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

[The Flying Dutchman]

=



(1) 02/14 to 02/21 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...***of***WAR***

(2)]02/22 to 02/28 ***The***WINDS***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...***of***WAR***

(3)02/29 to 03/06 ***The*** Winds*** of*** WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...*-of***-WAR***

(4)03/07 to 03/14 ***The***Winds***of***War***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?400864-03-07-to-03-14-***The***Winds***of***War***

===============================​

21:55 14.03.12

Report:
Iran officials told Assad to focus on
Israel to divert attention from Syria crisis

Emails said to have been intercepted by Syria opposition and released by the Guardian show advisers
indicated Syrian President should verbally attack Israel, center on Palestinian cause in a planned speech.

By Haaretz
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...o-divert-attention-from-syria-crisis-1.418710​

Syrian President Bashar Assad was advised by Iranian officials to divert attention toward Israel and the Palestinian cause in an effort to deflect criticism of his brutal crackdown, emails said to have been intercepted by Syrian opposition and released by the U.K.'s the Guardian indicated on Wednesday.

According to the Guardian, the messages were said to have been intercepted by the opposition's Supreme Council of the Revolution between June of 2011 and February 2012, and include missives from Assad's private account as well as that belonging to his wife, Asma.

One email sent in December 31 indicated that Assad's aides advised the Syrian president on the contents on an upcoming speech following "consultations with a good number of people in addition to the media and political adviser for the Iranian ambassador."

In the composed memorandum, Assad was advised to stress the issue of Muslim identity through the use of Koran quotes, as well as centering on what the email called "Syria's principles," which included: "Resistance"; "Hostility to Israel, the first enemy of the Muslims"; and "Protection of Palestinian people's rights (real prayers should be in the direction of Jerusalem)."

"Maybe here the president can reiterate his stance by condemning forcefully the recent Israeli practices and policies to Judaise Al-Quds (Jerusalem)," the email added, saying that Assad should use "powerful and violent" language in his opposition to Israel.

"Here the subject of Israel comes up and it becomes necessary to put stress on the particular merits of the president by linking the foreign pressures on Syria, which differs in its toughness and content to other countries in crisis, with the geographical proximity to Israel and the position of the people and the regime towards Israel," the memo stated.

Culminating the email's section on Israel, the adviser said Assad should make "a clear distinction between the west's ambitions and people's demands and that the west and Israel are exploiting part of the Syrian people without their knowledge to break Syria, but the president has a great confidence in the patriotism of the entire Syrian people."

The emails released by the Guardian also indicated that the Syria leader received advice from noted Lebanese businessman Hussein Mortada, known for his links to the Iran. In one message, Mortada advised Assad to stop blaming al-Qaida for opposition attacks

"It is not out of our interest to say that al-Qaida organization is behind the operation because this claim will [indemnify] the U.S. administration and Syrian opposition," Mortada was quoted as saying, adding "I have received contacts from Iran and Hezbollah in my role as director of many Iranian-Lebanese channels and they directed me to not mention that al-Qaida is behind the operation. It is a blatant tactical media mistake."

Another correspondence of note was between Assad's wife Asma and the daughter of the emir of Qatar, Hamid bin Khalifa al-Thani, in which the Qatari noblewoman both advised Assad to step down as well as indicated that Qatar may be able to present the Syrian leader's family with asylum.

"My father regards President Bashar as a friend, despite the current tensions – he always gave him genuine advice," she was cited by the Guardian as writing, saying that the "opportunity for real change and development was lost a long time ago. Nevertheless, one opportunity closes, others open up – and I hope it's not too late for reflection and coming out of the state of denial."

A later email seemed more direct, saying that: "Just been following the latest developments in Syria … in all honesty – looking at the tide of history and the escalation of recent events – we've seen two results – leaders stepping down and getting political asylum or leaders being brutally attacked. I honestly think this is a good opportunity to leave and re-start a normal life."

"I only pray that you will convince the president to take this an opportunity to exit without having to face charges. The region needs to stabilise, but not more than you need peace of mind. I am sure you have many places to turn to, including Doha."





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

‘IDF Tested Gaza Terrorists before Attack on Iran’

Hizbullah and Hamas said IDF strikes on Gaza were a “test” of reactions
in advance of an attack on Iran, a Lebanese newspaper reported.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 3/14/2012, 1:15 PM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153751​

Hizbullah and Hamas said IDF strikes on Gaza terrorists were a “test” of reactions in advance of an attack on Iran, a Lebanese newspaper reported. Leaders of Hizbullah and Hamas also reportedly said they are coordinating with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in the event of a war “waged by the Zionist enemy.”

Hizbullah supreme leader Hassan Nasrallah met with the Hamas number two leader in Lebanon, according to the Al-Sapir Arabic-language newspaper.

An alliance between the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbullah axis in the north with Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood would squeeze Israel from both ends of the country.

The meeting between Hizbullah and Hamas’ Dr. Moussa Abu Marzouk focused on the rebellion in Syria and the IDF’s counterterrorist strike on two Gaza terrorist leaders and the retaliation that followed a resumption of Hamas and Islamic Jihad missile attacks on Israel.

Nasrallah and Marzouk met on Monday and charged that “the Israeli enemy is responsible for the recent escalation of Israel’s counterterrorist measures in Gaza, which they said were intended “to pressure the resistance forces” and test their preparations for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear plants.

The newspaper said that Hizbullah and Hamas discussed their relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood in light of the situation in Gaza and the current discussion in the West of intervening in Syria to stop the slaughter of civilians by Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Nasrallah also told Hamas leaders that Assad wants a political solution to the crisis facing his regime.

Hamas said it is holding meetings with other Arab factions in Lebanon and with representatives of the Palestinian Authority for a planned “million-man” march on Israel later this month.





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

ANALYSIS:
Dr Strangelove, Israel and Iran
—Harlan Ullman

Thursday, March 15, 2012
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\03\15\story_15-3-2012_pg3_5​

With Iran’s nuclear capability in Israel’s gun sights, thinking unthinkable and even Strangelovian thoughts about potential attacks do not require a Peter Sellers movie

In considering how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it is instructive first to see Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 cinematic masterpiece, Dr Strangelove: Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb. The film and its characters brilliantly satirised the ‘thinkability’ of thermonuclear war: Dr. Strangelove, the bizarre wheel-chair bound and crippled blonde-haired ex-Nazi pseudo-academic; Merkin Miffley the egg-headed president (and Wing Commander Lionel Mandrake all played by the British comedian Peter Sellers); General Buck Turgidson, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, constantly on the phone with his mistress; the deranged Strategic Air Command General Jack D. Ripper; and Major “King” Kong, who in a final scene drops from his B-52 astride a 20 megaton hydrogen bomb like a cowboy rider at a rodeo.

How does doomsday arrive? General Ripper snaps and orders a flight of B-52 bombers to attack the Soviet Union. In the Pentagon War Room, the President and his advisors, along with the Soviet ambassador and a drunken Soviet premier on the hotline, frantically try to recall the raid and then shoot down the remaining American bombers. As the denouement approaches, the Soviet ambassador warns the president that his country has invented a doomsday machine that would destroy the planet if a nuclear weapon explodes on Soviet territory. When told about this doomsday device, Miffley/Sellers famously deadpans: “Don’t you think, it’s a little bit late to let us know Yuri,” as Major Kong aboard his bomb hurtles earthwards.

With Iran’s nuclear capability in Israel’s gun sights, thinking unthinkable and even Strangelovian thoughts about potential attacks do not require a Peter Sellers movie. For the near term and perhaps longer, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu seems to have been persuaded or realizes that a combination of harsher sanctions on and negotiations with Iran must be given time to work. But let’s suppose Israel’s leaders conclude that Iran must be prevented from fielding nuclear weapons at all costs...

Senior US military officers agree that, at best, Israel can only delay and not prevent Iran from producing a bomb. Israel lacks the aerial tankers and the load capacity of its F-15 and F-16 jets to impose more than temporary damage. Given geography and logistics, an Israeli pre-emptive strike would most likely come in from the west, overflying Iraq with its minimal air defences, and assuming that the US will not engage. The result of an Israeli attack will almost certainly convince Iran to build nuclear weapons as well as retaliate in a variety of ‘asymmetric’ ways, from oil blockades to the use of terror to unleashing Hezbollah against Israel.

Two questions, however, have not been part of this public discourse. First, would the Israelis attack from an unexpected direction, meaning the north? Second, given the need for deep penetrator weapons the Israelis do not have or may be too heavy for its aircraft to carry at long range, would nuclear weapons be considered? After all, if the Iranian danger was deemed existential to Israel, why would any constraints apply to using nuclear weapons despite the huge attendant and unpredictable risks?

Given Israel’s penchant for often bold and creative military thinking, the most direct and predictable line of attack by overflying Iraq may not be the preferred choice, provided basing and refueling options with countries close to or bordering Iran have been granted. That means attacking Iran from the north and flying over the Caspian Sea. Severe and even overwhelming problems remain. Any country that tolerates or does not prevent Israel from violating its airspace could be subject to Iran’s retaliation or could turn against Israel.

Considering nuclear weapons is more interesting. It is not known here if Israel has or can get bunker busting weapons with sufficient explosive and penetrating power to destroy or greatly damage Iran’s underground nuclear sites. A nuclear penetrator or a sufficiently large enough nuclear surface burst that leaves a crater hundreds of feet deep would be the most certain means of achieving maximum damage. The dangers, repercussions and blowback would be so enormous that discussion of nuclear weapons is unthinkable. Yet, Israel might conclude it had no other option than to use nuclear weapons.

Returning to Strangelove, does Iran already have an equivalent doomsday machine or retaliatory instrument outside the oil weapon? The answer is yes. Imagine one or more 300,000 or 400,000 ton supertankers laden with 50,000 or 100,000 tons of explosive material from liquid natural gas to ammonium phosphate crashing at 30 knots into the port of Haifa or close aboard Tel Aviv. One kiloton (KT) equates to 1,000 tons of conventional explosive. These ships could carry the explosive equivalent of a 50 or 100KT nuclear weapon.

And, after an Israeli attack, suppose there were an Iranian version of Major Kong or General Ripper at the helm of these supertankers. Now that would be some movie!






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

To strike Iran's nuclear facilities or not to strike? Why polls differ.

Two recent surveys seem to conflict over how Americans
would prefer to handle the threat of a nuclear Iran.

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / March 14, 2012
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreig...:+feeds/usa+(Christian+Science+Monitor+|+USA)​

With two recent surveys appearing to offer very different answers to that question, the key to understanding how Americans really feel lies in how the question is asked.

Given a choice between Israel conducting strikes on Iran’s nuclear program or the United States and other world powers pursuing a negotiated solution with Iran, nearly 7 out of 10 Americans choose diplomacy, according to a new poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.


RECOMMENDED: 3 reasons Israel will attack Iran and 3 reasons it won't

But if the question is put another way, and Americans are asked if they would support the US launching military action against Iran if there were evidence that Tehran is building nuclear weapons, a clear majority – 56 percent – say they would, according to a poll released Tuesday by Reuters and the Ipsos polling group.

What looks like contradictory responses is most likely explained by the differing wording: One poll asks about bombing Iran’s “nuclear program,” while the other asks specifically about military action in the event that “evidence” shows Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

But taken together, the two polls reflect to some degree the position that President Obama has staked out on Iran. As he reiterated in a Rose Garden press conference Wednesday with British Prime Minister David Cameron, the president favors a negotiated settlement for Iran’s nuclear challenge, even as he warns Iran that the time for dialogue is drawing to a close.

“The window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking,” Mr. Obama said, adding that the world and the US will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. He concluded with a message to the Iranian government: “Meet your international obligations or face the consequences.”

The Reuters/Ipsos poll does suggest that Republicans are much more likely to favor striking Iran – perhaps reflecting the hawkish rhetoric on Iran from Republican presidential candidates during last week’s visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While 70 percent of Republicans would support bombing an Iran that was shown to be building a nuclear weapon, 46 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents would support such action.

The inclusion of “evidence” in the Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests that Americans may still be operating under an “Iraq effect.” Many Americans remember that the Bush administration presented what was said to be conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein was building and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. The invasion revealed that those weapons did not exist.

How much “evidence” would actually be required for the public to support military action is unclear.

The results of the PIPA poll, on the other hand, suggest a different kind of Iraq effect – a broad feeling among Americans that military intervention is not a quick fix to international problems. The PIPA poll indicates that a majority of Americans believe a military strike would either only slightly delay or would in fact lead to an acceleration of Iran’s nuclear program. And nearly half believe military action would lead to a war that would last for years.

“One of the reasons Americans are so cool toward the idea of Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear program is that most believe that it is not likely to produce much benefit,” says Steven Kull, director of PIPA.

Some Iran analysts and US political leaders have started to promote the idea that it is not Iran’s nuclear program per se that is the problem, but the Iranian government. So they conclude that the US goal should be “regime change” in Iran.

But less than half of Americans – 42 percent – believe that military action would weaken the Iranian government, according to the PIPA poll. About a third believe airstrikes would actually strengthen the regime.

Mr. Kull says Americans’ reluctance toward military strikes on Iran should not be interpreted as wishful thinking that Iran has no interest in building a bomb. On the contrary, he says, most Americans are pessimistic about Iran’s intentions.

The poll found that 58 percent believe Iran has already decided it wants the bomb and is actively working to build it.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Israel-Egypt peace pact under threat

The Islamist-dominated Egyptian Parliament's moves to cut ties with Israel heightens
fears that Egypt will scrap the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.

Published: March. 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special...t-peace-pact-under-threat/UPI-18051331756821/​

CAIRO, March 14 (UPI) -- The Islamist-dominated Egyptian Parliament's moves to cut ties with Israel after Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip has heightened Israeli and U.S. fears post-Mubarak Egypt will scrap the historic 1979 peace treaty between the Jewish state and Cairo.

That U.S.-brokered pact, the first between Israel and its Arab foes, transformed Middle Eastern geopolitics and over the years has become a linchpin of regional stability. If it is abrogated by Egypt's newly empowered Islamists it will refocus Arab hostility toward the Jewish state as its grapples with Iran's alleged quest for nuclear weapons.

The political triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood, the most powerful of Egypt's Islamist groups and the godfather to just about every Muslim militant organization in the Middle East, in post-Mubarak elections threw the continuation of the treaty deeply in doubt. Now controlling the largest party in Egypt's Parliament with 47 percent of the 508 seats, the Muslim Brotherhood's senior figures refuse to recognize Israel.

Deputy leader Rashad Bayoumi declared in January that Israel "is an occupying criminal enemy." He said the party, outlawed under Mubarak, will take "legal action against the peace treaty with the Zionist enemy" and plans to have a national referendum on the issue once a new government is formed.

On Monday, the People's Assembly, the lower house of Parliament, demonstrated what probably lies ahead: a growing push to limit the president's wide executive powers while boosting that of the Islamist-dominated legislature.

That would supposedly make it easier for Parliament to abrogate the peace treaty, or at least make major amendments, such as lifting restrictions on the number of troops Egypt can deploy in the Sinai Peninsula buffer zone.

Egypt lost Sinai in the 1967 Middle East war but regained it under the peace treaty.

The house voted unanimously to support expelling the Israeli ambassador -- his predecessor fled after a mob stormed his embassy and torched it -- recalling Egypt's envoy from Israel and halting exports of natural gas to Israel.

The vote, which followed a report by the chamber's Arab Affairs Committee that described Israel as the country's "No. 1 enemy," is largely symbolic. But it signals major changes are likely ahead.

The four-day fighting in Gaza, in which 20 Palestinians died in Israeli airstrikes, underscored the growing tensions between the Jewish state and Egypt, which controlled Gaza until Israel captured it in 1967.

Gaza, a hotbed of Islamist militancy, borders Sinai where Cairo has lost control of security since the Feb. 11 downfall of President Hosni Mubarak, a U.S. ally and staunch supporter of the Israeli treaty, in a pro-democracy uprising.

Mubarak's departure after 30 years of dictatorial rule, and the toppling of other dictators in the political convulsions of the Arab Spring, heightened Israel's isolation and left the landmark pact on shaky ground.

Although the interim military regime backs the pact, largely because of the $3 billion in U.S. aid it brings, it remains widely unpopular among Egypt's 82 million people.

Even so, in January the Muslim Brotherhood gave the United States assurances that the peace deal would be maintained.

Many analysts say the Muslim Brotherhood isn't prepared to go to war with Israel and the Jewish state certainly wants to avoid conflict, particularly while it's locked in a struggle with Iran, seen by many Israelis as an existential threat.

But there have been signs since the Muslim Brotherhood's sweeping electoral gains that it remains uneasy about the treaty.

A recent surge of anti-U.S. sentiment in Egypt, particularly the crackdown on four U.S.-funded organizations accused of interfering in Egyptian politics, doesn't augur well for Cairo's relations with Israel.

The episode also heightened tension between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which has been in charge since Mubarak stepped down.

The council has shown little desire to change relations with Washington, which Islamists generally view with deep suspicion and hostility.

The council's Feb. 29 decision to lift a travel ban on 43 activists, including 16 Americans, accused of receiving illegal foreign funds, defused an embarrassing diplomatic standoff with Washington but incensed the Muslim Brotherhood.

Critics claimed the council bowed to Washington's wishes and pressured judges to let the foreigners go to avoid a confrontation with the United States, which the chamber's Arab Affairs Committee branded Egypt's "No. 1 enemy."


Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special...nder-threat/UPI-18051331756821/#ixzz1p8TmlXuk



=

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....Warning: This is not "light reading"
http://csis.org/publication/us-and-...tion-proxy-cold-war-levant-egypt-and-jordan-0

http://csis.org/files/publication/120312_Iran_VIII_Levant.pdf

U.S. And Iranian Strategic Competition: The Proxy Cold War in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan

By Aram Nerguizian
Mar 12, 2012

US competition with Iran has become the equivalent of a game of three-dimensional chess, but a game where each side can modify at least some of the rules with each move. It is also a game that has been going on for some three decades. It is clear that it is also a game that is unlikely to be ended by better dialog and mutual understanding, and that Iran’s version of “democracy” is unlikely to change the way it is played in the foreseeable future.

The Burke Chair at CSIS is preparing a detailed analysis of the history and character of this competition as part of a project supported by the Smith Richardson Foundation. This has led to the preparation of a new draft report entitled “US and Iranian Competition: The Proxy Cold War in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan”

This report is available on the CSIS website at: http://csis.org/files/publication/120312_Iran_VIII_Levant.pdf

Iran’s efforts to expand its regional influence in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan are a key aspect of its strategic competition with the US. Nearly twenty years after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and five years after the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War, the US and its allies continue to struggle with the realities of Iran’s growing influence in the region and its use of proxy and asymmetric warfare. The Islamic Republic has developed strong ties with Syria and non-state actors in the region, including the Lebanese Shi’a group Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas Islamist movement in what Iranian and Syrian leaders have dubbed the “Resistance Axis.” Iran continues to exploit Arab-Israeli tensions in ways that make it an active barrier to a lasting Arab-Israeli peace, while the US must deal with Arab hostility to its strategic partnership with Israel. At the same time, both the US and Iran face new uncertainties in dealing with Egypt, Syria, and the wave of unrest in the Arab world.

At the same time, both the US and Iran face an unprecedented level of policy instability in the Levant, and the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, that affects every aspect of their regional competition. At present, no one can predict the outcome in any given case. Even the short term impact of changes in regimes is not predictable, nor is how they will affect the underlying drivers of regional tensions. It is particularly dangerous to ignore the risk of replacing one form of failed governance with another one, and the prospect of years of further political instability or upheavals.

Syria has been a challenge for US policy-makers for decades. Yet the current round of instability is unprecedented and the US is not likely to enact a coherent strategy in the short term. This in turn informs the future pace and form of competition with Iran over Syria.

While Lebanon has been relatively stable during the current period of upheaval, there are real risks of instability as well as opportunities to manage security politics in the Levant that the US should not ignore.

As this report shows, Israel too is an arena for US-Iranian competition and the recent cycle of instability will remain critical to how both countries develop their bilateral relationship and security ties. The place and role of the Palestinians in US policy and competition with Iran are part and parcel of US-Iranian competition over Israel.

Lastly, US policy towards Egypt and Jordan are driven by a number of common factors that have impacted whether or not these two key US allies become exposed to Iranian influence and interference.
This report is a working draft, part of a comprehensive survey of US and Iranian competition made possible through the funding of the Smith Richardson Foundation, and which is to be published as an electronic book in early March. Comments and suggestions would be most helpful. They should be sent to Anthony H. Cordesman at acordesman@gmail.com.

Other draft chapters and reports in this series include:
1. Introduction
2. Types and Levels of Competition - This chapter looks at the various arenas in which Iran and the U.S. compete for influence.
3. Iran and the Gulf Military Balance - This chapter looks at Iran’s Military forces in detail, and the balance of forces in the Gulf Region.
4. Iran and the Gulf Military Balance II – This chapter looks at Iran’s Missile and Nuclear forces.
5. U.S. and Iranian Strategic Competition: The Sanctions game: Energy, Arms Control, and Regime Change - This chapter examines the impact of sanctions on the Iranian regime, Iran’s energy sector, and the prospects for regime change in Tehran.
6. US and Iranian Strategic Competition in the Gulf States and Yemen - This chapter examines the competition between the US, and Iran and how it affects Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Oman and Qatar.
7. The Outcome of Invasion: US and Iranian Strategic Competition in Iraq - This chapter examines in detail the role Iran has played in Iraq since 2003, and how the US has tried to counter it.
8. U.S. and Iranian Strategic Competition: The Proxy Cold War in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan - This chapter examines US and Iranian interests in the Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Egypt and Syria. The military balance is also analyzed.
9. The United States and Iran: Competition involving Turkey and the South Caucasus - This chapter analyzes the US and Iranian competition over influence in Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
10. Competition in Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Pakistan - This chapter examines the important role Iran plays in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and how the US and Iranian rivalry affects Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia.
11. U.S. and Iranian Strategic Competition: The Impact of China and Russia - This chapter examines the complex and evolving relationships between China, Russia, Iran and the US.
12. U.S. and Iranian Strategic Competition: Competition Involving the EU, EU3, and non-EU European States - This chapter looks at the role the EU, and in particular the EU3, have played as the U.S.’s closest allies in its competition with Iran.
13. U.S. and Iranian Strategic Competition: Peripheral Competition Involving Latin America and Africa - This chapter examines the extent and importance of the competition between the US and Iran in the rest of the world.


Programs
Burke Chair in Strategy
Topics
Defense and Security, International Security
Regions
Egypt

application/pdf icon
Download PDF file of "U.S. And Iranian Strategic Competition: The Proxy Cold War in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan"

 

[Housecarl]

Uh oh....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...oner-release/2012/03/14/gIQAwi7OCS_story.html

Armed Bedouins surround peacekeepers, some US, in Sinai to demand prisoner release
Comments 3
By Associated Press, AP

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay — An international peacekeeping force remained surrounded by armed Bedouins in the Sinai desert Wednesday, senior Uruguayan officials said. The Bedouins hoped their show of force would lead to the release of five Egyptian terror suspects.

About 300 Bedouins armed with automatic rifles mounted on pickup trucks surrounded the camp, where hundreds of Colombian, U.S. and Uruguayan soldiers are stationed to monitor compliance with an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.

An official with the peacekeeping force said there has been no shooting, even as the Bedouins blocked the main road leading up to the camp and tore barbed wire outside. The forces were in a state of alert and had increased their security, the official said on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to brief reporters.

An Uruguayan statement said the Bedouins also burned tires and stationed their guns around the four corners of the camp.

As for the peacekeepers, “all are well, with food, ammunition, good morale,” said Gen. Pedro Aguerre, the Uruguayan armed forces chief. He said the soldiers are highly trained and are prepared to use contingency plans if the situation worsens.

The group is trying to pressure Egypt to release five Bedouins facing retrial and a sentence of death or life in prison after being convicted of terrorism in 2005 bombing attacks in Sharm el-Sheik in southern Sinai.

At least two days of negotiations have apparently failed to resolve the standoff. Both sides are waiting for Egypt’s response.

“The important thing is to see how Egypt resolves the negotiation with the Bedouins,” said Uruguay’s foreign minister, Luis Almagro. He said he had been in contact with the embassies of Egypt, the United States and Israel seeking more information.

Uruguay said 22 of the 58 Uruguayans had been allowed to evacuate, and that 300 Colombians and 80 U.S. soldiers also had been inside the base. The Uruguayans offered no more details on them.

Colombia’s defense ministry referred questions to the foreign ministry, which also declined to comment.

The overall force, set up under the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979, has 1,400 soldiers from 14 nations, including 800 U.S. peacekeepers, who patrol the entire Sinai. The force official declined to provide any details about the soldiers under siege.

___

Associated Press Writer Maggie Michael in Cairo contributed to this report.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.3a460f83a030800f04ba77f4d5dc26f6.481

Protesters block Uruguayan peacekeepers in Sinai: officials

(AFP) – 2 hours ago

MONTEVIDEO — Uruguay said Wednesday a contingent of its soldiers serving as peacekeepers in the Sinai have been trapped in their base by Bedouins demanding the release of four colleagues imprisoned in Egypt.

Foreign Minister Luis Almagro said about 35 Uruguayan soldiers in the multinational peacekeeping force had been blocked from leaving their base in the northern Sinai, which also has US and Colombian peacekeeping troops.

"The actual situation is that a Uruguayan contingent in the northern Sinai is (...) surrounded by Bedouins linked to some insurgent movements in the region," he said.

Defense Minister Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro said "negotiations are underway" with the Bedouins to end the standoff.

No weapons have been fired during the confrontation.

The international peacekeeping force maintains a vigil in the Sinai under authority of the 1978 Camp David agreements between Egypt and Israel.

Uruguay has been part of the mission since 1982. Its soldiers are assigned to two bases, according to Uruguayan army officials.

Pedro Aguerre, commander-in-chief of the Uruguayan Army, said the soldiers "have not been attacked but have been blocked."

Other Uruguayans already have been evacuated to the southern Sinai, leaving only 35 at the northern base, Aguerre said.

The Bedouins have no "military structure as we know it, they are really nomads," Aguerre said.

The northern Sinai base includes about 300 Colombian soldiers and 80 Americans.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Related articles

* Protesters block Uruguayan peacekeepers in Sinai: officials
AFP - 1 hour ago
* Armed Bedouins surround peacekeepers in Sinai
Ynetnews - 1 hour ago
* Bedouins surround peacekeepers, some US, in Sinai
CBS News - 4 hours ago

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/...aza-in-response-to-rocket-attacks_196891.html

Israeli warplanes strike Gaza in response to rocket attacks
Europe
15.03.2012
By our dpa-correspondent and Europe Online auf Facebook posten Auf Twitter posten Im VZ-Netzwerk posten

Gaza (dpa) - Israeli aircraft Wednesday night hit a vacant area in southern Gaza city with missiles, witnesses and medical sources said.

Witnesses said that the Israeli aircraft hovered over Gaza city before two huge explosions were heard in southern Gaza city. Ambulances and rescue teams rushed to the scene, no injuries were reported.

On Tuesday night, Israeli warplanes also carried out two separate airstrikes on Gaza City, where a store was badly damaged in Gaza City. No injuries were reported.

Tuesday and Wednesday airstrikes on the coastal enclave, ruled by the Islamic Hamas movement, were an Israeli retaliation to rockets that Gaza militants had fired over the past two days.

The airstrikes came as Egypt brokered an understanding of calm between Israel and Gaza militants, including the Islamic Jihad movement.

The calm was reached following four days of fighting between the two sides, where 26 Palestinians were killed and more than 80 were wounded. Since Friday, militants fired more than 180 rockets on southern Israeli towns.

Israeli army officials said that its forces will retaliate for every rocket that is fired from Gaza, where militant leaders said they are ready to expand the range of rockets firing from the coastal enclave, ruled by Hamas, on Israel. dpa sar mjr pr

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article587523.ece

Posted by
DAWOUD ABU LEBDEH
Mar 14, 2012 23:25
The Arab Spring: Good or bad for the Palestinian cause?

It’s been over a year since the start of a wave of revolutions that brought down the rulers of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, one after another. In Syria, dozens die by the day, hoping to achieve the same goals of freedom and dignity under a democratic regime.

Many Palestinians are now wondering what effect this past year’s developments in the Arab world will have on their own struggle for independence.

After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which marked the dissolution of a pan-Arab identity, many Palestinians came to feel that their struggle was theirs alone. A recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) shows that Palestinians have not changed their perceptions of how their cause is viewed by the greater Arab world. Of those polled, most (65 percent) feel that the Arab Spring will have a negative impact on the Palestinian cause. Dr Nabil Kukali, president of the PCPO, says that most Palestinians view the Arab Spring as the “Palestinian Fall”. Kukali explains that the new Arab regimes and their peoples are now concerned more with internal issues than with the Palestinians’ future.

Of course the internal situation in Arab Spring countries is still one of turmoil, and it is to be expected that each country is trying to put its own house in order, giving priority to domestic affairs like the economy and security.

But for Palestinians this has meant that their leaders’ bid to gain recognition for a Palestinian state in the UN last fall was virtually ignored by the Arab street.

Had the Arab street raised its voice and called on the world to recognize the Palestinian state as a member of the UN, it might have influenced the larger players, such as Britain and the United States, to think more favorably about admitting Palestine – particularly as these countries have relationships with the Arab world based on vital interests.

It will take time for the dust of revolution to settle and for the Arab countries in transition to arrive at a point where they can attend to restructuring their foreign policy and diplomatic relations.

One only has to look to Egypt to understand how its standing in the region has been affected by the revolution.

Prior to it, Egypt was arguably the major Arab power in the Middle East, playing an important role in mediating between the Arab world and the West. This was the reason US President Barack Obama chose Egypt as the platform from which to deliver his first speech to the Muslim world as president in June 2009.

But today the role played by Egypt in the political arena is marginal because Egypt's internal affairs are in flux. When dozens can die in a football match in Egypt, there is not much room to attend to foreign policy.

The Palestinians don’t have time to wait for the Arab street to take a greater interest in their affairs, and must push forward and build the foundations of their future state. Self-reliance at this time is key for the future of an independent Palestinian state. One only needs to look at the steps the Zionists took to found the state of Israel.

They did not wait for the world to wake up. Decades before 1948 they were working hard to build the infrastructure for their state. It is only once the main components of a state were in place that the world gave its support.

The young generations of Palestinians have the potential to do the same. The Arab youth who initiated the Arab Spring may have drawn their inspiration from the Palestinian struggle, particularly the first intifada and the nonviolent movement of recent years. I believe that young Palestinians now have the potential to bring about their own Spring.

Of course Arab support, were it to come soon, would no doubt strengthen the Palestinian position and create more favorable conditions for negotiations with the Israeli government. Diplomatic pressure from these countries – particularly from the Gulf states but also from Jordan and Egypt, who have economic and military agreements with larger world powers – could change the rules of the game sooner.

This would be particularly effective if Arab countries were to formulate a unified approach to the Palestinian cause. But even without the support of the Arab world, one can take hope in the enormous potential of young Palestinians to effect change on the ground and achieve freedom for their people.

— Dawoud Abu Lebdeh is a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem. He is currently an MA student for Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=190207

Thursday 15th March, 2012
Pakistan agrees to restore NATO supplies, revive normal ties

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD: Senior US officials say they have been informed by Pakistani authorities that a high-level meeting in Islamabad on Wednesday agreed in principle to restore supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan and to revive normal relationship.

President Asif Ali Zardari presided over the meeting and was attended by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani Air Chief Marshal Qamar Suleman and DG ISI Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Senior coalition leaders including Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, the ANP Chief Asfandyar Wali Khan and MQM leader Farooq Sattar were also attending the meeting.

The rare meeting of the country’s top civilian and military leadership as well as key allies was called just days ahead of the joint session of the parliament that will mark the new parliamentary year but will mainly focus on the debate on the future relationship with the US and NATO allies.

Although the government spokesmen told the media that the meeting reiterated the government’s earlier stance that the parliament will take decision on the NATO supply and relationship with the US, the leaders agreed to restore land route for NATO and revive normal ties with the US.

Senior US officials in Washington said they have been conveyed after the Islamabad meeting about the decisions.

In return the U.S. will also allow the equipments delivery to Pakistan which had been blocked after Islamabad blocked NATO supply line in November.

Pakistan blocked supplies for nearly 150,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan as protest against the air strikes by the American fighter jets and helicopters in Muhmand triabl region and killed 24 soldiers.

Pakistan had also vacated the key Shamsi airbase from the US army and had boycotted the Bonn conference on Afghanistan as a protest.

Pakistan had also refused to welcome top US military leaders and diplomats until parliamentary review is completed, which had also been delayed for some time.

But the meeting also decided to receive the top US visitors whenever they want to visit Pakistan and they agreed with the proposed visit of the US Centcom chief General Mathis, who is likely to visit later this month.

General Mathis told reporters in Washington last week that he will discus, besides other important issues, the plan of using Pakistan land route for the American troops at the time of withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“This has also been conveyed to the U.S. authorities in Washington,” the US sources said. The US plans to withdraw several thousands troops this year as part of its Afghan exit strategy.

The summoning of long-awaited joint session of the parliament to meet on March 17 is also in line with the understanding reached in the Wednesday’s meeting, sources told Online in Islamabad.

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security had been tasked with giving recommendations to reevaluate ties with the U.S./NATO and ISAF following the the NATO, which has already submitted its recommendations.

Participants of the meeting were of the view that the coalition will have no problem to dominate the join session of the parliament during debate on US ties as they are now in complete command of both houses of the parliament, official sources in Islamabad said.

The US sources said that after positive signals from Islamabad, the Obama administration also decided to release defence equipment for Pakistan that had been stopped in reaction to Pakistani steps.

In another major development, the army chief has told the meeting that the military will fully respect decision by the parliament and civilian leadership, sources in Islamabad said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfe...pakistan-over-bunker-construction/974802.html

India lodges protests with Pakistan over bunker construction
PTI | 02:03 PM,Mar 14,2012

New Delhi, Mar 14 (PTI) India has lodged protests with Pakistani authorities for carrying out construction of bunkers and towers along its border region, the government told the Rajya Sabha today. In a written reply on construction activities carried out by Pakistan in border areas, Defence Minister A K Antony said the "government is aware through intelligence inputs that Pakistan has constructed and carried out repairs of bunkers, morchas and towers." He furnished details of the construction and repair activities carried out by Pakistan along the border from 2004 to 2011. While 886 bunkers were constructed by it in the border areas, the Pakistani Rangers built 261 morchas and erected 398 towers in the last seven years. It also constructed 143 Border Out Posts (BOPs). "Protests have been lodged with Pakistan Rangers and Flag Meetings of Field Commanders are held in all cases. The matter is also taken up by Border Security Force (BSF) with Pakistani Rangers during scheduled meeting at various levels," Antony said. In the reply to questions, the Defence Minister said that troops were provided surveillance and technical intelligence from these areas. "Adequate troops are suitably supplemented by appropriate surveillance and technical intelligence resources to ensure sanctity of the border," he said. PTI AD SC

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/68034

May: Why Saudia Arabia will want a nuke if Iran gets one
Submitted by SHNS on Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:00

* By CLIFFORD D. MAY, Scripps Howard News Service
* editorials and opinion

Fareed Zakaria is wearing his "I'm perplexed" face. On his weekly CNN program, he is noting that Saudi Arabia did not go nuclear in response to "Israel's buildup of a large arsenal of nuclear weapons." So why, he asks the camera, would the Saudis do so in response to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons?

The camera did not answer, so I will: The Saudis are not fools. They know Israel poses no threat to them. They know, too, that those who rule the Islamic Republic of Iran seek to establish hegemony over the Middle East and lead a global Islamist Ascendency.

A nuclear-armed Iran would challenge the Saudi clan's claim to be the rightful guardian of Mecca and Medina and would embolden Arabia's Shia minority. It would threaten the independence of small states in the region, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain among them. It would dominate Iraq (where its influence has been growing as American forces have withdrawn) and Afghanistan (from which American forces soon will withdraw).

So if the Iranians get nukes, the Saudis can be expected to acquire them not long after. Other states may follow suit. The chance of a nuclear device finding its way into terrorist hands would increase substantially -- as President Barack Obama has pointed out.

"But," Zakaria asks in his most recent Time magazine column, "would a country that has labored for decades to pursue a nuclear program and suffered huge sanctions and costs to do so then turn around and give the fruits of its efforts to a gang of militants?"

The obvious answer is yes -- if that gang of militants were planning to kill people Iran's rulers want killed. That's what it means to be a sponsor of terrorism, and Iran has been the world leader in this field for a long time. To take just two instances: Iran was implicated in Hezbollah's bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in 1983 and al-Qaeda's bombing of American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Zakaria asserts that "the evidence is ambiguous" as to whether Iran's rulers "have decided" to develop nuclear weapons -- despite the fact that Yukiya Amano, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week that "Iran has engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosive devices." (Also despite the fact that there are few good reasons to bury non-nuclear facilities inside mountains and prevent IAEA inspectors from having a look at them.)

In the same column, Zakaria asserts that Iran is being told to "surrender." Now he's got me perplexed: Why is asking Iran's rulers not to develop a weapon they have not decided to develop a demand for "surrender"?

Zakaria's commentaries omit any mention of the stated intentions of Iran's theocrats. Is that because quoting them would make it apparent this crisis has been caused by them -- not by what Zakaria calls a sudden attack of "war fever" whipped up by those addressing the AIPAC conference earlier this month?

Iran's rulers for years have threatened Israelis with genocide. In the chilling words of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Israel is "a cancerous tumor" that "will be removed." That Iran now appears close to acquiring the nuclear scalpel to perform such surgery makes the problem urgent for Israelis. But it should not be their responsibility alone. That becomes clear when you consider the broader goal declared by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance and the Islamic world. Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? You had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.

Both Ahmadinejad and Khameini are disciples of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who more than three decades ago founded the Islamic Republic, conceived as the first modern jihadi state. He, too, had a fondness for medical metaphors, as in his theological justification for the slaughter of non-Muslims:

To allow the infidels to stay alive means to let them do more corrupting. (To kill them) is a surgical operation commanded by Allah the Creator.

Once upon a time, one could harbor the hope that moderates or at least pragmatists would come to power in Iran without another revolution. But that has proven to be a fairy tale -- as Zakaria and other leading lights of the foreign policy establishment would grasp were they not so willfully determined to remain perplexed about the threat that Iran's theocrats pose.

(Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security and foreign policy. Email: cliff(at)defenddemocracy.org.)

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)

Column

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

01:23 15.03.12

Netanyahu warns:
Israel has defied U.S. wishes before

Iran was behind escalation in south, PM adds;

Obama: Tehran's window to avoid military action is closing.

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Jonathan Lis and Avi Issacharoff
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...-israel-has-defied-u-s-wishes-before-1.418719​

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday told the Knesset that Tehran was behind the recent rocket barrages from the Gaza Strip and ratcheted up his rhetoric regarding a possible military strike on Iran, broadly hinting that Israel might act even without American approval.

"The dominant force behind the events in Gaza is not the Palestinians, but Iran," Netanyahu said. "The terror groups there stand under an Iranian umbrella. Imagine to yourselves what will happen when that umbrella is armed with nuclear bombs."

Alluding to the success of the Iron Dome antimissile system, Netanyahu said, "I want to make it clear: There is no hermetic defense, and there never will be. A combination of offensive capabilities, defensive capabilities and national resilience is the winning combination, and that's what we must cultivate," he said, but added, "Sooner or later the Iranian terror base in Gaza will be uprooted."

Netanyahu also mentioned his visit to the United States last week, saying, "The right of Israel to defend itself was accepted in the United States in the most positive, deepest way possible. [This right] has the absolute backing of the American people, the wall-to-wall support of the American Congress and the official backing of the White House."

During his address, however, Netanyahu cited three instances in which Israeli prime ministers acted against the position of the United States: David Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence in 1948, Levi Eshkol's actions in the period leading up to the 1967 Six-Day War and Menachem Begin's 1981 decision to attack the nuclear reactor in Iraq.

Netanyahu stressed the importance of Israel's alliance with the United States, but said, "Even more prominent is our obligation to be masters of our own fate. Israel never left its fate in the hands of others, not even those of our best friends."

U.S. President Barack Obama also referred to the Iran issue on Thursday, during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron in Washington.

Obama stressed his determination to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

"This is an issue that is important to the entire international community," Obama said, and one on which he and Cameron were in complete agreement.

"I have sent a message very directly to them, publicly, that they need to seize this opportunity of negotiations with the P-5-plus-one [the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - plus Germany] to avert even worse consequences for Iran in the future," Obama said, in reference to the Tehran leadership. "I think they should understand that because the international community has applied so many sanctions, because we have employed so many of the options that are available to us to persuade Iran to take a different course, that the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking," the U.S. president said.

According to a Russian report, the United States is not merely calling on Iran to return to negotiations, but is sending much harsher messages.

The Moscow-based Kommersant reported that the United States asked Russia to convey to Iran that the meeting of the six powers in April would be Iran's last chance to avoid a military attack on its nuclear facilities.

The paper attributed the information to a Russian Foreign Ministry official, who also told the paper that the warning was delivered by U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavarov at their meeting in New York on Monday.

The American people do not seem interested in plunging into another war. According to a new poll conducted by the University of Maryland, only one out of four Americans would like to see Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities, while 69 percent would prefer to see the United States continue a dialogue with Iran.





=

 

[Housecarl]

3/14/2012 PRC: Wen - Embrace Political Change Else Risk Another Cultural Revolution
They are reporting on the John Batchelor Show tonight that they have reports of Bo Xilai being arrested in Beijing.....
Started by Housecarl‎, Today 06:25 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Change-Else-Risk-Another-Cultural-Revolution

____

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ia-goes-for-broke-with-arms-race-7570569.html

Explosive new powerbase: Asia goes for broke with arms race
For the first time, the continent is spending more than Europe. But which nation will emerge strongest?
Andrew Buncombe Author Biography , Clifford Coonan , Alexander Matthews

Delhi, Beijing

Thursday 15 March 2012

Last week it was China that captured the headlines. This week, the attention is on India. Eleven days ago, the authorities in Beijing announced an 11.2 per cent increase in its military budget, a rise that was in line with those of the past decade and underscored the country's continuing emergence as a global power.

Click HERE to view graphic

Officials in Delhi are today expected to announce India's military budget for 2012-13. Last year, despite austerity measures in some areas, defence spending was increased by 11.6 per cent as India continued to modernise and expand its military capabilities. If – as is anticipated – there is another double-digit increase today, it will highlight the growing arms race that has gripped Asia as nations compete both with each other and the US, for local and regional influence.

The true scale of this arms race was underscored in a report issued last week by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London, which said arms spending by Asian nations will this year for the first time overtake that of European countries, where economic woes have forced constriction.

The organisation's annual military balance survey reported that in addition to India and China, Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam are all spending heavily.

"There are three reasons for this," said Rahul Roy-Chaudhary, of the IISS. "First, Asian economies are rising; second, there is a dynamic procurement process taking place in South-east Asia, south Asia and east Asia, and third, there is an economic crisis in Europe."

The various reasons behind individual countries military spending priorities may differ. But Mr Roy-Chaudhary said it was clear that was a strong element of inter-connectivity – China watched US spending, India and Japan watched China's spending and Pakistan watched India's military expansion.

"India doesn't formally say that its budget is determined by what China is doing, but part of it is," he added. "Pakistan cares about India."

And it is clear that the ripples wash all ways. If Beijing is ever anxious about Washington, last year, when President Barack Obama announced that US military spending in the Asia-Pacific would be protected from the squeezes faced by other parts of the Pentagon budget, it was seen as a response to China's mounting influence, particularly over the oceans. Maritime concerns may be driving much regional military spending, say analysts, including China's purchase of its first ever aircraft carrier, the refurbished Soviet ship,Varyag, which, it was announced yesterday, will go into service later this year.

"What we see is an arms race among South-east Asian nations looking at China. There is a perceived threat there, in countries like Vietnam and the Philippines," said one defence analyst, who asked to remain anonymous.

While China has little interest in exporting socialism, aware that Soviet Russia collapsed because of its hang-ups on international socialism, it is very aggressive about the South China Sea. A former Filipino president, Fidel V Ramos, wrote this week that "Chinese global power and arms build-up, plus east Asia's economic gravitas, are driving neighbouring countries to boost defence spending".

Most disputes are focused on the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands, one of the most hotly contested territorial disputes in the world. Chinese forces seized the western Paracels from Vietnam in 1974 and sank three Vietnamese ships in 1988, events that have cast a shadow over relations since and are a potential flashpoint. China is unlikely to budge on these islands, because they provide cover and protect the route of the Chinese navy's nuclear submarines, which are stationed on Hainan Island, in the South China Sea.

However, everyone in the region seems to have a claim on the Spratleys, including China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines. "We see the disputes in the South China Sea as potentially the most pressing concern in terms of conflict in the region. It could be a spat over fishermen, or over an oil-drilling platform. The potential is always there, although it probably wouldn't develop into an open conflict," said Mr Roy-Chaudhary.

China is also active on dry land, spending more money in Tibet, not only on keeping the restive population there under control, but also on deploying more troops on the plateau at Tawang, near Arunachal Pradesh. China has a long-running border dispute with India over this area. The Chinese are deploying troops and aircraft and other equipment to the Himalayan area to see how they withstand the winter. In this arena, one that is particularly sensitive to India because it lost part of this territory to China during a 1962 war, Delhi has responded with men and machines.

"India has made more efforts to raise two mountain divisions, which you can say is a response to China," said Laxman Behera, of the Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis.

China's announcement earlier this month said that its military budget would be increased to $106bn (£68bn), from $95bn. Such an amount leaves it far behind the US, which in 2013 will have a military spend of $525bn, but considerably ahead of its regional rival India, which in 2012 allocated to $36bn to the military, around a third of it on salaries and benefits.

Many think China is probably spending even more but that it chooses not to reveal the true figure. Last year, the US suggested that Beijing's true military budget might be 60 per cent higher, at around $160bn. Some analysts, believe China's military spend could double in the next three years.

Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng said last week that it was "quite normal" to upgrade the military in an era of rapidly developing technology. "Weapons and equipment development is undertaken to maintain national security. It does not target any specific country or objective," he said.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

01:23 15.03.12

Leaks reveal Tehran's advice to beleaguered Syrian leader:
Iran told Assad: Save yourself by shifting focus onto Israel

By Haaretz Staff
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...urself-by-shifting-focus-onto-israel-1.418726​

Syrian President Bashar Assad was advised by Iranian officials to divert attention toward Israel and the Palestinian cause in an effort to deflect criticism of his brutal crackdown, emails said to have been intercepted by Syrian opposition and released by the U.K.'s the Guardian indicated on yesterday.

According to the Guardian, the messages were said to have been intercepted by the opposition's Supreme Council of the Revolution between June of 2011 and February 2012, and include missives from Assad's private account as well as that belonging to his wife, Asma.

One email sent on December 31 indicated that Assad's aides advised the Syrian president on the contents of an upcoming speech following "consultations with a good number of people in addition to the media and political adviser for the Iranian ambassador."

In the composed memorandum, Assad was advised to stress the issue of Muslim identity through the use of Koran quotes, as well as centering on what the email called "Syria's principles," which included: "Resistance"; "Hostility to Israel, the first enemy of the Muslims"; and "Protection of Palestinian people's rights (real prayers should be in the direction of Jerusalem )."

"Maybe here the president can reiterate his stance by condemning forcefully the recent Israeli practices and policies to Judaize Al-Quds (Jerusalem )," the email added, saying that Assad should use "powerful and violent" language in his opposition to Israel.

"Here the subject of Israel comes up and it becomes necessary to put stress on the particular merits of the president by linking the foreign pressures on Syria, which differs in its toughness and content to other countries in crisis, with the geographical proximity to Israel and the position of the people and the regime towards Israel," the memo stated.

Culminating the email's section on Israel, the adviser said Assad should make "a clear distinction between the West's ambitions and people's demands and that the West and Israel are exploiting part of the Syrian people without their knowledge to break Syria, but the president has great confidence in the patriotism of the entire Syrian people."

The emails released by the Guardian also indicated that the Syrian leader received advice from noted Lebanese businessman Hussein Mortada, known for his links to Iran. In one message, Mortada advised Assad to stop blaming al-Qaida for opposition attacks.

"I have received contacts from Iran and Hezbollah in my role as director of many Iranian-Lebanese channels and they directed me to not mention that al-Qaida is behind the operation," Mortada was quoted as saying. "It is a blatant tactical media mistake," he warned, adding that the claim would serve the U.S. administration and the Syrian opposition.

Another correspondence of note was between Assad's wife Asma and the daughter of the emir of Qatar, Hamid bin Khalifa al-Thani, in which the Qatari noblewoman advised Assad to step down and indicated that Qatar might be able to offer asylum to the Syrian leader's family.

"My father regards President Bashar as a friend, despite the current tensions - he always gave him genuine advice," she was cited by the Guardian as writing, saying that the "opportunity for real change and development was lost a long time ago. Nevertheless, one opportunity closes, others open up - and I hope it's not too late for reflection and coming out of the state of denial."

A later email seemed more direct, saying that: "Just been following the latest developments in Syria - in all honesty - looking at the tide of history and the escalation of recent events we've seen two results: leaders stepping down and getting political asylum or leaders being brutally attacked. I honestly think this is a good opportunity to leave and re-start a normal life."

"I only pray that you will convince the president to take this opportunity to exit without having to face charges. The region needs to stabilize, but not more than you need peace of mind. I am sure you have many places to turn to, including Doha."




=

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-were-happy-to-sell-arms-to-assad-7565725.html

Russia: we're happy to sell arms to Assad
Charlotte McDonald-Gibson , Shaun Walker
Moscow
Wednesday 14 March 2012

Russia insisted yesterday that it would not halt arms shipments to Syria even as evidence mounts that the regime is committing crimes against humanity, with a rights group today releasing a sickening dossier of the torture inflicted on those who oppose President Bashar al-Assad.

The comments by Russia's Deputy Defence Minister, Anatoly Antonov, that existing contracts will be adhered to despite reports of up to 8,000 dead, come as activists prepare to mark a grim year since their call for reform descended into bloodshed. Mr Assad's tanks continued to roll into dissident areas, with the army reported to have recaptured the rebel stronghold of Idlib near the Turkish border, until now held by army defectors fighting for the Free Syrian Army. Activists said dozens of people had been killed in the assault, their bodies dumped in local mosques.

The tens of thousands trying to flee the country face the added danger of landmines that Human Rights Watch says have been laid along Syria's borders with Turkey and Lebanon.

Carroll Bogert, a deputy executive director of the New York-based watchdog, told The Independent that these mines were Russian-made.

Despite this growing evidence that the arms it sells the regime are being used against civilians, Russia remains defiant. "Russia enjoys good and strong military technical co-operation with Syria, and we see no reason today to reconsider it," Mr Antonov said yesterday. "Russian-Syrian military co-operation is perfectly legitimate," he added. Mr Antonov admitted that Russia has military instructors on the ground in Syria training the Syrian army.

"It's part of our contractual obligations," said the minister. "When we supply weapons, we have to provide training." He denied that Russia had sent special forces to assist in military planning.

Russia has vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on Mr Assad to withdraw tanks from cities and cede power to a deputy.

Russian's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, reiterated the Kremlin's position that any call to end violence needs to encompass the armed opposition as well as the Syrian government, and said that regime troops will not withdraw from their positions until the rebel forces first lay down their arms.

Moscow insists that its arms trade with Damascus does not contradict international law. The European Union, United States and some Arab countries have enforced economic sanctions against Syria, but Russia is not party to any of them. The links between the two countries go back decades. Russia maintains its only naval base outside the former Soviet Union at Tartus in Syria.

A Western diplomat said Russia's business interests in Syria were a huge factor in its foreign policy, and said the Kremlin's determination to continue arms sales went against recent comments that it was dedicated to finding a political solution.

"If Russia genuinely wants a solution to the crisis in Syria, why is it providing arms and refusing to put pressure on the Assad regime?" the diplomat asked.

An Amnesty International report released today details 31 separate methods of torture used on people during the uprising.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

01:23 15.03.12

Iranian activist says regime change could resolve nuclear standoff

The Iranian political activist Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi sees a third option,
beyond to bomb or not to bomb: U.S. and Israeli aid for the opposition.

By Natasha Mozgovaya
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...hange-could-resolve-nuclear-standoff-1.418735​

With the barrage of speeches and debates in Washington recently over who should or should not bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, I can't stop wondering what Iranians themselves think about this thoughtful debate. For an Israeli journalist to quote friends in Iran is probably being a bad friend, but Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, an Iranian activist living in the United States, feels insulted that neither American nor Israeli leaders have bothered to talk to those who have a real stake in Iran's future.

"No one in Iran wants to get bombed," she says. "By going to war, the situation will not be solved. It's addressing the symptoms, not the cause, and we must respond to this in a long-term fashion, not patchwork that will spring another asinine leak in 30 years. The regime can be brought down, and we have begged and begged and begged for some assistance for us to do it ourselves, and we sure can but seems like it's the idiocy of the people who cannot think outside the box - starting with Obama, who is forcing Israel's hand, so now the story has become asinine diplomacy or war. And we don't need either," Zand-Bonazzi says.

Her suggestion? The one former Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan hinted at in his interview to the CBS news show "60 Minutes," broadcast in the United States on Sunday - to assist the Iranian opposition. "I applaud Meir Dagan, though I wouldn't quite call the Iranian regime 'rational', she says, referring to a comment he made in the interview.

Wouldn't it hurt the Iranian opposition to receive any aid from the United States or Israel?

"Heck no", she says. "How much more could we be hurt?! Whether we have funding or not, they'll accuse of being puppets anyhow. So what the heck!"

I couldn't resist reminding Zand-Bonazzi that the Iranian opposition in the United States is notorious for its infighting.

"Every opposition - the Russian, Jewish, Chinese, Cuban - in all countries, attack each other," she shrugs. "Many serious people do not fight. If we disagree, we have learned to go to our corners, take time to rethink and come back at it from another angle. To paint an entire opposition with one judgmental brushstroke is not only unfair, it's simply untrue. We have every connection inside Iran. We want to speak for ourselves. The time has come for Iranians to take a stand for the self-determination of our movement, which is the only way to get out of this peacefully. We know the absolute weaknesses of that regime. How they fight. Who fights among them. What is said. How they are sabotaging each other. How to quicken the sabotage between them. They are at each other's throats inside that regime. And we have all the means at our disposal to see that all the way to the end."

What did she think about the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recent speech to AIPAC in Washington (dubbed "the duck speech," for his comment about Iran's nuclear program: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck," then it's "a nuclear duck. And it's time the world started calling a duck a duck." )

"There's nothing more to say to Mr. Netanyahu," Zand-Bonazzi says. "He has made up his mind and a huge number of people who could have given him better advice did not. Though he's a person who sees things for what they are, his solutions are not as blanket obvious. Sometimes things require a little more intricacy."

Red lines

On the pessimists' side, this week at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies Dr. Matthew Kroenig, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said he doubts a deal with Iran can be reached, because "Iran has crossed many red lines in the past 10 years - and we've watched them doing that." He argued for taking action.

Dr. Colin Kahl, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, suggested looking for positive hints in remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who recently said nuclear weapons are a "sin." This could give the regime an opportunity to step back from its nuclear program without losing face, Kahl said.

And there was this question from someone in the audience - presumably, someone who did not attend last week's AIPAC conference: "How exactly will Iran's nuclear bomb directly threaten the United States?"

Well, according to a new poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, the question is very relevant to the U.S. public. Only one in four Americans favors an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program. Seven in 10 (69 percent ) favor the United States and other major powers continuing to pursue negotiations with Iran - with rare bipartisan support (58 percent of the Republicans and 79 percent of the Democrats ). Furthermore, three in four say the United States should primarily act through the UN Security Council, rather than acting by itself.

Only 25 percent favor the United States providing military forces in the event Israel attacks Iran, Iran retaliates against Israel and Israel requests U.S. aid; even among Republicans, only 41 percent would support such aid.

More than half of respondents - 54 percent - said the United States would support Israel publicly if it attacked Iran. Only 14 percent said the United States should encourage an Israeli attack.

Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, summarized the results as saying Americans do not believe a preventive military strike will produce much benefit. (Only 18 percent believe that it would delay Iran's abilities to develop a nuclear weapon by more than five years; 20 percent said a strike would delay the program by one to two years; 22 percent think it will actually accelerate the program development; 31 percent said a strike would strengthen Iran's government and 42 percent believe it would weaken the regime in Tehran. )

Fair enough: These responses are quite consistent with what Israelis think about the potential effectiveness of a strike, with one slight difference: For Israelis, their lives might be at stake. For Americans, it's more pain at the gas pump. Which, if you ask President Barack Obama as he faces reelection is not an issue to be taken lightly.

While we're on the election: The press might scream about Rick Santorum's electability problems, but he continues to defy the opinion polls and the skeptics. In some sense he already won, by forcing Americans to discuss issues that seemed well off the radar this season: faith, family, values, contraceptives, principles and the like. One doesn't have to be Jewish to feel slightly uncomfortable about the "Jesus candidate" - plenty of words have been written about what he is not. And his success probably says more about the U.S. public than about the former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania himself. But the more serious Santorum's promise to turn the Republican primary into a two-man race becomes, the more the Jewish community will have to abandon its attempts to treat him as a marginal figure.





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Plotting against Iranian nuke sites

Israel could use everything from worms to bunker busters

By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/14/plotting-against-iranian-nuke-sites/​

The first indication that Israel has resorted to military action against Iran’s nuclear program would be explosions across the Islamic republic.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) - with its vaunted pilots and American-supplied warplanes - are so adept at surprise that Iraq and Syria never knew what hit them until their nuclear facilities lay smoldering.

But Iran and its scores of buried and cemented nuclear sites present a much more daunting campaign - one of days, not hours, and multiple weapons, not a few laser-guided bombs.

And unlike Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, Iran can be expected to launch a fierce counterattack that likely would draw the United States into a low-level war with Tehran.

The strikes and counterstrikes could unfold this way:

If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persuades his Cabinet to approve strikes, long-range F-15Is and F-16Is (“I” for Israel) would take off from the Hatzerim air base on a moonless night.

Israel’s most advanced warplanes, the “I Team” would carry U.S.-made, 5,000-pound bunker-busting bombs that drill below ground before exploding. Israel’s older F-16s and F-15s would stay home to deal with anticipated reprisals.

Israel has been revising its target list for years as it has gained intimate knowledge of Iran’s infrastructure and military installations via U.S. intelligence-sharing and its own network of spy satellites.

The low-flying “I” jets could take one or more routes to penetrate Iranian airspace on flights as long as 1,000 miles or more.

Saudi Arabia, which sees Iran as the biggest threat to Persian Gulf oil states, might allow Israeli jets to access its airspace to cross into Iran from the southwest.

Israel also could opt to fly over Iraq, given that the U.S. and its warplanes have left and Baghdad has not rebuilt an air defense force.

‘Difficult, but not impossible’

Iran’s thick network of radars and anti-aircraft missiles would be attacked first, perhaps by cyberwarfare viruses or some type of electronic jamming that makes the bombers invisible.

Analysts presume that Israel has probed Iran’s computer networks and has a plan to disable them with viruses and worms that would break down communication lines and disrupt electric power.

Once Israeli jets have penetrated Iranian airspace, their target list undoubtedly would include the large uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz and the nuclear reactor on the Gulf coast at Bushehr.


Israel has tracked the whereabouts of Iran’s atomic scientists and also would target their homes.

Israeli pilots have practiced long-range missions, complete with in-air refueling via sophisticated aerial tanker-fighter maneuvers to extend their aircraft’s range of operation by hundreds of miles.

“The United States has provided the airplanes, bombs and missiles, and the aerial refueling tankers to support the kind of sustained strikes that would be required to attack the known sites inside Iran,” said James Russell, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., who worked at the Pentagon on arms transfers to U.S. allies.

“This is not a matter of blowing up a reactor in a single mission,” he said. “Iran’s infrastructure is spread out over the country. Some of the sites, like Natanz, are said to be deeply buried and built to withstand aerial bombing by the kinds of bunker-buster bombs the United States has provided.

“Conducting these strikes would be difficult, but not impossible.”

Israel would position diesel-powered Dolphin-class submarines within missile range, perhaps in the Arabian Sea. Sub-launched Harpoon cruise missiles could strike Iranian radars, air-defense jets and nuclear sites.

“I think a lot of it is going to be done through the use of submarines,” said Michael Maloof, a former Pentagon policymaker who focused on the Middle East and Central Asia. “They have very capable missile submarines.”

Israel also has an arsenal of Jericho surface-to-surface missiles that were built primarily to carry nuclear warheads. The Jewish state is estimated to own about 85 nuclear weapons.

It is likely that Israel's military, which is skilled at adapting multitask weapons, has reconfigured the Jericho to carry conventional explosives.

Two years ago, Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon boasted of the IDF’s combat readiness.

“This capability can be used for a war on terror in Gaza, for a war in the face of rockets from Lebanon, for war on the conventional Syrian army and also for war on a peripheral state like Iran,” said Mr. Ya’alon, who served as IDF chief of staff in the 2000s.

Israeli officials reportedly are mulling a military attack on Iran’s nuclear program, which they regard as an existential threat, given the Islamic republic’s calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Israel and Western nations suspect that Iranian atomic research is geared toward bomb-making, despite Iran’s assertions that its nuclear program is only for peaceful, civilian uses.

A question of capacity​

Retired U.S. Air ForceLt. Gen. David Deptula knows how to conduct an air war.

CONTINUED BELOW​

=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE​

He is a former fighter pilot who ran the air-operations center during the early days of the Afghanistan War. He ended up as the Air Force’s top uniformed intelligence officer. He can find and hit a target.

Gen. Deptula asks a key question: Does Israel own the military capacity to inflict sufficient damage to set back Iran’s nuclear program for several years?

For instance, a U.S. campaign would unleash an airborne armada of B-2 stealth bombers, Air Force and Navy strike fighters, sea- and air-launched cruise missiles, and electronic jammers to blind radars. It also would field command-and-control aircraft to synchronize flights and warn of threats.

Israel has some of those assets, but in much smaller numbers - a combined total of about 100 F-15 and F-16 I’s. That means it could not hit as many targets as a sustained U.S. air war would.

“Israel has one of the most capable militaries in the world, and they have one of the most innovative and creative sets of planners, as far as nations around the world are concerned,” Gen. Deptula said.

“The issue is not whether they are capable of conducting selected strikes inside Iran. The issue is the capacity of their forces to inflict enough desired effects on the weapons-production facilities to accomplish whatever the endgame objective is.

“Yeah, they would conduct a couple of strikes. But the question is, to what end?” the general said.

The task is even more difficult, he said, given Iran’s widely separated nuclear facilities that are “deeply hardened and buried.”

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has taken note of Iranian defenses as challenges to U.S. forces, let alone Israeli forces.

Asked in December how long military action would set back Iran, he said: “It depends on the ability to truly get the targets that they’re after. Frankly, some of those targets are very difficult to get at.”

Press reports from Jerusalem have quoted Israeli officials as saying they will not tip off the Obama administration about any strike on Iran.

The U.S., however, is maintaining a large military presence in the Gulf, including a combined operations center at Al Udied, Qatar, that monitors all air corridors in the region.

“Israel’s airplanes would be transiting over third-country airspace, not to mention having to de-conflict airspace management with the United States,” Mr. Russell said.

What would the U.S. do if it detected Israeli fighters en route to Iran?

“It really depends on where, and what agreements have or have not been made in advance,” Gen. Deptula said.

‘Standoff’ warfare

Israel likely has looked at an “Option B” for attacking Iran that would not involve the risky business of manned flights through inhospitable airspace.

Such “standoff” warfare would rely heavily on drones to deliver bombs, complemented by sea- and land-based missiles, cyberattacks and sabotage by Iranian dissidents trying to oust Iran’s hard-line mullahs.

“They are probably pretty close to what the United States has in cyberwarfare,” Mr. Maloof said. “If they, along with the United States, developed the Stuxnet bug, that shows they do have a high level of technical and cyberwarfare capability.

“They really focus on these things that give the greatest punch for the least amount of effort.”

No one has claimed ownership of the Stuxnet worm, which can attack industrial machinery and processes that are operated by computers.

In Iran’s case, the worm was designed to infiltrate and disable uranium-enrichment machinery in Iran, which discovered the sabotage in June 2010.

Suspicion immediately focused on Israel, perhaps in partnership with the CIA or the National Security Agency because precise knowledge of Iran’s enrichment process would have been needed to design a successful worm. Iran last year acknowledged removing damaged centrifuges from its major plant at Natanz.

The question is, was Stuxnet an Israeli test? Will it send a barrage of malicious computer programs into Iran’s nuclear complexes at some point?

“They can do this without airplanes,” Mr. Maloof said. “Standoff warfare is the coming thing.”

Shadow war

Someone is killing Iranian nuclear scientists.

Most recently, chemical engineer Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed Jan. 10 by a “sticky” bomb attached to his car by a motorcyclist who fled the Tehran neighborhood after the explosion.

Roshan was the fourth Iranian atomic scientist assassinated in the past two years. Coupled with the Stuxnet attack and various industrial explosions in Iran, the killings point to some sort of sabotage under way.

Iran blames Israel. So does NBC News, which reported that Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, is in cahoots with Iran’s largest opposition group in a shadow war to disrupt Iran’s nuclear-arms ability through assassinations, explosions and cyberwarfare.

CONTINUED BELOW​

​

=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE​

Retaliation came last month. In New Delhi, a car carrying the wife of an Israeli diplomat was bombed, and she was hospitalized. A sticky bomb found on an Israeli diplomat’s car in the former Soviet state of Georgia was defused the same day.

War planners at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command are trying to predict how Iran would counterattack if Israel launches a military strike.

An adviser to the command tells The Washington Times that Iran likely would fire missiles into Israel, possibly using chemical weapons. It also would launch missiles at U.S. bases in Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Iran also would activate its proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip to pinch Israel from the north and south.

Israel, which has used the Iron Dome system to deflect rockets fired from Gaza, thinks the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah has stashed an arsenal of 50,000 rockets.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the army of more than 100,000 troops that promotes terrorism abroad and tamps down dissent at home, would spring into action.

Guard operatives would encourage Shiite extremists in Iraq to kill U.S. diplomats, advisers and security personnel.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps’ naval forces would target shipping in the Persian Gulf, using speedboats to swarm around and blow up commercial oil tankers as its warships try to choke off the Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. would be in a naval and air war against Tehran, attacking Iranian vessels and launching strikes at Iranian military sites to stop the volley of land-based missiles at American troops.

Policy of reciprocity

Michael Eisenstadt is a retired Army Reserve officer who served in the Pentagon during the Afghanistan War and was deployed to Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries during the past decade.

Now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Mr. Eisenstadt has been brainstorming how Iran would react. He has concluded that the ruling mullahs would direct most firepower at Israel, launching Shahab ballistic missiles at population centers and at the military base in the desert at Dimona, the site for the Jewish state’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Eisenstadt thinks Iran also would embark on long-term reprisals worldwide by attacking Israelis, one by one, in third countries.

“Any Iranian response would be guided by the perceived need on their part, first of all, to not let what they see as an act of aggression to go unpunished, and it’s very important to them to respond in kind.

“First, they will respond to an attack on their nuclear infrastructure with an attempted missile strike on Dimona. The aspect of reciprocity is deep-rooted in Iranian policy,” he said.


“Then I think there would probably be some follow-on operations, terrorist operations aboard,” Mr. Eisenstadt added. “I think they will want to strike the U.S. in a way that does not draw the U.S. into a conflict, but enables them to get a cheap shot, to punish the U.S. for supporting Israel.”

Mr. Panetta has warned of Iran’s likely retaliation: “The United States would obviously be blamed, and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases.”

The American who would have to deal with an Israel-Iran war is Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

He clearly does not want war, given his remarks this month to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He told senators that Western economic sanctions need more time to work, and perhaps turn the Iranian people against the mullahs.

“They’re very much a problem, and I don’t see this going in the right direction until the full effect of the sanctions can accrue,” Gen. Mattis said. And I say ‘until,’ because even now … we see in inflation going up, unemployment going up [in Iran].

“The internal frictions have got to start telling here. At some point, I think the Iranian people are going to question, ‘Is this the right direction?’

“So if we can keep this at a diplomatic, economic track and get full advantage of what these sanctions are doing and the international isolation is doing, this country basically lacks any significant strategic ally.”





=

=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Tribal leader says only armed struggle can topple al-Assad

By Anne-Beatrice Clasmann
Mar 15, 2012, 2:06 GMT
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...-says-only-armed-struggle-can-topple-al-Assad​

Istanbul - Sitting in an Istanbul cafe, Syrian Sheikh Nawaf al-Bashir recalls how he was tortured in a government prison and forced at gunpoint to swear allegiance to President Bashar al-Assad on national television before escaping to Turkey.

'I often hear them in my dreams,' he said of the screams of children being tortured in prison cells next to his. 'I then wake up and think I am back in prison.'

As head of the prominent Baqara tribe, which comprises 1.2 million people, al-Bashir is now calling for armed resistance to the al-Assad regime.

He was arrested in Damascus in late July by secret agents and was held for 72 days for his involvement in pro-democracy protests calling on al-Assad to step down.

After his surprise disappearance, rumours spread that he had been killed. But on October 10 he made a dramatic appearance on national television, calling for political reform under al-Assad's leadership.

'I said it with a pistol against my head,' he said, wearing glasses and a jacket and tie.

'They threatened to kill my family if I didn't make this television appearance. During the recording, they held up cardboard cards beside the camera, which had the sentences I was supposed to say.'

Al-Bashir was released shortly after the television appearance and he returned to his native province of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria. He fled to Turkey in January, fearing he would be arrested again.

He said his arrest and torture in an underground cell at the notorious Mezzeh prison in Damascus convinced him that armed resistance was the only option to end the more than 40 years of rule by the al-Assad family.

'I changed my mind after I heard of the massacres that have been perpetrated and after I saw 22 children and six women tortured while I was in prison,' he said.

'After one demonstration, I saw the corpse of a 10-year-old boy, who they had shot in the eye. He had a biscuit in his hand. At that point, I said enough is enough.

'We need a secure area for the (army) deserters, a no-fly zone, humanitarian corridor and the supply of weapons. Then we will be in a position to free our country on our own,' he said.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have promised to supply rebels aligned with the opposition with weapons but nothing had materialized, al-Bashir said. 'So far, there have been only words and no deeds.'

Al-Bashir is in contact with the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC), which has won a certain degree of recognition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

'I hope this regime is toppled soon. I would say it will happen in July,' said al-Bashir, before walking off to a meeting with members of the Syrian opposition.





=

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/artic..._strength_could_be_a_vulnerability_99959.html

March 14, 2012
Khamenei's Strength Could Be a Vulnerability
By Mehdi Khalaji

At a time when the international community's attention is focused on Tehran's nuclear program, Iranian politicians are more preoccupied by the country's increasingly dysfunctional politics. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appears to undercutting many government institutions, including the presidency, leaving him more directly in charge. An important indicator of how far this process will go is the extent to which parliament confronts President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Majlis To Question Ahmadinejad

In 1981, Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini ordered parliament to dismiss the Islamic Republic's first president. Since then, however, the Majlis has not used its authority to even question the president, much less threaten his position.

Recent years have been marked by sharp disagreements between the Majlis and Ahmadinejad that have grown worse over time. Last year, for instance, Ahmadinejad ignored the previously sacrosanct legal deadline for submitting a budget, so the Majlis approved only a provisional budget to cover two months while it debated how to change the full year's spending. This year, Ahmadinejad submitted the budget even later, infuriating the Majlis. As conservative parliamentarian Nasrollah Kamalian told his colleagues, "We have less than ten days to the New Year and the cabinet is not concerned about its next budget and puts no effort into sending the budget bill. Due to national interests, I cannot mention the reasons for [the president's] behavior in an on-the-record session."

After several requests from the Majlis, Ahmadinejad finally agreed to attend a session of parliament at which he will answer questions, though it will not be a formal "interpellation" under the procedures set out in the constitution. Presumably, he acquiesced only under pressure from Khamenei. Scheduled for March 14, the meeting has been postponed several times and may be again, though that date holds advantages for Ahmadinejad because it is the parliament's last on-the-record session before the Persian New Year. Since no newspapers will be publishing during the two-week New Year holiday, the media will have little chance to bring the meeting and its outcome to public attention.

Once the meeting is held, the Majlis will be limited to ten questions whose content has already been made public. Four of them are economic: Why did the cabinet not implement the law funding the subway in Tehran and other large cities? What, if not economic mismanagement, accounts for the 2011 growth rate being well below the government's 8 percent target? (Officials claim the rate was 4.5 percent, but the International Monetary Fund reports only 3 percent, even after upward revision.) How did government spend last year's $150 million allocation for elevating the country's cultural indicators? Why did the government not implement the subsidy reform provisions to compensate the agricultural and industrial sectors for their increased production costs?

The other six questions are about political disputes: Why did the government refuse to implement the law creating a Ministry of Youth and Sport? When Khamenei reappointed the intelligence minister dismissed by Ahmadinejad, why did the president abstain from appearing at his office or fulfilling any of his duties for eleven days? Why did Ahmadinejad deny that the "Majlis is at the top of all affairs," as Khomeini once said? Why was Foreign Minister Manoucher Motaki dismissed while he was on a mission in Senegal? Why has the president said that the issue of women's veils should be tackled through cultural efforts rather than force of law? Why did the president's chief of staff say that the government's priority is to propagate an "Iranian school" of Islam?

Although the parliament's questions are unlikely to have any practical implications, confronting the president in this manner holds symbolic significance that could weaken him. This seems to fit Khamenei's agenda. Indeed, the Supreme Leader has expressed interest in changing the constitution to replace direct popular election of the president with election by the Majlis. This change is unlikely to take place anytime soon, but it shows Khamenei's desire to restrain the president's power.

Majlis Elections

Khamenei managed the recent elections in such a way to make the Majlis more loyal to him and less friendly to Ahmadinejad. Besides a few reformists and pro-Ahmadinejad candidates, the main competition was between those who were anti-Ahmadinejad during his first term (the United Front) and those who became anti-Ahmadinejad during his second term (the Stability Front). The president's favorite candidates were either disqualified by the Guardian Council or not elected (e.g., his sister Parvin).

The elections gave Khamenei more cause for confidence not only because he managed to prevent reformist and pro-Ahmadinejad factions from gaining a significant number of seats, but also because it was the first incident-free voting since the rigged 2009 presidential election. In his eyes, this fact restored the regime's damaged democratic legitimacy.

Indeed, Khamenei has masterfully associated elections with regime legitimacy, such that boycotting them is perceived as an act of subversion. Therefore, while many reformists and opposition Green Movement leaders boycotted the voting, former reformist president Muhammad Khatami cast his vote. Khamenei also suggested that international sanctions on Iran aim to deepen the gap between the people and the government and discourage the former from participating in elections. In turn, he has used the reportedly high turnout to argue that the West failed in its goal to provoke antigovernment sentiment.

The Disappearing Expediency Council

Iran's constitution provides for an Expediency Council to resolve differences between the Majlis and Guardian Council and take whatever actions are needed to help government institutions function effectively. Yet the five-year term of the Expediency Council's current members has expired, and chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been pushed from the center of Iranian power and will not be reappointed. Both developments have contributed to the council's gradual marginalization. In a recent interview with Iranian website Day News, Rafsanjani explained how Khamenei has incapacitated the council. He also stated that Ahmadinejad, who is supposed to attend the council's sessions, has appeared at only a few such meetings in the past seven years. Consequently, the council has not been able to operate properly since 2005.

Khamenei is responsible for selecting the council's new chairman and members before its current term ends. He likely postponed the appointments until the last days of the Persian year so that the media would not be able to discuss the implications of Rafsanjani's inevitable removal. The most likely candidate to replace him is former judiciary chief Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi. The Supreme Leader has already appointed Shahroudi as head of the Committee for Arbitration and Adjustment of Relations between the Three Government Branches, a body created unconstitutionally by Khamenei. That committee appears to have much the same portfolio as the constitutionally mandated Expediency Council, such as resolving differences between the president and other branches of government. So far, though, it has remained a largely ceremonial body.

Conclusion

Over the past two decades, Khamenei has weakened the Islamic Republic's political institutions in order to strengthen his own autocratic authority. He believes the country should be run by institutions directly under his control, principally the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the intelligence agencies, and the judiciary. Yet his self-confidence, along with the dysfunctional state of the parliament, president, and other political institutions, could ultimately make him more vulnerable in a time of crisis, since the public would hold him personally responsible for whatever decisions are made, including those seen as having led to the crisis.

Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, focusing on the politics of Iran and Shiite groups in the Middle East. Orginially published as PolicyWatch #1906 by the Washington Institute. Reprinted by permission.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.p...buying-arms-in-libya&catid=50:Land&Itemid=105

AQIM chief allegedly buying arms in Libya

Written by defenceWeb Wednesday, 14 March 2012 14:18

One of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s (AQIM’s) top leaders is allegedly in Libya to buy weapons, according to Malian security sources.

“Mokhtar Belmokhtar, one of the chiefs of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb has been in Libya for several weeks, notably to procure arms,” a top Malian security source told AFP on Monday.

“This is yet further proof that terrorists will do anything to create a sweeping network in the Sahel and Sahara,” the source said.

In November Belmokhtar told a Mauritanian news website that AQIM had acquired Libyan weapons during fighting that ended in the overthrow and killing of strongman Muammar Gaddafi.

"With regard to the weapons, we obviously took advantage of the situation in Libya...but we were not on the ground. I also warn my brothers there not to give back their weapons to the authorities," Belmokhtar said.

Algeria has repeatedly said sophisticated weapons have been transferred from Libya to northern Mali. Belmokhtar did not say in the interview what weapons the group had secured or how they had got them.

Western and African governments fear small arms and heavier weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, may end up in the hands of Islamists, and others in the region.

Belmokhtar and Abdelhamid Abou Zeid (aka Abid Hammadou) are the two main AQIM players in North Africa.

Having travelled to Afghanistan for training in the 1990s, Belmokhtar has long been a key player for Algerian Islamists in the Sahara. He has married into local tribes, and runs the logistics and revenue-collection side of operations.

Rows with the group's central leadership and his success in lucrative criminal rackets have helped portray Belmokhtar as more of an independent operator than a devout jihadist, Reuters reports.

Belmokhtar is being tried in absentia in Algeria after being accused of carrying out several terrorist acts, including a May 2010 attack on soldiers in the southern Djelfa region that left two dead.

AQIM emerged from the Algerian jihadi movement and has attacked government forces in Mauritania, Mali and Niger. It has thrived in recent years by kidnapping Westerners for multi-million dollar ransoms.

There has been concern that weapons looted from Libyan stocks have proliferated through the region – recently an Israeli official said that some of the roughly 480 SA-24 “Grinch” shoulder-launched missiles that disappeared during the Libyan uprising have reappeared in the hands of insurgents on the borders of Israel.

The missiles were smuggled from Libya to Iran, and then to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine. US officials earlier confirmed that Libyan weapons went to Hezbollah and Gaza, posing a serious threat to aircraft in the region.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

03/14/2012, Adar 20, 5772


Terrorists to Prepare for Regional War

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/234737​

Hamas and Hizbullah leaders have decided to prepare for a regional war, according to Lebanese daily As-Sapir. The groups met this week and agreed that recent clashes between Gaza terrorists and Israel were intended to “test resistance organizations’ readiness for a larger conflict.”

If there is a larger conflict, they agreed, regional terrorist groups will want to be a part of it.




=

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/w...questioned-before-parliament-majlis.html?_r=1

March 14, 2012
Iran’s President Unfazed In Parliamentary Grilling
By RICK GLADSTONE and ALAN COWELL

Lawmakers in Iran subjected the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to an unprecedented interrogation on Wednesday, questioning his economic policies, cabinet appointments and tense relationship with the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a publicly broadcast parliamentary session that seemed intended to humiliate the president in the final few years of his tenure.

The hourlong interrogation, carried live on Iran state radio, was the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that an Iranian president had been required to appear before lawmakers to answer their questions.

The session itself seemed to reflect the emboldened position of Ayatollah Khamenei in a power struggle with Mr. Ahmadinejad, a former ally, who has irritated the supreme leader and alienated many members of the overwhelmingly conservative Parliament in recent years. Although Mr. Ahmadinejad is also a conservative and shares their antipathy toward the West and many Western values, some of his actions have challenged the Islamic religious hierarchy’s pre-eminence.

Undaunted, Mr. Ahmadinejad declared at the outset that he did not want to attend, and he responded to the questions evasively, dismissively and sometimes sarcastically, offending the interrogators and leading some to call for his impeachment. At the least, the session amounted to an unusual public airing of the tensions in Iranian politics at a time when the country is straining under major outside pressure.

Analysts of Iranian politics said it was highly unlikely that Mr. Ahmadinejad would be impeached, a prospect the Parliament has often threatened. But some said the interrogation further diminished the prospects that he would be able to cultivate a protégé to run in the 2013 presidential elections or even exert any political influence after his term expires. Such an outcome was already in doubt from the results of the March 2 parliamentary elections, in which his supporters lost many seats to rival conservatives.

“His opponents smell blood,” said Alireza Nader, an expert on Iran at the Washington offices of the RAND Corporation, a research group. “But in some ways the threat of Ahmadinejad has receded. I really don’t see it in the interest of the system for him to resign or be impeached. It makes more sense for Ahmadinejad to fade away.”

An official catalog of 10 questions in the interrogation covered issues that included Mr. Ahmadinejad’s unexplained personnel decisions, unachieved economic growth rates, Iran’s acute inflation and mysteries over missing money allotted to improve Tehran’s mass transit system.

Conspicuously absent in the questioning, however, was foreign policy, notably Mr. Ahmadinejad’s defiance of Israel and the West in promoting Iran’s disputed nuclear energy program, which is widely supported in Iran even though many Iranians are feeling the pressure from harsh economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union.

Two specific questions related to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s efforts to dismiss his former intelligence and foreign ministers, moves that directly challenged Ayatollah Khamenei’s authority.

Last year, the president tried to dismiss the chief of the Intelligence Ministry, the government branch that exerts widespread control over domestic life. Ayatollah Khamenei ordered that the minister, Heydar Moslehi, keep the post, but Mr. Ahmadinejad stayed home for 11 days before heeding the demand in what was taken as a show of pique.

“What justification did you have for your 11-day resistance to the supreme leader’s decree?” asked Ali Motahari, a lawmaker who is a conservative antagonist of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s and asked the questions. Mr. Ahmadinejad denied he had defied the ayatollah and responded, “Work did not stop for a single day.”

In late 2010, Mr. Ahmadinejad unceremoniously dumped Manouchehr Mottaki, the foreign minister and a Khamenei ally, while Mr. Mottaki was on a mission to Senegal.

The disputes weakened Ayatollah Khamenei’s close bonds with Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was first elected in 2005 and won re-election in 2009 in a suspiciously lopsided vote, supported by the ayatollah. The election incited widespread political unrest that was harshly suppressed.

Questioned about his failure to control soaring prices of basic goods, which outside economists have partly attributed to the phasing out of state subsidies and a steep decline in the value of the rial, Iran’s currency, Mr. Ahmadinejad was dismissive. “The reason behind these inflations is something else which I will explain at a proper time,” he said.

Questioned about his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, who has been accused by lawmakers of heading a “deviant current” in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Revolution, Mr. Ahmadinejad said only that he supports Iran’s “history.”

At the end, Mr. Ahmadinejad equated the questions to a school quiz concocted by simplistic instructors, and said he expected to get a top grade. “To me, those who designed the question were among those who got a master’s degree by just pushing a button,” he said, provoking anger from lawmakers who considered him rude and condescending.

“Needless to say, Ahmadinejad did not endear himself to the deputies,” said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a professor of political science at Syracuse University.

In what appeared to be another political slap at Mr. Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei announced on Wednesday the new makeup of the Expediency Council, a group of elders who act as advisers to the supreme leader. The most significant element of the announcement was the reappointment of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, as the council’s chairman. Although he has a wary relationship with the ayatollah, Mr. Rafsanjani is known to deeply dislike Mr. Ahmadinejad. The new council members also included a former culture minister whom Mr. Ahmadinejad had dismissed.

Nonetheless, Iran political experts said that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s own tenure seemed secure, judging by the confident insolence he displayed.

“His performance was the performance of a man safe in the knowledge that he will not be impeached,” said Farideh Farhi, a professor at the University of Hawaii who is an expert on Iran. “The members of Parliament cried foul that he insulted and mocked their questions,” she said, “but a concerted effort to push for the next step is highly unlikely because everyone is quite aware of the costs of bringing him down in the midst of all the external pressures Iran is under.”

Rick Gladstone reported from New York, and Alan Cowell from London. J. David Goodman contributed reporting from New York, and Artin Afkhami from Boston.


Related

*
Iran May Not Open a Site to Inspectors (March 14, 2012)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/w...ite-to-nuclear-inspectors.html?ref=middleeast

March 13, 2012
Iran May Not Open a Site to Inspectors
By RICK GLADSTONE

Iran signaled on Tuesday that it was unwilling to grant a request by international nuclear inspectors for unfettered access to a restricted military complex that they suspect may house a chamber designed to test explosives used in atomic weapons triggers.

In its first public statement on the matter since the leader of the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed irritation last week about Iran’s lack of cooperation, Iran also denied suggestions that it had sought to cleanse the military complex, called Parchin, to eliminate any trace of incriminating activity.

“The site is a military site, and conventional military activities are being carried out in the site,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, said, according to Iranian news agencies. Ridiculing reports that Iran had tried to clean up the site, he said, “If military nuclear activities are carried out, evidence of them can never be cleaned up, and the issue is mostly propaganda.”

Iran’s unwillingness to grant the inspectors’ request could complicate resumed talks announced last week between Iran and the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus Germany over Iran’s nuclear energy program, an increasing source of world tension. Iran says the program is peaceful; Western nations and Israel say it is a cover for developing nuclear weapons capacity.

A sprawling desert complex near Tehran, Parchin figured prominently in the atomic agency’s report on Iran’s nuclear activities last November. The report said Iran had constructed a containment vessel there in 2000 that may have been designed to conduct tests on explosives required to set off the type of reaction needed to detonate a nuclear bomb.

On an earlier visit to Parchin, inspectors found nothing, but were not allowed free access. Inspectors were recently twice denied permission to visit the site.

Mr. Mehmanparast said Iran did not oppose a visit but first wanted an agreement on what the inspectors would be allowed to do.


Related

*
Times Topic: Iran's Nuclear Program

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

‘IDF Tested Gaza Terrorists before Attack on Iran’

Hizbullah and Hamas said IDF strikes on Gaza were a “test” of reactions
in advance of an attack on Iran, a Lebanese newspaper reported.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 3/14/2012, 1:15 PM
Reuters
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153751​

Hizbullah and Hamas said IDF strikes on Gaza terrorists were a “test” of reactions in advance of an attack on Iran, a Lebanese newspaper reported. Leaders of Hizbullah and Hamas also reportedly said they are coordinating with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in the event of a war “waged by the Zionist enemy.”

Hizbullah supreme leader Hassan Nasrallah met with the Hamas number two leader in Lebanon, according to the Al-Sapir Arabic-language newspaper.

An alliance between the Iranian-Syrian-Hizbullah axis in the north with Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood would squeeze Israel from both ends of the country.

The meeting between Hizbullah and Hamas’ Dr. Moussa Abu Marzouk focused on the rebellion in Syria and the IDF’s counterterrorist strike on two Gaza terrorist leaders and the retaliation that followed a resumption of Hamas and Islamic Jihad missile attacks on Israel.

Nasrallah and Marzouk met on Monday and charged that “the Israeli enemy is responsible for the recent escalation of Israel’s counterterrorist measures in Gaza, which they said were intended “to pressure the resistance forces” and test their preparations for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear plants.

The newspaper said that Hizbullah and Hamas discussed their relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood in light of the situation in Gaza and the current discussion in the West of intervening in Syria to stop the slaughter of civilians by Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Nasrallah also told Hamas leaders that Assad wants a political solution to the crisis facing his regime.

Hamas said it is holding meetings with other Arab factions in Lebanon and with representatives of the Palestinian Authority for a planned “million-man” march on Israel later this month.





=

 

[Housecarl]

3/14/2012 PRC: Wen - Embrace Political Change Else Risk Another Cultural Revolution
They are reporting on the John Batchelor Show tonight that they have reports of Bo Xilai being arrested in Beijing.....
Started by Housecarl‎, Today 06:25 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Change-Else-Risk-Another-Cultural-Revolution

____

Well it is official, Bo Xilai has been stripped of power and it is looking like the hand off to the next government in Beijing isn't going to be a smooth one at all....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304459804577282280904864936.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

* ASIA NEWS
* Updated March 14, 2012, 10:30 p.m. ET

China Replaces Bo Xilai as Chongqing Party Chief

* Article
* Comments

more in World | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ »

By JEREMY PAGE And ANDREW BROWNE

BEIJING—A Chinese Communist Party leader who led a revival of Maoist ideology was removed from his post as leader of a southwestern megacity after Premier Wen Jiabao dealt him an unusual public rebuke, exposing deep rifts within the party elite ahead of a once-a-decade leadership change this fall.

Bo Xilai, the Communist Party chief of Chongqing, was replaced in that position by Vice Premier Zhang Dejiang, the state-run Xinhua news agency announced on Thursday morning. It said the decision had been made a few days ago, but gave no further details.

Mr. Wen, in his last annual news conference as premier on Wednesday, made a thinly veiled attack on Mr Bo, who was considered a front-runner for promotion in the fall until his former police chief was detained after spending a night in a U.S. consulate last month.

Mr. Wen said Chongqing's leadership should "reflect on and learn from" the scandal, and went on to indirectly—but very obviously—criticize Mr. Bo's attempts to revive the collectivist spirit of Chairman Mao Zedong with such activities as mass renditions of revolutionary songs.

Mr. Wen also made his boldest public appeal yet for reform of China's political and leadership systems, warning that without it, China could face another "tragedy" like the Cultural Revolution.

It is extremely rare for senior Chinese leaders to criticize each other in public, even obliquely, so Mr. Wen's remarks on the final day of an annual parliament meeting were seen as a direct attack on Mr. Bo and supporters of the government model that he represents.

Before Mr. Wen's remarks, analysts had said Mr. Bo would likely retain his seat on the Politburo—the top 25 leaders—but was unlikely to reach the narrower Standing Committee—currently nine strong—and would probably be replaced as Chongqing party chief in the fall and moved to a less-powerful post.

But his political career is now effectively over, although he may remain on the Politburo, since the Xinhua statement didn't say he had also been removed from that post.

Mr. Bo's political demise is damaging for other senior party figures who back him, as well as officials and academics who support the development model he championed, hinging on strong state intervention in the economy and society.

He had earned plaudits from some party leaders, and "new leftist" academics for a crime crackdown—which critics say showed scant regard for legal process—as well as lavish spending on infrastructure.

But academics and officials in favor of liberal reforms—for whom Mr. Wen is the lead figure—have been alarmed by the revival of Maoist rhetoric and the alleged abuse of legal procedure in Chongqing.

Their preferred candidate for the new leadership is Wang Yang, Mr. Bo's predecessor in Chongqing, now party chief of the southern province of Guangdong. He advocates "small government" and won praise this year for his delicate handling of a village revolt.

Mr. Wen struck a clear blow for the liberal camp at the end of his news conference when he was asked by a foreign reporter about the scandal surrounding Wang Lijun, the former Chong-qing police chief detained by Chinese security agents after spending a night in the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu on Feb. 6.

In his first public comments on the case, Mr. Wen started by repeating official statements that Mr. Wang was being investigated and that central government authorities were taking the matter "very seriously." But he added that Chongqing leaders "must seriously reflect on the Wang Lijun incident and learn lessons from this incident."

Analysts said his wording—broadcast unedited on state television—had likely been approved by the Standing Committee, including Vice President Xi Jinping, expected to take over as party chief in the fall, as the issue was so sensitive.

"This was not just directed at Bo, but at whoever is behind Bo," said Huang Jing, an expert on Chinese politics at the National University of Singapore, before Thursday's announcement.

Mr. Bo at a news conference Friday admitted negligence but denied that he had offered to resign from the Politburo or was under investigation.

Mr. Wen wound up his news conference with an oblique attack on Mr. Bo's Maoist rhetoric, which critics say glosses over the horrors of the Mao era, when tens of millions of people were killed by a man-made famine in 1958-61 and the chaos of the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution.

He noted that the party had delivered its verdict on mistakes of that period at a landmark meeting in 1978—two years after Mao's death—when it decided to switch course and launch market reforms. "Any practice that we take must be based on experience and lessons we have gained from history," he said.

Mr. Wen was quoted last year speaking publicly for the first time about how his own father was purged and forced to work on a pig farm during the Cultural Revolution.

Related News

* Time for China to Say Goodbye to the 'Chongqing Model'?
* U.S. State Department Confirms Chongqing Gang-Buster Visited Consulate

Read More

* Earlier: Wen Rebukes Party Chief
* China Real Time: Bo Xilai Denies Son Drives a Red Ferarri
* Scandal Clouds Chinese Party Chief's Rise
* Amid Intrigue, Bo Xilai Speaks Out
* Conspicuous Absence, Detention Add to Political Drama

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=478665&CategoryId=14091

Former Honduran Soldiers Arrested for Training Mexican Cartel
Caracas, Wednesday March 14,2012

MONTERREY, Mexico – Two former Honduran soldiers were arrested by the army for allegedly training members of Mexico’s violent Zetas drug cartel in the use of firearms in the northern state of Nuevo Leon, a military spokesman said.

Roger Ivan Lopez Davila, 41, and Carlos Alfredo Herrera Gomez, 21, have been living in Mexico for two years, the army spokesman said.

The two former soldiers were arrested along with seven other people, including five minors, in the Privada de San Juan section of Cadereyta, a city located about 35 kilometers (21 miles) east of Monterrey, the capital of Nuevo Leon, the army spokesman told Efe.

The other suspects were identified as Alex Alan Rodriguez, 19, and Liliana Juanita Moreno, 21.

The five minors range in age from 14 to 17, the army spokesman said.

Soldiers seized 225 packets of marijuana, 225 packets of cocaine and communications equipment from the suspects.

Cadereyta has been plagued by a wave of drug-related violence blamed on the turf war between the Los Zetas and Gulf drug cartels.

Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, known as “El Lazca,” deserted from the Mexican army in 1999 and formed Los Zetas with three other soldiers, all members of an elite special operations unit, becoming the armed wing of the Gulf drug cartel.

After several years on the payroll of the Gulf cartel, Los Zetas, considered Mexico’s most violent criminal organization, went into the drug business on their own account and now control several lucrative territories.

A total of 324 murders were registered in Nuevo Leon in the first two months of this year, a record for a two-month period in the state, officials said.

The wave of drug-related violence in Nuevo Leon claimed the lives of 2,003 people in 2011, official figures show.

Mexico’s drug war death toll stood at 47,515 from December 2006 to Sept. 30, 2011.

The murder total has grown every year of President Felipe Calderon’s military offensive against the well-funded, heavily armed drug cartels.

Unofficial tallies published in December by independent daily La Jornada put the death toll from Mexico’s drug war at more than 50,000. EFE

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153776

Assad's E-mails Reveal Iranian Ties
A cache of several thousand e-mails sent by President Bashar Assad and his wife reveal he took advice from Iran on handling the uprising.
By Elad Benari
First Publish: 3/15/2012, 5:16 AM

Syrian President Bashar Assad took advice from Iran on how to handle the uprising against his rule, according to a cache of what appear to be several thousand e-mails received and sent by the Syrian leader and his wife.

The e-mails, which were published by the British Guardian on Wednesday, also prove the Syrian leader was briefed in detail about the presence of western journalists in the Baba Amr district of Homs and urged to “tighten the security grip” on the opposition-held city.

The revelations are contained in more than 3,000 documents that activists say are e-mails downloaded from private accounts belonging to Assad and his wife Asma and were obtained by the Guardian. According to the report, the emails were intercepted by members of the opposition Supreme Council of the Revolution group between June and early February.

The emails show that Mrs. Assad spent more than £10,000 on candlesticks, tables and chandeliers from Paris and instructed an aide to order a fondue set from Amazon.

The Guardian said it has made extensive efforts to authenticate the emails, by checking their contents against established facts and contacting ten individuals whose correspondence appears in the cache. These checks suggest the messages are genuine, but it has not been possible to verify every one.

The emails show how Assad assembled a team of aides to advise him on media strategy and how to position himself in the face of increasing international criticism of his regime's attempts to crush the uprising, the Guardian said.

They also appear to show that Assad received advice from Iran or its proxies on several occasions during the crisis.

One example was before a speech in December, when Assad’s media consultant prepared a long list of themes, reporting that the advice was based on “consultations with a good number of people in addition to the media and political adviser for the Iranian ambassador.”

The memo advised Assad to use “powerful and violent” language and to show appreciation for support from “friendly states,” the Guardian reported. It also advised that the regime should “leak more information related to our military capability” to convince the public that it could withstand a military challenge.

Among those who communicated with the president's account were Khaled al-Ahmed who, it is believed, was given the task of advising about Homs and Idlib. In November, according to the report, Ahmed wrote to Assad urging him to “tighten the security grip to start [the] operation to restore state control in Idlib and Hama countryside.”

He also advised Assad that he had been told European reporters had “entered the area by crossing the Lebanese borders illegally.” In another message he warned the president that “a tested source who met with leaders of groups in Baba Amr today said a big shipment of weapons coming from Libya will arrive to the shores of one of the neighboring states within three days to be smuggled to Syria.”

Earlier on Wednesday, the United Nations said that more than 230,000 Syrians have fled their homes during the bloody year-long crackdown on the uprising.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees' coordinator for Syria said 30,000 people have already fled to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, adding that the Syrian Arab Red Crescent reported that at least 200,000 of the people who have fled their homes are within the country itself.

Earlier this week, Syrian troops committed another massacre in Idlib, murdering 55 people. The massacre came one day after the Syrian regime killed at least 47 women and children in a massacre in the Karm al-Zeitoun neighborhood in Homs.

The problems in his own country did not stop Assad from condemning Israeli air raids on Gaza on Tuesday.

The Syrian Foreign Minister said in a statement that the country “roundly condemns Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and urges the international community to undertake urgent steps to put an end to these activities and to sanction those responsible.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/33344/?SID=cfe6f3cb252a6725d27c55f7e101da2a

PLA Official Calls for Coordinated Development Between Military and National Communication Constructions

15:21 GMT, March 14, 2012 Concerning the problems of the unsynchronized and uncoordinated constructions between the military and national communications, Guo Shuhong, military deputy to the National People’s Congress (NPC) and chief engineer of a troop unit under the Jinan Military Area Command (MAC) of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), suggested a corresponding operation mechanism should be established at the national level in order to ensure the synchronized and coordinated development of military and national communication constructions.

Deputy Guo Shuhong proposed to start from three aspects:

First, establish a high-level coordinating operation mechanism. The related department in charge of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the department under the general headquarters/departments of the PLA in charge of communications should set up offices respectively to jointly hold meetings and formulate plans for synchronized and coordinated development of military and national communication constructions.

Second, set up an exchange mechanism for scientific and technological information. The department under the general headquarters/department of the PLA in charge of communications should establish long-term strategic cooperative relations with national key research institutes and large information enterprise groups, in a bid to uplift the military communication capability with the latest scientific achievements.

Third, build a feasibility-proving mechanism for absorbing the civilian technologies for military use. The feasibility-proving group should be made up of military and civilian experts under the leadership of the administrative office of the communication equipment and technical system of the PLA. The group should deliberate on the applicability of civilian technologies and materials in military communication areas, so as to avoid problems such as short life cycle and low actual-combat performance of the military equipment due to the technologies not advanced enough.


----
Fei Shiting / PLA Daily

________

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.china.org.cn/china/NPC_CPPCC_2012/2012-03/14/content_24897525.htm

PLA deputies seek to promote China's marine economy

By Lu Na
0 Comment(s)Print E-mail
China.org.cn, March 14, 2012

Adjust font size:

China will formulate and implement a strategy for marine development, and promote the development of the marine economy, according to Premier Wen Jiabao's Government Work Report released during the fifth session of the 11th National People's Congress (NPC). The report's contents drew strong responses from PLA deputies to the NPC.

One of the deputies who commented on China's need to formulate a marine development strategy was Zhu Wenquan, a PLA deputy to NPC, and former commander of the Nanjing Military Region. He said: "The 21st century is the century of the sea and we have entered a new era in which marine resources are being developed and utilized on a large scale. However, China hasn't yet published an overall marine development strategy."

He continued: "At present, it is of paramount importance that we promulgate an overall, comprehensive and systematic marine development strategy based on our political, economic, and military situation."

Gu Shoucheng, a PLA deputy to the NPC and former director of the Joint Logistics Department of the Nanjing Military Region said that the key to tackling China's lagging marine development is changing the tradition idea that the land, and its resources, and more important than the ocean.

Wang Hewen, a PLA deputy to the NPC and former command of Zhejiang Military District said that besides energy, the marine economy also includes marine fisheries, offshore aquaculture, marine and mining resources, port economy, marine shipping and shipbuilding. All of these aspects are necessary in order to build a comprehensive marine economic strategy, which will, in turn, guide their functioning.

Commenting further, Zhu Wenquan said: "We have reached a consensus to develop and utilize marine resources. However, China has many problems such as its low level marine industry, insufficient technical and scientific support as well as low level of marine development and utilization."

Wang Yu, a PLA deputy to the NPC and dean of the Marine Equipment Research Institute suggested that China should build a high-level scientific and technological research and development base to support research into marine life, oceans and climate, ocean carbon cycle, marine ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles and naval equipment.

"Our marine affairs are now managed by many departments from different fields including economic, scientific, diplomatic and security," said Zhu Wenquan. He added that the lack of a high-level management and coordination mechanism means that it is difficult to formulate an overall policy to coordinate every aspect of the industry.

He continued: "We need to learn from the marine management systems used in and promote reform in central government, management and enforcement." He also suggested that central government make decisions and policies and that the marine administrative department's power be expanded in order to manage macro marine affairs and build China's marine law enforcement and supervision corps.

Wang Hewen commented that said that central government should take a decision at the highest level to cope with the current uncoordinated issues of coastal defense construction and marine economic development.

To that end, Zhu Wenquan suggested establishing a military and political coordination mechanism in order to promote the coordinated and trouble--free development of coastal defense construction and marine economic development.

_______

For links see article source......
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90785/7757331.html

People's Daily Online>>China Politics
Hu Jintao meets PLA officers, professionals
(Xinhua)
08:24, March 14, 2012

BEIJING, March 13 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Hu Jintao on Monday met with officers and professionals of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and armed police on the sidelines of parliament's annual session, where they serve as deputies to the National People's Congress (NPC), according to details available on Tuesday.

In recent years, it has become routine for Hu, who is also chairman of the Central Military Commission and general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, to communicate with grassroots NPC deputies from the PLA and armed police and learn about their work and training.

Talking with Yan Baojian, commander of a PLA submarine base, Hu urged the Navy to train hard and fulfill every assigned task.

After listening to a report by Tang Wanlin, a technology expert with Chengdu Military Area Command, Hu said the military is in dire need of talents familiar with cutting-edge technologies.

He called for the PLA's vast number of scientific and technological staff to remain committed to their posts and make new contributions to the country's army building.

Ding Xiaobing, a division commissar of the armed forces, was urged to continue leading officers and soldiers to put the core values of modern servicemen into practice.

Talking with Tan Jing, an actress from the Song and Dance Ensemble of the PLA General Political Department, Hu said arts workers in the PLA have the responsibility to develop advanced military culture and act as spearheads in promoting socialist culture.

During the meeting, Bao Juntao, an engineer from Nanjing Military Area Command, was encouraged by the president to be bolder in contributing to military modernization.

After being briefed by Liang Xiaojing, an officer from the PLA Second Artillery Corps, Hu said the PLA Second Artillery Corps shoulders missions that are important for the country, and he expected officers like Liang to play an active role in ideological mobilization to prepare for military actions.

Hu also discussed military research, equipment production and other issues with Tang Ziyue, a professor with the Radar Institute of the Air Force, and Ju Xiaocheng, a sergeant major of a drone team affiliated with the General Staff Headquarters.
Email|Print|Comments（Editor：雪萌）

Related Reading

Labor contract law needs to be amended
Top legislator extends regards to journalists covering "two sessions"
Banks' reserves 'can be invested
Death penalty idea for corruption draws criticism
A sign of progress
Hu stresses military's safeguarding social stability

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/\papers50\paper4960.html

Paper no. 4960

13-Mar-2012

China’s Force Multipliers?

Guest Column by Commodore R. S. Vasan

China’s penchant for breaching technological barriers has been in the news and is frequently being discussed in many forums. It is obvious that China’s “Peaceful Development” has more to do with preparing for higher levels of war in many theatres while declaring to the world that it means peace. Unfortunately for China there are not many takers for this declaration amongst the comity of nations, where China seems to have more adversaries than friends.

There has been plenty of speculation about whether some of the critical technologies would indeed be game changers in any future conflict. This paper seeks to examine some of the critical technologies where there is demonstrated potential to be game changers. The hype and overestimation of how this would tilt the balance of power in favour of China is largely due to a lack of understanding of the present state of such developments, gestation period prior to operationalisation and the limitations thereof. Let us look at them one by one.

First, ASAT. China shot down its own weather satellite Feng Yun 1 C on January 11,2007 by using a ballistic missile. The test conveyed that China has the capability to engage spying satellites, remote sensors, guidance and navigation satellites and communication satellites of its adversaries as and when the need arises. All the satellite systems as described above with specific roles are required for conducting ISR missions which increasingly are being structured to be enablers of net centric operations and net centric warfare. While such a capability is not beyond the reach of the advanced technologies, one should not forget that any accidental or intentional shooting down of a satellite of another nation would lead to not just space wars but could spill in to other domains over land, air, sea and cyber space.

The demonstration of such a capability by China five years ago indicates that it is willing to take the future wars to the next level when space wars would precede wars in other domains. The recent report that China would be launching more than 30 satellites annually for both civil and military applications is indicative also of the vulnerability /criticality of its own satellites in space. The demonstration of ASAT therefore is more to convey to the world that it would not be left behind in an emerging space war should someone target its satellites.

Second, ASBM. With the disclosure initially by US Admiral Robert Willard, head of Pacific Command and confirmed by Chinese General Chen Bengde in July last year, China appears well on its way to develop a capability to hit a carrier at ranges up to 2600 kilometers by DF 21 missile. Analysts have been busy trying to see how and under what conditions this would be a threat to forces intent on intervening in South China Sea or Taiwan straits or in any other areas of interest including the Indian Ocean. The analysis thus far indicates that this is an access denial weapon with potential to set others thinking before they commit their expeditionary forces.

What is not much talked about is the fact that the success of ASBM is dependent on many vulnerable links. These are the satellites, over the horizon radars (OHR), UAVs, data links all of which should work in real time to provide the missile flying at Mach 10 guidance to hit a moving target at sea after identification beyond doubts. The ‘tools and techniques’ would need to work without failure to ensure that innocent large merchant ships are not shot down and there is no collateral damage and escalation of war inviting new players in a developing world war IV scenario.

For a technological super power US, it would be foolhardy to assume that they have not figured out as to how to neutralize the threat. Simply put, this is done by having plans in place for removal of one or many of the links that are crucial for the successful attack on a fast moving target. The carrier itself would be altering its course frequently and would also be creating electronic and real decoys for misleading the missile. Just as in the first case, the ASBM attack would not be the end of an attack but the beginning of a full fledged war. China is not yet a match to the US in terms of technology or in terms of fire power that would be brought to bear on the mainland of China and its surface assets at sea, a prospect that China would not be ready to face for a few more years if not decades.

Third, Aircraft Carrier. The Chinese carrier has been in the news since PLA-N acquired Varyag from Ukraine more than a decade ago and embarked on understanding the nuances of carrier construction by refitting/rebuilding the carrier to provide it a blue water capability centered on the Carrier Battle Group fashioned on the same lines as the US. It would be premature and impractical to assume that a few sea trials has equipped the Chinese carrier with the ability to break out from South China Sea and suddenly, it has transformed itself in to Carrier Battle Group (CBG) equipped navy that has interventionist capability.

While the idiom ‘one swallow does not make a summer’ holds good, the truth is that China is slowly but steadily building a capability to operate a carrier to break out of the shackles of the first and second chain of defence. One carrier is not enough as India has found out and it is obvious that more numbers are required for developing a carrier based concept of war. The integration of a carrier in to the fleet would be many years away as the Indian experience has illustrated. Also the integral air component that is on the carrier is not a gen five aircraft but a Russian Sukhoy 27 (and Chinese modifications based on Russian aircraft) which has the ability to operate from the carrier. Other fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft would be required for meeting the requirements of Airborne Early Warning, Search and Rescue, Troop lift, logistic support, etc.,. The induction of the carrier in the PLA-N would come with the challenges of inducting both surface and air units as well as developing the concept of operations that in future would be centered on a CBG. This is something that requires decades of dedicated work up sessions, training of air and deck crew, command teams, planning and proving of concepts in various scenarios in Indo Pacific theatre an emerging center of gravity.

Fourth, Stealth Aircraft. A lot of publicity was given both by the west and China itself to the successful flight undertaken by the stealth aircraft. Despite the denials by the top leadership, it is clear that China followed an old practice of timing events to convey messages.The demonstration flight was undertaken to coincide with the visit of the Defence Secretary Mr Gates.

This like some of the other capabilities discussed would require considerable time and effort for integration in to the war plans. The process involves raising an operational squadron with complete trained crew and Standard Operating Procedures for integration with the missions in mind.

Fifth, Deep Sea capability. The Chinese submersible jiaolong demonstrated its capability to dive up to 5.1 kilometers in the Pacific in July 2011. The intention is to reach a record depth of 7ooo meters this year. China has signaled that it has the means to reach some seventy percent of the world’s ocean depths and mastered the technology of operating deep sea vessels. It may be recalled that the same submersible was used to plant the Chinese flag in the South China Sea to assert its claims over the entire sea bed of South China Sea.

The future applications are both civil and military. The civil use involves the exploration of the deep seabed for mineral wealth as and when the land resources start drying up. The present technology is not yet economical to drill at such depths to obtain huge stocks of minerals and bring up them for commercial use. The success is obviously a result of research in the fields of metallurgy, hydrodynamics, underwater medicine, and other disciplines that need to be integrated for achieving this success. The R&D efforts would also provide inputs on designing future deep sea combat vessels (both manned and remote controlled). The military applications for such a vessel are enormous and could include covert operations, sabotage, mining, clandestine survey, stealth application for weapon launches and such like.

Sixth, Space Station. The Chinese have invested heavily in space explorations including manned space flights and are now embarking on a space station that would provide them vital inputs on the challenges in outer space. While at one level the intention is to demonstrate its ability for manned missions and space stations, at another, it is to keep abreast of the space technology that has spin off benefits for other applications both in civil and military fields. By and large all the missions including manned missions and space walks have been successful and in the long run, China aims to acquire a space capability similar to what US possesses today.

Seventh, Cyber Space. Last but the most important is the Cyber space. This is one area that has assumed increasing importance due to the nature of warfare in the cyber domain. In modern day warfare every activity is intrinsically linked to the cyber space and the vulnerability of information and intelligence systems would prove to be the Achilles heel of a war fighting machinery.

The reported sophisticated cyber attacks by Chinese groups have alarmed the nations around the world as it provides the State with a capability that would provide the needed edge in attacking critical control systems, information nodes, command and control stations, power stations including nuclear power stations, transportation hubs and even everyday activities that depend on robust information and control systems.

In the light of the above discussions, there should be no doubt that China in its long term plans has embarked on acquiring enabling technologies in all the four dimensions including cyber that would be at the fore front of its armour in both civil and military applications . The question to ask therefore is that should the west and rest be worried? The answer is a definitive yes but with a caveat that nothing earth shaking is going to happen in the next five to ten years or so which is the minimum time required to operationalise any concept and prove the system and sub systems prior to integration in the battle plans. By the same yardstick, If China has five to ten years for developing some of these concepts; US and others have the same kind of time that is available to refine their responses. There hardly need be any doubt that some of the counters already exist in the inventory of US forces.

(The author is presently the Head, Strategy and Security Studies at the Center for Asia Studies at Chennai and can be contacted at rsvasan2010@gmail.com)

______

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/\papers50\paper4961.html

Paper no. 4961

14-Mar-2012

China’s Defence Budget 2012- Forever Rising

By Bhaskar Roy

It is that time of the year. China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) spokesman Li Zhaoxing declared on March 04 that China’s defence budget for 2012 increased by 11.2% over the previous year and stood at approximately $ 106 billion. This was great relief for some of China’s hardliners who feared the international and regional developments in the past year may persuade the leadership to take a low profile on defence and make a moderate single digit increase.

As is the routine, western experts have come out with several explanations for the budget increase, but they are almost unanimous that the real budget would be anything in the range $ 160 billion or higher. The hidden portion of the budget is used for high technology defence research and development, development and maintenance of strategic forces known as Second Artillery, and major acquisitions. For the first time spokesman Li attempted some transparency saying most of budget would be spent on regular personnel expenditure, research and development, procurement, repair, transport and storage of all weapons and equipment including new types of weapons.

Addressing the 5th session (annual) of the 11th NPC in Beijing’s great Hall of the people on March 05, Premier Wen Jiabao gave a number of reasons for the increase in the defence budget. The following are of interest:

(a) A strong national defence and powerful armed forces provide a firm guarantee for safeguarding China’s sovereignty, security and development interests.

(b) Enhance the capability of the armed forces to accomplish a wide range of military tasks, especially to win local wars under information-age conditions.

(c) Innovations in defence related science and technology and in weapons and equipment development.

(d) Modernize the armed police (People’s Armed Police - PAP)

(e) Combating terrorism, maintaining stability, handling emergencies and relieving deserters.

(f) Managing military and defence industries.

Premier Wen was abundantly clear that China’s defence budget annual increase is not going to peter out anytime soon. Military development and economic development will remain interdependent, and one will climb on the shoulders of the other for reaching ever more excellence. As the second largest economic power in the world in gross terms, in China’s view it has not yet reached the desirable military power. In comparative terms, China is at the stage that NATO was in the 1980s. This gap has to be covered expeditiously and that effort is very visible.

It is evident that China is leap-fogging in another trajectory to close the military modernization gap with the west, at least primarily in its immediate region, the Asia Pacific Region (APR). Faced with the superior capability of the US and its so-called ‘pivot’ in the region declared by President Barack Obama, Beijing’s priority for its over arching domination of its near sea-board has become more imperative. The emphasis, therefore, is on area denial for the US and information age warfare.

What are the priorities of the Chinese leadership? First is the relevance of the Chinese communist party. They honestly believe that if the party collapses China will disintegrate. The PLA is the guarantor of the party’s security, and this is the first responsibility of the PLA. On the other hand, the PLA is subservient to the party. The party commands the PLA. The importance of the PLA stems from here.

Apart from the security of the party, China is acutely sensitive about its territorial integrity which Beijing considers at its “core interest”. These are Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous region.

Taiwan is considered China renegade province, and the only one not integrated with the mainland. On the other hand, the US considers Taiwan as the unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region and is the main protector of Taipei. Since the KMT returned to power in Taiwan, however, relations across the Taiwan strait have improved significantly. The pro-Independence Democratic People’s Party (DPP) have lost two successive elections. The KMT led by President Ma Ying-Jeou have maintained a middle ground of states quo, while expanding trade and other relations. This does not mean, however, that the KMT has relaxed in any way defence preparedness in the interest of economic exchanges with mainland China.

The US keeps Taiwan armed with just enough military assistance to maintain a semblance balance of power against China. Taiwan faces around 1,300 medium range M-9 missiles deployed against it, and the growing Chinese naval power which can blockade Taiwan in case of a crisis and prevent US intervention.

China retains military option to get Taiwan integrated, but would prefer peaceful means. USA’s Taiwan Relation Act (TRA), 1978, though deliberately ambiguous to an extent, makes it incumbent on the President to take note of and decide on military assistance to Taiwan if it is attacked. This is the reason why China is on a fast track to develop what is known as “area denial” or “access denial” armament like the DF-21D nuclear capable as well as conventional warhead ballistic missile, known as ‘aircraft carrier killer’ missile.

Having said that, a Chinese military adventure against Taiwan even armed with area-denial armament would require very deep consideration among China’s top leadership. There is a section in China which feels if Taiwan is allowed function independently for a long time, its de facto independence may become de jure.

At the same time, the PLA just cannot wade into Taiwan. Such an action would draw in not only the US and the regional countries, but the whole world. It would be an unmitigated disaster leading to chain effects, and China can do more harm to itself than benefitting by it.

But the manner of China’s military development planning does not inspire confidence in a stable and peaceful reconciliation of the Taiwan issue, though it must be admitted that jingoistic rhetoric on Taiwan has greatly reduced in recent years.

Tibet and Xinjiang are the other two territorial integrity issues, but unlike Taiwan both these regions are within China’s administrative control and recognized by the global community as China’s sovereign territories. Neither the Dalai Lama nor the Tibetans are demanding independence. They are asking for reasonable autonomy which is even less than the Chinese constitution allows. The Muslims of Xinjiang have a similar case but have been pushed by the central government policies on the one hand, and the indoctrination of Islamic radicals in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to seek independence.

Whatever may be the case, anti-China sentiments have sharply increased in both Tibet and Xinjiang from 2008. The remonstrations in Tibet are peaceful, but have extended to self- sacrifice to emphasise a cause. In Xinjiang it has been more violent.

The point at issue is that the PLA’s role in quelling these sentiments in Tibet and Xinjiang is rapidly growing. The PLA may not be involved directly all the time with its soldiers, but its role and capacity has been increased tremendously with paramilitary agencies at its command. The People’s Armed Police (PAP) and newly raised internal security entities are now under the PLA. The budget for this internal security forces was raised to $ 111 billion for 2012 from $ 95 billion 2011. This is bigger than the declared budget of the PLA in both these years.

It appears, the PLA is taking an over arching role. The problem here is that both Tibet and Xinjiang are bordering regions, and can lead to other complication with neighbours. India will have to be alert, if harsh crackdowns on the Tibetans in Tibet lead to an exodus to India. The more the Chinese authorities strike hard on the Tibetans, the worse the situation will be. The Tibetans appear to have come to the last resort they would rather sacrifice their own lives than live as dead men under China’s command. This is a highly disturbing development for the region.

Of more immediate attention is China’s assertive position in its eastern sea board, especially the sea of Japan and the South China Sea. China’s position and even actions on the ground with “military flag showing in these two areas are not overnight developments”. Plotted on a graph, China decibels have been increasing in consonance with the growth of its military power, specifically from 2003-2004. The year 2011 was a particularly belligerent year. There were some signs of control, but confrontation with Japan on the Senkaku and other islands in the Sea of Japan and with the Philippines and Vietnam in South China have been consistent, periodically rising in crescendo and with small physical skirmishes.

China’s politico-military assertiveness in the region poses a serious challenge to the other countries. A dormant and stable region has become excited, with both Japan and Australia declaring a guard against China defence policies. It is also partly responsible for the US reinvigorate its strategic position in the region which it could not neglect. It may also be noted that Washington has taken a new initiative with North Korea – 240 million tons of food for Pyongyang to stop its missile test and nuclear programme. Beijing has noted the development. How Pyongyang behaves henceforth will depend upon Beijing’s influence with North Korea.

In brief, Beijing’s actions in the region has created an unwritten alliance to stand up with US backing. To note, most of the belligerent positions have come from the PLA which has been trying to drive some of China’s foreign and strategic policies.

From Premier Wen’s speech and a review of Chinese actions and writings, it is evident that China’s power projection across the Indian ocean is also inevitable. One reason is to secure its energy and raw material supplies from the Gulf and Africa. The other is to position itself as Asia’s leader – an enduring foreign policy programme. One can understand China’s dire need for energy supplies and no country in Asia including India will be a hindrance. But the second aspiration spells instability and potential confrontation.

Much will depend upon how strongly the Party is able to control the PLA’s ambitions. The repeated emphasis by the Party leaders that the Party commands the gun, promotes discomfort for China’s neighbours. Reemphasis of this position at every opportunity and several times during the NPC session only proves there is a serious issue between the party and the army on certain policies. The party is still pre-eminent but is it losing ground? If so, the challenge to China’s internal stability and its neighbours with which it has territorial/boundary issues can be disturbing.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/\papers50\paper4962.html

Paper no. 4962

15-Mar-2012

Tibetan Unrest Spreads from Sichuan to Qinghai: Students Join Protests in Large Numbers

By B. Raman

The Tibetan unrest against the repressive policies of the Chinese authorities has spread from the Tibetan areas of Western Sichuan to Qinghai. According to details received late, Qinghai has been in a state of growing unrest since the beginning of February with large numbers of Tibetan monks and students frequently protesting in the streets---separately as well as jointly. The situation in Qinghai since February last is slowly getting to resemble that in Western Sichuan since March last year.

2. The spreading wave of unrest started in the Nangchen county in Qinghai province's Yulshul prefecture on February 8, 2012. At a local stadium, a large number of students and other civilians gathered and shouted slogans such as "Freedom for Tibet" and "Long Live the Dalai Lama." The same day, another large group of Tibetans, including many monks, gathered in the main monastery in Nangchen town, and chanted prayers for the return of His Holiness.

3.The Chinese authorities did not intervene against the protesters, but allowed the demonstrations to take place, but subsequently they have been rounding up people who participated in the demonstrations. They have also circulated leaflets calling on people who joined the demonstrations to voluntarily surrender to the police.

4. On March 13,2012, about 4,000 middle school students held demonstrations in Rebkong and in neighboring Tsekhog (in Chinese, Zeku) county in protest against the replacement of Tibetan by Chinese as the medium of instruction in the local schools. Similar demonstrations on the same issue had taken place in October 2010.The Chinese authorities have reportedly closed down the schools where demonstrations took place on March 13 and detained the suspected participants in the school premises pending investigation by the police.

5. The next day, a 30-year-old Tibetan monk tried to commit self-immolation at a monastery in Qinghai's Rebkong (in Chinese, Tongren) county in the Malho (in Chinese, Huangnan) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. The Chinese intervened and put out the fire. He survived with severe burns.

6. According to one report, when the Chinese tried to take him to a local hospital for admission, hundreds of Tibetans rescued him from Chinese custody and took him back to his monastery. Demonstrations against the Chinese authorities were held in the town. Further details are awaited.

7. In the meanwhile, the Chinese have reportedly expelled about 100 out of the 200 monks in the Karma monastery in Chamdo county in the Tibet Autonomous Region on the ground that they did not have valid identification papers. They have been asked to go home and the remaining 100 monks who have been allowed to stay in the monastery have been forced to attend re-education classes to re-affirm their loyalty to the Chinese Government and Communist Party. The Chinese have stepped up surveillance of the monastery since October last when there was an explosion in a local Government building.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com Twitter : @SORBONNE75)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/33302/?SID=4ca867d0ad5dbfa267854aed78a9cbfc

PLA Official Suggests Safeguarding National Network Border Security

15:54 GMT, March 13, 2012 At present, China is facing extremely severe cyberspace security situation of rampant invasion, infiltration and information stealing through the Internet. The situation of key information technology and components being controlled by other countries has not yet been changed in China. Therefore, China must establish a national strategy of prioritizing the development of network border construction, said Wang Hui, deputy of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to the National People’s Congress (NPC) and deputy director of the No. 3 Office of a research institute under the General Staff Headquarters (GSH) of the PLA, when talking about the maintenance of national network security.

He proposed three solutions. First, formulate national cyberspace security strategy as soon as possible to elevate network protection to the strategic position as important as land, sea, air and space protection.

Second, formulate and improve laws and regulations on cyberspace security. Activities such as attacking core networks of systems including national network infrastructure will be defined as criminal acts of infringing national sovereignty or endangering national security.

Third, integrate information security forces of various parties, coordinate the use of military-civilian technical resources and establish a national-level joint-action mechanism to ensure prompt resolution of network security issues.

At last, Deputy Wang Hui suggested conducting risk evaluation on military information systems and core information systems concerning national economy and people’s livelihood and exploring coping strategies to further strengthen the talent cultivation of network security protection.


----
PLA Daily

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/saudi-arabias-succession-labyrinth

Saudi Arabia's Succession Labyrinth
March 14, 2012 | 1428 GMT

Summary

FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP/Getty Images)

Saudi Interior Minister Crown Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz

Saudi Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdul-aziz arrived in Cleveland for medical tests March 10 amid rumors he had suffered a stroke. This development comes a week after the kingdom’s official news agency, SPA, said the crown prince, who has long been the country’s interior minister, was seen off at an airbase by a large royal entourage as he was leaving for a vacation to an undisclosed destination. The 80-year-old Prince Nayef became crown prince in October 2011 after the death of his elder brother, Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz. His health reportedly has deteriorated in recent years, along with that of his half-brother, King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz.

Since 2005, when Abdullah ascended to the throne after the death of his predecessor, King Fahd, the Saudi kingdom has been engaged in a slow transition of power. Besides King Abdullah, there are some 18 surviving sons of the founder of the modern kingdom, King Abdul-aziz bin Abdel-Rehman al-Saud, of whom only three can be considered likely successors to the throne given their current positions and influence. This means the grandsons of the founder, a much larger group, will very soon dominate the hierarchy of the Saudi state. So long as power was in the hands of the second generation, succession was not such a difficult issue and was dealt with informally. However, due to the massive changes occurring both within Saudi Arabia and in the wider Middle East, this transition will come at a particularly difficult time for the next-generation leadership that, despite the formal processes for succession instituted by Abdullah, will likely be far less unified than the current one.

The Saudi royalty's health problems come at a time of great uncertainty for Riyadh. On the home front, the Saudis are trying to ensure that the regional Arab unrest does not spill into its borders. At the same time, they are trying to counter an increasingly aggressive Iran. That said, the al-Saud regime has proved to be remarkably resilient over the course of its history, remaining in power despite the forced abdication of the founder’s successor, King Saud, in 1964; the assassination of King Faisal in 1975; and the stroke-induced incapacitation of King Fahd for nearly a decade until his death in 2005, when King Abdullah took the throne.

Analysis

The stability of the second generation’s leadership can be attributed, at least in part, to three key clans of the royal family acting as checks on one another. These include the Faisal clan, named for the successor to King Saud, who succeeded the founder, King Abdul-Aziz; the Abdullah faction, named for the current king; and the Sudairi clan, named for the founder’s eighth wife, Princess Hassa bint Ahmad al-Sudairi. While Byzantine in its complexity, this balance has prevented incessant power grabs by King Abdul-Aziz’s hundreds of descendants.

The clan of former King Faisal includes Prince Saud, the current foreign minister, and Faisal’s other two sons, Prince Khalid, governor of Mecca, and Prince Turki, who served as the kingdom’s intelligence chief from 1977 to 2001. The Faisal clan has somewhat weakened in recent years. Prince Turki, after briefly serving as ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006, currently holds no official position, though he remains influential. His older full brother, Prince Saud, who has been foreign minister since 1975, is 70 years old and ailing, and could step down soon.

Despite his influence over the years as head of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) from 1962 to 2010, crown prince from 1982 to 2005, and de factor ruler since 1995, King Abdullah’s faction is numerically small; he has no full brothers who hold key posts, and thus his clan is made up of his sons. King Abdullah’s most prominent son, Mitab bin Abdullah, recently took over the SANG, and the king’s oldest son, Khalid bin Abdullah, is a member of the newly formed Allegiance Council, set up to govern the succession process. Mishal bin Abdullah assumed the post of governor of the southern province of Najran, while another son, Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah, has been an adviser in his father’s royal court since 1989.

The Sudairis have held a disproportionate amount of power, due in part to the fact that their leader, the late King Fahd, was the longest-reigning monarch of the kingdom, ruling from 1982 to 2005. The Sudairi faction includes many powerful princes, such as the clan’s one-time patriarch, former Crown Prince Sultan, who served as minister of defense and aviation and as inspector general; Interior Minister and Crown Prince Naif; Defense Minister Prince Salman; Deputy Minister of Interior Prince Ahmed, and the former vice minister of defense and aviation, Prince Abdul Rahman.

Even though the crown prince’s clan is bigger and more prominent than the king’s, the two clans remain the principal stakeholders in the Saudi ruling family because they control the two parallel military forces of the kingdom. This has been the case since the early 1960s when then-Crown Prince Faisal -- as part of his efforts to take power from his half brother, King Saud -- appointed Crown Prince Sultan as minister of defense and aviation and King Abdullah as head of the SANG. The two men controlled the two separate forces for many decades.

King Abdullah’s move to appoint his son, Mitab, to head the SANG shows that control over the force will remain with his clan. The situation with the defense ministry is somewhat different. Sultan’s son Khalid, the assistant defense minister, did not take over the regular armed forces after his father’s death despite his background as an army general. The king, opposed to the move, instead appointed Sultan’s full brother Salman, who had been governor of Riyadh until then. In a sense, the position remains within the clan.

Further complicating the situation is that, thus far, clans have been composed of the various sons of the founder from different mothers. Now, many of these second-generation princes have multiple wives, who have produced many sons all seeking their share of power, adding to the factionalism.

Setting Up a Succession Plan

Sensing that the power-sharing method within the family had become untenable due to the sheer number of descendants seeking power and influence within the regime, King Abdullah in 2007 moved to enact the Allegiance Institution Law, which created a leadership council and a formal mechanism to guide future transitions of power.

This new, 35-member body, called the Allegiance Council, is made up of the 15 surviving sons of the founder and 19 of his grandsons -- a disparity that will grow as the sons begin to die. Its purpose is to choose the new king and crown prince when they die or are permanently incapacitated, but the new institution remains an untested body. Perhaps most problematic, the processes the council is set to govern are being implemented at a time when the second generation is on its way out. Had this formal process of succession been initiated earlier, it would have been institutionalized during the era of the sons of the founder. They were far fewer in number and worked directly with their father to build the kingdom, giving them a stronger claim to authority than anyone in the subsequent generation. An earlier start would have allowed the second generation to deal with the many problems that inevitably crop up with any new system.

The composition of the Allegiance Council is such that it gives representation to all the sons of the founder. This is done through either their direct membership on the council or via the grandsons whose fathers are deceased, incapacitated, or otherwise unwilling to assume the throne. The reigning king and his crown prince are not members but each has a son on the council. The council is chaired by the eldest son of the founder, with his second-oldest brother as his deputy. Should there be no one left from the second generation, the leadership of the council falls to the eldest grandson. Any time there is a vacancy, the king is responsible for appointing a replacement, though it is not known if King Abdullah has filled the vacancy created by the death of Prince Fawaz bin Abdul-Aziz, who died in July 2008, some six months after the establishment of the council.

When King Abdullah dies, the council will pledge allegiance to the crown prince, currently Prince Nayef, though given his declining health it is questionable whether he will outlive the king. But the issue of the next crown prince is mired in a potential contradiction. According to the new law, after consultation with the Allegiance Council, the king can submit up to three candidates to the council for approval. The council can reject all of them and name a fourth candidate. But if the king rejects the council’s nominee then the council will vote between its own candidate and the one preferred by the king, and the candidate who gets the most votes becomes the crown prince. There is also the option that the king may ask the council to nominate a candidate. In any case, a new crown prince must be appointed within a month of the new king’s accession.

This new procedure, however, conflicts with the established practice in which the second deputy prime minister takes over as crown prince, a policy that has been followed since King Faisal appointed Fahd to the post. In fact, the current king, after not naming a second deputy prime minister (essentially a crown prince-in-waiting) for four years, appointed Interior Minister Prince Naif to the post in March 2009. But since Naif became crown prince (and thus deputy prime minister), the post of second deputy prime minister remains vacant. Salman, next in the line of succession, should have been given this post, but this has not yet happened. Regardless, however, the post of second deputy prime minister after the establishment of the Allegiance Council raises the question of whether established tradition will be replaced by the new formal procedure.

The law also addresses the potential scenario in which both the king and crown prince fall ill such that they cannot fulfill their duties, which could transpire in the current situation given the health issues of both King Abdullah and Crown Prince Naif. In such a situation, the Allegiance Council would set up a five-member Transitory Ruling Council that would take over the affairs of the state until at least one of the leaders regained his health. If, however, it is determined by a special medical board that both leaders are permanently incapacitated, the Allegiance Council must appoint a new king within seven days.

In the event that both the king and crown prince die simultaneously, the Allegiance Council would appoint a new king. The Transitory Ruling Council would govern until the new king was appointed. While it has been made clear that the Transitory Ruling Council will not be allowed to amend a number of state laws, its precise powers and composition have not been defined.

What Lies Ahead

The kingdom has little precedent in terms of constitutionalism. It was only in 1992 that the first constitution was developed, and even then the country has been largely governed via consensus obtained through informal means involving tribal and familial ties. Therefore, when this new formal mechanism for succession is put into practice, the House of Saud is bound to run into problems not only in implementation, but also competing interpretations.

To make matters worse, the Saudis are in the midst of this succession dilemma -- and will be for many years to come given the advanced ages of many senior princes -- at a time of massive change within the kingdom and a shifting regional landscape.

Saudi Arabia is perhaps at the most important historical impasse since the founding of its first incarnation in 1744. A number of internal and external events are occurring simultaneously and subjecting the Saudi state to extreme strain. On the external front there are a number of challenges, the most significant of which is the regional rise of Iran, catalyzed by the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The Saudis also do not wish to see a U.S.-Iranian conflict in the Persian Gulf, which would have destabilizing effects on the kingdom. While Riyadh was struggling with the challenge from Iran, the Arab unrest erupted in early 2011, which has created two major hot spots on the eastern and southern borders of the kingdom.

On the southern flank, Yemen was grappling with three different insurrections challenging the regime of aging Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh even before the Arab unrest. A year later, Yemen is now in a post-Saleh period with a new president and various others jockeying for power. The Saudis are concerned about the Yemeni state and whether it will be able to hold together given that various forces are pulling Sanaa in different directions and jihadists are taking over significant swaths of territory.

On Saudi Arabia's east coast, Bahrain's Shia majority rose up against the minority Sunni monarchy. Bahrain is a bridge away from Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, which houses the largest concentration of Shia and represents a huge potential for Iran to gain a foothold on the Arabian Peninsula. This is why we saw Riyadh team up with its Gulf Cooperation Council allies to engage in its first-ever foreign military deployment to assist Manama’s security forces. Through this action, Saudi Arabia was able to contain the agitation, at least for the time being.

The empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt -- following the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak -- and like-minded Islamist forces elsewhere in North Africa poses another major challenge for the Saudis. The meltdown of decades-old autocratic regimes together with the electoral successes of Islamists has implications for the stability of Saudi Arabia’s Islamic monarchical model of governance. Concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood being a beneficiary of the uprising in Syria has the Saudi kingdom proceeding cautiously in supporting the rebels there, even though the ouster of the Syrian regime represents the single best option to weaken the threat from Iran.

Furthermore, the Syrian unrest has implications for Lebanon, Jordan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- all key areas of interest for the Saudis on their northern flank.

Turkey’s bid for leadership in the Middle East is a new variable the kingdom has not had to deal with since the close of World War I and the demise of the Ottoman Empire. In the near term, the Saudis take comfort in the idea that Turkey can serve as a counter to Iran, but the long-term challenge posed by Turkey’s rise is a worrying development, especially since the Saudi leaders’ predecessors lost control of the Arabian Peninsula twice to the Ottomans -- once in 1818 and then again in 1891.

Even in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Saudis are caught between two unappealing options: side with the Taliban, as they did during the Taliban’s rule in the 1990s, and risk empowering al Qaeda-led jihadists, or oppose the Taliban and thus help Iran expand its influence in the area.

While the Saudis have time to deal with a number of these external challenges, they do not enjoy that same luxury in their domestic affairs. The Saudis have been largely successful in containing the threat from al Qaeda, but they have had to engage in radical reforms, spearheaded by King Abdullah, in order to do so. These include scaling back the powers of the religious establishment, expanding the public space for women, changing the educational sector and undertaking other social reforms.

These moves have led to a growing moderate-conservative divide at both the level of state and society and have galvanized those calling for further socio-political reforms as well as the significant Shia minority that seeks to exploit the opening provided by the reform process. These domestic issues have been magnified exponentially given the Arab unrest. In addition to the growing Shia protests in parts of the Eastern Province, there are reports of student unrest in the southwestern province of Asir.

There are also early signs of mainstream Saudis trying to mobilize in other parts of the kingdom -- at least over the Internet. It is difficult for the Saudi authorities to prevent a large university-educated youth population -- a large segment of which is unemployed -- from being affected by the new protest norm in the region.

Complicating this situation are fears of the religious establishment that the new regional climate is weakening its influence, especially if the government moves to engage in additional reforms. While thus far the Saudis have been able to control prominent Muslim scholars, known as the ulema class, especially with the limits on who can issue fatwas, the potential for backlash from the ulema remains. At the very least, the ulema will support more conservative factions in any power struggle.

All of these issues further complicate the Saudis’ venture into uncharted territory insofar as leadership changes are concerned. There are several princes who have already distinguished themselves as likely key players in a future Saudi regime. These include intelligence chief Prince Muqrin, the youngest living son of the founder and a member of the Allegiance Council; Prince Khalid bin Faisal, the governor of Mecca province; Prince Mitab bin Abdullah, the new commander of SANG; and Assistant Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Naif, the kingdom’s counterterrorism chief and head of the de-radicalization program designed to reintegrate repentant jihadists.

Stratfor is thus watching this issue very closely for any movement on the part of the untested Allegiance Council, which is expected to choose a crown prince and king as per the new succession law in the event of the death of the incumbents. Salman could take over as Crown Prince, but he is seen as the last of the major princes, which means it will be important to see who among the grandsons of the founder of the modern kingdom will emerge as key stakeholders in the Saudi system. But in the end, the real issue is whether the historically resilient Saudi monarchy will be able to continue to demonstrate resilience moving forward.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.timesofisrael.com/gazas-strategic-repercussions/

Analysis
Gaza’s strategic repercussions
What did Benny Gantz mean when he spoke of the vital need to thwart Zuhair al-Qaissi?
By David Horovitz March 13, 2012, 5:29 pm

It was just a short phrase, almost lost in the chief of staff’s stream of responses to reporters’ questions on Tuesday as four days of Israel-Gaza cross-border hostility wound down. Had it not been thwarted by the airstrike that killed its mastermind in his car in Gaza City, said Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, Zuhair al-Qaissi’s planned terror attack in southern Israel would have had “strategic repercussions.”

It was self-evident that Israel must have had a very good reason for departing from its relative restraint of recent months and resorting to last Friday’s targeted killing of al-Qaissi. The security establishment would have known that the hit would likely prompt, at the very least, the salvos of rocket fire that kept a million Israelis from going about their normal lives for four or five days. The decision to carry out the operation would not have been taken lightly and without cause.
IDF Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz speaks with new recruits to the Kfir Brigade on Tuesday. (photo credit: Yossi Zeliger/Flash90)

IDF Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz speaks with new recruits to the Kfir Brigade on Tuesday. (photo credit: Yossi Zeliger/Flash90)

But “strategic implications”? The chief of staff, not one for hyperbole, surely did not use that terminology lightly.

Soon after al-Qaissi was killed, Israeli military sources highlighted certain aspects of his biography, and they provide some broad clues to the chief of staff’s reference.

The military sources noted that al-Qaissi was one of the orchestrators of last August 18’s ruthless infiltration north of Eilat from the Egyptian Sinai, in which eight Israelis — six of them civilians — were killed. The attackers had planned thoroughly and were well-equipped; they opened fire on a bus, detonated a bomb against an IDF patrol vehicle, and fired an anti-tank missile at a private car. Eight terrorists were killed on the Israeli side of the border before that incident was over; it is thought that at least two more were killed on the Egyptian side.

The Israeli military sources asserted, too, that al-Qaissi was planning a similar operation in the very near future; hence the imperative to stop him, sooner rather than later, even with the likely price of a dramatic escalation of cross-border violence.

And it was noted that al-Qaissi’s Popular Resistance Committees organized the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit from just inside the Israeli border in 2006. In fact, when Shalit was released after more than five years in Hamas captivity last October, it was al-Qaissi who gave interviews to the Arabic and international media, describing how Shalit had been interrogated, how he had been treated, how the PRC had rejected Israeli pleas for his release, and how the PRC had handed the soldier over to Hamas since Gaza’s terrorist government would be more adept at keeping him hidden from the Israelis.

Gantz’s fleeting reference to the strategic repercussions of the thwarted attack makes a great deal of sense in the context of those biographical details.

Al-Qaissi was a man who publicly crowed about his role in the Shalit kidnapping. Last August’s terror cells, it was publicized at the time, were found to be carrying handcuffs and other equipment that pointed to an intention to kidnap as well as kill Israelis — presumably to try to obtain another Shalit-style hostage, and force through another outrageously lopsided prisoner exchange deal. The kidnapping goal was thwarted last August. If al-Qaissi had succeeded this time with a kidnapping operation, that would certainly have constituted “strategic repercussions” for an Israel that ultimately capitulated to many of the Shalit captors’ demands.

Moreover, the August 18 incident spiraled into a crisis with Egypt. Some members of the terror cells were reportedly Egyptian. And five Egyptian security officers were reportedly killed in the course of the attack.

Initially, the Egyptians blamed Israel for the deaths of its troops; Israel countered that some or all of the Egyptian forces had been killed by the terrorists. There were reports, subsequently denied by the Egyptians, that Cairo was threatening to withdraw its ambassador. Israel issued a hurried apology for the loss of life and promised to investigate the incident jointly with the Egyptian authorities.

But in the frenzied anti-Israel climate of post-Mubarak Egypt, Israeli clarifications of what had happened barely registered, and the narrative that Israel had gunned down Egyptian troops resonated. Public protests against the shedding of Egyptian blood culminated in the storming of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo on September 10.

A second bloody shootout on the Egyptian border, with potential Egyptian loss of life, could certainly have had “strategic repercussions” for Israeli-Egyptian ties. The Egyptian military council’s Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi warmly welcomed Israel’s Yaakov Amitai when the new ambassador presented his credentials at the end last month. But the Egyptian parliament on Monday called for a cessation of relations with Israel over the IDF’s “barbaric” attacks on Gaza in the last few days. And parliament is rather more in tune with the public mood.
Ongoing implications

The latest flare-up may well now have come to an end, and the strategic repercussions of which Gantz spoke may have been forestalled for now. But other strategic implications of Israel’s new reality vis-a-vis both Gaza and Egypt are still becoming plain.

Even if, as it insists is the case, Israel has made no promise as part of the ceasefire arrangements to desist from targeted strikes on terror kingpins, clearly the resort to such hits is far more complex than it was previously. A million Israelis have seen what happens when the Gaza terror cells dip into their rocket arsenal. And impressively though the Iron Dome missile defense batteries performed, they were tested neither by large numbers of simultaneous salvos, nor by the longer-range missiles with which Hamas and its affiliates are equipped.

The destabilization of Egypt, furthermore, greatly complicates the IDF’s room for maneuver on the Egyptian border and in Gaza. Would a post-Mubarak Egypt stand idly by if Israel mounted another Operation Cast Lead-style ground offensive? Even if Tantawi wanted to, would he be able to resist the Muslim Brotherhood and “the street”?

And finally, while many Israelis — and many Gazans too, presumably — are sighing with relief that this flare-up has died down, with no Israeli loss of life and very few non-combatant casualties in Gaza, nobody can yet be entirely certain that the planned Sinai terror attack will not be attempted, despite al-Qaissi’s death. Operations like it take weeks of planning. And as IDF Spokesman Yoav Mordechai noted in a TV interview on Monday night, some members of the cells involved have already made their way from Gaza into the Sinai, with their weapons and their suicide-bomb belts, ready for action.

——

Follow David Horovitz on Twitter.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummmm.......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/w...men-rebels-iran-seeks-wider-mideast-role.html

March 15, 2012
With Arms for Yemen Rebels, Iran Seeks Wider Mideast Role
By ERIC SCHMITT and ROBERT F. WORTH

WASHINGTON — In the past several months, Iran appears to have increased its political outreach and arms shipments to rebels and other political figures in Yemen as part of what American military and intelligence officials say is a widening Iranian effort to extend its influence across the greater Middle East.

Iranian smugglers backed by the Quds Force, an elite international operations unit within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, are using small boats to ship AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and other arms to replace older weapons used by the rebels, a senior American official said. Using intercepted cellphone conversations between the smugglers and Quds Force operatives provided by the Americans, the Yemeni and Indian coastal authorities have seized some shipments, according to the American official and a senior Indian official.

The scale of Iran’s involvement remains unclear, and some Yemeni officials and analysts remain skeptical about the impact of any weapons shipments, citing a long history of dubious accusations by Saudi Arabia — Iran’s regional nemesis — and Saudi allies in Yemen.

But American officials — who had sometimes dismissed such accusations as propaganda — say there now appears to be at least limited material support from the Iranians.

Earlier this year, Iran tried to send to Yemen material used to make explosive devices, known as explosively formed penetrators, or E.F.P.’s, according to a high-ranking Yemeni security official. The material was shipped in freighters from Turkey and Egypt that docked in Aden.

The cargo was destined for Yemeni businessmen affiliated with the rebels, known as the Houthis, but was intercepted by the government, the Yemeni official said. American officials said Iran supplied the same lethal roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq during the worst of the violence there, an accusation that Iran has consistently denied.

“Iran is really trying to play a big role in Yemen now,” the Yemeni official said from his office in Sana, the country’s capital.

American officials say the Iranian aid to Yemen — a relatively small but steady stream of automatic rifles, grenade launchers, bomb-making material and several million dollars in cash — mirrors the kind of weapons and training the Quds Force is providing the embattled government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. It also reflects a broader campaign that includes what American officials say was a failed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States in October, and what appears to have been a coordinated effort by Iran to attack Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia earlier this year. Iran has denied any role in the attacks.

“They’re fighting basically a shadow war every day,” Gen. James N. Mattis, the head of the military’s Central Command, told a Senate hearing last week.

“They are working earnestly to keep Assad in power,” he said, explaining that in addition to arms and scores of Quds Force trainers and Iranian intelligence agents, Iran is providing the Syrian security services with electronic eavesdropping equipment “to try and pick up where the opposition networks are.”

In early January, American intelligence officials said, the Quds Force commander, Qassim Suleimani, visited Damascus, Syria, raising suspicions that Iran was advising Mr. Assad on how to quash the uprising. “What we’re seeing is a much more aggressive Iranian effort to become involved in a number of areas and activities,” President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, said in a recent interview.

The authorities in Azerbaijan announced Wednesday that they had arrested 22 Azeri citizens suspected of spying for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and plotting to attack the United States and Israeli Embassies and the British oil company BP, according to Reuters, citing the country’s National Security Ministry.

Analysts say Yemen could be highly useful in any effort by Iran to retaliate against an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The country’s longtime president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, formally stepped down earlier this year after a year of widespread protests and violence, but Yemen remains highly volatile, with its political elite divided and much of the country outside the control of the government. Militants linked to Al Qaeda continue to battle the Yemeni military in the south, and much of the north is under the control of the Houthi rebels.

The Houthi rebels are based just across the border from Saudi Arabia, and they practice a quasi-Shiite form of Islam that makes them natural Iranian allies. Skilled guerrilla fighters, they fought a short war with Saudi Arabia in 2009, and could presumably be used as an Iranian proxy force. “Iran is hoping to use Yemen as a pressure point against Saudi Arabia and all the countries in the Arab Gulf,” said Yahya al-Jifri, a leader of Al Rabita, one of Yemen’s independent political parties.

A Houthi spokesman, Yahya al-Houthi, denied that the movement had received any Iranian weapons, training or money, and added that the accusation was an old one leveled by the United States and Saudi Arabia.

Many Yemeni political and tribal figures dismiss any Iranian military support as insignificant, noting that the Houthis have plenty of weapons, and that Saudi Arabia has been supplying Yemeni factions with arms for decades. Some add that any substantial shipments of arms across inland Yemen would have left a clear trail of evidence.

There have been reports on the subject in the Yemeni press — as in years past — but those are widely dismissed as rumors disseminated by Saleh loyalists, or allies of Saudi Arabia. One high-ranking Yemeni official said that he had been told about the Iranian military aid by Mr. Brennan, but that he had no other reason to believe it.

True or not, the claims of Iranian support are now held up as gospel by Sunni tribal figures in northern Yemen, where fears are rising of a proxy conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. One prominent Sunni tribal leader in northern Jawf Province, Abdullah al-Jumaili, said: “We don’t even call them the ‘Houthis’ anymore. We refer to them as ‘the followers of Iran.’ ”

Weapons aside, Iran is offering financial help, training and encouragement to a number of groups that protested against Mr. Saleh’s rule in the past year, according to Yemeni political leaders, diplomats and tribal figures.

“We have been treated unjustly by Saudi Arabia, and we do not mind taking help from Iran, which has been sympathetic to our cause,” Sultan al-Samie, a prominent tribal figure and militia leader in the central city of Taiz, said in a telephone interview. Mr. Samie said that he traveled to Iran to attend an all-expenses-paid conference last fall, along with scores of other protesters, but he denied widespread reports in Yemen that he has accepted Iranian payments.

Iran appears to be playing its hand shrewdly, offering financial help and sympathy but insisting that there are no strings attached, according to Mr. Samie and others. That is an important distinction in an area where Saudi Arabia is widely perceived to have used cash to manipulate Yemeni political and religious currents. Iran also recently added a daily Yemen program to its Arabic-language channel, Al Aalem, that is now popular across Yemen for its anti-Saleh slant. The channel is also viscerally anti-American, like all Iranian official media.

There also appears to be increased Iranian influence among Yemeni activists, especially those not affiliated with the Islamist party Islah, and even more so among supporters of the southern separatists movement, known as the Herak.

A large contingent of Yemenis attended two conferences in Tehran in September and January intended to link Iran with protesters affiliated with the Arab Spring movements. “We need another force today to make balance and I think that force is Iran,” said Aad Qaid, a 28-year-old activist who supports the southern secessionist movement and attended the January conference. “Iran supports the Houthis and Herak.”

Laura Kasinof contributed reporting from Sana and Aden, Yemen.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Rockets And Raids Despite Israel-Gaza Truce

1:28pm UK, Thursday March 15, 2012
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16189426​

A fragile truce between the Israeli army and Gaza militants appears to be largely holding despite the two sides trading more fire overnight.

Militants fired a rocket at the southern desert city of Beersheva, which was intercepted by the Iron Dome defence system, a military spokesman said.

It was the second rocket to be fired on Thursday; neither caused any damage or injuries.

Overnight, Israeli aircraft carried out two raids, one near Gaza City and another near the southern town of Khan Yunis, causing no injuries, Palestinian security officials said.

The Israeli military said the raids were in response to another rocket fired at Beersheva on Wednesday.

Many schools across southern Israel were again closed as a safety precaution, after briefly reopening on Wednesday for the first time this week.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has blamed Iran for the latest violence.

He accused Tehran on Wednesday of arming, financing and training the militants in Gaza.

He also hinted Israel would be prepared to attack Iran's nuclear facilities even if the US objected.

On Tuesday, Israel and Gaza militants agreed to a truce after four days of cross-border fighting, though there have been sporadic violations.

Israeli air strikes have killed 25 Palestinians, mostly militants, and wounded more than 80 people. The victims included women and children.

The truce, mediated by Egypt, ended violence that began on Friday with Israel's assassination of a senior Palestinian militant.

Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) have said they are responsible for the retaliatory short and long-range rocket attacks.

Under the terms of the ceasefire the two sides have agreed to hold their fire.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Shaky truce appears to end along Gaza-Israel border

By the CNN Wire Staff
March 14, 2012 -- Updated 1513 GMT (2313 HKT)
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/14/world/meast/gaza-israel-airstrikes/index.html?hpt=wo_bn11​

Gaza City (CNN) -- Israeli aircraft targeted two "terror activity sites" in northern Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces said early Wednesday, in another round of tit-for-tat that appeared to end a shaky truce.

"Direct hits were confirmed," the Israel forces in a statement. The attack was carried out in response to rockets fired at Israel over the past day, the statement said.

"The IDF will not tolerate any attempt to harm Israeli civilians or IDF soldiers, and will continue to operate with determination at any given time against anyone who uses terror against the State of Israel," the statement said. "The Hamas terror organization is solely responsible for any terrorist activity emanating from the Gaza Strip."

A man who answered the phone at the IDF international news desk declined to specify what was hit or whether anyone was hurt.

Israel, Gaza exchange rocket fire and airstrikes

Israeli airstrikes target Gaza Palestinian police said an Israeli F-16 fighter jet fired a pair of rockets on a farm north of Gaza City, starting a blaze that spread to a neighboring residence. No casualties were reported.

Earlier Tuesday, the Palestinian news agency WAFA reported that the Israeli army opened fire at a funeral east of Jabaliya, north of Gaza, wounding three people, according to witnesses.

"They said the army opened fire at the funeral procession when it reached the Jabaliya cemetery, which is close to the Gaza borders with Israel," the news agency said.

IDF said its soldiers operating along the security fence in Gaza identified approximately 50 Palestinians gathering near a security fence and, in accordance with the rules of engagement, fired warning shots to disperse the group.

Initial reports indicate that there were no injuries to the suspects, said the spokeswoman who, in line with IDF policy, would not identify herself.

The attack came after a truce between the Israeli military and Palestinian militants appeared to have held much of Tuesday, despite reports of rockets being fired into Israel.

"It appears that we have reached the end of this round of violence," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said early Tuesday. The IDF "demonstrated once again that we will take out anyone who tries to act against us."

While there seemed to be consensus that a cease-fire, brokered by Egypt, had been reached, each side appeared to have a different interpretation of what the agreement entailed.

The Palestinian militant group responsible for firing rockets from Gaza into Israel during the previous four days said it had agreed to the cease-fire after Israel had agreed to end its campaign of airstrikes and assassinations of Palestinian militant leaders.

"When Israel agreed to these two conditions with Egyptian assurances and mediation, then Islamic Jihad and all the Palestinian resistance factions agreed on a reciprocal cease-fire in the Gaza strip," said Khaled al-Batsh, the Gaza-based leader of the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad, which boasted of launching dozens of rockets and mortars into Israel during hostilities between the Israeli military and Gaza militant groups.

Israel denied Tuesday that it had agreed to stop the practice of targeted killings in Gaza, arguing that it remained a legitimate tool to fight terrorism.

"Targeting such mega-terrorists is the best way to save lives," said senior Israeli defense official Amos Gilad. On Friday, the Israeli military fired a missile at a vehicle carrying Zuhair al-Qaisy, a leader in the Palestinian militant group known as the Popular Resistance Committees.

Military officials say al-Qaisy was targeted because he was planning a terrorist attack on Israel. The strike prompted retaliatory rocket fire from Gaza leading to four days of hostilities between the Israeli military and Gaza-based militant groups.

Twenty-five Palestinians were killed in the fighting and hundreds of rockets were fired toward civilian population centers in southern Israel. Fourteen of the Palestinian victims belonged to the Iran-backed Islamic Jihad. At least 80 others were wounded.

The Israeli military said suspected militants fired three rockets and mortars early Tuesday into Israel.






=