WAR 08/30 to 09/06...............................****THE****WINDS* ***OF****WAR****

=





(23)07/30 to 08/05 ****THE****WINDS****OF****WAR**** ~
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...*OF****WAR**** ~

(24)08/06 to 08/13 ****THE****WINDS****OF****WAR**** ~
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...*OF****WAR****~

(25)08/14 to 08/21...........****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showt...*of****WAR**** ~

(26)08/22 t0 08/29......................**** WINDS **** OF **** WAR ****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show................****-WINDS-****-OF-****-WAR-****



==========​






Syria's Assad:
Government Facing 'Global Battle'


August 30, 2012
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/08/30/2012083000477.html

A grab from Addounia pro-regime Syrian TV shows Syrian President Bashar al-Assad speaking during an excerpt of an interview in Damascus,on Aug. 29, 2012. /AFP

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said Wednesday his government is fighting a "regional and global battle" and that more time is needed to win the conflict against rebels trying to overthrow him.


His comments came as renewed fighting broke out between rebels and Syrian forces near the Taftanaz military airport, located between the northern cities of Aleppo and Idlib.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that 14 government troops were killed or injured in fierce fighting at Taftanaz, while three rebels died during the clashes. The group also says anti-government fighters damaged three to five helicopters at the airport.

Taftanaz has been targeted several times by rebels entrenched in the two cities, which have suffered daily shelling by government troops.


�Ÿ Comments Signal Long Fight

In excerpts from an interview with Syria's privately-owned Addounia television, Assad described the situation on the ground as "practically better" but "not yet decided -- that takes time."

It was Assad's first interview since the explosion that tore through a government compound about six weeks ago, killing and wounding a handful of top aides.

The Syrian leader, who has vowed to defeat rebels he has characterized as Islamist terrorists, praised the army and security forces for their "heroic conduct."

"Despite several mistakes, there is a strong bond" between the government and the Syrian people, Assad insisted, boasting the support of the majority of the population.

"Everyone is worried about their country, that is normal. But [opposition rebels] will not be able to spread fear, they never will," he said.

Khattar Abou Diab, who teaches political science at the University of Paris, said the Syrian president appeared to be giving a pep talk to his loyal supporters, both at home and abroad. He added that Assad wants to appear determined and firm as a non-aligned summit in Tehran is preparing to debate how to solve the conflict in Syria.

�Ÿ Turkey Presses UN

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Wednesday that Ankara has discussed with the United Nations the possibility of housing Syrian refugees inside Syria and that his government expected the world body to take concrete steps towards this end.

Turkey has proposed the idea of a "safe zone" to be set up for civilians under foreign protection as fighting intensifies in the 17-month uprising. Up to 5,000 refugees a day have been crossing into Turkey during the past two weeks.

The UN warned Tuesday that up to 200,000 people could settle there if the conflict worsens.

A Turkish aid official said about 80,000 refugees are registered in camps along the country's 900-km-long border with Syria and that new camps will increase this capacity to 120,000 within the next 10 days. Turkey's leaders have repeatedly said their refugee capacity stands at about 100,000.

But in Wednesday's interview, Assad dismissed the idea of creating buffer zones within Syria.

"Talk of buffer zones firstly is not on the table, and secondly it is an unrealistic idea by hostile countries and the enemies of Syria," said Assad. "Will we go backwards because of the ignorance of some Turkish officials?" he asked. "[The Turkish people] have stood by us during the crisis.''

The two countries once cultivated good relations, but Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan turned against Assad over his violent response to the uprising.

The United Nations refugee agency has called for increased international assistance to help Turkey and Jordan cope with the surge in the number of Syrian refugees seeking shelter.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said Tuesday the number of Syrians fleeing to Jordan had doubled in the past week, compared to the previous week, with 10,200 arriving.

An agency spokeswoman said the new arrivals at the Za'atri camp in northern Jordan are mainly from Syria's southern flashpoint area of Daraa.

�Ÿ Battles near Damascus

In Damascus, activists reported a third straight day of army attacks on rebel strongholds in the eastern outer belt of the city, referred to as East Ghuta.

The Local Coordination Committees, a network of activists on the ground, said warplanes and helicopters bombed and strafed all the East Ghuta suburbs, while the Britain-based Observatory reported attacks by combat helicopters on the eastern suburb of Saqba as well as shelling further into the city in the district of Zamalka.

Increased attacks in and around Damascus over the past week have killed hundreds of people, including at least 320 in a single suburb Saturday, according to opposition groups.

Activists monitoring the violence report the death of 100 to 250 or more Syrians on daily basis, but these figures are impossible to independently verify.

On Tuesday, the Syrian military dropped thousands of leaflets over Damascus and its suburbs, urging rebels to hand over their weapons or be killed.

Syrian authorities blame the uprising on a foreign conspiracy and accuse oil-rich Gulf countries Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in addition to the United States and Turkey, of backing "terrorists" seeking to oust Assad's government.

Rights groups say at least 20,000 people have been killed since the insurrection broke out in March last year, while the United Nations says more than 214,000 people have fled to neighboring countries.








=
 
=





:shkr:
[US, UK and France threaten
military intervention against Syria


29 August 2012
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/pers-a29.shtml


In citing “weapons of mass destruction” as a pretext for waging war against Syria, the Obama administration is treading a well-worn path.

When President Barack Obama threatened August 21 that the movement of chemical weapons inside Syria was a “red line” that could trigger US military intervention, he did nothing that was not pioneered by George W. Bush before the 2003 war against Iraq. Obama now has the backing of British Prime Minister David Cameron and, this week, France’s François Hollande. The French president said his government was already working with Turkey to establish no-fly zones “in co-ordination with our closest partners.”


The connection between Iraq and Syria is more than a repetition of Washington’s hyping of an alleged WMD threat and invocations of democracy and human rights.

Confronted with the explosion of working class opposition to its client regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and more broadly throughout the region in 2011, Washington is seeking to mobilize reactionary forces to suppress the working class while implementing plans for regional hegemony laid out after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That invasion ended up strengthening Iran’s position by eliminating its main regional rival. Washington responded by seeking to undermine what it dubbed the “Shia arc of extremism”—which included the Alawite-dominated Baathist regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran itself.

The US responded to last year’s revolutionary working class struggles by deepening its reliance on Sunni Islamist forces tied to the Persian Gulf monarchies. Exploiting the political bankruptcy of the petty-bourgeois “left” forces, which opposed a struggle for power by the working class, Islamist parties have come to power in Tunisia and Egypt.

In Tunisia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided hundreds of millions of dollars to back the Islamist Ennahda (Renaissance) Movement, which won the October 2011 elections. In Egypt, Washington is cultivating the Muslim Brotherhood, led by US-trained academic Mohammed Mursi, as a civilian political partner for the army.

These forces, including Al Qaeda, have functioned as shock troops in Washington’s campaign to repress working class opposition and topple Middle Eastern regimes viewed as inimical to US interests.

The US and its NATO allies relied extensively on Islamist forces as they encouraged and armed a right-wing insurgency against the Libyan regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. This was the basis for a NATO-led campaign for regime-change that officially began on March 17, 2011—waged under the pretext of the United Nations “Responsibility to Protect” initiative first formulated in 2005.

The war threats against Syria represent a dramatic escalation of this campaign, with potentially devastating consequences for the peoples of the region and the entire world. The death toll in Syria of a military assault by Turkey and regional allies backed by US, French and British airpower has the potential to dwarf that in Libya.

Syria is now the destination of Sunni Islamist fighters from throughout the Middle East. As the US and its allies threaten military intervention against Syria, the ethnic and sectarian conflicts in the region are igniting violence throughout the region. Sunni-Shia violence has spread to Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, and beyond.

Other ethno-religious tensions, most notably focusing on the Kurds, could open another front in a potential civil war stretching across Syria, Iraq and into Iran.

Workers and youth must reject all efforts to conceal the plans for a new imperialist carve-up of the Middle East behind selective outrage over the crimes of the Assad regime. Whether such commentators are liberals or the representatives of the various pseudo-left groups that have rallied behind the Syrian National Congress and Free Syrian Army, they are perpetrating a political fraud in the service of Washington, London, and Paris.

Not just Assad, but all of the region’s reactionary and despotic regimes deserve to fall. But this is a task for the working class, mobilizing behind it the rural poor and all oppressed social layers. Any Middle Eastern regime installed by US military power will be a tool of the corporate and strategic interests for which Washington, London and Paris speak, dedicated to the suppression of the masses’ democratic and social aspirations for the benefit of world imperialism.

The petty-bourgeois “left” parties’ attempts to dress up sectarian Sunni movements as revolutionary and democratic are a crime against the peoples of the region that will have long-term and bloody consequences.

Against all attempts to sow divisions along religious and ethnic lines, the International Committee of the Fourth International upholds the struggle for the international unity of the working class, an end to imperialist domination and capitalist exploitation, and the establishment of workers’ governments across the Middle East.







=
 

CGTech

Has No Life - Lives on TB
=





:shkr:
[US, UK and France threaten
military intervention against Syria


29 August 2012
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/aug2012/pers-a29.shtml


In citing “weapons of mass destruction” as a pretext for waging war against Syria, the Obama administration is treading a well-worn path.

<snip>
=


I wonder if these threats were part of the reason for Russia beginning a pullout of Syria, that was reported via Debka... things could get interesting in the next few weeks.
 
=







Syrian rebels say they
have shot down a fighter jet


By Babak Dehghanpisheh
Thursday, August 30, 8:01 AM
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html?wprss=rss_world

BEIRUT — Rebel forces said Thursday that they had shot down a Syrian fighter jet in the northwest of the country, only three days after rebels appeared to have shot down a helicopter over Damascus.

The downing of the jet, if confirmed, would be the third attack in a little more than two weeks in which rebels have brought down a government aircraft, a sign that the fighters have either received more sophisticated weaponry or are becoming more proficient at using the weapons in their arsenal.


Video footage aired on al-Jazeera shows rebels standing on what appears to be the wing of an airplane. Moments later, a fighter points toward flaming wreckage on the ground and shouts, “These are your jets, Bashar al Assad.”

In separate video aired on the al-Arabiya news channel, a man is seen parachuting to the ground through a smoke-filled sky as rebels shoot in his direction with machine guns. “A jet plane was shot down in the city of Abu al-Zuhour while the plane was leaving the runway,” a fighter in the video says. “The pilots ejected with their parachutes.”

Abu al-Zuhour, a district in northwest Idlib province, is home to a military air base. Video aired on al-Jazeera Thursday depicted rebels allegedly carrying out a night attack, shooting mortars at the airport. Large fires spread out across the facility.

The Syrian military has ramped up air attacks across the country in the past month with helicopters and jets attacking residential areas in many cities. President Bashar al-Assad, in a rare television interview on Wednesday, said he was willing to strengthen his military assault on anti-government forces and said the rebels would be defeated.

An air raid Tuesday on the western city of Kafr Nabel killed at least 23 people, according to the Local Coordination Committees activist network. Video that appeared to have been filmed just after the attack shows several cars on fire, and wounded people being removed from rubble in the streets.








=
 
=







Syrian refugees riot over
‘slow death’ in Jordanian camps


Published: 30 August, 2012, 16:40
http://rt.com/news/jordan-refugee-camp-syria-932/

Syrian refugees who fled violence in their country are now fighting for survival in Jordanian refugee camps, which are struggling to sustain the influx of migrants. In a recent incident, 200 refugees rioted against what they called a “slow death.”

Refugees protested against dismal conditions in Zaatari Camp, a desert tent city that houses 21,000. Police reported that 28 officers were hurt in the uprising, one suffering from a fractured skull.


Many of the refugees have decried the conditions of the camp, located on a dehydrated, barren stretch of land that is crawling with snakes and scorpions, and is frequently blasted by sandstorms.

“Exhausted and drained. There’s not much for these refugees to do besides swelter under the scorching desert sun,” RT’s Paula Slier said, reporting from the camp.

“The atmosphere here is so bad. In Syria you die quickly. But here we are dying a slow death. I wish now I’d never left to come here,” a Syrian refugee told RT.

Jordanian Prime Minister Fayez Tarawneh said that the refugees responsible for the violence will be deported. “We will be firm in the face of those who break the law and we will send people arrested for attacking police officers back to where they came from,” he told reporters.

Refugees seeking shelter from the ongoing violence in their native Syria usually trek for days in the desert heat to reach Jordan, which is currently sheltering some 180,000 Syrian refugees, more than any other country in the region. Previously, refugees were placed in apartments, but are now being directed to the Zaatari Camp, which lacks the resources and infrastructure to support the high volume of people.

Jordan has no plan to deal with the influx of refugees, Slier reported. The country is struggling with few natural resources and little water, and is in need of foreign aid. The growing number of migrants is putting pressure on an already refugee-wary public.

“We can’t close our border in the faces of the refugees, we have to help them. Syria is a like a sister to Jordan, and king Abdullah and President Assad were friends. Now our king is in a very difficult situation. What goes on there has a direct impact on what happens here,” Jordanian parliamentarian Mahmoud Al-Kharabsha told RT.

Relations between Jordan and Syria were already strained. A number of defected Syrian soldiers and senior officers are being sheltered in Jordan. The highest-profile refugee was Syrian Prime Minsiter Riad Hijab, who fled to Turkey through Jordan earlier this month.

What was supposed to have been a buffer zone in Syria now lacks supplies, housing and basic amenities like toilets, forcing refugees to brave the harsh desert conditions.







=
 
=







In battle-scarred Aleppo, even bread
lines aren't a safe place for Syrians



Syrian civilians who have remained in Aleppo
through weeks of fierce fighting face food and
fuel shortages and live in fear of being killed
while going about their daily tasks.


By Tom A. Peter, Correspondent
August 30, 2012
Aleppo, Syria
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...eds/world+(Christian+Science+Monitor+|+World)

Outside a bakery in Aleppo, scores of people waiting to buy bread scurried toward the nearest wall for cover as a government helicopter passed by overhead. Less than two weeks ago, residents say, an air strike hit a nearby bakery, claiming the lives of more than 30 people who had queued up to make their purchases.


Inside Aleppo: Rebels repulse Syrian tanks, civilians dodge shells (+video)
How 'pro-regime' Aleppo became one of Syria's biggest battlegrounds
Aleppo short on weapons, medical supplies as Syria's next big battle looms

The Christian Science Monitor
Weekly Digital Edition

As the battle for Aleppo enters its seventh week, even a task as simple as buying bread has become a potentially deadly chore. Many residents say they live in fear of government planes targeting the large crowds that form as people wait up to three hours for bread, the long lines a result of food and fuel shortages brought on by 18 months of violence and upheaval.


RELATED – Why no safe zone in Syria, yet? 5 complications

“We are living with fear and the fighting with government Army,” says Abdul Qadir Sheb, a construction worker who had been in line for more than an hour.

The Syrian uprising has claimed the lives of more than 23,000 people across the country. Here in the city of Aleppo, where government forces and rebels have massed for what has been described as one of the most critical battles of the war, those civilians who remain say they face a dire situation.

Though Free Syria Army officials say the rebel group now controls up to 70 percent of the city, FSA fighters say their progress has been slowed by Syrian government aircraft and artillery, which they lack the weaponry to effectively counter. The fighting has made it difficult to bring food and supplies into the city, driving up prices.

In the past month, the prices of staples such as rice have increased by as much as 50 percent and some items have even doubled or tripled in cost, say residents. With daily battles and shelling continuing to rock Aleppo, most of the economic activity and development has ground to a halt, meaning many are left without regular work as they struggle to deal with inflation.

“I have some savings, but if the situation continues like this for another two months, I will have nothing but dirt,” says Mohammad Abu Omar, a carpenter who says he has had little to no work in the past year.

Along with his family, Mr. Omar is the last remaining resident in his 25-unit apartment building. If the violence doesn't abate in the coming weeks, he hopes to flee to Lebanon.

Fighting in Aleppo is now relatively contained and restricted to several areas inside the city, but even in places without fighting, where residents attempt to go about their lives normally, artillery fire and aerial bombardment are a constant threat.

At a small hospital that has stopped treating patients with routine medical issues so that it can focus on civilians wounded in the fighting, doctors say the constant bombardment has left them unable to keep patients in the hospital after they receive initial treatment.

The upper floors of the hospital have been damaged in at least four artillery and jet attacks. In one bombing, the hospital staff say it seemed like jets only bombed the hospital, leading them to believe the facility is a target of regime forces and not a safe place to keep the wounded.

“We don’t have don’t have enough doctors, and most important, we don’t have enough oxygen. A jet destroyed our oxygen machine,” says Abdul Ismail, an anesthesiologist who says he also does the work of a doctor due to personnel shortages. In the midst of a battle whose ending is still far from determined, many residents say they are beginning to despair.

“I’m expecting the worst. There is no progress in this crisis,” says Mohammad Rehowi, a shoemaker.






=
 
=








Egypt withdraws some tanks from Sinai

Number of contested tanks in peninsula reduced
by nearly a dozen; nearly 40 remain in border zone


August 29, 2012, 11:34 pm
http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-withdraws-some-tanks-out-of-sinai/

EL-ARISH, Egypt (AP) — Egypt on Wednesday withdrew some of the tanks it deployed near the Israeli and Gaza borders as part of a military operation against terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula.

The tank deployment earlier this month had brought complaints from Israel since the peace treaty between the two countries bans such heavy weapons from a zone along the border. Israel had quietly agreed to Egypt sending thousands of troops into the area — also barred under the treaty — to fight terrorists, but it had not consented to the tanks.


Nearly a dozen tanks that had been stationed near the Rafah border crossing into Gaza were seen heading out of northern Sinai on Wednesday afternoon. Military officials told The Associated Press they were returning to their base in Ismailiya, just on the other side of the Suez Canal from Sinai.

With the withdrawal, nearly 40 tanks remain in the border zone. The officials gave no reason for the pullback. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the deployment.

Egypt’s military on Wednesday said it is pushing ahead with its offensive against Islamist militants in the volatile peninsula, after reports of talks of a truce. The offensive was triggered by a brazen attack on Aug. 5 near Egypt’s border with Gaza and Israel, when masked terrorists killed 16 Egyptian soldiers before crossing into Israel, where they were shot dead.

Ultraconservative Salafi Muslims and other radical groups have said they reached an arrangement with mediators from the government by which the offensive would be suspended to avoid an escalation by terrorists, who are thought to be extremist jihadis, some inspired by al-Qaeda. The government has not commented on any attempts to reach a deal.

The state news agency MENA quoted an unidentified military official saying the offensive is still in progress and that 11 terrorists have been killed so far.

“We will continue to chase the terrorists,” the official said, according to MENA.

On Wednesday, explosives were found inside a bag and planted next to Sinai University in the northern city of el-Arish near Egypt’s border with Gaza and Israel, according to a security official.

Bomb experts defused the device, which included land mines and gasoline and was wired to explode.

He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.







=
 
=







France vows response as Marseille
hit by wave of shootings


August 30, 2012 03:43 PM
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/In...e-hit-by-wave-of-shootings.ashx#axzz24wOrH92z

MARSEILLE, France: The French government rejected calls Thursday for the army to be sent in to crack down on drug dealers in Marseille, but promised a tough response to a wave of deadly shootings there.


The gritty Mediterranean port city, long known as a hotbed of crime, has been struck by a wave of shootings with assault rifles in turf wars over the lucrative illegal drug trade.

The latest shooting Wednesday night saw Walid Marzouki, a 25-year-old suspected trafficker, riddled with bullets in a car, bringing to 14 the number of people killed in drug-related shootings in the city this year.

Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault's office said he would chair a meeting with senior ministers, including the interior, justice and finance ministers, next Thursday to tackle Marseille's problems.

A district mayor urged the government to take drastic steps, appealing for the army to be sent in, but the call was rejected quickly by senior officials.

"It no longer makes any difference to send in a police car to stop the dealers. When 10 of them are arrested, 10 others take up the torch. It's like fighting an anthill," said Samia Ghali, a senator and district mayor who represents two high-risk neighborhoods.

"Faced with the weapons of war being used by these networks, only the army can intervene," she told local newspaper La Provence, adding that the army should set up barricades around neighborhoods known as trafficking hubs.

Interior Minister Manuel Valls said there was no question of calling in the military but vowed the police would take tough measures.

"It is out of the question for the army to respond to these tragedies and crimes. There is no internal enemy," Valls told journalists.

But he promised a "comprehensive, in-depth and particularly strong" response to the shootings.



Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/In...e-hit-by-wave-of-shootings.ashx#ixzz252I8TSwl
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)





=
 
=







August 30, 2012: Israel has quietly reminded Lebanon recently that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, the retaliation will include all Lebanese infrastructure (roads, bridges, power plants and military assets). This strategy recognizes that while Hezbollah only rules in the south, the radical Shia militia makes use of all infrastructure in Lebanon. While this is true, the Lebanese government is also in a difficult position when it comes to controlling Hezbollah. That's because Hezbollah represents the minority Shia and has long used religious fanaticism and financial and military support from Iran to dominate the majority (a fractious collection of Christian, Sunni and Druze groups).


The majority wants to cut Hezbollah down to size, but they don't want to wreck the country in order to do it. Most Lebanese still have memories of the 1975-90 civil war, that ruined the economy, killed over 100,000 people (over four percent of the 2.8 million population) and caused at least a million to flee the country (many never returned). Now Hezbollah is becoming weaker and unstable because of the civil war next door in Syria. Hezbollah was founded with the assistance of Syria, which has long been a client of Iran.

But the Sunni majority in Syria is finally casting off decades of rule by a Shia (Alawite) sect. This has inspired the Sunni minority in Lebanon to fight the more numerous Shia in their midst. For weeks now gangs of Shia and Sunni gunmen have been fighting each other in northern Lebanon. Because of the war in Syria, Hezbollah can no longer travel freely there. Syria was to be the place Hezbollah could retreat to if the Israelis came after them in a big way. With that refuge gone, and more aggression from the majority minorities of Lebanon, Hezbollah feels threatened. It's not a healthy situation.

The new rulers of Egypt are facing some very serious economic problems. The economy has still not recovered from the disruption of the revolution 18 months ago. On top of that the government is running out of money, mainly because of fuel price subsidies. Egyptians pay 36 cents a liter for petrol (gasoline), while Israelis pay six times more (about two dollars a liter, or nearly eight dollars a gallon). Israeli petrol is not subsidized and is common heavily taxed. Egypt long used the subsidized fuel as a benefit for the people. Trying to take that away would cause widespread anger, perhaps even a mass uprising. But the government has no cash to buy and import all the fuel (at about 70 cents a liter) Egyptians are currently using. Fuel shortages will also cause unrest.

August 29, 2012: Responding to complaints from Israel, Egypt has withdrawn 11 of the 51 tanks it recently moved into Sinai. According to the 1979 peace treaty Egypt is not supposed to have any tanks in Sinai without Israeli assent and Israel believes that Egypt does not need tanks in Sinai to go after Islamic terrorists. In three weeks of Egyptian operations against Sinai based Islamic terrorists, 11 of them have been killed and 23 captured. Hundreds more have gone into hiding and are being hunted. At least three Egyptian police have been wounded so far. The local Bedouin population is hostile to Egyptian authority and not eager to help the army and police find the Islamic terrorists in the area. Meanwhile the Islamic terrorist groups in Sinai have told the Egyptian security forces to get out of Sinai or else.

In the Sinai town of El Arish police found and disabled a bomb planted next to a road outside the local university campus.

August 28, 2012: Islamic terrorists in Gaza fired two rockets and two mortar shells into Israel. Earlier in the day Israeli warplanes struck two targets in Sinai, in retaliation for rocket attacks over the past few days.

August 27, 2012: Islamic terrorists in Gaza fired three mortar shells into Israel.

August 26, 2012: Islamic terrorists in Gaza fired several rockets into Israel, damaging several factory buildings and wounding a civilian. One rocket exploded as it was being launched, killing the Palestinian who had set it up. The dead terrorist was later identified as one of the terrorist suspects rounded up, and released by Hamas in response to the August 5th attack on an Egyptian border post.

August 24, 2012: Egyptian police arrested four men in black trying to sneak into Egypt from Gaza.

August 23, 2012: Egyptian troops have continued destroying smuggling tunnels into Gaza. At least 120 tunnels have been destroyed (filled in) and the search goes on for tunnel entrances on the Egyptian side. The Egyptians also have tunnel detection equipment supplied by the United States. All this tunnel destruction is causing prices of consumer goods to rise in Gaza but is mainly intended to interrupt the movement of Islamic terrorists and weapons in and out of Gaza. Most of the tunnels moved consumer goods and only a few were used by the terrorists.

This tunnel destruction is in response to the August 5th attack on a nearby Egyptian border post by Islamic terrorists that killed 16 Egyptian troops. Hamas insists it had nothing to do with this attack, and blames it on Israel. Egypt is ignoring this and trying to bottle up the Islamic terrorists already in Gaza while going after those who are operating in Egypt, especially in the Sinai Peninsula.

Lebanon complained to Israel about an Israeli reconnaissance aircraft that spent the entire night over Lebanon. Apparently Israel is keeping a closer eye on Hezbollah, an Iran-backed terrorist organization that constantly threatens to attack and destroy Israel.

August 21, 2012: The U.S. announced it had seized $150 million belonging to Hezbollah. The money was in a U.S. account used by a Lebanese bank to help Hezbollah launder money obtained from drug smuggling and other criminal activities. It was recently revealed that a new Cyber War program was infecting computer in Lebanon, apparently seeking out information on how Hezbollah moved its money around. No one has taken responsibility for this Cyber War effort, but the U.S. is suddenly shutting down a lot of Hezbollah banking operations.







=
 

mzkitty

I give up.
kerrieheff: RT @DamascusSYR: #News Egypt president calls for regime change in Syria - USA TODAY http://t.co/QHr7FLRC #Syria #Damascus
Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:03:47 AM

Egypt president calls for regime change in Syria

By Nasser Karimi, Associated Press
Updated 1h 16m ago


TEHRAN, Iran – In a clear rebuke to Syria's key ally Iran, Egypt's new president said Thursday that Bashar Assad's "oppressive" regime has lost its legitimacy and told an international conference in Tehran that the world must stand behind the Syrian rebels.

The rallying call by Mohammed Morsi— making the first visit to Iran by an Egyptian leader since the 1979 Islamic Revolution— showed the huge divide between Iran's stalwart support of Assad and the growing network of regional powers pushing for his downfall.

It also drove home the difficulties for Iran as host of a gathering of the 120-nation Nonaligned Movement, a Cold War-era group that Tehran seeks to transform into a powerful bloc to challenge Western influence.

Iran's leaders say the weeklong meeting, which wraps up Friday, displays the inability of the West's attempt to isolate the country over its nuclear program. But Iran has been forced to endure stinging criticism from its most high-level participant as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon cited concerns about Iran's human rights record and said Iran's condemnations of Israel were unacceptable.

Morsi's address to the gathering further pushed Iran into a corner. In effect, he demanded Iran join the growing anti-Assad consensus or risk being further estranged from Egypt and other regional heavyweights such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Morsi has proposed that Iran take part in a four-nation contact group that would include Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to mediate an end to the Syrian crisis. The U.N. chief Ban also said Iran has a key role to play in finding a solution to end Syria's civil war, which activists say has claimed at least 20,000 lives.

But Iran has given no signals of breaking ties with Assad, and the Syrian rebels fighting the regime say they reject Iran's participation in any peace efforts.

"The bloodletting in Syria is the responsibility of all of us and we should know that this bloodletting won't be stopped without active interference by all of," Morsi said. "The Syrian crisis is bleeding our hearts."

Syrian delegates to the conference walked out during Morsi's speech.

In another possible dig at Iran, Morsi gave credit to the Arab Spring wave of uprisings that put him in power and touched off the civil war in Syria. Iran has endorsed many of the revolts — describing them as a modern-day reflection of its Islamic Revolution more than three decades ago — but denounces the Syrian uprising as orchestrated by "enemies" that include Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

At the United Nations, Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is expected to urge the Security Council later Thursday to set up a safe zone in Syria to protect thousands of civilians fleeing the civil war. But the initiative is almost certain to meet resistance from Council members such as Russia, which has supported the Assad dynasty for decades.

Morsi's Sunni Muslim Brotherhood backers, Egypt's most powerful political group since the revolt, are opposed to Shiite Iran's staunch backing of the Syrian regime and its lethal crackdown on largely Sunni protesters. Assad is a follower of the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

"We should all express our full support to the struggle of those who are demanding freedom and justice in Syria and translate our sympathies into a clear political vision that supports peaceful transfer (of power) to a democratic system," Morsi said in his opening statement.

Morsi slammed Assad's rule, saying that the world had a "moral duty" to stand with the Syrian people in their struggle "against an oppressive regime that has lost its legitimacy."

He said having a democratic system in Syria "reflects the desire of the Syrian people for freedom, justice and equality and at the same time protects Syria from entering into a civil war or being divided by sectarian clashes."

Morsi also called for uniting the fractured Syrian opposition, which has not been able to agree on a clear transitional roadmap for governing the country if Assad should fall. The Egyptian president expressed Cairo's readiness to work with all parties to stop the bloodshed and "agree on a clear vision on which the new free Syria will be based."

He has, in the past, spoken out against international military intervention in Syria.

Egyptian officials had said they did not expect top-level bilateral meetings with their Iranian counterparts during Morsi's visit. However, semiofficial ISNA news agency said Morsi and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met later.

Morsi's visit represents a major step toward ending decades of friction between the two countries despite the still-cool rapport.

Tehran cut ties with Egypt following Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. Under Morsi's predecessor who was ousted, Hosni Mubarak, Egypt sided with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-dominated Arab states in trying to isolate Shiite-led Iran.

In an attempt at outreach with Iran, Morsi stressed that it is the right of countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful as long as it adheres to international protocols. The West fears Iran's uranium enrichment could lead to atomic weapons, but Iran has insisted that it only seeks reactors for energy and medical purposes.

The U.N. chief called Iran's nuclear program "top concern" of international community and urged Tehran's "full cooperation" with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, which seeks greater access to Iranian sites for inspections.

He also urged all parties — apparently including Israel — to "stop provocative and inflammatory threats; a war of words can quickly spiral into war of violence."

But he added specific censure for Iranian condemnations of Israel. Earlier this month, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Israel will "disappear from the scene of geography." In his speech Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "fake regime."

"I strongly reject threats by any member states to destroy another or outrageous attempt to deny historical facts such as the Holocaust , claiming that another state, Israel, does not have the right to exist or describing it in racist terms," Ban said.

Earlier, Khamenei repeated his claims that Iran has never pursued nuclear weapons — calling use of atomic arms a "big and unforgivable sin" — but also noted it will never give up its work on nuclear technology.

"I declare that the Islamic Republic of Iran has never been after nuclear weapons and it never will abandon its right for peaceful use of nuclear energy" he told the gathering.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-08-30/egypt-president-visits-iran/57425432/1
 

mzkitty

I give up.
UN's nuclear watchdog says Iran has doubled capacity at the Fordo nuclear site - @BBCBreaking

51 mins ago from www.bbc.co.uk by editor

--------

30 August 2012 Last updated at 12:49 ET

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, says Iran has doubled production capacity at the Fordo nuclear site.

Its latest quarterly report also said Iran had "significantly hampered" its ability to inspect the Parchin military site.

Iran has produced 189kg (417 lb) of higher-grade enriched uranium since 2010, up from 145kg, it added.

Iran denies its nuclear programme has any military aspect.

The number of enrichment centrifuges at Fordo, at a facility buried deep inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom, had more than doubled to 2,140 from 1,064 in May, the IAEA said.

However, the new machines were not yet operating, it said.

Iran says the aim of the Fordo site is to enrich uranium for civilian use up to a maximum of 20%.

In May, UN nuclear inspectors found traces of uranium enriched at 27% at the site, but Iran said those readings could be accidental.

Analysts say 27% would bring Iran closer to making weapons-grade uranium.

In Thursday's report, the IAEA also said the Parchin site had been "sanitised" and that Iran had "been conducting activities at that location that will significantly hamper the agency's ability to conduct effective verification", if inspectors were granted access.

The Parchin site is suspected of being used for experiments related to nuclear weapons.

The overall Parchin complex is one of Iran's leading munitions centres - for the research, development and production of ammunition, rockets and high explosives.

Iran says it needs nuclear material for energy and medical needs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19424097
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2012/08/137_118659.html

08-30-2012 17:05
Dokdo: distraction and diversion
By Donald Kirk

The North Koreans have got to love this one. The ruckus over Dokdo/Takeshima gets so much play in Korea and Japan that Koreans and Japanese tend to forget they’ve got a real enemy lurking somewhere over the 38th parallel.

That would be North Korea, whose strategists may not know how to run their economy but are past masters at playing one side against another when it comes to dealing with their foes. Korea’s righteous wrath over Dokdo versus Japan’s indignant claims to Takeshima are so loud and shrill as to drown out concerns about what Kim Jong-un and Company is up to up there.

Wouldn’t it be great for the North Koreans if Korea and Japan actually got into a skirmish with one another over these two rocky islets way out there where nobody would be noticing them if both sides weren’t saying they’re “ours”? No gunfire is about to break out over Dokdo/Takeshima, but South Korea does stage periodic military exercises in the area just to show it’s good and ready for anything.

In point of fact, this quarrel is meaningless and useless since South Korea controls the islets and there’s absolutely nothing Japan can or will do about it. Not so the confrontation with North Korea.

Alarmingly, while “Marshall” Kim Jong-un presents his smilingly fat face for the cameras in visits to military units, factories and fun fairs, analysts see him as anything but a benign figure in his stance toward South Korea. The betting among those who may know is that he’s if anything more inclined than was his late father to stir up trouble if only to show he’s a tough guy after all.

To judge from this line of thinking, the torpedo attack that sunk the Cheonan in March 2010 and then the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island eight months later were just the opening rounds.

Next time, according to Koh Young-hwan, a former North Korean diplomat who defected more than 20 years ago, “North Korea’s provocations against South Korea would be more like regular warfare than a guerrilla attack.” Kim Jong-un has made clear he would uphold his father’s ``seongun” or military first policy.

Koh, now at the Institute for National Security Strategy in Seoul, is not terribly impressed by reform measures announced on June 28. No way, he says, will they “go beyond the scope of Kim Jong-il’s July 1, 2002, economic measures” ― prescriptions for change that did nothing.

What makes this analysis all the more disturbing is that Kim Jong-un in the eight months since the death of Kim Jong-il does seem interested in reform ― certainly a good idea considering the dilapidated and backward state of the North Korean economy today. He ― or those around him ― do want to shove military and Workers’ Party leaders out of control of the economy and get it into the hands of the Cabinet.

There’s a chance, in the process, that Bureau 39, once the center for the regime’s nefarious counterfeiting, drug smuggling and arms exporting has diminished in importance or been eliminated. That would be one way to undercut the power of the multi-tentacle military that Kim Jong-il courted and relied on to guarantee his place at the apex of the structure.

An issue at the heart of the struggle is who’s got the money ― in the North Korean case, stacks of U.S. $100 bills. It’s been said that (former) General Ri Yong-ho, the (former) chief of staff of the armed forces, who was unceremoniously stripped of all his posts a few weeks ago, had hundreds of thousands of dollars stashed in his residence.

That would not be too surprising, according to intelligence analysts, considering that many of North Korea’s military and party leaders were known to hold piles of foreign currency ― and sometimes able to get it into Swiss bank accounts.

“The party and politicians were deeply involved in economic activities,” said one long-time analyst. “It would not be unusual for them to have a lot of U.S. dollars in their houses.” The possession of all that cash, though, had a downside. When some of them got to thinking too seriously of the need for economic reform, they risked getting purged, even executed.

Kim Jong-un would find it a lot easier to follow through on the cleansing of the ranks in control of the money if he could divert them with a show of military force.

How about another attack on one of those islands out there in the Yellow Sea within eyesight of the North’s southwestern coast? He’s been visiting navy units along the coast, talking about turning the Yellow Sea into “a graveyard” for South Koreans. Nothing like a battle reminiscent of June 2002, when six South Korean sailors died, to demonstrate his macho qualities.

The danger of such an unexpected attack ― or another nuclear test, a missile launch, intermittent shelling or just about anything ― is many times higher than that of anything other than rhetoric over Dokdo/Takeshima.

The fuss over Dokdo, meanwhile, makes it all the easier for the North Koreans to devise a way to catch everyone by surprise. The specter of South Korea and Japan, bound to the U.S. in separate alliances, at each other’s throats gives the North much needed space to carry out whatever surprises it’s scheming next.

Columnist Donald Kirk, www.donaldkirk.com, has been covering confrontation, war and peace in the region since the 1960s. He’s reachable at kirkdon@yahoo.com.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/NH30Ad03.html

Greater China
Aug 30, 2012
SINOGRAPH
Maritime disputes expose Asian fault lines
By Francesco Sisci

Support for Beijing from Hong Kong and Taiwan protesters in the conflict with Tokyo over the disputed islands means such rows can no longer be oversimplified as democracy versus communist tyranny. By reawakening unresolved resentment left over from World War II, the issue could paradoxically bring China and the United States closer together.

BEIJING - Even in normal times, a quarrel between the world's second- and third-largest economies is important. In times of crisis, when the No 2 power, China, is the largest single contributor to the economic growth of the rest of the world, it becomes crucial for everyone.

The current tension between China and Japan, the third-largest economy, over a group of islets and rocks called Diaoyu in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese runs the risk of shaking nerves throughout the region, which could then affect trade and development well outside the region.

This is not the first time there has been friction between Beijing and Tokyo over the islands, but the current situation is different from in the past.

Earlier conflicts directly involved fishing vessels or protesters from mainland China. That put Beijing in a weak position in international public opinion. It was a contest between a democracy (Japan) and an authoritarian regime (China), so it was almost a given that the world and the region would side with the former.

This time, however, the dispute involves protesters who went to the islands from Hong Kong and received some support from Taiwan. Hong Kong, although not a democracy, is a free territory, and its public is not controlled by Beijing. In fact some of the protesters claimed to be patriotic, though not supporters of the ruling Communist Party. Taiwan, meanwhile, is a mature democracy.

The latest moves on these islands then are not an act of aggression against a democracy, but something that consolidates pan-Chinese opinion, beyond the boundary of the People's Republic, on a delicate territorial issue.

In other words, Tokyo's position has become weaker than in the past, and is likely to weaken more as Japan continues to have border issues, especially with South Korea but also with Russia, again over some islets.

This may have been a well-crafted plan by Beijing to mobilize public opinion in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and then to put pressure on Tokyo. If so, Beijing appears to have taken a step up in its ability to mobilize strategic diplomacy and public opinion, and has now extended its influence to sensitive national issues in the de facto independent island of Taiwan.

This influence over Taiwan plays against Tokyo in another way as well. Taiwan, where in 1949 the Nationalist government fled the mainland after being defeated by the Communists, has always been a great US bulwark and outpost in Asia. The Chinese Nationalists were allies of the Americans against the Japanese during World War II. So swaying public opinion in Taiwan over the Senkakus casts some doubt on any support Tokyo may receive from Washington on the issue.

In this case, the border dispute with Japan somewhat paradoxically could shorten the distance between China and the US.

In truth, the Americans are extremely wary of all these controversies in one of the busiest seas in the world, and they are even more concerned about China's growing military presence in the region.

But the current developments create a situation in which Washington cannot easily take a stand, because it has to choose between two old allies, Taiwan and Japan, while a third ally, South Korea, is growing reluctant to join in another collaboration over a few islets.

The other possibility is that Beijing has not hatched a conspiracy but has only jumped on the bandwagon of protest ignited by activists in Hong Kong.

In any case, the whole thing proves that the national question, particularly with regard to Japan - the enemy of China in World War II, an old hatred that has never been put to rest - is crucial to the Chinese people, even for those outside the control of Beijing.

If this scenario has created such a situation with Japan, it could be repeated with Vietnam and the Philippines regarding other disputed islands in the South China Sea.

In other words, the defense of territory - in this case a never-defined stretch of sea - could have strong popular appeal in Taiwan and create a pan-Chinese sentiment, even extending to the Chinese minorities that dominate the economies of many countries in Southeast Asia. This would further complicate the already complex political geography of the region.

For now, in fact, the real impact of the story has been on trade and regional economics. But all involved now must try to rein in public opinion to avoid further incidents and a spiral of increasing tensions.

But this won't be easy. Even in authoritarian China, the growing freedom of the Internet makes "angry young men" (the network of militant Chinese nationalists) difficult for Beijing to control.

In addition, in the absence of some form of compromise, even if the tension eases this time, as is likely, the next time it might explode more violently.

Here there are two issues about Japan. On the one hand, looking at Japan's territorial issues from a European perspective, it is strange that Tokyo, defeated in World War II, a conflict started because of territorial ambitions, still argues with its neighbors over territory. It would be very difficult for Germany or Italy, Japan's allies in that war, to argue with their neighbors at this level over territory without arousing a wall of suspicion and resentment.

But the postwar Asian and European histories have been different. Japan was allowed to keep its emperor and was soon "deployed" as an active base for America's war effort in Korea in 1950, and many territorial issues have been left dormant. China usually distances itself from the common knowledge that Japan was defeated not by the Chinese but by the Americans in World War II, and that at the time of Japan's surrender to the US, Tokyo controlled territory that was home to two-thirds of the Chinese population.

These facts have not translated into real Chinese gratitude to the US, as China in the meantime became communist and allied itself to America's Cold War enemy the USSR, so Beijing had to erase the new enemy's contribution to victory. This in turn moved the US to use Japan as a pawn in a broader anti-communist containment and for decades gave leeway to the Japanese extreme right to preserve dreams of the old Japanese empire.

On the other hand, Japan's neighbors, including China, have routinely played down Tokyo's huge contribution to peace and development in the region, often considering it as some kind of retribution for past war damages.

Amid all these elements, there is no sign from Tokyo or its neighbors of a massive reconsideration of them, and they are bound to complicate issues like the Senkaku dispute. They could also help make the whole atmosphere more volatile around the maritime borders. In past days Chinese media reported that even Russia had intensified its naval patrols around the islands it contests with Japan. It is a message meant to appease angry Chinese youth, as Beijing does not want to be dragged into a conflict that could hurt its economic development. The message is: Do not worry, it is not just us, many other countries are concerned and getting angry with the Japanese, we don't have to be the first to start a war.

This also shows that China is the country with more to lose in protracted friction about these maritime issues. Beijing needs to get out of this bind, to build greater trust with the US, which could help find solutions to these issues, as some Chinese experts said in August at a conference in Aspen, Colorado. To this a former senior US diplomat responded that maritime issues could after all be not a huge deal, but what about China lending more help on the delicate issue of North Korea? This could create more trust between Beijing and Washington, which could also help smooth the maritime issues.

Francesco Sisci is a columnist for the Italian daily Il Sole 24 Ore and can be reached at fsisci@gmail.com

(Copyright 2012 Francesco Sisci.)

Related Articles:

China eyes Japan with carrier name
(Aug 24, '12)

Comedy of errors in East China Sea
(Jul 20, '12)
 

Be Well

may all be well
Regarding the plight of the Syrian refugees, if the UN is worthy anything at all (IMHO it is NOT) then it should step up to the plate and help these people and the countries trying to afford them shelter. If the UN does nothing then it is proof that they are nothing but a foul nest of vipers.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Regarding the plight of the Syrian refugees, if the UN is worthy anything at all (IMHO it is NOT) then it should step up to the plate and help these people and the countries trying to afford them shelter. If the UN does nothing then it is proof that they are nothing but a foul nest of vipers.

The current situation in the Middle East IMHO will likely be the last straw for the UN as it is currently constituted, though IMHO Rwanda should have been. But then as long as it is seen by TPTB that edifice at Turtle Bay will continue to occupy valuable real estate.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/egypts-morsi-upsets-iran.html

Egypt’s Morsi Upsets Iran
gypt’s Morsi Upsets Iran
[Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi at the Non-Aligned Movement summit, August 30, 2012 (photo by Barbara Slavin)]

By: Barbara Slavin posted on Thursday, Aug 30, 2012

TEHRAN — A resurgent and boldly independent Egypt on Thursday upset Iranian plans for a smoothly-oiled summit that Iranian officials hoped would demonstrate that the Islamic Republic has more friends than foes.

About this Article
Summary:
The Egyptian president's visit to Iran has not pleased his hosts as much as expected, Al-Monitor's Barbara Slavin reports in Tehran. In a speech, Morsi highlighted the Syrian opposition’s struggle against the "oppressive system there," unnerving the Iranians, allies of the Syrian regime. Iranian newscasts omitted key bits in televised coverage.
Author: Barbara Slavin
Published on: Thursday, Aug 30, 2012
Categories : Originals Iran

Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi — whose brief trip here was criticized in advance by Israel and the United States — delivered a nuanced speech that targeted some US and Israeli policies but also adamantly backed the Syrian opposition’s struggle to overturn “the oppressive system there.”

Morsi’s tough words in support of Syrian rebels unnerved his Iranian hosts — staunch supporters of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iranian newscasters omitted key bits in televised coverage.

Photo Gallery
View our slideshow on Al-Monitor Pictures from Tehran, Iran »

However, reporters listening to a simultaneous translation of the speech to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit heard the Egyptian president — who hails from the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood — refer a half dozen times to the struggle of the largely-Sunni Syrian opposition “for freedom and human dignity.”

“Our solidarity with the struggle of the Syrian people against an oppressive regime that has lost its legitimacy is an ethical duty as it is a political and strategic necessity,” Morsi told representatives of more than 100 nations.

“We all have to announce our full solidarity with the struggle of those seeking freedom and justice in Syria, and translate this sympathy into a clear political vision that supports a peaceful transition to a democratic system of rule that reflects the demands of the Syrian people for freedom.”

“Our hearts are bleeding for the Syrian crisis,” Morsi added. “The bloodshed in Syria is hanging over all of us. It is our responsibility…We have to be totally aware that this bloodshed will not stop if we do not actively intervene.”

Long-time Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem walked out of the hall in protest. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who sat next to Morsi on the podium, was stone-faced during much of the speech.

Morsi’s comments upset Iranian efforts to portray the summit as a largely anti-American affair and contrasted sharply with those of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei, who left before Morsi spoke, did not mention Syria.

He opened the summit with a stinging harangue against “the domineering and aggressive government of America.” While he repeated previous disavowals of nuclear weapons as “a great and unforgivable sin,” the Iranian leader reaffirmed the right of Iran and other developing nations to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

“Our motto is: ‘Nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none,’ ” Khamenei said.

Morsi and the Iranian leader converged in their criticism of the UN Security Council and Israel and in support for the Palestinians, although their language diverged.

Khamenei inveighed against the “Zionists” and repeated demands for a highly-unlikely referendum in which all inhabitants of Israel and the Palestinian territories — plus the large Palestinian diaspora — would participate to determine the area’s political future.

Morsi, in contrast, called for a “just solution” to the Palestinian issue while criticizing Israel for oppressing Palestinians and mistreating Palestinian prisoners who, Morsi said, are “living in very difficult conditions [deprived of] all human and legal rights.”

Prior to the summit, Iranian officials bragged about Morsi’s visit here as defying the United States and Israel and a harbinger of the end to 30 years of Iranian-Egyptian hostility.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told Al-Monitor on Tuesday that Morsi’s visit would be a “landmark” even though the Egyptian leader was staying for only a few hours.

Morsi’s remarks suggested that Iranian hopes to restore diplomatic relations — severed after the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a peace accord with Israel — would not be realized any time soon.

More significant, however, Morsi demonstrated that Egypt is back on the international stage after a long twilight of stagnation and American tutelage.

Speaking in a strong, confident voice, Morsi acknowledged that Egypt is undergoing “a hard transitional period with lots of challenges” since the overthrow of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Feb. 11, 2011.

However, Morsi said proudly that “Egypt is now a civil state governed by civilians — a constitutional state, a democratic state, a modern state … where the sons of Egypt are fully in charge.”

Morsi was the obvious star of a summit that also drew United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. He urged Iran to resolve its nuclear dispute with the international community and gently chided Tehran over its abuses of Iranians’ human rights.

Other VIPs attending included Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the leaders of Iran’s neighbors: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Also present were two black sheep of the international community who are rarely welcomed outside their countries: Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe.

Many of the 120 members of the Non-Aligned group sent lesser dignitaries. The United Arab Emirates sent a relatively obscure member of the country’s supreme council, Sheik Saud bin Rashid al-Mu’alla, while Chile was represented by a vice foreign minister.

Morsi’s comments electrified what had been a humdrum series of preparatory meetings that ended with a communiqué full of pious generalities.

Delegates — especially from the more developed countries among the NAM — looked bored during the earlier proceedings and wandered the halls with pained expressions.

However, many praised the Iranians for organizing what amounted to a diplomatic Olympics.

One diplomat here praised the event as “already a huge diplomatic success” for simply taking place at a time when Iran is facing multilateral sanctions and frequent threats by Israel to attack its nuclear installations.

Barbara Slavin is Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where she focuses on Iran. This is her eighth visit to Iran since 1996. She tweets at @BarbaraSlavin1.

Related Articles
Barbara Slavin for al-monitor
Iran's Foreign Minister Says Morsi Visit Is a 'Landmark'
Barbara Slavin for al-monitor
From Tehran: Iran Using Summit To Showcase Victims, Friends
Milliyet (Turkey)
Iran Comes Out of Isolation as it Hosts International Conference
Meir Javedanfar for al-monitor
Maligned Non-Aligned Summit May Score Iran Some Points
As-Safir (Lebanon)
Sidelines At Non-Aligned Summit Should Deal with Important Issues
Abbas Maleki, Ph.D. and Kaveh Afrasiabi, Ph.D. for al-monitor
Why West Should Curb Hostility To Non-Aligned Summit in Tehran
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315350/ban-ki-moon-over-tehran-clifford-d-may

August 30, 2012 12:00 A.M.
Ban Ki-moon over Tehran
The U.N.’s latest outrage.
By Clifford D. May
Comments 13

Is there no point at which we conclude that the United Nations has evolved into an organization that is not just flawed, not just in need of reform, but fundamentally, structurally, and incorrigibly hostile to American values and the cause of freedom in the 21st century?

The latest — if not last — straw on the camel’s back: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s visit this week to Tehran for a conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Iran’s rulers are the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism; they are under U.N. Security Council sanctions, illegally building nuclear weapons while refusing to allow the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct inspections; they are in clear violation of the U.N. Genocide Convention; they are sending cash, arms, and troops to support the Assad regime’s slaughter in Syria; they are persecuting Christians, Baha’i, and other religious minorities and using the most brutal methods to crush dissidents.

Ban knows all this. He knows, too, that the Tehran meeting is intended, in the words of the government-controlled Kayhan newspaper, as a “slap” to the U.S. and “the last volley against the liberal-democratic system.” Apparently, none of this matters to Ban.

Nor does it matter to the rulers of the more than 100 countries that belong to the NAM and are honoring Iran by making it the president of their organization for a three-year term.

Founded in 1961, the NAM used to claim to be outside both the American and Soviet orbits — viewing the former as no better than the latter. But such states as Cuba, a Soviet satellite, were admitted for membership anyway, ensuring that the Kremlin’s interests would be served while Washington’s were not.

The collapse of the USSR did not prompt the NAM to realign. Today, Iran, Venezuela, and other anti-American states largely dictate the organization’s agenda. The Riyadh-based Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, 56 states plus the Palestinian Authority, a bloc the late scholar Bat Ye’or characterized as a “would-be, universal caliphate”) also has a hand on the tiller.

This global anti-democratic alliance enjoys a majority in the U.N. General Assembly. In the Security Council, autocratic Russia and China exercise veto power. Within this framework, one U.N. agency after another has morphed in ways that would have shocked even George Orwell.

The most infamous is the U.N. Human Rights Council, which does nothing to promote human rights. On the contrary, it protects the world’s worst human-rights violators while attacking Israel, the U.S., even Quebec. The council’s next member is likely to be Sudan, a jihadist dictatorship responsible for genocide in Darfur. On Monday, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called that “callous, dangerous, and tragic.” The U.N., she added, “has hit a new low.”

Then there’s UNESCO, the U.N.’s culture and science agency. Last March, 33 of the 58 states on its governing board announced plans to award a $3 million prize financed by Teodoro Obiang Nguema, president of Equatorial Guinea. Obiang came to power through a coup in 1979 and, since then, with U.N. assistance, he has managed to do nothing to alleviate the grinding poverty of the people he rules — even as Equatorial Guinea has become Africa’s third-biggest oil exporter.

Another U.N. agency, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), has allegedly transferred American technology to both Iran and North Korea. WIPO has refused to cooperate with a congressional investigation.

And does anyone remember the special tribunal established by the U.N. to investigate the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister who was blown up in Beirut in 2005? Time and money were spent. Some high-level Lebanese and Syrian security officers were implicated. Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanon-based terrorist proxy, denounced the tribunal. Surprise: No case has ever been brought to court.

Iran has been named a member of the bureau overseeing the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty — even as it has been illegally supplying arms to Assad.

In recent years, Iran also has been a member of a U.N. advisory committee on international law, a member of the executive board of the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), a vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission, and a rapporteur of the U.N. Committee on Information, which is meant to support free speech and a free press. North Korea, China, and Russia sit on this committee, too.

We haven’t even touched on the U.N.’s failures in Rwanda and Srebrenica, its chronic financial corruption, and the revelations that U.N. “peace keepers” have inflicted sexual violence on the women and children they were charged to protect.

Needless to say, this is not what the founders of the U.N. had in mind. In 1946, President Harry S. Truman hoped that the new organization would “provide the means for maintaining international peace.” The U.N. General Assembly, he said, would become “the world’s supreme deliberative body.”

The U.N. claims for itself four main purposes: keeping peace; developing friendly relations among nations; helping nations work together to conquer hunger, disease, and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for rights and freedoms; and harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals. Can anyone seriously argue that the U.N. has not flatly failed on every count and become, in columnist Charles Krauthammer’s apt phrase, “a sandbox of dictators”?

Does anyone not understand that the real mission of those who now run the U.N. is to transfer money and power from the United States and other free nations to anti-American and anti-democratic regimes — and to do so in the name of “social justice”?

The United States has long been the U.N.’s largest funder, contributing close to a quarter of the organization’s total budget — nearly $7.7 billion in fiscal 2010. (The U.S. government has delayed releasing figures for last year and this — which leads me to suspect we’re now spending considerably more.)

In these tough economic times, will Americans reach the point where we at least debate the wisdom of continuing to invest so much in an enterprise that produces considerable harm and little good? Is it not possible that a better way can be found to pursue the goals the U.N. was meant to achieve? Shouldn’t Ban Ki-moon’s most recent holiday in Tehran take us to that point?

— Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well there's a way to have it both ways for a time I guess....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/us-iran-summit-nuclear-idUSBRE87T0A220120830

Iran leader rules out nuclear bomb, will pursue energy


DUBAI | Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:12am EDT

(Reuters) - Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons but will keep pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told heads of state from developing countries in Tehran.

Iran, hosting a summit of the 120-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), is hoping the high-profile event will prove that Western efforts to isolate it and punish it economically for its disputed nuclear programme have failed.

"Our motto is nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none," Khamenei told the assembled heads of state.

But discord over Syria swiftly marred the summit when Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi urged member states to support Syrians striving to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, whose staunchest regional ally is Iran.

"Our solidarity with the struggle of the Syrian people against an oppressive regime that has lost its legitimacy is an ethical duty as it is a political and strategic necessity," Mursi said, prompting a walkout by the Syrian delegation, according to the pan-Arab satellite channel Al Jazeera.

It was not immediately clear if the Syrians had returned to the meeting after Mursi's speech.

Mursi's visit to Tehran was the first by an Egyptian leader since Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979, but his uncompromising speech suggested there would be no swift reconciliation between the two countries after three decades of animosity.

Diplomatic relations between Cairo and Tehran broke down immediately after Iran's revolution over Egypt's support for the overthrown Shah and over its peace agreement with Israel.

The NAM summit's final declaration is set to express deep concern about the violence in Syria and support for efforts by U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to broker a resolution to the conflict, a delegate at the meeting told Reuters.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, attending the Tehran summit, urged Khamenei late on Wednesday to take concrete steps to prove Iran's nuclear work is peaceful.

The West suspects Iran is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, an accusation Tehran denies.

In his speech, Khamenei criticized the U.N. Security Council as an illogical, unjust and defunct relic of the past used by the United States "to impose its bullying manner on the world".

"They (Americans) talk of human rights when what they mean is Western interests. They talk of democracy when what they have is military intervention in other countries," he added.

(Reporting by Marcus George, Zahra Hosseinian and Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Alistair Lyon)


Related News

U.N. chief excoriates Iran for threats to Israel, Holocaust denial
9:12am EDT

Analysis & Opinion

Risk spills over in Middle East
The U.S. needs to walk the walk on African security
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-odds-secret-iranian-nuke-7395


The National Interest
Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
Source URL (retrieved on Aug 30, 2012): http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-odds-secret-iranian-nuke-7395

The Odds of a Secret Iranian Nuke
More [1] |August 29, 2012
Chris Whyte [2]

The debate over whether or not the Islamic Republic of Iran seeks nuclear weapons has been raging for years. In fact, this past Tuesday marked a full decade from the day that the National Resistance Council of Iran revealed the existence of Tehran’s clandestinely built nuclear-fuel-enrichment facilities.

And for most of that time, international actions on the issue have centered on determining which of three possible outcomes is most likely. Might Iran be successfully diverted from nuclear development? Will the international community fail to prevent a bomb from being built? Or will the country pull up short of proliferation, likely avoiding global condemnation but still benefiting from influence that comes from possessing near-nuclear military capabilities?

Since 2002, the international community has focused primarily on reaching the first of these outcomes, leading countries like Israel and the United States to continually state a nuclear-armed Iran is not an option.

More recently, the rhetoric has begun to change, with a variety of indicators hinting that the advanced nature of Tehran’s nuclear complex is making Western strategic planners consider a Middle East that includes either a nuclear-armed or breakout-capable Iran.

But what if Iran’s proliferation is not the public affair that most commentators have assumed it eventually would be? There is a fourth potential outcome for nuclear development that the international community must consider. Tehran could choose to develop a tacit nuclear-weapons capability while still operating under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

After all, the development of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and enrichment complex to date has followed what international relations theorists call a “salami tactic” path—by pushing the bounds of what is allowed under the NPT and by keeping back-end development of nuclear technologies under wraps, the country has been able to build a full-cycle nuclear infrastructure slice by slice without ever clearly pushing the proliferation envelope. Tehran may very well continue that trend and avoid the potential firestorm of economic and military consequences that a public acknowledgement of nuclear-weapons capabilities could bring.

The incentives for Iran to continue its slice-by-slice approach under the NPT are clear. A nuclear capability, suspected to be fact by international intelligence agencies and militaries, would do a lot to guarantee sovereign integrity from external threats in the short term. At the same time, an Israel-like policy of opacity could be valuable in stalling the condemnation of international neighbors, giving Tehran time to fully develop viable delivery systems.

As for methods for achieving a clandestine nuclear status, Iran is well set up to keep trial explosions secret—or at least secret enough that proving otherwise would be difficult. Deep testing ranges in the mountains would go a long way to effectively preventing detection of postexplosion radionuclides, and seismic activity in Iran is common enough that a fabricated rural earthquake could be a feasible cover for testing trigger mechanisms or low-yield devices. Moreover, past propensities for using clandestine facilities to produce nuclear fuel indicates that diverting materials to a bomb program could easily go undetected.

Some may look at this potential outcome and say that an unofficial bomb would still be a bomb. And sure enough, it is difficult to see how short-term reactions to an Iranian nuke, announced or otherwise, would inspire anything other than reactionary policies of containment and wariness from neighboring states.

But a nuclear nonbreakout could profoundly impact the future of the international nonproliferation regime. With near-universal membership, states under the NPT have agreed to either forswear nuclear-weapons development or to disarm. And though Article IV has clouded matters of proliferation in recent years by guaranteeing the right to civilian nuclear programs, it is commonly thought that a nuclear breakout would, in addition to triggering proliferation elsewhere in the region, fuel a universal campaign to shore up those loopholes that allowed it to happen.

An Iranian bomb sans the breakout, however, would not do that. A nuclear capability might not change the geostrategic reality of the situation for regional military planners in continuing to balance against Tehran, but the ensuing uncertainty over the outcome of Iran’s program could stymie effective international nonproliferation efforts for years to come.

States would put less faith in the NPT. Both nonproliferation enforcers and security-conscious nonweapons countries alike would become more risk averse and likely to either toe the line of weapons development or, worse, liberally act to reverse threatening development trends. That kind of inclination would, as former Israeli intelligence chief Amos Yadlin pointed out [3]recently [3], diminish the effectiveness of coordinated sanctions regimes and other diplomatic efforts in the future.

Steps must be taken to affect changes in the structure of the nonproliferation regime. Policy makers in the United States and elsewhere around the world cannot reliably assume that a clear, explosive ending to the Iranian standoff will become the rally call for change. Because that end point may never come.

Chris Whyte is a researcher at the Center for a New American Security.

Image: Truthout.org [4]
More by
Chris Whyte [2]
Topics:

Nuclear Proliferation [5]
WMD [6]

Regions:

Iran [7]

Source URL (retrieved on Aug 30, 2012): http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-odds-secret-iranian-nuke-7395

Links:
[1] http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=nationalinterest
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/chris-whyte
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...be88c6-e7f8-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html
[4] http://www.flickr.com/photos/truthout/4042676752/
[5] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security/nuclear-proliferation
[6] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security/wmd
[7] http://nationalinterest.org/region/middle-east/persian-gulf/iran
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

For links see article source......
Posted for fair use......
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-30/egypt-s-peace-plan-for-syria-could-help-the-u-s-too.html

Egypt’s Peace Plan for Syria Could Help the U.S., Too
By the Editors Aug 30, 2012 3:30 PM PT

Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi chose for his first big foreign policy move to visit Iran and propose a regional quartet to end the conflict in Syria that would include Iran but not the U.S.

He could hardly have made a clearer public declaration of independence from U.S. foreign policy. But the State Department should relax. It should even -- quietly -- help Mursi out.

By involving all the important regional players, Mursi’s plan addresses the core threat that the 17-month-old Syria conflict poses to U.S. interests: a widening confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis across the Middle East.

The Egyptian leader’s statement of intent has triggered renewed hand-wringing in parts of Washington over the loss of U.S. influence in the region, as President Barack Obama pulls forces out of Afghanistan after their departure from Iraq, holds off on the airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities that Israel wants, and balks at military intervention in Syria. It doesn’t help those concerns that Mursi hails from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The hand-wringers should relax, too. The U.S. still has a great deal of influence in the Middle East. Supporting Egypt as it takes a lead of its own is smart diplomacy and can advance interests that the U.S. happens to share, while strengthening shaky ties with the new government in Cairo.

Mursi’s decision to become the first Egyptian president to visit Iran since the 1979 revolution looked like a propaganda coup for the regime in Tehran, but the speech he made Thursday to a summit of the nonaligned movement was nothing his hosts wanted to hear. He said Syria’s leaders, who are closely allied to Iran, had lost their legitimacy and that outsiders had a moral duty to intervene to help the Syrian people against an “oppressive” regime. The Syrian delegation walked out.

Mursi’s proposal would bring Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the table to secure a negotiated end to Syrian bloodletting, with the clear proviso that President Bashar Al- Assad must go. The initiative is designed to recapture for Egypt the role of the Arab world’s key mover that it had in the 1950s and 1960s, under President Gamal Abdel Nasser, but long since ceded to Saudi Arabia and even tiny Qatar.

The quartet idea is far from guaranteed to get traction. Both Assad and Syria’s fragmented opposition clearly intend to fight to the finish. There’s growing evidence that Iran’s security forces are involved in Syria, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding arms for the Free Syrian Army. Turkey, for its part, pressed Thursday at the United Nations to create safe zones for refugees inside Syria, a move that would require military intervention. None of that augurs well for a deal.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, would take some persuading even to sit down with its archrival, Shiite Iran, and the U.S. killed off a previous bid to involve Iran by the UN’s former Syria envoy Kofi Annan. Iran already responded informally to Mursi by floating a ludicrous spoiler plan that wouldn’t include the Sunni Saudis and Turks, but would involve Venezuela and Shiite- run Lebanon and Iraq.

Yet the same sectarian factors demonstrate why Mursi’s effort to bring the region’s crucial Sunni and Shiite players together makes sense and should stay on the table as events unfold, especially with a view to the conflict’s aftermath. A win by one side or the other in Syria is unlikely to end the fighting or the risk of regional spillover, and all the surrounding nations share an interest in preventing that. So do China, Israel, Russia and the U.S.

Mursi’s plan also has the advantage of circumventing the UN Security Council, which has been paralyzed since the start of the conflict by differences between France, the U.K. and the U.S. on one side, and China and Russia on the other.

There is a precedent for such regional mediation. Qatar was once the go-between for Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran and its proxies on the other. It brokered a peace deal between Lebanon’s factions in 2007, when both Iran and Saudi Arabia were critical players in the background. Qatar can’t mediate the Syria conflict, having helped to arm the Sunni opposition. Egypt has called on Assad to go, but hasn’t become so deeply involved. It also has no major problems of Sunni-Shiite sectarianism (Muslim-Christian tensions are another matter).

Mursi’s plan may not succeed, but the U.S., which could reap benefits from it, shouldn’t shoot it down. Given that nothing else is working in Syria, it’s hard to see how an Egyptian attempt at regional mediation could do harm.

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View editorials, columns and op-ed articles.

Today’s highlights: Stephen L. Carter on why he is still an NFL fan; William Pesek on China’s slowing economy; Amity Shlaes on how Romney can cut the mortgage-interest deduction; Naomi Schaefer Riley on why summer college tours are a waste of time.

To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view@bloomberg.net.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.aina.org/news/20120830184826.htm

Iraq PM to Present Syria Plan At Tehran Summit
Posted GMT 8-30-2012 23:48:26

BAGHDAD (AFP) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was to submit a plan to end Syria's conflict on Thursday based on a halt to violence and formation of a unity government that could include President Bashar al-Assad, his spokesman said.

Maliki was to outline the initiative, under which a Syrian regime figure would negotiate with opposition groups and elections take place under international and Arab League supervision, in a speech to the Non-Aligned summit in Tehran.

"This initiative is a developed version of a proposal that Iraq informally presented during the Arab League summit (in Baghdad in March) to some Arab leaders," Maliki's spokesman Ali Mussawi told AFP by telephone from Tehran.

The proposal includes an agreement by all parties in Syria to end violence and a call for all countries to "stop interfering in Syria's internal affairs."

It also calls for roundtable talks under Arab League supervision and the formation of an interim unity government which "includes all components of the Syrian people, with all factions agreeing upon who heads the government," Mussawi said.

The plan proposes the formation of an independent election commission and polls to be carried out under supervision, as well as the appointment of a regime official to negotiate with opposition groups.

Iraq, which shares a 600-kilometre (375-mile) border with Syria, has pointedly avoided calling for Assad to step down or criticising his government, urging instead an end to violence by all parties.

© 2012, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.peninsulaweekly.com.au/n...e-new-face-of-war-in-afghanistan/2656856.aspx

Green on blue: the new face of war in Afghanistan
BEN DOHERTY AND DYLAN WELCH
31 Aug, 2012 12:08 AM

IF THE Iraq war became known as the conflict that brought the horror of improvised explosive devices to global infamy, Afghanistan is quickly becoming the face of a new and even more insidious form of deadly violence – the insider attack.

Known in NATO parlance as green on blue (green represents friendly national forces and blue represents international forces), the attacks have increased dramatically this year. So far, 48 NATO troops – including the three Australians killed on Wednesday – have died in 31 separate attacks. This month, during Ramadan, 11 US soldiers were killed in nine days.

The high number represents 14 per cent of all combat fatalities this year and though it is still only August, the figure is already significantly higher than last year, when 31 troops died.

The numbers are so high that some analysts claim they may represent the highest incidence of intentional friendly fire attacks in recorded military history. In response, this month the commander of the International Security Assistance Force, US General John Allen, ordered that all coalition soldiers carry loaded weapons, even at the larger "secure" bases, inside buildings and at meetings.

But the Afghan and US governments – and branches of the US administration – continue to disagree over what has caused the recent surge in attacks.

Last week the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, blamed “foreign countries” – a reference to Pakistan and Iran – for infiltrating the Afghan national army and brainwashing vulnerable or disenchanted soldiers.

For his Eid message, the Pakistan-based spiritual leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar, said his fighters had been instructed to infiltrate the Afghan national army and coerce Afghan soldiers to help attack coalition troops.

“Thanks to the infiltration of the mujahideen, they are able to safely enter bases, offices and intelligence centres of the enemy. Then, they easily carry out decisive and co-ordinated attacks, inflicting heavy losses on the enemy both in life and equipment.”

General Allen disagrees with that assessment, saying in a speech at the Pentagon last week that only a quarter of green-on-blue attacks were caused by Taliban infiltrators. Most stemmed from personal disputes, stress or cultural disagreements, he said.

The Pentagon has said the number of infiltrator attacks is 11 per cent. The President, Barack Obama, said his administration was deeply concerned about this.
 

Marthanoir

TB Fanatic
The current situation in the Middle East IMHO will likely be the last straw for the UN as it is currently constituted, though IMHO Rwanda should have been. But then as long as it is seen by TPTB that edifice at Turtle Bay will continue to occupy valuable real estate.

World War I gave us the League Of Nations, World War II gave us the UN, what will be the legacy of World War III
 

Be Well

may all be well
The current situation in the Middle East IMHO will likely be the last straw for the UN as it is currently constituted, though IMHO Rwanda should have been. But then as long as it is seen by TPTB that edifice at Turtle Bay will continue to occupy valuable real estate.

I agree with the signs around my valley:

THE US OUT OF THE UN AND THE UN OUT OF THE US!


Nest of vipers....
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/us-iraq-kurdistan-oil-idUSBRE87T0JO20120830

Iraq Kurds ready for talks over crisis, oil: deputy PM

By Suadad al-Salhy

BAGHDAD | Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:29am EDT

(Reuters) - Iraq's Kurdistan is ready to restart negotiations with Baghdad to end their crisis, focusing on a long-delayed oil law to hand regions more say in managing energy resources, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Rosh Nuri al-Shawish, a Kurd, said.

The positive tone from Shawish signaled the Shi'ite-led central government and self-governed Kurdistan may be edging towards resolving their dispute over oil, territory and power-sharing that is straining Iraq's uneasy federal union.

Shawish told Reuters Kurdistan believes part of the dispute can be ended by passing an amended 2007 draft of an oil and gas law, which all parties had agreed to as part of broader power-sharing among Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish blocks.

"Approving this draft and adding some amendments which are agreed on by all parties ... is the proper way to resolve this," the deputy prime minister, one of the go-betweens for talks between Baghdad and Kurdistan, said in an interview.

Shawish said Kurdish officials had met with the head of the Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite National Alliance, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, for preliminary talks, and the atmosphere had improved enough for them to see room for progress.

Kurdistan has tested Baghdad's resolve for months by signing deals with foreign oil majors, such as Exxon and Chevron, contracts the central government rejects as illegal and part of a Kurdish push for more autonomy.

Their dispute is complicating a crisis in Iraq's fragile power-sharing central government, which was hobbled by infighting among Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish parties even before the last U.S. troops left in December.

Kurdish leaders and the Sunni-backed Iraqiya party often accuse Maliki of sidelining them and say the Shi'ite leader is amassing power at their expense. His backers say the premier's partners in power-sharing are trying to unseat him.

THREATS AND TALKS

Baghdad and the Kurdish capital Arbil are currently fighting over exports. Kurdistan has threatened to stop its share of national oil exports at the start of September, claiming Baghdad is not fulfilling payments to companies working there.

Iraq says Kurdish authorities have not supplied the correct paperwork and receipts for an audit of payments.

Adoption of a new oil and gas law has long been considered critical to the success of Iraq's rapidly developing oil sector, although Baghdad has signed multibillion-dollar contracts with global oil majors despite antiquated legal safeguards.

Last year, Maliki and Kurdistan agreed by December 2011 they would either amend the 2007 hydrocarbons law as agreed by all political factions or adopt the 2007 law as is. But that deadline past without agreement.

The 2007 draft gives regional powers partial authority over their reserves, and Maliki advisors have said in the past they would prefer that version because time was running short.

Autonomous since 1991, Iraq's Kurdistan runs its own government and armed forces, but relies on the central government for a percentage of the country's oil revenues from the national budget.

Shawish said Kurdish officials believe signing exploration contracts with oil majors without Baghdad's permission is a constitutional right. Disputes flared because Baghdad relied on old oil laws from Saddam Hussein's era centralizing control, he said.

"The controversy comes from this point, relying on old laws while looking for a new law in line with the constitution," the Kurdish politician said.

(Editing by Andrew Heavens and Patrick Markey)

Related News

Oil lower as offshore damage from Isaac seen limited
Wed, Aug 29 2012
UPDATE 2-Kurdistan warns Baghdad it will halt oil exports again
Tue, Aug 28 2012
Bloody day of blasts in Iraq kills more than 70
Thu, Aug 16 2012
Lebanon kidnap fans fear of Syria spillover
Wed, Aug 15 2012
WRAPUP 9-Syria air raid kills 30; Lebanon kidnap worries region
Wed, Aug 15 2012

Analysis & Opinion

The coming glut in oil – and its impact
Factbox – Syria’s rival sectarian groups

Related Topics

World »
Iraq »
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geography-iranian-power-robert-d-kaplan

The Geography of Iranian Power by Robert D. Kaplan
August 29, 2012 | 0900 GMT
Print 544 146 993 250
Stratfor
By Robert D. Kaplan

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Robert D. Kaplan's new book, The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate, which will be released Sept. 11.

The most important facts about Iran go unstated because they are so obvious. Any glance at a map would tell us what they are. And these facts explain how regime change or evolution in Tehran -- when, not if, it comes -- will dramatically alter geopolitics from the Mediterranean to the Indian subcontinent and beyond.

Virtually all of the Greater Middle East's oil and natural gas lies either in the Persian Gulf or the Caspian Sea regions. Just as shipping lanes radiate from the Persian Gulf, pipelines will increasingly radiate from the Caspian region to the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, China and the Indian Ocean. The only country that straddles both energy-producing areas is Iran, stretching as it does from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf. In a raw materials' sense, Iran is the Greater Middle East's universal joint.

The Persian Gulf possesses by some accounts 55 percent of the world's crude oil reserves, and Iran dominates the whole Gulf, from the Shatt al-Arab on the Iraqi border to the Strait of Hormuz 990 kilometers (615 miles) away. Because of its bays, inlets, coves and islands -- excellent places for hiding suicide, tanker-ramming speed boats -- Iran's coastline inside the Strait of Hormuz is 1,356 nautical miles; the next longest, that of the United Arab Emirates, is only 733 nautical miles. Iran also has 480 kilometers of Arabian Sea frontage, including the port of Chabahar near the Pakistani border. This makes Iran vital to providing warm water, Indian Ocean access to the landlocked Central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the Iranian coast of the Caspian in the far north, wreathed by thickly forested mountains, stretches for nearly 650 kilometers from Astara in the west, on the border with former Soviet Azerbaijan, around to Bandar-e Torkaman in the east, by the border with natural gas-rich Turkmenistan.

A look at the relief map shows something more. The broad back of the Zagros Mountains sweeps down through Iran from Anatolia in the northwest to Balochistan in the southeast. To the west of the Zagros range, the roads are all open to Iraq. When the British area specialist and travel writer Freya Stark explored Lorestan in Iran's Zagros Mountains in the early 1930s, she naturally based herself out of Baghdad, not out of Tehran. To the east and northeast, the roads are open to Khorasan and the Kara Kum (Black Sand) and Kizyl Kum (Red Sand) deserts of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, respectively. For just as Iran straddles the rich energy fields of both the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, it also straddles the Middle East proper and Central Asia. No Arab country can make that claim (just as no Arab country sits astride two energy-producing areas). In fact, the Mongol invasion of Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of people at a minimum and destroyed the qanat irrigation system, was that much more severe precisely because of Iran's Central Asian prospect.

Iranian influence in the former Soviet republics of the Caucasus and Central Asia is potentially vast. Whereas Azerbaijan on Iran's northwestern border contains roughly 8 million Azeri Turks, there are twice that number in Iran's neighboring provinces of Azerbaijan and Tehran. The Azeris were cofounders of the first Iranian polity since the seventh century rise of Islam. The first Shiite Shah of Iran (Ismail in 1501) was an Azeri Turk. There are important Azeri businessmen and ayatollahs in Iran, including current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself. The point is that whereas Iran's influence to the west in nearby Turkey and the Arab world has been well established by the media, its influence to the north and east is equally profound; and if the future brings less repressive regimes both in Iran and in the southern, Islamic tier of the former Soviet Union, Iran's influence could deepen still with more cultural and political interactions.

There is, too, what British historian Michael Axworthy calls the "Idea of Iran," which, as he explains, is as much about culture and language as about race and territory.1 Iran, he means, is a civilizational attractor, much like ancient Greece and China were, pulling other peoples and languages into its linguistic orbit: the essence of soft power, in other words. Dari, Tajik, Urdu, Pashtu, Hindi, Bengali and Iraqi Arabic are all either variants of Persian, or significantly influenced by it. That is, one can travel from Baghdad in Iraq to Dhaka in Bangladesh and remain inside a Persian cultural realm.

Iran, furthermore, is not some 20th century contrivance of family and religious ideology like Saudi Arabia, bracketed as the Saudi state is by arbitrary borders. Iran corresponds almost completely with the Iranian plateau -- "the Castile of the Near East," in Princeton historian Peter Brown's phrase -- even as the dynamism of its civilization reaches far beyond it. The Persian Empire, even as it besieged Greece, "uncoiled, like a dragon's tail ... as far as the Oxus, Afghanistan and the Indus valley," writes Brown.2 W. Barthold, the great Russian geographer of the turn of the 20th century, concurs, situating Greater Iran between the Euphrates and the Indus and identifying the Kurds and Afghans as essentially Iranian peoples.3

Of the ancient peoples of the Near East, only the Hebrews and the Iranians "have texts and cultural traditions that have survived to modern times," writes the linguist Nicholas Ostler.4 Persian (Farsi) was not replaced by Arabic, like so many other tongues, and is in the same form today as it was in the 11th century, even as it has adopted the Arabic script. Iran has a far more venerable record as a nation-state and urbane civilization than most places in the Arab world and all the places in the Fertile Crescent, including Mesopotamia and Palestine. There is nothing artificial about Iran, in other words: The very competing power centers within its clerical regime indicate a greater level of institutionalization than almost anywhere in the region save for Israel, Egypt and Turkey.

Greater Iran began back in 700 B.C. with the Medes, an ancient Iranian people who established, with the help of the Scythians, an independent state in northwestern Iran. By 600 B.C., this empire reached from central Anatolia to the Hindu Kush (Turkey to Afghanistan), as well as south to the Persian Gulf. In 549 B.C., Cyrus (the Great), a prince from the Persian house of Achaemenes, captured the Median capital of Ecbatana (Hamadan) in western Iran and went on a further bout of conquest. The map of the Achaemenid Empire, governed from Persepolis (near Shiraz) in southern Iran, shows antique Persia at its apex, from the sixth to fourth centuries B.C. It stretched from Thrace and Macedonia in the northwest, and from Libya and Egypt in the southwest, all the way to the Punjab in the east; and from the Transcaucasus and the Caspian and Aral seas in the north to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea in the south. No empire up to that point in world history had matched it. Persia was the world's first superpower, and Iranian leaders in our era -- both the late shah and the ayatollahs -- have inculcated this history in their bones. Its pan-Islamism notwithstanding, the current ruling elite is all about Iranian nationalism.

The Parthians manifested the best of the Iranian genius -- which was ultimately about tolerance of the cultures over which they ruled, allowing them a benign suzerainty. Headquartered in the northeastern Iranian region of Khorasan and the adjacent Kara Kum and speaking an Iranian language, the Parthians ruled between the third century B.C. and the third century A.D., generally from Syria and Iraq to central Afghanistan and Pakistan, including Armenia and Turkmenistan. Thus, rather than the Bosporus-to-Indus or the Nile-to-Oxus scope of Achaemenid Persia, the Parthian Empire constitutes a more realistic vision of a Greater Iran for the 21st century. And this is not necessarily bad. For the Parthian Empire was extremely decentralized, a zone of strong influence rather than of outright control, which leaned heavily on art, architecture and administrative practices inherited from the Greeks. As for the Iran of today, it is no secret that the clerical regime is formidable, but demographic, economic and political forces are equally dynamic, and key segments of the population are restive. So do not discount the possibility of a new regime in Iran and a consequently benign Iranian empire yet to come.

The medieval record both cartographically and linguistically follows from the ancient one, though in more subtle ways. In the eighth century the political locus of the Arab world shifted eastward from Syria to Mesopotamia -- that is, from the Umayyad caliphs to the Abbasid ones -- signaling, in effect, the rise of Iran. (The second caliph, Omar bin al-Khattab, during whose reign the Islamic armies conquered the Sassanids, adopted the Persian system of administration called the Diwan.) The Abbasid Caliphate at its zenith in the middle of the ninth century ruled from Tunisia eastward to Pakistan, and from the Caucasus and Central Asia southward to the Persian Gulf. Its capital was the new city of Baghdad, close upon the old Sassanid Persian capital of Ctesiphon; and Persian bureaucratic practices, which added whole new layers of hierarchy, undergirded this new imperium. The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad became more a symbol of an Iranian despotism than of an Arab sheikhdom. Some historians have labeled the Abbasid Caliphate the equivalent of the "cultural reconquest" of the Middle East by the Persians under the guise of Arab rulers.5 The Abbasids succumbed to Persian practices just as the Umayyads, closer to Asia Minor, had succumbed to Byzantine ones. "Persian titles, Persian wines and wives, Persian mistresses, Persian songs, as well as Persian ideas and thoughts, won the day," writes the historian Philip K. Hitti.6 "In the western imagination," writes Peter Brown, "the Islamic [Abbasid] empire stands as the quintessence of an oriental power. Islam owed this crucial orientation neither to Muhammad nor to the adaptable conquerors of the seventh century, but to the massive resurgence of eastern, Persian traditions in the eighth and ninth centuries.7"

As for Shiism, it is very much a component of this Iranian cultural dynamism -- despite the culturally bleak and oppressive aura projected by the ruling Shiite clergy in these dark times in Tehran. While the arrival of the Mahdi in the form of the hidden Twelfth Imam means the end of injustice, and thus acts as a spur to radical activism, little else in Shiism necessarily inclines the clergy to play an overt political role; Shiism even has a quietest strain that acquiesces to the powers that be and that is frequently informed by Sufism.8 Witness the example set by Iraq's leading cleric of recent years, Ayatollah Ali Sistani (of Iranian heritage), who only at pivotal moments makes a plea for political conciliation from behind the scenes. Precisely because of the symbiotic relationship between Iraq and Iran throughout history, with its basis in geography, it is entirely possible that in a post-revolutionary Iran, Iranians will look more toward the Shiite holy cities of An Najaf and Karbala in Iraq for spiritual direction than toward their own holy city of Qom. It is even possible that Qom will adopt the quietism of An Najaf and Karbala. This is despite the profound differences between Shia of Arab descent and those of Persian descent.

The French scholar Olivier Roy tells us that Shiism is historically an Arab phenomenon that came late to Iran but that eventually led to the establishment of a clerical hierarchy for taking power. Shiism was further strengthened by the tradition of a strong and bureaucratic state that Iran has enjoyed since antiquity, relative to those of the Arab world, and that is, as we know, partly a gift of the spatial coherence of the Iranian plateau. The Safavids brought Shiism to Iran in the 16th century. Their name comes from their own militant Sufi order, the Safaviyeh, which had originally been Sunni. The Safavids were merely one of a number of horse-borne brotherhoods of mixed Turkish, Azeri, Georgian and Persian origin in the late 15th century that occupied the mountainous plateau region between the Black and Caspian seas, where eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus and northwestern Iran come together. In order to build a stable state on the Farsi-speaking Iranian plateau, these new sovereigns of eclectic linguistic and geographical origin adopted Twelver Shiism as the state religion, which awaits the return of the Twelfth Imam, a direct descendant of Mohammed, who is not dead but in occlusion.9 The Safavid Empire at its zenith stretched thereabouts from Anatolia and Syria-Mesopotamia to central Afghanistan and Pakistan -- yet another variant of Greater Iran through history. Shiism was an agent of Iran's congealment as a modern nation-state, even as the Iranianization of non-Persian Shiite and Sunni minorities during the 16th century also helped in this regard.10 Iran might have been a great state and nation since antiquity, but the Safavids with their insertion of Shiism onto the Iranian plateau retooled Iran for the modern era.

Indeed, revolutionary Iran of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is a fitting expression of this powerful and singular legacy. Of course, the rise of the ayatollahs has been a lowering event in the sense of the violence done to -- and I do not mean to exaggerate -- the voluptuous, sophisticated and intellectually stimulating traditions of the Iranian past. (Persia -- "that land of poets and roses!" exclaims the introductory epistle of James J. Morier's The Adventures of Hajji Baba of Ispahan.11) But comparison, it is famously said, is the beginning of all serious scholarship. And compared to the upheavals and revolutions in the Arab world during the early and middle phases of the Cold War, the regime ushered in by the 1978-79 Iranian Revolution was striking in its élan and modernity. The truth is, and this is something that goes directly back to the Achaemenids of antiquity, everything about the Iranian past and present is of a high quality, whether it is the dynamism of its empires from Cyrus the Great to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Who can deny the sheer Iranian talent for running militant networks in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, which is, after all, an aspect of imperial rule!); or the political thought and writings of its Shiite clergy; or the complex efficiency of the bureaucracy and security services in cracking down on dissidents. Tehran's revolutionary order constitutes a richly developed governmental structure with a diffusion of power centers; it is not a crude one-man thugocracy like the kind Saddam Hussein ran in neighboring Arab Iraq.

Again, what makes the clerical regime in Iran so effective in the pursuit of its interests, from Lebanon to Afghanistan, is its merger with the Iranian state, which itself is the product of history and geography. The Green Movement, which emerged in the course of massive anti-regime demonstrations following the disputed elections of 2009, is very much like the regime it seeks to topple. The Greens were greatly sophisticated by the standards of the region (at least until the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia two years later), and thus another demonstration of the Iranian genius. The Greens constituted a world-class democracy movement, having mastered the latest means in communications technology -- Twitter, Facebook, text messaging -- to advance their organizational throw weight and having adopted a potent mixture of nationalism and universal moral values to advance their cause. It took all the means of repression of the Iranian state, subtle and not, to drive the Greens underground. (In fact, the Iranian regime was far more surgical in its repression of the Greens than the Syrian regime has thus far been in its own violent attempt to silence dissent.) Were the Greens ever to take power, or to facilitate a change in the clerical regime's philosophy and foreign policy toward moderation, Iran, because of its strong state and dynamic idea, would have the means to shift the whole groundwork of the Middle East away from radicalization, providing political expression for a new bourgeoisie with middle-class values that has been quietly rising throughout the Greater Middle East, and which the American obsession with al Qaeda and radicalism obscured until the Arab Spring of 2011.12

To speak in terms of destiny is dangerous, since it implies an acceptance of fate and determinism, but clearly given Iran's geography, history and human capital, it seems likely that the Greater Middle East, and by extension, Eurasia, will be critically affected by Iran's own political evolution, for better or for worse.

The best indication that Iran has yet to fulfill such a destiny lies in what has not quite happened yet in Central Asia. Let me explain. Iran's geography, as noted, gives it frontage on Central Asia to the same extent that it has on Mesopotamia and the Middle East. But the disintegration of the Soviet Union has brought limited gains to Iran, when one takes into account the whole history of Greater Iran in the region. The very suffix "istan," used for Central and South Asian countries and which means "place," is Persian. The conduits for Islamization and civilization in Central Asia were the Persian language and culture. The language of the intelligentsia and other elites in Central Asia up through the beginning of the 20th century was one form of Persian or another. But after 1991, Shiite Azerbaijan to the northwest adopted the Latin alphabet and turned to Turkey for tutelage. As for the republics to the northeast of Iran, Sunni Uzbekistan oriented itself more toward a nationalistic than an Islamic base, for fear of its own homegrown fundamentalists -- this makes it wary of Iran. Tajikistan, Sunni but Persian-speaking, seeks a protector in Iran, but Iran is constrained for fear of making an enemy of the many Turkic-speaking Muslims elsewhere in Central Asia.13 What's more, being nomads and semi-nomads, Central Asians were rarely devout Muslims to start with, and seven decades of communism only strengthened their secularist tendencies. Having to relearn Islam, they are both put off and intimidated by clerical Iran.

Of course, there have been positive developments from the viewpoint of Tehran. Iran, as its nuclear program attests, is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the Middle East (in keeping with its culture and politics), and as such has built hydroelectric projects and roads and railroads in these Central Asian countries that will one day link them all to Iran -- either directly or through Afghanistan. Moreover, a natural gas pipeline now connects southeastern Turkmenistan with northeastern Iran, bringing Turkmen natural gas to Iran's Caspian region, and thus freeing up Tehran's own natural gas production in southern Iran for export via the Persian Gulf. (This goes along with a rail link built in the 1990s connecting the two countries.) Turkmenistan has the world's fourth-largest natural gas reserves and has committed its entire natural gas exports to Iran, China and Russia. Hence, the possibility arises of a Eurasian energy axis united by the crucial geography of three continental powers all for the time being opposed to Western democracy.14 Iran and Kazakhstan have built an oil pipeline connecting the two countries, with Kazakh oil being pumped to Iran's north, even as an equivalent amount of oil is shipped from Iran's south out through the Persian Gulf. Kazakhstan and Iran will also be linked by rail, providing Kazakhstan with direct access to the Gulf. A rail line may also connect mountainous Tajikistan to Iran, via Afghanistan. Iran constitutes the shortest route for all these natural resource-rich countries to reach international markets.

So imagine an Iran athwart the pipeline routes of Central Asia, along with its sub-state, terrorist empire of sorts in the Greater Middle East. But there is still a problem. Given the prestige that Shiite Iran has enjoyed in sectors of the Sunni Arab world, to say nothing of Shiite south Lebanon and Shiite Iraq -- because of the regime's implacable support for the Palestinian cause and its inherent anti-Semitism -- it is telling that this ability to attract mass support outside its borders does not similarly carry over into Central Asia. One issue is that the former Soviet republics maintain diplomatic relations with Israel and simply lack the hatred toward it that may still be ubiquitous in the Arab world, despite the initial phases of the Arab Spring. Yet, there is something larger and deeper at work, something that limits Iran's appeal not only in Central Asia but in the Arab world as well. That something is the very persistence of its suffocating clerical rule that, while impressive in a negative sense -- using Iran's strong state tradition to ingeniously crush a democratic opposition and torture and rape its own people -- has also dulled the linguistic and cosmopolitan appeal that throughout history has accounted for a Greater Iran in a cultural sense. The Technicolor is gone from the Iranian landscape under this regime and has been replaced by grainy black and white. Iran's imperial ambitions are for the time being limited by the very nature of its clerical rule.

Some years back I was in Ashgabat, the capital of Turkmenistan, from whose vantage point Tehran and Mashad over the border in Iranian Khorasan have always loomed as cosmopolitan centers of commerce and pilgrimage, in stark contrast to Turkmenistan's own sparsely populated, nomadic landscape. But while trade and pipeline politics proceeded apace, Iran held no real magic, no real appeal for Muslim Turkmens, who are mainly secular and are put off by the mullahs. As extensive as Iranian influence is by virtue of its in-your-face challenge to America and Israel, I don't believe we will see the true appeal of Iran, in all its cultural glory, until the regime liberalizes or is toppled. A democratic or quasi democratic Iran, precisely because of the geographical power of the Iranian state, has the possibility to energize hundreds of millions of fellow Muslims in the Arab world and Central Asia.

Sunni Arab liberalism could be helped in its rise not only by the example of the West, or because of a democratic yet dysfunctional Iraq, but also because of the challenge thrown up by a newly liberal and historically eclectic Shiite Iran in the future. And such an Iran might do what two decades of post-Cold War Western democracy and civil society promotion have failed to -- that is, lead to a substantial prying loose of the police state restrictions in former Soviet Central Asia.

With its rich culture, vast territory and teeming and sprawling cities, Iran is, in the way of China and India, a civilization unto itself, whose future will overwhelmingly be determined by internal politics and social conditions. Unlike the Achaemenid, Sassanid, Safavid and other Iranian empires of yore, which were either benign or truly inspiring in both a moral and cultural sense, this current Iranian empire of the mind rules mostly out of fear and intimidation, through suicide bombers rather than through poets. And this both reduces its power and signals its eventual downfall.

Yet, if one were to isolate a single hinge in calculating Iran's fate, it would be Iraq. Iraq, history and geography tell us, is entwined in Iranian politics to the degree of no other foreign country. The Shiite shrines of Imam Ali (the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law) in An Najaf and the one of Imam Hussain (the grandson of the Prophet) in Karbala, both in central-southern Iraq, have engendered Shiite theological communities that challenge that of Qom in Iran. Were Iraqi democracy to exhibit even a modicum of stability, the freer intellectual atmosphere of the Iraqi holy cities could eventually have a profound impact on Iranian politics. In a larger sense, a democratic Iraq can serve as an attractor force of which Iranian reformers might in the future take advantage. For as Iranians become more deeply embroiled in Iraqi politics, the very propinquity of the two nations with a long and common border might work to undermine the more repressive of the two systems. Iranian politics will become gnarled by interaction with a pluralistic, ethnically Arab Shiite society. And as the Iranian economic crisis continues to unfold, ordinary Iranians could well up in anger over hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by their government to buy influence in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. This is to say nothing of how Iranians will become increasingly hated inside Iraq as the equivalent of "Ugly Americans." Iran would like to simply leverage Iraqi Shiite parties against the Sunni ones. But that is not altogether possible, since that would narrow the radical Islamic universalism it seeks to represent in the pan-Sunni world to a sectarianism with no appeal beyond the community of Shia. Thus, Iran may be stuck trying to help form shaky Sunni-Shiite coalitions in Iraq and to keep them perennially functioning, even as Iraqis develop greater hatred for this intrusion into their domestic affairs. Without justifying the way that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was planned and executed, or rationalizing the trillions of dollars spent and the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the war, in the fullness of time it might very well be that the fall of Saddam Hussein began a process that will result in the liberation of two countries; not one. Just as geography has facilitated Iran's subtle colonization of Iraqi politics, geography could also be a factor in abetting Iraq's influence upon Iran.

The prospect of peaceful regime change -- or evolution -- in Iran, despite the temporary fizzling of the Green Movement, is still greater now than in the Soviet Union during most of the Cold War. A liberated Iran, coupled with less autocratic governments in the Arab world -- governments that would be focused more on domestic issues because of their own insecurity -- would encourage a more equal, fluid balance of power between Sunnis and Shia in the Middle East, something that would help keep the region nervously preoccupied with itself and on its own internal and regional power dynamics, much more than on America and Israel.

Additionally, a more liberal regime in Tehran would inspire a broad cultural continuum worthy of the Persian empires of old, one that would not be constrained by the clerical forces of reaction.

A more liberal Iran, given the large Kurdish, Azeri, Turkmen and other minorities in the north and elsewhere, may also be a far less centrally controlled Iran, with the ethnic peripheries drifting away from Tehran's orbit. Iran has often been less a state than an amorphous, multinational empire. Its true size would always be greater and smaller than any officially designated cartography. While the northwest of today's Iran is Kurdish and Azeri Turk, parts of western Afghanistan and Tajikistan are culturally and linguistically compatible with an Iranian state. It is this amorphousness, so very Parthian, that Iran could return to as the wave of Islamic extremism and the perceived legitimacy of the mullahs' regime erodes.15

Read more from Robert D. Kaplan

India's Riveting Centrality
Explaining the South China Sea
Putin's Geopolitical Logic

Watch videos of Robert D. Kaplan discussing topics from his new book

The Revenge of Geography
A Crisis of Room
U.S. Grand Strategy

Pre-order your copy: The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate

1 Michael Axworthy. A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, Basic Books, New York, 2008, p. 3.

2 Brown. The World of Late Antiquity, p. 163.

3 W. Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, (1903) 1971 and 1984, pp. x-xi and 4.

4 Ostler, Empires of the Word, p. 31.

5 Axworthy, p. 78.

6 Philip K. Hitti, The Arabs: A Short History, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1943, p. 109.

7 Brown, pp. 202-03.

8 Hiro, Inside Central Asia, p. 359.

9 Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, translated by Carol Volk, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992 and 1994, pp. 168-70.

10 Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, p. 168.

11 James Morier, The Adventures of Hajji Baba of Ispahan, John Murray, London, 1824, p. 5 of 1949 Cresset Press edition.

12 Vali Nasr, Forces of Fortune: The Rise of the New Muslim Middle Class and What It Will Mean for Our World, Free Press, New York, 2009.

13 Roy, p. 193.

14 M. K. Bhadrakumar, "Russia, China, Iran Energy Map," Asia Times, 2010.

15 Robert D. Kaplan, The Ends of the Earth: A Journey at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Random House, New York, 1996, p. 242.


Print 544 146 993 250
Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.
"The Geography of Iranian Power by Robert D. Kaplan is republished with permission of Stratfor."
Simply copy and paste this code: "<a href="http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geography-iranian-power-robert-d-kaplan">The Geography of Iranian Power by Robert D. Kaplan</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor."
Sign Up For Free
Intelligence Reports
Email Address *

About Stratfor
Stratfor is a privately owned publisher of geopolitical analysis. Our analysts use a unique, intel-based approach to study world affairs.
Top Picks
U.S. Naval Update Map: Aug. 29, 2012
China's Arctic Ambitions China's Arctic Ambitions
The Geopolitics of the United States, Part 2: American Identity and the Threats of Tomorrow

Free Content

Geopolitical Weekly
Security Weekly
Other Voices

Contact us

U.S. Toll Free
1-877-978-7284

Contact Us

Send us an E-mail

Corporate Headquarters

221 West 6th Street
Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
USA
T + 1 512 744 4300
F + 1 512 744 4334

More on Iran

Challenges of an Israeli Airstrike on Iran

How Power Shifts in Syria Will Change Iranian Politics

Energy Export Alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz


Read more: The Geography of Iranian Power by Robert D. Kaplan | Stratfor
 

SIRR1

Deceased
How funny!!!

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/egypts-morsi-upsets-iran.html

Egypt’s Morsi Upsets Iran
gypt’s Morsi Upsets Iran
[Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi at the Non-Aligned Movement summit, August 30, 2012 (photo by Barbara Slavin)]

By: Barbara Slavin posted on Thursday, Aug 30, 2012

TEHRAN — A resurgent and boldly independent Egypt on Thursday upset Iranian plans for a smoothly-oiled summit that Iranian officials hoped would demonstrate that the Islamic Republic has more friends than foes.

About this Article
Summary:
The Egyptian president's visit to Iran has not pleased his hosts as much as expected, Al-Monitor's Barbara Slavin reports in Tehran. In a speech, Morsi highlighted the Syrian opposition’s struggle against the "oppressive system there," unnerving the Iranians, allies of the Syrian regime. Iranian newscasts omitted key bits in televised coverage.
Author: Barbara Slavin
Published on: Thursday, Aug 30, 2012
Categories : Originals Iran

Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi — whose brief trip here was criticized in advance by Israel and the United States — delivered a nuanced speech that targeted some US and Israeli policies but also adamantly backed the Syrian opposition’s struggle to overturn “the oppressive system there.”

Morsi’s tough words in support of Syrian rebels unnerved his Iranian hosts — staunch supporters of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iranian newscasters omitted key bits in televised coverage.

Photo Gallery
View our slideshow on Al-Monitor Pictures from Tehran, Iran »

However, reporters listening to a simultaneous translation of the speech to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit heard the Egyptian president — who hails from the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood — refer a half dozen times to the struggle of the largely-Sunni Syrian opposition “for freedom and human dignity.”

“Our solidarity with the struggle of the Syrian people against an oppressive regime that has lost its legitimacy is an ethical duty as it is a political and strategic necessity,” Morsi told representatives of more than 100 nations.

“We all have to announce our full solidarity with the struggle of those seeking freedom and justice in Syria, and translate this sympathy into a clear political vision that supports a peaceful transition to a democratic system of rule that reflects the demands of the Syrian people for freedom.”

“Our hearts are bleeding for the Syrian crisis,” Morsi added. “The bloodshed in Syria is hanging over all of us. It is our responsibility…We have to be totally aware that this bloodshed will not stop if we do not actively intervene.”

Long-time Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem walked out of the hall in protest. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who sat next to Morsi on the podium, was stone-faced during much of the speech.

Morsi’s comments upset Iranian efforts to portray the summit as a largely anti-American affair and contrasted sharply with those of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei, who left before Morsi spoke, did not mention Syria.

He opened the summit with a stinging harangue against “the domineering and aggressive government of America.” While he repeated previous disavowals of nuclear weapons as “a great and unforgivable sin,” the Iranian leader reaffirmed the right of Iran and other developing nations to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

“Our motto is: ‘Nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none,’ ” Khamenei said.

Morsi and the Iranian leader converged in their criticism of the UN Security Council and Israel and in support for the Palestinians, although their language diverged.

Khamenei inveighed against the “Zionists” and repeated demands for a highly-unlikely referendum in which all inhabitants of Israel and the Palestinian territories — plus the large Palestinian diaspora — would participate to determine the area’s political future.

Morsi, in contrast, called for a “just solution” to the Palestinian issue while criticizing Israel for oppressing Palestinians and mistreating Palestinian prisoners who, Morsi said, are “living in very difficult conditions [deprived of] all human and legal rights.”

Prior to the summit, Iranian officials bragged about Morsi’s visit here as defying the United States and Israel and a harbinger of the end to 30 years of Iranian-Egyptian hostility.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told Al-Monitor on Tuesday that Morsi’s visit would be a “landmark” even though the Egyptian leader was staying for only a few hours.

Morsi’s remarks suggested that Iranian hopes to restore diplomatic relations — severed after the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a peace accord with Israel — would not be realized any time soon.

More significant, however, Morsi demonstrated that Egypt is back on the international stage after a long twilight of stagnation and American tutelage.

Speaking in a strong, confident voice, Morsi acknowledged that Egypt is undergoing “a hard transitional period with lots of challenges” since the overthrow of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Feb. 11, 2011.

However, Morsi said proudly that “Egypt is now a civil state governed by civilians — a constitutional state, a democratic state, a modern state … where the sons of Egypt are fully in charge.”

Morsi was the obvious star of a summit that also drew United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. He urged Iran to resolve its nuclear dispute with the international community and gently chided Tehran over its abuses of Iranians’ human rights.

Other VIPs attending included Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the leaders of Iran’s neighbors: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Also present were two black sheep of the international community who are rarely welcomed outside their countries: Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe.

Many of the 120 members of the Non-Aligned group sent lesser dignitaries. The United Arab Emirates sent a relatively obscure member of the country’s supreme council, Sheik Saud bin Rashid al-Mu’alla, while Chile was represented by a vice foreign minister.

Morsi’s comments electrified what had been a humdrum series of preparatory meetings that ended with a communiqué full of pious generalities.

Delegates — especially from the more developed countries among the NAM — looked bored during the earlier proceedings and wandered the halls with pained expressions.

However, many praised the Iranians for organizing what amounted to a diplomatic Olympics.

One diplomat here praised the event as “already a huge diplomatic success” for simply taking place at a time when Iran is facing multilateral sanctions and frequent threats by Israel to attack its nuclear installations.

Barbara Slavin is Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where she focuses on Iran. This is her eighth visit to Iran since 1996. She tweets at @BarbaraSlavin1.

Related Articles
Barbara Slavin for al-monitor
Iran's Foreign Minister Says Morsi Visit Is a 'Landmark'
Barbara Slavin for al-monitor
From Tehran: Iran Using Summit To Showcase Victims, Friends
Milliyet (Turkey)
Iran Comes Out of Isolation as it Hosts International Conference
Meir Javedanfar for al-monitor
Maligned Non-Aligned Summit May Score Iran Some Points
As-Safir (Lebanon)
Sidelines At Non-Aligned Summit Should Deal with Important Issues
Abbas Maleki, Ph.D. and Kaveh Afrasiabi, Ph.D. for al-monitor
Why West Should Curb Hostility To Non-Aligned Summit in Tehran


Wow HC Egypts Morsi must have a big old pair of B@(($ to say that in Iran at the Mullahs 120 nations party...

How funny, I mentioned this after Morsi won the Prez hat in Egypt that someone is going to pop a cap in him and now we know who is going to do it!

Thanks SIRR1
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/08/30/frances_china_challenge_100213.html

August 30, 2012
France's China Challenge
By Francois Godement

Can France still afford to have its own "China policy"? Economic anxiety can produce wrong policies. China is now indeed at our doorstep, both as an unavoidable salesman and as a buyer on the lookout for opportunities. But the European market is also vitally important for the Chinese - as an outlet for its overabundant exports, as an alternate option for their currency reserves and as a target for investment diversification.

Are these compelling reasons for France to court the People's Republic? Viewed from the perspective of the euro crisis, it is unrealistic to think that Chinese leaders will base their lending and investment decisions on the quality of their political relations with Europeans. Their nagging fear is the eventuality of losing the stash of cash that a quarter of a century of mercantilist policies have brought to China. Ultimately, for France, it is the prospect of a successful leadership and coordination role among European countries in the relationship towards China, the possibility to establish new links with other big emerging countries, and a constant openness to Chinese proposals, whenever they include implementation of international rules, which will lead to a successful China policy.

Engaging with China is a perilous exercise, which has put to the test successive French presidents. Valery Giscard d'Estaing dared to redefine France as a large medium power ("une grande puissance moyenne") in 1975. Chinese diplomacy skilfully kept alive the French hope for a privileged relationship with China, based on De Gaulle's recognition of the People's Republic in 1964. Jacques Chirac, an unabashed admirer of China as a "grande puissance", held the illusion of politically based trade - big business deals founded on good intergovernmental relations. His predecessor, François Mitterrand, had remained fairly indifferent to China; he was however unable to find a suitable trade policy or the international partnerships that would have enabled France to balance the relationship.

Two opposite stances have defined the terms of the debate for a China policy. The first one is adaptation, and eventually compliance, to China's requirements. The choice doesn't bear much relation with domestic politics: in the UK and Germany in fact, the conservative governments of Merkel and Cameron haven't been shy in their political criticism of China, while Schröder, Blair or Brown were much more inclined to praise Beijing. In private, many large European companies fret about China's increasing economic clout. But the fear of retaliatory measures is so great that no CEO dares to publicly share his/her concerns. German industry figures, who have captured a 50% share of European exports to China, are an occasional exception, as they do not practice this kind of self-censorship when their direct interests are at stake.

The other stance is about reassertion - and in some cases, openly voicing criticism. It is easier to practice this attitude from the benches of the opposition. Indeed, nothing should deter us from speaking about democracy and the rule of law in China. Chinese leaders occasionally maintain that these are empty lessons coming from an arrogant and exhausted West, but the truth is that they are sensitive to an evolution their own reformers believe to be inevitable.

Nicolas Sarkozy tried to forge a new path. He inherited Jacques Chirac's quest for big business deals mindset but widened the effort to India and Brazil - two major emerging economies and competitors of China. He tried to separate politics from economics, and the warnings he voiced during the violent events in Tibet in 2008 were not that different from the position adopted by France in 1989 during the Tiananmen crisis. On the economic front, Nicolas Sarkozy made two new choices: firstly, a necessary Europeanization of China policy (none of the EU member-states can afford any longer to go it alone), and secondly, an open attitude towards China on issues of global financial governance. Indeed, it is not realistic to ask China for major changes of behaviour on the one hand, yet to deny it more international leverage and standing on the other. All this included as well a measure of doublespeak: France has been pushing in Brussels for reciprocity on public markets and investments. But at the same time, it had already welcomed Chinese investments in its energy companies despite the sensitive issue of national sovereignty. In 2011 France has in fact become the first destination of Chinese investments in Europe.

France and Europe find themselves in a triangular relationship with the U.S and China. Washington has better tools than Brussels both to find the right opening to Chinese investments and to put the necessary safeguards in place. Building a Chinese policy requires an opening to its capital while at the same time engaging in a battle for more regulation and transparency. This may imply working towards a standardization of European legislations in several fields, going from railway infrastructure to banking legislation, which are of a disconcerting complexity to newcomers. In return, China should give up its tradition of state support for its firms on the global market, and start opening more widely its own companies to foreign alliances and cross-participation.

Europe and France will only be able to reclaim a position of strength if they demonstrate their ability to coordinate economically. From this perspective, the Franco-Chinese relation is a strategic case-study.

François Godement is Professor of political science at Sciences Po in Paris, Director for strategy of Asia Centre, also in Paris, Senior policy fellow of the European Council on Foreign Relations, and non resident Senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Washington).
 
Sorry Dutch but I've gotta agree with Norma, WWIII will be used to bring in a Global Government, but we might get the Mad Max scenario just prior to it taking place though,
hey at least I'll get to weld some spikes onto my truck :groucho:

Marthanoir; I started to begin what would have been a book-lenth respondse,as to why a global war would be TEOTWAWKI.... I see no benifit in doing so....

I will only say, is that if you have 'romantic' visions - by all means keep them. For you would not keep your sanity, apparently, if you should really envision a world where there is no on-demand food, electrical power and so on and soon......


TFD




=
 
=







I don’t want to be complicit’ in an Israeli
strike on Iran, says US army chief


Martin Dempsey warns that, while it may delay
the Iranian nuclear program, an Israeli military
campaign could also unravel international
sanctions on the Tehran regime


By Elie Leshem
August 30, 2012, 11:36 pm6
http://www.timesofisrael.com/i-dont-want-to-be-complicit-in-a-strike-on-iran-says-us-army-chief/

The US should not become embroiled in an Israeli military strike on Iran that would not only fail to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, but could also undo international diplomatic pressure on Tehran, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said Thursday in London.

Such an attack by Israel would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” Dempsey said, adding: ”I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.”


The US’s top general – the Guardian reported – said that he could not presume to know Iran’s ultimate intentions in pursuing a nuclear program, as intelligence was inconclusive on that score. It was clear, however, he maintained, that mounting pressure from the American-led “international coalition… could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely.”

Last week, Dempsey said that Israel and the US did not see eye to eye on the Iranian nuclear threat, admitting that Washington and Jerusalem were on “different clocks” regarding Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

He noted, however, that he understood Israel’s urgency in calling for action against Iran’s nuclear program.

“They are living with an existential concern that we are not living with,” he said.

Dempsey added that he and Israeli Defense Forces Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz spoke on a bi-weekly basis to coordinate intelligence, despite gaps in understanding how close Iran was to a breakout nuclear capability.

“We compare intelligence, we discuss regional implications. And we’ve admitted to each other that our clocks are turning at different rates,” he said.

Thursday’s comments from Dempsey, who was in London for the Paralympic Games, come amid mounting chatter over a possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program. The US has been working to keep Israel from launching a unilateral strike, maintaining that sanctions should be given more time to work.

Last week, the former American ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, termed Israel’s talk of attacking Iran “a classic case of crying wolf.”







=
 
=








Israel under international pressure
not to attack Iran alone



Published today (updated) 31/08/2012 16:13
By Crispian Balmer
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=516013

JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- Israel is facing growing international pressure not to attack Iran unilaterally, with the United States in particular making clear its firm opposition to any such strike.

Recent rhetoric by Israeli leaders that time is running out to halt Iran's contested nuclear program has raised concern that military action might be imminent, despite repeated calls from abroad to give sanctions and diplomacy more time to work.


The US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, has always cautioned against a go-it-alone approach, but he appeared to up the ante this week by saying Washington did not want to be blamed for any Israeli initiative.

"I don't want to be complicit if they (Israel) choose to do it," Dempsey was quoted as saying by Britain's Guardian newspaper on Friday, suggesting that he would view an Israeli attack as reprehensible or illegal.

He went on to repeat that although Israel could delay Iran's nuclear project, it would not destroy it. He said that unilateral action might unravel a strong international coalition that has applied progressively stiff sanctions on Iran.

"(This) could be undone if (Iran) was attacked prematurely," he was quoted as saying.

While Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful, Western powers believe it is trying to produce an atomic bomb. Israel, believed to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence.

Adding to the sense of urgency, the UN International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday Iran had doubled the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges in an underground bunker, showing its desire to expand its nuclear work.

Cracks in the alliance

Israel's vice prime minister Moshe Yaalon said Friday he feared Iran did not believe it faced a real military threat from the outside world because of mixed messages from foreign powers.

"We have an exchange of views, including with our friends in the United States, who in our opinion, are in part responsible for this feeling in Iran," he told Israel's 100FM radio station.

"There are many cracks in the ring closing tighter on Iran. We criticize this," he said, also singling out UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for traveling to Tehran this week.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he will speak out about the dangers of Iran in an address next month to the UN General Assembly in New York.

He is also expected to hold talks with US President Barack Obama during his visit. A senior Israeli official told Reuters this month that Netanyahu would be looking for a firm pledge of US military action if Iran does not back down.

However, the meeting might well be icy.

Israel's top-selling daily Yedioth Ahronoth reported on Friday that there had been an "unprecedented" and "angry" exchange between Netanyahu and the US ambassador in Tel Aviv earlier this month over Iran.

Quoting a source who was present at the meeting, Netanyahu had criticized Obama for not doing enough to tackle Iran. The US ambassador Daniel Shapiro took exception and accused the prime minister of distorting Obama's position.

The prime minister's office declined to comment on the report and there was no initial response from the US embassy.

Adding to the growing chorus of concern facing Netanyahu, Haaretz newspaper reported on Friday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had delivered a "harsh message" to Netanyahu 10 days ago, telling him to hold off on any attack plans.

The German embassy in Tel Aviv declined comment.

Israeli officials have repeatedly said that a growing array of sanctions against Iran are not having any impact on the Tehran leadership and believe they will only back down in the face of a credible threat of military action.

However, Netanyahu faces an uphill task persuading his own military and inner circle of the wisdom of a unilateral strike. Political sources told Reuters on Tuesday an ultra-orthodox party in his coalition was opposed to war.







=
 
=







Merkel urges Israel not to strike Iran

Sapa-AFP | 31 August, 2012 14:16
http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2012/08/31/merkel-urges-israel-not-to-strike-iran

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to order a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites, according to reports.


The newspaper Haaretz reported today that an Israeli official on condition of anonymity, said Merkel had called Netanyahu 10 days ago amid a wave of reports of an imminent Israeli attack, to give a "clear message as to her opposition" to such action.

Merkel urged Netanyahu to "give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to work," and warned of the consequences of such an attack for security in the Middle East.

A spokesman for Netanyahu refused to comment on the report or to confirm the conversation had taken place.

Israel and its main ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking to develop an atomic arsenal, but Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only.

Netanyahu told a visiting US congressman last Friday that Iran was speeding up its quest for nuclear weapons in defiance of international sanctions.

The Haaretz article described the phone call as "exceptional" given the "almost complete disconnect" for two months between Merkel and Netanyahu after a sharp disagreement over Israeli settlements and the Palestinian issue.

Deputy government spokesman Georg Streiter told a Berlin news conference he could "not confirm (the information in) this article," reminding that Berlin did not believe in a military solution to the Iran nuclear issue.

Merkel also said an Israeli attack would have severe consequences for the European Union and that international sanctions, which were taking their toll on Iran, should be strengthened and given time to work, Haaretz wrote.

Iran has doubled its capacity to produce enriched uranium at its underground Fordo plant, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released late yesterday.

The IAEA also accuses Iran of frustrating UN inspection of its Parchin plant, where it suspects tests of explosives that could be used in a nuclear warhead were carried out, by scrubbing it clean.

Netanyahu said yesterday he would present to the UN the "truth about the terror regime of Iran" at his General Assembly address in late September.







=
 
=








Op-Ed: Why the US Won't Attack Iran

Published: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:17 PM

Passive anti-Semitism in the USA is a factor to be taken
into consideration when Israel makes decisions on Iran.


Dr. Yacov M. Tabak
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12127

The highest echelons of the Israeli government are agonizing over whether and when to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure and thereby to reduce their ability to bomb Israel with nuclear weapons. Many voices in the public sphere have counseled and warned against this initiative by Israel.


Almost all of them, including President Shimon Peres, who has been chronically wrong in such matters in the past, have counseled Israel to wait, rely on the USA to attack Iran for her, and thus remove a mortal threat from the Jewish State. This is terrible advice.

We would do well to recall a previous unsuccessful attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish people, the Holocaust. As the Nazi program unfolded in the early years of the 1940's, the details of this horrible plan became known to the highest echelon of the United States government, led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. There were American Jewish leaders who stayed silent, but Roosevelt also had many supporters in the Jewish community who applied increasing political pressure to offer asylum to those fleeing the slaughter and even more so, to bomb the railroad lines facilitating the mass murder of Jews being transported to the slaughter. Renowned Orthodox rabbis organized a march on Washington.

The case was made that only a few bombs would disrupt the efficiency of the murder apparatus and save thousands of Jewish lives. FDR adamantly refused, claiming this was not a "Jewish" war and that he could not divert any armaments to this cause and thus was unprepared to act.

Underlying this position of perfidy was a simple motive – passive anti-Semitism. Hitler of cursed memory was doing the work of reducing world Jewry, the goal of all anti-Semites. Those who secretly resented the Jews wherever they resided, could not care less as World Jewry was being decimated. They may have outwardly frowned when confronted with the truth of this mass murder unfolding, but they inwardly embraced the outcome with calm satisfaction. Fewer Jews in the world to cope with was a positive outcome in their eyes.

America today pays elaborate lip service to the security and welfare of the State of Israel. Many are the genuine friends of the Jews among Congress and even the Executive Branch. However, there lurks a sense that at the top of the government Executive, in the person of an individual whose middle name is Hussein and who listened to the raving anti-Semitic sermons of Christian pastor Wright in Chicago for many Sundays without getting up and leaving in disgust, there is a decision-maker who is not innately friendly to the Jewish people.

The most potent indicator of this subtle hostility is not his refusal to visit Israel while President, nor his unfriendly reception of Prime Minister Netanyahu among many phenomena. It is his treatment of Jonathan Pollard. Although many of the high and mighty have written that it is long overdue to release Pollard, nothing will be done.

But this is not the ultimate indicator. That is reserved for the cruel refusal to allow Pollard to attend his father's funeral. This tells us more clearly than anything else where the emotions of the President of the United States lie.

And we in Israel should rely on this man's promises, his reassurances that America will prevent Iran from acquiring - or using - nuclear arms?!? And that Israel should refrain from protecting herself, and just rely on the USA? Heaven Forfend! Bibi and Barak, please do what your consciences, knowledge and intuition tell you.
Do not rely on others.

And may the L-rd G-d of Israel send you good counsel.







=
 
=




:siren::shkr::siren:

U.S. to Israel:
If You Attack,
We Don’t Have Your Back


General Martin Dempsey: "I don't want to be
complicit" if Israel chooses to attack Iran.


By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 8/30/2012, 10:26 PM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/159472


The U.S. military's top officer made statements Thursday which appear to warn Israel that it should not expect U.S. assistance if it chooses to attack Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear program," The Guardian reported Thursday. He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it."


Dempsey said he did not know Iran's nuclear intentions, since intelligence does not reveal intentions. What was clear, he said, was that the "international coalition" applying pressure on Iran "could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely".

The White House said on Thursday that Iran has a limited window of time to accept the West's conditions regarding its nuclear weapons program.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters the U.S. is "closely studying" the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) quarterly report on Iran, "but broadly speaking it is not surprising that Iran is continuing to violate its obligations."

"As the report illustrates," he added, "we are in a position to closely observe Iran's program."

Carney said the US has told Iran that "The window of opportunity to resolve this remains open ... but it will not remain open indefinitely."

Iran has increased its uranium enrichment capacity by at least 30% in the last four months, according to the IAEA report. It has doubled production capacity at the Fordo nuclear site, the report says








=
 
Top