets from the northern Gaza Strip after a four-month hiatus the November ceasefire. No soldiers entered Gaza during that strike.

A handful of senior Israeli intelligence and military officials have warned in recent weeks that Gaza's militants are rearming themselves with weapons smuggled from Egypt and called for military action.
 
=



<B><font size=+1 color=red><center>Syria Welcomes Iran Decision to Release British Sailors</font>

Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 08:10 PM
http://www.sana.org/eng/21/2007/04/04/111612.htm </center>
DAMAASCUS, (SANA)</b>-Syria welcomed Iran's decision to release the British sailors who were detained in Iran, an official source at the Foreign Ministry said Wednesday


"Syria who hails this correct decision, sees it as an example of positive outcome for adopting dialogue and diplomacy among countries," the official source said in a statement to SANA.
 
=
<center>:D

Thanks for the *Bump* Unique</center>



<B><font size=+1 color=brown><center>Will the Ayatollah Win -- Again? </font>

April 04, 2007
TownHall.com
Terence Jeffrey
http://townhall.com/columnists/colu...Jeffrey&dt=04/04/2007&page=full&comments=true </center>
In the Shiite theocracy of Iran, the people elect the parliament and president, but the nation is not a democracy. That is because a 12-man Council of Guardians -- half of whose members are clerics appointed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei -- vetoes candidates and nullifies legislation. </b>

In post-invasion Iraq, a simpler theocratic system has evolved. One man holds the veto. He is Ayatollah Ali Sistani, an Iranian by birth, who is Iraq's pre-eminent Shiite clergyman.

Although Sistani has no formal governmental authority, in practical terms his word has been law in Iraq ever since U.S. forces overthrew Saddam Hussein.

Tragically, he is now trying to stop a draft law aimed at reforming Iraq's de-Baathification policies. The measure was proposed by Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki, a Shiite, and President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. It would allow most former members of the Baath Party who served in Saddam's government to collect their pensions or return to public service, as long as they had not been indicted or convicted of a crime and were willing to pledge not to speak out against the new government.

This reform is indispensable to reconciling Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites. That is because Iraq's indigenous Sunni insurgency -- as opposed to al-Qaida in Iraq -- is believed to be significantly manned by former Baathists. They resent being thrown out of the military and government service by Ambassador Paul Bremer, who ran Iraq for the United States before Iraqi sovereignty was restored.

Without reconciliation between former Baathists and Iraq's Shiite-dominated government, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is likely to lead to an escalating civil war, which could in turn lead to a broadening of the conflict to neighboring oil-rich Persian Gulf Arab states, where, as in Saddam's Iraq, Shiites live beneath autocratic Sunni governments.

As Iraqi reconciliation is delayed, U.S. troops are killed and wounded.

On March 26, Maliki and Talabani announced their de-Baathification reform. Last Sunday, Ahmed Chalabi -- who managed the original de-Baathification process directed by Bremer (and who previously was the favorite of some administration officials to become the post-Saddam leader of Iraq) -- met with the reclusive Sistani. After the meeting, a Chalabi aide told The Associated Press that the ayatollah "rejects passing this law because it allows Baathists to return to top state posts."

The next day, a Sistani aide confirmed to The New York Times that the ayatollah did indeed reject the de-Baathification proposal.

This is only Sistani's latest power play. In 2003, the ayatollah rejected a U.S. proposal that an appointed committee draft Iraq's constitution, insisting on elections for an interim government to write it, instead. When those elections were held, the ayatollah put together and endorsed the United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition dominated by Shiite Islamist parties. When that coalition won the election and dominated the constitution-writing process, the ayatollah insisted that the constitution include language preventing any legislation that contradicted Islam. The final draft: "No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of Islam."

When the ayatollah endorsed the draft constitution, more than 90 percent of voters in predominantly Shiite regions cast ballots to ratify it, while more than 90 percent of voters in predominantly Sunni regions voted against it.

The ayatollah's favored Shiite-Islamist coalition now runs Iraq under a constitution overwhelming rejected by the country's Sunni minority.

Meanwhile, Sistani has published decrees on his multilingual Website elaborating theological views that were suppressed during Saddam's rule. These include his view that a husband can forbid his wife from going out, that a man can contract to marry a "temporary" wife for a period as short as one hour, and that singing and the game of chess are forbidden.

Most important to the U.S. troops who liberated Iraq, and the U.S. diplomats trying to politically stabilize the country, is Sistani's nagging suspicion that Christians and Jews might be "najis" (impure), as opposed to "pak" (clean).

"As regards the people of the Book (i.e., the Jews and Christians)," the ayatollah decreed, "... they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are pak. However, it is better to avoid them."

Still, Sistani has had defenders in the United States who have argued that all this ayatollah really wants is a democratic country where people of all religions can live in peace and equality. Then-CIA Director George Tenet exemplified this thinking when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2003, that Sistani's "praise for free elections and his theology reflect, in our reading, a clear-cut opposition to Iranian-style theocracy."

The Presidential Medal of Freedom winner was right in one sense: In an Iranian-style theocracy, it takes a whole committee of ayatollahs to tell the elected government what to do.
 
=

<center>:whistle:

Welp! here we go again!</center>


<B><font size=+1 color=green><center>France Says Iran Detains an Academic</font>

April 04, 2007
The Associated Press
ajc.com
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Europe/France_Iran.html </center>
PARIS -- Iranian authorities detained a French academic and have barred him from leaving the country since January, the French Foreign Ministry said Wednesday. Stephane Dudoignon was arrested in the sensitive region of Sistan-Baluchestan, in southeastern Iran, on Jan. 30 after photographing a religious procession there, Foreign Ministry spokesman Denis Simonneau said. </b>

Iranian authorities immediately released Dudoignon but confiscated his personal items, including his passport, Simonneau said. Dudoignon — a historian specializing in Islam — has not been charged with any crime, Simonneau said.

Dudoignon, who is married to an Iranian woman, is living with his wife's family in Tehran, the French Le Monde daily reported Wednesday. He is not authorized to leave the city, Le Monde said.

The French Embassy in Tehran is in contact with Iranian authorities about the case, Simonneau said. Dudoignon's case was also discussed during a meeting last week between the Iranian ambassador and French Foreign Ministry officials.

"We call on Iranian authorities to quickly find a solution to allow Mr. Dudoignon to leave Iranian territory," Simonneau said in an online briefing on Wednesday.

In November 2005, Iranian officials arrested another Frenchman and a German, reportedly for taking photos of ships in the Persian Gulf. Stephane Lherbier and Donald Klein were convicted in January 2006 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Lherbier, the Frenchman, was released in February, and Klein was freed last month.

The announcement of Dudoignon's arrest comes amid mounting tensions over Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines last month in disputed waters in the Persian Gulf.
 
=


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

From correspondents in Washington
April 04, 2007 03:40am
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.</b>

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.

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.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286804&selected=Analyses

The British Detainees: Why a Rescue Attempt was Never in the Cards
April 04, 2007 17 24 GMT
By Fred Burton

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said April 4 that the 15 British sailors and marines captured March 23 in the area around the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway would be released. Although it is unclear at this point just what deal was made to secure their freedom, it is apparent that Iran instigated the drama for much the same reason it held 52 American hostages for 444 days following the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by radical students in 1979. Both events were meant to demonstrate the power of Iran's hard-liners, not only to the Iranian public but also to the West and the rest of the world.

As the stalemate between the British and the Iranians dragged on for nearly two weeks, many Stratfor readers wrote in to suggest that a rescue operation should be undertaken. In this case, however, seeking a diplomatic solution was always the most logical approach.

Although the rescue operation authorized by U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1979 ended badly for the United States, the British Special Air Service (SAS) and its U.S. counterparts are far better prepared than they were back then -- and they could have avoided most of the mistakes made during "Desert One." That said, however, the Iranians are experts at hiding hostages for long periods, and there certainly was no guarantee that a rescue attempt would have succeeded. Therefore, it was indeed just speculation that one would have been attempted.

The SAS and American operators have conducted hundreds of successful missions in the region, both during the 1991 Gulf War and following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are better equipped than ever before and, with their skills honed to a razor's edge by repeated combat deployments and many successful missions, they perhaps are at their highest level of proficiency.

However, this was not the Iranians' first rodeo when it comes to holding captives, and they undoubtedly would have taken measures to thwart any rescue attempt. While some of these measures would have been military, the most important ones would have been in the realm of intelligence. The Iranians understand that intelligence drives any rescue mission and that by denying the British the required intelligence, they could prevent a rescue attempt from ever getting off the ground.

Naturally, the British (and the Americans) will have focused a tremendous amount of effort and resources on determining where the British personnel were being held. While this case is reminiscent of the 1979 crisis in some ways, when it comes to thwarting intensive intelligence efforts to locate a small group of detainees, it is perhaps more relevant to look back to the Lebanon hostage-taking crisis of the 1980s. During that period, the Iran-guided Hezbollah operation thwarted intensive U.S. efforts to collect the tactical intelligence required to mount a rescue attempt for nearly a decade.

Ali the Iranian

Hezbollah is intimately connected to Iran. The organization was created by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the 1980s as a vehicle to export the ideals of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini's Islamic Revolution to Lebanon's Shiite community. Since then, Iran has been Hezbollah's chief source of funding and weapons, and the Iranians also provide extensive training in weapons, tactics, communications, surveillance, intelligence and other methods to Hezbollah's militant wing in Lebanon.

Because of this relationship, the Iranians were intimately involved in Hezbollah's operations to abduct Western hostages in Lebanon -- and to hold them for prolonged periods of time. In fact, some of the hostages were even held at locations clearly associated with Iran's IRGC, such as the Sheikh Abdullah Barracks in Baalbek, in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

This linkage to Iran was clearly displayed in the Iran-Contra scandal, in which sales and transfers of arms to Iran led to the release of hostages, including Benjamin Weir in 1985 and David Jacobson and Father Lawrence Jenco in 1986. However, this Iranian involvement in the keeping of Western hostages in Lebanon was perhaps best personified by a Persian who came to be known as "Ali the Iranian."

During the debriefings of the Western hostages held in Lebanon, it was learned that many of the hostages had seen the same short, chubby bearded chap -- a man the debriefers nicknamed "Ali the Iranian." The uncanny similarity between the sketches made of this man during the debriefing process, as he was described by hostages held at different times and in different locations, demonstrated Ali's prolonged involvement in the episode.

When Ali would come to visit the locations where the hostages were being held, he was treated with great reverence and respect by the guards, and a few of the hostages even characterized his visits as "inspections." Also, due to the timing of his visits, it is believed that Ali was involved in overseeing prisoner movement, monitoring their treatment and approving the sites where they were held.

Because of his function, the U.S. interagency task force assigned to locate the hostages (part of which involved debriefing former hostages) came to the conclusion that Ali was an Iranian intelligence officer who worked very closely with Imad Fayez Mugniyah, the man responsible for Hezbollah's intelligence and counterintelligence activities. Mugniyah is believed to have directed the kidnappings of the Westerners in Lebanon and to have been involved in the efforts to guard them and to thwart any U.S. rescue efforts.

Tactical Lessons from Lebanon

From the debriefings of the Western hostages in Beirut, much was learned about the tactics used by Mugniyah and Hezbollah to keep U.S. intelligence off balance during the decade-long hostage crisis.

First, Hezbollah did not keep all of its eggs in one basket -- it kept the hostages split up. While some were kept in groups, they were never all held together in the same location. The high-value targets, such as CIA station chief William Buckley and Marine Col. William Higgins, were held and interrogated separately. Buckley was moved to the same location as one of the small groups shortly before his death, but he was gravely ill at the time of his transfer and had clearly been severely tortured and badly abused during his solitary captivity.

The hostages also were kept in a number of different environments, including the basement of a military barracks, a secret compartment under a barn and an apartment in a high-rise building in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Sometimes the hostages were kept in absolute darkness, while at other times they were kept in a more congenial atmosphere where they were given light and reading material. Regardless of the conditions, however, the hostages were well-secured and carefully watched by guards armed with assault rifles and pistols. At times, the hostages were chained to the radiator in a room in an apartment building, and at other times they were locked in cells that measured just 16 square feet and were 4 feet high (which was particularly tough for 6-foot-7-inch Briton Terry Waite.) While captives Charlie Glass and Jerry Levin successfully escaped, other escape attempts were foiled and resulted in merciless beatings.

The hostages were almost always held in an area surrounded by Hezbollah sympathizers -- people who could warn of surveillance by Western intelligence, provide early warning on preparation for rescue attempts and help deter escape attempts and recapture escaped hostages.

Hezbollah also moved the hostages around, especially following the release of a hostage or another event that could serve to compromise their location. The hostages were nearly always moved under cover of darkness, and they frequently were bundled like mummies and wrapped in cloth or tape. This not only made escape difficult, but would also make it impossible for any accidental bystander to identify them. At times, the bundled hostages would be moved in the trunk of a car, or even hidden in trucks with secret compartments (presumably used at other times for smuggling arms and other illicit goods.)

These measures (along with the U.S. government's paucity of human sources in Lebanon and over-reliance on signals intelligence) meant that the United States could never gather hard intelligence on the locations of all the hostages at any one time. Without the ability to get U.S. "eyes on" the different detention sites simultaneously, no U.S. rescue mission could be launched. U.S. eyes were needed for verification because the United States could not run the risk of being lured into a trap by bad intelligence -- a trap in which American service personnel could be killed or captured and the disaster made even worse.

Tactical Reality Today

One stark difference between the situations in Lebanon in the past and in Iran today is that the conditions and circumstances under which the Britons are being held is different. The British detainees are being held by an acknowledged government, not a nonstate actor like Hezbollah. Certainly, the captors moved the detainees to various locations, keeping security around them tight and compelling them to make statements to the media. The detainees, however, were not tortured or otherwise intentionally traumatized. Iran could not have afforded for its former captives to tell stories to the media about being chained to radiators and kept in tiger cages. It also could not have them relate stories about being wrapped as mummies and shoved in false compartments of trucks. Also, there was never any indication that the Iranians meant for this captivity to last for months or years.

That said, while many of the specific tactics used by Iran's proteges in Lebanon could not be used during the most recent situation, many of the broad principles could have applied, and these principles would have assisted the Iranians in keeping British intelligence efforts off balance -- should they have chosen to prolong this drama.

Iran is far larger than Lebanon, and Tehran is several times farther from the sea than any point in Lebanon. As witnessed during Desert One in 1979, even getting a rescue team to Tehran can be difficult. The terrain, however, was just one of the obstacles. The IRGC, which captured the British personnel, is far larger and better-equipped than Hezbollah -- not to mention the rest of the Iranian military, police and the MOIS -- and the Iranians are far better trained, equipped and organized than they were in 1979 or Hezbollah was in the 1980s.

Based on these considerations, the conditions under which the detainees have been kept, the risk associated with a rescue operation and the difficulty in collecting the intelligence necessary to launch a rescue attempt in the first place -- a diplomatic, negotiated settlement to the case was always in the cards.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286820

Iran: Balochi Insurgents and the Iraq Tango
April 04, 2007 22 43 GMT

Summary

An April 3 ABC report discussed covert Pakistani and U.S. links to a Balochi insurgent group in Iran known as Jundallah. Stratfor has noted U.S. links to Jundallah in Iran for some time. The group's activities have served as a device for the United States to poke Iran as the two dance the diplomatic tango over Iraq.

Analysis

An ABC exclusive released April 3 details covert Pakistani and U.S. links to a Balochi insurgent group in Iran known as Jundallah, citing unnamed U.S. officials and Pakistani tribal and intelligence sources. According to the report, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney discussed the secret Jundallah campaign against Iran during his visit to Pakistan in February. The report also says the U.S. relationship with Jundallah is arranged so that Washington lacks direct financial links to group, since these would require an official presidential order and congressional oversight.

Stratfor has been examining the U.S. connection to Jundallah's activities in Iran for some time now. Jundallah's activities in Iran serve as a poking device for the United States to use against Iran in the diplomatic tango over Iraq.

The group's origins are murky, but it appears to have surfaced in 2003 under the leadership of a 23-year-old Sunni ethnic Balochi who goes by the name Abdolmalek Righi. Jundallah, or "Soldiers of God," is not to be confused with the more jihadist-oriented Pakistani group by the same name that was responsible for the 2004 attack against Gen. Ahsan Saleem Hayat, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's deputy.

The Jundallah that is active in Iran is an ethno-nationalist insurgent group with an Islamist bent. Its campaign is directed against the Iranian clerical regime for suppressing Iran's impoverished Balochi minority, who are concentrated in the lawless Sistan-Balochistan province in southeastern Iran, where the Afghan, Pakistani and Iranian borders meet.


Jundallah's activities have picked up during the past two years. The group has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and kidnappings of Iranian security forces and officials, the most recent and prominent attack being a Feb. 14 bus bombing that killed 11 members of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The group's young leader has mounted a strong media campaign, in which he regularly condemns the Iranian regime and claims responsibility for attacks via Internet statements. In fact, Voice of America (VOA), a U.S. government agency, aired a live phone interview with Righi on its Persian-language service April 1, introducing him as the "leader of the Iranian people's resistance movement." VOA's decision to provide Righi a platform to air Balochi grievances has raised further suspicions about U.S. involvement with the group.

The United States has a variety of minority groups to rely on to stir up trouble in the Islamic republic, including the exiled Mujahideen e-Khalq (which largely came under U.S. control at the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war), Ahvazi Arabs in Iran's southwest, and Kurds in its northwest. Jundallah's campaign in Sistan-Balochistan falls in line with U.S. efforts to ramp up support for oppressed Iranian minority groups in an attempt to push the Iranian regime toward a negotiated settlement over Iraq.

The Pakistani connection, however, is more elusive. Pakistan has its own raging Balochi insurgency to deal with, and is not interested in supporting a Balochi insurgent group across the border with the capability to kidnap and kill members of the IRGC. Moreover, the Pakistanis know they must tread carefully in their dealings with Tehran, particularly as Iran is already wary of repercussions of Washington's close relationship with Islamabad.

That said, Pakistan could have worked out an arrangement with the United States to turn a blind eye to covert U.S. forces in Pakistan working with Jundallah. The Pakistani sources cited in the ABC report also said Righi formerly worked for the Taliban, though both Pakistani and Iranian officials are prone to classify the Balochi groups as al Qaeda-linked terror organizations for their respective political purposes. The porous borders in the region are highly conducive to drug smuggling, however, so Righi's group likely has contacts with a variety of militants through these operations.

U.S. support for Jundallah fits into the larger picture of U.S.-Iranian negotiations over Iraq. Iran has made painfully clear that it has -- and can use -- a variety of militant assets throughout the region to pressure Washington to meets its demands in Iraq. At the same time, the United States has an interest in demonstrating that it has friends among Iran's minority groups to gather intelligence, stir up public unrest and distract the clerical regime from its Iraqi agenda.

This type of covert activity fits into a complex blend of negotiating tactics, including military posturing, risky maneuvers and occasional conciliatory gestures designed to get the other side to bend. For the United States to run a more effective, coordinated campaign inside Iran, however, it will need to demonstrate it can alternate action among the Iranian mix of minority groups. Only then can Washington unnerve the Iranians enough to cause serious worries about potential leaks in their system, and thus enhance the U.S. bargaining position.

Related Headlines
Iran: Assassination, Confusion or Disinformation?
Dec 20, 2005
The Covert War and Elevated Risks
Feb 14, 2007
 
Top