WAR 02/06 to 02/13 ***The***Winds***Of***WAR***

=






Obama says U.S. working ‘in lockstep’ with Israel on Iran

By Agence France-Presse
Sunday, February 5, 2012 18:39 EST
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/05/obama-says-u-s-working-in-lockstep-with-israel-on-iran/

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Sunday sought to reassure Americans over the threat posed by Iran, saying the United States was working “in lockstep” with Israel to bring Tehran to heel over its suspect nuclear program.

Obama said the Islamic republic was “feeling the pinch” of ever tougher sanctions imposed by the international community, and dismissed concerns that Tehran could retaliate by striking US soil, saying such a strike was unlikely.


“I’ve been very clear — we’re going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating a nuclear arms race in a volatile region,” Obama said in a live pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC.

“We have mobilized the international community, in a way that is unprecedented. They are feeling the pinch. They are feeling the pressure,” he said.

“My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States. But also, the security of Israel. And we’re going to make sure that we work in lockstep, as we proceed to try to solve this — hopefully diplomatically.”

When asked if he believed the Jewish state would launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, Obama replied: “I don’t think Israel has made a decision.”

Asked if Washington would be consulted first, he said he couldn’t go into specifics but added that the two allies had “closer intelligence and military consultations” than ever before.

On whether Iran could possibly strike US targets in retaliation, Obama said: “We don’t see any evidence they have those intentions or capabilities.”

He added: “Again, our goal is to resolve this diplomatically. That would be preferable. We’re not going to take options off the table, though.”

The US president cautioned that “any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive. And has a big effect on us. It can affect oil prices.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was due in Washington on Monday, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit the United States in early March, though a meeting between Netanyahu and Obama was not yet confirmed.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for strictly peaceful purposes.





=
 
=







Iran to hit any base used to attack its soil

TEHRAN: Iran will target any country used as a launchpad for attacks against its soil, the deputy Revolutionary Guards commander said, expanding Tehran’s range of threats in an increasingly volatile standoff with world powers over its nuclear ambitions. Last week, Iran’s supreme clerical leader threatened reprisals for the West’s new ban on Iranian oil exports and the U.S. defense secretary was quoted as saying Israel was likely to bomb Iran within months to stop it assembling nuclear weapons.


Although broadened and sharpened financial sanctions have begun to inflict serious economic pain in Iran, its oil minister asserted Saturday it would make no nuclear retreat even if its crude oil exports ground to a halt.

Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes. But its recent shift of uranium enrichment to a mountain bunker possibly impervious to conventional bombing, and refusal to negotiate peaceful guarantees for the program or open up to U.N. nuclear inspectors have thickened an atmosphere of brewing confrontation, raising fears for Gulf oil supplies.

“Any spot used by the enemy for hostile operations against Iran will be subjected to retaliatory aggression by our armed forces,” Hossein Salami, deputy head of the elite Revolutionary Guards, told the semiofficial Fars news agency Sunday.

The Guards began two days of military maneuvers in southern Iran Saturday in another show of force for Iran’s adversaries associated with tensions over its disputed nuclear program.

The United States and Israel, Iran’s archenemies, have not ruled out a military strike on Tehran if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear stalemate.

Salami did not identify which countries he meant as possible hosts for military action against it.

The six U.S.-allied Arab states in the Gulf Cooperation Council situated on the other side of the vital oil exporting waterway from Iran, have said they would not allow their territories to be used for attacks on the Iran.

However, analysts say that if Iran retaliated for an attack launched from outside the region by targeting U.S. facilities in Gulf Arab states, Washington might pressure the host nations to permit those bases to hit back, arguing they should have the right to defend themselves.

The Gulf states that host United States military facilities are Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.

Iran has warned its response to any such strike will be “painful,” threatening to target Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, along with closing the Strait of Hormuz used by one third of the world’s seaborne oil traffic.

Betraying nervousness about possible blowback from any military strike on Iran, two of its neighbors – Qatar and Turkey – urged the West Sunday to make greater efforts to negotiate a solution to the nuclear row.

Speaking at the annual Munich Security Conference attended by top world policymakers, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said an attack would be a “disaster” and the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program could be ended very rapidly.

“A military option will create a disaster in our region. So before that disaster, everybody must be serious in negotiations. We hope soon both sides will meet again but this time there will be a complete result,” he said.

Turkey was the venue of the last talks between Western powers and Iran a year ago which ended in stalemate because participants could not even agree on an agenda.

Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid Mohammad al-Attiyah said an attack “is not a solution, and tightening the embargo on Iran will make the scenario worse.

Speaking amid a climate of heightened tensions with Iran and Syria Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that economic and military might are Israel’s only guarantee for security and vowed to continue to build their military capacity.

“In the past few days we received a reminder of what kind of neighborhood we live in,” Netanyahu said. “We shall continue to build the military, economic and social strength of Israel; that is the only guarantee for peace and also Israel’s only defense if peace collapses.”

Israel also named the new head of Israeli air force Sunday, fueling speculation that Israel is preparing for a strike. Former fighter pilot Amir Eshel replaced Ido Nehushtan in the key post.

Tehran has warned several times it may seal off the Strait of Hormuz, throttling the supply of Gulf crude and gas, if attacked or if sanctions mean it cannot export its oil.

A military strike on Iran and Iran’s response, which might include an attack on the oilfields of No. 1 exporter Saudi Arabia, would send oil prices soaring, which could seriously harm the global economy.


Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mi...se-used-to-attack-its-soil.ashx#ixzz1lYYQwOfY
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)



=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
01/30 to 02/05 ***The**Winds***of***WAR***
Started by The Flying Dutchman‎, 01-30-2012 04:56 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?398526-01-30-to-02-05-***The**Winds***of***WAR***
_____

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/05/nigeria-oil-attack-idUSL5E8D506420120205

UPDATE 2-Nigerian militants attack Eni oil pipeline in delta
Sun Feb 5, 2012 4:14pm EST

* Niger Delta militants took up amnesty in 2009

* Military blames criminal gangs for attack

* Oil-producing Bayelsa state holds vote next week

By Tife Owalabi

YENAGOA, Nigeria, Feb 5 (Reuters) - A Nigerian militant group based in the oil-producing Niger Delta said it attacked an oil pipeline owned by Italian firm Eni on Sunday, a strike the military said was the work of criminal gangs.

Witnesses reported a fire on the oil and gas group's Nembe-Brass pipeline late on Saturday, and ENI said the damage would mean the loss of about 4,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day.

A statement sent to media said it was from the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), formerly Nigeria's main militant threat and responsible for years of attacks on the oil industry until a 2009 amnesty.

Under the amnesty thousands of militants gave up their weapons, joined training schemes and drew stipends. Security sources say remaining gangs in the Niger Delta do not have the capacity to do the damage seen in the past, which at its height cut more than a third of the OPEC-member's output.

Several false threats purporting to be from MEND have been sent in the past and most recent damage caused to Nigeria's oil infrastructure has been done by gangs stealing oil for illicit refining and sale, rather than due to militant strikes.

"On Saturday the 4th of February at 1930hrs, fighters of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (M.E.N.D) attacked and destroyed the Agip (ENI) trunk line at Brass in Bayelsa State in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria," the emailed statement said.

"This relatively insignificant attack is a reminder of our presence in the creeks of the Niger Delta and a sign of things to come."

Bayelsa, the home state of President Goodluck Jonathan, is due to hold a governorship election next week.

A falling out between him and former governor Timipre Sylva, who was barred from running again on the ruling party ticket, has degenerated into a slanging match in local media.

Such disputes often trigger a spike in violence in the volatile Delta, although no one suspects this pipeline attack to be directly linked to the row.

The joint military task force (JTF) operating in the Niger Delta said recent unrest stemmed from criminal gangs who wanted expired amnesty benefits.

"Unfortunately, people who were never part of the agitation have emerged and want to claim amnesty and its benefits by force," Timothy Antigha, spokesman for the JTF in Bayelsa state, said in reaction to the MEND statement.

"The JTF advices Niger Deltans to be mindful of people who are out to swindle them by wrongfully appropriating the identity of the erstwhile leadership of MEND to curry sympathy for their selfish and criminal interests."

The military presence in the state has been beefed up ahead of the Feb. 11 governorship vote.

Governors are some of the most powerful politicians in Africa's most populous nation, in some cases controlling budgets bigger than those of entire nations.

Jonathan can ill-afford unrest in his home region as he is already struggling to cope with almost daily violence carried out by radical Islamist sect Boko Haram in northern Nigeria.

Related News

* Militants claim attack on Nigeria Eni oil pipeline
3:33am EST
* Special Report: Boko Haram - between rebellion and jihad
Tue, Jan 31 2012
* Nigeria president tells Boko Haram to come out and talk
Thu, Jan 26 2012
* Islamist insurgents kill over 178 in Nigeria's Kano
Sun, Jan 22 2012
* Nigerian sect kills over 100 in deadliest strike yet
Sat, Jan 21 2012

Analysis & Opinion

* Special Report: Nigeria’s Boko Haram – between rebellion and jihad
* Nigeria’s President Jonathan tells violent Islamists of Boko Haram to come out and talk

Related Topics

* Stocks »
* Markets »
* Energy »
 
=








Sunday, Feb. 05, 2012

Fears grow that Israel attack on Iran imminent

Obama says U.S. will back Israel

By Dan Perry and Josef Federman - The Associated Press
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/02/05/2643255/fears-grow-that-israel-attack.html

JERUSALEM -- For the first time in nearly two decades of escalating tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, world leaders are genuinely concerned that an Israeli military attack on the Islamic Republic could be imminent – an action that many fear might trigger a wider war, terrorism and global economic havoc.

High-level foreign dignitaries, including the U.N. chief and the head of the American military, have stopped in Israel in recent weeks, urging leaders to give the diplomatic process more time to work. But U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has reportedly concluded that an Israeli attack on Iran is likely in the coming months.

President Obama says the U.S. will work in “lockstep” with Israel to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and says he hopes that the crisis will be resolved diplomatically.


Iranian leader dismisses sanctions, warns US against war

Obama told NBC in an interview from the White House on Sunday that Israel is “rightly” very concerned about Iran's nuclear program. He said both Israel and the U.S. “believe that Iran has to stand down.”

Last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wouldn't dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

When asked about a potential attack by Iran on the U.S., Obama said, “We don't see any evidence that they have those intentions or capabilities right now.”


Despite harsh economic sanctions and international pressure, Iran is refusing to abandon its nuclear program, which it insists is purely civilian, and threatening Israel and the West.

It’s beginning to cause jitters in world capitals and financial markets.

“Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict,” Britain’s deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said in a magazine interview last week. He said Britain was “straining every single sinew to resolve this through a combination of pressure and engagement,” rather than military action.

Is Israel bluffing? Israeli leaders have been claiming Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons since the early 1990s, and defense officials have issued a series of ever-changing estimates on how close Iran is to the bomb. But the saber-rattling has become much more direct and vocal.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently draws parallels between modern-day Iran and Nazi Germany on the eve of the Holocaust.

On Thursday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak claimed during a high-profile security conference that there is a “wide global understanding” that military action may be needed.

“There is no argument about the intolerable danger a nuclear Iran [would pose] to the future of the Middle East, the security of Israel and to the economic and security stability of the entire world,” Barak said.

A day earlier, visiting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon implored Israel to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff.

Israel views Iran as a mortal threat, citing Iranian calls for Israel’s destruction, Iran’s support for anti-Israel militant groups and Iranian missile technology capable of hitting Israel.

On Friday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and boasted of supporting any group that will challenge the Jewish state.

When faced with such threats, Israeli has a history of lashing out in the face of world opposition. That legacy that includes the game-changing 1967 Middle East war, which left Israel in control of vast Arab lands, a brazen 1981 airstrike that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor, and a stealthy 2007 airstrike in Syria that is believed to have destroyed a nuclear reactor in the early stages of construction.

Armed with a fleet of ultramodern U.S.-made fighter planes and unmanned drones, and reportedly possessing intermediate-range Jericho missiles, Israel has the capability to take action against Iran too, though it would carry grave risks.

It would require flying over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria or Turkey. It is uncertain whether any of these Muslim countries would knowingly allow Israel to use their airspace.

With targets some 1,000 miles away, Israeli planes would likely have the complicated task of refueling in flight. Iran’s antiquated air force, however, is unlikely to provide much of a challenge.

Many in the region cannot believe Israel would take such a step without a green light from the United States, its most important ally. That sense is deepened by the heightened stakes of a U.S. election year and the feeling that if Israel acts alone, the West would not escape unscathed.

The U.S. has been trying to push both sides, leading the charge for international sanctions while also pressing Israel to give the sanctions more time. In recent weeks, both the U.S. and European Union have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran’s oil sector, the lifeblood of its economy, and its central bank. Israeli officials say they want the sanctions to be imposed faster and for more countries to join them.

Last week, The Associated Press reported that officials in Israel – all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Iran – were concerned that the measures, while welcome, were constraining Israel in its ability to act because the world expected the effort to be given a chance.

Even a limited Israeli operation could well unleash regionwide fighting. Iran could launch its Shihab 3 missiles at Israel, and have its local proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, unleash rockets. Israel’s military intelligence chief, Aviv Kochavi, warned last week that Israel’s enemies possess some 200,000 rockets.

While sustained rocket and missile fire would certainly make life uncomfortable in Israel, Barak himself has said he believes casualties would be low – suggesting it would be in the hundreds.

Iran might also try to attack Western targets in the region, including the thousands of U.S. forces based in the Gulf with the 5th Fleet.

An Israeli attack might have other unintended consequences. A European diplomat based in Pakistan, permitted to speak only under condition of anonymity, said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation. That raises the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

To some, the greatest risk is to the moribund world economy.

Analysts believe an Israeli attack would cause oil prices to spike, since global markets so far have largely dismissed the Israeli threats and not “price in” the threat. According to one poll conducted by the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm in Bethesda, Maryland, prices would surge by $23 a barrel. The price of oil settled Friday at $97.84 a barrel.

“Traders don’t believe there’s anything but bluster going on,” said Robert McNally, president of Rapidan and an energy adviser to former President George W. Bush. “A potential Israeli attack on Iran is different than almost every scenario that we’ve seen before.”

McNally said Iran could rattle oil markets by targeting oil fields in southern Iraq or export facilities in Saudi Arabia or Qatar – and withhold sales of its own oil and natural gas from countries not boycotting.

Iran also could attempt to carry out its biggest threat: to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes. That could send oil prices soaring beyond $200 a barrel. But analysts note Iran’s navy is overmatched.

If a surge in oil prices proved lasting, financial markets would probably plummet on concerns that global economic growth would slow and on the fear that any conflict could worsen and spread.

For the U.S. economy, higher gasoline prices would likely result in lower consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of U.S. economic activity. That could have devastating consequences for an incumbent president seeking re-election.

Nick Witney, former head of the EU’s European Defense Agency, said “the political and economic consequences of an Israeli attack would be catastrophic for Europe” since the likely spike in the price of oil alone “could push the entire EU, including Germany, into recession.”

He said this could lead to “messy defaults” by countries like Greece and Italy, and possibly cause a collapse of the already-wobbly euro. Witney, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, added that “the Iranians would probably retaliate against European interests in the region, and conceivably more directly with terrorism aimed at Western countries and societies.”

Oil disruptions or higher oil prices will also dent growth in Asia. China, India, South Korea and Japan all buy substantial amounts of Iranian crude and could face temporary shortages.

China’s fast-growing economy, which gets 11 percent of its oil from Iran, has urged all sides to avoid disrupting supplies. Any impact on China’s economy, the world’s second-largest, could send out global shockwaves if it dented Chinese demand for industrial components and raw materials.

Why is the issue coming to a head with such unfortunate timing, with the U.S. election looming and the global economy hanging by a razor’s edge?

The urgency is fueled by a belief in Israel that Iran is moving centrifuges and key installations deep underground by the summer – combined with doubts about whether either Israel or the United States have the bunker-busting capacity to act effectively thereafter.

At last week’s security conference, Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, a former military chief, said all of Iran’s nuclear installations are still vulnerable to military strikes. In a startling threat, he appeared to contradict assessments of foreign experts and Israeli defense officials that it would be difficult to strike sensitive Iranian nuclear targets hidden deep underground.

American officials acknowledge the current version of its bunker-buster bombs – considered the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal – may not be able to penetrate Iran’s heavily fortified underground facilities. The Pentagon is asking Congress to reprogram about $82 million in order to make the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb more capable.

But U.S. officials also say there are a number of ways to cripple or disable the sites, such as targeting entrance and exit routes to an underground facility, rendering it inaccessible.

Israeli officials at the conference asserted that Iran has already produced enough enriched uranium to eventually build four rudimentary nuclear bombs and – in what would be a new twist – was even developing missiles capable of reaching the U.S.

Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israel’s military intelligence, said the world needed less discussion on the issue. “There is the danger that an escalation could get out of control,” he said. “Israel should go back to what it does best: Shut up.”



Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/02/05/2643255/fears-grow-that-israel-attack.html#storylink=cpy



=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...rearm-with-Libyan-weapons/UPI-32231328477661/

Mali rebels rearm with Libyan weapons
Published: Feb. 5, 2012 at 4:34 PM

BAMAKO, Mali, Feb. 5 (UPI) -- Rebels in the African nation of Mali say the revolution in neighboring Libya has produced a windfall of weapons for their arsenals.

The Tuareg movement in particular cashed in as its fighters pitched in with Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi during the uprising and came home with fresh supplies of rifles, machine guns, mortars and other heavier weapons they are now using in their own rebellion.

"This is a fairly significant military force," Pierre Boilley, an expert on the Tuareg at the University of Paris, told The New York Times. "The game has changed. They can directly attack the Malian army. I think the army will have trouble."

The Tuareg are seeking independence from Mali, a nation the Times called an important U.S. ally against al-Qaida. Their guerrilla force of roughly 1,000 fighters has scored a number of victories in recent months against the Malian army.

"All of a sudden we found ourselves face to face with a thousand men, heavily armed," said Malian Foreign Minister Soumeylou Boubeye Maiga. "The stability of the entire region could be under threat."

© 2012 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

___

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/tuaregs-african-nomads-smugglers-and-mercenaries

The Tuaregs: From African Nomads to Smugglers and Mercenaries
February 2, 2012 | 1300 GMT
Summary

ISSOUF SANOGO/AFP/Getty Images

Tuaregs on camelback Sept. 25, 2010, during a festival in northern Niger
The Tuaregs, a nomadic tribe in North and West Africa, dominated the caravan trade through the Sahara Desert for thousands of years. Their entire way of life was disrupted, however, by the imposition of borders, natural desertification, urbanization and the rise of maritime trade. In their quest to survive, the Tuaregs have launched several revolts in Mali and Niger, fought as mercenaries in the Libyan civil war and used their expertise to smuggle illicit goods, which brought them into contact with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). It is the development of these skills and links to AQIM that have brought the Tuaregs to Western governments' attention.

Analysis

In late August 2011, Ibrahim Ag Bahanga, a Tuareg rebel who led an uprising in Mali in 2007-2009 before fleeing to Libya, re-emerged in northern Mali. He conducted an interview via satellite phone Aug. 26 with Algerian newspaper Al Watan during which he vowed to renew the Tuareg rebellion. Within hours of the interview, Ag Bahanga was killed in a car crash in Mali's Kidal region -- an event that was probably not an accident.

Ag Bahanga was among an estimated 800 Tuaregs who fought as mercenaries in the Libyan civil war and had begun returning home in late 2011 as the conflict drew to a close. The Tuaregs' native countries, particularly Mali and Niger, had endured a number of Tuareg uprisings over the past several decades, so they were rightfully concerned about the arrival of hundreds of trained and equipped fighters. Ag Bahanga was designated "enemy No. 1" by the U.S.-trained Malian counterterrorism unit tasked with combating the Tuareg rebellion.

The returning Tuareg fighters are more than just rebels and mercenaries, however. They have also taken up weapon, drug and hostage smuggling in a region with which they are intimately familiar, and they have been accused of having links to AQIM. Their knowledge of the terrain, history of militancy and smuggling, and links to an al Qaeda franchise group have brought the Tuaregs to the attention of Western governments, which are concerned that the Tuaregs could become a source of manpower for transnational terrorism.
Who Are the Tuaregs?

The Tuaregs are a pastoralist, trans-state ethnicity that originated in North Africa. Estimated to number more than 1 million, the Tuaregs are most populous in Mali, Niger and Algeria, though they can also be found in Libya, Burkina Faso and Mauritania.

The Tuaregs have not always been fighters and smugglers. For more than two millennia they dominated the caravan trade through the Sahara Desert, surviving on an innate knowledge of the landscape's every protective campsite and water hole from Dori, Burkina Faso, to Tamanrasset, Algeria. Historically, they sold livestock, textiles, salt, small weapons and gems, preserved food and, earlier, slaves and gold. To this day the Tuaregs remain one of the few ethnicities to frequent the Sahara, where water is scarce and temperatures can easily exceed 38 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit).

In the past century, three trends have upended the Tuaregs' entire way of life: the imposition of borders in North and West Africa, urbanization and natural desertification in the region, and the emergence of new technology and maritime trade.

For thousands of years the Tuaregs roamed the Sahara freely. Even when the French placed West Africa under colonial rule in the late 19th century, there was little change for the Tuaregs (though there was sporadic fighting in the early 20th century as well as a brief rebellion in northern Niger in 1916-1917 when France tried to impose taxes and assert authority over the Tuaregs and their land). But when Mali and Niger declared independence in 1960, they began claiming territory that for thousands of years had belonged to no one -- but that was the Tuaregs' domain in practice. With the structure of the outside world thrust upon them for the first time, the Tuaregs launched a guerrilla-style revolt in the mountains of northern Mali from 1961 until the Malian army defeated them in 1964.

In the 1970s and 1980s, overgrazing and a widespread drought resulted in the desertification of large parts of northern Mali and Niger, which forced many Tuaregs to migrate, mostly to Algeria and Libya. Simultaneously, urbanization was changing the landscape of the region. Non-Tuareg farmers gradually claimed land that the Tuaregs had long inhabited or used as trade routes, which put the Tuaregs in constant conflict with modern society.

In Libya, some of the Tuaregs who had left their former homeland were recruited into Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's Islamic Legion, a special military regiment created in 1972 to help unify the region in preparation for Gadhafi's envisioned "United States of Africa." But the Islamic Legion was disbanded in 1987 after its defeat in Chad. With promises of assistance from the Malian and Nigerien governments, Tuareg fighters -- trained, armed and funded -- began to return to Mali and Niger. Tensions quickly rose as Tuaregs clashed with non-Tuareg farmers in Mali. As time passed and the governments' promised aid failed to materialize, frustration among the Tuaregs boiled over.

Hundreds of Tuaregs were arrested in Niger in the spring of 1990 and were accused of attacking Nigerien government buildings. A full-scale revolt erupted months later when Tuareg rebels in Mali attacked a police station near the Nigerien border that reportedly was holding Tuaregs from Niger. Violence between the Tuaregs and the Malian and Nigerien governments engulfed both countries and lasted until French- and U.S.-mediated talks brought about peace agreements in Mali in 1992 and in Niger in 1995. The agreements called for the decentralization of government and more even distribution of benefits. The agreements also promised to integrate former Tuareg rebels into the countries' respective national armies.

Though the governments had promised aid to the Tuaregs, they tended instead to dedicate their limited resources to developing their respective southern regions, where the majority of their populations live. Impoverished and underdeveloped, the Tuaregs' traditional territories became potential havens for Islamist militants to operate, and links began to form between the Tuaregs and AQIM. It was at this time in the mid-to-late 1990s that France and the United States launched anti-terrorism initiatives to train the Tuaregs to combat Islamist militants, including al Qaeda. The results of this training, and of the time spent with the Libyan military, were evident in 2007, when two Tuareg groups -- the Mali-based Alliance for Democratic Change, co-led by Ag Bahanga and Iyad Ag Ghali, and the Niger-based Niger Movement for Justice, led by Aghaly Ag Alambo -- separately but simultaneously rebelled against the Malian and Nigerien governments. The uprising was more sophisticated than any by the Tuaregs that had come before, and the peace that was achieved in 2009 would prove to be fragile.

On Jan. 16, Tuareg rebels began a series of assaults on multiple military targets in northeastern Mali. A spokesman for the rebels said the uprising was in response to the collapse of negotiations with the Malian government. The attacks are ongoing and have continued for more than two weeks, leaving at least 47 dead and causing thousands to flee the attacked cities. The attacks are similar in targeting, including the order in which the cities are attacked, to the 2007 revolt, but they have covered a much wider area, stretching from the Kidal region to Lere, just southwest of Timbuktu.
The Terrorism Threat

The third trend that disturbed the Tuaregs' way of life was the development of new technologies that increased the use of maritime trade. For thousands of years the Tuaregs had been the vehicle for trade in North and West Africa. Today, the vast majority of world trade is seaborne. This significantly reduced the value of the Tuaregs' trade routes, which eventually led them to resort to moving illicit goods such as drugs, weapons and hostages. According to open-source reports since 2008, one of the Tuaregs' main partners in this illicit trade network has been AQIM.

In 2009, a Tuareg man from Mauritania, Omar Sid Ahmed Ould Hamma, was apprehended in connection with at least two kidnappings later claimed by AQIM. During his interrogation, Hamma insisted that he was not a member of AQIM but that he had transferred the hostages to the group for money. Additionally, the chamber of commerce president in Kidal region has expressed concern that young Tuaregs may regard kidnapping Westerners and handing them over to AQIM as a lucrative business.

It is important to note that the Tuaregs' interaction with AQIM is likely based more on economic interests, not ideological similarities. This is evidenced by the role of Tuareg mercenaries in the Libyan civil war. An unnamed security source told AFP that some 800 Tuaregs fought alongside Gadhafi's forces in that conflict, but they reportedly stopped fighting before the Gadhafi regime fell when it became clear that the payments would soon stop.

In less than a century the entire way of life of the Tuaregs has been indelibly altered. The strategies that they have taken to adjust to this new reality -- smuggling illicit goods, trading with an al Qaeda franchise group, fighting regional governments to secure patronage and working as guns for hire -- have captured the attention of Western security agencies. With the Libyan conflict over, there has been an influx in Niger and Mali of trained fighters who know the terrain, have smuggling expertise and have connections to AQIM. The West will be closely watching the purported links between the Tuaregs and AQIM.
 

CGTech

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I give it 3 to 5 weeks.... if we even have that long. Thanks again, Dutch.
 
=






Monday, February 6, 2012

Syria on brink of civil war as diplomacy fails to move Assad

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0206/1224311335174.html

FOR SYRIA’S president, it was business as usual, even as his country experienced one of its most dramatic and violent moments.

On Saturday, Bashar al-Assad was at work in his heavily guarded Damascus palace. Yesterday, he celebrated a Muslim holiday as state media reported triumphantly on the defeat of the “Arab-western conspiracy”.


Ninety minutes north of the capital, in Homs, residents were burying their dead after what Barack Obama condemned as an “unspeakable assault”, a murderous overnight attack that left dozens dead. With at least 6,000 people killed in the past 10 months and international diplomacy in tatters, Syria is teetering on the brink of civil war. Its president shows no sign of changing tack.

Thanks to the vetoes of Russia and China, the UN Security Council failed to pass a watered-down resolution backing a “Syrian-led” political transition. The draft contained no threat of sanctions or punitive action, let alone Libyan-style military intervention.

That defeat was grim news for the main opposition group, the Syrian National Council, which put all its eggs in the basket offered by the Arab League – proactive regional diplomacy led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and backed by the West.

Burhan Ghalioun, the council’s exiled leader, pledged yesterday to work “outside the security council”.

“The SNC’s whole strategy was for the cavalry to come over the hill – whether that meant the Arab League, the UN or Nato,” said a Damascus-based diplomat. “They don’t have an alternative. Their whole raison d’etre has disappeared.” Perhaps, though, suggested analyst Rime Allaf, there is a silver lining. “Russia’s veto showed that Assad’s supporters are not really prepared to negotiate,” she said. “Everything is clearer now that we know – even if things will get worse.” On the ground, the activists of the local co-ordination committees and the fighters of the Free Syrian Army already sound more defiant.

“In the coming days, many Syrians are going to do a lot of soul-searching, ultimately leading to a decision to support armed struggle,” one activist tweeted. “We have to depend solely on Syrians to liberate ourselves,” insisted another.

“Where do I donate to buy arms for the Free Syrian Army?” asked a third.

Overnight, demonstrations in the suburbs of Damascus displayed growing readiness to risk everything. But the balance of forces between the regime and its armed opponents remains terrifyingly unequal. In Homs, BBC correspondent Paul Wood reported from inside the city, it was a battle of “Kalashnikovs versus tanks”.

Propaganda is certainly playing a role. Initial claims of hundreds of dead in the shelling of the Khaldiyeh area of Homs were revised downwards by one opposition group on Sunday as a Syrian minister lambasted “fabricated” information in a “hysterical media war conducted by the armed terrorist gangs and their mouthpieces’’. The bloodshed and destruction, though, are real enough.

So what next? The US, Britain and other western countries made no secret of their fury at Russia’s veto. Clinton called it a “travesty;” the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said she was “disgusted” at the vote, in a rare break with the usual diplomatic niceties.

William Hague’s verdict of a “doomed and murdering regime” caught the mood well.

Angry words are one thing, workable policies another. The Arab League will face pressure to come up with something. Nabil al-Arabi, its secretary-general, noted that despite Saturday’s double veto, “there is clear international support” for the league’s stance.

But its hawkish vanguard is losing patience. Qatar, the wealthy dynamo of regional diplomacy, is already rumoured to be arming the FSA with Saudi blessing.

Senator Joe Lieberman, the former US democratic presidential candidate, welcomed the idea too. Further militarisation could see Syria becoming a battleground in a proxy war between the Gulf Arabs and Iran, Assad’s only regional ally.

Many see parallels with Libya – though Syria’s opposition is fragmented and has no stronghold like Benghazi from which to fight the regime.

Another more remote possibility, some warn, is that an Arab “coalition of the willing” might intervene and seek a retroactive mandate from the UN in a replay of the Kosovo war in 1999. But Clinton’s call for “friends of democratic Syria to unite” was about helping the opposition politically and financially.

Could Russia yet surprise? Sergei Lavrov, its foreign minister, and Mikhail Fradkov, head of foreign intelligence, are due in Damascus tomorrow. Will they twist Assad’s arm to stop the killing and launch reforms or find a compliant Alawite general to take his place? Moscow’s model could be the deal that forced the departure of Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. “It’s a long shot,” said one Middle East veteran.

“The Arab League initiative was the Yemeni solution and the Russians shot it down.”





=
 

iboya

Veteran Member
Lockstep-what a strange word to use (as wording is never an accident)

Lockstep - marching or simply lockstep refers to marching, in the USA, in a very close single file in such a way that the leg of each person in the file moves in the same way and at the same time as the corresponding leg of the person immediately in front of him, so that their legs stay very close all the time.

Originally it was used in drilling soldiers. Each soldier stepped on the point just vacated by the foot of the soldier in front of him. Thus the soldiers stayed in position to form close files.

Lockstep marching was a characteristic trait of American prisons of the 19th century. "Inmates formed in single file, right hand on the shoulder of the man in front, left hand on the side; the convicts then stepped off in unison, raising the right foot high and shuffling with the left." The reason for the shuffling step was the chain that connected the legs of a chain gang...

...The term acquired a number of other meanings by the way of analogy, referring to synchronous or imitating movement or other behavior, following something or someone ("in lockstep with..."), often with a pejorative tone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockstep

pejorative (plural pejoratives)

A disparaging, belittling, or derogatory word or expression.


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pejorative
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...tuareg-group/2012/02/05/gIQAI9AgrQ_story.html

Aid workers: 15,000 flee Mali to Niger, Mauritania amid rebellion by ethnic Tuareg group
By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, February 5, 7:17 AM

BAMAKO, Mali — More than 15,000 people including Malian military personnel have fled into neighboring countries since members of the nomadic Tuareg ethnic group launched a new rebellion against the Malian government last month, aid officials say.

Some civilians are fleeing areas where fighting is taking place, while others fear there could be revenge attacks against those believed to be Tuareg. Already at least one Tuareg family’s home has been attacked near the capital of Bamako.

The International Committee of the Red Cross says 10,000 people have crossed into Niger after fighting in towns just across the border, and the ICRC is preparing to provide food and shelter.

“Some of these people have been taken in by villagers, but the local capacity was very quickly overwhelmed,” said Juerg Eglin, head of ICRC delegation for Niger and Mali.

Another 5,000 people have fled to Mauritania, according to an official who works at an international humanitarian organization based in Mauritania’s capital. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to provide figures to the media.

The Tuaregs, a traditionally nomadic people spread across the Sahara Desert, have risen up against the central government in Mali several times since the country’s independence from France in 1960.

The newest rebellion launched in January broke years of relative peace, and is being fueled by the return of Tuaregs from Libya who had fought in Moammar Gadhafi’s army. In the last two weeks, the Tuareg group has attacked six towns spread out over more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) across Mali’s vast north.

A group calling itself the National Movement for the Liberation of the Azawad was formed in October and seeks self-determination of the north of Mali. The Malian government has accused the group of fighting one battle with al-Qaida’s North Africa branch, which is active in the region. The MNLA denies the accusation.

Among those fleeing to Niger were military personnel and their families, said Franck Kudzo Kuwonu of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the capital Niamey.

Although there is no evidence that those with northern features are being systematically targeted in Mali on a wide-scale basis, there is a tangible sense of panic among Tuareg and those who feel they might be mistaken for Tuareg. Even people from countries such as Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia have been leaving Mali, concerned that they might be mistaken for Tuareg.

On Wednesday, Mali’s president addressed the nation pleading with people not blame Tuaregs and others with northern features for the acts of just a few rebels.

“Those who attacked certain military bases and towns in the north should not be confused with our Tuareg, Arab, Fulani and Songhai compatriots who live with us,” Amadou Toumani Toure said in a speech carried on state television.

The president’s message, however, did not stop the protests in the capital and other southern towns like Segou and Sikasso on Thursday and Friday. Many in the south are still scared of what might happen to them.

“When you see so many people leaving, I wonder whether I’ve made the right decision to say,” said one Arab man who has lived in Bamako for many years and spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

___

Associated Press writer Dalatou Mamane in Niamey, Niger contributed to this report.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
=







France, German leaders meet amid euro, Syria crises
By John Irish – 14 mins ago
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20120206/ts_nm/us_france_germany_meeting

PARIS (Reuters) – The French and German leaders meet on Monday in Paris for annual talks in which they will seek further economic coordination in the crisis-hit European Union and discuss the escalating violence in Syria.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is openly backing President Nicolas Sarkozy in April's presidential election, will also give a joint interview with Sarkozy to French and German television networks in the evening.


"The meeting will be dedicated to deepening Franco-German cooperation in all fields ... and notably fiscal convergence," the French presidency said in a statement.

The German chancellor is seen in France as a trustworthy leader capable of dealing with the euro zone debt crisis, and so could boost Sarkozy's credibility on economic issues.

French Finance Minister Francois Baroin said Merkel's visit, which takes place as Greece struggles to avoid a chaotic debt default that would have repercussions across Europe, was to ensure the bloc's main drivers were on the same page.

"As we are the two main contributors (to the euro zone) if you don't have an accord between France and Germany you can be sure not only of Europe's slow descent in international competition, but into chaos," he told Europe 1 radio.

"No agreement between the two means no engine."

German government officials said the meeting would focus on corporate tax harmonisation, one aspect of Berlin and Paris' goal to drive economic coordination within the EU.

The meeting would produce a "green paper" - intended to stimulate debate on the subject within the European Union - that aims to make it easier for small- and mid-sized companies to work across borders.

"It is also important to bring to life these agreements made by the Council of the European Union on growth and employment," said Berlin's new coordinator for German-French relations, Michael Link.

"We must show that bilateral relations are not a museum object, and have a very lively political character."

The intergovernmental meeting includes separate talks between various ministers including foreign policy chiefs Alain Juppe and Guido Westerwelle. It will be followed by a joint news conference at 12:45 p.m. (1145 GMT).

Sources said discussions would also focus on how Europe will act on developments in Syria after Russia and China vetoed a U..N. resolution, backed by France and Germany, that would have supported an Arab plan urging Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up power.

"European and international subjects will also be discussed during these discussions," Sarkozy's office said. Sarkozy said France was consulting with Arab and European countries to create a contact group on Syria to find a solution to its crisis.






=
 
=







After UN veto, Russia seeks to quell Syrian violence on its own

patrick martin
JERUSALEM— From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Feb. 05, 2012 7:30PM EST
Last updated Sunday, Feb. 05, 2012 7:35PM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ll-syrian-violence-on-its-own/article2327319/

Having vetoed a United Nations Security Council bid to condemn Syria for the continuing killing of its people, Russia has taken matters into its own hands and will try to end the conflict its own way.

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Mikhail Fradkov, its head of foreign intelligence, are scheduled to arrive in Damascus on Monday.

“The Security Council is not the only diplomatic tool on the planet,” Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s UN ambassador, said on the weekend.


Russia’s relationship with Syria predates even the regime of Hafez al-Assad, the father of President Bashar al-Assad, and Moscow is well aware of the country’s sectarian divisions and strategic importance. It knows that foreign intervention or a prolonged civil war could lead to a broader conflict involving Syria’s allies, Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, both of which issued statements on Sunday that were strongly supportive of the Assad regime.

Even so, it remains an open question whether Russia can pull off a settlement.

Russia has worked behind the scenes for several weeks and announced last week that it had persuaded the al-Assad leadership to participate in informal talks with the opposition in Moscow. The goal of the talks, say Syrians with knowledge of the initiative, was to discuss the formation of a unity government and a transition to democracy – two of the planks in the Arab League initiative that was at the centre of the Security Council resolution.

But while the regime had apparently indicated its willingness to talk to the opposition, the Syrian National Council, an outside umbrella group of opponents to Mr. al-Assad rejected the idea.

The UN resolution that came to a vote on Saturday said the Security Council “fully supports” the Arab League plan that calls for Mr. al-Assad to cede powers to his vice-president and a unity government that would lead Syria to democratic elections.

With so much similarity in their objectives, why would Russia veto the UN bid?

Mr. Lavrov said Saturday that Moscow had two objections: that the resolution did not place sufficient blame for the violence on the opposition, and that it unrealistically demanded that the government withdraw its military forces to their barracks.

He told a security conference in Munich that adopting the resolution would risk “taking sides in a civil war.”

“What’s the end-game?” Mr. Lavrov demanded of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Replied Ms. Clinton: “The end-game in the absence of us acting together as the international community, I fear, is civil war.”

That was not enough, however, to persuade Russia, which argues that the model used to ease Yemen’s President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, from office is the one to follow in Syria. Many Syrian critics of the regime also argue it would invite chaos to remove the al-Assad regime before a democratic transition is in place.

More than altruism motivates Moscow. Russia is keen to preserve its special relationship with a pivotal Middle East state, along with its naval installation at the Syrian port of Tartus, the Russian fleet’s only base in the Mediterranean.

As well, it’s believed that Russian leaders harbour considerable resentment over what they believe was deception in the manner in which the Security Council resolution concerning Libya was implemented. Russia had abstained from voting when that resolution was decided, apparently believing that NATO’s role in assisting the Libyan opposition would not involve the kind of bombing carried out against the regime of Moammar Gadhafi.

Hours before the UN vote on Saturday, Syrian forces carried out a deadly bombardment of a residential district in Homs. Activists said the mortar shelling that killed scores of civilians began on Friday night after Syrian army defectors attacked two military checkpoints and captured a number of soldiers. (Earlier reports that “hundreds” were killed were reportedly revised Sunday by at least one activist organization.)

U.S. President Barack Obama condemned what he called “the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault against the people of Homs,” saying in a statement that Mr. al-Assad “has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community.”

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said, “The massacre in Homs is a crime against humanity, and those responsible will have to answer for it.”

“Europe,” Mr. Juppé said, “will again harden sanctions imposed on the Syrian regime. We will try to increase this international pressure and there will come a time when the regime will have to realize that it is completely isolated and cannot continue.”

He added that France, which has its own special relationship with Syria as a mandate power from 1923 to 1943, would “help the Syrian opposition to structure and organize itself.” The commander of rebel Syrian soldiers said in an interview with the Associated Press on Sunday that the only choice left was to oust Mr. al-Assad with military force. “There is no other road,” Colonel Riad al-Asaad said.






=
 
=








Avoiding civil war in Syria

Updated: 2012-02-06 07:54
(China Daily)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-02/06/content_14541026.htm

When China joined hands with Russia on Saturday to veto an Arab-European draft UN resolution backing an Arab League plan to promote a regime change in Syria, its stance was consistent with its approach to international issues.

The draft resolution that sought to realize a regime change in Syria did not adequately reflect the state of affairs in this Middle East country.


In putting the resolution to the vote, Western powers hoped to further exert pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, thus paving the way for the removal of a regime that is an obstacle to their policies in the Middle East.

By only exerting pressure on the Syrian government and explicitly trying to coerce its leader al-Assad to step down, the resolution sends the message to armed groups and opponents of his regime that they have the support of the international community. This will undoubtedly make the Syrian situation even more complicated and make it impossible for all parties to reach a conciliatory agreement that is in the best interests of the country and its people.

We've seen what happened in Libya. With the armed intervention by some major Western powers, the Libyan regime was overthrown. But instead of the democracy and freedom they were promised, Libyan people cannot even live in peace as the country is in the danger of falling into a sectarian civil war.

It is not a question of whether Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad should step down or not. It is whether the ever-worsening crisis in the country will be brought to an end in such a way that the country will not be plunged into a sectarian civil war and its people plunged into even greater misery.

China maintains that any attempt by the international community to help Syria solve its crisis must respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country.

A messy civil war in Syria will not be conducive to peace in the Middle East.

Russia's stance that conditions should not be imposed on dialogue, and that any efforts should influence not just the government but also the armed groups is reasonable. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Mikhail Fradkov, the director of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, will travel to Syria on Feb 7 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The draft resolution was presented too hastily and the international community should give the Russian diplomatic endeavor time to soften the positions of all the parties in Syria so that an agreement can be reached that is for the good of the country.

The Chinese government believes that, in line with the UN Charter, political consultations are the best way to help a nation solve any political crisis.






=
 
=







OUTCRY OVER SYRIA BUTCHERS

Some of the dead wrapped in sheets after
the city of Homs came under attack


Monday February 6,2012
By Cyril Dixon
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/300331/Outcry-over-Syria-butchers

FORMER Prime Minister Sir John Major accused Russia and China
yesterday of giving Syria a “green light to murder” demonstrators.

He said they should face stern criticism for blocking a United Nations resolution which could have ended President Bashar Assad’s bloody war on opponents.

Sir John’s intervention came 24 hours after the two rebels vetoed the UN Security Council motion condemning state violence and calling for regime change.

It was echoed by Foreign Secretary William Hague, who accused Moscow and Beijing of snubbing the Arab world. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the veto “a travesty”.


Sir John said the UN dissenters “are effectively giving the green light for a pretty bad regime to murder people”.

He added: “One needs to put it bluntly so they understand what they have done and so the world understands.”

Mr Major, prime minister from 1990 to 1997, warned that action had to be taken as a “matter of urgency” and said the UN could not now take the lead on Syria.

One needs to put it bluntly so they understand what they have done and so the world understands

Russia objected to UN intervention because it said it amounted to taking sides in a civil war. China’s stance was seen as simply alignment to Moscow. However, critics say the death toll – which the UN stopped counting last month after it reached 5,400 – is expected to rise unless there is foreign intervention. On Friday, 200 people were believed to have been killed when Assad’s forces bombarded the city of Homs.

Witnesses said that “bombs fell like rain” during the attack.

Mr Hague accused the Russians and Chinese of “turning their backs on the Arab world” and said that they had “blood on their hands”.

He added: “Russia and China bear increased responsibility for what is happening.”





=
 
=






US seeks alliance to back Syria opposition;
rebels say only force can oust Assad after UN veto


By Associated Press,
Updated: Sunday, February 5, 1:55 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...fy-crackdown/2012/02/05/gIQAbZBUrQ_story.html

BEIRUT — The United States proposed an international coalition to support Syria’s opposition Sunday after Russia and China blocked a U.N. attempt to end nearly 11 months of bloodshed, raising fears that violence will escalate. Rebel soldiers said force was now the only way to oust President Bashar Assad, while the regime vowed to press its military crackdown.


The threat of both sides turning to greater force after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution raises the potential for Syria’s turmoil to move into even a more dangerous new phase that could degenerate into outright civil war.

The commander of rebel Syrian soldiers said Sunday there is no choice but to use military force to drive President Bashar Assad’s regime from power as fears mounted that government troops will escalate their deadly crackdown on dissent after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. resolution aimed at resolving the crisis.

The uprising inspired by other Arab Spring revolts began in March with peaceful protests against Assad’s regime, sparking a fierce crackdown by government forces. Soldiers who defected to join the uprising later began to protect protesters from attacks. In recent months, the rebel soldiers, known as the Free Syrian Army, have grown bolder, attacking regime troops and trying to establish control in pro-opposition areas. That has brought a heavier government response.

More than 5,400 people have been killed since March, according to the U.N., and now regime opponents fear that Assad will be emboldened by the feeling he is protected by his top ally Moscow and unleash even greater violence to crush protesters. If the opposition turns overtly to armed resistance, the result could be a dramatic increase in bloodshed.

At least 30 civilians were killed Sunday, including five children and a woman who was hit by a bullet while standing on her balcony as troops fired on protesters in a Damascus suburb, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an activist group.

Government forces firing mortars and heavy machine guns also battered the mountain town of Zabadani, north of Damascus, a significant opposition stronghold that fell under rebel control late last month. Bombardment the past two days has wounded dozens and forced scores of families to flee, an activist in the town said.

“The situation is terrifying. Makeshift hospitals are full,” said the activist, who only gave his first name, Fares, for fear of government reprisal. He said the town has been under siege for the past five days and there is a shortage of food and heating fuel during the cold winter.

The commander of the Free Syrian Army told The Associated Press that, after the vetoes at the U.N., “there is no other road” except military action to topple Assad.

“We consider that Syria is occupied by a criminal gang and we must liberate the country from this gang,” Col. Riad al-Asaad said, speaking by telephone from Turkey. “This regime does not understand the language of politics. It only understands the language of force.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that chances for “a brutal civil war” would increase as Syrians under attack from their government move to defend themselves, unless international steps provide another way.

Speaking to reporters in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, she called the double veto at the U.N. Security Council on Saturday “a travesty.”

“Faced with a neutered Security Council, we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations,” she said, calling for “friends of democratic Syria” to unite “support the Syrian people’s right to have a better future.”

The call points to the formation of a formal group of like-minded nations to coordinate assistance to the Syrian opposition, similar but not identical to the Contact Group on Libya, which oversaw international help for opponents of the late deposed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. In the case of Libya, the group also coordinated NATO military operations to protect Libyan civilians, something that is not envisioned in Syria.

The commander of rebel Syrian soldiers said Sunday there is no choice but to use military force to drive President Bashar Assad’s regime from power as fears mounted that government troops will escalate their deadly crackdown on dissent after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. resolution aimed at resolving the crisis.

U.S. officials said an alliance would work to further squeeze the Assad regime by stepping up sanctions against it, bringing disparate Syrian opposition groups inside and outside the country together, providing humanitarian relief for embattled Syrian communities and working to prevent an escalation of violence by monitoring arms sales.

The main Syrian opposition umbrella group, the Syrian National Council, backed the idea.

Radwan Ziadeh, a prominent figure in the SNC, wrote on his Facebook page that friendly countries should form an “international coalition ... whose aim will be to lead international moves to support the revolution through political and economic aid.”

A deeply sensitive question is whether such a coalition would back the Free Syrian Army. There appears to be deep hesitation among Western countries, fearing further militarization of the conflict.

Omar Idlibi, an activist with the Syrian National Council, said action by a “friends coalition” to increase sanctions and other steps would boost peaceful opposition through protests.

But, he said, it should also include support to the FSA, which he said would prevent civilians from taking up arms, worsening the conflict.

The FSA, he said, “is a national Syrian army and as the regime has the right to get help from its Russian and Iranian allies, it is the right of the opposition to ask for help from its friends in enabling the Syrian people to achieve change.”

The FSA, based in neighboring Turkey, is believed to number several thousand soldiers and it almost daily announces claims of groups of soldiers joining its ranks that cannot be confirmed. It is heavily outgunned by the powerful regime military, which still has the power to conduct focused operations that can drive the rebels out of any areas they gain control of.

But the military cannot cover everywhere at once, and FSA troops appear to be proving effective at hit-and-run attacks and have put up staunch resistance in assaults on opposition-dominated urban areas.

On Sunday, rebel soldiers attacked a military convoy in the northwestern province of Idlib, killing 14 government troops, the Observatory said, reporting that 14 other regime soldiers were killed in fighting elsewhere.

Early Saturday, regime forces bombarded the restive central city of Homs, apparently in response to FSA attacks. Activists said the bombardment was the deadliest incident of the uprising, killing more than 200 people in a single day. The regime denied any bombardment, and there was no way to independently confirm the toll.

Gunfire continued to ring out Sunday in several neighborhoods of Homs, and at least 23 people were killed in the city and nearby towns, including three children, the Observatory said. Grisly video posted by activists online showed a young boy said to have been wounded in the shooting, his jaw torn away. The video and the Observatory’s casualty reports could not be independently confirmed.

The Russian and Chinese vetoes effectively killed an Arab League plan that called for Assad to hand over power to his vice president and allow the creation of a unity government. The resolution would have expressed support for the Arab League plan, which Assad rejected.

The Syrian government touted the U.N. result as a victory.

The state-run newspaper, Tishreen, vowed that Damascus will press its crackdown aiming to restore “stability and security and confront all forms of terrorism.” The regime has portrayed the uprising as the work of terrorists and armed gangs as part of a foreign conspiracy.

Hundreds of regime supporters rallied in a Damascus square, waving Russian and Chinese flags in gratitude for blocking the resolution.

“Thanks Russia, thanks China for undermining the Western conspiracy against our country,” said Nibal Hmeid, a 24-year-old teacher at the rally. She said Assad should now settle the situation “decisively and militarily against those armed criminals.”







=
 

Reborn

Seeking Aslan's Country
I give it 3 to 5 weeks.... if we even have that long. Thanks again, Dutch.

Well, God forbid war comes but if it does I figure it's going to be March or maybe April at the latest. May God help this weary world.
 
=





:shkr:
:siren: UN victory may push Syria's Assad into unwinnable war :siren:

Published: 9:06AM Monday February 06, 2012
Source: Reuters
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/un-victory-may-push-syria-s-assad-into-unwinnable-war-4712509


Syria's victory in dodging a UN resolution it deemed a license for regime change may only escalate its internal conflict into a full-fledged civil war that many analysts believe President Bashar al-Assad cannot ultimately win.

With the collapse of the sole diplomatic effort recognised by Assad's foes - both armed and in a split civilian opposition, the stage is set for deeper diplomatic isolation of Syria and perhaps a new flows of arms and money to Syria's insurgents.


"The worst effect of the veto is that it inflames, the civil war, intensifies it. We're no longer talking about a hypothetical civil war. We're now in the middle of a civil war. It's started," said Nabil Boumonsef, a columnist with Lebanon's an-Nahar daily.[/b]

Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Saturday that sought backing for an Arab League proposal to end 11 months of bloodshed in Syria by urging Assad to pull troops from cities and allow a political transition to start.

The defeat of the measure a day after Assad's opponents reported that his forces had killed over 200 people with artillery fire on the city of Homs prompted Western vows to ramp up pressure on Assad until he quits power.

By abetting violence, the veto may bolster Damascus's contention that it is fighting an Islamist insurgency funded and directed by foes in Gulf Arab states, but offers no alternate political path out of the greatest crisis Syria has faced in the 49 years of the Assad family's dynastic rule, analyst say.

"This (veto) is obviously an endorsement of the regime's approach to the crisis which, over the last 11 months, has brought the country to the brink," said Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group.

"We can expect the regime to push ahead along the same lines, which will raise the prospect of a civil war."

Russian mediation, absent opposition

Russia, which sells Syria arms and maintains a military base on its coast, maintained that approving the resolution would have fanned the conflict through its failure to blame opposition groups equally for the bloodshed, which the United Nations says it can no longer track after 5,000 deaths.

Moscow will offer its own mediation - in the person of Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and its intelligence chief who are to meet Assad on Tuesday, fulfilling a pledge last week to seek a negotiated end the bloodshed.

But that offer has already been rejected by the Syrian National Council (SNC) - the exiled dissident umbrella group which claims to speak for Syria's political opposition and has only a tenuous link to the rebel force of army defectors.

The SNC and decentralised cells of fighters in Syria alike have demanded Assad surrender power as a precondition for any negotiations, a prospect analysts believe Russia itself would not raise with Assad.

"Russia understands what the Syrian regime is going through; it has an inherent inability to adjust quickly on the ground," said Ayham Kamel, analyst with Eurasia Group risk consultancy.

"They encourage the Syrian regime to reform, but not remove all the structures. It's all about restructuring, not removal."

That approach rules out the key demand of the opposition, but it now looks to be making headway in a campaign to brand Assad a pariah, after Tunisia moved to expel his ambassador and withdraw recognition of Damascus.

"They may tell him to move just enough to get a political process going, but now I don't see how that's possible," said Middle East commentator Rami Khouri. "The opposition won't talk to him and he won't negotiate his own exit."

Prospect of arming rebels

With prospects for a negotiated solution dim, attention may turn to the balance of forces between rebels and Assad's army.

Some in the opposition say the army has acted with relative restraint - despite the increasing death toll - partly due to fear about empowering officers too far from ruling circles.

Defector forces - with a notional leader allowed to operate from nearby Turkey - recently thrust to the edge of the capital. Past government offensives have swollen their ranks and they may now find an audience for their case to be armed more heavily.

"If indeed armed struggle is the only option left on the table, there's a chance that opposition groups will procure the strategic depth that has been missing," said Harling.

Washington has couched its threat of greater pressure on Assad in terms of political transition only.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed on Sunday to dry up Syria's sources of weapons while supporting "the opposition's peaceful political plans for change".

Khouri noted the symbolic power US ally Saudi Arabia has already exercised in the revolt against Assad, a member of a minority Shi'ite Muslim sect deemed heretical in the puritanical Sunni Islam that is a pillar of rule in the kingdom.

Riyadh, the self-styled steward of Sunni Islam, is deeply wary of the political upheaval gripping the Middle East and sent troops to Bahrain as it crushed pro-democracy protests last year. But the Saudis weighed in against Assad in August, when he cracked down on restive Syrian cities at the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

The kingdom hosts a Syrian cleric, Adnan Arour, who left the country when Assad's father and predecessor, Hafez al-Assad, crushed his own Islamist insurrection, culminating in an attack on the city of Hama 30 years ago that left at least 10,000 dead.

The cleric has been granted air time on satellite outlets broadly loyal to Saudi Arabia to denounce Assad's rule in bitterly sectarian terms, calling at times for mass reprisal against the Alawite community from which he hails.

"The armed groups that are fighting against them look to be escalating, and I think you're going to find people around the world supporting them on some humanitarian basis but also militarily," Khouri said.

"There are concerns that the opposition is becoming a Saudi Qatari proxy...if you have to choose, though, most people would rather have a liberated Syria with broad GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) influence than the Assad regime."

That escalation would ensure a long and bloody conflict, Boumonsef said. "The regime is still stronger on the ground, but we're heading to something like a balance of forces," he said.

"Once the logic of civil war takes hold somewhere, it's out of the hands of countries to stop it until their shared interest dictate so...We're the best experts on this after the 15 years (of civil war) we lived through in Lebanon."






=
 
I give it 3 to 5 weeks.... if we even have that long. Thanks again, Dutch.

Unfortunately CG; I give it to be around March the 1st - a week either side of that date will likely see a vertible Holocaust erupt in the Middle East. THEN! It will spread, even to CONUS....

*Too many arab terrorists and Iranian Guards have entered Mexico, only to disappear...


=
 
=






03:14 06.02.12

A large and dark silence

All these years, Israel's Arab MKs have traveled to seek the favor of the Syrian ruler who is now butchering his people. They sat with the killer-leader, soaking up his every word, and after all that, there isn't a single voice among them saying 'Enough bloodshed.'

By Eliezer Yaari
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/a-large-and-dark-silence-1.411273

More than 300 people were murdered in Syria by their own government over the weekend, killed by tank, cannon and mortar fire. Their homes were destroyed and hundreds still remain buried under the ruins. There's a long trail of blood behind these numbers, flickering pictures of small children being thrown from windows and video taken with a cellphone of a man walking, a shot being heard and the man falling to the ground.

More than 300. This happened after days with more modest figures of "only" 15, 35 or 58 killed. It happened here, just across the border, an hour's drive from Kiryat Shmona. A fascist, uncontrollable ruler is butchering his people.


You may say, well, the commentators have been saying for weeks that it will end any minute, the UN Security Council is convening - and now you remember? After all, it's an internal matter in which Arabs are killing Arabs, suddenly you've become a bleeding heart?

You may say that all in all, it's a monstrous event that just proves that you can't believe the Arabs, so we can continue to remain silent and forget any chance of ever reaching an agreement in the region that will be based on understanding, cooperation and, of course, concessions.

For weeks, I've been writing about this and trying to get the attention of human rights organizations. I have devoted the best years of my life and strength to establishing and supporting them, believing that one cannot divide human rights: You may not discriminate against a woman giving birth because she's an Arab, you may not discriminate against an Ethiopian pupil because he's black, and you may not cover up despicable, tyrannical acts, even if they take place near the graves of our patriarchs.

States cannot remain quiet in the face of genocide, let alone human rights groups. But the answers I got were vague mumblings: "It's the job of Amnesty International," or "Look, the world is responding; we're part of the world." But we must pay heed to what's happening right here; that's our job.

In the community in which I've worked since the 1990s, there are many Arab organizations; and in recent weeks, I've been calling them. There are estimates that nearly 10,000 people have been murdered in Syria, and I asked them that after seeing the long rows of bodies, how is it that in all these months there hasn't been a single demonstration against the massacre? Something like the Land Day demonstrations, or the commemoration of the 1956 massacre at Kafr Qasem.

Forget about the Jewish groups, I told them - though someone will have to hold them to account as well someday; but this week marks 10 months of a genocide taking place in an Arab country, and hundreds were slaughtered and thousands were wounded Sunday. The news came out Saturday morning and the weather was fine; all over the world, people organized spontaneous demonstrations and what about you? You, who have relatives and friends there!

All these years, Arab MKs have traveled to seek the favor of the Syrian ruler who is now butchering his people. They sat with the killer-leader, soaking up his every word, and after all that, there isn't a single voice among them saying "Enough bloodshed."

Maybe you are protesting and I just haven't heard it. That's possible. I don't read Arab newspapers. But this isn't meant to be an internal debate that takes place behind closed doors; the entire Israeli people should be part of it.

I know it isn't easy to be the Arab minority in Israel and to come out against someone in the Arab world, but there's a limit. Three hundred killed, thousands wounded, and no demonstration was organized in the central square of Nazareth or Shfaram?

Is Arab blood really so cheap?

I remember October 2000, when 13 Israeli Arab citizens were shot dead by the security forces. The whole country trembled from the demonstrations in the Galilee and in Wadi Ara, there were dialogue tents and a committee of inquiry, condemnations and fiery speeches.

And here we are, in the days of "spring" that have turned into a horrifying winter, and all I hear is the most popular MK in Jewish society, Dr. Ahmed Tibi, taking the podium to read, with unusual fervor, a feuilleton about a wacko racist MK from Yisrael Beiteinu. How brave! How sharp!

He knows that this is idle chatter and a distraction, because today another hundred were slaughtered, not by malicious Jews but by the hands of his own people. But there is no outcry. Neither he nor anyone else from the Arab civil leadership took to the podium to add his voice to the world's demand to stop the killing.

No singers sang, no journalists lamented, and politicians continued to be interviewed on talk shows. Deep down, perhaps, there is shame, pain and acceptance. Perhaps. But all we hear is the silence, the huge and dark quiet that allows the blood of Syrian children to be spilled; because in the internal matters of a murderer like Bashar Assad, it's forbidden to intervene.

It is a silence that will echo for many years to come.






=
 
=






03:14 06.02.12

Stop Assad

The only possible explanation for the conduct of China and Russia is the desire to prevent a Western 'takeover' of the Arab Spring, no matter the cost in human life.

Haaretz Editorial
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/stop-assad-1.411274

Russia and China's veto of the UN Security Council resolution against Syria is in fact license for Syria's president to continue slaughtering his citizens with impunity. The veto makes eminently clear how weak the international community is when it comes to people who are trying to free themselves from the dictator's burden and who dream of democracy and a fair life.

China and Russia's rejection of the resolution despite the terrible slaughter in Homs and despite changes made in the resolution to satisfy those two countries is nothing less than a spit in the face of Syria's citizens. Their move makes the two superpowers full partners in the acts of murder.


The members of the protest movement in Syria waited a long time before they asked for help from the international community. Like their counterparts in Egypt, they thought at first that dialogue with the existing regime might bring about reasonable reform. But instead of dialogue, they got more bullets and bombs.

Even the Arab League hesitated before deciding on the extraordinary step of suspending Syria's membership in that body and imposing economic sanctions. But even then, it left Assad with the opportunity to resolve the crisis by allowing Arab monitors to study the situation in his country. Assad mocked the Arab League's proposal and thwarted the monitors.

All through that period, Western countries made do with denouncing Syria and imposing weak sanctions on the pretext that they were waiting for the Arab League to approach them, as if legitimization was needed to act against a murderous ruler.

It is difficult to think of a good reason to veto a resolution that does not even call for Assad's removal, and is careful not to support outside intervention. The only possible explanation for their conduct is the desire to prevent a Western "takeover" of the Arab Spring, no matter the cost in human life.

In light of the miserable outcome of the United Nations deliberations, and considering the terrible number of casualties, we can only hope that the West, together with the Arab League, will be able to quickly formulate a new, much more aggressive policy that will put a stop to Assad's murderousness.




=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/w...teps-up-crackdown-after-failed-un-motion.html

February 5, 2012
Syrian Unrest After a Failure of Diplomacy
By ANTHONY SHADID

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The collapse of diplomatic efforts to mediate Syria’s uprising reverberated across the country Sunday, emboldening a government that pressed on with a crackdown in the capital’s suburbs and the north and prompting rebel leaders to vow that only force would drive President Bashar al-Assad from power.

There were few words of optimism in a conflict that may or may not yet be a civil war, but already bears the hallmarks of a prolonged struggle pitting a still relatively cohesive leadership against an opposition that has gained control of territory in some places, while crumbling before the government’s onslaught in others.

The violence Sunday, centered in long rebellious areas, including the city of Homs, killed 31 people, according to activists, adding to a death toll that the United Nations set at 5,400 before it stopped making estimates.

Even before the predictions of intensified conflict, the government’s citadels of support — Damascus and Aleppo — had begun, after months of relative quiet, to feel the brunt of a contest that emerged nearly 11 months ago from the countryside. In some of the capital’s suburbs, military forces have recently begun to act like an occupying army, with residents reporting instances of looting and pillaging. And a cancerous sectarianism that wrecked Syria’s neighbors to the east and west, Iraq and Lebanon, has become so pronounced that some military defectors have vowed to attack religious sites.

The events this weekend seemed sure to serve as benchmarks in an uprising that now stands as one of the Arab world’s bloodiest. The collapse of the United Nations Security Council’s effort to pressure Mr. Assad, after vetoes by Russia and China on Saturday, came just hours after the military shelled Homs in what opposition leaders called the deadliest assault since the uprising began in March. They said more than 200 were killed, a toll that Syrian officials flatly denied.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday called the quashing of the resolution a “travesty” and said the administration would renew efforts to stop the flow of arms to Mr. Assad’s government.

The Assad government hailed the action by Russia and China as a rejection of intervention in Syria’s conflict, and a state newspaper signaled that the leadership would be more determined than ever to crush the uprising. It promised that the government would “restore what Syrians had enjoyed for decades.” Over all, the domestic media’s coverage of the Security Council’s vote suggested it was seen in Syria as an important sign that the government retained at least some legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

That sense of the government’s hand being strengthened by the failure in New York was so pronounced that Human Rights Watch, echoing critiques by Western and Arab diplomats, warned Syria not to use the veto “as a green light for even more violence.”

Armed defectors, joined by civilians who have taken up arms, number only in the thousands, diplomats say, but they, too, hinted at a determination to shift from what they saw as their mission months ago — protecting protesters — and toward a more traditional insurgency. That shift has been most visible in Homs and the northern region of Idlib.

“Only military options are on the table,” Col. Riad al-Assad, a defector and commander of the Free Syrian Army, said in a telephone interview from his base in Turkey. “The political options have failed. This regime won’t end except through force.”

Though Colonel Assad’s control over the defectors remains debatable — many diplomats and residents describe the armed opponents as far more atomized — there seems little question that the opposition is growing more militarized and determined. While it retains a peaceful component, giving rise to a vibrant culture of protest, defectors have steadily gathered numbers and boast of their ability to control many areas of Homs, the central city assaulted on Saturday.

An activist in Idlib relayed a recent chant: “Enough for being peaceful, enough whatever, we want weapons and rockets.”

As in Iraq, after the American invasion, a debate has ensued over whether to call the conflict a civil war. The argument sometimes masks the real forces at work — a regime bent on exploiting society’s divisions, an opposition so far incapable of providing an alternative, and deepening strife that has drawn in not only the government and defectors, but also gangs and criminals. Whether or not a civil war is fought, many fear those forces will pull apart society, causing rifts that could take years, even a generation, to reconcile.

In Homs, many residents say they are reluctant to travel, even by late afternoon. Blackouts lasting hours have made winter feel more severe, and many have resorted to wood-burning stoves. Rival gangs of Sunni Muslims, who are the majority in Syria, and Alawites, a heterodox sect from which Mr. Assad draws much of his leadership, carry out tit-for-tat kidnappings, sometimes imposing hefty ransoms.

In the neighborhood of Inshaat, a woman in her 50s, who gave her name as Samah, said that for months she and her husband had refused to leave.

“The security forces took my sister’s house because she lives abroad,” she said by phone. “They broke her things and used the chairs and tables as wood to light the fireplace. My husband asked my sons, ‘Do you want this to happen to our house?’ ”

On Sunday, she said they had finally decided to leave for Dubai, the United Arab Emirates.

“It’s been a month and a half since I’ve seen the street,” she said.

As in Aleppo, the second largest city, residents in Damascus say the mood has grown more somber as hardships grow, though they pale before those in Homs. A 35-year-old government employee who gave his name as Hassan said some people could no longer go in to work because the state had begun commandeering buses to transport security services and militiamen. Families say they have begun stockpiling food, medicine and even drinking water.

“Damascus has completely changed,” said a 50-year-old man who gave his name as Sharif. “I am not anti-Assad. I want to live in peace with my children and wife. But for the first time, I get the feeling that President Assad is going to fall from power.”

So far, though, Syria seems less at a turning point and more mired in a war of attrition, as forces that began emerging in August gather speed. High-level defections have been exceedingly rare, and even as the government cedes territory in places like Homs and Idlib, it still counts on the support of China, Iran, and most importantly, Russia, whose foreign minister and intelligence chief are scheduled to visit Damascus on Tuesday.

“What holds the regime together most of all is that the opposition is divided, the Arab League is divided, the international community is divided,” said Peter Harling, an expert on Syria at the International Crisis Group. “Just hanging on there, living another day, is ultimately winning. People may not like the regime, they may not support it, but they’re not convinced the moment has come that the regime is going to fall apart.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/...bashir-the-belligerent-eye-of-a-perfect-storm

Analysis of the third kind • 6 February 2012, 04:21:56 (South Africa)
Sudan's President Bashir: the belligerent eye of a perfect storm
The vultures are circling around Sudan’s President Omar Al-Bashir. He’s faced problems before, of course, but a perfect storm of resistance and discontent brewing in and out of his country is the most serious threat to his rule yet. SIMON ALLISON takes the liberty – not that such liberty’s are usually allowed in Bashir’s Sudan – of explaining to the Sudanese strongman the precariousness of his position, and second-guessing his solutions.

For three decades, there has been one man at the centre of Sudanese politics. As rebels have come and gone (some co-opted, some killed), as cabinets have been reshuffled, as former friends have been made enemies and enemies friends, as international envoys have changed faces and messages, through famine and civil war and genocide and secession, there has been a single presence in the eye of the storm that has been Sudan’s last few decades. Take a bow, President Omar Al-Bashir. The least we can do is recognise your tenacity, holding on when many around you couldn’t.

But we won’t applaud you for it. Yours hasn’t exactly been a stellar rule, characterised by divisive and alienating policies, a frequent resorting to extreme violence and the elimination (often literally) of any sign of dissent. The International Criminal Court wants to try you for war crimes, in relation to the hundreds of thousands of people that were killed in Darfur. Some call it a genocide, and all evidence points to your direct involvement. This, perhaps, is why you’re still around 23 years after you seized power in that military coup: you’re simply more ruthless than anybody else.

But unfortunately for you and the clique of generals and businessmen that feed off your position (and help sustain it), things are beginning to unravel faster than you are able to deal with them. It began with the breakaway of the south last year, a compromise that circumstances (and, some argue, a rare political miscalculation) forced upon you. Since then, it’s all been going wrong. Most importantly, the south took with them most of the combined Sudan’s oil wealth. Khartoum has enough oil in its control to meet domestic demand, but that’s not really what the oil is about; it’s about extra cash to sweeten your friends and manipulate your enemies. Thanks to the secession, your regime is bleeding around $32-million per day in lost oil revenue. That figure is even higher now that the south has turned off the taps completely, refusing to let its oil go through the pipeline that runs to Port Sudan. Using this pipeline means paying transit fees to Khartoum, and no one can agree on what they should be: you are demanding exhorbitant payments, but the south’s figure is just as unrealistic. It didn’t help when you unilaterally seized over US$200-million of the South’s oil as 'reparation' for the unpaid transit fees; in response, Juba shut down all oil production and announced plans to build a new pipeline through Kenya. Surely they’re bluffing, you must be thinking; they can’t afford to have no oil money whatsoever for the next year. But their government is poor, knowing how to operate on straitened budgets. They’ve also got a vast reservoir of goodwill to call upon after leading the fight against Khartoum, and they’ve got some powerful international backers. Maybe, just maybe, they’re thinking about sitting tight on the pumps for the next year; this was certainly the impression given at the recent African Union summit, where sideline negotiations with the south went absolutely nowhere.

Then there’s the rebel problem. Your government has never had many genuine fans, but popular opposition to it is reaching unprecedented levels. There’s Darfur, of course; not even a genocide could solve that tricky little problem. There are still a few armed groups fighting against your government. It’s a low-level insurgency, but requires troops and time and money to deal with. And strangely enough, your biggest recent victory in this war – the killing of infuential rebel leader Khalil Ibrahim – might have made this headache even worse, as it appears to have stalled the ever-stuttering peace talks. And in the new south of the country, on the border with South Sudan, is more serious insurgency headed by a breakaway faction from South Sudan’s ruling party. Your armed forces are going at them with everything they have, including the old trick of indiscriminately rolling bombs out the back of old Russian transport planes, but so far have made little dent. In fact, these rebels feel so confident, they recently kidnapped 29 Chinese workers from a construction site; a huge embarrasment for you given that China is your closest and most powerful ally. You don’t want to make life in Sudan difficult for them, but you are powerless to solve this problem – so much so that China eventually went begging to South Sudan for help. Worse, these new southern rebels have teamed up with some rebel groups from Darfur to create a rebel alliance against Khartoum. It’s early days yet, but this could eventually be the fulcrum for a coordinated uprising.

But that’s not too much of a worry for you, because in your heartland of Khartoum and central Sudan you remain as strong as you ever were, with a population united behind you in the knowledge that the quality of their lives (relative to their other countrymen) is dependant on you retaining power. But wait – what’s that we hear? Yes, emanating from the very core of your support are the unmistakeable rumblings of discontent. It started with the bread protests. Your dire financial straits made it difficult to guarantee low bread and fuel prices, a luxury to which central Sudan’s mostly compliant population have become accustomed. Prices rose, and the people weren’t happy; you had to send in the security forces to keep the peace. Here’s an interesting historical parallel for you, just in case you missed it: popular protests against Hosni Mubarak in Egypt started with bread riots. And look where that got him. And while we’re on the topic of bread, what about the increasingly strident warnings being issued by the international community about an impending famine in some areas on the border with South Sudan? Your officials deny the problem with a smile, but it’s almost certainly there, and will bring even more unwelcome international attention on your government – and, consequently, more international support for those looking to bring it down.

But a little domestic disturbance can be contained. The people have never been the real source of your power, which comes instead from an all too predictable direction, given your military background: the army. The armed forces in Sudan receive a ridiculously large proportion of the budget, and in return keep your government in power. It’s a cosy relationship, in which everyone benefits except the rest of the country, and it’s stayed strong for as long as you’ve been in charge. But even here, at the very source of your strength, there are problems. We know that a 700-strong group of army officers sent you a warning letter recently, saying that the army was simply not equipped to go to war against the south. Merits of this argument aside, such an open challenge to your authority is unprecedented. And if the army army gets tired of you, it’s pretty much game over. Publicly, you’ve written off this threat as the work of just a few disgruntled soldiers, but inside you must be worried. Your regime is being challenged on every level, and it doesn’t look like you have the money or the support to deal with it.

So what to do? Well, you’ve been in tricky situations before, and always emerged unscathed. Your usual tactic is simple, but effective: raise the stakes. Fight fire with bigger fire. Hence your comments in an interview on Friday: “The climate now is closer to a climate of war than one of peace,” you said. “We will go to war if we are forced to go to war. If there will be war after the loss of oil, it will be a war of attrition. But it will be a war of attrition hitting them before us.” You’re talking about war with South Sudan, of course, and you went on to outline your casus belli: a fuzzy but emotive argument that the south is stealing Khartoum’s rightful share of its oil.

But this isn’t just about the oil. This is about everything: the rebels, the south, the famine, the bread protests, the economy, the army, the people. You hope that by bringing the spectre of war closer, you can solve all those problems in one: keep the army busy, create a war economy, emphasise the already existing seige mentality and ultimately keep yourself in power.

You probably don’t want to actually go to war – those insubordinate officers were right, your army is unlikely to cope – but you will if you have to. This is, after all, how you’ve solved all your previous problems: shoot first, and ignore questions later. But the questions are already being asked. What’s your answer going to be this time? DM

Read more:

* The Sudans: government by war in the Sudan Tribune.

* ‘We could be worse than Somalia’, warns Sudan’s ambassador on Daily Maverick.

Photo: Sudan's President Omar Al-Bashir better watch his back. There are murmours of discontent from many corners – even a few unexpected one's. REUTERS.
Sunday 5 February, 2012
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2...ia_14_killed_after_Al_Shabaab_attack_on.shtml

Somalia: 14 killed after Al Shabaab attack on compound

5 Feb 5, 2012 - 10:59:21 AM

LUUQ, Somalia Feb 5 2012 (Garowe Online) – At least 14 people were killed and over 30 injured after Al Shabaab insurgents attacked a base that was holding troops in Luuq, Radio Garowe reports.

The Al Shabaab insurgents’ surprise attacked a compound in Luuq located in southern Somalia Saturday evening, the compound was holding troops from Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya.

Eye witnesses say that Saturday’s bloody battle was one they haven’t seen in year’s, adding that both sides increased the use of heavy artillery on each other as the fight intensified.

Al Shabaab spokesman told reporters that the insurgents had accomplished their job and had left the town on their own accord.

A spokesman for the TFG troops based in Luuq denied the statements made by Al Shabaab and said that the he has 4 Al Shabaab agents in custody.

Both Kenya and Ethiopia have yet to release statements on the battle that took place in Luuq.

The coalition of forces include, troops from the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) as well as Kenya and Ethiopia who have been gaining advances on Al Shabaab in southern Somalia.

GAROWE ONLINE
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-in-Boko-Harams-deadly-Nigerian-attacks.html

Al-Qaeda’s hand in Boko Haram's deadly Nigerian attacks
Al-Qaeda operatives in North Africa have helped to transform Boko Haram into a terrorist group capable of killing hundreds in sophisticated attacks.
By David Blair, Abuja

8:48PM GMT 05 Feb 2012

The radical Islamist group, based in northern Nigeria, once specialised in robbing banks and attacking defenceless Christian congregations. In the past month, however, its gunmen or suicide bombers have struck 21 times, killing at least 253 people.

The Daily Telegraph understands this transformation has come about partly because of the help Boko Haram has received from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a branch of the international terrorist network based in the Saharan states of Mali, Niger and Algeria.

Boko Haram demonstrated its new potency on Jan 20, when at least 100 of the movement's fighters executed eight assaults in Nigeria's northern city of Kano, overwhelming the security forces and killing 185 people.

This operation bore all the hallmarks of al-Qaeda: a mixture of suicide bombers and gunmen, some in police or army uniform, carried out multiple, carefully coordinated attacks on hard targets.

Boko Haram destroyed two police stations and the regional police headquarters, and damaged the local office of the State Security Service, Nigeria's version of MI5.

Al-Qaeda's influence was also evident from the choice of weapons: car bombs exploded outside some targets, while police found caches of "improvised explosive devices", with detonators and shrapnel packed into soft drinks cans.

Since then, Boko Haram has kept up the momentum, launching night raids on two more police stations in Kano.

Officials and experts in the Nigerian capital of Abuja believe Boko Haram has learnt its new capabilities from AQIM. Niger, a key operating theatre for AQIM, shares a largely unmarked frontier with Nigeria, spanning 900 miles of desert and scrub.

Boko Haram probably has little need for weapons or money as its fighters are accomplished bank robbers and whenever they raid a police station, they usually empty the armoury. AQIM's contribution is most likely to be in tactics and expertise, with Boko Haram fighters taken out of Nigeria for training.

While the country has a long history of political and religious violence, experts point to the novelty of Boko Haram's techniques.

"Suicide bombing was, until recently, something we saw in the movies," said Chinedu Nwagu, a security analyst from the Cleen Foundation, which monitors Nigeria's justice system.

"People never thought that anybody here would do that."

The Kano attacks, he added, showed a degree of "coordination that you would not just pick up without very specialised training".

Abubakar Tsav, a former Nigerian police commissioner, said: "They [Boko Haram] clearly have some connections with outsiders."

Once, Boko Haram would steer clear of the security forces and strike largely undefended targets. Today, its fighters frequently outclass and outgun their opponents. "Their weapons and tactics are clearly superior to those used by the Nigerian police," said Yahaya Ibrahim Shinko, a retired Nigerian army officer and security analyst.

If AQIM has passed on training and expertise, it may also transmit al-Qaeda's world view and its international targets. Britain, which is home to an estimated 150,000 Nigerians, could be vulnerable.

So far Boko Haram's agenda has been entirely domestic and there is no evidence the leadership aims to strike outside the country.

Mr Nwagu said: "Boko Haram is very inviting for whatever influences there might be out there."

Related Articles
*
Multiple blasts hit Nigerian city, as Boko Haram members are killed
02 Feb 2012
*
Boko Haram spokesman arrested
01 Feb 2012
*
Nigeria: gunmen in another attack on police station
29 Jan 2012
*
Nigeria: 11 Boko Haram members killed in army 'retaliation'
29 Jan 2012
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well, considering that Iranian retaliation would most likely include Saudi and GCC targets, I guess all that money the Saudis gave Pakistan to finance their nuclear program is going to bite them in the rear....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4185684,00.html

'Israeli attack will prompt Pakistani response'


European diplomat based in Islamabad says Israeli strike would force Pakistan to support Iranian retaliation, while EU official says 'political and economic consequences of attack would be catastrophic for Europe'

Dudi Cohen and AP
Published: 02.05.12, 23:26 / Israel News

Is the world counting down to "D-Day"? After US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta estimated that Israel would attack Iran by June, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned government officials against "Iran chatter," A European diplomat based in Pakistan said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation.

The diplomat's statement raised the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, which is widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

Related stories:

* Op-ed: Raising the stakes on Iran
* 'Panetta believes Israel will strike Iran soon'
* Iran vows to hit any country that stages attack

To some, the greatest risk of an attack was to the moribund world economy. Nick Witney, former head of the EU's European Defense Agency, said "the political and economic consequences of an Israeli attack would be catastrophic for Europe" since the likely spike in the price of oil alone "could push the entire EU, including Germany, into recession."

He said this could lead to "messy defaults" by countries like Greece and Italy, and possibly cause a collapse of the already-wobbly euro.

לוחמי משמרות המהפכה במהלך התרגיל בסוף השבוע האחרון

Revolutionary Guard officers during exercise

Witney, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, added that "the Iranians would probably retaliate against European interests in the region, and conceivably more directly with terrorism aimed at Western countries and societies."

Meanwhile, Iran continued to raise the bar, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander on Sunday warned that the Islamic Republic will target any country where an attack against it is staged.

Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard, Iran's most powerful military force, did not elaborate. His comments appeared to be a warning to Iran's neighbors not to let their territory or airspace be used as a base for an attack.

On Friday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut," and boasted of supporting any group that will challenge the Jewish state.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2012/02/06/obamas-peace-doves-on-irans-skies/

Obama’s peace doves on Iran’s skies

President Barack Obama has spoken on Iran. He chose a terrific occasion that would catch prime attention of the American public - a live interview during NBC’s Super Bowl pre-game show on Sunday night. In essence, he laid to rest the feverish speculations over the meaning of defence secretary Leon Panetta’s intriguing ‘leak’ that Israel might attack Iran through the coming 3-month period.

I read somewhere that the best favor you could do to your drunken pal who wants to drive home after the party, is to steal his car key so that he calls a taxi for the ride home. Well, that’s what Obama just did.

His statements that US and Israel move “in lockstep” on that Iran issue and that he knows of no Israeli decision to attack Iran – “I don’t think Israel has made a decision on what they need to do” — and, equally, his affirmation that his officials “don’t see any evidence that Iranians had the intentions or capabilities” to strike targets on US soil and, of course, that diplomacy still remained the “preferred solution” to resolving the standoff with Iran — all this will very substantially help dissipate the war clouds gathering on the Persian Gulf skies in recent weeks.

To my mind, Obama’s most important remark was the following: “But they [Iranians] have not taken the step they need to, diplomatically, which is to say, ‘We will pursue peaceful nuclear power, we will not pursue a nuclear weapon.” Are we hearing a peace formula?

Obama is not insisting that Iran should abdicate its natural right to pursue a nuclear programme, as allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but on its part Iran could help matters by allowing additional safeguards that would allay the apprehensions of the international community regarding the verifiability of its professed intentions not to make nuclear weapons. The critical part indeed is Obama’s open acknowledgement that Iran’s nuclear programme, as of now, remains a peaceful programme.

I found it fascinating that Obama, who is a highly cerebral politician, also signalled something by speaking during an interview where his main message was, “I deserve a second term, but we’re not done. We’ve made progress, and the right ting now is to just make sure we don’t start turning in a new direction that could throw that progress off.” And then, lo and behold, Obama went on and on speaking for much of the interview on the issue of Iran.

What I can guess is that this gifted statesman gently stepped back from his rowdyish election campaign, which is steadily hotting up, to make a commitment that he wasn’t interested in whipping up Iranophobia. Simply put, he won’t play domestic politics with the Iran nuclear issue. It is a helpful assurance that Tehran may take note when the general wisdom is that Obama is a cold-blooded politician who wouldn’t hesitate to go to war with Iran if that helped secure his re-election campaign.

Some serious back channel contacts are surely at work. My instinct is that Obama made a big decision to take note of the positive signals from Tehran that it is interested in meaningful engagement. Of course, it requires patience to make out the Persian puzzle, but the fact remains that Tehran literally stooped to conquer the IAEA inspectors who visited last week. And the inspectors gladly promised they’d return later in February on a second visit. Meanwhile, Obama spoke.

Posted in Diplomacy, Military, Politics.

Tagged with Barack Obama, Iran nuclear issue, US-Iran standoff.

By M K Bhadrakumar – February 6, 2012
 

Be Well

may all be well
I posted this on its own thread but think it would provide useful background about Iran:

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...iate.-Neither-should-we&p=4313705#post4313705


'The Mahdi does not negotiate. Neither should we'



By CHARLES S. FADDIS | Special to The Tampa Tribune
Published: February 05, 2012

Several years ago, prior to my retirement from the CIA, I was meeting with a senior Iranian asset in the Middle East. I had finished debriefing him on the intelligence he had to provide, and we had launched into a more expansive conversation about the overall direction of American policy toward Iran. I was trying to explain the rationale behind our sanctions regime and the thought process that had led us to conclude that we could persuade the Islamic Republic of Iran to modify its behavior.

The asset interrupted me. "You really don't have any idea who you are dealing with, do you?" he asked. I told him I was not sure I understood what he meant.

The source elaborated. We were under the illusion we were dealing with rational actors. We were not. We were under the illusion we were playing a game, which would stretch out over many years. Our adversaries in Iran shared no such belief. They expected this conflict to reach its climax in the very near future.

They also knew, to a moral certainty, that they would win.

Iran is an overwhelmingly Islamic nation, and almost all Iranians belong to the Twelver sect of the Shia branch of Islam. This sect awaits the return of the 12th Imam, or Mahdi, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammed anointed by Allah himself. According to the Twelvers, the Mahdi has been in hiding in caves since the 9th century.

The Mahdi has been hidden for 1,200 years now, but he will return just before the Day of Judgment. According to the Hadith, his return will be preceded by three years of chaos, violence and cataclysmic events. He will rule over the world for a period of seven years, eliminate all tyranny and oppression, and usher in an era of peace. He is, in many ways, the Muslim equivalent of the Jewish Messiah or the Second Coming of Christ. He is, however, the only one of these apocalyptic figures who expressly intends violent world conquest.

Some Twelvers, including the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameinei, believe that they are to prepare the way for the return of the Mahdi. In order to do so, they are to bring on the state of chaos and destruction, which will precede the Madhi's return. The worse things get; the faster they win.

The source's point was not simply to remind me of the tenets of the Twelver sect, with which I was already familiar. It was to stress the literal sense in which these tenets were understood by Ahmadinejad, Khameinei and their supporters. These were not, the source stressed, metaphors or parables. Ahmadinejad did not understand the story of the Mahdi to be a reference to some end state in which the world would live in peace and harmony. He understood it in a completely literal, simplistic way. He accepted it word for word as the absolute truth.

The Mahdi was, in effect, an Islamic superman. When he returned he would crush the infidels and apostates and create an Islamic empire that would control the entire planet. No one would be able to stand against him.

And, he was coming soon. As the source noted, the "End of Days" were not events of some distant future. They were around the corner. He guessed that Ahmadinejad probably thought in terms of a reappearance of the Mahdi within 18 months to two years.

Negotiation is all about leverage. Go onto a car lot and try to strike a deal with a guy who can hardly keep up with demand, and you're not going to have a lot of luck. Ask a guy who hasn't sold a car in month to make you an offer, and it may well be your lucky day.

Sanctions don't provide a lot of leverage over individuals who know as an article of faith that their secret weapon is about to emerge from his hiding place and slay their enemies.

Negotiation is also about rationality. At the height of the Cold War, no matter how bad relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were, we could always count on the Russians to be cold, calculating and rational. They might wish our destruction with every fiber of their beings, but they had no delusions about divine intervention. They understand, perhaps better than we did, the brutal, hard calculus demanded by reality.

None of that applies to our confrontation with Iran. Until such time as there has been a true sea change inside of Iran, negotiation and discussion is largely useless. We may choose to engage in it so that we are seen by the rest of the world as flexible and open to dialogue. We may choose to engage in it in order to buy time. We should be under no illusion that there is any real chance of such dialogue leading to a meaningful, lasting modification of Iranian behavior.

None of this is to suggest that we ought, therefore, rush to engage the Iranians in a conventional military conflict. We could no doubt make quick work of what passes for an Iranian Navy and clear the skies of Iranian aircraft in short order, but unless we are prepared to physically occupy Iran, neither of those things will solve our problem. We will still be faced with an implacable foe. And, in any event, another major conventional commitment of resources at this time in American history is probably the last thing we need.

It is an argument for a completely pragmatic, realpolitik approach to Iran. Negotiations will not work. Sanctions may physically weaken the Islamic regime and limit its ability to do harm, but they will not make it change course. We would prefer not to have to go to war. So, we should, therefore, take all measures short of open war to actively frustrate the objectives of the regime.

What that means in practice is this. If the Iranians need materials for nuclear weapons programs or other military purposes, we should deny them to them. To the extent possible we should look for all available means of dismantling and handicapping existing weapons programs. If necessary, and consistent with our laws and values, we should deny the Islamic regime access to the personnel it needs to continue to chart its present course. In other words, we should accept that we cannot expect the Iranians to alter their behavior or their attitudes and focus instead on physically preventing them from achieving their goals.

I have no illusions about the implications of the course of action I am suggesting. It is, in all likelihood, a recommendation that we conduct what amounts to a shadow war against Iran for the foreseeable future. However open-ended and however unsatisfactory this course of action may be, however, it is infinitely preferable to the alternative, which is to allow the Iranians to arm themselves with nuclear weapons and to continue to destabilize the Middle East and Central Asia.

The Mahdi does not negotiate. Neither should we.

Charles Faddis is a former CIA operations officer who served 20 years in the Near East and South Asia. He retired in May 2008 as head of the CIA's WMD terrorism unit. He also is an author and consultant.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/20...di-does-not-negotiate-neither-shou-ar-354869/
 
=






:shkr:
:siren: ISRAEL SEEN CLOSER TO ATTACKING IRAN :siren:

World leaders growing more concerned Jewish state may feel compelled to strike

By DAN PERRY & JOSEF FEDERMAN
Associated Press

12:01 a.m., Feb. 6, 2012
JERUSALEM
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/06/tp-israel-seen-closer-to-attacking-iran/


For the first time in nearly two decades of escalating tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, world leaders are genuinely concerned that an Israeli military attack on the Islamic Republic could be imminent — an action that many fear might trigger a wider war, terrorism and global economic havoc.

High-level foreign dignitaries, including the U.N. chief and the head of the American military, have stopped in Israel in recent weeks, urging leaders to give the diplomatic process more time to work. Israel seems unmoved, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has reportedly concluded that an Israeli attack on Iran is likely in the coming months.


President Barack Obama said Sunday he does not think Israel has decided whether to attack Iran, telling NBC News in an interview that the United States was “going to be sure that we work in lock-step as we proceed to try to solve this — hopefully diplomatically.”

Despite harsh economic sanctions and international pressure, Iran is refusing to abandon its nuclear program, which it insists is purely civilian, and threatening Israel and the West.

It’s beginning to cause jitters in world capitals and financial markets.

“Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict,” Britain’s deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said in a magazine interview last week. He said Britain was “straining every single sinew to resolve this through a combination of pressure and engagement,” rather than military action.

Is Israel bluffing? Israeli leaders have been claiming Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons since the early 1990s, and defense officials have issued a series of ever-changing estimates on how close Iran is to the bomb. But the saber-rattling has become much more direct and vocal.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently draws parallels between modern-day Iran and Nazi Germany on the eve of the Holocaust.

On Thursday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak claimed during a high-profile security conference that there is a “wide global understanding” that military action may be needed.

“There is no argument about the intolerable danger a nuclear Iran (would pose) to the future of the Middle East, the security of Israel and to the economic and security stability of the entire world,” Barak said.

On Friday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and boasted of supporting any group that will challenge the Jewish state.






=
 
=






Monday, February 06, 2012 3:42:50 PM
:shkr:
Stop ‘blabbing’, Israel PM warns officials

February 6 2012 at 03:14pm
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/stop-blabbing-israel-pm-warns-officials-1.1228255

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned his officials to stop “blabbing” about the possibility of an attack targeting Iran's nuclear programme, the newspaper Maariv reported on Monday.

Netanyahu is said to have directed the instruction at a number of military officials and government ministers who he believes have been speaking too freely about a potential Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.


The newspaper, citing unnamed senior officials, said Netanyahu delivered the warning during a meeting with ministers from his Likud party on Sunday.

“Stop blabbing, already,” he reportedly told the officials. “This chit-chat causes huge damage, puts Israel on the front line, and damages sanctions” imposed by the United States and Europe on Iran, the premier reportedly said.

Maariv's sources said there was concern that Israel “might be perceived as dragging the US into a war with Iran against its will and endangering the US's national interests.”

The warning came after several statements by senior Israeli military and political officials last week, including Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon, who suggested that all Iran's nuclear sites were vulnerable to attack.

“In my military experience, any site protected by humans can be penetrated by humans,” he said during the annual Herzliya security conference. “At the end of the day all their sites can be hit.”

Speculation has risen in recent weeks, driven in part by comments made by Israeli officials, about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran.

Israel and much of the international community believes that Iran's nuclear programme masks a covert weapons drive, a charge Tehran denies.

Israel, widely believed to be the Middle East's only, albeit undeclared, nuclear power, has supported tough sanctions against Iran, but also insisted it retains the option of a military strike to halt its nuclear activities.

On Sunday, US President Barack Obama appeared to try to dampen speculation about such an attack, which reports suggest Washington would oppose.

“I don't think Israel has made a decision” to hit Iranian facilities, he told American network NBC.

Obama said Iran was “feeling the pinch” of ever tougher sanctions imposed by the international community, and dismissed concerns that Tehran could retaliate by striking US soil, saying such a strike was unlikely.

“I've been very clear - we're going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating a nuclear arms race in a volatile region,” he said.

He added: “Again, our goal is to resolve this diplomatically. That would be preferable. We're not going to take options off the table, though.” - AFP






=
 
=








Hill Poll:
Voters willing to see US attack
Iran over nuclear weapons


By Jonathan Easley - 02/06/12 05:00 AM ET
http://thehill.com/polls/208761-hil...o-see-us-attack-iran-over-its-nuclear-weapons

Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week’s The Hill Poll.

Forty-nine percent said military force should be used, while 31 percent said it should not and 20 percent were not sure.

Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about Iran making a terrorist strike on the United States, while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.


Nearly half — 49 percent — of likely voters also said they opposed cutting military spending to balance the federal budget, while 40 percent said it should be reduced.

But 52 percent said the U.S. military’s presence in Europe and Korea should either be reduced (42 percent) or eliminated (10 percent), while 36 percent said those forces should be retained and 5 percent said they should be increased.


Although the Iranians deny pursuing nuclear weapons, few outside of Tehran believe the claim, and how to prevent such a scenario has become a hot election-year issue.

Two Democratic lawmakers in January introduced legislation calling for further economic sanctions against Iran in hopes that crippling the country’s economy would cause Tehran to give in to U.S. demands, or push the people of Iran to demand regime change.

The proposed sanctions came shortly after the House passed a bill that would punish foreign financial institutions for engaging in transactions with Iran’s central bank.

In response, the Iranian government threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil passageway in the Persian Gulf — a move the United States said would be crossing a “red line” of provocation.

The Obama administration said it is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” the president said in his State of the Union address. “But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”

But some of the Republican presidential candidates have called the president soft on Iran, saying his willingness to negotiate shows weakness, and warning that the Iranians will not honor any agreements that diplomacy might produce.

“If we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” said GOP front-runner Mitt Romney. “And if we elect Mitt Romney they will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Still, Rick Santorum is the only candidate so far to say outright that he would take out Iranian nuclear sites to prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Ron Paul, whose libertarian platform is staunchly opposed to U.S. intervention in foreign affairs, is the only GOP candidate who is against any type of action against Iran, and while those surveyed don’t agree with him on Iran specifically, the fact that voters would prefer to reduce the U.S. presence overseas offers some evidence his isolationist message is resonating more generally.

There’s a partisan split in how voters view overseas bases, with 51 percent of Republicans saying the United States should retain its presence in Europe and Korea. Fifty percent of Democrats and independents alike said it should be reduced.

When it comes to cutting the defense budget, that partisan split reappears, with 69 percent of Republicans opposing cuts and 61 percent of Democrats favoring cuts. Independents are more closely split, with 46 percent opposing cuts and 38 percent favoring them.

When Congress failed to reach an agreement on deficit reduction last November, the stalemate triggered $1.2 trillion in automatic across-the-board spending cuts, nearly half of which were to come from the Pentagon.

Last week, however, Senate Republicans introduced a bill that would undo the first year of military spending cuts by extending the federal employee pay freeze.

The findings were based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Feb. 2 by Pulse Opinion Research, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.






=
 
=






Bakradze:
there is no question of Georgia’s participation
in possible Iranian-American War


6 February 2012, 16:47 (GMT+04:00)
http://en.trend.az/regions/scaucasus/georgia/1988739.html

There is no question of Georgia's participation in possible Iranian-American War, Chairman of the Parliament David Bakradze has said.

The issue of the role of Georgia in a possible armed conflict between the U.S. and Iran, are only hypothetical, Bakradze said, commenting on the statements made by the Deputy Secretary of the National Security Council of Georgia Batu Kutelia.


"I can not confirm such kind of information. There is no question of that; the question also wasn't discussed during the visit of the President to the United States and not at the meeting between President Obama and Saakashvili.

'With regard to this hypothetical question - what would happen if the conflict begins, and if the UN votes on it - such questions usually aren't responded and I will answer neither. But I repeat again, there is no discussion about it," Bakradze concluded.

Earlier Batu Kutelia said, if the UN passes a resolution on Iran, Georgia will be required to execute it.





=
 
=






Israel’s intentions toward Iran remain unclear

By Edmund Sanders / Los Angeles Times
Monday, February 6, 2012 - Added 41 minutes ago
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/in...sraels_intentions_toward_iran_remain_unclear/

JERUSALEM — By ramping up its threat to attack Iran’s nuclear development program, Israel appears to have galvanized international attention around an issue it has long sought to bring to the top of the global agenda.

But it remains unclear whether Israel’s unusually public statements about a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities are a bluff designed to spur tougher economic sanctions or a means of preparing the world, politically and psychologically, for what some see as an inevitable confrontation, perhaps as soon as this summer.


While some credit Israel’s tough rhetoric for the European Union’s recent decision to ban Iranian oil imports, others warn the strategy could backfire by triggering retaliation from Iran or setting Israel on a course that may be difficult to reverse.

Skeptics say that if Israel were actually preparing to launch a military strike against Iran, it would not be talking about the option so openly. No such debate occurred before Israel attacked nuclear sites in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.

"Israel has shot itself in its own feet by exaggerating the Iranian threat," said Shahram Chubin, an Iranian-born nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program in Geneva.

Recent speculation about an attack — both by Israeli and U.S. officials — has undermined both countries’ deterrence, he said. "It has banalized the military option, where empty bluster has taken over from quiet, careful preparation, and crying wolf has blurred the red lines, which have been moved consistently."

But others insist Israel is serious about striking Iran, calculating that a nuclear-armed Islamic republic would represent a far greater danger than the possible repercussions.

"I fear they really mean it," said Reuven Pedatzur, academic director at the Center for Strategic Dialogue at Netanya Academic College. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Netanyahu lives for this issue. It’s not just talk to him but a fundamental matter."

The lack of clarity over which way Israel is leaning is not surprising. In many military matters, including its own arsenal of nuclear weapons, Israel often adopts what it calls a "policy of ambiguity," designed to keep enemies guessing.

President Barack Obama said Sunday that he did not think Israel had made a decision about whether to attack Iran.

"I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program," Obama told NBC News, saying there was close military and intelligence consultation between the U.S. and Israel. "We are going to make sure that we work in lock step as we proceed to try to solve this, hopefully diplomatically."

Military affairs analyst Alex Fishman likened the recent campaign of leaks and news reports in the U.S. and Israel to "ante in the regional poker game." But in his Sunday column in Israel’s daily newspaper Yediot Aharonoth, he also warned that Iran "saw our bet and raised it."

Iranian officials are reacting with tough talk of their own, including a recent threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for much of the world’s oil supply. Although Western powers fear that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons, Tehran insists that its nuclear development program is meant for civilian purposes only and has warned Israel and the U.S. of dire consequences if attacked.

Last week, Yoram Cohen, the head of Israel’s domestic security agency, said that Iranian agents have been attempting to hit Israeli targets in Turkey, Thailand and other foreign countries in order to make Israel think twice about launching a preemptive strike, Israeli media reported.

Such actions could also be a response to a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and mysterious explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities, which many believe were carried out by Israel and U.S. intelligence agencies.






=
 
=






:siren:
European diplomat:
:shkr::shkr:
If Israel attacks Iran, Pakistan will respond


Published: 02.05.12, 22:48 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4185677,00.html


A European diplomat based in Pakistan, permitted to speak only under condition of anonymity, said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation. That raises the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal. (AP)






=
 
=





:siren::eek::siren:
Middle East Reaching Point of No Return

Posted: 4/02/2012 10:21
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/middle-east-chaos-reachin_b_1254191.html


Continuing bloodshed in Syria, violent protests in Egypt, and a ramping up of tensions between Israel and Iran.

It would be hard to think of a more dangerous period in this the most contentious region on the planet, which given its location at the epicentre of the ongoing struggle over control of the planet's natural resources reveals the extent to which the so-called Arab Spring has laid bare the region's deep and many contradictions.


The failure of the military hierarchy in Egypt to palliate the country's desire for qualitative reform, by cobbling together a democratic process that leaves the military in place as the power of last resort, is expressed in the backlash that has met the deaths of 74 people at a football match in Port Said, when visiting fans of Cairo side al-Ahly were attacked by supporters of the home team al-Masry during a pitch invasion.

A welter of reports have emerged in the aftermath that the violence in Port Said was premeditated and orchestrated by the military itself, revenge for the role the ultras of al-Ahly played in the street battles in Cairo that helped topple the western-backed and pro-Israel Mubarak dictatorship in 2011. Even if these reports are exaggerated, the current backlash is evidence that the military leadership's continued control over Egypt's political and economic trajectory will not go unchallenged even after the country's recent elections. Here the West's commitment to democracy in the region is caught between its fear of the Muslim Brotherhood, who won a significant majority at the polls, and the very real possibility of the military governing council being swept aside in a renewed revolutionary upsurge that would end decades of subservience to western interests.

Meanwhile in Syria events appear to have reached the point of no return with the Syrian military's shelling of the city of Homs in the west of the country, whose population currently finds itself on the receiving end of the regime's inability to quell a growing and armed insurrection. However, the weasel words of concern in the West over the violence should cut no ice with those interested in ending the crisis and arriving at a peaceful resolution.

NATO's military intervention in Libya, which has left the country destabilised and mired in chaos, would undoubtedly be Syria's fate if not for the undoubted support that the Assad regime still retains in the country, along with the relative strength and cohesion of the Syrian military compared to its Libyan counterpart under Gaddafi. Regardless, the fact remains that the Syrian government is struggling to regain control of the situation on the ground. The fate of Libya and Iraq as recent examples of western-backed or imposed regime change has had the unintended consequence of ensuring that the current struggle taking place in Syria has been a zero-sum game from the very beginning, not only for the continued survival of the regime but for the likely explosion of sectarian violence that will explode across the country in the event that it falls.

With the Arab League enjoying little credibility in the eyes of those who understand it as a collection of puppet dictatorships with an agenda that accords to one drawn up in Washington, Tel Aviv and European capitals, this leaves Russia, China and the other members of the BRIC bloc of states as the only forces capable of effecting meaningful intervention at this stage.

Opponents of the Syrian regime must understand that stopping the bloodshed and regime change constitute different objectives. Indeed, the latter will only ensure more of the former in Syria. Assad's ability to remain in power may now be growing more unlikely with each passing day, but whether any transition that takes place ends in a peaceful outcome or one that fractures the country along sectarian and confessional lines will depend on the manner of the resolution to the crisis, and the nature of any outside intervention. Assad retains significant support within Syria and both pro-regime and anti-regime forces are involved in the violence currently taking place.

When it comes to Iran the determination on the part of Israeli hawks, led by defence minister Ehud Barak, to mount a military strike on the country's nuclear facilities has revealed the political weakness of the Obama administration when it comes to reining in its ally and most important strategic asset. US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta's recent statement to the effect that he believes Israel will attack Iran within the next few months was instructive.

There is of course the possibility that it was intended to exert more pressure on the Islamic Republic, but if so it underestimates the determination of Iran to exercise its sovereignty and resist the axis of domination in the region, made up of the US, Israel, and their European allies. The continued distortion by Israel and its supporters of the Iranian leadership's statements calling for the destruction not of Israel but of Israel as as an apartheid and racist state have succeeded in the objective of painting Tehran as the major threat to security and stability in the region, and increasingly the world.

The opposite is the case.

Israel's objective of maintaining the imbalance of military power it currently enjoys, and its ability to continue with the colonisation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, lies behind its desire to remove the resistance to this process on the part of Iran, expressed in the material support it provides to Hezbollah and Hamas.

The fact is that war with Iran is already underway, with the new round of sanctions levelled against its economy by the West constituting the latest stage. The series of assassinations of Iranian scientists engaged in the country's nuclear programme has only increased the Islamic Republic's resolve rather than weaken it, with the danger of a major conflagration closer now than it's ever been. The inability of hawks in Israel and its allies to learn the lessons of history, or their repeated pattern of learning the wrong lessons, is clear. The barbarity and racism implicit in Israel's iron heel policy towards the Palestinians is the major cause of instability and insecurity in the region.

This is a truth that western policymakers know but refuse to admit.





=
 
=






Just a bluff? Fears grow of Israeli attack on Iran

Associated Press
Sunday, February 5, 2012 4:39 pm |
Hasan Sarbakhshian
http://www.stltoday.com/news/world/...cle_3aaa1cc0-069f-57ba-b8ba-b4d98349d77c.html

For the first time in nearly two decades of escalating tensions over Iran's nuclear program, world leaders are genuinely concerned that an Israeli military attack on the Islamic Republic could be imminent _ an action that many fear might trigger a wider war, terrorism and global economic havoc.

High-level foreign dignitaries, including the U.N. chief and the head of the American military, have stopped in Israel in recent weeks, urging leaders to give the diplomatic process more time to work. Israel seems unmoved, and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has reportedly concluded that an Israeli attack on Iran is likely in the coming months.


U.S. President Barack Obama said Sunday he does not think Israel has decided whether to attack Iran, telling NBC News in an interview that the United States was "going to be sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this _ hopefully diplomatically."

Despite harsh economic sanctions and international pressure, Iran is refusing to abandon its nuclear program, which it insists is purely civilian, and threatening Israel and the West.

It's beginning to cause jitters in world capitals and financial markets.

"Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict," Britain's deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said in a magazine interview last week. He said Britain was "straining every single sinew to resolve this through a combination of pressure and engagement," rather than military action.

Is Israel bluffing? Israeli leaders have been claiming Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons since the early 1990s, and defense officials have issued a series of ever-changing estimates on how close Iran is to the bomb. But the saber-rattling has become much more direct and vocal.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently draws parallels between modern-day Iran and Nazi Germany on the eve of the Holocaust.

On Thursday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak claimed during a high-profile security conference that there is a "wide global understanding" that military action may be needed.

"There is no argument about the intolerable danger a nuclear Iran (would pose) to the future of the Middle East, the security of Israel and to the economic and security stability of the entire world," Barak said.

A day earlier, visiting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon implored Israel to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff.

Israel views Iran as a mortal threat, citing Iranian calls for Israel's destruction, Iran's support for anti-Israel militant groups and Iranian missile technology capable of hitting Israel.

On Friday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut," and boasted of supporting any group that will challenge the Jewish state.

When faced with such threats, Israeli has a history of lashing out in the face of world opposition. That legacy that includes the game-changing 1967 Middle East war, which left Israel in control of vast Arab lands, a brazen 1981 airstrike that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor, and a stealthy 2007 airstrike in Syria that is believed to have destroyed a nuclear reactor in the early stages of construction.

Armed with a fleet of ultramodern U.S.-made fighter planes and unmanned drones, and reportedly possessing intermediate-range Jericho missiles, Israel has the capability to take action against Iran too, though it would carry grave risks.

It would require flying over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria or Turkey. It is uncertain whether any of these Muslim countries would knowingly allow Israel to use their airspace.

With targets some 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away, Israeli planes would likely have the complicated task of refueling in flight. Iran's antiquated air force, however, is unlikely to provide much of a challenge.

Many in the region cannot believe Israel would take such a step without a green light from the United States, its most important ally. That sense is deepened by the heightened stakes of a U.S. election year and the feeling that if Israel acts alone, the West would not escape unscathed.

The U.S. has been trying to push both sides, leading the charge for international sanctions while also pressing Israel to give the sanctions more time. In recent weeks, both the U.S. and European Union have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran's oil sector, the lifeblood of its economy, and its central bank. Israeli officials say they want the sanctions to be imposed faster and for more countries to join them.

Last week, The Associated Press reported that officials in Israel _ all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss Iran _ were concerned that the measures, while welcome, were constraining Israel in its ability to act because the world expected the effort to be given a chance.

Even a limited Israeli operation could well unleash regionwide fighting. Iran could launch its Shihab 3 missiles at Israel, and have its local proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, unleash rockets. Israel's military intelligence chief, Aviv Kochavi, warned last week that Israel's enemies possess some 200,000 rockets.

While sustained rocket and missile fire would certainly make life uncomfortable in Israel, Barak himself has said he believes casualties would be low _ suggesting it would be in the hundreds.

Iran might also try to attack Western targets in the region, including the thousands of U.S. forces based in the Gulf with the 5th Fleet.

An Israeli attack might have other unintended consequences. A European diplomat based in Pakistan, permitted to speak only under condition of anonymity, said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation. That raises the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

To some, the greatest risk is to the moribund world economy.

Analysts believe an Israeli attack would cause oil prices to spike, since global markets so far have largely dismissed the Israeli threats and not "price in" the threat. According to one poll conducted by the Rapidan Group, an energy consulting firm in Bethesda, Maryland, prices would surge by $23 a barrel. The price of oil settled Friday at $97.84 a barrel.

"Traders don't believe there's anything but bluster going on," said Robert McNally, president of Rapidan and an energy adviser to former President George W. Bush. "A potential Israeli attack on Iran is different than almost every scenario that we've seen before."

McNally said Iran could rattle oil markets by targeting oil fields in southern Iraq or export facilities in Saudi Arabia or Qatar _ and withhold sales of its own oil and natural gas from countries not boycotting.

Iran also could attempt to carry out its biggest threat: to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil passes. That could send oil prices soaring beyond $200 a barrel. But analysts note Iran's navy is overmatched.

If a surge in oil prices proved lasting, financial markets would probably plummet on concerns that global economic growth would slow and on the fear that any conflict could worsen and spread.

For the U.S. economy, higher gasoline prices would likely result in lower consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of U.S. economic activity. That could have devastating consequences for an incumbent president seeking re-election.

Nick Witney, former head of the EU's European Defense Agency, said "the political and economic consequences of an Israeli attack would be catastrophic for Europe" since the likely spike in the price of oil alone "could push the entire EU, including Germany, into recession."

He said this could lead to "messy defaults" by countries like Greece and Italy, and possibly cause a collapse of the already-wobbly euro. Witney, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, added that "the Iranians would probably retaliate against European interests in the region, and conceivably more directly with terrorism aimed at Western countries and societies."

Oil disruptions or higher oil prices will also dent growth in Asia. China, India, South Korea and Japan all buy substantial amounts of Iranian crude and could face temporary shortages.

China's fast-growing economy, which gets 11 percent of its oil from Iran, has urged all sides to avoid disrupting supplies. Any impact on China's economy, the world's second-largest, could send out global shockwaves if it dented Chinese demand for industrial components and raw materials.

Why is the issue coming to a head with such unfortunate timing, with the U.S. election looming and the global economy hanging by a razor's edge?

The urgency is fueled by a belief in Israel that Iran is moving centrifuges and key installations deep underground by the summer _ combined with doubts about whether either Israel or the United States have the bunker-busting capacity to act effectively thereafter.

At last week's security conference, Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon, a former military chief, said all of Iran's nuclear installations are still vulnerable to military strikes. In a startling threat, he appeared to contradict assessments of foreign experts and Israeli defense officials that it would be difficult to strike sensitive Iranian nuclear targets hidden deep underground.

American officials acknowledge the current version of its bunker-buster bombs _ considered the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal _ may not be able to penetrate Iran's heavily fortified underground facilities. The Pentagon is asking Congress to reprogram about $82 million in order to make the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb more capable.

But U.S. officials also say there are a number of ways to cripple or disable the sites, such as targeting entrance and exit routes to an underground facility, rendering it inaccessible.

Israeli officials at the conference asserted that Iran has already produced enough enriched uranium to eventually build four rudimentary nuclear bombs and _ in what would be a new twist _ was even developing missiles capable of reaching the U.S.

Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israel's military intelligence, said the world needed less discussion on the issue. "There is the danger that an escalation could get out of control," he said. "Israel should go back to what it does best: Shut up."

___



Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/world/...69f-57ba-b8ba-b4d98349d77c.html#ixzz1lbwxg1Q5



=
 
=






Report:
US closes Syrian embassy, evacuates staff

By JPOST.COM STAFF02/06/2012 16:08
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=256704

The United States closed its embassy in Damascus Monday and pulled its diplomatic staff from the country after Syria refused to satisfy Washington's security concerns, CNN reported, citing State Department officials.


According to the report, 17 embassy officials, including Ambassador Robert Ford, left the country for Jordan by car Monday morning. The Syrians were only notified of the decision after the diplomats had left the country.





=
 
=






:siren:
Syrian Forces Pound Homs with Rockets, Mortars

06 Feb 2012
AFP
http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/syrian-forces-pound-homs-with-rockets-mortars/108718/

Syrian forces on Monday pounded the powder keg city of Homs with rockets and mortars, killing 17 people and wounding scores amid outrage over a Russia-China veto of a UN resolution to stop the violence.

The opposition Syrian National Council said the regime had encircled the city with tanks ahead of "a major offensive" and urged the international community to act quickly to prevent a new massacre.


A resident of Homs interviewed telephonically by AFP said Monday's assault on the central city began shortly after 6:00 am (0400 GMT), with government troops firing off barrages of rockets, mortars and artillery shells.

"What is happening is horrible, it's beyond belief," said Omar Shaker, an activist in Homs. The sound of gunfire and loud explosions could be heard in the background as he spoke.

"There is a large number of martyrs," he said. "It is the first time we are undergoing attacks of such intensity."

Shaker said activists were transporting the wounded to the city's mosques.

"There is nowhere to take shelter, nowhere to hide," he said. "We are running short of medical supplies and we are only able to provide basic treatment to the injured."

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights gave an initial toll of at least 12 people killed and dozens wounded early Monday.

The new raids, which were concentrated in the neighbourhoods of Khaldiyeh, Baba Amro, Inshaat and Bab Sbaa, followed what activists said was a "massacre" in the city overnight Friday and a weekend of further shelling.

A video posted by activists on YouTube apparently showed a field hospital hit by the shelling in Baba Amro, one of the main targets of Monday's assault.

Wounded patients could be seen laying on stretchers on the floor amid pools of blood and shattered glass. The authenticity of the video could not immediately be verified.

"Let the Arabs and Muslims come and see this, this is a result of their inaction," said Mohamed Mohamed, who identified himself as a doctor at the hospital.

Arabic satellite channels broadcast images from Homs which showed plumes of smoke billowing into the sky, as calls to prayer went out from mosques across the battered city.

The latest violence comes as Western powers vow to seek new ways to punish Damascus amid growing outrage after the double veto by Russia and China of a UN resolution condemning Syria for its deadly crackdown on protests.

The vetoes on Saturday had handed President Bashar al-Assad's regime a "licence to kill," according to the Syrian National Council.

The second UN double veto in four months also fuelled angry reaction from Washington, with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling it a "travesty" and vowing to push for new sanctions on Syria.

Russia and China both defended their vetoes, with Moscow condemning as "hysterical" the West's angry reaction.

"Some comments from the West on the UN Security Council vote, I would say, are indecent and bordering on hysteria," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters. "Such hysterical comments are aimed at suppressing what is actually happening."

Lavrov and Foreign Intelligence Service chief, Mikhail Fradkov are to visit Damascus on Tuesday, as news reports said the mission could try to push Assad to quit.





=
 
=






World Socialist Web Site:​

US war provocations against Syria

6 February 2012
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/pers-f06.shtml

Washington and its imperialist allies in Europe are escalating preparations for a full-scale military intervention in Syria. Coming after last year’s NATO war against Libya and threats of a sudden Israeli attack on Iran, Syria’s main regional ally, it is clear that Washington aims to reshape the Middle East by forcibly installing pro-US regimes throughout the region.

US officials have denounced Saturday’s veto by Russia and China of a UN Security Council resolution against Syria which sought to provide a pretext for military intervention. Beijing and Moscow, who did not veto a similar UN resolution against Libya last year, fear that the day when Washington tries to use these methods directly against them may not be far off.


US preparations for intervention against Syria are very far advanced, accompanied by levels of deceit and hypocrisy unseen since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq or the period of the Nazis. Trying to hide US policy under the worm-eaten label of a “humanitarian” intervention, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the UN Security Council vote as a “travesty,” adding, “We will work with the friends of a democratic Syria around the world to support the opposition’s peaceful political plans for change.”

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé called the Russian and Chinese veto a “stain” on the UN, adding that French President Nicolas Sarkozy would soon present further initiatives against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

These are cynical lies aimed at lending moral legitimacy to a violent intervention in Syria and ignoring the profound opposition these policies provoke in the US and European working class. Even in the Western media it has been widely reported that pro-US powers, including Turkey and France, are providing arms and aid to Syrian opposition forces. The US and its allies are not acting “peacefully,” but stoking the flames of a civil war while using the resulting bloodshed to denounce Assad and blunt popular opposition to a new war.

Washington is in no position to criticize Assad for fighting an armed insurgency. The US has bloodily suppressed insurgencies against its puppet regimes in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan—at the cost of an estimated 1.2 million lives in Iraq and hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan. The principal “stain” in this matter is on Washington and its allies, whose hands are covered with the blood of millions.

Nothing the Syrian regime has done can be compared to the 2004 US onslaught against the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Women and children were forcibly evacuated from the city, which was then leveled block by block as a reprisal for Fallujah’s resistance to the US occupation.

In their campaign against Syria the imperialist powers are relying yet again on a compliant media, which functions as nothing more than a mouthpiece for state propaganda.

Typical in this respect was Friday’s New York Times column by Robert Pape, brazenly titled “Why We Shouldn’t Attack Syria (Yet).” Pape explains how the methods of last year’s NATO war against Libya—in which NATO seized on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s threats against insurgents in Benghazi as the pretext to bomb Libya and intervene to back the Benghazi-based opposition—could be used against Syria.

Pape writes that “the opposition to Syria’s dictatorial president, Bashar al-Assad, has not achieved sustained control of any major population area.” He continues: “So air power alone would probably not be sufficient to blunt the Assad loyalists entrenched in cities, and a heavy ground campaign would probably face stiff and bloody resistance. If a large region broke away from the regime en masse, international humanitarian intervention could well become viable. Until then, sadly, Syria is not another Libya.”

This comment, by a supporter of the Syrian insurgency, speaks volumes about the class character of the insurgency. Lacking broad popular support, it is an instrument to give the imperialist powers a foothold inside Syria from which to launch a war against Assad.

The very fact that the Times asked a figure like Pape to contribute an Op-Ed comment speaks to the degeneration of the US media and academia. Blandly described by the Times as a “professor of political science” at the University of Chicago, Pape is a creature of the state. The author of Bombing to Win, he specializes in studying “coercive air power”—that is, how to terrorize states into submission by threatening mass murder from the air.

The practices of the current strategists of imperialist foreign policy are borrowed entirely from the methods of the Nazis in the lead-up to World War II. US plots to dismember and subjugate Syria under cover of denouncing Assad recall nothing so much as the Nazi policy of conquering Czechoslovakia by first occupying the Sudetenland, or the Nazis’ claim that they were returning Polish fire as Hitler’s tanks moved on Warsaw.

The task of dealing with the Assad regime belongs to the Syrian working class, not a right-wing armed opposition acting as a proxy for Washington and its European allies, who are preparing to unleash a bloodbath in the country. Assad must be overthrown as part of a struggle of the entire Arab and international working class—the initial stages of which were signaled by last year’s mass uprisings against US-backed dictators in Egypt and Tunisia—directed first and foremost against imperialism.






=
 
=






Syrian army defectors form higher military council

By Reuters
Published Monday, February 06, 2012
http://www.emirates247.com/news/wor...m-higher-military-council-2012-02-06-1.441589

Syrian army defectors announced on Monday the formation of a higher military council to "liberate" the country from President Bashar al-Assad's rule.


The council, named "The Higher Revolutionary Council" and designed to supersede the Free Syrian Army (FSA), said its head was General Mustafa Ahmed al-Sheikh, the highest ranking deserter who had fled to Turkey. The council's spokesman is Major Maher al-Naimi, previously the FSA spokesman, according to a statement sent to Reuters.

The announcement of the council's formation came hours after Assad's forces launched the heaviest bombardment to subdue the rebel city of Homs in the 11 month revolt.






=
 

BREWER

Veteran Member
Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.debka.com/article/21714/

Obama still tries to stop Israeli Iran strike. West confronts Iran in Syria
DEBKAfile Special Report February 6, 2012, 3:35 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Barack Obama Israel Iran Syrian uprising Bashar Assad UN Security Council
Barack Obama

US President Barack Obama, by asserting Sunday, Feb. 5, he doesn't think Israel has made a decision on whether to attack Iran, indicated he preferred to keep Israel back from military action and set aside as a strategic reserve, while at the same time using the broad presumption of Jerusalem's assault plans to intimidate Iran into opting for diplomatic talks on its nuclear program.

To this end, the president directly contradicted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's statement six days earlier that he expected Israel to strike Iran in April, May or June.

In Israel, no knowledgeable source any longer doubts that the Netanyahu government has already reached a decision. It was instantly assumed that Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, whose appointment as the next Israeli Air Force commander was announced Sunday, would lead the coming operation against Iran.

Obama also said, "We are going to be sure we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this – hopefully diplomatically." debkafile's analysts report that by "lockstep" he meant the role to which he had assigned Israel in the massive disinformation contest underway between the West and Iran.

Tehran responded to this verbal assault with one of its own, publishing a paper which suggested for the first time that Iran would not wait to be attacked but was preparing pre-emptive action of its own against Israel. The paper spoke of a surprise missile offensive targeting Israel's military installations, which were said to be concentrated between Kiryat Gat and the South, and the central Lod-Modiin district in the center, which Iran considers to be the soft urban-military belly of Israel.

Two features stood out from the verbiage of the last 24 hours:
1. Iran has no intention whatsoever of abandoning its drive for a nuclear bomb.

According to the information in Israeli hands, its program has passed the point of no return and capable of producing a weapon whenever its rulers so decide. This situation, American and Israeli leaders year after year had vowed to avert.
Iran underscored its negative on diplomacy by contemptuously refusing the IAEA inspectors visiting the country this week access to any of its nuclear facilities.

2. The US-led confrontation against Iran by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar has made Syria a major hub of the conflict, especially since the Russian-Chinese blockage Saturday of their UN Security Council motion to remove President Bashar Assad and end his brutal crackdown.

Israel has no role in this clash of wills, and President Obama is doing his best to keep Israel on the sidelines of the Iran controversy too, while he continues to angle for nuclear dialogue.

He was supported in this course by the veteran ex-diplomat Thomas R. Pickering who wrote in the New York Times on Feb. 2 that US relations with Iran remind him of the old Afghan adage: "If you deal in camels, make sure the doors are high" – meaning that to strike a deal, both President Obama and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would have to make concessions.

Obama's latest words indicate he is willing; Khamenei shows the opposite tendency.

Israel could if it so decided upset this unequal diplomatic applecart before it started rolling by a surprise attack on Iran without prior notice to Washington.

For the Obama administration the Security Council defeat was a major policy setback on top of reversals in Cairo.

Tehran in contrast was buoyed up by what it saw as the lifebelt Moscow and Beijing cast to rescue the Assad regime, for now at least, from the onslaught of its enemies and the stabilization of their Mediterranean flank to the west and direct front against Israel.

The Syrian ruler's fall would rob Tehran of its most powerful military ally for taking on Israel without direct Iranian involvement. It would also cause the Lebanese Hizballah's disempowerment as a military force. Severance of its geographic link to Tehran via Syria would expose the Shiite militia to Western and Arab diplomatic pressure and an Israeli attack.

Sunday, Feb. 5, Tehran followed up with a large-scale, three-week long military exercise in southern Iran opposite the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Ocean.

The Iranians were showing Washington that after stabilizing their Syrian front, they were braced for any military surprises the US or Israeli might spring on their most vulnerable region.

Monday, Feb. 6, opposition sources reported that the Syrian army had redoubled its deadly artillery and mortar offensive against Homs and, for the first time, bombarded the national financial and business capital of Aleppo. French sources reported Syrian armored cars were attacking Zabadani between Damascus and the Lebanese border.

If all these reports are confirmed, it would mean that Bashar Assad is taking ruthless advantage of the respite granted him by the Russian and Chinese Security Council veto to stamp out the uprising against him once and for all.

On the diplomatic front Monday, the US-led Western and Arab camp was reported to be pushing hard for the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Internal Security chief Mikhail Fradkov to use their visit to Damascus Tuesday and compel Assad to abandon his brutal attacks, pull his troops out of Syrian towns and step down.
To this end, the Western-Arab bloc is trying to set up another Council session before the end of the week – hopefully to reverse its contretemps of Saturday.

The Six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers meet in Riyadh this week for another round of consultations on the Syrian crisis after the Security Council fiasco and failed attempt to deploy monitors in the war-stricken country.

The West is also threatening to supply the rebels with heavy weaponry, at the risk of an escalation to full-scale civil war. This is an indirect admission that only light arms were given the anti-Assad forces until now. By boosting rebel strength, the West would tell Moscow that tolerance for the Assad regime to continue to rule Syria had dropped to zero.

The Russians are being called upon to back away from their support for Assad and reverse the policy which actuated their veto vote at the Security Council. Whether or not this is realistic will become known as the week unfolds.
 
=






Obama tightens Iran sanctions over bank "deception"

Reuters
11:40 a.m. EST, February 6, 2012
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-iran-usa-assetstre8151bt-20120206,0,3192768.story

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama signed an executive order imposing stricter sanctions on Iran and its central bank, saying new powers to freeze assets were needed because Iranian banks were concealing transactions, the White House said on Monday.


"I have determined that additional sanctions are warranted, particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties," Obama said in a letter to Congress.

He said the new powers over Iranian assets deemed to be in U.S. control - including foreign branches of American banks - were necessary because of "deficiencies in Iran's anti-money laundering regime" as well as "the continuing and unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system by Iran's activities."

Previously, U.S. banks were required to reject, rather than block and freeze, Iranian transactions. The new executive order gives American institutions new powers to seize assets they encounter instead of just turning them back.

The U.S. Treasury Department said the expanded sanctions would affect assets of all Iranian ministries and state-owned entities, including the central bank that processes Iran's oil revenues.

"These actions underscore the administration's resolve to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its failure to meet its international obligations," it said in a statement.






=
 
Top