WAR 005/16 to 05/23 ***The*** Winds***of***WAR***

[The Flying Dutchman]

=



(9)04/15 to 04/22 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...***of***WAR***

(10)04/23 to 04/30 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...***of***WAR***

(11)05/01 to 05/07 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...***of***WAR***

(12)05/08 to 05/15 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?404346-05-08-to-05-15-***The***Winds***of***WAR***

==========​

​

Top U.S. think tank warns against
Israeli, American strike on Iran

RAND Corporation sides with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet head
Yuval Diskin, openly disagreeing with Netanyahu and Barak's belligerent stance on Iran.

By Amir Oren | May.16, 2012 | 12:19 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...inst-israeli-american-strike-on-iran-1.430697​

The RAND Corporation, a think tank which advises the Pentagon, warned on Tuesday against an Israeli or American attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, and recommended the Obama administration try to "quietly influence the internal Israeli discussion over the use of military force."

In a document published in the think tank's periodical, Rand Review, RAND openly disagreed with the belligerent stance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, which are set to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other high-ranking officials over the next several days. In doing so, and without naming names, RAND sided with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former head of the Shin Bet Yuval Diskin.

RAND's call to prevent an Israeli strike and to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, on the condition that it does not test or deploy nuclear weapons, was published a week before the second round of the P5+1 talks with Iran in Baghdad, with a clear intention of influencing the Western position during the talks.

RAND, which has come to terms with the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran and the inability of preventing it from enriching uranium, as most of its citizens support such a program, believes that Netanyahu and Barak's approach "rests on a faulty assumption that a future, post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, a post-attack Middle East may result in the worst of both worlds: a nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to doing so."

The document further stated that "U.S. intelligence officials should support the assessments of former and current Israeli officials who have argued against a military option."

"U.S.-sponsored seminars outlining U.S. concerns and risk assessments for the Israeli intelligence and military community could also help shape the internal debate… U.S. public pressure on Israel will likely backfire given Israel’s sense of isolation, turning Israeli popular opinion, which is divided on the question of a military strike option, against the United States and allowing for more defiant positions among Israeli leaders… Encouraging Israeli leaders and journalists to report more to the public about security cooperation efforts could be helpful… War games now taking place at nongovernmental institutions in the United States and Israel explore conflict scenarios involving Israel and Iran. Such games clarify how an Israeli-Iranian deterrence relationship might evolve and what military or political steps could heighten or diminish conflict."

The document was spearheaded by former ambassador and head of international and security policy for the RAND Corporation James Dobbins. RAND, which is based in Santa Monica, California, is one of the most well-respected think tanks dealing with American foreign policy and security and specializing in operations research, in systems analysis, and in forecasting the tendencies of the U.S. Air Force, and other governmental branches.

According to Dobbins and his cohort, "diplomacy and economic sanctions are better suited than military action to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, that Israeli security will be best served by military restraint combined with greater U.S.-Israeli cooperation, and that the Iranian people offer the surest hope for a future Iran that is more amenable to U.S. interests."

The document further warns that "an Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence… This is true even of Israel, whose principal vulnerability is not to Iranian military pressure but to attacks by Iranian-supported Hamas and Hezbollah."

"Containing this sort of influence would almost certainly become more difficult in the aftermath of an unprovoked American or Israeli military attack… The sympathy thereby aroused for Iran would make containment of Iranian influence much more difficult for Israel, for the United States, and for the Arab regimes currently allied with Washington. This would be particularly true in newly democratizing societies, such as Egypt, where public opinion has become less fettered and more influential."

According to RAND, the "proximate objective of Western policy must be to dissuade Iran from testing and deploying nuclear weapons," warning that crossing the nuclear weapons threshold will "only increase Iran’s isolation, reduce its influence, and increase the regime’s vulnerability to internally driven change."

Furthermore, in order to prevent the Israel-Iran rivalry from escalating to a military campaign, the United States should "continue to discourage an Israeli military strike while strengthening Israeli capabilities in preparation for a future in which Iran may have managed to acquire nuclear weapons… The potential emergence of a more democratic Iran or of more moderate leadership may diminish Iran’s hostility toward Israel as well as Israel’s heightened threat perceptions of Iran."







=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

US helps Yemen in offensive on al-Qaeda in south

Ahmed Al-Haj
Associated Press, Sanaa, Yemen
Wed, 05/16/2012 7:07 AM
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/16/us-helps-yemen-offensive-al-qaeda-south.html​

Yemeni warplanes and troops backed by heavy artillery waged a four-front assault Tuesday against the strongholds of al-Qaeda militants in the south, with U.S. troops for the first time helping direct the offensive from a nearby desert air base-turned-command center.

Yemeni military officials said dozens of U.S. troops were operating from al-Annad air base, about 65 kilometers (45 miles) from the main battle zones, coordinating assaults and airstrikes and providing information to Yemeni forces.

The officials said it was the most direct American involvement yet in the country's expanding campaign against al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen, which has been blamed for directing a string of unsuccessful bomb plots on U.S. soil from its hideouts in the impoverished country at the tip of the Arabian Peninsula.

Most recently, this month it emerged that the CIA thwarted a plot to down a U.S.-bound airliner using a new, sophisticated explosive to be hidden in the bomber's underwear. But the planned bomber was actually a double agent who turned the device over to the U.S. government.

The offensive is the most concerted yet aiming to uproot al-Qaeda militants who since last year have held a swath of territory, including the provincial capital Zinjibar and several other towns, in the south of the country. One Yemeni military official said the country's defense minister and an American general, whom he did not identify, were jointly overseeing the assault.

The Yemeni military officials, who are familiar with the workings of the army in the south, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the highly sensitive cooperation. The U.S. Embassy in Sanaa could not be reached for comment.

In a crescent-shaped assault on Zinjibar, Yemeni troops pushed into the center of the city, though they did not outright control it, one official said. Military helicopters flew over the city for the first time in an indication militants had lost their heavy weaponry capable of shooting down the helicopters, the official said.

The troops "can for the first time catch a glimpse of the torched government buildings" that al-Qaeda's fighters had hunkered down in during recent battles, the official said.

Al-Qaeda militants seized Zinjibar, the capital of Abyan province on the Arabian Sea coast, last year while the country was mired in the political turmoil of the popular uprising against then-President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The militants also took control of several other nearby towns. Tens of thousands of residents fled the area.

Saleh, once a U.S. ally, finally stepped down in February under a Gulf-mediated, U.S.-backed deal.

For the past three months, the al-Qaeda militants have carried out bloody attacks on Yemeni forces and raided weapons depots, capturing thousands of weapons, including assault rifles, machine-guns and even tanks, armored vehicles and rockets.

Yemen's military has been largely ineffectual in uprooting the militants. The force is ill-equipped, poorly trained with weak intelligence capabilities and is driven with conflicted loyalties, since some commanders remain close to Saleh.

Saleh's successor, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, however, has vowed to make the fight against al-Qaeda a priority. He moved commanders of army units, removed Saleh's relatives in key security positions and tried to reach out to tribal leaders in the troubled south to form a strong front in the face of the militant group.

On Tuesday, the international leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, released an audio recording online aimed at swaying public opinion against Hadi, calling him a U.S. agent and a traitor for having served as vice president during the "corrupt rule" of Saleh.

"Out went a (U.S.) agent and in came an agent," al-Zawahri said. "How can Ali Abdullah Saleh be a criminal, murderer, thief, corrupt, traitor agent and Rabbo Mansour be the straightforward, honest, clean angel and the awaited savior?"

He warned the Yemenis against "U.S. plots" to manipulate Yemen in order to stack the situation in Washington's favor.

Several Yemeni military officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday that unlike in previous, failed offensives against the Yemeni branch of al-Qaeda, this time the United States was providing direct logistical support to the Yemeni forces.

Nearly 60 U.S. troops were at al-Annad base in Lahj province, neighboring Abyan, which has become a command center. "They brought their mobile houses and buildings for a long stay," one official said. Another official said that along with coordinating the assault, U.S. personnel at the base were overseeing strikes by U.S. drone aircraft.

On Sunday, al-Qaeda fighters attempted an attack on the northern gate of al-Annad air base, close to the troops' living quarters, but were repelled. One Yemeni officer was killed in the attack, the officials said, and the Yemeni military later deployed heavy troops to protect the base.

The White House's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, met with Hadi on Sunday in the capital Sanaa, and the Yemeni leader briefed him on the army's progress in the south, according to Hadi's office. Defense Mohammed Nasser Ahmed described the operation as the "final decisive battle against al-Qaeda."

The Pentagon said a week ago that it had sent military trainers back to Yemen for "routine" counterterrorism cooperation with Yemeni security forces. A U.S. official said the troops are special operations forces, who work under more secretive arrangements than conventional U.S. troops and whose expertise includes training indigenous forces. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the subject publicly.

Under Saleh, Washington had greatly expanded counterterrorism aid, at one point having between 100 and 150 trainers there. But the training program was suspended last year amid the revolt.

The U.S. also has a substantial naval presence near Yemen. U.S. Navy ships arrived in the area over the weekend on a routine rotation, carrying about 2,000 Marines aboard vessels including the amphibious assault ship Iwo Jima.

Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen, known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was behind the failed Christmas 2009 attempt to bomb an American airliner as well as a foiled attempt the following year to mail package bombs to the U.S.

Aside from the assault on Zinjibar, warplanes were bombing al-Qaeda hideouts in the nearby town of Jaar to the north. One raid hit a house, killing two militants. When residents went to inspect the site, a second raid mistakenly killed eight of the civilians and wounded 20, Yemeni military officials. Officials say that a total number of 17 al-Qaeda militants and 18 army troops were killed over the past three days.

In a third front, Yemeni forces drove militants out of the town of Hurour, west of Zinjibar.

Abdu Dail, who fled Hurour with his family on Sunday, said most residents left after the military warned them about the upcoming offensive. On Sunday, airstrikes killed at least 30 militants.

Yemeni troops backed by armed civilian volunteers and airstrikes also assaulted militant positions at Youssef Mountain on the outskirts of the town of Lawder, where residents backed by the military drove out militants last year.

Abyan Governor Abyan Gamal al-Aqil told AP that civilian volunteers had seized several positions. Ali Aide, one of the citizens-turned-fighters, said 14 militants, six fighters and two army troops were killed.

Yemeni military officials said uprooting militants from Zinjibar would deprive the group of its only major city, leaving them scattered in desert and mountain areas. It would also push militants back away from Aden, one of the most strategically important ports in Yemen on the Arabian Sea. Officials say that al-Qaeda while controlling Zinjibar, has had its eyes on the province to the west, Aden.







=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

US special forces direct attempt by
Yemeni troops to dislodge al-Qaeda

By AHMED AL-HAJ
Published on Wednesday 16 May 2012 00:00
http://www.scotsman.com/news/intern...-yemeni-troops-to-dislodge-al-qaeda-1-2296390​

YEMENI forces under US military direction have launched a major assault on al-Qaeda militants in the south, hoping to seize the initiative from emboldened extremists.

America’s leading role marks a significant stepping up of US-Yemeni co-operation against al-Qaeda’s local affiliate Ansar al-Sharia (Partisans of Islamic Law).

It also signals increased concern over the growing strength of al-Qaeda in Yemen since the militants gained control of several southern towns by taking advantage of the security vacuum during an uprising that led to the fall of president Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Yemeni troops yesterday battled the militants on the ground in three areas as warplanes bombed suspected hideouts. Military officials said the main goal was to retake Zinjibar, the provincial capital of Abyan province.

Yemen’s ill-equipped and poorly trained military has stumbled repeatedly in trying to fight al-Qaeda ever since the militants seized territory last year. But since Mr Saleh’s resignation in February, his successor, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, has vowed to make the fight against al-Qaeda a top priority.

Yemeni officers have nevertheless complained that political divisions in the capital, Sanaa, have hampered their abilities to combat the militants. Several Yemeni military officials said yesterday that, unlike previous, failed offensives against al-Qaeda, this time the United States was providing direct logistical support to the Yemeni military.

The officials said an airbase called al-Annad in the southern province of Lahj was serving as a command centre for nearly 60 US troops who were providing advice, information and logistical support to Yemeni forces.

The Pentagon said a week ago that it had sent military trainers back to Yemen for “routine” counter-terrorism co-operation with Yemeni security forces.

An American official said the troops were special forces, who work under more secretive arrangements than conventional US troops and whose expertise includes training local forces.

The new, large, offensive began on Saturday but has sharply escalated.

By yesterday, Yemeni troops had pushed into the centre of Zinjibar and military helicopters were flying over the city for the first time in an indication that al-Qaeda militants did not have heavy weaponry capable of shooting them down, one military official said.

The troops “can for the first time catch a glimpse of the torched government buildings” in which al-Qaeda’s fighters had sheltered down during the battles that turned the city into a ghost town after thousands of residents fled, the official said. He added that six militants were captured in Zinjibar, but provided no other details on casualties.

To the north, in the town of Jaar, warplanes were also bombing al-Qaeda hideouts. One raid destroyed parts of a house, leaving two charred bodies. When local residents went to inspect the site of the attack, a second raid mistakenly killed eight of them and wounded 20, the officials said. The military also managed to drive militants out of the town of Hurour, to the west of Zinjibar, the officials said.

Abdu Dail, who fled Hurour with his family on Sunday, said most of the residents left after the military warned them about the offensive.





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Wednesday16/5/2012May, 2012, 12:52 AM Doha Time

Anti-Qaeda sweep kills 53 in Yemen

AFP/Sanaa
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topi...=505883&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17​

Yemen’s military yesterday ramped up its offensive against Al Qaeda in the country’s restive south, launching ground and air assaults that reportedly killed at least 53 people, including 12 civilians.

The town of Jaar in Abyan province was pounded by air strikes which killed 13 extremists and the 12 civilians, while battles raged in Loder, another Abyan town the jihadists have been wrestling to control, leaving another 12 Al Qaeda fighters dead, according to witnesses and tribal leaders.

Eight militiamen fighting against Al Qaeda as well as eight soldiers also died in Loder, militia and military officials said.

Troops on Saturday launched a multi-pronged assault aimed at recapturing Qaeda-held towns and cities across Abyan, including the regional capital Zinjibar.

Yesterday, the military called in air strikes against targets in Jaar, five days after dropping leaflets warning civilians to stay clear of Al Qaeda hideouts.

A first strike killed two Al Qaeda suspects while the 12 civilians, part of a group who had gathered around the residence right after the attack, died in a second raid soon after, witnesses said.

“Eight bodies were pulled out of the rubble,” one witness said. Another four among 25 civilians hurt in the second attack died later, said residents.

A later attack by the air force killed another 11 jihadists, a local source and residents said.

“The army has advanced in the area surrounding Jaar and arrested around 25 members of Ansar Al Shariah on their motorbikes,” said a military official.
Members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen have renamed themselves Ansar Al Shariah (Partisans of Shariah).

Meanwhile, 12 other militants were killed in battles that raged northeast in Loder, tribes said.

Loder is the only Abyan town besides Mudia still not under the control of the extremists, who overran Zinjibar in May last year.

A military official said two soldiers were killed in fighting around Loder while “an Al Qaeda sniper” shot dead an officer from the 111th Brigade, Colonel Qasim Dabwan.
Another military official said five other soldiers had been killed there.

Ali Ahmed, spokesman of the Popular Resistance Committees, formed by residents of Loder and nearby Mudia to battle jihadists alongside the army, said five of its members were killed while nearly a dozen were wounded.

Three of them died later, another member of the committees said.

“We have managed to push the extremists further away from the southern and western entrances of the city,” Ahmed said as both sides exchanged artillery fire in what he described as “fierce” battles raging around Loder.

Fighting between the army and residents on one side and the extremists on the other for control of both towns left more than 200 people dead early in April.
Yesterday’s deaths bring to around 90 the number of people killed since the military launched its offensive.

Tribal sources said on Monday the battles had seen 37 militants killed in two days, but the toll could not be independently verified.

A military official said on condition of anonymity that 12 soldiers have been killed since the operation was launched on Saturday. But the defence ministry news website 26sep.net put the toll at six dead.

Attacks on Al Qaeda by Yemeni forces with US backing have intensified in recent weeks.

Early last week, air strikes by US drones in eastern Yemen killed jihadist network leader Fahd al-Quso, wanted by Washington in connection with the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.

Quso’s name figured on an FBI list of most wanted terrorists, along with a reward of up to $5mn for information leading to his arrest.

John Brennan, US President Barack Obama’s top counter-terrorism aide, held talks in Sanaa on Sunday with Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Their discussions revolved around “combating terrorism” and attempts by Yemen to crush the local branch of Al Qaeda, state news agency Saba reported.

Al Qaeda militants exploited the decline in central government control that accompanied Arab Spring-inspired protests that eventually forced president Ali Abdullah Saleh to cede power in February.








=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

President Obama executive order will give Treasury
authority to freeze U.S.-based assets in Yemen

By Karen DeYoung
Tuesday, May 15, 8:55 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ets-in-yemen/2012/05/15/gIQALWPUSU_story.html​

President Obama plans to issue an executive order Wednesday giving the Treasury Department new authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who “obstructs” implementation of the administration-backed political transition in Yemen.

The unusual order, which administration officials said also targets U.S. citizens who engage in activity deemed to threaten Yemen’s security or political stability, is the first issued for Yemen that does not directly relate to counterterrorism.

Unlike similar measures authorizing terrorist designations and sanctions, the new order does not include a list of names or organizations already determined to be in violation. Instead, one official said, it is designed as a “deterrent” to “make clear to those who are even thinking of spoiling the transition” to think again.

The official was authorized to discuss the new order on the condition of anonymity.

U.S. involvement in Yemen has increased rapidly in recent years with the rise of the al-Qaeda affiliate there. U.S. airstrikes, including with drone missiles, have increased sharply this year against alleged al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula militants who have expanded their control of territory in the southern part of the country.

With new revelations about the intent and ability of AQAP to strike U.S. territory — including a second attempt, disrupted this month, to down a U.S.-bound airliner with a sophisticated “underwear bomb” — the administration is seeking to ensure that political turmoil in Yemen does not undermine its counterterrorism goals and smooth cooperation with the government.

U.S. training and other military assistance to Yemen, which totaled $176 million in 2010, dropped to only $30 million last year after then-president Ali Abdullah Saleh authorized armed action against anti-government political demonstrators, and then balked after agreeing to resign.

The aid resumed after Saleh finally stepped down in February, after 33 years in power, and his vice president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Al-Hadi, took over the presidency and began to implement a political transition process to a democratically elected government.

The administration budget request for this fiscal year totals $79 million in civilian economic assistance and $70 million for the Yemeni military. Humanitarian aid, which was never suspended, has reached $73 million this fiscal year.

Despite Saleh’s departure, however, a number of his relatives and supporters in positions of military and political power delayed relinquishing their offices until a Hadi-issued decree last month. The new order, which threatens any assets they or anyone associated with them may have in this country, is designed to ensure that they remain sidelined.

“Hadi showed considerable backbone, and we believe he’s up to the task of implementing the transition agreement signed in November,” the administration official said. The agreement includes “a lot of ambitious benchmarks the government has committed to meet.”

While “the transition has been proceeding more or less on track,” the official said, the executive order is “just one more way of us trying to ensure that trend continues.”

The order provides criteria to take action against persons the Treasury secretary, in consultation with the secretary of state, determines has “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the Nov. 23, 2011, agreement between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power . . . or that obstruct the political process in Yemen.”

It covers those who “have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support” for the acts described or any person whose property has already been blocked, as well as those who have acted on behalf of such persons.

Administration officials compared the order to one Obama issued in 2009 against anyone threatening the agreement that installed a transitional government in Somalia.

In 2006, then-president George W. Bush issued a similar order regarding Ivory Coast in West Africa.







=

 

[Housecarl]

=



(9)04/15 to 04/22 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...***of***WAR***

(10)04/23 to 04/30 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...***of***WAR***

(11)05/01 to 05/07 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...***of***WAR***

(12)05/08 to 05/15 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?404346-05-08-to-05-15-***The***Winds***of***WAR***

==========​

​

Top U.S. think tank warns against
Israeli, American strike on Iran

RAND Corporation sides with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet head
Yuval Diskin, openly disagreeing with Netanyahu and Barak's belligerent stance on Iran.

By Amir Oren | May.16, 2012 | 12:19 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...inst-israeli-american-strike-on-iran-1.430697​

The RAND Corporation, a think tank which advises the Pentagon, warned on Tuesday against an Israeli or American attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, and recommended the Obama administration try to "quietly influence the internal Israeli discussion over the use of military force."

In a document published in the think tank's periodical, Rand Review, RAND openly disagreed with the belligerent stance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, which are set to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other high-ranking officials over the next several days. In doing so, and without naming names, RAND sided with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former head of the Shin Bet Yuval Diskin.

RAND's call to prevent an Israeli strike and to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, on the condition that it does not test or deploy nuclear weapons, was published a week before the second round of the P5+1 talks with Iran in Baghdad, with a clear intention of influencing the Western position during the talks.

RAND, which has come to terms with the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran and the inability of preventing it from enriching uranium, as most of its citizens support such a program, believes that Netanyahu and Barak's approach "rests on a faulty assumption that a future, post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, a post-attack Middle East may result in the worst of both worlds: a nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to doing so."

The document further stated that "U.S. intelligence officials should support the assessments of former and current Israeli officials who have argued against a military option."

"U.S.-sponsored seminars outlining U.S. concerns and risk assessments for the Israeli intelligence and military community could also help shape the internal debate… U.S. public pressure on Israel will likely backfire given Israel’s sense of isolation, turning Israeli popular opinion, which is divided on the question of a military strike option, against the United States and allowing for more defiant positions among Israeli leaders… Encouraging Israeli leaders and journalists to report more to the public about security cooperation efforts could be helpful… War games now taking place at nongovernmental institutions in the United States and Israel explore conflict scenarios involving Israel and Iran. Such games clarify how an Israeli-Iranian deterrence relationship might evolve and what military or political steps could heighten or diminish conflict."

The document was spearheaded by former ambassador and head of international and security policy for the RAND Corporation James Dobbins. RAND, which is based in Santa Monica, California, is one of the most well-respected think tanks dealing with American foreign policy and security and specializing in operations research, in systems analysis, and in forecasting the tendencies of the U.S. Air Force, and other governmental branches.

According to Dobbins and his cohort, "diplomacy and economic sanctions are better suited than military action to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, that Israeli security will be best served by military restraint combined with greater U.S.-Israeli cooperation, and that the Iranian people offer the surest hope for a future Iran that is more amenable to U.S. interests."

The document further warns that "an Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence… This is true even of Israel, whose principal vulnerability is not to Iranian military pressure but to attacks by Iranian-supported Hamas and Hezbollah."

"Containing this sort of influence would almost certainly become more difficult in the aftermath of an unprovoked American or Israeli military attack… The sympathy thereby aroused for Iran would make containment of Iranian influence much more difficult for Israel, for the United States, and for the Arab regimes currently allied with Washington. This would be particularly true in newly democratizing societies, such as Egypt, where public opinion has become less fettered and more influential."

According to RAND, the "proximate objective of Western policy must be to dissuade Iran from testing and deploying nuclear weapons," warning that crossing the nuclear weapons threshold will "only increase Iran’s isolation, reduce its influence, and increase the regime’s vulnerability to internally driven change."

Furthermore, in order to prevent the Israel-Iran rivalry from escalating to a military campaign, the United States should "continue to discourage an Israeli military strike while strengthening Israeli capabilities in preparation for a future in which Iran may have managed to acquire nuclear weapons… The potential emergence of a more democratic Iran or of more moderate leadership may diminish Iran’s hostility toward Israel as well as Israel’s heightened threat perceptions of Iran."







=

That is based upon the assumption that the Iranians don't already have a "starter" arsenal along the lines of Apartheid South Africa and IMHO the trivialization of the "12er" element in the Iranian regime. Time works both ways, placing more pressure on the regime vs. the majority of the population and time to get as much fissile material generated and assembled into deliverable weapons as possible prior to discovery/announcement of being a full member of "The Club".

Unilateral Israeli action has the problem of landing a strong enough strike into Iran in the shortest possible time frame. The conventional air strikes that are ad nauseum put forth as the method of IDF attack would by necessity be of limited scope due to distance and available resources. For the IDF to really land a telling blow would require something definitely "outside of the box" and "unconventional". And in the long term for Israel, and for that matter the average Iranian, regime change would be the best solution. All an attack would do would be to give a further excuse and opportunity for the current regime to solidify further their hold.

The problem is the Israeli's don't have time on their side. And if they are pushed into a corner and the door closes on being able to do anything to stop the Iranians prior to getting a sufficient deterrent force to really change the situation on the ground, their options move into the realm of full disclosure and overt deterrence a la MAD at the height of the Cold War.

In effect a 24/7 situation akin to India and Pakistan during the 1999 Kargil War when both were on high nuclear alert and involved in a border shooting war.

ETA: And this doesn't even address how this situation would effect the other regional powers and their reactions.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=107799

Tbilisi Walks Diplomatic High Wire on Iranian Nuclear Issue
By Giorgi Lomsadze*

TBILISI, May 15, 2012 (IPS/EurasiaNet) - Georgia is clearly the closest U.S. ally in the South Caucasus, moving in lockstep with American interests on just about every foreign policy issue – except one: Iran.

Not wanting to become embroiled in a potential regional conflict, officials in Tbilisi are trying to finesse relations with Tehran, while staying in Washington's good graces.

All the sabre-rattling surrounding Iran's secretive nuclear programme has Georgians on edge. If the United States, European Union and/or Israel try for a forceful solution of the problem, geography suggests that Tbilisi could easily get dragged into a conflict.

"They (Georgian leaders) want to avoid conflict if possible, but they don't feel in control of the situation," said Thomas de Waal, a longtime Caucasus observer and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.

A series of arrests this year related to alleged Iranian plans for terrorist attacks in neighbouring Azerbaijan against U.S. and Israeli targets, and a recent bomb incident near the Israeli embassy in Tbilisi, have heightened the Georgian government's sensitivities.

And not without cause, noted de Waal. "Georgia and Azerbaijan are … the closest thing that Israel has to allies in the area around Iran, so that makes them vulnerable to the covert war between Iran and Israel," he said.

To limit the chances of blowback in the event of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Tbilisi has assiduously courted Iran's favour, even as it tries to snuggle in the United States' embrace.

Many heads turned last year when Georgia lifted visa requirements for Iranian citizens and talked trade and tourism expansion with Tehran. In the first three months of 2012, almost 13,600 Iranians visited Georgia; a 91-percent uptick compared to the same period during the previous year, according to Geostat, Georgia's national statistics service.

During the Nowruz celebrations in March, neighbouring Armenia even complained that it was losing Iranian tourists to Georgia.

Some Iranians interviewed by EurasiaNet.org in Tbilisi say Georgia attracts them for its relaxed culture and the ease with which business can be done. "This is Europe," said one Iranian man, who came to Tbilisi on a business trip. "Things are easy to do, and it feels very open."

Open to a degree. Conscious of American diplomatic and economic support, Tbilisi can only allow so much official friendship with Iran.

U.S. Ambassador to Georgia John Bass commented to EurasiaNet.org that Washington is in "an ongoing conversation with the Georgian government on Iran" and has "encouraged them to adopt the sanctions specified by Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012."

Among other measures, Section 1245 authorises the U.S. president to shut off or restrict access to the U.S. financial system for foreign banks found to have transactions with Iran's Central Bank or certain Iranian financial institutions.

Ambassador Bass did not specify if Washington is happy with Tbilisi's stance on the sanctions, or how it views economic ties between Tbilisi and Tehran. Georgian Foreign Ministry officials responsible for Iranian policy could not be reached for comment.

While Tbilisi may not have made official declarations in support of sanctions against Iran, de-facto restrictions on banking activities by Iranian citizens in Georgia appear to exist.

One Iranian citizen employed in Tbilisi told EurasiaNet.org that TBC Bank, one of Georgia's largest private banks, had turned him down for a checking account, indicating that the background check for his under-50,000-dollar deposit was not worth its while. Others, including one Iranian-born U.S. citizen, had similar tales. All Iranians who spoke with EurasiaNet.org declined to be identified by name.

In response to an inquiry from EurasiaNet.org, a spokesperson for TBC Bank said that the bank's policy toward non-resident customers is "based on a risks assessment and … international regulations and recommendations, which sometimes means restrictions."

Another private Georgian bank official, who asked not to be named, said that they only provide such basic services as currency conversion and payment of Georgian state taxes to Iranians. Beyond this, the bank shuns any operations with Iranian passport holders to avoid possible problems with the U.S. Treasury Department, the official said.

The National Bank of Georgia did not respond to questions.

Arguably, such restrictions could explain why trade and investment ties between the two countries remain relatively modest. Iranian foreign direct investment peaked in 2010 at 1.1 million dollar – five times its amount in 2009, but still some 29 times less than American investment.

Imports increased by 10 million dollars in 2011, the year the visa requirement for travelers between Iran and Georgia was dropped, to reach 65 million dollars, but exports only stand at 16.2 million dollars.

Trying to stay on friendly terms with both Iran and the U.S. simultaneously can create some delicate situations for Tbilisi. In March, the Georgian government invited an Iranian defense attaché to attend joint U.S.-Georgian military exercises for Afghanistan, where Iran is believed to be backing insurgents that are battling NATO forces.

At the time, Ambassador Bass declined to comment about the U.S. reaction on the Iranian observer.

Lincoln Mitchell, an associate research scholar specialising in the Caucasus at Columbia University's Harriman Institute, believes that Georgia's ties with Iran do not have too "much salience" in Washington for now, but notes that that "may change, if push comes to shove on Iran".

If it does, Tbilisi may look to its past for some balancing lessons. In the late 18th century, Georgia turned to Russia for protection against Persia; the result was its 1801 annexation by the Russian Empire, a fact bitterly resented today.

Veteran Georgian foreign policy expert Alexander Rondeli, president of the Tbilisi-based Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, believes that Georgia can hold its own. "Tbilisi will have to maintain neutrality and a careful diplomatic policy, but that's what the government is for," Rondeli said.

*Editor's note: Giorgi Lomsadze is a freelance journalist based in Tbilisi. He is a frequent contributor to Eurasianet's Tamada Tales blog.

*This story originally appeared on EurasiaNet.org.

(END)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...cientists-murder/story-fnb64oi6-1226357681337

WikiLeaks cable may have led Tehran to hang kickboxer for scientist's murder

by: Martin Fletcher
From: The Times
May 16, 2012 1:13PM

AN Iranian who was hanged yesterday for allegedly murdering a nuclear scientist on behalf of Israel might have lost his life because of a confidential US Embassy cable that was published by WikiLeaks, analysts have said.

Majid Jamali Fashi, 24, was arrested one month after the unauthorised publication of a cable from the embassy, in Azerbaijan, which described one of its sources as an Iranian martial arts expert. Mr Fashi had visited Azerbaijan the previous month for a kick-boxing tournament.

The leak "could have raised Iranian suspicions" about Mr Fashi, Scott Lucas, a Birmingham University professor and an authority on Iran, told The Times. "Alternatively, it could have been used as a pretext against him; to set him up as a person who could take the fall for the assassination."

Ali Ansari, head of the Insitute for Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews, said: "I have always considered the release of the WikiLeaks files, without consideration for those consciously or unconsciously named in them, to be grotesquely irresponsible."

There was no comment from a WikiLeaks spokesman last night.

The scientist, Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, was killed by a bomb strapped to a motorbike parked outside his Tehran home in January 2010. The regime immediately blamed foreign intelligence agencies bent on derailing Iran's nuclear program. A year later, with great fanfare, it announced the arrest of ten "spies" who it said had links to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and accused them of the murder.

One of the ten, Mr Fashi, was put on state television to "confess". He said that he was recruited by Mossad agents in Tehran and had travelled to Tel Aviv via Azerbaijan. There, he claimed in the apparent confession, he received training at an army base where the murder was planned using a scale model of Dr Ali-Mohammadi's neighbourhood in north Tehran.

Mr Fashi's appearance on television enabled opposition activists to identify him as a professional kick-boxer who had, indeed, visited Azerbaijan in August 2009 for a tournament. Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported that he won a medal there.

The authorities did not say how they caught Mr Fashi, and his trial was held behind closed doors. They could, though, have identified him as the genuine culprit, or as a convenient scapegoat, from the cable that WikiLeaks published in December 2010.

WikiLeaks redacted the name of the Iranian source, but the cable - 09BAKU687 - described a diplomat's debriefing of a person who was a "licensed martial arts coach and trainer". The source disclosed how the regime had put pressure on Iranian martial arts clubs to train the regime's Revolutionary Guards and Basij militiamen and used their members as "enforcers" to crush the demonstrations which followed President Ahmadinejad's hotly contested re-election in 2009.

The cable was dated September 1, 2009; days after Mr Fashi had visited Baku as a member of the Iranian kick-boxing team.

Even if he was not the source described in the cable, the document gave the regime a plausible pretext for charging him with Dr Ali-Mohammadi's assassination. "These are the unexpected consequences of publishing that cable," Dr Lucas said.

The Iranian state media reported that Mr Fashi was hanged early yesterday in Tehran's notorious Evin prison but, unusually, no pictures were released of his execution and nothing was said about the fate of the nine other unidentified "spies".

Questions also persist about Dr Ali-Mohammadi, 50, who was a particle physics professor at Tehran University. There is no hard evidence that he ever worked on Iran's nuclear program. Opposition activists claimed he supported the Green movement and may, in fact, have been planning to leave Iran for Sweden at the time of his death.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wi...n-official-linked-to-past-program_704975.html

U.S. nuclear expert: Iran official linked to past program

Published on Wed, May 16, 2012 at 08:56 | Source : Reuters
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Communications from the 1990s suggest Iran's current foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, had knowledge of a program to procure goods for an alleged clandestine nuclear program when he was head of a university, a U.S. nuclear expert said on Tuesday.

David Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), said among 1,600 telexes and other material he has obtained and is studying was a letter signed by Salehi as head of Sharif University in 1991.

The letter served as an end-user guarantee to a European supplier of materials that could have a dual purpose for use in a nuclear program. Tehran-based Sharif University, however, was acting essentially as a front for Iran's military procurement network, Albright said.

"Salehi knew about or was involved in efforts to create an alleged parallel military nuclear program that is of great interest to the IAEA now," Albright told Reuters, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog.

"And the intention of that program was probably to make nuclear weapons, including producing highly enriched uranium," Albright said.

While senior IAEA officials have in the past told Reuters they suspected Salehi and Sharif University played a role in such procurement activities, the telexes appear to be the first public evidence supporting those suspicions.

ISIS planned to publish its findings and some of the documents about procurement activities of Iran's Physics Research Center in the late 1980s and early 1990s on its website this week.

A spokesman for Iran's U.N. mission said Salehi had never been involved in any illicit or illegal activity. "We believe that publishing these type of fabricated stories are an attempt to foil the upcoming negotiation," the spokesman said.

The findings come as Iran and the IAEA ended two days of talks and were to meet again next week, just days before negotiations between Iran and world powers in Baghdad.

The West is concerned Iran's nuclear program may be aimed at developing nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

U.S. intelligence agencies have said Iran halted its efforts to construct a nuclear device in the fall of 2003, while continuing with research and uranium enrichment.

PHYSICS RESEARCH CENTER

The IAEA in its November 2011 report said the Physics Research Center was established at Lavizan, a complex near a military installation in Tehran. It was completely razed in late 2003 and early 2004.

The IAEA has been looking into the Physics Research Center, which acted as an umbrella organization under Iran's defense ministry and coordinated various nuclear activities.

Senior IAEA officials have told Reuters the agency has known for many years that Salehi and Sharif University played a central role in Iran's illicit nuclear-technology procurement activities while Salehi was head of the university in the 1990s.

ISIS said the Physics Research Center had used Sharif University "as a front" for buying certain goods overseas and hid "the true end use from overseas suppliers by providing an educational rationale for the purchases."

The telexes showed that while the initial order came from the university's purchasing department, when finalizing payments, the Physics Research Center and its chief, Sayyed Abbas Shahmoradi-Zavareh, appeared in financial-related telexes as the responsible party.

ISIS said it has a copy of a letter signed by Salehi as head of Sharif University in 1991 that, along with associated telexes, demonstrated he was aware of the Physics Research Center purchases of dual-use goods.

ISIS withheld the name of the company and the type of goods.

The letter certified that the goods would be used for university teaching or research and not for making weapons or ammunition.

One telex said Shahmoradi received from Sharif University the "full authority to make final decision" on purchasing, ISIS said, so "Salehi, as head of the university, must have granted that authority to Shahmoradi."

ISIS also linked Salehi to the Physics Research Center by saying that when he was head of the university two packages could not be delivered to Shahmoradi at the university and the deliverer was told to redeliver them to the purchasing manager at the university or Salehi.

And telexes implied Salehi knew of the procurement of whole body counters, used to measure radiation, and had a connection to Shahmoradi, ISIS said.

(Additional reporting by Lou Charbonneau; editing by Todd Eastham)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137639/meliha-benli-altunisik/bitter-frenemies

Bitter Frenemies
The Not-Quite-Alliance Between Saudi Arabia and Turkey
Meliha Benli Altunisik
May 15, 2012

Last month, Saudi Arabia rolled out the red carpet for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The visit was yet another example of the degree to which relations between the two countries have improved in recent years.

Historically, the two nations have not been friendly, with economic relations only developing in the 1970s. Turkey needed Saudi Arabia's oil. For its part, Saudi Arabia needed Turkey's huge construction sector to build its modern cities. In the 1990s, the arms-length relationship grew more distant. After the Persian Gulf War, Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt and Syria, banded together in hopes of creating a new Arab order. Damascus, no ally of Ankara at the time, was able to frame many of its narrow fights with Turkey as pan-Arab concerns. Down the Euphrates from Turkey, for example, Syria was locked in constant argument with the Turkish government over how much water it would allow to flow downstream. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria even launched a successful campaign to end World Bank funding for Turkey's dam projects until Ankara signed a water agreement with the states below it.

The United States' invasion of Iraq in 2003 changed all that. The toppling of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent empowerment of Iraqi Shias instilled a fear in the kingdom that Saudi's own Shia population would agitate for change. Beyond that, Riyadh believed that Iran -- through its activities in Iraq, its alliance with Syria, its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and its nascent nuclear program -- was attempting to become a regional hegemon. In response, Riyadh began building alliances with states that shared its outlook, a "Sunni axis," so to speak, to combat the "Shia arc."

Jordan and Egypt were natural fits. These predominantly Sunni countries were equally concerned with rising Iranian influence in the Levant and were determined to counter what they perceived as Tehran's outsized influence in the region. Yet Riyadh went a step further and aimed to also enlist Turkey. As an important regional power, a member of NATO, and predominantly Sunni, Saudi Arabia saw Ankara as a valuable bulwark against Iran. Riyadh would normally be worried about a non-Arab power's presence in the region undermining its own position, but it considered Turkey a lesser evil compared to Iran.

Thus, in 2006, Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud became the first Saudi monarch to visit Turkey in decades. That was followed by another visit in 2007. The next year, Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Saudi Arabia, started a strategic dialogue about Iran. In the years after, Saudi-Turkish economic relations flourished. In 2011, trade between the two reached approximately $5 billion per year. Turkish construction companies continued to break ground in Saudi Arabia, and the number of Saudi tourists to Turkey reached 84,000 in 2010.

Like Saudi Arabia, Turkey was also interested in the status of Sunnis in Iraq, although less out of sectarian concern than a desire to keep Iraq unified. Turkey believed that the rise of the Shias and spiraling violence in Iraq would eventually result in the country's division along ethnic lines. And if northern Iraq became a separate Kurdish state, Ankara feared, Turkish Kurds might want to join it. Turkey, too, wanted to tamp down Iran's regional ambitions. Yet, while Ankara was keen to Riyadh's overtures, it had no interest in becoming a central pillar of a new Sunni axis in the Middle East. On the contrary, as part of its "zero problems with neighbors" foreign policy, Turkey wanted to counter Iranian power in the region through soft balancing. Specifically, Ankara would undermine Tehran's influence in Palestinian politics and its dominance in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria by getting closer to those states itself.

So, even as Ankara pursued better relations with Saudi Arabia, it continued to engage Iran, especially on the development of Tehran's nuclear program. Whereas Saudi Arabia saw a potential Iranian bomb as a major threat and wanted to prevent it by any means possible, Turkey believed the matter could be resolved through negotiations. As early as 2009, many in Saudi Arabia were growing suspicious of what they saw as Turkey's double dealing. Although Riyadh continued its policy of cooperating with Turkey, especially on Iraq, it also realized that Turkey would not be a close part of the alliance it had constructed with Egypt and Jordan.

Then came the Arab Spring. Saudi Arabia was uneasy with 2011's outpouring of people power from the start, lest it flow into the kingdom as well. First, when Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali fled Tunisia, he and his family were welcomed in Saudi Arabia. Then, Riyadh worked to prevent the toppling of the Hosni Mubarak regime, its ally in Egypt, but to no avail. It did, however, manage to help put down the Shia uprising against the Sunni government in neighboring Bahrain. It was only Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's downfall that Saudi Arabia welcomed. Saudi-Syrian relations had been quite problematic under Qaddafi, who was once even accused of trying to assassinate Saudi King Abdullah. Turkey, of course, took the opposite tack, supporting all the uprisings, with some initial hesitation in Libya. Ankara consistently called on the region's beleaguered regimes to respond to the demands of the people, or else step down. The two countries' diverging positions seemed to undermine hope that their strategic relationship could ever be solidified.

Then the Arab Spring reached Syria. The uprising there seemed like it might put Turkish-Saudi rapprochement back on track. Riyadh believes that the toppling of the Bashar al-Assad regime would limit Iran's influence in the Arab world, since Syria is the Islamic Republic's only Arab ally. Thus, last summer, Abdullah became the first Arab leader to criticize the Syrian regime openly; since then, Saudi Arabia has been actively supporting the Syrian opposition, including by advocating that the world arm the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the main opposition military force.

At first, Turkey attempted to convince Assad to reform. Last summer, believing those efforts were at a dead end, Turkey adopted a more critical position. Ankara called for regime change in Syria, actively backed the opposition, criticized the UN Security Council for inaction, and supported creating buffer zones and humanitarian corridors between Turkey and Syria. Turkey also houses one of the biggest opposition groups, Syrian National Council, as well as the FSA.

Although Saudi Arabia and Turkey share a common goal in Syria, there are some tensions between their positions. First, for Turkey, managing the Syrian crisis is not a way to limit Iranian influence; instead, it is a means of protecting Turkey from chaos on its southern border. Refugees have already started flooding into Turkey -- and the longer the conflict drags on, the larger the burden Ankara will have to shoulder. Further, the influence of the Turkish Kurdish party on some Syrian Kurds is worrisome for Ankara.

Moreover, the Saudi and Turkish visions for post-Assad Syria differ. Saudi Arabia advocates a Sunni Islamist regime and is establishing ties with the more radical elements in the country. Turkey, on the other hand, favors the participation of all actors. Ankara is engaging and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, while also pressuring the group to accept a more participatory and representative Syria to prevent civil war in the post-revolution era.

In the meantime, Saudi Arabia's involvement in Syria threatens to undermine Turkey's "zero problems" foreign policy. Saudi Arabia is already casting the conflict in Syria as a sectarian one. Thus, Ankara's close cooperation with Riyadh -- and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood -- places Turkey squarely within the so-called Sunni camp. Such a development would limit Turkey's soft power in the region. In other words, although opportunities for rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Turkey arise from time to time, there are hard limitations to their relationship. They want different things in the region, and have different policies for getting them. On the other hand, as long as there are clear economic benefits in this bilateral relationship, both sides will gloss over their differences as long as they can.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cfr.org/syria/syrias-blo...kgroundersexp-syria_s_bloody_stalemate-051512

Syria's Bloody Stalemate

Interviewee: Peter Harling, Director, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, International Crisis Group
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org
May 15, 2012

Much of Syria is "in a state of chaos," says Peter Harling, who has been based in Damascus for the International Crisis Group, and has gone back and forth for months. The regime of President Bashar al-Assad is "both well-entrenched and losing control." As for the opposition, the Syrian National Council, based abroad, he says the group "has championed an increasingly radicalized street, over-invested in an elusive international intervention, and eschewed more constructive politics." As for the jihadists, he says that what is surprising "is that foreign fighters and jihadis, for now, have not taken on a bigger role." On the international side, he says Kofi Annan's cease-fire plan "grew out of the international community's inability to agree on anything else," and as long as the "stalemate endures, it will continue to enjoy support, even from states that do not put much faith in it but have no workable alternative to offer."

You have been back and forth to Syria for quite some time. Could we start with your assessment of the situation on the ground? Is the Assad government in control; what is the role of the opposition?

The regime is both well-entrenched and losing control. Much of the country is in a state of chaos. Despite plethoric security and military assets, the single most important road, running north to south from Aleppo to Damascus, is unsafe. Criminal activity is rampant even in the vicinity of the capital. For months, opposition armed groups have made it difficult for regime troops to maintain a sustainable presence in many parts of Syria. More often than not, loyalist forces are reduced to hit-and-run operations that cause tremendous damage, solve nothing, and rather make things worse.

At the same time, the regime's core structures remain solid. A steady trickle of defections has continued, but the floodgates have not opened. This resilience has several causes. Some regime officials fear the future for the country, their community, or themselves, and believe this is a struggle for survival. Others have actually profited from the crisis, gaining in status or wealth in the booming economy of violence. Yet others are deeply disillusioned, tempted to defect, but disinclined to do so as long as the regime appears here to stay. All in all, the power structure is eroding slowly in a country that is crumbling fast all around it.

What is life like in Syria these days with sanctions making it harder to bring in imports? Does life go on anywhere near normal?

The governorates of Idlib, Hama, Homs, Dayr Zor, Damascus-Countryside, and Deraa have borne the brunt of the violence. First, demonstrations were repressed at great cost to human life. Soon, retaliations against the security services' widespread abuse led the regime to take even tougher measures. The emergence of an insurgency fueled by this cycle is now met with forms of collective punishment. Towns and villages are shelled with no discernible military objective, or raided, looted thoroughly, and set ablaze. Ensuing refugees are not only left to their own devices, but often chased around as if they were expected to disappear [into] thin air.

The prevailing narrative in regime circles, to put it simply, is this: Syria is under attack and fighting back.

Areas of relative calm remain. Towns along the Mediterranean coast, which are home to a strong Alawite population, have been largely spared in recent months. From day one the regime showed considerable restraint in dealing with dissent in the Kurdish northeast and in the Druze town of Sweida, in the south, eschewing the escalation and radicalization that has been witnessed elsewhere. Aleppo, the country's largest city and economic hub, has experienced only a belated and limited deterioration. In the capital, the most central neighborhoods recently enjoyed a revival of sorts. As Damascus absorbed constituencies from elsewhere--the wealthy owners of villas and farms in its surroundings, the middle-class of towns hit by the conflict, and poorer refugees fleeing repression--its economic activity was rekindled, on the face of it.

But this convergence on Damascus has also created new problems for the regime. It revealed the glaring gap between this bubble of artificial calm and consumerism, and the devastation of so many other parts of the country. Refugees were dumbfounded by what they saw of Damascenes, while the latter were shocked by what they heard of the former, [which were] first-hand witnesses and victims of what amounts to a scorched-earth policy. Moreover, opposition armed groups, initially rooted in their communities and holding their ground, have gone on the offensive as loyalist troops chased them in the areas they controlled. By putting them on the run, the regime has brought danger closer to home.

Describe the Assad regime's thinking. It recently held parliamentary elections, which were scoffed at by the outside world as propaganda. But is there more to it than that?

The prevailing narrative in regime circles, to put it simply, is this: Syria is under attack and fighting back. In this view, its strategic posture is both the primary cause of the conflict and the reason why its current leadership will ultimately pull through. A manageable domestic crisis was exacerbated by foreign interference, motivated by the regime's support of resistance against Israel. Officials point to biased Western and Arab media coverage, the influx of money and technology (such as satellite phones), and the double standards best illustrated by Bahrain, as exhibits one, two, and three, exposing the conspiracy. Without such meddling, the regime argues, unrest would have long toned down. In particular, the regime's reform program, which on paper goes far beyond anything a country like Saudi Arabia would be willing to even envisage, would have fully satisfied popular demands.

Of course, missing from this narrative is the extraordinarily arrogant, brutal, and sectarian behavior of the security services in dealing both with peaceful protests and armed resistance, at the cost of damaging beyond repair the relationship between the regime and large swaths of society. Those who would like to weaken or topple Syria's current leadership are doing little more than seizing the unexpected opportunity they were given.

All in all, the [Syrian National] Council has championed an increasingly radicalized street, over-invested in an elusive international intervention, and eschewed more constructive politics.

For the regime, however, this narrative serves two seemingly paradoxical purposes. On one hand, it justifies all its shortcomings--from excessive use of force to lack of political initiative through to its mishandling of the economy. All can be blamed on hostile propaganda and subversive activities, or warranted by the requirements of national salvation. In that sense, the crisis calls not for a homegrown but an international solution. On the other, the belief runs deep within Syria that the United States is not willing to go all the way to topple this regime, for fear of a regional conflagration, because the status quo serves Israel best, or due to domestic considerations, among various other conjectures. Thus the conspiracy, conveniently, is both omnipotent and impotent: it can control the world's media, prompt demonstrations across Syria, support an armed insurgency and wreck the country's economy, but what it cannot do is end the regime.

What's your opinion of the Syrian National Council, which seems in exile not to be very important, but does draw support from Western countries?

It is hard to see in what way the Syrian National Council has made the situation better, not worse. Although it was conceptualized as a formation designed to represent society as a whole, it has played a very polarizing role. By mishandling personality issues, it has alienated more prominent opposition figures than necessary. It has failed to successfully reach out to minorities, notably the Kurds. More problematic, it has yet to take any serious initiative toward the Alawites, who form the bulk of the security services. Many Syrians who cherish the state's relative secularism have been deeply disturbed by the Council's choice of allies, which they read as selling out to an imperialist United States and reactionary Gulf monarchies.

All in all, the Council has championed an increasingly radicalized street, over-invested in an elusive international intervention, and eschewed more constructive politics. This has helped the regime harden the fault lines it plays upon. The situation is not static, however. The opposition is aware of its own shortcomings and may still make progress in overcoming them.

What about groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq? Do you think, as some analysts do, that they are bringing their form of terrorism to Syria in the hope of weakening the Alawite regime?

Foreign fighters and jihadis have been part of the picture for some time. How could it be otherwise? Syrian society has been subjected for months to unthinkable forms of violence, and the country is increasingly in a state of chaos. The sectarian makeup of the security forces has exacerbated the confessional component of the conflict. Fighting an "Alawite regime" obviously is a pull factor for volunteers from around the region. And on the ground, the absence of any clear ideology and the limited room for maneuver of traditional, religious opinion leaders have opened space for more radical narratives. Finally, disenchantment with the international community has coincided with money pouring in from the Gulf.

Currently, both sides to the conflict are breaching the cease-fire they committed to, tangibly and repeatedly, with no noticeable consequences.

What is surprising, however, is that foreign fighters and jihadis, for now, have not taken on a bigger role. Fifteen months into the occupation of Iraq, decapitations on tape, bomb attacks specifically targeting Shiite civilians, and sectarian killings were occurring on a massive scale. In Syria, society is still showing overwhelming restraint and sense of purpose. Radicalization is a fact, but it is limited by an understanding that it serves the regime. Even jihadi networks appear to have learned some lessons from Iraq, where the crimes they engaged in ultimately spelled their demise.

What is your sense of the peace plan of Kofi Annan? Is it still viable, or has the recent violence made it no longer relevant?

As we can see from recent developments, the viability of the [Kofi] Annan plan [for a cease-fire] is not solely a function of what happens on the ground. Currently, both sides to the conflict are breaching the cease-fire they committed to, tangibly and repeatedly, with no noticeable consequences. Bomb attacks are difficult to attribute, but some things are clearer. For instance, opposition armed groups have engaged as of late in a systematic targeted-killing spree, picking out military personnel, security officers, civilian proxies (popularly known as shabbiha), and informants. Guerrilla-style attacks are also staged against regime assets, relentlessly, even in central Damascus. For its part, the regime is pursuing military operations and has dramatically expanded its security crackdown to include moderate opposition figures and civil society networks. Treatment of detainees has reportedly worsened considerably.

Arguably, the violence has worsened in many ways, but has taken on more dispersed and diversified forms, which are more difficult to detect and deter for a relatively small monitoring mission, compared to the shelling of a large city like Homs, as was the case several weeks ago. However, the Annan plan grew out of the international community's inability to agree on anything else. For this reason, and as long as this stalemate endures, it will continue to enjoy support, even from states that do not put much faith in it but have no workable alternative to offer. Meanwhile, such skeptics will presumably increase their covert support to the opposition, hoping to tilt the balance on the ground. Having taken these steps, there is a chance that if and when the Annan plan falters, they will be sucked into more direct intervention in the ensuing vacuum.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://the-diplomat.com/the-editor/2012/05/15/past-performance-is-no-guide-2/

Past Performance Is No Guide…
By Jason Miks
May 15, 2012

“Many analysts argue that Israel lacks the military capability to stop the Iranian nuclear program for more than a few years and assert that the cost of any attack will exceed the benefit,” foreign policy analyst Mitchell Bard wrote yesterday. “This is the conventional wisdom, but it is just that, conventional, and Israel has repeatedly proved that it has the daring and creativity to disprove the skeptics.”

I’m not sure I find the reasoning that because Israel surprised most countries by trouncing its neighbors in 1967, that it’s destined to confound naysayers about a military strike on Iran now, very reassuring. Nor is the suggestion that as it took Iran 20 years to get to where it is now, Israel will buy itself more than a couple of years if it does manage to demolish Iran’s nuclear program.

As the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Anthony Cordesman notes in an important piece of research last week:

“Iran has moved far beyond the point where it lacked the technology base to produce nuclear weapons…Iran has pursued every major area of nuclear weapons development, has carried out programs that have already given it every component of a weapon except fissile material, and there is strong evidence that it has carried out programs to integrate a nuclear warhead on to its missiles.”

The reality is that Iran is too far down the track for any realistic number of targeted assassinations of scientists (whoever is responsible for them), or even a military strike, to put the genie of knowledge back in the bottle.

Cordesman’s piece is worth reading in full, but even just a skim through makes it clear the depth and breadth of knowledge that Iranian scientists have gradually acquired over the years. It also makes clear that Bard’s portrayal of the International Atomic Energy Agency as acting like the “three blind mice” is inaccurate – there’s plenty of information that the IAEA has provided that offers a strong indication of Iran’s weapons intent.

But the suggestion that following an Israeli strike “sanctions can remain in place, inspections could become more rigorous and other measures taken to ensure the nuclear program is not rebuilt” is simply fanciful – even if Iran decides not to retaliate, it’s extremely difficult to imagine Tehran opening its doors to inspectors.

I don’t doubt the ingenuity of Israel’s intelligence and armed forces. But hopeful cheerleading based on its past success seems at best unhelpful. Investors have it drilled into them that past performance is no guide to future performance. It’s a lesson that can sometimes be usefully applied to geostrategy.


Obama’s Iran Headache Iran is undoubtedly Barack Obama’s biggest foreign policy headache for...
Does Iran Want an Attack? The average Iranian probably isn’t hoping for one, but the...
Iran in Nuclear Facility Pledge Is Iran stepping back from the brink? According to a...
Republicans Debate in Arizona Interesting debate tonight in the Republican primary in what is...
North Korea Nuke Test for Iran? North Korea may have secretly detonated two nuclear devices made...

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....Back in the mid 1990s such a proposal, though with the recent end of the Cold War 1.0 seem a bit premature, would probably been more doable than now, particularly when both the EU and NATO are ebbing in power at the moment (other than Germany) and the Russians are feeling their oats.....

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0515/Russia-should-be-rewarded-with-NATO-membership

The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Russia should be rewarded with NATO membership

Russia should be on the agenda for NATO summit in Chicago this weekend. In spite of recent tensions, the historically fractured relationship between Russia and NATO is the most ripe for transformation. Obstacles like missile defense and Eastern Europe can be resolved.

By Kennette Benedict
posted May 15, 2012 at 11:52 am EDT
Chicago

At first blush, the NATO summit to be held in Chicago this weekend has an ambitious and exhaustive agenda, which includes everything from the effects of government financial crises on defense budgets, to lessons from the successful action in Libya. You name it – exit strategies from Afghanistan, relations with Asia in a global NATO, cyber security – and it’s there. Yet one issue that is fundamental to the future of the alliance is conspicuously missing: the NATO-Russia relationship.

In late March, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced the cancellation of the NATO-Russia Council Summit, slated to be held in conjunction with the NATO Summit. The official statement explained that the “timing is difficult...because Russia has a very busy domestic political calendar.” And just last week President Vladimir Putin canceled his trip to the G8 Summit at Camp David.

Whatever the reason, it is no secret that the relationship between Russia and NATO remains troubled. This is unfortunate. In spite of recent tensions, the historically fractured Russia-NATO relationship is the most ripe for transformation.

Since 1997, when NATO and Russia laid the foundation for future cooperation and security, the connection has been nothing but fragile. Of course, the first rupture came when NATO offered membership to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia – all countries sharing borders with Russia – as well as the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

At a time of great vulnerability, Russia felt the affront deeply; it had peacefully backed down from the superpower struggle, only to have its erstwhile enemy incorporate former Soviet states into the US-dominated alliance. Hardliners in Russia were ready to lash out with a military response, but President Boris Yeltsin and others committed to transforming the country prevailed, instead focusing inward on domestic problems.

And the problems were many. In the 1990s, observers worried that Russia itself would be fragmented by ethnic strife and civil war. They aired concerns that the transition from a command to a market economy would leave many without employment and in dire poverty, and that the humiliation of a defeated Russia would give rise to hyper-nationalist leaders who might be even worse than communist bureaucrats. And they feared that some 40,000 nuclear weapons from poorly guarded and unsecured sites would leak out across the world.

Experts talked of four simultaneous revolutions in Russia: in the economic system; in domestic political institutions; in foreign relations, and in the psychology of the Russian people. It was anybody’s guess whether a country could survive such wholesale challenges to its institutions, habits of thought, national identity, and to its social fabric.

The country’s positive developments over the past 20 years are nothing short of a miracle – and they indeed offer the basis for putting Russian relations with NATO on a new footing. Due to the reasoned response of Mikhail Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and others, the cold war ended peacefully. Though still struggling to structure its economic institutions, Russia has reformed sufficiently to gain membership in the World Trade Organization and to support a rising middle class that is showing a taste for democratic action.

With the aid of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, Russia has deactivated more than 7,500 nuclear weapons and secured some 24 nuclear weapons sites. Even more important for future collaboration, the United States and Russia have dismantled nuclear weapons side by side, in transparent operations observers could never have dreamed of, even at Reykjavik, where Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev talked of nuclear weapons abolition.

No one should overlook Russia’s political corruption, its intimidation of journalists, and its belligerence toward countries on its borders. But if NATO could incorporate former enemies West Germany and Italy into the alliance after World War II, there is no reason that Russia should not join NATO now, two decades after the end of the cold war.

Two major obstacles stand in the way of Russia’s full NATO membership: a lack of strategic agreement with the US on missile defense, and a failure to reconcile with former Eastern European countries that once were Soviet client states. Neither obstacle is easily overcome; the countries involved have long histories – and even longer memories. Yet there are signs that accommodation is possible.

The essential disagreement over missile defense is this: The US and NATO want to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in Europe to destroy any potential Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at Europe or the US. Russia is concerned that the deployment of this anti-missile system in Europe is actually aimed at their nuclear arsenals, making their own defenses vulnerable, even though the US contends that this system is aimed at Iran and not Russia.

In fact, Russia is so worried about the destabilizing effects of this new system that last week the Russian General Staff chief General Nikolai Makarov remarked that Russia would consider pre-emptively destroying the European missile defense system if it were deployed, because it would threaten Russia’s nuclear deterrent.

But in ongoing discussions between Stanford University’s Center on International Security and Cooperation and the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Committee of Scientists for Global Security, former US officials and Russian experts agreed that current US missile defense plans do appear to threaten Russia’s retaliatory capability.

They see the plans as threatening, even though the US approach to missile defense – placing around 500 sea- and land-based interceptors throughout Europe over the upcoming years – is still not able to distinguish nuclear warheads from decoys or other debris. According to a September 2011 Defense Science Board report, as well as a recent US National Academy report, this failure of the European system renders the US defense so deeply flawed as to be useless.

Discussions in March between the US and Russian missile defense experts focused on a more limited but possibly more effective missile defense system, the Forward Active Defense, proposed by Ted Postol, a missile expert at MIT. Whatever the outcome of developing this particular system, US-Russian technical collaboration is precisely the kind of cooperation that will help overcome the missile defense obstacle to Russian-NATO integration.

On the second obstacle, Eastern European memories of Soviet domination are beginning to fade as new generations are born into a world free of the cold war. As Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic states develop economically and become more integrated into the world economy, memories of the humiliation and hostility associated with Soviet domination have been blunted.

In addition, cooperation on energy sources, including nuclear power, is likely to grow and to produce a new sense of partnership in the region. Transforming those commercial partnerships into the kind of trust required for formal Russian NATO membership will not be easy, but the alternative is continued political tension that distracts the region from the long-term and very real problems of nuclear weapons proliferation, energy insecurity, and economic stagnation.

As NATO continues to expand its reach globally, it makes sense to invite the alliance’s most prominent and able neighbor as a member. Russia possesses sophisticated military technology and already engages in military-to-military exchanges with the US. Russia also has a military-industrial infrastructure that could contribute capabilities that NATO currently lacks, and that the US has sought from its European partners for at least 20 years.

It is time to recognize how much Russia has accomplished in less than a generation, how much it could contribute to the military capacity of NATO, and how much its full cooperation could enhance global security if it were rewarded, finally, with membership in NATO.

Kennette Benedict is the executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a magazine established by Manhattan Project scientists in 1945 to inform the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons and other catastrophic threats to humanity. From 1992-2005, she directed the international peace and security program at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. She also established and directed the foundation’s initiative in the former Soviet Union from 1992-2002.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Iran Boasts of End to US-Israel Alliance

An Iranian newspaper tied to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently
boasted that United States has “rejected” Israel within recent months.

By Rachel Hirshfeld
First Publish: 5/16/2012, 1:20 PM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/155870​

An Iranian newspaper tied to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently boasted that United States has “rejected” Israel within recent months.

“It can be said that within the last 60 years, this is the first time that the Zionist regime, since its illegal inception, has had to endure rejection by the West over its vision and interest in the region,” wrote Sadollah Zarei, according to a translation by Reza Kahlili.

The author writes that the only “obstacle” remaining is the Saudi Royal Family and once it falls, Israel can be destroyed.

“With diminishing support for Israel and with the (upcoming) collapse of the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, there won’t be any obstacles left facing Iran with its policy of annihilation of Israel,” Zarei wrote.

While Democrats continue to endorse President Obama’s polices with regard to Israel in hopes of emerging victorious in the upcoming elections, the President’s record on the Jewish state has hardly been favorable, to say the least.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama reportedly held an off-the-record foreign policy meeting with nine editors and columnists, widely known for their extreme criticism of the State of Israel, in order to seek foreign policy advise in light of the November elections.







=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

US Leads Major War Drill in Jordan – Israel Not Invited

Nineteen nations are conducting the 'largest military
exercises in the Middle East in 10 years' in Jordan

By Gabe Kahn
First Publish: 5/16/2012, 2:15 AM
Reuters
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/155840​

The United States is leading what it described as the "largest military exercises in the Middle East in 10 years" in Jordan on Tuesday.

Eager Lion 2012 “is the largest exercise held in the region in the past ten years,” Major General Ken Tovo, head of the US Special Operations Forces, told reporters in Amman.

“Yesterday we began to apply the skills that we have developed over the last weeks in an irregular warfare scenario … They will last for approximately the coming two weeks,” he added.

“The message that I want to send through this exercise is that we have developed the right partners throughout the region and across the world … insuring that we have the ability to … meet challenges that are coming to our nations,” Tovo said.

Over 12,000 soldiers are taking part in the war games, representing 19 countries, including Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Britain, France, Italy, Spain and Australia.

Jordanian army operations and training chief Major General Awni Adwan said the military exercise “has been in the planning phase for the past three years.”

“No forces will be deployed north … the exercise is not connected to any real world event,” Adwan said when asked if the war games were related to the ongoing violence in Jordan’s northern neighbor Syria.

"This has nothing to do with Syria. We respect the sovereignty of Syria. There is no tension between the Syrians and us. Our objectives are clear,” Adwan said.

Israel – despite having extensive security agreements with Jordan – was not invited to participate in the exercises. Several Arab nations participating in the drill are still formally at war with the Jewish state.

Washington has granted Amman $2.4 billion in military and economic aid in the past five years, according to official figures






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Why an Israeli Coalition Government Now?

Posted: 05/16/2012 8:08 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-worthington/netanyahu-coalition-government_b_1514181.html​

No one in the know says much about it, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forming a coalition government -- "a government of national unity," he calls it -- strikes some as ominous, others as encouraging.

Still, others see it as Israel preparing to do something about Iran and its fixation on developing nuclear weapons.

To the surprise of many, Israel's Kadima party joining Netanyahu's Likud coalition, hinged on Kadima leader, Shaul Mofaz, amending previous assurances that no way he'd agree to such a coalition -- "Not today, not tomorrow, not ever."

What makes the unity government interesting, apart from controlling 94 of the Knesset's 120 seats (the most single-minded, powerful government in Israel's history), may be Shaul Mofz himself.

As a former defence minister and chief of staff of Israeli Defence Forces, and now deputy prime minister, Mofaz seems likely to support whatever Netanyahu decides is necessary against Iran.

For the coming 18 months Israel will speak as one voice.

Times of Israel columnist (and founding editor) David Horovitz seems cynical about the coalition (and disgusted at Mofaz's flip-flop). He feels Iran isn't a factor in the coalition because "if Netanyahu believes the Jewish State faces imminent annihilation, he will act. Until then, he won't. Period."

Rather, Horovitz thinks the new coalition will be useful in supporting legislation that national service applies to all -- including Ultra-Orthodox Jews who have always been exempted from military service.

To outsiders, a couple of issues seem critical.

First there is Iran and its nuclear intentions (annihilate Israel if it can), and now two guys who run Israel probably agree that the time for soft words, compromise and backing down are fatal in dealing with those running Iran.

Dealing with Palestinians may be easier in the sense that it's not the armageddon that confrontation with Iran might be. The Palestinians leadership is open to deals, self-interest and seeks temporal power more so than entrance to Paradise.

Another aspect which is hard to see Israel give up is the West Bank. How can it be assured of security without the West Bank? And how did Israel get the West Bank? Well, it was attacked from Jordan and Syria, and it won the West Bank.

Had Israel not been attacked, it wouldn't today occupy the West Bank.

Both Netanyahu and Mofaz have military backgrounds, and neither is likely to compromise Israel's security.

Do not be surprised if this Israeli government of national unity feels forced to take action against Iran if Barack Obama ignores this nuclear povocation.

Netanyahu has made several visits to the U.S. to confer with Obama -- all of them disappointing to him and to Israelis. Israeli President Simon Peres's recent visit to Canada and the U.S. almost seems to be cementing relations in advance of taking decisive action about Iran.

Surely that has to figure in Netanyahu's coup of forming a coalition government -- something not needed in the recent dealings with Palestinians, or Israeli settlers on the West Bank, or rockets fired from Gaza into Israeli settlements, or intercepting flotillas of aid activists, or building a wall to protect Jerusalem from suicide bombers, etc.

Actions against Iran are different. Better to have the whole county in support of whatever decisions are made. And that's the way it seems right now.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

05/15/2012

It’s time to admit:
Iran sanctions have failed

By Jennifer Rubin
The Associated Press reports:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-have-failed/2012/05/15/gIQARIttQU_blog.html​

A drawing based on information from inside an Iranian military site shows an explosives containment chamber of the type needed for nuclear arms-related tests that U.N. inspectors suspect Tehran has conducted there. Iran denies such testing and has neither confirmed nor denied the existence of such a chamber.

The computer-generated drawing was provided to The Associated Press by an official of a country tracking Iran’s nuclear program who said it proves the structure exists, despite Tehran’s refusal to acknowledge it.

That official said the image is based on information from a person who had seen the chamber at the Parchin military site, adding that going into detail would endanger the life of that informant. The official comes from an IAEA member country that is severely critical of Iran’s assertions that its nuclear activities are peaceful and asserts they are a springboard for making atomic arms.

A former senior IAEA official said he believes the drawing is accurate.

This should not surprise anyone who has been paying attention to revelations about Iran’s nuclear weapons progress. However, it is hardly insignificant. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams tells me that “it shows what we know is true, that Iran is trying to build a warhead. Those who think Iran hasn’t decided whether to build a weapon are contradicted by these reports.”

Coupled with other data (including images revealing the Iranians’ scrubbing of a nuclear site), this latest evidence reveals, as Jeffrey Goldberg put it, “the inadequacy of the current P5+1 agenda.” The notion that sanctions have “isolated” Iran or that economic pressure has caused a slowdown in its weapons program is nothing more than White House spin. What we have been doing isn’t working.

Some policymakers are sounding the alarm. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, released a statement Monday that read in part:


The released images of an explosives chamber needed for nuclear weapons-related testing in Iran paint a disturbing picture: that, while the world is chasing more negotiations, Iran is racing towards a nuclear weapons capability. Just two months ago President Obama extended the national emergency with respect to Iran declaring that the regime’s activities pose ‘an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.’ Well, prolonged negotiations and concessions will only increase the threat, rather than curtail it.

Iran has consistently played fast and loose with Western governments, engaging in bad-faith negotiations to buy time to achieve a nuclear weapons capability, as it commissioned attacks on U.S. soil. This week, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah announced that it is capable of launching rocket strikes that could hit anywhere in Israel, while reiterating calls for Israel’s destruction. The negotiations track is having the opposite of its intended effect by making a nuclear Iran more likely.

The report on Iran’s nuclear weapons activity comes ahead of the next round of talks on May 23 between Iran and the P5+1. Barring a nearly unimaginable capitulation by Iran, it will be fair to conclude after that discussion that the window for sanctions and negotiations is closed, or nearly so. (Gerry Seib describes the situation this way: “In other words, if serious diplomacy is going to take root, this month is when it will have to happen. If not, Israeli or American military action to stop Iran becomes much more likely.”)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recognizing where things stand, has formed a unity government, as broadly based as any in Israel’s history. Earlier this month Netanyahu “issued emergency call up orders to six reserve battalions in light of new dangers on the Egyptian and Syrian borders. And the Knesset has given the IDF permission to summon a further 16 reserve battalions if necessary.” Israel is prepared to do what it must.

Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in an email summed up the current situation for the U.S. “While the veracity of this [latest] image is yet to be confirmed, the overall picture hasn’t. changed for those looking at this crisis realistically. Iran is developing a nuclear program to produce dangerous weapons-- not for medical research. The window for diplomacy is nearly shut, and the window for intervention may be closing fast, too. How much longer can the West sit this one out?”

For President Obama the question remains: At what point does he acknowledge his three years of engagement and sanctions have failed to halt, let alone slow, Iran’s nuclear weapons program? One suspects the answer is “never,” and that it will be up to Israel to act in its defense and that of the West. Guaranteeing the security of the Free World used to be America’s job. No more, it seems.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Why the World Isn’t Freaking Out
About Iran’s Plasma-Powered Spy Sat

By Noah Shachtman
Email Author
May 16, 2012 | 6:30 am
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))​

Next Wednesday, Iran will try to launch an experimental reconnaissance satellite into orbit — just as international negotiators gather in Baghdad for talks about Tehran’s nuclear program. The timing couldn’t be more inflammatory, and rogue state satellite launches are usually considered to be missile tests in drag. So why isn’t the world throwing itself into a tizzy about the mission?

After all, when North Korea last month tried (and utterly failed) to get a satellite past the sky, the U.N. Security Council promptly condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) for the launch. President Obama called it a “provocative action.” House Republicans even called for the Pentagon to bring back from the scrapyard a flying laser cannon to zap any future North Korean rockets. But for this Iranian launch, the latest in a series of space missions going back to 2005? So far, crickets.

Back in February, a New Yorker writer found herself taken to Iran’s Alborz Space Center for a preview of the upcoming mission. All she could do was snicker at the Iranian presentations’ techno music and their misuse of the word “lunch.”

Originally scheduled to launch last October, the “Fajr” (Dawn) satellite could be the first Iranian spacecraft with an ability to maneuver in orbit. Unconfirmed reports say it may even use a pulse plasma thruster to get the job done. As a spy satellite, it won’t be much of a snoop. Its images are supposed to have a resolution of 500-1,000 meters – at least 1,000 times fuzzier than the pics snapped by the American GeoEye-1 commercial imaging satellite.

Still, the upcoming mission “is clearly a step on the way to learning about rocket technology that could be used for a larger booster, and that could be applied to a missile. And Iran’s program is much more systematic than North Korea’s program, so in that sense it seems to be building more technical competence in the area. So why isn’t there a UN resolution [against Iran's launches] like there is for North Korea?” asks David Wright, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It seems odd that while the U.S. and its European allies are spending money and complicating relations with Russia over developing a missile defense system motivated by the future development of Iranian missiles, they do not seem to be responding to the development of Iran’s rocket technology as strongly as you would expect from the reaction to North Korea’s development.”

One major, major reason why: Iran is still believed to be years away from having nuclear weapons (even as it makes progress on enriching uranium). North Korea, conversely, built and tested its nukes years ago — and occasionally threatens to wipe out its adversaries in an atomic holocaust. Plus, Pyongyang is about 1,200 miles closer to Seattle than Tehran is to D.C. Take into account the west-to-east rotation of the planet, and Iran simply has to work harder than North Korea to send us scrambling for the keys to the fallout shelter.

Still, that only partially explains what veteran intelligence analyst John McCreary calls the “odd double standard [that] seems to govern issues of missile proliferation. Unlike the North Korean space launch attempt, no nation has accused Iran of using a space launch to disguise a test of systems useful in long range ballistic missiles.”

That’s partially because Iran can plausibly claim to have a civilian space program. Tehran has already placed four spacecraft into orbit, starting with the 2005 launch of the Sina-1 joint Russian/Iranian satellite. In 2010, Tehran even sent a rat, two turtles and several worms into space. (A 2011 mission with a monkey on board was not so successful.) Next week’s scheduled launch of the 110-pound, solar-powered Fajr imaging satellite — due to stay in orbit for 18 months, at a height of 180 to 270 miles up — is just the latest.

On the other hand, “there is little to no evidence for concluding that the North is serious about its peaceful space activities,” writes Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. “Pyongyang has not yet demonstrated the ability to construct or even operate communications satellites, interpret data from remote sensing systems, or even engage in cooperative international space science research. In comparison to other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, the sophistication of the DPRK’s space efforts might be placed behind Bangladesh and Mongolia.”

But ballistic missiles and space-bound rockets are close cousins, right? Doesn’t that mean every Iranian launch is another step toward an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) — one that can hit America? Shouldn’t we be ringing Teaneck, New Jersey, with missile interceptors right about now?

“The argument is, well, this teaches them about a whole bunch of technologies that go into an ICBM” — including the separation, ignition, and control of an ICBM’s three stages, notes Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. “The counter-argument is a lot of things are useful for them. It’s still not a friggin’ ICBM. It’s still not the same thing as doing it.”

The liquid-fueled Safir B-1 rocket being used in Iran’s upcoming mission is relatively small, with only two stages. It’s similar to the rocket that the North Koreans used in 2009 for their flop of a launch. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the first stage is basically a souped-up Shabab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, using a single North Korean Nodong engine. The Safir’s second stage uses small engines roughly equivalent to those in the old Soviet SSN-6 missile. All together, the Safir’s top range is estimated at 1,200 miles, well short of American soil. ICBMs, which use three stages, don’t just fly five times as far. They carry payloads of 1,100 to 2,200 pounds — 10 to 20 times larger than what the Safir is schlepping into orbit.

It’s not the only technological hurdle Iran has to overcome. Each ICBM engine has to provide precisely the same amount of thrust — or else the pulses of acoustic energy from one engine might destroy another. The re-entry vehicle, the warhead, and the associated guidance systems all have to be able to withstand the heat and pressure of screaming through the atmosphere at many, many times the speed of sound. All of which is tough — even without a worldwide embargo on nuclear and missile technologies.

A 2010 U.S. report on Iran’s military power (.pdf) said that “with sufficient foreign assistance Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015.” But with increasing international cooperation in containing Iran, that help is much harder to come by these days.

The Iranians shouldn’t be underestimated. As Uzi Rubin, former director of the Israel Missile Defense Organization, recently noted, “Iran managed to transform itself from a nonplayer to a significant missile power in less than one generation. For a country that never has had a world-class aerospace industry, this is quite remarkable.”

But at the moment, America’s spy agencies don’t believe there’s an imminent threat. The last two directors of national intelligence declined to make predictions (.pdf) during congressional testimony about when the Iranian ICBM would materialize. “The bottom line,” veteran CIA Mideast analyst Paul Pillar told Danger Room in February, “is that the intelligence community does not believe [the Iranians] are anywhere close to having an ICBM.”





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Khameini told me Iran will win ‘inevitable’
conflict with Israel and US, says Spain’s ex-PM]

Speaking in Jerusalem, Jose Maria Aznar also recalls
Putin telling him Israel will ‘take care’ of Iranian nukes

By Raphael AhrenMay 16, 2012, 3:49 pm
http://www.timesofisrael.com/spains...der-considers-israels-elimination-inevitable/​

Spain’s former prime minister said Wednesday that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, told him in 2001 that he considered Israel a “cancer condemned to disappear” and that an “open confrontation” with Israel and the US in which Iran will prevail was inevitable.

“Israel to him was a kind of historical cancer and anomaly, a country … condemned to disappear,” Jose Maria Aznar said, recalling a rare meeting with Khameini in Tehran. “At some point he said very clearly, though softly as he spoke, that an open confrontation against the US and Israel was inevitable, and that he was working for Iran to prevail in such a confrontation. It was his duty as the ultimate stalwart of the Islamic global revolution.”

Since then, Iran has been pursuing a nuclear program which it insists is for peaceful purposes and which Israel, the US and others believe is intended to provide it with military nuclear capability.

Speaking to journalists and diplomats in Jerusalem, Aznar also recalled a discussion he had with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which the Russian leader allegedly told him not to worry about an Iranian nuclear bomb since Israel would “take care of it.”

Aznar, who was the president of Spain’s center-right government from 1996 to 2004, has spoken out on Israel’s behalf on many occasions. He has also discussed his meeting with Khameini in the past, but during Wednesday’s presentation at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, he made an effort to specify the Iranian leader’s exact phrasing and to interpret his intentions.

Khameini said Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution sought to rid the world of two evils, the US and Israel, “and to preserve unhurt the virtues of the religious regime of the ayatollahs,” according to Aznar. The existence of Israel and the US seriously threatened to pervert the religious society the Supreme Leader envisioned for Iran, and that is something he could not allow to happen, Aznar continued.

Pressed by members of the audience to specify whether Khameini explicitly called for Israel’s destruction, Aznar said the Iranian leader told him it was necessary to eliminate the threat that Israeli poses. “And that means obviously the elimination of Israel,” said Aznar. “If Israel is alive the threat survives. They’re trying to eliminate the threat. The elimination of the threat means Israel must be eliminated.”

Asked whether Khameini actually used to word “eliminate,” Aznar responded affirmatively. He noted, however, that he spoke to the Iranian leader through an interpreter.

Commenting on the current debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Aznar said next week’s talks in Baghdad between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 countries should be Tehran’s “last chance to come clean and be cooperative.” He demanded Iran stop all enrichment, remove all previously enriched uranium and dismantle its nuclear facilities, echoing the Israeli government’s position.

“The Iranians must say whether they agree or not,” Aznar said. “A simple yes or no. Other than that, the risk of entering endless negotiations is too high.”

Aznar, who in 2010 founded the Friends of Israel initiative together with other international leaders, also recalled a meeting with Putin, in which he raised the risk of Moscow’s plan to sell Tehran air defense missiles.

“He came closer to me and whispered, ‘Jose Maria, don’t worry. I, you — we can sell everything, even if we are worried by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Because at the end of the day, the Israelis will take care of it,’” Aznar remembered.

Russia in 2007 pledged to provide Iran with at least five S-300 surface-to-air missile systems but in 2010 backtracked.

“I don’t think it’s fair putting all the burden of solving the global problems on the shoulders of Israel. But given the current environment, the decision makers here in Jerusalem must face the question of how to deal with an impending nuclear Iran,” Aznar said. “In any case, we should accept that Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself.”

 

[sthrnfriedrocker]

Just want to say thanks for all your hard work, the 'winds of war' threads is one of the first places I check out when I want to get the news of what is going on around the world. I'm not sure if this has been posted yet or not, but thought it might be fitting to post here:

Pakistan president to attend NATO summit
Asif Ali Zardari to be in Chicago for talks as negotiations to reopen US supply lines into Afghanistan continue.

Pakistan has confirmed its president will attend a summit of NATO leaders this weekend in Chicago as negotiations with US to reopen supply lines into Afghanistan continues.

Nadeem Hotiana, a Pakistani embassy spokesman in Washington, said on Tuesday that Asif Ali Zardari would attend the May 20-21 summit.

Pakistan, which has endured a stormy diplomatic relationship with the US, closed the route in protest against the killing by US warplanes of 25 of its troops. Washington expressed regret for the incident and has been quietly urging Islamabad to reopen the route.

In a statement, Oana Lungescu, a NATO spokesman, said: "This meeting will underline the strong commitment of the international community to the people of Afghanistan and to its future. Pakistan has an important role to play in that future."

But ties between Islamabad and Washington had gone from "from bad to worse", Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from the Pakistani capital, said.

Our correspondent said Pakistan had come under "a bit of pressure" from NATO members like Turkey, a major Islamabad ally, to reopen the route.

The killing of the soldiers fanned national anger over everything from covert CIA drone strikes to the U.S. incursion into Pakistani territory last year to kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Sticking point

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, is also expected to attend the meeting, where NATO nations will hone their plans to withdraw most of their troops by the end of 2014.

As the Western presence ebbs, Pakistan, whose tribal areas are home to the Taliban and other groups, will be key in shaping Afghanistan's future.

But the supply routes have been a major sticking point.

After weeks of talks between US and Pakistani officials in Islamabad, a Pentagon spokesman George Little said he hoped that an agreement would occur in the "very near future."

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said officials were still negotiating. She said a deal before next week's NATO summit would be a "wonderful signal", but that the alliance decided that Pakistan should participate regardless of whether an agreement is finalised.

In a statement, Pakistan premier Yusuf Raza Gilani's office said ministers had backed a proposal to allow NATO to send only non-lethal equipment into Afghanistan on Pakistani roads.

"It was also decided that the military authorities should negotiate fresh border ground rules with NATO ... to ensure that incidents [such as November's air strike] do not reoccur," the statement said. The full cabinet is scheduled to meet on Wednesday to discuss the issue.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/05/201251602543374627.html

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Radical Muslims fomenting conflict in Lebanon

CWN - May 16, 2012
http://www.catholicculture.org/news...Catholic+World+News+(on+CatholicCulture.org))​

The director of the Pontifical Mission Societies in Lebanon is warning that radical Islamic organizations are fanning the flames of conflict in Lebanon as well as in Syria.

“The conflict is spreading in Lebanon,” warned Father Paul Karam. “This happens because of political interests that trample human rights, and the fragility of our country, ethnic-religious composite mosaic. Herein lies the major component of fanatic Islamic movements that fan on the religious aspect, fomenting hatred among communities.”

“In Syria the faithful have freedom of faith and public testimony which is not guaranteed in other states in the Middle East,” he added. “We are concerned because the Christians, as a minority, are the easiest target. Syrian fellow priests tell us that the situation is dramatic: there are forces who want to turn the conflict into a religious war, and this would be a tragedy.”






=

 

[sthrnfriedrocker]

Court official to be appointed Greek interim PM

ATHENS, Greece - The head of Greece's Council of State will take the reins of the country until it holds new elections on June 17, state TV said a meeting of party leaders decided Wednesday, a day after power-sharing talks collapsed.

Nine days of negotiations among Greece's bickering parties failed after May 6 inconclusive elections left no party with enough votes for a majority in parliament. The lack of a deal to share power meant the only option open was to head back to the ballot box.

The caretaker government will have no mandate to take any internationally binding commitments, with emergencies to be handled in consultation with party leaders, Communist Party head Aleka Papariga said.

"It will be a strictly caretaker government, which must not take any action at the EU or NATO that will be binding for the Greek people," Papariga said after another meeting with other party heads, convened by President Karolos Papoulias to find agreement on who will lead the temporary government.

"If there is an emergency or unforeseen event, that can be addressed by consultation among the parties with the involvement of the president," she said.

Council of State head Panagiotis Pikramenos will be appointed prime minister until the new elections.

Reeling from two years of a vicious financial crisis that has seen it take billions of euros in international rescue loans in return for imposing strict austerity measures aimed at reforming its problematic economy, Greece has been thrown into further turmoil by the May 6 elections.

Voters furious with the handling of the country's severe financial crisis deserted the two formerly dominant parties — conservative New Democracy and socialist PASOK — turning instead to a myriad of smaller parties. Those that pushed for Greece to pull out of its international bailout agreements saw the most gains.

The inability to form a government and the prospect of another inconclusive general election have increased concern over Greece's ability to cope with its finances and threaten the country's continued participation in Europe's joint currency. The instability comes at a critical time, with Greece expected to take yet more austerity measures next month in order to meet the targets laid out in its bailout deal with other eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund

"There is no other solution. It is very difficult for parties with so many differences to form a government," Athens resident Katerina Papadaki said about the new elections. "Their programs are completely different."

Opinion polls in the past few days have projected the winner of the new election to be Syriza, which has campaigned on an anti-bailout ticket and made massive gains on May 6 to come in second place with 16.8 percent and 52 seats in the 300-member parliament. But it would still not gain enough for a parliamentary majority, meaning more negotiations for a power-sharing government would likely ensue.

"I believe this time the Greek people will think their decision through, because as we saw, nobody is willing to govern," said Athens resident Lambros Rokanas.

Syriza head Tsipras refused during the power-sharing negotiations to join or support any coalition government that would seek to continue implementing Greece's bailout. The heads of the other parties that could have formed a coalition had insisted he be on board.

The other party that made massive gains in the May 6 ballot was Golden Dawn, which vehemently rejects the neo-Nazi label and campaigned on an anti-immigrant platform. It took nearly 7 percent of votes — compared with 0.31 percent in the 2009 elections — and won 21 seats. The party was the only one all the other political leaders refused to consider or negotiate with in the efforts to form a government.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47442459

 

[CGTech]

=

Why the World Isn’t Freaking Out
About Iran’s Plasma-Powered Spy Sat

By Noah Shachtman
Email Author
May 16, 2012 | 6:30 am
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))​

Next Wednesday, Iran will try to launch an experimental reconnaissance satellite into orbit — just as international negotiators gather in Baghdad for talks about Tehran’s nuclear program. The timing couldn’t be more inflammatory, and rogue state satellite launches are usually considered to be missile tests in drag. So why isn’t the world throwing itself into a tizzy about the mission?

After all, when North Korea last month tried (and utterly failed) to get a satellite past the sky, the U.N. Security Council promptly condemned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) for the launch. President Obama called it a “provocative action.” House Republicans even called for the Pentagon to bring back from the scrapyard a flying laser cannon to zap any future North Korean rockets. But for this Iranian launch, the latest in a series of space missions going back to 2005? So far, crickets.

Back in February, a New Yorker writer found herself taken to Iran’s Alborz Space Center for a preview of the upcoming mission. All she could do was snicker at the Iranian presentations’ techno music and their misuse of the word “lunch.”

Originally scheduled to launch last October, the “Fajr” (Dawn) satellite could be the first Iranian spacecraft with an ability to maneuver in orbit. Unconfirmed reports say it may even use a pulse plasma thruster to get the job done. As a spy satellite, it won’t be much of a snoop. Its images are supposed to have a resolution of 500-1,000 meters – at least 1,000 times fuzzier than the pics snapped by the American GeoEye-1 commercial imaging satellite.

Still, the upcoming mission “is clearly a step on the way to learning about rocket technology that could be used for a larger booster, and that could be applied to a missile. And Iran’s program is much more systematic than North Korea’s program, so in that sense it seems to be building more technical competence in the area. So why isn’t there a UN resolution [against Iran's launches] like there is for North Korea?” asks David Wright, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It seems odd that while the U.S. and its European allies are spending money and complicating relations with Russia over developing a missile defense system motivated by the future development of Iranian missiles, they do not seem to be responding to the development of Iran’s rocket technology as strongly as you would expect from the reaction to North Korea’s development.”

One major, major reason why: Iran is still believed to be years away from having nuclear weapons (even as it makes progress on enriching uranium). North Korea, conversely, built and tested its nukes years ago — and occasionally threatens to wipe out its adversaries in an atomic holocaust. Plus, Pyongyang is about 1,200 miles closer to Seattle than Tehran is to D.C. Take into account the west-to-east rotation of the planet, and Iran simply has to work harder than North Korea to send us scrambling for the keys to the fallout shelter.

Still, that only partially explains what veteran intelligence analyst John McCreary calls the “odd double standard [that] seems to govern issues of missile proliferation. Unlike the North Korean space launch attempt, no nation has accused Iran of using a space launch to disguise a test of systems useful in long range ballistic missiles.”

That’s partially because Iran can plausibly claim to have a civilian space program. Tehran has already placed four spacecraft into orbit, starting with the 2005 launch of the Sina-1 joint Russian/Iranian satellite. In 2010, Tehran even sent a rat, two turtles and several worms into space. (A 2011 mission with a monkey on board was not so successful.) Next week’s scheduled launch of the 110-pound, solar-powered Fajr imaging satellite — due to stay in orbit for 18 months, at a height of 180 to 270 miles up — is just the latest.

On the other hand, “there is little to no evidence for concluding that the North is serious about its peaceful space activities,” writes Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. “Pyongyang has not yet demonstrated the ability to construct or even operate communications satellites, interpret data from remote sensing systems, or even engage in cooperative international space science research. In comparison to other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, the sophistication of the DPRK’s space efforts might be placed behind Bangladesh and Mongolia.”

But ballistic missiles and space-bound rockets are close cousins, right? Doesn’t that mean every Iranian launch is another step toward an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) — one that can hit America? Shouldn’t we be ringing Teaneck, New Jersey, with missile interceptors right about now?

“The argument is, well, this teaches them about a whole bunch of technologies that go into an ICBM” — including the separation, ignition, and control of an ICBM’s three stages, notes Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. “The counter-argument is a lot of things are useful for them. It’s still not a friggin’ ICBM. It’s still not the same thing as doing it.”

The liquid-fueled Safir B-1 rocket being used in Iran’s upcoming mission is relatively small, with only two stages. It’s similar to the rocket that the North Koreans used in 2009 for their flop of a launch. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the first stage is basically a souped-up Shabab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, using a single North Korean Nodong engine. The Safir’s second stage uses small engines roughly equivalent to those in the old Soviet SSN-6 missile. All together, the Safir’s top range is estimated at 1,200 miles, well short of American soil. ICBMs, which use three stages, don’t just fly five times as far. They carry payloads of 1,100 to 2,200 pounds — 10 to 20 times larger than what the Safir is schlepping into orbit.

It’s not the only technological hurdle Iran has to overcome. Each ICBM engine has to provide precisely the same amount of thrust — or else the pulses of acoustic energy from one engine might destroy another. The re-entry vehicle, the warhead, and the associated guidance systems all have to be able to withstand the heat and pressure of screaming through the atmosphere at many, many times the speed of sound. All of which is tough — even without a worldwide embargo on nuclear and missile technologies.

A 2010 U.S. report on Iran’s military power (.pdf) said that “with sufficient foreign assistance Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015.” But with increasing international cooperation in containing Iran, that help is much harder to come by these days.

The Iranians shouldn’t be underestimated. As Uzi Rubin, former director of the Israel Missile Defense Organization, recently noted, “Iran managed to transform itself from a nonplayer to a significant missile power in less than one generation. For a country that never has had a world-class aerospace industry, this is quite remarkable.”

But at the moment, America’s spy agencies don’t believe there’s an imminent threat. The last two directors of national intelligence declined to make predictions (.pdf) during congressional testimony about when the Iranian ICBM would materialize. “The bottom line,” veteran CIA Mideast analyst Paul Pillar told Danger Room in February, “is that the intelligence community does not believe [the Iranians] are anywhere close to having an ICBM.”





=

The problem is, Iran does not need a rocket engine with ICBM range to be a threat to CONUS. A simple scud off a freightor would do it, shipping container, or just sink the nuke in an old freightor off the coastline, and detonate.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Tripoli clashes:
harbinger of violence to come?

May 16, 2012 01:33 AM
By Hussein Dakroub

The Lebanese Army has restored order in
Bab al-Tabbaneh, but will the calm last?

The Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Po...binger-of-violence-to-come.ashx#axzz1v2rXrj1H​

BEIRUT: The recent deadly street clashes between armed supporters and opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad in the northern city of Tripoli could be a precursor to more violence spilling over from the 14-month-old popular uprising in Syria, political analysts said Tuesday.

The clashes, which erupted following the arrest of Islamist Shadi Mawlawi, also saw Salafist groups trying to reap political rewards from the dramatic events and assert their presence in Lebanon’s second largest city, which has witnessed in recent months weekly demonstrations against the Syrian regime and in support of the Syrian opposition demanding Assad’s ouster.

“The Tripoli clashes are certainly linked to the unrest in Syria. The surge in violence in Syria encourages a spillover of the Syrian unrest to Lebanon,” Fadia Kiwan, head of the Political Science Department at the Saint Joseph University, told The Daily Star.

“The fighting in the north is an example of what might happen in Lebanon in the future as a result of the ongoing confrontation in Syria [between government troops and rebel soldiers],” she said.

“The longer the turmoil in Syria, the greater the possibility of the security situation in Lebanon, particularly in the north, suffering a setback,” she added.

Political analyst Qassem Qassir agreed. “The fighting in Tripoli is a natural result of the crisis in Syria. The long-simmering tension in Lebanon is due to the deteriorating situation in Syria,” Qassir told The Daily Star.

Qassir, an expert on Islamist fundamentalist movements, said the rival neighborhoods of Bab al-Tabbaneh, whose residents oppose the Assad regime, and Jabal Mohsen, whose residents back the Syrian leader, were already tense as a result of the turmoil in Syria. “Then came the arrest of Shadi Mawlawi to set the situation ablaze,” he said.

“The reaction to Mawlawi’s arrest by the Salafists touched off a crisis that had long existed in the tension between Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen neighborhoods,” Qassir added.

The Lebanese Army, backed by armored vehicles, fanned out in the streets of Tripoli Tuesday to restore order after three days of clashes between rival gunmen from Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen that claimed the lives of at least seven people and wounded more than 90 others. The street battles began Saturday night following the arrest of Mawlawi, who was charged Monday with belonging to an “armed terrorist group.”

Shafik Masri, professor of international law at the state-run Lebanese University, said that although the Lebanese Army deployed to restore calm in Tripoli, “security remains vulnerable as long as the Jabal Mohsen-Bab al-Tabbaneh detonator is ready to explode at any time.”

In addition to the conflict between Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh neighborhoods, Masri cited the case of some 180 Islamists who have not been tried since they were jailed after the end of the 2007 fighting in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp near Tripoli as another detonator that could undermine security.

“These [Islamist] fundamentalists have been jailed for nearly five years without trial. Unless their case is settled by the judiciary, their continued detention could lead to an explosion at any time,” Masri told The Daily Star.

Asked if the Tripoli fighting amounted to a message from Assad that the turmoil would spread to Lebanon if the uprising in Syria did not stop, Masri said: “If this is the case, this calls on political leaders and security services, particularly the Lebanese Army, to be more vigilant and on the alert in order to foil any attempt aimed at destabilizing the country.”

The split between the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance and the opposition March 14 coalition over the Syrian crisis has raised fears of the turmoil in Syria spilling over to Lebanon.

The government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati has adopted a policy to dissociate Lebanon from the repercussions of the unrest in Syria. However, the dissociation policy has been condemned by the March 14 parties, which have accused the government of taking the side of the Assad regime in the current conflict.

Kiwan warned that the political tension over the crisis in Syria could jeopardize Lebanon’s security.

“The Lebanese opposition is allied with the Syrian opposition which rejects a dialogue with the regime in Syria. There is an internal political clash in Lebanon between the March 8 and March 14 camps because of the developments in Syria. This political tension could be translated into security incidents,” Kiwan said. “The tension-filled political situation threatens to expose Lebanon’s security.”

Despite the tension in Lebanon resulting from the unrest in Syria, Kiwan dispelled fears of Tripoli turning into “a stronghold” for Islamist volunteers from other countries or anti-regime fighters fleeing Syria.

“The Lebanese government and security agencies are aware of this matter and are determined to prevent it,” she said.

For his part, Qassir discounted the possibility of a major breakdown in the security situation as a result of the tension over the Syrian impasse.

“There is a local, regional and international decision not to let tension lead to a major conflagration in Lebanon,” Qassir said.

He added that local and regional parties want to use Lebanon as a transit point to deal with the situation in Syria.

“Tripoli is a transit point, rather than a sanctuary, for sending arms, fighters and humanitarian aid to the opposition in Syria,” Qassir said.

Earlier this month, Lebanon’s military prosecutor Saqr Saqr charged 21 people in connection with a Syria-bound arms cargo that was seized by the Lebanese Army in Lebanese territorial waters. Saqr charged the suspects – 14 of whom are in custody – with purchasing a huge quantity of weapons and ammunition of various types and calibers and shipping it from Libya to Tripoli.

Kiwan, Qassir and Masri downplayed the threat posed by the Salafist movement to former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Future Movement and political leaders in northern Lebanon.

“The Salafist movement in the north does not pose a danger to the Future Movement because they [Salafists] allied with the Future Movement in the previous elections,” Kiwan said.

“The extremist sectarian movements do not have a future in Lebanon. The moderate Future Movement has forged alliances with Christian parties and is backed by Saudi Arabia,” she added.

Qassir said that the Islamist Salafist groups are gaining ground as a result of political tension in Lebanon. “However, the Future Movement is the strongest and main movement in Tripoli and the north. So far, the Salafist parties do not pose any danger to the Future Movement,” he said.

“The emergence of the Salafist parties is linked to political circumstances. Tension is bound to strengthen the Salafist movement. But the movement will retreat if security and stability prevail,” Qassir said.

Masri also dismissed the Salafist movement’s threat. “I don’t think there is an imminent danger from the Salafist movements in Tripoli,” he said.

“There is a conflicting interpretation about the size of Salafist movements in Tripoli. I don’t know the size of these Salafist movements in Tripoli, especially since the city’s political leaders have denied that these movements have a big popularity,” Masri said.

“If there is any Salafist threat in Tripoli, the political leaders, particularly government officials, must take precautionary measures, such as the acceleration of the trial of the detained Islamists, in order to ward off this danger if it really existed,” he added.


Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Po...binger-of-violence-to-come.ashx#ixzz1v2sjEiGB
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)




=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Caught in Syrian crossfire,
U.N. monitors handed over

16 May 2012 14:50
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/caught-in-syrian-crossfire-un-monitors-handed-over​

AMMAN, May 16 (Reuters) - Six ceasefire monitors, who were caught overnight in the crossfire of Syria's civil conflict, were handed back to their U.N. colleagues on Wednesday by rebels fighting the forces of President Bashar al-Assad.

The stranding of the observers in a gun and bomb attack at a funeral that killed at least 21 civilians underscored the relentlessness of the violence challenging a U.N. ceasefire that is meant to lead to a peaceful resolution to the uprising.

"We gave the six with their cars to a U.N. convoy near the entrance of Khan Sheikhoun. They are all safe, in good heath and on their way to Damascus," Free Syrian Army commander Abu Hassan said by satellite phone from the site of the handover.

The observers stayed overnight with rebels who said they feared an assault by government forces after the funeral attack.

A pro-government TV station said unidentified gunmen opened fire at the funeral. The rebel commander said a pro-Assad militia was responsible and that his forces had the names of at least 27 people killed.

The head of the monitoring mission, Major-General Robert Mood, confirmed the monitors were heading back to base.

"They have departed from Khan Sheikhoun and are on their way back. They expressed to me that they have been well treated," he told reporters in Damascus.

He expressed gratitude to the Syrian government for "facilitating coordination" for the exit of the observers, and to the people of Khan Sheikhoun, about 220 km (140 miles) north of Damascus, for treating them "with respect."

"That kind of violence is obviously the kind of violence we don't want to see," he said. "It is not going to contribute constructively to the aspirations of the Syrian people."

ACCOUNT OF NEW MASSACRE​

The handover came as a Britain-based opposition group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said at least 15 people had been killed since Tuesday when security forces stormed the Shammas district of Homs, parts of which Assad's forces reduced to rubble with artillery fire earlier this year.

The group said security forces carried out summary executions in the city. Footage distributed on YouTube showed bodies - some with what looked like gunshot wounds - purported to be those killed during raids in the city.

There was no independent confirmation of the claims from within Syria, which has restricted journalist access during the 14-month-old uprising.

The Free Syrian Army has a nominal leader based in Turkey and tenuous ties with the divided political opposition group, the Syrian National Council (SNC), which on Tuesday re-elected Burhan Ghalioun, a sociologist long resident in France, as its leader for another three months.

People involved in the vote, which took place in Rome, said the secular Ghalioun was viewed as acceptable to Syria's array of sects and ethnic groups, and to major factions of the umbrella SNC which seeks recognition as the sole legitimate representative of opposition to Assad.

Shortly afterwards, Fawaz Tello, a prominent dissident, resigned from the SNC, the latest of several senior figures to quit the body in recent months.

As the SNC debated its leadership, Damascus announced the results of parliamentary elections it points to as proof of Assad's determination to resolve the uprising peacefully.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

May 16, 10:55 AM EDT

UN experts say Syria snubs demands on torture

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_UN_SYRIA_RIGHTS?SECTION=HOME&SITE=AP&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT​

GENEVA (AP) -- A U.N. committee says the Syrian government has snubbed its demand for a report on torture.

The Committee Against Torture said the Syrians skipped a meeting Wednesday and failed to report on whether it is complying with a 1987 U.N. convention against torture

The committee's 10 independent experts monitor nations' compliance with the convention Syria joined in 2004.

A committee statement cited "widespread violations" of the convention by the government and alleged abuses by armed opposition groups.

Committee chair Claudio Grossman said the government has carried out widespread killings, torture in hospitals, detention centers and secret detention facilities, and torture of children and sexual torture of male detainees.

He said security forces have regularly raided hospitals to find and kill injured demonstrators and used mass graves to cover up abuses.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

2012-05-16

Region edges closer to sectarian war:
New clashes erupt in Lebanon

Clashes between army, residents of two areas of Lebanon's city of
Tripoli supporting opposite sides in Syria crisis wound at least four people.

Middle East Online
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=52299​

TRIPOLI (Lebanon) - At least four people were wounded on Wednesday in clashes between the army and residents of two areas of Lebanon's city of Tripoli supporting opposite sides in the crisis in neighbouring Syria, a security official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said shooting broke out after soldiers tried to remove barricades in the northern port city's sensitive and mainly Sunni Muslim neighbourhood of Bab al-Tebbaneh.

Residents opened fire on the soldiers, one of whom was wounded, and the troops responded.

The clashes then escalated with residents of Jabal Mohsen, which sits opposite Bab al-Tebbaneh, also opening fire.

There were also reports of sniper fire.

Jabal Mohsen is populated mainly by Alawites loyal to the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while Bab al-Tebbaneh residents support the opposition seeking to oust Assad.

Clashes between residents of the two neighbourhoods earlier this week left nine people dead and some 50 wounded.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Syrian rebels get influx of arms with
gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination

By Karen DeYoung and Liz Sly, Published: May 15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html?wprss=rss_world​

Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials.

Obama administration officials emphasized that the United States is neither supplying nor funding the lethal material, which includes antitank weaponry. Instead, they said, the administration has expanded contacts with opposition military forces to provide the gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure.

“We are increasing our nonlethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and we continue to coordinate our efforts with friends and allies in the region and beyond in order to have the biggest impact on what we are collectively doing,” said a senior State Department official, one of several U.S. and foreign government officials who discussed the evolving effort on the condition of anonymity.

The U.S. contacts with the rebel military and the information-sharing with gulf nations mark a shift in Obama administration policy as hopes dim for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Many officials now consider an expanding military confrontation to be inevitable.

Material is being stockpiled in Damascus, in Idlib near the Turkish border and in Zabadani on the Lebanese border. Opposition activists who two months ago said the rebels were running out of ammunition said this week that the flow of weapons — most still bought on the black market in neighboring countries or from elements of the Syrian military — has significantly increased after a decision by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other gulf states to provide millions of dollars in funding each month.

Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood also said it has opened its own supply channel to the rebels, using resources from wealthy private individuals and money from gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, said Mulham al-Drobi, a member of the Brotherhood’s executive committee.

The new supplies reversed months of setbacks for the rebels that forced them to withdraw from their stronghold in the Baba Amr neighborhood of Homs and many other areas in Idlib and elsewhere.

“Large shipments have got through,” another opposition figure said. “Some areas are loaded with weapons.”

The effect of the new arms appeared evident in Monday’s clash between opposition and government forces over control of the rebel-held city of Rastan, near Homs. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said rebel forces who overran a government base had killed 23 Syrian soldiers.

Administration officials also held talks in Washington this week with a delegation of Kurds from sparsely populated eastern Syria, where little violence has occurred. The talks included discussion of what one U.S. official said remained the “theoretical” possibility of opening a second front against Assad’s forces that would compel him to move resources from the west.

Syria will also be on the agenda at this weekend’s NATO summit in Chicago, according to administration officials.

Although the alliance has repeatedly said it will not become involved in Syria, Turkey has indicated that it may invoke Article IV of the NATO Charter, which would open the door to consultations on threats to Turkish security and consideration of mutual defense provisions of Article V of the charter.

The Turks, who have grown increasingly anxious about the growing conflict in their neighboring country, have resisted direct military involvement without the international legitimacy of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Efforts to pass a resolution authorizing any intervention beyond humanitarian aid have been blocked by opposition from Russia and China.

But Turkey’s position has been evolving, with military officials who once opposed any kind of non-political intervention now seeing the region becoming increasingly involved in the crisis. Shiites and Sunnis in neighboring Lebanon battled this week over the Syrian situation, raising concern both in Ankara and Washington.

Officials in the region said that Turkey’s main concern is where the United States stands, and whether it and others will support armed protection for a safe zone along the border or back other options that have been discussed.

The United States and its allies remain formally committed to a U.N. peace plan being spearheaded by former secretary general Kofi Annan. Nearly two-thirds of an authorized 300 unarmed U.N. military monitors have arrived in Syria, with the rest due by the end of this month.

But even Annan has acknowledged the initiative has failed so far to significantly quell the violence or make progress toward a political transition. U.S. officials have said they feel constrained from declaring the mission a failure, at least until the full complement of monitors arrives. Annan himself has expressed pessimism over prospects for success.

Opposition figures said they have been in direct contact with State Department officials to designate worthy rebel recipients of arms and pinpoint locations for stockpiles, but U.S. officials said that there currently are no military or intelligence personnel on the ground in Syria.

The Pentagon has prepared options for Syria extending all the way to air assaults to destroy the nation’s air defenses. U.S. officials, however, have said that such involvement remains very unlikely. Instead, they said, the United States and others are moving forward toward increased coordination of intelligence and arming for the rebel forces.

The Sunni-led gulf states, which would see the fall of Assad as a blow against Shiite Iran, would welcome such assistance, but they would like a more formal approach. One gulf official described the Obama administration’s gradual evolution from an initial refusal to consider any action outside the political realm to a current position falling “between ‘here’s what we need to do’ and ‘we’re doing it.’”

“Various people are hoping that the U.S. will step up its efforts to undermine or confront the Syrian regime,” the gulf official said. “We want them to get rid” of Assad.

Since the uprising began early last year, U.S. efforts to promote a political solution have been stymied by Assad’s political intransigence and his ongoing military assault on Syrian towns and cities, as well as the opposition’s failure to agree on a unified political leadership or game plan.

Despite administration hopes that the Sunni-led Syrian National Congress would become an umbrella organization, it has failed to win support from minority Syrian Christians, Kurds, Druze and Assad’s Alawite sect. All have resisted what they say is the group’s domination by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Free Syrian Army, the opposition military force, has resisted direction from the fractured political opposition. Its troops, many of them Syrian army defectors, are said to operate in independent entities spread across Syria, leading the United States and others in the past to express caution about assisting them.

Sly reported from Beirut.







=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Assad:
Ready to show foreign
mercenaries to world

Published May 16, 2012
Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/16/assad-ready-to-show-foreign-mercenaries-to-world/​

MOSCOW – In his first interview in nearly half a year, Syrian President Bashar Assad denounced the opposition Syrian National Council as both ineffective and working against their own people's interests.

Assad also said in the interview broadcast Wednesday that his country has captured foreign mercenaries who were fighting for the opposition and is ready to show them to the world. In addition, he complained that Western countries protest the violence by his regime's forces but not by the opposition fighters.

Assad said the Syrian National Council's call to boycott parliamentary elections this year discredited the group.

"To call for boycotting the elections, that's the equivalent of calling for a boycott of the people," Assad said in the interview, which was broadcast on Russian state news channel Rossiya-24. "And how can you boycott the people of whom you consider yourself the representative?

"So I don't think that they have any kind of weight or significance within Syria," Assad said in remarks translated into Russian.

Assad said religious extremists and al-Qaida members from abroad are among the forces fighting his government.

"There are foreign mercenaries, some of them still alive. They are being detained and we are preparing to show them to the world," he said.

The Assad regime's crackdown on a 14-month-long popular uprising has left thousands dead and prompted international condemnation.

Syria's U.N. ambassador, Bashar Ja'afari, has said that deadly bombings last week in Damascus were evidence of "terrorist activities" by "groups and organizations affiliated with al-Qaida." He also claimed Syria has a list of "12 foreign terrorists" killed in Syria, including one French citizen, one British citizen and one Belgian citizen, and he offered the list to the 15 members of the U.N. Security Council.

Kofi Annan, the U.N. and Arab League envoy to Syria, is expected to visit Syria this month, Assad said. He added that he intends to complain to Annan about one-sided criticism of Syria.

The West "talks about violence, but violence from the side of the government, not a word about terrorists. We are waiting for this, as we have before. Mr. Annan will come to Syria this month, and I will ask him about this matter," the Syrian leader said.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/0...w-foreign-mercenaries-to-world/#ixzz1v3GVyAio




=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Syria's Assad warns France against 'inciting chaos'


Published: 05.16.12, 19:28 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4230264,00.html​

Syrian President Bashar Assad said in remarks broadcast on Wednesday he hoped France would change its policies in the Middle East and Arab world under President Francois Hollande, warning against "inciting chaos and crisis".



"I hope the new president will think about the interests of France," Assad told Russia's Rossiya-24 television. "I am certain that they do not lie in further inciting chaos and crisis in the Middle East and the whole Arab world." (Reuters)






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Did a WikiLeaks document
doom Iranian ‘Mossad agent’?

Leaked diplomatic cable apparently pointed to Majid Fashi, who was
hanged in Tehran on Tuesday for allegedly killing a nuclear scientist

By Sam Ser
May 16, 2012, 7:25 pm
http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikileaks-report-may-have-doomed-iranian-mossad-agent/​

WikiLeaks may have been responsible for exposing Majid Jamali Fashi, the 24-year-old kickboxer who was hanged in Tehran on Tuesday morning after “confessing” to assassinating a nuclear scientist on behalf of Israel, a British media report said.

The Times of London reported Wednesday that a document from the US Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, seemingly drew attention to Fashi. The September 2009 US diplomatic document — identified by the code 09BAKU687 — quotes an Iranian source who was a licensed martial arts coach and trainer as describing to his American contacts pressure from the Iranian regime to train soldiers and militiamen in martial arts.

Fashi was reportedly in Baku for an international martial arts competition only days before the US Embassy document was written.

The suggestion is that the Iranian authorities identified Fashi as someone who was in illicit contact with the West on the basis of the document. He was arrested days after the publication of the document by WikiLeaks in December of 2010 and charged with carrying out the January 2010 assassination of nuclear scientist Masoud Ali-Mohammadi on behalf of the Mossad.

The British report Wednesday quotes a UK academic, Birmingham University professor Scott Lucas, speculating that the diplomatic cable may have been a critical piece of evidence or simply a pretext on which to arrest Fashi. “It could have been used as a pretext against him; to set him up as a person who could take the fall for the assassination,” Lucas said.

There is nothing in the US document pertaining to Israel.

Iranian authorities claimed that Fashi admitted to travelling to Tel Aviv for training from the Mossad and funding for the killing of Ali-Mohamaddi.

Tehran has complained to Baku about its close ties to Israel, saying it suspected that Azerbaijan was allowing the Mossad to operate against Iran from its territory.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Gates: Israeli Strike On Iran
‘May End Up In A Much Larger Middle East Conflict’

By Ali Gharib on May 16, 2012 at 12:15 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/16/484932/gates-israel-iran-middle-east-conflict/​

The former Secretary of Defense to the George W. Bush and Obama administrations Robert Gates said in an interview on CBS aired this morning that getting Iran to give up any potential ambitions to nuclear weapons was the “only good option” for dealing with the nuclear standoff with the West. He warned that an Israeli attack on Iran could spark a regional war.

Interviewer Charlie Rose asked Gates about his comment that Iran was the toughest challenge he has faced. Gates suggested, in line with the Obama administration, that a diplomatically negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis was the sole way to deal with the issues without major drawbacks. Gates said:


GATES: The only good option is putting enough pressure on the Iranian government that they make the decision for themselves that continuing to seek nuclear weapons is actually harming the security of the country and, perhaps more importantly to them, putting the regime itself at risk. And there are signs that those sanctions are beginning to really bite and some much more severe European Union sanctions will come into effect this summer.

ROSE: What if Israel does it on its own?

GATES: That would be worse than us doing it. Because I think that then has lots of regional complications that may end up in a much larger Middle East conflict. So I think that would be worse.

Watch the video:

Gates has offered warnings about attacking Iran before, declaring that even a U.S. strike would be a “catastrophe.” So his statement that an Israeli strike would be “worse” is significant. And a Pentagon wargame reported by the New York Times this year found the U.S. got dragged into the conflict after an Israeli strike.

A top U.S. security thinktank that advises the Pentagon released an article in its journal yesterday advising against a U.S. or Israeli strike against Iran. The article from the RAND Corporation by, among others, top former U.S. diplomat James Dobbins, noted that a strike “would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons” — in line with assessements from some top former Israeli officials.

The RAND article called for more U.S.-Israeli cooperation and for the U.S. to quietly “support the assessments of former and current Israeli officials who have argued against a military option.” Many former top Israeli security officials have criticized Israel’s hawkish government for an eagerness to attack Iran without dealing with potential consequences of such an attack.

Gates seemed to be using shorthand when discussing Iran’s “continuing to seek nuclear weapons.” While a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime, reports on U.S. and Israeli estimates state that these intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran has made a decision to build nuclear weapons.

Those estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. American officials including President Obama vow to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, but questions about the efficacy and consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.





=

 

[BREWER]

Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.debka.com/article/22005/

Iran drills first large-scale paratroop drops for offensive action
DEBKAfile Special Report May 16, 2012, 9:31 AM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Iranian war game US special forces Persian Gulf Jordan
IRGC commando drill


Special operations units of the Iranian army and Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Tuesday, May 14, began a two-day practice of offensive tactics, for the first time dropping large-scale forces from the air deep behind enemy lines. The many war games Iran has conducted until now focused on defenses of strategic and nuclear locations and repelling invaders. This drill displayed its aggressive capabilities. Codenamed Ja’far Tayyar, it was staged in remote Khorasan near the Afghan border, so as not to expose the commando tactics it employed.

In announcing the exercise, Gholam-Ali Gholamian, Dep. Commander for Operations for the IRGC Ground Forces, cagily called it another routine exercise for “maintaining the preparedness and promoting the combat capability of units stationed in the region.”

debkafile’s military sources disclose that there was nothing routine about it. The units taking part were not stationed in the region but flown in especially.

Western intelligence sources observing the exercise report that its offensive nature was evident: Air transports coming in from the rest of the country dropped large numbers of paratroopers and special forces; Air Force fighter-bombers practiced intense bombardments of small targeted locations; and helicopters drilled rapid transfers of forces between points and air cover for the units reaching the ground.

Monday, the Persian Gulf rulers invited to Riyadh by Saudi King Abdullah for a summit on the Iranian threat dwelt long and hard on the exercise and concluded the threat had been exacerbated and that Tehran had more in store for them than closing the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic in the event of war. They saw special forces being prepared by Iran to strike deep inside their countries up to and including their oil-producing regions.

The exercise also served the ongoing trade of war signals between Washington and Tehran. Staging a special forces exercise not far from the US military presence in Afghanistan was meant as a rejoinder to US-led special forces maneuver taking place in Jordan across the border with Syria with the participation of 17 nations.

Iranian and Syrian media made much of the fact that the US-led war game was named Eager Lion 12 as a deliberate insult to Bashar Assad, whose name is the Arabic for Lion

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....I guess it's the cynic in me but I'm not buying it considering their relationship.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-r...lusivel4e8gg20b-20120516,0,5900544,full.story

EXCLUSIVE-China pushes N.Korea to drop nuclear test plan-sources

Comments

Reuters

5:09 a.m. CDT, May 16, 2012

By Benjamin Kang Lim

BEIJING, May 16 (Reuters) - China has been quietly and
gently pressuring North Korea to scrap plans for a third nuclear
test, said two sources with knowledge of closed-door discussions
between the countries, but there is no indication how the North
will react.

If North Korea goes ahead with the test, China would
consider taking some retaliatory steps, but they would not be
substantive, a source with ties to Pyongyang and Beijing told
Reuters.

North Korea has almost completed preparations for the test,
Reuters reported in late April, a step that would further
isolate the impoverished state after last month's failed rocket
launch that the United States says was a ballistic missile test.

"China is unhappy ... and urged North Korea not to conduct a
nuclear test near Changbai Mountain," said the source, who
declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the
matter.

China feared a radiation leak and damage to the environment
from a blast, the source added.

"China also complained about the environmental damage to the
area after the first two tests."

When North Korea conducted nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009,
it caused environmental damage to the mountain straddling the
border with China. North Korea ceded part of the mountain to
China in 1963.

It was unclear if the secretive North Korean government,
typically unwilling to bow to outside pressure, would defer or
drop the plans. China is the closest thing to an ally that North
Korea has.

"The impact on China's northeast would be huge," the source
said of a third test.

Chinese officials have discussed whether threats of
diplomatic action would be effective, but any action might be
restricted to some economic measures to signal China's
displeasure and would not affect vital food aid for North Korea,
the source said.

A Western diplomat, who also asked not to be identified,
confirmed that China has put pressure on North Korea to abandon
the test.

Major diplomatic repercussions were unlikely, however, said
Jin Canrong, associate dean of the School of International
Studies at Renmin University in Beijing. Instead, Jin, who has
knowledge of how China deals with North Korea, said China may
use financial levers to influence its neighbour.

"If closed-door negotiations fail to produce results,
economic aid could be cut," Jin said, adding that imports of
mineral resources and unspecified "special local products" could
also be reduced.


U.N. RESOLUTIONS

China's exports to North Korea rose 20.6 percent last year
to $2.28 billion from 2010, while imports plunged 81.4 percent
to $147.4 million, according to Chinese customs figures.

China would also likely back another U.N. resolution
slapping further sanctions on North Korea, including trade, said
Jin.

China condemned North Korea's first nuclear test in October
2006, carried out in defiance of China's public pleas, and it
supported a U.N. resolution that authorised sanctions. It backed
sanctions again after the North's second test in May 2009.

Despite pressuring North Korea to cancel plans for a third
test, China would want to avoid serious diplomatic measures,
such as recalling its ambassador, said Jin.

"China does not want unnecessary external trouble ahead of
the 18th congress. A major change in policy is not likely," he
said, referring to the Communist Party's five-yearly conclave
later this year when a broad leadership change is widely
expected.

The sources declined to speculate whether China would cut
oil supplies to North Korea.

In 2003, China briefly cut off fuel to North Korea after a
missile test, but it cited technical problems.

The United States wants China to do more to rein in North
Korea but China has little leverage over it and is unlikely to
pull the plug on food aid due to fears of instability in its
northeast, said the Western diplomat and Jin.

"China can't stop food aid. If that stops, it would endanger
the regime," the envoy said of North Korea's leadership.

The main factor keeping China from using harsh measures to
restrain North Korea is the fear of a destabilising exodus of
refugees into northeast China, preceded or followed by collapse
of the North Korean regime.

"Experience has shown that sanctions have little impact on
North Korean decision-making. And, of course, the comprehensive
sanctions regime will be sabotaged by China, for whom a nuclear
North Korea is a lesser evil than an unstable and or collapsing
North Korea," said Andrei Lankov, a North Korea expert at South
Korea's Kookmin University.

In addition, in the face of rising tension over disputed
islands in the South China Sea, the last thing China needs is
the United States using a North Korean nuclear test as an excuse
to step up its military presence in the region, said a source
with ties to China's top leadership, requesting anonymity.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Beijing for two
days of meetings this month, said the United States was willing
to work with North Korea if it changed its ways.

North Korea hopes the United States would sign a peace
treaty and recognise it - the North's long-standing demands - if
it put off the nuclear test, the source with ties to Pyongyang
and Beijing said.

The 1950-53 Korean War, in which China helped North Korea
against the United States and South Korea, ended in a truce.

The threat of a nuclear test comes as Kim Jong-un, believed
to be in his late 20s and the third member of his family to rule
North Korea, seeks to cement his grip on power.

His father, Kim Jong-il, died in December after 17 years of
rule that included mismanagement that resulted in the starving
to death of an estimated 1 million people in the 1990s.

The untested Kim Jong-un has reaffirmed his father's
"military first" policies that have stunted economic growth,
dashing slim hopes of an opening to the outside world.

North Korean media recently upped its criticism of South
Korean President Lee Myung-bak, who cut off aid to the North
when he took power in 2008, calling him a "rat" and a "bastard"
and threatening to turn the South Korean capital to ashes.

(Additional reporting by David Chance in SEOUL; Editing by Don
Durfee and Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Copyright © 2012, Reuters

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....."LIFT" grade makes sense for the Philippines in terms of costs in operation and infrastructure and would allow them to build up a cadre of fast jet crews in preparation for jumping to 4th or 4.5th generation aircraft....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...uy-military-jets-amid-dispute-with-china.html

Philippines to Buy Military Jets Amid Sea Dispute With China (Update 1)
By Joel Guinto and Norman P. Aquino - May 16, 2012 1:31 AM PT

Facebook Share
LinkedIn
Google +1
15 Comments


The Philippines may buy two squadrons of military jets for as much as $1.6 billion, President Benigno Aquino said, as the country pushes to modernize its defenses amid a territorial dispute with China.

The government could buy new training jets for between $400 and $800 million per squadron and upgrade the planes to fighters, Aquino told Bombo Radyo today. The seller would be a “progressive nation” and not the U.S., the Philippines’ main ally, he said. A squadron includes between 16 and 24 jets.

“It may be from Europe, or somewhere nearer,” Aquino told Bombo Radyo. “That’s what the Armed Forces of the Philippines is studying to make it more economical.”

Aquino’s administration has embarked on a plan to upgrade the country’s military, which currently has no viable fighter jets. The plan is part of efforts to better address external threats and territorial disputes, which include increased tension with China over disputed waters in the South China Sea that are rich in fish, oil and gas.

“The standoff with China made the issue of a credible external defense an urgent one,” Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform, said in a telephone interview in Manila. “There are various territorial issues for which you need a credible external defense, not just the shoal.”

In a May 4 interview with Bloomberg News, Aquino said the Philippines has focused on quelling insurgencies and lawlessness, and that its ability to respond to external threats “has been very, very severely diminished.”

China has become more assertive over its claims to the South China Sea, while the U.S., which has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, has shifted its military posture toward the Asia-Pacific region.
Scarborough Standoff

The latest standoff, over a reef that the Philippines calls Panatag Shoal and China refers to as Huangyan Island, began in April when Chinese ships blocked the Philippines from inspecting Chinese fishing boats in the area. Aquino reiterated the Philippines’ claim on the reef in today’s radio interview.

“It’s our exclusive economic zone and we need to preserve our patrimony according to our constitution,” he said.

The Philippines plans to acquire 10 new helicopters and 21 refurbished ones this year for maritime surveillance, Aquino said in the May 4 interview.

The Philippines signed a five-year agreement with Italy earlier this year for the purchase of military hardware. Aquino didn’t specify today whether the money potentially spent on planes would be in addition to previous estimates for defense expenditures.

Defense Undersecretary Hernando Manalo said in January the nation aims to spend as much as 70 billion pesos ($1.6 billion) through 2020 to modernize its forces.

To contact the reporters on this story: Joel Guinto in Manila at jguinto1@bloomberg.net; Norman P. Aquino in Manila at naquino1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Clarissa Batino at cbatino@bloomberg.net; Peter Hirschberg at phirschberg@bloomberg.net

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/...-real-risk-of-syria-spillover-in-lebanon-iraq

Abu Muqawama: Locating the Real Risk of Syria Spillover in Lebanon, Iraq
By Andrew Exum, on 16 May 2012, Column

Over the past week, we have seen the first real case of sectarian violence spilling over from Syria into neighboring Lebanon. In clashes in and around the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli, at least five people have been killed in clashes that are, as I write this, winding down following the deployment of the Lebanese army.

This may seem like an odd time, then, to pour cold water on the risks of Syria’s sectarian conflict reigniting dormant civil conflicts in Lebanon and also Iraq. To be sure, there is a real danger the violence in Syria will spill over into neighboring countries, just not in the way that most suppose.

Lebanon and Iraq are both scarred by sectarianism and civil conflict. Lebanon has suffered from periodic outbursts of fighting in its short history, but the civil war of 1975-1990 looms largest in the country’s historical memory. In Iraq, meanwhile, the maelstrom of violence that followed the poorly conceived U.S. invasion in 2003 peaked between 2005 and 2007, when factions of Sunni and Shiite Arabs fought a brutal civil war that ended with entire neighborhoods of Baghdad “cleansed” of one sect or the other -- and with Iraq’s Shiite Arabs ultimately and decisively victorious.

It is only natural, then, given the troubled recent past of each country, that we worry about the ways in which the violence in Syria might reignite the still-hot embers of those conflicts. Though it might seem counterintuitive, in both countries that is unlikely.

In Iraq, the decisive way in which Shiite Arabs won the civil war combined with the successful U.S. effort to build and support Iraqi security forces makes it difficult for an insurgency to pose a strategic threat to the government. Although low-level political violence very much continues to be a feature of Iraq’s landscape, the way in which ethno-sectarian violence plummeted in 2007 points toward a new balance of power that any insurgent group would have a tough time seriously challenging. Car bombs may go off in Baghdad markets, but U.S. policymakers spend more time worrying about whether the Iraqi state is too strong, not whether it is too weak.

In Lebanon, meanwhile, a very similar balance of power has been established in the wake of a brief conflict in 2008 in which Hezbollah and militias associated with its political allies routed primarily Sunni rivals on the streets of Beirut and elsewhere. The Lebanese Civil War that ended in 1990 after 15 years of fighting lasted so long in part because military power was so multipolar -- many militias were capable, at any given time, of defending territory and challenging rivals. In the summer of 2008, by contrast, Lebanese saw clearly that no other armed faction in Lebanon -- not even the Lebanese armed forces -- poses a credible threat to Hezbollah’s dominance.

It is very unlikely that anything that happens -- or does not happen -- in Syria will seriously challenge the established balance of power in either Iraq or Lebanon. But that does not mean the conflict will not spill over into either country.

It is difficult to determine what, exactly, is driving the conflict in northern Lebanon right now. Although it is easy to assume the fighting in Syria is affecting what is taking place -- and it certainly is -- it is unclear what exactly caused the clashes. Some reports have pointed toward a long-standing dispute between two families, while others mention the arrest of an alleged Sunni militant leader. Regardless, and despite the deadly nature of the clashes, the picture of a Lebanese youth rushing a water pipe into the combat zone suggests the fighting was not terribly serious on a relative scale.

For civil war to resume in Lebanon, factional leaders would have to calculate that wider clashes would carry benefits that outweigh the costs of a broader conflict, but there is no evidence that even one of Lebanon’s major sectarian leaders believes this. In fact, none of Lebanon’s sectarian leaders have an interest in this kind of fighting growing into something larger. The bigger concern for Lebanese will be something akin to what happened in 2007, when Sunni militants operating out of the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon fought Lebanese security forces for weeks. The militants, led by a man who had either been recently released or had recently escaped from Syrian custody, provoked the Lebanese armed forces into eventually leveling the camp and displacing tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees. (Anti-Palestinian sentiment, in addition to the limited capabilities of the Lebanese armed forces, which was reliant on heavy artillery, help explain why the entire refugee camp was razed.)

In Iraq, meanwhile, it is also possible that Sunni militants might infiltrate across the border from Syria and wreak havoc. Again, the concern will not so much be that extremist acts will actually challenge the balance of power or start a larger conflict in Iraq, but rather that such actions might cause Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to adopt even more heavy-handed policies toward its political enemies.

Overshadowing all of this are the vast stores of chemical and biological weapons that remain in Syria. U.S. policymakers and officials from neighboring countries will most worry about the proliferation of these weapons. And if the 2007 fighting in Nahr al-Bared offers an ugly model for what “spillover” from Syria might look like, the U.S. response to the fighting -- it provided emergency supplies of arms and other military equipment to the Lebanese armed forces -- is a model for how Washington should partner with Syria’s neighbors to contain the effects of violence today.

The United States, uniquely, has positive relations with the security services of each of Syria’s immediate neighbors. Those relationships, built up over decades, could turn out to be quite useful as the United States works with Syria’s neighbors to avert the spillover that so many believe is inevitable, but that is in no one’s interests.

Andrew Exum is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and teaches a course in low-intensity conflict at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He blogs at Abu Muqawama. His WPR column, Abu Muqawama, appears every Wednesday.


More on this Region

With Eye on Regional Security, U.S. Looks Past Algeria's Flawed Elections
Deep State: Reading the Tea Leaves Ahead of Iran Nuclear Talks
Iran's Political Chaos Could Put Domestic, Foreign Policy on Hold
World Citizen: Israeli Realignment Changes Prospects for Peace and War
Georgia-Israel Love Affair Now a Messy Divorce

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2114967,00.html

Egyptian Military Hopes for 'Great Leader'
By AP / SARAH EL DEEB Wednesday, May 16, 2012

(CAIRO) — Egypt's military ruler said Wednesday he hopes that a "great leader" will emerge from the country's upcoming presidential election, and said it will be a free and fair vote that will reflect the will of the people.

The remarks by Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi were clearly meant to assuage fears among many Egyptians that the ruling military council may be pushing a preferred candidate of its own, and reassure them that the pervasive rigging routine under ousted president Hosni Mubarak will not take place.

It may also be meant to calm worries that the military will not go back on its pledges to hand over power to a winner who may well be the first president with a civilian background in the country's history.

(MORE: Egypt's Presidential Front Runners: Who Has the Worse Past?)

His address come a week before more than 50 million Egyptian voters are to choose the country's first president since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in a popular uprising in February 2011.

Tantawi said the armed forces, police and judiciary will ensure fair and free elections, according to comments carried by the state media. "We hope the elections yield whoever is good for great Egypt. We want a great leader for a great nation."

This is the country's first real competitive presidential race, with 13 candidates vying for the country's top job.

For the first time, Islamist candidates are making a bid for the presidency, and they are facing stiff competition from former members of the Mubarak regime, including his former foreign minister and his last prime minister, who like the ousted president is a former air force pilot.

It is unlikely that a winner will be determined in the first round of voting, and a runoff between two top candidates is expected on June 16-17. A president is expected to be declared by June 21. The military has promised to transfer power by the end of June.

(MORE: Egypt: The Presidential Candidate Who Came in from the Cold)

State TV's website quoted Tantawi as saying Egypt will present a "model to the world of elections that reflect the will of the people." Tantawi was speaking after attending a military training exercise.

Mubarak's regime practiced widespread rigging to ensure his opponents never came close to winning the presidency or a majority in parliament. Egypt's first post-Mubarak parliamentary elections that were spread out over three months starting in November witnessed some reports of violations but are generally thought to be the cleanest vote in decades.

Still, the stakes are arguably greater for the presidential vote, and many of the leaders of the uprising and several political forces, including the Islamists, fear the military council will try to steer the vote in favor of a candidate who will preserve their far-reaching economic and political interests built up over the past six decades. The military has been the source of all Egypt's leaders since the 1952 military coup.

The turbulent post-Mubarak transition has been marred by frequent violence, deteriorating economic indicators, and a rise in crime. This has prompted many Egyptians to look for a candidate who has the support or the blessing of the military— which is still seen by many as the last remaining strong national institution.

The strong performance of the Islamists in the parliamentary elections and their strong organizations has also stirred fear among many Egyptians they would monopolize power in the country if they succeed in their bid for president.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummmm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20120516p2g00m0in050000c.html

N. Korea conducting improvement work at missile launch site: sources

SEOUL (Kyodo) -- North Korea is carrying out improvement work on its missile launch site in Musudan-ri in the country's northeast, multiple diplomatic sources said Tuesday.

There is a possibility that a large-scale launch pad is being newly constructed, according to the sources.

While there have been reports that the facility at Musudan-ri is getting obsolete, fears have arisen that North Korea will launch long-range ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan.

In light of North Korea's declaration that as part of its "space development" future launches will include a geostationary satellite, U.S. and South Korean defense authorities have intensified surveillance.

One of the diplomatic sources said that the construction is still in the early stages, so no definite conclusion can be drawn but it is possible it is a launch pad for an intercontinental ballistic missile.

According to the sources, it has been ascertained that North Korea conducted several engine combustion tests for a long-range ballistic missile at Musudan-ri from the end of last year. However, at the current stage there are no signs that Pyongyang will soon launch a long-range ballistic missile.

North Korea test-fired two long-range missiles, in 1998 and 2009, from the Musudan-ri launch site toward the Pacific Ocean. The missiles overflew northern Japan and plunged into the Pacific.

On April 13, North Korea launched a long-range rocket carrying what it said was a satellite from the Sohae Satellite Launching Station in Tongchang-ri, about 50 kilometers south of the northern border with China. The rocket fell apart in the air soon after the liftoff, and Pyongyang acknowledged that the launch was a failure.

Jang Myong Jin, general manager of the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, told foreign media invited to tour the facility shortly before the launch that there is a "specific plan for a satellite launch" at the "East Sea satellite launch site" of Musudan-ri.

A geostationary satellite is typically launched toward the east, so the site at Tongchang-ri could not be used since there is land to the east of it where the first stage of the rocket would fall.

For this reason, there is a possibility that North Korea will launch a long-range ballistic missile under the guise of a geostationary satellite from Musudan-ri.

May 16, 2012(Mainichi Japan)

 

[sthrnfriedrocker]

Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination

By Karen DeYoung and Liz Sly, Published: May 15

Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials.

Obama administration officials emphasized that the United States is neither supplying nor funding the lethal material, which includes antitank weaponry. Instead, they said, the administration has expanded contacts with opposition military forces to provide the gulf nations with assessments of rebel credibility and command-and-control infrastructure.

“We are increasing our nonlethal assistance to the Syrian opposition, and we continue to coordinate our efforts with friends and allies in the region and beyond in order to have the biggest impact on what we are collectively doing,” said a senior State Department official, one of several U.S. and foreign government officials who discussed the evolving effort on the condition of anonymity.

The U.S. contacts with the rebel military and the information-sharing with gulf nations mark a shift in Obama administration policy as hopes dim for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Many officials now consider an expanding military confrontation to be inevitable.

Material is being stockpiled in Damascus, in Idlib near the Turkish border and in Zabadani on the Lebanese border. Opposition activists who two months ago said the rebels were running out of ammunition said this week that the flow of weapons — most still bought on the black market in neighboring countries or from elements of the Syrian military — has significantly increased after a decision by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other gulf states to provide millions of dollars in funding each month.

Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood also said it has opened its own supply channel to the rebels, using resources from wealthy private individuals and money from gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, said Mulham al-Drobi, a member of the Brotherhood’s executive committee.

The new supplies reversed months of setbacks for the rebels that forced them to withdraw from their stronghold in the Baba Amr neighborhood of Homs and many other areas in Idlib and elsewhere.

“Large shipments have got through,” another opposition figure said. “Some areas are loaded with weapons.”

The effect of the new arms appeared evident in Monday’s clash between opposition and government forces over control of the rebel-held city of Rastan, near Homs. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said rebel forces who overran a government base had killed 23 Syrian soldiers.

Administration officials also held talks in Washington this week with a delegation of Kurds from sparsely populated eastern Syria, where little violence has occurred. The talks included discussion of what one U.S. official said remained the “theoretical” possibility of opening a second front against Assad’s forces that would compel him to move resources from the west.

Syria will also be on the agenda at this weekend’s NATO summit in Chicago, according to administration officials.

Although the alliance has repeatedly said it will not become involved in Syria, Turkey has indicated that it may invoke Article IV of the NATO Charter, which would open the door to consultations on threats to Turkish security and consideration of mutual defense provisions of Article V of the charter.

Last month, after Syrian forces fatally shot four fleeing Syrians who had crossed into Turkey, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that under Article V, “NATO has responsibilities to protect the Turkish border.”

The Turks, who have grown increasingly anxious about the growing conflict in their neighboring country, have resisted direct military involvement without the international legitimacy of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Efforts to pass a resolution authorizing any intervention beyond humanitarian aid have been blocked by opposition from Russia and China.

But Turkey’s position has been evolving, with military officials who once opposed any kind of non-political intervention now seeing the region becoming increasingly involved in the crisis. Shiites and Sunnis in neighboring Lebanon battled this week over the Syrian situation, raising concern both in Ankara and Washington.

Officials in the region said that Turkey’s main concern is where the United States stands, and whether it and others will support armed protection for a safe zone along the border or back other options that have been discussed.

The United States and its allies remain formally committed to a U.N. peace plan being spearheaded by former secretary general Kofi Annan. Nearly two-thirds of an authorized 300 unarmed U.N. military monitors have arrived in Syria, with the rest due by the end of this month.

But even Annan has acknowledged the initiative has failed so far to significantly quell the violence or make progress toward a political transition. U.S. officials have said they feel constrained from declaring the mission a failure, at least until the full complement of monitors arrives. Annan himself has expressed pessimism over prospects for success.

Opposition figures said they have been in direct contact with State Department officials to designate worthy rebel recipients of arms and pinpoint locations for stockpiles, but U.S. officials said that there currently are no military or intelligence personnel on the ground in Syria.

The Pentagon has prepared options for Syria extending all the way to air assaults to destroy the nation’s air defenses. U.S. officials, however, have said that such involvement remains very unlikely. Instead, they said, the United States and others are moving forward toward increased coordination of intelligence and arming for the rebel forces.

The Sunni-led gulf states, which would see the fall of Assad as a blow against Shiite Iran, would welcome such assistance, but they would like a more formal approach. One gulf official described the Obama administration’s gradual evolution from an initial refusal to consider any action outside the political realm to a current position falling “between ‘here’s what we need to do’ and ‘we’re doing it.’”

“Various people are hoping that the U.S. will step up its efforts to undermine or confront the Syrian regime,” the gulf official said. “We want them to get rid” of Assad.

Since the uprising began early last year, U.S. efforts to promote a political solution have been stymied by Assad’s political intransigence and his ongoing military assault on Syrian towns and cities, as well as the opposition’s failure to agree on a unified political leadership or game plan.

Despite administration hopes that the Sunni-led Syrian National Congress would become an umbrella organization, it has failed to win support from minority Syrian Christians, Kurds, Druze and Assad’s Alawite sect. All have resisted what they say is the group’s domination by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Free Syrian Army, the opposition military force, has resisted direction from the fractured political opposition. Its troops, many of them Syrian army defectors, are said to operate in independent entities spread across Syria, leading the United States and others in the past to express caution about assisting them.

Sly reported from Beirut.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story_1.html

 

[Be Well]

=

Gates: Israeli Strike On Iran
‘May End Up In A Much Larger Middle East Conflict’

By Ali Gharib on May 16, 2012 at 12:15 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/16/484932/gates-israel-iran-middle-east-conflict/​

The former Secretary of Defense to the George W. Bush and Obama administrations Robert Gates said in an interview on CBS aired this morning that getting Iran to give up any potential ambitions to nuclear weapons was the “only good option” for dealing with the nuclear standoff with the West. He warned that an Israeli attack on Iran could spark a regional war.

Interviewer Charlie Rose asked Gates about his comment that Iran was the toughest challenge he has faced. Gates suggested, in line with the Obama administration, that a diplomatically negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis was the sole way to deal with the issues without major drawbacks. Gates said:


GATES: The only good option is putting enough pressure on the Iranian government that they make the decision for themselves that continuing to seek nuclear weapons is actually harming the security of the country and, perhaps more importantly to them, putting the regime itself at risk. And there are signs that those sanctions are beginning to really bite and some much more severe European Union sanctions will come into effect this summer.

ROSE: What if Israel does it on its own?

GATES: That would be worse than us doing it. Because I think that then has lots of regional complications that may end up in a much larger Middle East conflict. So I think that would be worse.

Watch the video:

Gates has offered warnings about attacking Iran before, declaring that even a U.S. strike would be a “catastrophe.” So his statement that an Israeli strike would be “worse” is significant. And a Pentagon wargame reported by the New York Times this year found the U.S. got dragged into the conflict after an Israeli strike.

A top U.S. security thinktank that advises the Pentagon released an article in its journal yesterday advising against a U.S. or Israeli strike against Iran. The article from the RAND Corporation by, among others, top former U.S. diplomat James Dobbins, noted that a strike “would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons” — in line with assessements from some top former Israeli officials.

The RAND article called for more U.S.-Israeli cooperation and for the U.S. to quietly “support the assessments of former and current Israeli officials who have argued against a military option.” Many former top Israeli security officials have criticized Israel’s hawkish government for an eagerness to attack Iran without dealing with potential consequences of such an attack.

Gates seemed to be using shorthand when discussing Iran’s “continuing to seek nuclear weapons.” While a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime, reports on U.S. and Israeli estimates state that these intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran has made a decision to build nuclear weapons.

Those estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. American officials including President Obama vow to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, but questions about the efficacy and consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.





=

Yeah right, Iran's going to change and give up all nuke plans/ etc. Thank you, TFD and HC for all the news! I'll be reading more carefully now, been busy lately but things are heating up.