WAR 01/16 to 01/21 ***The***Winds***Of ***WAR***

=






02:47 16.01.12

What if the Iranians start killing scientists?

The next phase of the assassination war is liable to turn
international scientific conferences into arenas of assassination.


By Avner Cohen
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/what-if-the-iranians-start-killing-scientists-1.407511

Israel's official response to news of the assassination last week of Iranian nuclear scientist Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan was a deafening silence. The unofficial response was a wink. The day before, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, grinning slightly, spoke about "unnatural events" that were delaying Iran's nuclear program. The Israeli self-congratulation was obvious.

The Israeli public did not question the wisdom of assassinating the Iranian scientists. In Israeli culture, which sanctifies security, such questions are seen as treason. If the hit was successful - the scientist was eliminated and the assassins disappeared - you don't ask questions.


But U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted on calling a spade a spade: She categorically denied all U.S. involvement in the latest assassination and even declared that the United States emphatically opposed the assassination of scientists. Her announcement was received with shock and even dismay in Israel. Where is the wisdom in making this kind of public statement, some asked; and in any event, it's hypocritical in light of the fact that President Barack Obama has killed more terrorists using unmanned aerial vehicles than his predecessors.

In order to understand the American criticism of the hits on the scientists, one must ask the questions that Israelis avoid: Do such killings do real damage to Iran's nuclear program? What could be the negative results of the assassination policy? Is it right to create a situation in which scientists (first nuclear scientists and then perhaps scientists in general and senior officials ) become pawns in a war of assassinations and counter-assassinations?

Regarding efficacy, we know that Iran's nuclear program, based in Natanz, is an enormous project employing hundreds of scientists and thousand of technicians. It is hard to imagine that taking out a single scientist, however skilled and high-ranking, could damage the entire project enough to cause a significant delay. The project has long since passed the point where the fate of any one individual could affect it.

Not only will killing individuals fail to significantly delay the project or cause its leaders to dial back their political and strategic goals, it will almost certainly have the opposite effect: It will only add to Iran's determination to carry on. And to keep their scientists from becoming demoralized, the Iranians will do everything possible to make good on their promise of revenge.

If there are assassinations on one side, it must be assumed that there will be assassination attempts on the other side too. If Iranian scientists are not immune, then neither are scientists from the countries suspected of carrying out the assassinations. While Iranian officials had previously pointedly refrained from accusing any particular country, within hours of the attack this time, the government in Tehran and the Iranian media named Israel and the United States as the responsible parties, and promised revenge.

Israel may have rejoiced at the news of the hit, but let's consider how senior members of Israel's scientific community, especially the nuclear scientists, would view the assassination of scientists on the faculties of well-known academic institutions. (Most of the senior scientists in Iran's nuclear program also have academic posts. ) They would probably have reservations about the wisdom of expanding the shadow war to the scientific community.

Anyone who legitimizes the assassination of scientists in Tehran jeopardizes the personal security of scientists on the other side. The next phase of the assassination war is liable to turn international scientific conferences into arenas of assassination.

It is entirely possible that the damage caused by the assassinations far outweigh the benefits they bring.





=
 
=






Iran warns of consequences if Arabs back oil sanctions

Reuters
Posted 01/16/2012 7:55 AM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-f...arns-consequences-if-arabs-back-oil-sanctions

Iran warned Gulf Arab neighbors on Sunday they would suffer consequences if they raised oil output to replace Iranian crude facing an international ban.

In signs of Tehran's deepening isolation over its refusal to halt nuclear activity that could yield atomic bombs, China's premier was in Saudi Arabia probing for greater access to its huge oil and gas reserves and Britain voiced confidence a once hesitant European Union would soon ban oil imports from Iran.


Major importers of Iranian oil were long loath to embargo the lifeblood of Iran's economy because of fears this would send oil prices rocketing at a time - amidst debt and deficit crises and high unemployment - when they could least afford it.

But strong momentum for oil sanctions has been created by a U.N. watchdog report saying Iran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb.

A new U.S. law signed by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve would freeze out of the U.S. financial system any institution dealing with Iran's central bank - which processes its oil revenues.

If fully applied, the law would make it impossible for most countries to buy Iranian oil. Washington is offering waivers to countries to let them keep buying Iranian oil for now, but demanding they gradually cut their imports back.

Leaders from some of the Asian countries that buy the most Iranian oil have begun touring the Middle East to secure alternative supply lines from Arab states. European buyers suggest they will also lean more heavily on Arab oil producers should an EU ban come into effect.

Feeling increasingly encircled, Iran's hardline Islamic clerical elite has lashed back by threatening to block the main Middle East oil shipping route. Since the New Year, Tehran also began to enrich uranium in an underground bunker and sentenced an Iranian-American citizen to death on espionage charges.

Tensions in the Gulf have caused occasional spikes in oil prices in recent weeks. The sanctions are also having a real impact on Iran's domestic economy, causing prices of imported staples to soar and the rial currency to tumble.

Iran holds a parliamentary election in March, its first since a presidential vote in 2009 led to eight months of street protests. Those demonstrations were put down by force, but since then the "Arab Spring" has shown the vulnerability of states in the region to public anger fueled by economic hardship.

Iran warns Gulf Arabs

Iranian OPEC Governor Mohammad Ali Khatibi said Tehran would regard as an unfriendly act any move by neighbouring Gulf Arab oil exporters to make up for Iranian crude.

"If (they) give the green light to replacing Iran's oil these countries would be the main culprits for whatever happens in the region - including the Strait of Hormuz," Khatibi told the Sharq daily newspaper, referring to the narrow sea channel through which a third of the world's oil tanker traffic passes.

"Our Arab neighbour countries should not cooperate with these (U.S. and European) adventurers... These measures will not be perceived as friendly," he said.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said on Saturday the world's No. 1 oil exporter - the only one in OPEC with significant unused capacity - was ready and able to meet any increase in demand. He made no direct reference to sanctions on Iran.

Iran's navy commander Habibollah Sayyari said Tehran could exert control over the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, whose warships patrol the region, says it will not tolerate any attempt to disrupt shipping through the strait.

Military experts say Iran could not challenge the huge U.S.-led fleet that guards the strait for long, but its threats raise the risk of miscalculation that could flare into a clash.

Oil prices were down at the end of last week as anticipation of downgrades by Standard & Poor's of several indebted euro zone economies countered the buoyant effect of anxiety about Iranian threats to shipping. But the standoff over Iran pointed to continued support for higher prices, brokers and analysts said.

Iran's foreign ministry said on Sunday it had received a letter from Washington about the Strait of Hormuz and there was no decision yet on whether to reply. A ministry spokesman did not divulge the contents of the letter.

Tehran had said on Saturday it had written to Washington with evidence the CIA was involved in the assassination of a nuclear scientist, blown up by a bomb attached to his car last week, the latest of several such killings.

Western countries suspect Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons capability. Iran says it is only interested in nuclear technology for peaceful purposes such as generating electricity.

China seeks oil options in Gulf

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was pressing Saudi Arabia to open its oil and gas wealth to more Chinese investment, Chinese media said on Sunday. China has been Iran's biggest oil buyer.

Although Beijing opposes further international sanctions on Iran, it has already cut its purchases of Iranian oil by more than half for the first two months of this year.

"China and Saudi Arabia are both in important stages of development and there are broad prospects for enhancing cooperation," Wen told Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Nayef on Saturday, according to Xinhua news agency.

Michal Meidan, an analyst with London's Eurasia Group, said: "Beijing is concerned with the potential response to bellicose Iranian statements and the spike in oil prices that would ensue from greater turmoil in Syria and Iran."

Wen was also scheduled to visit the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, two other big OPEC exporters across the Gulf from Iran.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Sunday he was "confident" the 27-member European Union would impose resounding sanctions on Iran's oil industry and possibly other sectors at an EU foreign ministers meeting on Jan. 23.

After protracted reluctance to act arising from the dependence of some debt-ridden EU economies on Iranian oil, member states have agreed in principle to ban it and have been working on details of how this will be implemented.

Last year EU countries collectively bought about a fifth of Iranian exports, roughly on par with China.

Any EU-wide prohibition of Iranian oil would probably take effect gradually. "Grace periods" on existing contracts of one to 12 months have been proposed to allow importers to find other suppliers before implementing an embargo.

Hague said: "Our sanctions are part of trying to get Iran to change course and to enter negotiations and we should not be deterred from implementing those. We will continue to intensify our own sanctions and those of the European Union."

Iranian defiance

Some analysts say Iran's leadership, which has thrived on defiance of the West since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, is more likely to dig in rather than back off in response to sanctions aimed at stopping a nuclear programme many Iranians regard as a matter of national sovereignty and modernisation.

A year after the collapse of the last big power talks with Iran, its deepening nuclear defiance has raised concern of war if harsher sanctions do not change its course.

Israel, reputed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, sees Iran's nuclear and missile projects as a mortal threat which it will resort to force as a last resort to stop.

The risk of Israel triggering Middle East upheaval with a unilateral strike has the war-weary United States worried.

U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey is to make his first visit to Israel on Thursday. Israeli media say he will try to persuade his hosts not to "surprise" Washington on Iran.

Israel's vice prime minister voiced disappointment that the new U.S. legislation gives Obama leeway to allow sanctions waivers to countries to keep buying Iranian crude.

"The (U.S.) Senate passed a resolution, by a majority of 100-to-one, to impose these sanctions, and in the U.S. administration there is hesitation for fear of oil prices rising this year, out of election-year considerations," Moshe Yaalon told Israel Radio.

Obama has said he is determined to deny Tehran the means to develop an atom bomb. His aides cast their sanctions strategy as a bid to work collaboratively with foreign powers and win over states that import Iranian oil without shocking energy markets.





=
 

SarahLynn

Veteran Member
Iran has been the greatest sponsor of state terrorism in the world. The way I look at it, it's their own fault if their methods are being picked up by others.
Suspicion for these assassinations has come to rest on the USA or Israel but we simply cannot discount the possibility that the Iranian opposition has had a hand in what's been going on.
 
=








United States Condemns Iran's Announcement on Qom

Monday, 16 January 2012, 12:08 pm

Press Release: US State Department

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 10, 2012
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1201/S00181/united-states-condemns-irans-announcement-on-qom.htm

________________________________________​

The United States condemns the Iranian Government’s decision to begin enrichment operations at its Qom facility, an act contrary to its obligations under multiple United Nations Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolutions. This step once again demonstrates the Iranian regime's blatant disregard for its responsibilities and that the country's growing isolation is self-inflicted.


The circumstances surrounding this latest action are especially troubling. Iran only declared the Qom facility to the IAEA after it was discovered by the international community following three years of covert construction. Iran has announced it intends to consolidate and increase its production of uranium enriched to a near 20 percent level at this facility. There is no plausible justification for this production. Such enrichment brings Iran a significant step closer to having the capability to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium.

Iran claims that this decision was necessary to produce fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). This is false. The P5+1 has offered alternatives for providing fuel for the TRR despite Iran’s longstanding refusal to fulfill its international nuclear obligations. Iran has refused these offers.

We call upon Iran to immediately cease uranium enrichment and to comply with its international nuclear obligations. We also call on Iran to return to negotiations with the P5+1, prepared to engage seriously on its nuclear program, and urge Iran to reply to this effect to High Representative Ashton’s letter from October 2011. We reaffirm that our overall goal remains a comprehensive, negotiated solution that restores confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program while respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy consistent with its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

ENDS






=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...uity-futures-slide-after-s-p-rating-cuts.html

Asia Stocks, Euro Drop on S&P Rating Cuts

By Lynn Thomasson and Yoshiaki Nohara - Jan 15, 2012 4:50 PM PT

Asian stocks fell, paring the biggest weekly advance in six, the euro touched an 11-year low versus the yen and U.S. equity futures slid after Standard & Poor’s stripped France of its top credit rating and cut eight other euro-zone nations.

The MSCI Asia Pacific Index (MXAP) sank 0.8 percent as of 9:24 a.m. in Tokyo following a 2.2 percent gain last week. The euro weakened 0.3 percent to 97.24 yen and the Australian dollar declined against 16 major peers. Standard & Poor’s 500 Index futures lost 0.4 percent. Gold retreated 0.2 percent to $1,635.98 an ounce.

France will auction as much as 8.7 billion euros ($11 billion) in bills today, followed by the European Financial Stability Facility’s 1.5 billion-euro sale tomorrow. Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said containing the country’s public debt load, the world’s largest, is critical. S&P warned that Europe’s efforts to fight its crisis are falling short.

“It’s unrealistic to expect Europe to make progress in dealing with debt issues in a straight line without having hiccups,” said Prasad Patkar, who helps manage about $1 billion at Platypus Asset Management Ltd. in Sydney. S&P’s ratings downgrades are “not going to help investor sentiment.”

Greece may resume talks with its creditors after failing to agree on terms of a debt-swap deal last week. Japanese machinery orders rose 14.8 percent in November, the most in almost four years, and data later today may show India’s inflation eased to a two-year low, based on the median economist estimate from a Bloomberg survey.

S&P 500 futures slid to 1,283.9. Wells Fargo & Co. and Citigroup Inc. are among companies to report quarterly results this week. U.S. stock markets are closed for a holiday today.

To contact the reporters on this story: Lynn Thomasson in Hong Kong at lthomasson@bloomberg.net Yoshiaki Nohara in Tokyo at ynohara1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Alexander Kwiatkowski in Singapore at akwiatkowsk2@bloomberg.net
 
=







IR Iran will retaliate its scientists' assassinations: Moslehi

16 January 2012, 04:24 (GMT+04:00)
http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/1980292.html

Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi said the Islamic Republic of Iran will give a decisive and crushing response to the recent terrorist acts by agents of Mossad, CIA and MI6 which resulted in martyrdom of Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, IRNA reported.


Hojjatoleslam Moslehi made the remarks at the end of cabinet meeting among reporters in Tehran on Sunday.

Iranian nuclear scientist, Ahmadi Roshan, who worked at Iran's Natanz nuclear site and his driver were martyred last Wednesday (January 11) in a terrorist attack in northern Tehran.

'US and UK cannot pretend that they did not have anything to do with the terrorist attack,' the minister added.

While extending his condolences to the families of martyrs of the terrorist act, Hojjatoleslam Moslehi said that one of the martyrs was an elite scientist of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

'An important point which is quite evident in this incident is that the US and UK governments cannot distance themselves from the terrorist act by claiming the Iranian scientist was not martyred by their agents,' he said.

Referring to the terrorist measures of the Zionist regime in the Middle East, Hojjatoleslam Moslehi pointed out that the US and UK have installed the Zionist regime in the Middle East to commit these crimes as we see them now.

Emphasizing that the Zionist regime will not be left without a response, the intelligence minister noted that the Zionist officials should clarify what they have to say vis-a-vis the state terrorist acts carried out by them.

Hojjatoleslam Moslehi pointed out that the US and UK support Mossad's espionage activities.

'They carry out such desperate measures while call Iran's intelligence apparatus desperate in carrying out its duties,' he added.

The intelligence minister stated that the international bodies, especially human rights organizations should react to the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.

'Because of the approach they have adopted by assassinating Iranian scientists, they should await similar incidents to take place in their countries,' Hojjatoleslam Moslehi added.

He pointed out that the Islamic Republic of Iran will give crushing responses to US, UK, Mossad and their terrorist attempts.

'A national committee will be formed in coordination with the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council in order to provide the international legal organizations with the existing documents pertaining to the involvement of the Zionist regime in assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists,' the minister said.

Asked about what measures have been done to protect the Iranian scientists, Hojjatoleslam Moslehi said that protecting the lives of scientists are among duties of military and law enforcement organizations while decision-making about them is the responsibility of the Supreme National Security Council.

'Intelligence Ministry is not responsible for protecting the Iranian nuclear scientists and we do not define the manner in which these scientists should be protected,' he added.






=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/rating-downgrade-spooks-investors-20120116-1q1qd.html

Rating downgrade spooks investors
January 16, 2012 - 12:36PM

Australian shares are under pressure after a mass downgrade of European bloc countries’ credit ratings sparked renewed fears that Greece may default on its debt.

Around midday, the benchmark S&P/ASX200 index was down 49.9 points, or 1.2 per cent, at 4145.9, while the broader All Ordinaries index was down 47.1 points, or 1.1 per cent, at 4208.3.

Miners and financial stocks led the local market lower as investors worried the euro zone bailout fund would not have sufficient firepower should talks to restructure Greece’s debt fail ahead of a 14.4 billion euros ($A17.76 billion) bond repayment in March.

But brokers noted that the market reaction to the news has been relatively muted as many of these events have effectively been priced in.

‘‘If we had a Greek default there would be an initial bad reaction but I think there are probably a lot of people who have factored in an event like that,’’ Burrell Stockbroking advisor Jamie Elgar said.

Global markets dropped on Friday after Standard & Poor’s (S&P) stripped France and Austria of their triple-A status and downgraded seven debt-laden European countries.

Miners dropped 1.5 per cent after metals prices fell offshore amid the spreading risk aversion.

BHP Billiton fell 1.4 per cent to $36.10 while Rio Tinto dropped 0.9 per cent to $64.63. Fortescue Metals shed 2.7 per cent to $4.62, as it resumed operations at two of its Pilbara excavations that were closed because of Tropical Cyclone Heidi.

Commodities and resources could come under further pressure this week if China’s gross domestic product (GDP) figures, due to be released on Tuesday, come in below the 8.7 per cent growth expected by analysts.

‘‘Markets may become unsettled if significantly worse growth rates are reported, suggesting the possibility of a harder, export-led downturn that may be somewhat outside the control of China’s monetary authorities,’’ CMC Market’s chief market analyst Ric Spooner said.

Financial stocks were down 1.3 per cent as dealers worried the euro zone debt crisis could put further pressure on banks’ lending costs.

Among the morning’s biggest losers was Platinum Asset Management, which fell to an almost three-year low as investors continued to sell off its stock after the fund last week forecast a drop in profit. Its shares were down 2.9 per cent at $3.38.

One of the few stocks bucking the market trend was Leighton Holdings. Its shares added 4 per cent to $21.37 after the construction giant upgraded its underlying profit forecast for the six months to December to $270 million, from the previously advised $250 million.

Property stocks also got a boost from better than expected data showing the number of home loans approved in November rose 1.4 per cent.

Offshore last week

United States

US stocks dropped on Friday, snapping a four-day winning streak after news reports that Standard & Poor's would downgrade credit ratings on several euro-zone countries.

Key numbers:

* S&P500 lost 0.49% to 1289.09
* Dow Jones Indus Avg lost 0.39% to 12,422.06
* Nasdaq Composite Index 0.51% to 2710.67

Europe

European stocks rose for a fourth week, the longest winning streak since October, as declining borrowing costs at sales of Italian and Spanish debt outweighed worse-than-forecast data on US jobs and retail sales.

Key numbers:

* London’s FTSE 100 lost 0.46% to 5636.6
* In Paris, the CAC 40 lost 0.11% to 3196.49
* In Frankfurt, the DAX lost 0.58% to 6143.08

Asia

Asian stocks rose for a fourth week, the longest such streak in a year, as lower Italian and Spanish bond yields and signs of US economic recovery spurred optimism that global demand will weather Europe’s debt crisis.

Key numbers:

* Japan's Nikkei 225 added 1.36% to 8500.02
* Hong Kong's Hang Seng added 0.57% to 19204.40
* China's Shanghai Composite lost 1.4% to 4195.89

How we fared last week

Australian shares ended the week at their highest point in about five weeks after a round of positive debt auctions in Europe spurred gains in commodity-driven stocks.

At the close, the benchmark S&P/ASX200 index was up 14.9 points, or 0.4 per cent, at 4,195.9, while the broader All Ordinaries index was up 17 points, also 0.4 per cent, at 4,255.4.

BusinessDay with agencies
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-268...ting-turkey-undermine-his-own-legitimacy.html

Maliki's attacks targeting Turkey undermine his own legitimacy

15 January 2012 / TODAY'S ZAMAN WITH WIRES, ANKARA

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's harsh criticism of Turkey for what he considered interference in the domestic realm of Iraq is sure to draw the ire of Turkey, as observers have already labeled Maliki's reaction “a regrettable move” that will undermine his capacity to cooperate with neighbors that are hoping for stability in Iraq.

In a televised interview with Alhurra TV on Friday, Maliki slammed Turkey for its “surprise interference” in his country's internal affairs, claiming that Turkey's role could bring disaster and civil war to the region -- something he claimed will make Turkey suffer just the same.

“We ... did not expect the way they [Turkey] interfere in Iraq,” Maliki said in an interview with the Alhurra TV station on Friday, AFP news agency reported on Friday. “And we do not allow that absolutely,” Maliki underlined.

“We recently noticed their surprise interventions with statements, as if Iraq is controlled or run by them,” he said, adding that Turkey's latest statements interfered in domestic Iraqi affairs.

Maliki's remarks came two days after he was warned by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that his actions are taking Iraq away from democracy and urged him to take steps that would reduce tensions in the war-torn country following a series of bombings in the capital of Baghdad after Maliki issued an arrest warrant for Sunni Vice President Tariq Al-Hashemi last month.

In a phone call last week held between Erdoğan and Maliki, Erdoğan urged Maliki to take steps to reduce tension in Iraq. Erdoğan stated that transformation of mistrust into animosity toward a coalition partner will negatively affect democracy in Iraq, a veiled warning to the Iraqi prime minister that his latest arrest warrant for Hashimi is a blow to democracy in the war-torn country. Erdoğan previously stated that Turkey was concerned about the possibility of “another fight among brothers in Iraq” and that Iraq was subject to provocations of parties from outside the country, pushing it to a brink of sectarian war. Turkish officials have kept stressing that Iraqi stability, with all its sectarian and ethnic blocs, is needed for peace in the entire region, and petty calculations are not a part of Turkey's foreign policy anywhere in the world.

Although Maliki pledges that he is working to represent all blocs and backgrounds equally, observers doubt that the Iraqi prime minister is doing a satisfactory job and suspicion is rising that his stance in favor of or against any neighbor would undermine his legitimacy in the international arena drastically.

“If it is acceptable to talk about our judicial authority, then we can talk about theirs, and if they talk about our disputes, we can talk about theirs,” Maliki said in the interview, claiming that Turkey is playing a role that might bring disaster and civil war to the region and that Turkey itself will suffer because it has different sects and ethnicities.

“Malki has been reactive against Turkey ever since the Iraqi elections, convinced that Turkey's close ties with his major rival, Iraqiya, pose a threat to his hold on power,” Bilgay Duman, an Iraq expert from the Ankara-based Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Research (ORSAM), told Today's Zaman on Sunday. Duman also claimed that Maliki was “all the more unreasonable,” while Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani was in Turkey trying to cultivate stronger cooperation between Turkey and Iran to provide leverage to an immediate solution to the current polarization in Iraq. “Turkey is trying not to engage Iran in a power showdown, but behind the stage observers have the feeling that Iran finds Turkey's moves in the region to be aimed at its benefits,” Duman added, raising the possibility that Maliki's words were motivated by Iranian leadership, “which desperately needs conflict in the region to keep Iranians' attention fixed on the “fabricated danger from the outside.”

With the belief that the turbulence in Iraq is a natural reflection of the vague political moves of Syria and Iran, Alaeddin Yalçınkaya, head of the international relations department at Sakarya University, told Today's Zaman that Maliki has the roots of his power in Iran in a way that excludes other actors of the region for the sake of a sectarian Shiite alliance. “A perspective based on human rights is the way Turkey would like to choose when it deals with Iraq, since upsetting balances in the country would devastate everybody,” Yalçınkaya added, convinced that religious or ethnic alliances would not help Iraqi politics stand in unity after the US pullout.

Meanwhile, many attacks in recent days in Iraq have targeted the country's Shiite majority, increasing fears of a serious outbreak of sectarian violence following the withdrawal of US troops last month.

Large-scale sectarian fighting pushed the country to the verge of civil war in 2006-2007. Well-armed Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias continue to operate in the country, while suicide bombings are becoming increasingly frequent in the country.

The increase in violence comes as Iraq's leaders remain locked in a political crisis that is stoking tensions between the Shiite majority now in power and the country's Sunnis, who benefited most from ousted dictator Saddam Hussein's rule.

The leaders of Iraq's rival sects have been locked in a standoff since last month, when the Shiite-dominated government called for Hashemi's arrest on terrorism charges, just as the last American troops were completing their withdrawal from the country. Hashemi, Iraq's highest-ranking Sunni politician, remains holed up in the semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north, out of reach of state security forces. Observers liken Hashemi's reaction to Iran for responsibility of the arrest warrant Maliki bloc issued against him to the reaction Maliki displayed to Turkey when the country warned him to watch out for equal representation and refrain from politicizing his political rivalry with other blocs.

During his phone conversation with US President Barack Obama on Friday, Erdoğan also talked about the latest situation in Iraq, where two leaders agreed that a broad-based and inclusive government is necessary for stability in the country.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/16/iraq-what-next-corrupt-divided?newsfeed=true



* News
* World news
* Iraq

Iraq: what next for a corrupt and divided country?

The democratic nation state that was supposed to rise from the ruins of tyranny appears to be disintegrating

Martin Chulov
o The Guardian, Sunday 15 January 2012
o Article history

Nouri al-Maliki
Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has accused the Sunni vice-president, Tariq al-Hashemi, of directing hit squads. Photograph: Khalid Mohammed/AP

Post-Saddam Iraq has rarely been more brittle. The democratic nation state that was supposed to rise from the ruins of tyranny is steadily disintegrating. Less than one month after the US withdrawal, Iraq is showing no sign of uniting behind a Washington-backed central government. More alarmingly, Baghdad doesn't seem to care much.

The move by the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in mid-December against the country's Sunni vice-president, Tariq al-Hashemi, was always going to be provocative. Maliki, who in a recent interview said his primary identity was Shia, insists Hashemi was directing hit squads. He said he had known about the vice-president's "terror activities" for years, but had waited for the right time to go after him. The moment he chose could not have been more potent – the US army had hardly shut the gate into Kuwait behind them. The remaining strongman in town was marking his patch. The rest of Iraq would have to live with it.

Maliki would surely have expected a backlash. He has never been popular with the country's disenfranchised Sunnis and has had a workable, though strained, relationship with the increasingly disengaged Kurds. Yet he doesn't seem to have factored in the strength of the resentment – and its capacity to seriously undermine the power base he seems intent on building for himself.

Iraq now finds itself at a juncture that in many ways is more dangerous and instructive than the darkest days of 2006, when all remnants of state control crumbled as sectarian war took hold. Back then there was no expectation the state could lead Iraq to a better place. Six years on, and with violence much lower, Iraqis have even less faith in the state, despite it being much better placed – at face value – to provide for its citizens.

Iraq appears to have three paths from here. The first is partition: separate states for Shias, Sunnis and Kurds who would govern themselves and consign Iraq to a historical dustbin. This option would benefit the Kurds, who have been busy building a state in all but name for the past nine years, and who stand to reap an enormous bounty from the oil reserves under their feet. It may also be attractive to the Sunnis, who don't have oil in their heartland and fear they don't have a hope under a Shia majority government anyway.

The second option is a form of federalism, where regions have more autonomy in their own affairs and less of an allegiance to Baghdad. The Sunni provinces of Anbar and Diyyala have made steps in this direction, but Maliki has vowed to prevent any such move taking hold.

And then there's the fallback, "do nothing" option (one that Iraq seems to adopt almost by default these days): this means muddling along from one crisis to the next, with institutions remaining largely useless and citizens knowing that the state will rarely be behind them. Underlying this option – the most likely of the three – is a gradual slide into chaos. There are, it seems, too many trigger points inside Iraq and around the region these days to avoid it.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
More on the Iraqi government and corruption.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/16/corruption-iraq-son-tortured-pay?newsfeed=true


Corruption in Iraq: 'Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don't pay'


Ghaith Abdul-Ahad reports from Baghdad where families of innocent detainees face extortion from corrupt officials


Ghaith Abdul-Ahad
* The Guardian, Sunday 15 January 2012
* Article history


The walls of Um Hussein's living room in Baghdad are hung with the portraits of her missing sons. There are four of them, and each picture frame is decorated with plastic roses and green ribbons as an improvised wreath for the dead.

Um Hussein had six children. Her eldest son was killed by Sunni insurgents in 2005, when they took control of the neighbourhood. Three of her remaining sons were kidnapped by a Shia militia group when they left the neighbourhood to find work. They were never seen again.

She now lives with the rest of her family – a daughter, her last son, Yassir, and half a dozen orphaned grandchildren – in a tiny two-room apartment where the stink of sewage and cooking oil seeps through a thin curtain that separates the kitchen from the living room.

Um Hussein looks to be in her 60s and has one milky white eye. She is often confused and talks ramblingly about the young men in the portraits as if they are alive, then shouts at her daughter to bring tea. She told the Guardian how she had to fight to release Yassir from jail.

Yassir was detained in 2007. For three years she heard nothing of him and assumed he was dead like his brothers. Then one day she took a phone call from an officer who said she could go to visit him if she paid a bribe. She borrowed the money from her neighbour and set off for the prison.

"We waited until they brought him," she said. "His hands and legs were tied in metal chains like a criminal. I didn't know him from the torture. He wasn't my son, he was someone else. I cried: 'Your mother dies for you, my dear son.' I picked dirt from the floor and smacked it on my head. They dragged me out and wouldn't let me see him again.

"I have lost four. I told them I wouldn't lose this one."

Afterwards, the officers called from prison demanding hefty bribes to let him go while telling the family he was being tortured. Um Hussein told the officers she would pay, but they kept asking for more. First it was 1m Iraqi dinars (£560), then 2m, then 5m.

"We had to send [the security men] phone cards so they could call us. They said: 'Your son is being tortured – he will die if you don't pay.' So we paid and paid. What could I do? He is the last I have. I said I would sell myself in the streets, just bring him back to me."

The last call came in December. They demanded a final payment to let him go, by which time, according to Um Hussein and her neighbours, the family had paid 9m Iraqi dinars.

"They asked for 60 hundred-dollar bills. Then they said 30. I begged them and they still said 30. I told them I didn't have it, then they agreed on 20."

She took a taxi with her friend to the agreed meeting point, a mosque on the outskirts of the neighbourhood. The driver went out and handed the money to a man who stood on the corner, a Shia security officer called Rafic.

Yassir was released two days later. Um Hussein didn't know it at the time but a judge had ordered Yassir be released six months earlier. The security men had kept him in detention until his family produced another $2,000 bribe.

Yassir's case is part of a growing body of evidence collected by the Guardian that shows Iraqi state security officers are systematically arresting people on trumped-up charges, torturing them and extorting bribes from their families for their release. Endemic corruption in Iraq has created a new industry in which senior security service officers buy their authority over particular neighbourhoods by bribing politicians, junior officers pay their seniors monthly stipends and everyone gets a return on their investment by extorting money from the families of detainees.

During two trips to the country before and after the US withdrawal from the country on 18 December, the Guardian interviewed 14 detainees and five officers in different branches of the security service in Baghdad. All the detainees said they had had to pay money to be freed, even though most had been acquitted in the courts. Some had been jailed for three days and some, like Yassir, for five years. In three cases, officers changed a detainee's "confession" – often extracted under torture – in return for money. In one case, an officer lost the detainee's documents in return for a bribe and he was released due to lack of evidence. One prisoner we interviewed is still in jail and in the middle of negotiations with officers.

Release does not mean escape. According to one officer we spoke to, men who are released are often detained again because a family that has paid once to get their sons out of a detention centre makes an easy target for more extortion.

We asked Um Hussein if we could meet Yassir. He was hiding, she said, but after speaking to him on the phone he agreed to meet us and arrived an hour later. His young face looked pained. He lifted his shirt to show thick, dark scars on his back. Each scar had a ridge in the middle lined by red tissue with tiny bubbles. At the sight of them Um Hussein turned her head and started to wail.

"The commandos surrounded the area and took us," said Yassir. "There were Americans there who took our pictures. They moved us to the ministry of the interior, where they separated the people who were photographed by the Americans from those who weren't." Being photographed is why he survived at the height of the sectarian killing, Yassir explained.

Even so, Yassir said he was tortured inside the ministry compound for two weeks. "The torture started at midnight and went on until morning," he said. They hung the prisoners up and beat their legs with cables. They also beat the detainees' kidneys. "I still urinate blood," he said. "They wanted me to confess [to fake charges of belonging to al-Qaida] but there was nothing to confess to, so I refused to sign anything."

He was moved to an army base north of Baghdad where he says he was tortured for a further month. The Guardian was supplied with the names of officers and their military units there and in his last detention centre and has checked that these officers exist.

During this time Yassir and his fellow inmates were constantly beaten, he said. "Everyone beat us. When they brought food they beat us. When they moved us they beat us. They beat us so much we stopped feeling.

"The worst was when they hung us for six hours to the window bars with car chains or handcuffs and left us there, sometimes twisting our legs and arms until they dislocated our shoulders."

Every six months, Yassir was moved to a new unit or a new jail where he faced the same torture and interrogation. Finally, four and a half years after his arrest, he was brought in front of a judge. Because he hadn't signed a confession, he said, the judge ordered his release.

Another former detainee, who had paid a bribe to get released, told the Guardian he had confessed under torture to a long list of crimes, including setting improvised explosive devices, assassinations and murders.

"They hung me between two desks," said the man, who did not want to be named, "my legs and arms around a stick." He said they called it the quzi position. Quzi is an Iraqi dish of grilled sheep. "They started beating me with cables. I fainted and they threw water on my face and started beating me again. They finished the beating in the morning and in the evening they started the torture again." On the third day, when he couldn't bear the electric shocks and beating any more, he told them he would confess to anything. "They gave me a paper and I signed it and they said if I changed it in front of the judge I would be tortured again."

After that, the negotiations began, the man said. His confessions carried the death penalty. An officer called his father and the family sold furniture and borrowed money and paid $7,000 (£5,000). Five months later, he was released.

We asked Yassir why he hadn't confessed to anything – he would have paid the same money but saved himself the torture. "I didn't do anything. How could I confess? I was ready to die but not to confess."
The negotiator

Rafic is an officer in one of the most feared security units in Iraq, one of the many commando anti-terrorism units which, at the height of the civil war, had a reputation for being a government-backed death squad.

Rafic looks like a nightclub bouncer: he is tall with a shaven head, a roll-neck sweater and slacks. He shouts into his phone, waves his hands theatrically to passing neighbours and when he laughs he exposes big yellow teeth.

Fellow residents in Rafic's Baghdad neighbourhood treat him with extreme caution. They know he has the power to detain their brothers or cousins for months if not years. But they also need him: he is their negotiator and mediator. They know that when someone is arrested they must go to him to seek help. He will arrange a visit, get a phone smuggled into the prison, reduce the level of torture and arrange for their release. Each service will come at a cost.

When we met him in December he was closing a $5,000 deal with the family of a detainee. He promised them he would send their son blankets and food and assured them the beating and torture would stop. The money was the first of many payments Rafic would receive before the man would be released.

"Corruption has reached the head," said the officer who introduced us to Rafic and who worked with him. "From top to bottom, everyone is rotten. Rafic loves money. His religion and his sect is money, which is very useful because it means at least there is someone to negotiate with, not like in the days of sectarianism when we paid money and they still killed our sons."

Rafic stood outside a small shop where he held his "surgery" every evening, drinking Greek ouzo with his friends and receiving visitors. His scope of business is not limited to detainees but covers anything related to corrupt officialdom, including getting ID cards and passports.

We sat in his car to talk. Like many security officers his eyes twitched and darted like two trapped flies, watching the young men standing nearby, the old men playing backgammon and the man selling tea from a stall by the kerb.

"We are neutral," he said, referring to his commando unit. "We don't do Sunni and Shia any more. We are professional. We detain Shia and Sunni. There is no difference."

How do you make detainees confess? "We hang them from the ceiling and beat them until they are motionless corpses," he said. "Then they confess."

"Look," he added, "the system now is just like under Saddam: walk by the wall, don't go near politics and you can walk with your head high and not fear anything. But if you come close to the throne then the wrath of Allah will fall on you and we have eyes everywhere."

He described the arrest of the Sunni vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi's bodyguards who, it was claimed by the Shia-dominated government, had been paid by Hashimi to assassinate Shia officials. (Hashimi was on a plane heading to Kurdistan when government forces took over the airport, preventing him from leaving. After a standoff, he was allowed to fly but his men where detained.)

"Look what happened to the poor bodyguards of Hashimi, they were tortured for a week. They took them directly to our unit and they were interrogated severely. Even an old general was hanging from the ceiling. Do you know what I mean by hanging?"

In the constricted space of the car he pulled his arms up behind his back.

"They hang him like this. Sometimes they beat them with cables and sticks and sometimes they just leave them hanging from a metal fence for three days. They are torturing them trying to get them to confess to the bombing of the parliament."

They hadn't yet confessed, he said. He described the idea that Hashimi, the vice-president of Iraq, would pay someone $3,000 to assassinate a policeman as "absurd", but said they were also torturing them because they wanted to find the head of Hashimi's political office.

We asked Rafic why, as we had heard, the torture only happened at night. He said the human rights inspectors who visit prisons and detention centres usually came during the day and at night there was a back hall where the torture took place. "Even if the inspector comes [during the day], no one of the detainees dares to speak. A week later we get a letter from the ministry thanking us for our professionalism."

Yassir had said that once an inspector had entered their jail and found him lying on his back, unable to move after a beating in the night. "He asked me what was wrong. I said I was sick and I fell when I was using the toilet. If you say you have been tortured, they will kill you after the inspector leaves."
The investors

On the first floor of an upmarket restaurant in Baghdad, where a waitress with dyed blond hair takes orders, and businessmen and government officials sit in secluded booths smoking water pipes, we met a colonel in the ministry of the interior.

The colonel wore a dark suit and listened to people's requests for help in getting a passport, securing the release of a relative or negotiating the Kafkaesque Iraqi bureaucracy. His portly son, who worked as secretary and bodyguard, sat with a notebook and a pistol.

The colonel explained how the country's endemic corruption had resulted in the industrial scale of extortion of innocent detainees and their families. "Everything is for sale, every post in the government is for sale," he said.

"You pay $300,000 to buy a post as a security chief or military commander of a neighbourhood for a year and you have to get your money back. It's like an investment. But you can never trust anyone in this country – they take your money and a year later they conspire against you and throw you in jail. They are like wolves."

One of his subordinates explained how the officers procured their positions. "The commander of the district buys his post from the politicians or the office of the commander-in-chief. Then the commander rents the post of interrogation officer to his juniors for $10,000 to $15,000 per month, depending on the area. For a Sunni neighbourhood you have to pay a lot of money; for Shia not that much, because most of the arrests take place in the Sunni areas. Then you get your money back from the detainee.

"Sometimes you get really lucky and actually detain someone who is in al-Qaida, and then you can get your full investment in one go: you arrange for him to escape for half a million dollars."

Other officers told similar stories: of extortion and torture by hanging and beating, electricity and nail pulling. "Sometimes they put the prisoners in the 'corner' position. They put them in a corner facing a wall, and everyone passing by had to hit them – a slap, a kick, an insult, just to degrade them and break them," said an officer who worked in a sprawling military base in Baghdad that doubles as a high-security prison.

He was a member of the new guard that came to power post-Saddam Hussein, but he was wearing the sort of moustache that was popular in the Saddam era: thick, well-trimmed on the upper lip with its ends sliding down the edge of the lower lips giving him a sinister, angry look.

The corruption, he said, was partly a way of appeasing officers to win their support, but it was also a way to control them. When they didn't want someone, they could accuse him of corruption.

"I am sitting on a ticking bomb," the man said. "If I don't join the networks of corrupted officers they will threaten to transfer me to one of the frontline divisions. I tell them I don't want to steal, but they can go ahead. I know one day things will change and all the corrupted officers will put on trial."

The days of sectarian killing in Baghdad – the monster that ripped through the city – appear to be over. Sectarianism has taken a new form. Now Sunnis and Shia stick to their separate, walled-off neighbourhoods, the Shia death squads have become government forces and the Sunnis are calling for federalism, which is opposed staunchly by Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister.

The officer who had introduced us to Rafic said: "We Sunnis have suffered a lot from this government in the past years – detention and kidnapping and extortion."

The only solution, he said, was a federal Iraq in which the Sunni-dominated provinces were separated from the Shia-dominated central state. In the meantime, people were trying to work out ways to protect themselves. "Really bad days are about to come. Since the Americans left, everyone is looking for a gun."

In 2008, during the period of intensive American raids on civilians, they had sold their guns and the Kurds had bought them. "Now," he said, "we are trying to buy them back."

All names in this article have been changed
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Po...ule-in-middle-east-is-over.ashx#axzz1jaBkwsfM

Ban: Era of one-man rule in Middle East is over
January 16, 2012 02:07 AM
By Hussein Dakroub
The Daily Star

BEIRUT: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wrapped up a three-day visit to Lebanon Sunday with major political messages on three contentious issues that have sharply split the Lebanese: The U.N.-backed court, Hezbollah’s arms and the 10-month unrest in Syria.

In an interview with The Daily Star, Ban ruled out any amendment of the protocol concerning the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) and rejected Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah’s defiant stance on the group’s arsenal, saying that non-state weapons are dangerous and harmful for Lebanon’s peace and stability.

The U.N. chief later urged embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad to stop killing his people, saying the “old order” of one-man rule is over in the Middle East.

“Today, I say again to President Assad of Syria: Stop the violence. “Stop killing your people. The path of repression is a dead end,” Ban said in a keynote address Sunday at a conference in Beirut on democratic transitions in the Arab world.

“The lessons of the past year are eloquent and clear: The winds of change will not cease to blow. The flame ignited in Tunisia will not be dimmed,” he added, referring to the public protests that began in Tunisia in January last year which have set off the Arab Spring popular uprisings currently roiling the Arab world.

Syria’s violent crackdown on protesters demanding Assad’s ouster has killed more than 5,000 people, by a U.N. count, since the uprising began in last March. The Syrian authorities say 2,000 members of the security forces have also been killed. The killing of protesters has continued despite the presence of Arab League observers in Syria to verify its compliance with a League peace plan to end the bloodshed.

Referring to autocratic one-man rules in Arab countries, some of which have already collapsed like those in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, Ban said: “The old way, the old order, is crumbling – one-man rule and the perpetuation of family dynasties ... monopolies of wealth and power ... the silencing of the media ... the deprivation of fundamental freedoms that are the birthright of every man, woman and child on this planet. To all of this, the people say: enough!” Ban said.

In his speech, Ban did not touch on the controversial issue of the STL which has sharply divided the Lebanese. But in an interview with The Daily Star Saturday, Ban said there was no need to amend the protocol concerning tribunal which, he said, has succeeded so far in preventing political assassinations.

“I don’t think there is a need to change any agreement,” Ban said, adding that in accordance with the agreement between the Lebanese state and the U.N., the mandate of the STL, which expires on Feb. 29, would be automatically extended.

“It is a matter of extending the mandate so that all the works can be carried out to bring justice to the perpetrators of this crime,” Ban said. “That is something to be decided by me in consultation with the U.N. Security Council and Lebanese authorities.”

The STL, established in 2007 to try those involved in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, has indicted four members of Hezbollah, which has called for the cooperation agreement between Lebanon and the United Nations on the court to be canceled. Hezbollah has dismissed the STL as “an American-Israeli court.”

Ban said that one of the key aims of the STL – to prevent further political assassinations – has worked thus far.

Ban’s statement came hours after Nasrallah criticized Ban for saying he was “deeply concerned about the military capabilities of Hezbollah and also concerned about the lack of progress in disarmament.”

Nasrallah said that he was pleased that Ban, as well the United States and Israel, were concerned over Hezbollah’s growing military prowess. “Your concern Mr. Secretary-General reassures us and makes us happy,” Nasrallah said in a televised speech Saturday. He vowed to maintain Hezbollah’s arsenal, rejecting any national dialogue whose aim is to disarm the party.

Responding to Nasrallah’s comments, Ban reiterated an earlier call that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which demands the disbanding of all non-state actors, to be fully implemented.

Ban, who has encouraged President Michel Sleiman to continue attempts to reconvene the National Dialogue process and address the questions of weapons outside the control of the state, said there should be continuous efforts to disarm Hezbollah. “These weapons outside state authority [are] dangerous and harmful for peace and stability for Lebanon and also in the region,” Ban told The Daily Star.

Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri praised Ban’s visit, saying it backed Lebanon’s independence.

“The main message carried by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s visit to Lebanon pertains to the international court and the need to implement U.N resolutions, in addition to supporting Lebanon’s independence,” Hariri said on the popular social networking website Twitter.

Asked to comment on Nasrallah’s speech in which he vowed to keep Hezbollah’s arms, Hariri said: “The same remarks in every [speech].”

In his speech, Ban also called for an end to Israeli occupation of Arab territories and settlement construction. “The Israeli occupation of Arab and Palestinian territories must end. So must violence against civilians. Settlements, new and old, are illegal. They work against the emergence of a viable Palestinian state,” Ban said, adding: “A two-state solution is long overdue. The status quo offers only the guaranty of future conflict. We must all do our part to break the impasse and secure a lasting peace.”

Addressing the conference on democratic transitions in the Arab world, Prime Minister Najib Mikati said Lebanon has the right to liberate its land from Israeli occupation by all available means. He also said that Lebanon is undergoing state and administrative reforms in order to strengthen democracy.

“Lebanon, which complies with international resolutions, insists on implementing Resolution 1701 fully and without any distinction or selectivity, reserving its legitimate right to liberate its occupied land by all available means,” Mikati said.

He slammed Israel’s repeated violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty and human rights, urging the U.N. to ensure the implementation of resolutions related to Lebanon, namely Security Council Resolution 1701 which ended the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon.

“Israel does not hesitate to breach or ignore international resolutions and norms, while violating solemnly the most basic human rights and principles,” Mikati said. “In this context, we look forward to the United Nations issuing just international resolutions and ensuring their just implementation.” – With additional reporting by Mirella Hodeib

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on January 16, 2012, on page 1.
 
=






Syrian soldier 'decapitated seven-month-old boy in front
of his mother after finding suspected rebel was not at home'.

Officer said to have grabbed child, decapitated him and threatened to kill more children if rebel did not give himself up.

Concerns of war crimes after reports children have been shot and tortured during crackdown on unrest.

Estimated 5,000 people have died in violent 10-month uprising


By Wil Longbottom
Last updated at 3:50 PM on 15th January 2012
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/...-boy-mother-finding-suspected-rebel-home.html

Syrian soldiers ordered to crack down on people suspected of sheltering rebels are reported to have cut the head of a seven-month-old baby after storming a house.

A soldier from the Syrian army's 11th Armoured Division claimed his commanding officer snatched the child from the living room when they found the man they were looking for was out.


The officer then apparently laid the child on the floor, pulled out his army knife and decapitated the little boy in front of his horrified mother.

War crimes: Child protesters gesture in the street in Adlb, Syria. Soldiers are said to have decapitated a seven-month-old boy during a brutal crackdown on unrest in the country

Bloodshed: A seriously injured man lies stricken on the ground after rockets were fired at protesters in Homs. Some 5,000 people have been killed by President Bashar al-Assad's troops during 10 months of unrest.

He then hung the child's head above the front door and screamed that he would do the same to another child unless the man gave up, The Sunday Times reported.

The incident allegedly took place last week in the north-west town of Jisr al-Shughur during a heavy security operation.

The 22-year-old soldier, known only as Mohammed, told The Sunday Times: 'That was when I decided to defect. I'll have to live with that memory for ever.
'We did things I never want to remember.'

Torched: Footage from a camera phone shows an armoured personnel carrier on fire in Homs, one of the worst hit cities during the unrest

Defiant: Supporters of the Free Syrian Army gather in Homs to protest against President Assad's rule.

There is mounting evidence that President Bashar al-Assad's forces have been deliberately targeting children in a bid to crush unrest.

The UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also said there are concerns of war crimes and torture being carried out on children.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said today that the 'old order' of one-man rule and family dynasties was over in the Middle East.

He urged President Assad to halt the bloodshed and said revolutions during the Arab Spring showed that people would no longer accept tyranny.

Message: A Syrian boy holds a placard in the wreckage of his home. It reads: 'Where will I sleep with my brothers? Bashar destroyed my home.'

Unrest: A demonstrator carries a placard with a caricature of Colonel Gaddafi and President Assad with the message 'no steps back'

Support: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the days of family dynasties ruling countries in the Middle East were over.

An estimated 5,000 people have been killed during the brutal crackdown on 10 months of unrest, with an estimated 400 dead in the last three weeks alone.

The Syrian regime blames the revolt on terrorists and armed gangs, rather than protesters seeking an end to nearly four decades of Assad family rule.

Assad is said to have granted a general amnesty for crimes committed during the unrest, Syria's state agency said.

Arab League observers began work in Syria on December 27 to verify if the government was abiding by an agreement to end the military crackdown on dissent and release prisoners.

Opposition and army defectors have increasingly been taking up arms to fight back against government forces - raising concerns of civil war in the predominantly Sunni country.
Foreign ministers from the Arab League will meet on January 22 to discuss the findings of monitors sent to Syria.

The monitors are due to complete a report on Thursday on the situation in the country.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nding-suspected-rebel-home.html#ixzz1jaB7tG35



=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source......
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...terror-attacks-against-jews-israelis-1.407352


Thailand hunting Hezbollah operatives planning terror attacks against Jews, Israelis
The Counter-Terrorism Bureau has issued a warning to Israelis to stay away from Bangkok, and advised those already in the capital to avoid areas commonly frequented by Israelis.

By Barak Ravid Tags: Hezbollah

Thailand's intelligence services launched a manhunt Friday for a Hezbollah operative who is part of a terror cell planning attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets in Bangkok.

The Counter-Terrorism Bureau has issued a warning to Israelis to stay away from the Thai capital, and advised those already in Bangkok to avoid areas commonly frequented by Israelis.

The defense source said the Thai authorities were working hard to thwart the attack, which was expected sometime ahead of February 12 - the anniversary of the assassination of Hezbollah operations chief Imad Mughniyeh.

According to Thai sources, despite the arrest of the first suspect, the terror warning is still in force.

The defense source said the incident was still underway.

"A manhunt is still underway after the additional suspects,which means the threat still exists and the travel advisory is still in force," the source said.

The source also called on Israelis who are now in Thailand to comply with the directives and to stay away from Bangkok.

Thai sources said that during his questioning, the detained Hezbollah operative confessed that a terror squad was intending to launch an attack on Israeli targets, including places where Israelis stay.

"The Thai authorities have stationed heavy security at all potential targets," a securing source added.

According to the Thai media, Israel first informed the Thai authorities on December 22 that three Hezbollah operatives had entered the country in order to perpetrate terror attacks. On January 8, Israel received additional information pinpointing this weekend as the time of the attack.

The Americans had also informed the Thai authorities before Christmas that they had received information from Israel about a planned terror attack against Western and American targets in Bangkok.

Three members of the terror cell are Lebanese citizens who also hold Swedish passports, and who visited Thailand a few times in recent months.

The information led the Thai authorities Friday to an apartment near Khao San Road, a popular destination for Israeli backpackers and other visitors to the Thai capital.

Thai security officials raided the apartment but the Hezbollah men had already fled.

They arrested Idris Hussein, 48, a dual Lebanese-Swiss citizen, at Bangkok Airport a few minutes before he was due to board a flight out of the country.

Following Hussein's arrest, nine other countries besides Israel and the United States issued travel advisories against visiting Bangkok.

Read this article in Hebrew
More on this topic

* Israelis ignoring Bangkok travel warning - for now

__________

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577162163501302798.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

* ASIA NEWS
* JANUARY 16, 2012

Thai Police: Terror Plot Averted

* Article
* Comments

more in World | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ »

By JAMES HOOKWAY

BANGKOK—Thai police said they had broken up a terror plot aimed at tourist sites in Bangkok, after U.S. warnings triggered in part by worsening tensions with Iran following the killing of a nuclear scientist in Tehran.

National police chief Gen. Priewpan Damapong said a man in custody for questioning on Saturday said the bomb plot had been called off when authorities caught wind of it. Gen. Priewpan described the man as of Lebanese descent, with links to the Iranian-backed, Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah. Another suspect is still at large, he said.

Asia-based security officials have warned that rising tensions in the Middle East could result in attacks on U.S. or Western targets around the world. Iran has accused Israel and the U.S. of waging a covert campaign to derail its nuclear program. In the latest of a series of similar killings of scientists working on the program, a procurement official at a uranium-enrichment facility died Wednesday morning from a bomb attached to his car.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday vowed that the perpetrators would be punished. Hezbollah, a Shiite group, has frequently acted as an agent for the interests of Shiite-led Iran.

The U.S. denied involvement in the killing of the scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, and condemned the attack. Israeli officials have declined to comment. Many security experts and diplomats have said it is possible Israel organized the attack to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Thai Defense Minister Yuthasak Sasiprapa told reporters on Friday that initial intelligence, provided by a tipoff, suggested an attack on tourism targets in Bangkok, one of the world's most-visited cities, possibly related to the rising tensions between Iran and the U.S. and Israel. He said it apparently had been planned for between Friday and Sunday. Gen. Priewpan, the police chief, said the detained suspect, a Swedish national, had told police he and another man arrived before New Year's Eve with plans to stage an attack in the Thai capital. The U.S. Embassy issued a terrorist threat alert to American citizens on Friday warning of a "real and credible threat." Israel issued a similar warning.

The suspect was detained at Bangkok's Suvarnahbhumi International Airport as he attempted to leave the country. No charges have been filed against him so far, and he can be held for 60 days before being deported.

Police released an artist's sketch of a man described as the second suspect and urged the public to inform the authorities if they see him.

Security experts say Thailand is potentially an attractive target for foreign terrorists because of the large number of Western tourists. In 1994, an attempt to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok fell apart when the driver of a truck loaded with explosives abandoned his vehicle after a minor traffic accident. Several Iranians were later arrested in connection with that incident, but all were later released. Some terrorism experts linked the plot to Hezbollah.

Write to James Hookway at james.hookway@wsj.com
 
=








The Syrian Conflict is Already a Civil War

Erica Chenoweth
January 15, 2012
http://prospect.org/article/syrian-conflict-already-civil-war

Those who say Syria is on the verge of civil
war should take another look at the facts.


The headline of Anthony Shadid’s article in Sunday’s New York Times reads “Fear of Civil War Mounts in Syria as Crisis Deepens.” The Arab League’s Secretary General, Nabil el-Araby, is quoted as saying “I fear a civil war, and the events that we see and hear about now could lead to a civil war.” Others concur, while stopping short of saying that Syria is currently in a state of civil war.


But by most standards, the conflict in Syria has been a civil war for quite awhile (see, for instance, Nicholas Sambanis‘ thorough analysis of civil war’s competing definitions). Although there is some controversy surrounding the definition, scholars typically consider a conflict a civil war when:

•two or more armed groups are fighting within state borders over some incompatibility (change of leadership/government, territory, or major policy issue);

Some people add that the armed combatants must be organized, or possess an internal military structure, although this is not central to all definitions. Others reduce the necessary threshold of fatalities, thus admitting lower-intensity conflicts to the list of “intra-state armed conflicts” in general.

Regardless, the Syrian conflict clearly meets all of these criteria—in fact, the conflict probably crossed these thresholds sometime last summer. Since July (maybe earlier), there have been at least two organized armed groups fighting over the center. The incumbent government is clearly one of the combatants, with the Free Syrian Army (and maybe some other armed militias) prosecuting the conflict against it. With thousands of Syrians killed, including up to 2,000 regime loyalists, the casualty figures are straightforward—assuming these figures are accurate. All of this has unfolded within a relatively short time span, indicating a level of conflict intensity that is on par with other “typical” civil wars.

By the way, the seeming reluctance to call the Syrian conflict a civil war reminds me of a similar debate that occurred in 2006, when Iraqi and Coalition officials denied that Iraq had fallen into a civil war. The facts on the ground elicited a compelling op-ed and article by James Fearon, who pretty much established that Iraq was in the midst of a civil war—a pretty bad one, too. (In fact, I should mention that James Fearon is the one who first raised the question of Syria’s civil war status during a conversation we had a number of weeks ago).

One issue, of course, is “who declares” a civil war. I suppose this thankless task is often left to the academics who count them. So, we can add another one to the list. Despite denials, the Syrian Civil War is already well underway.





=
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.christiannewstoday.com/Christian_News_Report_9005048.html

Today's date is Sunday January 15, 2012

INTERNATIONAL

Israelis Hint at Summit as Talks With PA Continue

Jerusalem – Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators appeared to have made slight progress in fragile talks hosted in Jordan, with the two sides expected to meet again January 25 with a possible leadership summit in March.

Israeli officials reportedly said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will present a plan on borders and security at a summit meeting in March with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Netanyahu has repeatedly called for the resumption of full peace talks with no pre-conditions, but Abbas has demanded a complete freeze on Israeli construction in the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, as well as Israeli recognition of the 1967 borders in order to resume peace talks.

Israeli envoy Yitzhak Molcho and Palestinian negiator Saeb Erekat met in Amman this weekend under a Jordanian-sponsored attempt to restart full peace negotiations. The international Quartet, comprising the United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia, asked both sides to submit their positions on the issues of borders and security by January 26. Aided by Jordan, the Quartet is trying to find common ground between the two sides.

In Washington, a State Department spokeswoman said the meetings were important and encouraging, but said the best way to end the settlements question “is to have a final negotiated solution that sets agreed borders; then the whole problem goes away. That’s why they have to negotiate with each other.”

At the same time, there has been little reported progress in reconciliation efforts between Abbas’ Fatah Party, that controls the West Bank, and Iran-backed Hamas, which ousted Fatah from power in the Gaza Strip in a bloody 2007 military coup.

Most Western countries recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization and despite ongoing attempts at Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, Hamas leaders have said they are committed to armed conflict with the goal of destroying Israel. A Hamas military document leaked online detailed Hamas efforts to gather military intelligence for targeting Israeli towns for rocket attacks, Israel’s leading Yediot Aharonoth newspaper reported Sunday.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source......
Posted for fair use......
http://www.eurasiareview.com/150120...clear-armed-iran-the-us-gcc-dilemma-analysis/

Nuclear Deterrence For A Nuclear-Armed Iran: The US / GCC Dilemma – Analysis
Written by: INEGMA
January 15, 2012
By Sabahat Khan

Following the political fall-out between Washington and its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, relations between the GCC bloc, in particular Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. have recovered – largely driven by the necessity of the multi-dimensional security challenge Iran has come to posit. The rise of Iran – in part catapulted by the United States-led wars in Afghanistan and in particular Iraq, and the growth in status of proxy groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas – has presented a number of capitals in the GCC (some more so, admittedly, than others) with a renewed set of mutual interests to drive relations with Washington forward for potentially the next two decades. At the pinnacle of mutually shared security threats between the U.S. and GCC states are the suspected activities of Iran to enrich uranium to weapons-grade and then ‘weaponize’ the fissile material, closely followed by the increasingly sophisticated growing Iranian cruise and ballistic missile arsenals.
Iran - United States Relations

Iran - United States Relations

While remaining imbued with considerable ambiguities, the idea of a defense umbrella to GCC allies floated by U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in fall 2009 has unavoidably carried undertones of Cold War-era ‘extended deterrence’ strategies – especially in the event Iran makes a breakthrough as a nuclear weapons state. The concept of ‘extended deterrence’ is traced back to the Cold War when the U.S. and the Soviet Union declared their willingness employ their nuclear arsenals for the protection of allies. What ‘category’ of a defense umbrella the U.S. could extend to its GCC allies remains unclear. For example, would such a defense umbrella be framed within bilateral or multilateral arrangements, and would it be designed only to offer GCC allies a defensive missile shield with deployed in-theater U.S. military assets? Or, would the United States’ umbrella go as far as extended deterrence whereby a potential nuclear attack on GCC allies by Iran would be met with Washington retaliating in kind?

Extended deterrence for GCC allies could simultaneously serve two core long-term policy objectives for Washington: Firstly, to support the security of indispensable energy partners in the GCC, and; Secondly, to offer an convincing alternative to GCC states that could consider their own nuclear weapons programs if Iran became a nuclear armed state. For now, however, it can be presumed on the basis of prevailing policy position that the U.S. will extend its military assets only in support of what could eventually evolve into an integrated regional air and missile defense shield against Iranian air and missile capabilities. To enable such, Washington would authorize – as it already is – sales of modern air defense systems such as the PAC-3 and THAAD systems, simultaneously with advanced weapons sales – also as it has already declared – to bolster GCC counterforce capabilities for offensive operations. At another level, presumably, Washington would entertain some tacit understanding to either lead or support military operations against Iran if it chose to attack GCC states, or destabilize them beyond a level of tolerability.
Gulf States (GCC)

Gulf States (GCC)

However, the posture outlined above only looks at dealing with Iran as a conventional power: The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran could render a defense umbrella for GCC states redundant in the absence of a nuclear deterrent – prompting GCC states to consider their own. It is entirely conceivable if not increasingly certain that a GCC state or the GCC bloc would feel compelled to develop an indigenous nuclear deterrent. So it becomes necessary to consider at least in theory the possibility of a U.S. extended deterrence to GCC allies – firstly, as means to protect GCC allies, and secondly, as a strategy to contain a regional nuclear arms race.

Assuming the United States did eventually offer extended deterrence to GCC states, a number of important questions arise: The biggest ask where the U.S. would deploy its nuclear arsenal, how quantitatively large any such deployment would be, and – crucially – how much, if any, control GCC states party to such an arrangement would have. The latter presents several more questions – for example, where would the United States’ nuclear deterrent be positioned within either individual command and control structures for GCC states, or within an as-yet-unrealized regional command and control structure? If the nuclear deterrent was in the form of air-to-ground bombs deliverable by aircraft, who would be assigned to deliver them? Alternatively, if the deterrent was in the form of ground-launched missiles, would their launch be automated (and to what degree) or not in retaliation to a nuclear attack – and who would take responsibility in the event of miscalculation?

Indeed, any extended deterrence for the GCC would need to be deployed in-theater (i.e., on GCC territory), for nuclear missiles housed on U.S. aircraft carriers or naval ships would be exposed to unnecessary and potentially untenable risks – and for now no known submarine bases exist anywhere on the peninsula. However, even the deployment of U.S. submarines with nuclear weapons could create problems with regards to the balance of power between the U.S. and Russia, and increasingly, China – the implications of which could be an even more dangerous regional arms build-up than what Iran threatens by itself. Within that backdrop, it is almost certain that GCC states would want some level of control over U.S. nuclear weapons deployed on their territories – this could in fact be an essential element of any U.S. efforts to convince GCC states to voluntarily forgo efforts to launch their own nuclear weapons programs.

The idea of some level of joint control of deployed U.S. nuclear weapons seems feasible at least in theory – and perhaps the most useful model to contrast the possibility of such is the current NATO arrangement with Turkey. Under a decades-old Cold War-era NATO arrangement, Turkey still hosts as many as 90 B61 gravity bombs that can be delivered with F-16 jets at its Incirlik Air Base (IAB). Reportedly, U.S. pilots are assigned to deliver 50 of the 90 B61 bombs stored at IAB, and the rest are assigned for delivery by the Turkish Air Force. Similarly, the U.S. keeps upwards of 100 nuclear bombs at NATO bases in Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, and Italy. One particular feature in the Turkish arrangement may however be unacceptable to GCC states – that there is no permanent deployment of a nuclear-capable F-16 wing at IAB (only the B61 gravity bombs here are permanently stored).

Yet, even if the U.S. came around, firstly, to extended deterrence for GCC allies, and second, to some level of joint control for it, further obstacles remain in a workable long term arrangement. For instance, assuming Iran acquired a nuclear weapons capability and then, having acquired a capable modern air defense system such as future variants of the Russian-made S-400, begun stockpiling an unlimited number of nuclear warheads – would a presumed U.S. extended deterrence meet the threat of an expanding Iranian nuclear arsenal with some degree of quantitative parity? And as we are exploring future scenarios – would an implosion of the Islamic regime in Iran and its replacement with a democratic, pro-Western regime that, for instance, halts its nuclear weapons production but does not entirely disassemble its arsenal, prompt the U.S. to review and possibly withdraw its extended deterrence to GCC allies, in part or principle?

GCC states cannot entirely discount the possibility of a paradigm shift in the center of gravity for political power in Iran profoundly impacting their own relationships with Washington, reducing their dispensability to overarching U.S. interests and potentially leaving them isolated in fifteen years from now. GCC states look back to 1960s and 1970s when Washington was helping build its regional policeman under the Shah of Iran, much to the discomfort of Arabian Gulf states. Ironically, there are high-up circles in the GCC that have already subscribed to the belief that the potential nuclear weapons breakthrough of Iran is a Western conspiracy to undermine the Sunni Arabs. The issue here is about whether Saudi Arabia or GCC states would ever be prepared to live in the shadow of a nuclear-armed Iran per se, regardless of the nature of its government. Thus even an extended deterrence for GCC allies – while offering them a sense of protection, and an important one – may not be sustainable as a long-term substitute to dissuade all GCC states from exploring the feasibility of a national nuclear deterrent.

Some analysts feel that the development of a nuclear weapons capability would be too costly and draining on national resources for a nation like Saudi Arabia, for example – and combined with the likelihood of defying the U.S., which could fundamentally jeopardize the single most important strategic security relationship Riyadh has, the Saudis would be unlikely to pursue nuclear weapons capability. Similar arguments are made for the UAE – the next GCC state with theoretical weight to be able to embark on such an effort – which has become the first GCC state to launch a civilian nuclear program, poised to set new benchmarks for international safeguards and transparency. However, while such analyses may hold some weight, they represent an “outside-in” look into the security perceptions of Saudi Arabia rather than how the Saudis themselves – and indeed their GCC partners – view regional nuclear weapons proliferation, and feel compelled to channel their national and collective powers to counter the looming threat of nuclear weapons from what is perceived to be an interventionist and aggressive regional force. Quietly, some observers look at the closeness of Saudi-Pakistani bilateral relations – exemplified by historical Saudi support for Pakistan’s nuclear program – to consider the possibility of Pakistan deploying part of its own arsenal in the kingdom.

Some time ago the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas M. Freeman, noted that “enior Saudi officials have said privately that, if and when Iran acknowledges having, or is discovered to have, actual nuclear warheads, Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to acquire a deterrent stockpile.” In fall 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal – a U.S.-educated former Saudi intelligence chief and former Saudi envoy to the U.S. – declared in an unofficial capacity that the leadership of Saudi Arabia has a “duty” to its people to look into “all options we are given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves” if “the efforts of the world community, fail to convince Israel to shed its weapons of mass destruction and to prevent Iran from obtaining similar weapons.” Although Prince Turki’s remarks were made in a personal capacity to not reflect official policy, it should be noted that the remarks by Prince Turki – once a champion of a nuclear-free Middle East – suggest not only that a regional nuclear arms race is a real possibility in the event of a nuclear-armed Iran, but that even moderates are accepting its inevitability.

Any U.S. extended deterrence for the GCC remains only a conceptual exercise – but could feature as a future add-on to a “defense umbrella” which for now only focuses on combining advanced air and missile defense and GCC counterforce capabilities. GCC states have been working away at upgrading missile defense capabilities, and hope with renewed energies a regional integrated air and missile defense architecture can be realized within the decade. For that to happen, GCC states will need continued U.S. support – operationally, at least in the short-term, and technologically much longer. How dependency on the U.S. for defense needs would affect the self-drive of a state like Saudi Arabia or the UAE to consider a nuclear weapons capability if Iran acquired such remains unclear. Although the U.S. could in theory threaten withdrawal from regional air and missile defense set-ups – either by refusing to take part in or ultimately suspending sales of its missile defense systems – it may be reluctant to take such measures. Ultimately, in the prevailing environment, Washington could pay a much heavier price by deserting regional forces that are friendly to its greater interests, paving the way for competing powers to capitalize on a vacuum any U.S. retreat from longstanding relationships with GCC allies could create.

Sabahat Khan, Senior Analyst, INEGMA
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=253766


Noam Schalit, politics and future kidnappings
By FRIMET ROTH
01/15/2012 22:22

Even before his political debut last week, Noam Schalit had already begun pontificating.
Talkbacks (6)


Even before his political debut last week, Noam Schalit had already begun pontificating. In an address to a Knesset conference in early January, Schalit offered some puzzling advice. The conference, organized by the National Union party, focused on a bill sponsored by MK Uri Ariel that would prohibit the release of more than one prisoner for any future Israeli captives.

Schalit declared that “the fight against kidnappings should be won by restoring our deterrence and not via legislation... The terrorist organizations need to know that kidnappings don’t pay off for them.”

Of course, the major lesson the terrorists learned from the deal to free Noam’s son, Gilad Schalit, is that kidnappings not only pay – they’re the jackpot. The deterrence of which Schalit spoke was virtually demolished by Israel’s release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in that exchange.

Perhaps consumed with his brewing political launch, Schalit was too busy to pay attention to Col. Tal Hermoni’s warning, uttered just a few days before the Knesset event. Apparently, the motivation to kidnap a soldier has increased since the Schalit swap and Hermoni, commander of the Gaza Division’s Southern Brigade, said Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip were working “on a daily basis” to abduct Israeli soldiers.

Hermoni added that terror groups have been hard at work digging tunnels for such an attack similar to the one that allowed Hamas to nab Gilad Schalit near the Kerem Shalom crossing in June, 2006. Israel is currently gathering intelligence to assist it in locating those tunnels.

SEVERAL OTHER speakers at the conference criticized the Schalit swap. MK Ariel, former defense minister Moshe Arens, Nobel Prize winner Prof. Robert Yisrael Aumann and terrorism expert Dr. Boaz Ganor all highlighted the failures that led to the swap and the huge blow it had dealt to Israel’s security.

They proposed alternatives for handling any future kidnappings, ranging from total refusal to negotiate (Arens) to offering to release only enemies captured in combat with the IDF and never terrorist murderers of civilians (Ganor).

Schalit opposed Ariel’s bill, saying, “We can’t tell our soldiers that they are worth only one Palestinian prisoner.”

But the real flaw in the proposed legislation is its impotence.

In hearings of eleventh-hour petitions to block the release of terrorists, the High Court has repeatedly determined that it lacks the standing to second- guess such political decisions. Several weeks ago, it gave that same ruling as Israel stood poised to release 550 Palestinian prisoners in the second stage of the Schalit swap.

Since no Israeli lives were endangered, the release of hundreds of would-be murderers could have been postponed to enable a thorough adjudication of the issues. Instead, within hours, and true to form, the judges ruled that the release was a political matter and could proceed.

The military courts have expressed clear viewpoints in at least some of the terrorism cases brought before them. But they have been ignored.

My daughter’s murderer, Ahlam Tamimi, was sentenced to 16 consecutive life sentences for the deaths of 15 Israeli civilians in the Jerusalem Sbarro restaurant terror bombing. At her sentencing, the court recommended that she never be eligible for pardon or early parole. Nevertheless, she is a free woman today, living in her homeland, Jordan, with her family. She has already traveled to Lebanon and Algeria and frequently addresses her admirers at public rallies.

Our legislators are as ineffective as our judges. Thus the only way to prevent a repeat of the disastrous Schalit swap is via action by the Israeli public.

Noam Schalit is aware that this was his most effective weapon.

“You can’t replace the public,” he told the conference. “I say [the swap] was a victory of the spirit of Israel.”

And at last week’s press conference with Labor Party chair Shelly Yacimovich where he morphed from pained father to politico, he said: “Israeli society recruited itself for Gilad in our times of trouble and we managed to recruit Israeli society.”

Many of the 80 percent of Israelis whom the Schalits “recruited” knew Hamas would be strengthened by the swap and spurred to kidnap again, and that many of the freed prisoners would return to terrorism. Yet they threw logic and good sense to the winds.

Israel cannot afford another such “victory.” To prevent one, it is imperative that those 80% recover from the inexplicable mass hysteria that gripped them last year. Perhaps then, the warnings of the marginalized terror victims will be heeded.

The push for change received additional impetus when Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced last week that the recommendations of the Shamgar Committee, which he appointed in 2008, had been released. Led by a former Supreme Court justice, the committee was instructed to examine the issue of abductions but to deliver its findings only after the return of Gilad Schalit.

The 100-page report is classified, but Barak hinted that it urges an overhaul of government policy. He said that Israel would find it difficult to protect itself “unless we change the rules, the reality and the results of deals like those we have witnessed.”

But if the Israeli public embraces such change, it will first need to reject the politicians – both veteran and new – who oppose it.

The author is a freelance writer based in Jerusalem. Her daughter Malki was murdered at the age of 15 in the Sbarro restaurant bombing (2001). She and her husband founded the Malki Foundation (www.kerenmalki.org) to provide concrete support for Israeli families of all faiths who care at home for a special-needs child.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/13/how-to-solve-syria

How to solve Syria?
Certainly not with the help of the UN, a gabfest boondoggle
By Peter Worthington ,QMI Agency

First posted: Sunday, January 15, 2012 08:00 PM EST

What to do about Syria?

It’s a valid question, about which there is no valid answer.

Perhaps a better question would be: Is there anything we (meaning the developed or civilized world) want to do?

Regimes like Syria are what those who planned and implemented the United Nations after the Second World War thought or hoped the world body would address and solve, without necessitating the sort of international crisis of another world war.

The League of Nations, forerunner to the UN, failed miserably to curb the march of Hitler towards European domination and war. It failed Ethiopia, then known as Abyssinia, by doing nothing to curtail Italy’s adventuring in that sorry country.

The Spanish civil war was beyond anything the League of Nations could cope.

And in those bygone days, Asia and the Pacific were of little interest to Europe, and certainly outside the scope of the League of Nations.

The creation of the United Nations was going to cure all that. It didn’t, of course, couldn’t and can’t, especially when the five founding nations each had veto power.

The UN would never have gone to war on behalf of South Korea had not the Soviet Union been in a snit and absented itself from the UN Security Council vote that declared war (OK, “police action”) against North Korea. A miscue that saved the South.

“War to end wars” is a slogan that’s gone out of fashion since it originated after 1918 and wasn’t much use in 1939.

Even the UN is mostly a gabfest boondoggle. The only member countries willing to impose something resembling peace and security on the world are those where English is the predominant language.

So it was with Libya, where what seemed an unexpected and spontaneous rebellion of the people provoked Britain, France, Canada and token Arab League members into launching an air war that was depicted as protecting innocent people from the homicidal tendencies of Moammar Gadhafi.

Rebellion in Egypt persuaded countries that had regarded dictator Hosni Mubarak as a semi-trusted ally to abandon him. All in the name of democracy and “Arab Spring.”

What the governments guiding our foreign policy did not anticipate was rebellion in Syria, against Bashar al-Assad, a British-trained ophthalmologist-***-dictator who has no hesitation about shooting his own people.

The Canadian government, which praised the heroism of its pilots who shot up Libya, which amounted to target practice, largely ignores repression in Syria.

In fact, Assad is more oppressive and menacing than Gadhafi, but isn’t as cartoonish.

In his first speech in six months, a defiant Assad blamed “foreigner conspirators and terrorists” for unrest in Syria that persuaded his army to kill some 5,000 protesters.

The Syrian regime claims protesters (“Islamists”) have killed 2,000 security force members. Assad promised an “iron hand” would crush this foreign-inspired resistance.

If only it were that easy to foment rebellion!

Assad has turned on the Arab League, which he believes is in cahoots with western conspirators. It’s unrealistic to suppose there’ll be interference into Syrian affairs — and perhaps this is correct. The outside world is neither policeman nor colonizer.

The rebellion in Syria is on its own, with Iran as Assad’s only friend.

Syria wouldn’t be the pushover Libya was, and if we became involved it could well boomerang when democracy doesn’t occur, and a different tyranny ensues.

That’s the way of the world these days.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypts-transition-democracy-grows-messy-15366410

Egypt's Transition to Democracy Grows More Messy

By HAMZA HENDAWI and MAGGIE MICHAEL Associated Press
CAIRO January 15, 2012 (AP)

Reform leader Mohammed ElBaradei's surprise pullout from the presidential race has laid bare the messiness of Egypt's transition to democracy with less than six months left for the ruling generals to hand over power.

In less than two weeks on Jan. 25, Egyptians will mark a year since the start of the popular uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak out of office. But there is no longer much talk about the revolution's lofty goals of bringing democracy, freedom and social justice.

Instead, the buzz now is about new alliances that could allow the ruling military to maintain its long-standing domination over government and Islamists to flex their muscles after their big victory in parliamentary elections.

ElBaradei's announcement Saturday that he would not run for president dealt another severe blow to the liberal and leftist groups behind the fall of Mubarak after their defeat at the ballots and the military's escalating crackdown on the movement. ElBaradei said a fair election will be impossible under the military's tight grip.

"We feel that elections now are not the best framework toward democratic rule," prominent activist Shady el-Ghazaly Harb said about the presidential vote that the ruling military has promised will take place by the end of June.

The young revolutionaries who engineered Mubarak's ouster on February 11 have since been divided and embroiled in an increasingly bitter dispute with the ruling generals over their handling of the transition, the killing of scores of protesters by troops, human rights violations and the trial of thousands of civilians before military tribunals.

However, Harb, an icon of last year's uprising, sees some hope in ElBaradei's pullout.

"He is not withdrawing and leaving a void in his trail," said Harb. "He will be back doing grass roots work and that may help unite the youth to effect change."

The military's timeline for the transition speaks to the messiness of its management of the country.

Egyptians went to the polls in staggered parliamentary elections that began Nov. 28 and ended last week. Between now and the end of June, when the generals have promised to transfer power, there are elections for parliament's upper house, or Shura Council, the drafting of a new constitution, a nationwide referendum on the document and then a presidential election.

Late Sunday, the military announced that nominations for president would open in mid-April, and the election would take place in mid-June.

Pro-democracy activists charge that the packed timetable is creating a climate that allows the better organized and more well-known Islamists led by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood to dominate at the expense of the liberal and leftist groups. Many of those groups were born out of the uprising and did not have much time or experience to organize themselves for the competition with Islamists. The Brotherhood, for example, was established more than 80 years ago and was already a well-known political force before the uprising.

But ElBaradei's decision to drop out may have been a calculated move.

Realizing that it would be impossible to win the election without the support of the Islamists who have kept him at arm's length, he opted to pull out and publicly discredit the entire political process as messy and disorderly.

"He may never be president, but now he stands a chance of being our Gandhi," said Negad Borai, a rights lawyer and an activist.

ElBaradei did not mention by name the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, or SCAF — the official body of the ruling military — but the Saturday announcement of his withdrawal contained some of the harshest criticism the Nobel Peace laureate has leveled against the generals.

He compared the military to a ship captain struggling to steer his vessel in the middle of a storm.

"Under his leadership, the ship is being rocked by waves. ... We offer him all kinds of help, but he declines, insisting on taking the old route as if no revolution had taken place and no regime had fallen," he wrote in his withdrawal statement.

"My decision does not mean I am leaving the arena, but continuing to serve this nation more effectively from outside authority and free of all shackles," he wrote in the statement.

A Brotherhood-led alliance has won close to 50 percent of parliament's 498 seats in the recent elections, which were deemed the freest and fairest in Egypt's modern history. Another Islamist group, the ultraconservative Salafis, won about 20 percent, while the remainder was shared by leftist and liberal parties. The Brotherhood has yet to say who it would support for president, but it is likely to be someone who meets the approval of the generals.

A candidate who enjoys the support of both the brotherhood and the military would most likely be beholden to the military, according to another prominent activist, Hossam el-Hamalawy of the Revolutionary Socialists group.

"I am not a fan of ElBaradei's, but his decision to quit puts the other candidates in a very awkward position. He understands that, at the end of the day, the next president is going to be a stooge of the military."

Of all political forces in Egypt, the Brotherhood has worked the most closely with the military. Empowered by Mubarak's ouster after nearly 60 years as an outlawed organization, the Brotherhood has been mostly driven by a desire for power that prompted rivals to accuse it of political opportunism.

Its supporters stayed away from the uprising, only joining when it became clear that the protest movement gained irreversible momentum. More recently, it stayed away from anti-military protests, contending that it was time for elections not street demonstrations.

Its willingness to accommodate the military comes in large part from its realization that the generals wield massive powers and could derail the process that benefited the Islamist group the most. Its election victory made it possible for the Brotherhood to promise the military something in return.

The generals may want to secure the Brotherhood's support for them to win immunity from prosecution for their role in the death of at least 100 protesters since they assumed power.

The new parliament is supposed to play a key role in the drafting of a new constitution. And the military wants language in the next constitution that would spare the army any civilian oversight over its budget, its arms deals, its vast business interests and the pay scale for its top brass.

The generals insist they will not field a presidential candidate from within their ranks, but many believe they will give their nod to a candidate who is either military-friendly or a civilian who hails from military background.

"We are trying to see the best among those (presidential hopefuls) out there. So far, all the candidates don't cut it for us, but if the time comes and no one new appears, we will have to make a decision to support one of them," said Sobhi Saleh, a leader of the Freedom and Justice party, the Brotherhood's political arm.

Asked if the presidential candidate supported by the Brotherhood must also win the military's backing, he said:

"We were the first people to talk about conciliatory figures. This is our choice. We hope to find a president who wins the consensus of everyone to steer the ship in this critical period."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...docId=CNG.01fb6dc327a6394109c54439d2e4ab6c.e1

Egypt military ruler to Libya on first state visit abroad

(AFP) – 1 day ago

CAIRO — Egypt's military ruler Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi visits Libya on Monday to boost ties between the two neighbouring countries where popular protests have unseated veteran leaders, officials said.

It will be Tantawi's first state visit abroad since the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which he heads, took over following the ouster of president Hosni Mubarak in February after an 18-day revolt.

"The visit is aimed at finding new horizons for cooperation and for contributing to the reconstruction of Libya," a military official said.

Tantawi will be preceded to Tripoli by a high-powered delegation of cabinet ministers and businessmen, and talks with Libya's National Transitional Council leaders will focus on infrastructure and reconstruction projects.

"A number of agreements and protocols on cooperation are expected to be signed, including one concerning Egyptian workers entering Libya and their rights," the state-run MENA news agency reported.

The official Al-Ahram newspaper said "Tantawi will visit Tripoli the day after tomorrow to open a new page with Libya," after the ouster of strongman Moamer Kadhafi who was killed during his capture by rebels in October.

Tantawi will hold talks with NTC chief Mustafa Abdel Jalil and Prime Minister Abdel Rahim al-Kib that will also cover Libyan investments in Egypt.

Last week, Abdel Jalil said Libya will review all its investments abroad, with some overseas projects expected to be stopped.

"There are some investments that could be developed and others that it would be better to terminate for the good of the Libyan people," he said.

Until its overthrow last year, the Kadhafi regime invested vast sums in Africa, the Arab world and beyond, from a sovereign wealth fund set up in 2006.

The visit "underscores the importance of ties between the two countries," NTC deputy chief Abdel Hafiz Ghoga told Al-Ahram, adding that he expected Libya's investments in Egypt to grow.

According to the paper, the ministers of electricity, tourism, planning and labour were to travel to Libya, which is home to a huge community of Egyptian expatriates.

Last year Tripoli asked Cairo for help to bolster its health sector, develop the educational sector and to print textbooks in Egypt, as well as legal advice to draw up a post-Kadhafi constitution and to help demine the country.

NTC fighters said in July that demining efforts outside key oil and industrial areas were being hampered, and that Kadhafi forces had sown tens of thousands of mines around key installations.

Central to the talks will be the situation of Egyptians in Libya -- where tens of thousands work -- including many who were jailed during the uprising that toppled Kadhafi.

Oil-rich Libya relied on tens of thousands of foreign workers, including white collar professionals, under Kadhafi's regime.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Related articles

* Egypt military ruler to Libya on first state visit abroad
The Asian Age - 1 day ago
* Egypt Military Ruler to Visit Libya Monday
Tripoli Post - 1 day ago
* Egyptian military ruler to visit Libya
NOW LEBANON - 1 day ago
 

jesner

Veteran Member
Thanks Dutchman for these news updates; I am so sorry about the child; there seems to be no limit to our capacity for such brutality.
prayers for the family that had to witness such ugliness.
 

Deena in GA

Administrator
_______________
Thank you to Dutch and Housecarl who do such a superb job posting news! And I do appreciate everyone who adds to these threads since I don't have the time to go searching out hard news.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=462692&CategoryId=14091

Journalist: New President Will Change Mexico’s Anti-Drug Policy
Caracas, Sunday January 15,2012

MEXICO CITY – The winner of the July 1 presidential election will change Mexico’s anti-drug strategy, British journalist Ioan Grillo said.

Grillo, whose book “El Narco: Inside Mexico’s Criminal Insurgency” (Bloomsbury Press, 2011) comes out this week in France, criticized the security policy implemented by President Felipe Calderon, whose term ends in December.

“I believe that the narcos, as a whole, are not being destroyed by the force of arms of the current government” in Mexico, Grillo, a freelance writer who has covered Mexico for 11 years for a variety of U.S. and British media outlets, said.

The book, which examines the history, structure and future of Mexico’s drug cartels with a journalistic approach, is different from other works that focused on leading drug traffickers or cartels, looking at the social aspects of a phenomenon that has been incubated for nearly a century.

The approval by the United States of the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, which regulated the trade in opiates, led to the creation of a black market for drugs and turned Mexico into a prime supplier of illegal drugs.

Over time, drug trafficking became a kind of “movement” in which tens of thousands of people participated and earned a living, the journalist said.

Today, drug trafficking is “at the center of the most important conflict in Mexico since the revolution (of 1910-1917),” sparking a “low-intensity war” that left 47,515 people dead between December 2006 and Sept. 30, 2011, Grillo said, citing official figures.

Calderon’s strategy of putting the army in the streets to deal with drug traffickers in Mexico’s most violent areas has failed, the British journalist said.

Despite producing “results in terms of arrests, searches (of criminals’ residences) and seizures” of arms and drugs, “it has a fundamental problem, which is that every time (the authorities) kill or capture a capo, they cause more violence,” Grillo said.

As a social phenomenon, drug trafficking “has been immune and has expanded its reach in terms of business and influence during the six-year term” of Calderon’s administration because of the continuous and easy replacement of enforcers by other killers, Grillo said.

The United States also shares a good deal of the responsibility for what is happening because the money, arms and alliances between U.S. officials and drug traffickers have had dire consequences for Mexico, Grillo said.

U.S. intelligence agencies are involved in a “shadow war” against Mexican criminals, creating “very serious ethical problems,” the journalist, who interviewed some undercover DEA agents for his book, said.

Efforts to clean up Mexico’s police departments and create a unified police command for the 32 states are noteworthy, but it is a “generational project” that will take years to yield results, the journalist said.

Grillo’s book came out in the United States in October and hit bookstores in the United Kingdom at the end of 2011. It is being released in France this week and will come out later in Italy and Poland, but there is no publication date yet for the Spanish edition.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...narco-threat/2011/12/21/gIQAny4i1P_story.html

Mexico’s 2012 vote is vulnerable to narco threat
By Nick Miroff and William Booth, Sunday, January 15, 4:15 PM
Comments (3)

MEXICO CITY — With Mexico’s presidential vote and other key elections less than six months away, both the government and its watchdogs fear that the black hand of organized crime will manipulate the process to install puppet candidates as servants of the drug cartels.

According to Mexican prosecutors, little has been done to keep the narcos and their drug money out of the July 1 election, and U.S. officials worry that tainted campaigns could bring new leaders to city halls and federal offices who might undermine the ongoing war against Mexico's powerful crime gangs.

Political analysts say that the drug lords could corrupt the presidential race even without having to meddle directly in those campaigns and that their attempts to boost local candidates or suppress votes could contaminate the process at every level.

Such threats appear to put Mexican democracy at a critical juncture, as the country struggles to escape from the decades-long shadow of corrupt, one-party rule while new, darker forces angle for power.

Five governorships, hundreds of congressional seats and nearly 1,000 local-level races are at stake, but the top prize is Mexico’s presidency, an office that the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, dominated for much of the 20th century and appears poised to recapture.

Despite concerns that drug gangsters will bankroll some candidates while intimidating — or assassinating — others, a package of new laws targeting election-related crimes has stalled in Mexico's National Congress since April. That leaves little time to safeguard the upcoming vote, Juan Luis Vargas, Mexico’s chief prosecutor for electoral crimes, said in an interview.

“The appetite of these criminal groups is infinite,” said Vargas, explaining that the cartels operate by an “economic logic” not unlike any business interest looking to gain influence. “They want certain guarantees from the authorities: that their monopolies will be protected and their competitors won't be allowed to operate in a given territory.”

Mexico's 2012 vote is even more at risk from pernicious influences than the last presidential election in 2006, Vargas said, because the country's mafias have honed their methods of corruption, opting to finance campaigns rather than buy off officials after they are in power.

“They say: ‘Why would I want to pay off the authorities if I can own them from the start?’ ” he said.

Elections held Nov. 13 in Mexico’s troubled state of Michoacan are viewed as an ominous sign of what could happen to the vote this summer. Polls showed the sister of President Felipe Calderon, Luisa Maria Calderon, with a solid lead in the governor's race, but she ended up losing to PRI candidate Fausto Vallejo Figueroa amid multiple allegations of voter intimidation.

Local news media revealed audio recordings of a La Familia drug cartel leader allegedly threatening to kill voters' family members if they cast ballots for a candidate who was supposedly backed by the rival Knights Templar gang. Federal authorities say they are investigating, as candidates in other towns also reported threats.

“We cannot allow organized crime to decide at the ballot box,” said Josefina Vazquez Mota, a leading contender to be the 2012 presidential candidate of the National Action Party (PAN), which ended 71 years of PRI-party rule with Vicente Fox's election in 2000.

Mexican presidents are limited to one six-year term, and the PAN held on to power in 2006 with Calderon's narrow win over leftist challenger Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who will top the ticket for the Democratic Revolutionary Party, or PRD, again in 2012.

This time around, analysts expect PAN candidates to be hobbled by public dissatisfaction with Calderon's military offensive against the drug cartels. At least 50,000 people have been killed since he took office in December 2006, and gangland violence has spread misery to parts of the country that were previously considered safe.

Outdated election laws

Calderon has angered rival lawmakers by suggesting that a presidential victory by PRI candidate Enrique Pena Nieto would represent a capitulation to the criminals. But many Mexicans seem nostalgic for the relative tranquility of life under the PRI, whose network of patronage and corruption once kept organized crime in check.

PRI leaders have bristled at allegations by Calderon and others that they aren’t as committed to fighting the cartels. But political observers say the party deserves the most blame for holding up a package of proposals that would stiffen penalties for election-related crimes, expand investigative powers and mandate greater transparency and oversight for campaign financing, among other changes.

Pena Nieto has called on candidates to sign a “pact” agreeing to shun any offer of assistance or cash from criminals. “I don’t want a single vote or bit of help from those who are outside the law,” he said. “I want to win the trust of good Mexicans.”

Mexico has not updated its election-crimes laws since 1996, despite the intensified pressure on its political system from the cartels as well as conventional influence-seekers.

“We have federal election laws that are made to prevent outside interference, but the reality is that if you get a million pesos to put up campaign posters, there is very little authorities can do about it,” said Jose Carreño, a political analyst and resident scholar at Mexico’s Tecnologico de Monterrey.

“We have a problem, but until there is reform, there isn’t much that can be done,” he said.

Cartels’ local influence

Local elections are viewed as especially vulnerable to cartel interference, because it takes relatively smaller acts of fraud, corruption and political violence to sway the outcome. And some observers of the drug war doubt the gangsters’ ability to have significant influence beyond their immediate surroundings.

“Mexican narcos don’t have the ability to sway elections on a national scale,” said Mexican security analyst Alejandro Hope. “And why would they need congressional deputies anyway? They don’t control the local police.”

But a presidential victory by the PRI could still be marred by perceptions of illegitimacy if there are widespread reports of vote-buying, violence and other shenanigans at the local level.

“I think a lot of people want to give the PRI the benefit of the doubt, because they think it may be in a stronger position to get the [cartels] under control, given its history and reputation,” said Michael Shifter, president of Inter-American Dialogue, a policy think tank based in Washington. “But the penetration of the drug trade into the political system appears to be deepening, and it’s very hard to get precise information.”

Jeffrey Davidow, who was the U.S. ambassador to Mexico when the PRI lost the presidency in 2000, said that although Mexico’s political parties are often quick to throw around accusations of underworld ties, their campaign operations are so opaque that the allegations rarely stick.

“All of these charges and insinuations seem to argue strongly that the Mexican political system ought to be more transparent about how elections are funded,” Davidow said.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/15/world/mexico-drug-war-essay/?hpt=hp_c2

The Mexico drug war: Bodies for billions

By Ashley Fantz, CNN
updated 3:37 PM EST, Sun January 15, 2012

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* Since December 2006, nearly 48,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico
* Mexican cartels make billions of dollars a year, much of their profits in the U.S.
* The bloodbath could threaten the survival of the Mexican state, and American national security

Editor's note: This article begins an occasional series looking at the violence tied to Mexican drug cartels, their expanding global connections and how they affect people's daily lives.

(CNN) -- There are kingpins with names like the Engineer, head-chopping hit men, dirty cops and double-dealing politicians. And, of course, there are users -- millions of them.

But the Mexican drug war, at its core, is about two numbers: 48,000 and 39 billion.

Over the past five years, nearly 48,000 people have been killed in suspected drug-related violence in Mexico, the country's federal attorney general announced this month. In the first three quarters of 2011, almost 13,000 people died.

Cold and incomprehensible zeros, the death toll doesn't include the more than 5,000 people who have disappeared, according to Mexico's National Human Rights Commission. It doesn't account for the tens of thousands of children orphaned by the violence.

The guilty live on both sides of the border.

Street gangs with cartel ties are not only in Los Angeles and Dallas, but also in many smaller cities across the United States and much farther north of the Mexican border. Mexican cartels had a presence in 230 cities in the United States in 2008, according to the U.S. Justice Department. Its 2011 report shows that presence has grown to more than 1,000 U.S. cities. While the violence has remained mostly in Mexico, authorities in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Alabama and other states have reportedly investigated abductions and killings suspected to be tied to cartels.

Mexican black tar heroin (so called because it's dark and sticky), is cheaper than Colombian heroin, and used to be a rarity in the United States. Now it is available in dozens of cities and small towns, experts say. Customers phone in their orders, the Los Angeles Times reports, and small-time dealers deliver the drug, almost like pizza deliverymen.

Traffickers are recruiting in the United States, and prefer to hire young. Texas high schools say cartel members have been on their campuses. Most notoriously, a 14-year-old from San Diego became a head-chopping cartel assassin.

"I slit their throats," he testified at his trial, held near Cuernavaca. The teenager, called "El Ponchis" - the Cloak - was found guilty of torturing and beheading and sentenced to three years in a Mexican prison.

For more than a decade, the United States' focus has been terrorism, an exhausting battle reliant on covert operatives in societies where the rule of law has collapsed or widespread violence is the norm. The situation in Mexico is beginning to show similarities. In many border areas, the authority of the Mexican state seems either entirely absent or extremely weak. In September 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said cartel violence might be "morphing into or making common cause with what we would call an insurgency."

If cartel violence is not contained in Mexico, which shares a nearly 2,000 mile border with the United States, the drug war could threaten U.S. national security and even survival of the Mexican state.

How much is enough?

For most of us, Mexico is reduced several times a week to a sickening barrage of horror flick headlines. Thirty-five bodies left on the freeway during rush-hour in a major tourist city. A person's face sewn onto a soccer ball. Bodies found stuffed in barrels of acid. Heads sent rolling onto busy nightclub dance floors.

What could explain such savagery?

Traffickers don't have a political or religious ideology like al Qaeda.

The answer, some experts say, is a number. Something like $39 billion.

That's the top estimated amount Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking organizations make in wholesale profits annually, according to a 2009 Justice Department report, the latest year for which that calculation was available. The department's 2011 report said that Mexican traffickers control the flow of most of the cocaine, heroin, foreign-produced marijuana and methamphetamine in the United States.

There are seven cartels in Mexico vying for control of smuggling routes into the United States, a bountiful sellers' paradise. South of the border it costs $2,000 to produce a kilo of cocaine from leaf to lab, the DEA said. In the U.S., a kilo's street value ranges from $34,000 to $120,000, depending on the ZIP code where it's pushed.

"How much is enough to the cartels? How many billions justify how many deaths to them?" said DEA special agent and spokesman Jeffrey Scott. "Mexico is their home, too. Their families live there. At what point does the violence cripple their ability to conduct business?"

Scott has been with the DEA for 16 years. Between 2006 and 2011, he led a Tucson, Arizona, strike force that fought smugglers bringing tons of methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin and cocaine across the border. By the time the drugs reach the low-level street dealer, they have been through many middle managers in the cartels' purposely confusing web of workers.

"The people who are arrested will sometimes say, 'Sinaloa who?'" he said, referring to the cartel that originated in the Mexican Pacific Coast state and has the strongest presence in the United States.

Dealers usually don't know or care where their product comes from, Scott said. He said he doubts the tens of millions of Americans who use illegal drugs do, either.

Get Shorty

From foot to head he is short/But he is the biggest of the big
If you respect him, he'll respect you
If you offend him, it will get worse
-- Lyrics to narcocorrido "El Chapo" by Los Canelos de Durango

"El Chapo" (Shorty) is the boss of the Sinaloa cartel. In his last-known photo, the 5 foot 6 inch son of a poor rural family wears a schoolboy haircut and a plain-colored puff-coat. Despite having virtually no formal education, Forbes estimates Joaquin Guzman Loera is worth $1 billion. This month the U.S. Treasury declared him the most influential trafficker in the world. He has eluded capture for more than a decade, is known for coming up with original ways to smuggle, like putting cocaine in fire extinguishers, and is suspected of helping Mexicans and Colombians launder as much as $20 billion in drug profits.

The legend of "El Chapo" began to grow when he escaped, reportedly on a laundry cart, from a Mexican prison in 2001. He seemed even more untouchable last summer when his 20-something beauty queen wife (who has dual nationality) crossed into California to give birth to twins. The birth certificates leave blank the space for the father's name, and she apparently hustled back across the border.

It's anyone's guess where El Chapo is. Mexican President Felipe Calderon wondered last year if he was hiding out in the United States.

Guzman is the drug war. Perpetuating the image of the bulletproof bad guy keeps it alive.

YouTube is full of narco snuff. Those with weak stomachs should avoid the wildly popular El Blog del Narco, which posts gory photos of killings and confessions by drug lords. Cartels make their own movies, glorifying the business. The films are sold in street markets in Mexico and the United States.

Some say it's no coincidence that the first beheadings of Mexican police officers occurred in 2006, when videotapes of al Qaeda beheadings were shown on Mexican television.

Since then, headless corpses have become a cartel calling card. In a single week in September, a sack of heads was left near an Acapulco elementary school and a blogging reporter's headless corpse was dumped in front of a major thoroughfare in the Texas border town of Nuevo Laredo. Her head, along with headphones and computer equipment, was found in a street planter.

A note left at the scene, one of dozens of journalist killings in the past five years, read: "OK Nuevo Laredo live on the social networks, I am La Nena de Laredo and I am here because of my reports and yours ..."

The message was signed with several Z's, indicating the slaying was the work of another major cartel, the Zetas.

One of the first cartels to use the internet, the Zetas are perhaps the savviest propagandists in the drug war. They're known for effective recruitment tactics.

A few years ago, they appealed to the destitute in a nation where the minimum wage is $5 an hour, but millions have no work.

Banners were dropped from bridges in major cities.

"Why be poor?" the signs said. "Come work for us."

The good old bad days

Desde que yo era chiquillo tenia fintas de cabron (Ever since I was a kid, I had the fame of a bad-ass)
ya le pegaba al perico, y a la mota (already hitting the parrot [cocaine] and doing dope [marijuana])

-- El Cabron, a legendary narcocorrido, or narco ballad, released in 2005.

Feeding addiction has long been a part of Mexico's relationship with the United States, first becoming a well-oiled operation during Prohibition when Americans crossed over to drink and get high and Mexicans sent marijuana and alcohol to speakeasies in the States.

During this era, narcocorridos, or drug pop ballads glorifying kingpins, became popular. The accordion-based anthems were danceable, fun. Today the songs are no longer so amusing.

Between 2006 and 2008, more than a dozen performers have been murdered. Cartels have held some balladeers hostage for days, forcing them to entertain partying crews. The Mexican government has tried to ban the music, but the effort has only made the songs sexier. They shake butts from Cancun to Culiacan, and across the United States from Los Angeles to New York. Slain narco singers have been nominated for posthumous Grammys. (Watch narco singer Valentín Elizalde's music video "A Mis Enemigos" which some speculate was an attack on the Gulf cartel and led to his murder.)

Narcocorridos have become death impersonating art, a symbol of just how unexpectedly dark the Mexican drug business has become.

The definition of a cartel is an agreement among competing firms. That was the old way for the Mexicans. Pay the cops and the politicians. Don't kill anyone unless absolutely necessary and don't make a mess of it.

Two scenarios made their thieves' agreement possible.

For decades, Mexicans mainly transported cocaine for the Colombians or the Colombians sent the cocaine directly into the United States on planes or speedboats.

That changed in the 1990s when the United States tightened its choke on Colombia's main smuggling point in the Caribbean and Florida and worked with the Colombian government to combat cartels and eliminate kingpins like Pablo Escobar.

The neutered Colombian cartels were then forced to rely on the Mexicans, who smuggled across much more vast and impossible to monitor areas like the border and the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Suddenly indispensable in their industry, the cartels in Mexico reacted like any ambitious corporation. They bought out every last possible competitor, ramping up bribes across the ranks of law enforcement and politicians. They advertised themselves to struggling working class people and the poor as a panacea amid all the government's failures: Cartels were the private-sector alternative.

Within a few years, they gained unrivaled dominance in the global illicit drug trade.

The second scenario helping the cartels, some experts say, was rampant corruption within the PRI, or the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which ran Mexico for 72 years.

There were far fewer deaths and the cartels' bottom line wasn't threatened.

The PRI lost power in 2000 with the election of Vicente Fox, who led the opposition National Action Party.

Known for his cowboy hats, Fox made little of the cartels during his election campaign. But after meeting with American officials in the early days of his administration, he announced he wanted the traffickers gone.

The arrests of kingpins and key players followed, which prompted chaos within cartel ranks as commands were shaken. Cartel members fought amongst themselves and each other. The good old bad days ended.


A real war starts

La traicion y el contrabando (The treason and the contraband)
Son cosas incompartidas" (They are the same thing)
- Lyrics to "Contrabando y traicion" by Tigres del Norte

To understand the drug war, accept that it's impossible to keep track of all its players. Accept that there are no white hats or black hats. There's only grey. Fog.

There is, however, agreement among experts about when war was declared: In late 2004 in the border town of Nuevo Laredo, 10 minutes from Laredo, Texas.

The Sinaloa wanted this golden smuggling route.

Every year, more than 5 million cars, 1.5 million commercial trucks and 3.8 million pedestrians cross northbound from Mexico into the United States here, bringing with them a ton of hidden narcotics.

In 2004, Nuevo Laredo was controlled by the Gulf cartel, which was just as old and Corleone-esque as Sinaloa.

For help defending their turf, the Gulf hired a group of former Mexican special forces soldiers who called themselves Zetas after the federal police code for high-ranking officers, "Z1."

The Sinaloa clan hired their own protection, a gang named Los Negros led by a blond-haired, blue-eyed American from Laredo. The man's cohorts called him La Barbie.

The Zetas battled Los Negros with tactics befitting an elite military. They fired automatic weapons, launched RPGs and grenades. They shot at each other for more than a year. Local gangs jumped in. Civilians dropped.

Emboldened by their Nuevo Laredo victory, the Zetas formed their own cartel. As they went after other cartels throughout Mexico, the Zetas honed a reputation for sickening brutality, seeming to kill just because they can. They have been blamed for setting fire to a casino killing 52 people, shooting dead 72 migrants on a Tamaulipas farm in 2010, murdering and tossing into mass graves women and children and killing bloggers. In April 2011, the bodies of 190 people, some of them migrant workers, were found in a mass grave in the desert of Tamaulipas.

Officials say the Zetas have lobbed grenades into celebrating crowds and blown up a pipeline that sent "rivers of fire" into residential streets. They have terrorized cities that once seemed untouchable by the violence, including the port city of Veracruz and Mexico's richest city, Monterrey, home to many international companies.

As the Zetas enacted their terror, that blond-haired, blue-eyed American leading Los Negros got angrier. La Barbie was Edgar Valdez, a Texas high school football star who worked his way into the Mexican underworld as a pot dealer. In 2005, the Dallas Morning News reported on a video showing four bound and bloody men, suspected to be Zetas, being interrogated off camera by a man believed to be Valdez.

A pistol comes into the frame, goes off and one of the men slumps. The video went viral. People around the globe started asking what was really going on in Mexico.

Journalist Ioan Grillo has been to more murder scenes than he can recall. His new book, "El Narco: Inside Mexico's Criminal Insurgency," includes interviews with hit men, gang members, government and law enforcement officials and people caught in the crossfire.

Grillo repeatedly returns to a single idea. Wars occur because people cannot feed their families. They happen because groups of people feel unimportant, disenfranchised, angry and broke. They want a piece of life. It only takes a few people with particularly hollow morals, capable of shutting off or suppressing guilt, to convince many that killing and dying in spectacular ways is tantamount to glory.

Jihadist groups, kamikaze squadrons, American street gangs, cartels. Their members were all kids at one point. Grillo writes that he has seen teenagers show up at murder scenes showing no grief. It has become routine. They pick up shell casings scattered on the ground and debate whether they've been fired from AK47s or M4s.

There are very few counselors in Mexico to help, and there is very little quality education outside the circles of the comparatively privileged few, he wrote.

Why wouldn't a kid take 50 pesos to be a lookout, or 1,000 pesos to kill someone?

"I would love to see more money spent on these concerns," Grillo said, "than on more military helicopters and soldiers gunning it out with the cartels."

Fighting back

After he was elected president in 2006, the PAN's Felipe Calderon took a page out of his predecessor's playbook and declared war on the cartels. He had the Mexican military fan out across the country and fired hundreds of corrupt police officers. He even disarmed an entire town, saying that most of its police force was working for the cartels.

Plenty of narcos were arrested, and some extradited to the United States, but many thousands of people died. They included cartel members, police and civilians who were caught in the middle of a gruesome war.

Calderon and President George W. Bush reached an unprecedented agreement to fight the cartels. The Merida Initiative (named after the Mexican city where the two met) included a U.S. pledge of $1.5 billion between 2008 and 2010. President Obama requested millions more for 2011 for the program. The program provides aircraft, inspection tools and other sophisticated drug-detecting technology to the Mexicans. It also funds drug counseling and prison rehabilitation programs.

To fight corruption, the United States has also pledged to give money to help train police in Mexico.

For its part, the Mexican government has passed legislation aimed at bolstering its judicial system, and in October 2010, Calderon formally requested a total reshaping of the police force in Mexico. The reform he proposed would create unified state police forces and eliminate municipal police, who federal officials have said are very susceptible to corruption because of their low salaries.

Observers say Calderon underestimated how many police and other law enforcement officers were on the cartels' payroll when he came to power. As of March 2008, 150,000 soldiers had deserted. Traffickers, experts say, spent the Fox administration hunkering down, ingratiating themselves to communities, buying food and paying for medical bills, offering restless young people a sense of identity and hard cash.

And as Grillo has written, many people didn't trust the police and the soldiers as they once did. Authorities were accused of widespread human rights abuses while on anti-cartel missions. Jose Luis Soberanes, president of the Mexican Human Rights Commission, testified in 2008 that his office had received complaints that police and soldiers had entered towns to rape and torture and kill, including shooting dead two women and three children in Sinaloa state.

The cartels had become Robin Hood to many, similar to Colombia kingpin Escobar. In his impoverished Medellin, Escobar built a soccer field and a school. He died in a gunbattle with agents in 1993. At the church Escobar built, some Colombians still come to worship him like a saint.

A Barbie, a fox and some piggies

"La Barbie" was arrested in August 2010 in Mexico, and smiled as he was paraded in front of the press. The green Ralph Lauren polo shirt he wore inspired an international fashion trend.

Calderon's administration trumpets his arrest and others, and vows to keep fighting the cartels. But the president is a lame duck. Term limits prohibit him from running again in 2012.

Many expect the PRI, Mexico's founding party that ruled for seven decades, to return to power in July's elections.

Whoever wins the election will have to answer a critical question: whether to appease the cartels and try to negotiate with them or continue the all-out assault that Calderon launched.

Negotiating with traffickers played a role in Colombia, where religious figures and former guerillas led the talks, experts said.

But they also stress that Mexico is not Colombia, and this is not the late 1980s. Crime syndicates operate differently. Key players on both sides of the border have considerations unlike those during the Colombian crisis. Mexico, they contend, is far less likely to welcome close foreign involvement than Colombia did.

A solution also cannot come from only one side of the border. Former President Fox and other experienced leaders in Latin America have advocated legalizing the consumption of marijuana, saying it would cut the value of the cartels' product. In 2011, the U.N.'s Global Commission on Drug Policy, which included Fox, recommended that governments experiment with drug legalization, especially marijuana.

Last fall, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, said he thought the drug war violence had become so dire that U.S. troops could be sent into Mexico. Drug trafficking in Mexico, he and others have said, fuels criminal organizations around the globe and feeds human and arms trafficking.

Perry had barely finished his thought before being pounced on by critics, many within his own party and especially his opponents: How would a limping U.S. economy pay for that? The United States was already involved in two wars.

Mexico has historically been highly averse to allowing a foreign force to fight on its soil, experts said. The idea of Team America swooping into its sovereign neighbor is offensive to many Mexicans. Consider the country's national anthem, written after the 1840s Mexican-American War in which Mexico lost half its territory.

If some enemy outlander should dare

to profane your ground with his sole,

think, oh beloved Fatherland, that heaven has given you a soldier in every son

In 2009, the group Los Tigres del Norte were banned from performing a popular song titled "La Granja" at an awards ceremony in Mexico City.

The lyrics blast the Mexican government's strategy against the cartels, a "Fox" who came to break plates on a farm. The animals got out "to create a big mess."

The lyrics also suggest that America, Mexico's No. 1 drug customer, is just as dirty.

The piggies helped out

They feed themselves from the farm

Daily they want more corn

And they lose the profits

And the farmer that works

Does not trust them anymore
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/english/news...Final-Syria-Report-Next-Sunday-137380763.html

January 15, 2012
Arab League to Review Observers' Final Syria Report Next Sunday
Elizabeth Arrott | Damascus

The emir of Qatar's suggestion that an Arab military force be sent to stop the killing in Syria has been met with defiance and skepticism in Damascus, even as an Arab League mission meant to help end to violence appears to have had little effect.

Arab League monitor Jafaar Kubaida says the Qatari leader's proposal will be raised by the regional alliance in a special panel on Syria on Saturday [1/21/12], but that it is too early to tell where it will lead. "That's going to be discussed during the meeting with the Arab ministers. So it's just a suggestion from one party," he said.

Kubaida, who heads the Damascus monitoring team, has been part of a much-criticized effort to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

Human rights observers say the killings have continued during the mission, which began late last month, adding some 400 more civilian deaths to the U.N. estimate of more than 5,000 people killed in 10 months of anti-government protests.

Frustration with the ongoing crisis prompted Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani to tell CBS television that Arab troops should be sent to stop the violence. He is the first Arab leader to propose military intervention.

His comments follow a warning by Arab League chief Nabil al Arabi that Syria is slipping dangerously close to civil war, as military defectors increasingly organize armed resistance.


But those who support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and those who say they do, dismiss the idea of an Arab military intervention as not needed.

Ennam Hassan is a young Damascus women of Palestinian heritage. She says that if the Qatari emir wants to send a mission somewhere, he should send it to her homeland.

Others put on a show of defiance.

Old City resident Abu el Kheir says, "The emir is like Israel in that both want to attack us." He dares them to "Give it a try."

El Kheir spoke in the presence of a government official escorting this reporter. But even in private conversations, the idea of an Arab military intervention in Syria is met with disbelief.

In a Damascus coffee house, a young man who says he is adamantly opposed to the Syrian government, says the emir's proposal is laughable. "What Arab force?" he asks. The only intra-Arab intervention, he says, was in the civil war in Lebanon, and that force was Syrian.

The logistics of mounting a regional mission could be daunting. Several Arab League members are dealing with the aftermath of uprisings of their own, while others are doing their best to suppress internal dissent or at least trying to keep it at bay.

They would not be alone in shying away from military force. The United Nations, whose chief on Sunday again condemned the violence, has been reluctant to move against Syria the way it did in Libya last year. Analysts point out that Damascus' allies are strong and complicated, bringing Russia, Iran and regional players like Hezbollah into the mix. With diplomatic efforts to end the violence in Syria seeming at an end, the promise of an outside military solution might be equally dim.

________

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.voanews.com/english/news...King-to-Discuss-Mideast-Crises-137389458.html

January 15, 2012
Obama, Jordan’s King to Discuss Mideast Crises
Kent Klein | The White House

Jordan’s King Abdullah visits Washington Tuesday to update President Barack Obama on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which may be showing signs of life.

King Abdullah’s latest Oval Office visit comes at a time of numerous crises in the Middle East.

Iran has stepped up efforts to produce enriched uranium, which Israel and the U.S. suspect is part of an effort to build nuclear weapons. An Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in a car bombing a week ago. Iran and the U.S. have warned each other about ships in the Persian Gulf, and Iran has threatened to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

At the same time, Syria’s government continues a violent campaign against anti-government protesters.

Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, the chairman of Islamic Studies at Washington’s American University, says President Obama and King Abdullah have a lot to talk about. “It is a very important time in the Middle East, even more so than normally. You have several crises brewing, so the Middle East really is a cauldron right now," he said.

King Abdullah sees the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as the region’s most urgent issue, says Ahmed, who recently talked with Jordan’s monarch. “And he is going to come, almost like a man with a mission, to attract America’s attention to the Middle East. He is going to find it very difficult, because America’s attention, right now, is focused on the presidential elections," he said.

Jordan has been mediating talks to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table, with support from the international Middle East Quartet, the United Nations, the U.S., the E.U. and Russia.

White House spokesman Jay Carney welcomed the talks. “And we applaud the efforts of King Abdullah of Jordan and his foreign minister, Nasser Judeh, to bring the parties together. We are hopeful that this direct exchange can help move us forward on the pathway proposed by the Quartet," he said.

But Carney has not said the Obama administration would offer any new ideas on how to get the Mideast talks moving again.

The U.S. and Jordanian leaders will likely address other Middle East crises, including rising tensions between Iran and Israel and Western nations. Ambassador Ahmed expects that King Abdullah will try to dissuade Mr. Obama and America’s Israeli allies from solving their Iran problem by force. “And, I suspect, discourage any kind of military adventurism in Iran. Although other Arab neighbors may want the West or want America or the Israelis to go in for that kind of an adventure, but certainly not the King of Jordan, knowing his temperament," he said.

The president and the king are both said to be outraged by the violent response of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to protesters. Ahmed believes the two leaders are likely to discuss steps against the government in Damascus, possibly including economic or diplomatic sanctions, and potential aid to those opposing Assad.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.......
Posted for fair use.......
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan-zardari-court-20120116,0,6227102.story

Pakistan's military, high court both fed up with president

The military appears to be aligning itself with the Supreme Court to loosen Zardari's tenuous grip, analysts say.
By Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times

January 15, 2012, 6:16 p.m.
Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan—
In its standoff with President Asif Ali Zardari's administration, Pakistan's powerful military is relying on an institution that experts say is equally antagonistic toward the civilian government: the country's high court.

The Pakistani capital has been awash with rumors that the army, which is fed up with a civilian government defined by corruption and ineffectiveness, is planning a coup. But as the rift between civilian leaders and the security establishment widens, it's becoming clear that a military takeover isn't what the generals envision.

Rather, analysts say the military appears to be aligning itself with the Supreme Court, a body with strong backing from everyday Pakistanis and the legal firepower to endanger Zardari's tenuous grip on governance. An outright coup probably would bring international criticism of the generals; experts say those traditional power brokers would welcome Zardari's ouster through court action.

"Both are acting in a manner in which they are reinforcing each other," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based political analyst. "They are very quietly and discreetly helping each other … even if there doesn't appear to be a formal arrangement between the two."

Last week, Pakistani news media quoted military sources as saying the army stood ready to enforce any action that the high court took against the government. The remarks came just days after the Supreme Court had warned Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani that it could remove him from office if he did not abide by the court's long-standing demand that he reinstate corruption proceedings against Zardari.

The court's feud with Zardari dates back to the early days of his presidency, when he initially balked at reinstating Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who had been driven from his post by former ruler Pervez Musharraf. Zardari reportedly feared that Chaudhry would allow old corruption charges against him in Switzerland to proceed.

For the last two years, the high court has been demanding that the government send a letter to the Swiss government requesting the revival of those charges. The case stems from Zardari's conviction in absentia in 2003 in Switzerland on money-laundering charges. The case was suspended while he and his late wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, appealed and was later dropped at the request of the Pakistani government.

Gilani's administration refuses to seek a reopening of the case. The high court has ordered government officials to appear Monday to explain the administration's inaction.

Zardari's presidency is also threatened by an investigation involving a Pakistani American businessman's claims that he was asked by then-Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani to pass on to U.S. officials an unsigned memo seeking the Obama administration's help in fending off a potential military coup against Zardari's government. Observers say Zardari could be forced from office if it is proved that he was behind the memo.

Haqqani's onetime lawyer in the case, Asma Jahangir, quit in protest Jan. 3, criticizing what she said was the military's undue influence over the Supreme Court.

"The army still holds a great deal of power in Pakistan," Jahangir, president of the Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Assn. and one of the country's leading legal voices, said in a recent telephone interview. "And if their status quo is not only maintained but they're patted on the back by the judiciary, then I'm afraid the civilian government doesn't have much to stand on."

The converging interests of the judiciary and military pose a formidable challenge for Zardari, who is deeply unpopular and seen as ineffective in solving the country's severe economic troubles and homegrown insurgency. Zardari's aim appears to be to ensure that his government survives until March, when a strong showing in Senate elections would bolster the ruling Pakistan People's Party's clout in parliament and provide it a strong foundation for national elections slated for 2013.

Half of the chamber's seats are up for election in the March 2 vote, in which senators will be elected by members of provincial legislatures. Pakistani media are predicting that the ruling party will win a majority.

"That's what the opposition parties, along with the Supreme Court and the military, want to stop," said Rizvi, the political analyst.

The crisis between the civilian leadership and the military has become a major distraction for a government struggling to tackle severe electricity and natural gas shortages, a stagnant economy and the insurgency. Pakistani Taliban militants and other extremist groups have stepped up their pace of attacks after weeks of relative calm.

On Saturday, Taliban militants stormed a police station in the northwestern city of Dera Ismail Khan, killing a police officer and three civilians. Last week, a remote-controlled bomb blast in the northwestern town of Jamrud killed 29 people at a bus terminal. On Sunday, a bomb exploded at a Shiite Muslim procession in the southern Punjab town of Khanpur, killing 13 people, the Associated Press reported.

"Issues like the economy and terrorism have lost their salience," Rizvi said. "It's unfortunate the egos of individuals and institutions are undermining the interests of the common person."

alex.rodriguez@latimes.com

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-relationship-as-tensions-rise-over-iran.html

U.S. Balances Israel Relationship as Tensions Rise Over Iran
January 15, 2012, 8:13 PM EST
Comments (98)
By Nicole Gaouette and Viola Gienger

(Updates with comments from Israeli officials in 10th and 11th paragraphs.)

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. coordination with Israel on Iran policy is intensifying as the Obama administration’s top military adviser prepares for his first trip to Tel Aviv since taking office in September.

President Barack Obama spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by phone on Jan. 12 about Iran and reaffirmed the “unshakable” U.S. commitment to Israel’s security, according to a White House statement.

Tension over Iran’s nuclear program has the Obama administration balancing how to dissuade Israel from military action against Iran without fueling doubts about its support for a politically important ally. Appearing Jan. 8 on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that continued pressure, not talk of air strikes, is the best way to forestall Iran’s nuclear program.

This week, Army General Martin Dempsey, the top military adviser to Obama and Panetta, will make his first visit to Israel as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “He is not delivering any specific message to the Israelis,” said a Pentagon spokesman, Marine Colonel David Lapan.

A White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, declined yesterday to elaborate on Obama’s Jan. 12 call with Netanyahu.

According to a Jan. 12 White House statement that offered no details, the two leaders spoke about Mideast peace talks and “discussed recent Iran-related developments,” including Tehran’s nuclear program.

Nuclear Weapon

The U.S., its European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have said that while Iran halted its formal nuclear weapons program in 2003, there are indications it may still be trying to build a nuclear weapon. They have challenged the government in Tehran to prove that its nuclear research is intended only for energy and medical research, as Iranian officials maintain.

U.S. sanctions imposed last year seek to cut off dealings with Iran’s banking system, making it difficult for consumers to buy the country’s oil. European Union officials meet Jan. 23 to discuss plans for an oil embargo that may be delayed by six months to allow some members time to find alternate fuel supplies, according to two EU officials.

In response to the possibility of an embargo, Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said on Dec. 27 that Iran may close the Strait of Hormuz, passageway for about a fifth of globally traded oil, if sanctions are imposed.

Israeli Disappointment

Netanyahu’s government is disappointed that the Obama administration is not moving more quickly to put in place the sanctions against Iran’s oil industry and central bank, Israel’s Channel 2 television news said yesterday, citing unidentified officials.

“The Congress demonstrated determination in the battle against Iran’s nuclear program and voted in one voiced for tougher sanctions,” Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon told Israel Radio this morning, “but it appears the White House is hesitating because of concerns that the price of oil will rise.”

While a military strike is a last option, Israel has the right to defend itself, Yaalon said.

Panetta and other U.S. officials have repeatedly warned Israel not to take action against Iran alone, including during the defense secretary’s October visit to Tel Aviv. Should Israel decide to undertake a unilateral military strike against Iran, Panetta said on “Face the Nation,” the first U.S. priority would be protecting American troops in the region.

No Decision

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in November that Israel “has not yet decided to embark on any operation” against Iran.

Even as the U.S. urges Israel not to attack Iran and instead let sanctions work, the Obama administration has been communicating with Iran’s top leaders, warning them against any provocative action in the Strait of Hormuz.

White House spokesman Jay Carney declined at a Jan. 13 briefing to offer details of U.S. messages that are being delivered to Iran or describe what kinds of actions the U.S. may take in the event Iran imposes an oil blockade in response to U.S. and European sanctions for its nuclear program.

“We have a number of ways to communicate our views to the Iranian government, and we have used those mechanisms regularly on a range of issues over the years,” Carney said.

The U.S. has a “strong interest in the free flow of commerce and freedom of navigation” for oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, Carney said. “We have consistently communicated our views on that subject and concerns on those issues to the Iranians and to the international community broadly.”

In the event of hostilities, “we take no options off the table,” Carney said. “But we are engaged in the kinds of diplomatic efforts that you would expect in a situation like this.”

--With assistance from Calev Ben-David in Jerusalem, John Walcott and Roger Runningen in Washington. Editors: C. Thompson, Leslie Hoffecker

To contact the reporters on this story: Nicole Gaouette in Washington at ngaouette@bloomberg.net; Viola Gienger in Washington at vgienger@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

____

More From Businessweek

* Iran Studying U.S. Letter on Hormuz, May Respond, IRNA Says
* Western Allies Pressure Iran to Stop Threatening Oil Shipping
* Iran Says Scientist’s Murder Reveals Global Terror Campaign
* China Gets Cheaper Iran Oil as U.S. Pays for Hormuz Patrols
* Obama Ready to Strike to Stop Nuclear Iran, Ex-Adviser Says
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/15/obama-intentions-iran-israel/

In Obama They Trust? Israelis Ponder U.S. Intentions Toward Iran

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary 01.15.2012 - 2:20 PM

Anyone listening to what’s being said about Iran by the White House and State Department​ lately could easily be convinced stopping the ayatollah’s nuclear program is one of Washington’s top priorities. But the public “disappointment” being expressed in Israel by senior members of the Netanyahu government tells a different story. While the New York Times was reporting a few days ago that American diplomats were going all out to persuade Japan, South Korea and even China to comply with American sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank as part of a prelude to a U.S.-led oil embargo of the Islamist state, the Israelis seem to be reading from a different playbook.

Though Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has registered support for Obama’s sanctions drive, his chief political deputy today contradicted him and denounced the administration’s cautious approach to pressuring Iran. And though the White House issued a statement summarizing a phone conversation between Obama and Netanyahu on Thursday that emphasized U.S.-support for Israeli security, reports out of Israel about the talk lead one to believe the focus of the chat was something else entirely: an American demand that Israel promise not to attack Iran on its own.

According to the Times, the U.S. is promising Asian nations which rely on Iranian oil that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations that share Israel’s fears about Tehran obtaining nuclear weapons will make up for any shortages they experience if the embargo goes forward. But the same piece pointed out that America’s Arab allies could only provide the additional oil for a limited time. That caveat about the potential pitfalls of an embargo has led China to declare its absolute opposition to any further sanctions on Iran.

Netanyahu sought to encourage the drive for tougher sanctions when he said this week that “for the first time, I see Iran wobble” in the face of the restrictions placed on its commerce. Yet Deputy Moshe Ya’alon gave a far less sanguine evaluation of the American effort when he said Saturday the government was worried about the president’s willingness to take the crucial next step in the process: an oil embargo. He openly speculated that Obama’s fears about the political impact of a rise in gas prices was the reason why the administration was opposed to the congressional vote on sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank as well as to the implementation of the measure.

That’s where the different spins about this week’s Obama-Netanyahu call phone come into play. The White House statement read like a Democratic Party campaign appeal to American Jews when it said:

The President reiterated his unshakable commitment to Israel’s security, and the President and the Prime Minister promised to stay in touch in the coming weeks on these and other issues of mutual concern.

As JTA’s Ron Kampeas says in an attempt at translation, what Obama was really saying to Netanyahu was:

I, Barack Obama, am serious about squeezing Iran hard, which is what you have been seeking.

I, Barack Obama, have your back.

But Israeli sources are now saying the purpose of the phone call was to warn Netanyahu not to attack Iran. This would not be the first time Israel has received such a message. Netanyahu has heard this before, but the decision to re-emphasize American opposition to a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities at the same time many in Washington were expressing unhappiness about the way Iranian nuclear scientists have been turning up dead is causing some in Jerusalem to think the U.S. is more worried about an Israeli pre-emptive attack on the existential threat they face than the prospect of an Iranian nuke.

If the American desire to head off an Israeli attack was based on the idea the use of force now would unravel a growing international coalition behind an Iran oil embargo, then such warnings might be justified. But if the U.S. is merely talking about an embargo in order to convince voters Obama is serious about Iran but will never be followed up by action, then Israel’s misgivings are more than justified.

The question here is one of trust. If one believes Obama means business about Iran, then his seeming caution about enforcing the bank ban and desire for Israel to take no military action while an embargo is being planned is entirely sensible. But if, as seems to be the case with many Israelis, you have no faith the president will ever take any concrete action with regard to Iran, than all the diplomatic activity and warnings to Israel are merely attempts to keep things calm during an election year. Unfortunately, after three years of “engagement” with Iran and feckless diplomatic outreach, it’s hard to argue that the skeptics are wrong.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source......
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=253710

Ya'alon: Elections handcuffing Washington on Iran
By HERB KEINON
01/15/2012 16:04

"Election-year considerations" lay behind Obama's caution over sanctions, says vice premier.
Talkbacks (40)

In some of the harshest Israeli public criticism yet of Washington’s policy toward Iran, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Sunday that US “election year considerations” were behind its caution over tough sanctions sought by US legislators.

“In the United States, the Senate passed a resolution, by a majority of 100-to-none, to impose these sanctions, and in the US administration there is hesitation for fear of oil prices rising this year, out of election-year considerations,” Ya’alon told Israel Radio. “In that regard, this is certainly a disappointment, for now.”

RELATED:
Iran warns Gulf states not to replace its oil
Barak: Islamic regime in Iran won’t last forever

While Washington has been talking tougher about Iran’s nuclear work and threat to block oil export routes out of the Gulf if hit with harsher sanctions, new US measures adopted on December 31 gave US President Barack Obama leeway on the scope of penalties on the Iranian central bank and oil exports.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu neither publicly endorsed nor distanced himself from Ya’alon’s statements, with one government source saying Ya’alon was speaking for himself, and not for the prime minister.

At the same time, the source said Ya’alon’s frustration reflected the thinking of some within the country’s national security establishment.

Israel’s position regarding the fear that stiff sanctions would lead to a spike in oil prices is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states – as concerned about a nuclear Iran as Israel is – can “relatively easily” expand their oil production to account for the loss of Iranian oil.

Ya’alon’s comments came before a scheduled trip to Israel at the end of the week by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. His visit is widely expected to focus on Iran, and the various scenarios regarding possible military intervention.

Ya’alon said Israel should not “leap forward” to attack Iran, but had to be ready to defend itself. “Let’s hope we do not arrive at that moment,” he said.

One senior government official told visitors from abroad on Sunday that what was required now from the West was “tough sanctions in the next few weeks.”

“We see the sanctions are affecting the Iranian economy, but not yet affecting its nuclear program,” the senior official said. “Now is the time to apply sanctions,” the official said of measures aimed at Iran’s central bank and its petrochemical industry. “If you wait, then they will become irrelevant.”

The message Israeli officials have been passing on to their interlocutors around the world in recent days is that it is critical now for the international community to “do more.”

EU leaders are scheduled to meet by the end of the month to decide whether to carry out a proposal to embargo Iranian oil.

Netanyahu has said in recent days that while the Iranians were starting to feel the pains of sanctions, more must be done.

“We are discerning a concern from the Iranian regime about where the sanctions could lead,” one official said. “We are picking up tension.”

Israeli officials are also stressing that tougher sanctions needed to be coupled with a clear message from the international community that if the sanctions failed, the international community would take military action to keep Iran from gaining nuclear capability.

Reuters contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/15/joint-chiefs-chairman-plans-talks-in-israel/

Joint Chiefs chairman plans talks in Israel

U.S. concerned about stance on Iran

By Combined dispatches

Sunday, January 15, 2012

The top U.S. military commander is scheduled for talks in Israel this week, Israel said Sunday, at a time when the U.S. is concerned that Israel might be preparing to attack Iran over its nuclear program.

The Israeli Defense Ministry confirmed Thursday's planned visit by Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It did not give his agenda for talks with Israelis, but Iran is expected to be at the top.

Israeli public radio reported Sunday that Israel and the U.S. have agreed to postpone a massive military exercise scheduled for the spring. Code-named "Austere Challenge 12," the exercise will be pushed back to the end of 2012 because of budgetary concerns, military sources said.

An Israeli Defense Ministry source said the delay had not been finalized as "discussions with our American counterparts are ongoing." But Israel's army radio, citing a defense official, said the drill was being postponed to avoid "unnecessary headlines in such a tense period."

The joint exercise was to have been the biggest yet between the two allies, and was seen as an opportunity to display their joint military strength amid concern about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat because of its nuclear program, missile capabilities, support for anti-Israel militants in Lebanon and Gaza, and frequent references by its president to the destruction of Israel.

Israel repeatedly has hinted it might take military action if international sanctions fail to stop Iran's nuclear development.

The U.S., Israel and other Western nations believe Iran is developing atomic weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Meanwhile, Iran warned Gulf Arab oil producers against boosting production to offset any potential drop in Tehran's crude exports in the event of an embargo affecting its oil sales.

The comments by Iran's OPEC governor, published Sunday, came as Saudi Arabia's oil minister was quoted the same day denying that his country's earlier pledges to boost output as needed to meet global demand was linked to a potential siphoning of Iranian crude from the market because of sanctions.

World oil markets have been jolted over concerns that Iran may choke off the vital Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for sanctions hampering its ability to sell its oil. Saudi Arabia and other key Gulf Arab producers recently have said they are ready to provide stable and secure supplies of oil.

Iran's official news agency IRNA said Sunday the U.S. has relayed a message to Iran about security in the Strait of Hormuz. It gave no details, and there was no immediate comment from Washington.

The U.S. recently imposed sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and, by extension, refiners' ability to buy and pay for crude. Japan, one of Iran's top Asian customers, has pledged to buy less crude from the country.

Britain's foreign secretary said Sunday he believes the European Union would agree to tough new sanctions later this month, and would continue to look for peaceful methods of persuading Iran to ditch its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

"We are advocating meaningful negotiations, if Iran will enter into them, and the increasing pressure of sanctions to try to get some flexibility from Iran," William Hague told Sky News television.

European officials have worked for several months on banning the purchase of Iranian oil, and are expected to agree to the measures at a meeting of foreign ministers on Jan. 23.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the new sanctions would help to choke off funding to Iran's nuclear program.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.eurasiareview.com/16012012-us-sanctions-against-iran-enough-to-go-nuclear-analysis/

US Sanctions Against Iran: Enough To Go Nuclear? – Analysis

Written by: RSIS
January 16, 2012

Fresh US sanctions and Iran’s belligerent response have heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf. While Iran believes its revolution is under siege it is undeterred from pursuing its nuclear programme and believes it can survive the sanctions.

By Sajjad Ashraf

THE LATEST round of US sanctions against Iran has earned a belligerent response from Tehran and heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf. As the sanctions came into force Iran threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz, through which nearly 30 per cent seaborne oil passes. Last month Iran launched naval exercises and successfully test fired long range missiles in the Gulf. Iran simultaneously expressed its readiness to talk to the United Nations’ P-5 and Germany over the concerns relating to its nuclear programme.
Iran - United States Relations

Iran - United States Relations

The Iranian reaction was prompted by the belief of President Ahmedinejad’s government that the US wants a regime change in Tehran, including by military means. Iran sees the active US military deployment in the Gulf and the increased arming of its regional rivals as evidence of US designs to encircle Iran. These, ordinary Iranians feel, are sufficient grounds for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. A 2010 University of Maryland survey found 38 per cent of Iranians supporting the building of nuclear weapons. Given the threat Iran feels now these numbers have surely gone up.
Siege mentality

The Iranian regime has noticed that the US adopts differing stances towards its adversaries and in its pursuit of curtailing the use of nuclear power. The US, they understand, waged war against non-nuclear Iraq but has chosen to pursue patient diplomacy with the nuclear armed North Korea and Pakistan. The Iranians believe that their revolution is under attack.

Their siege mentality is buttressed by the following factors: Iran continues to have prickly relations with most of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states – all of them supported by the West. Iran is outspent militarily by at least three of its neighbours – Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey – all aligned to the US. The other states in the region are also arming themselves heavily with US-supplied weaponry. Following isolation and sanctions by the West, the Iranian conventional forces are equipped with obsolete weaponry compared to those of its regional adversaries.

While much is made of the IAEA reports condemning Iran, the latest IAEA Board of Governors Report released in November 2011 continues “to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at [Iran’s] nuclear facilities”. And yet, Iran’s intentions continue to be doubted by the Western powers while Iran insists on exercising its “inalienable” right to nuclear power for peaceful purposes as provided under the Non-proliferation Treaty.
Sanctions not hurting?

The US claims that Iran’s bomb will substantially improve its ability to intimidate the smaller, oil rich but militarily vulnerable states in the region. However Iran argues that it has only gone for military action for defensive purposes, recalling the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s.

Iran understands that nuclear weaponry will not be able to cow the smaller states especially if they are backed by the US power. The real problem, according to Tehran, is US hegemonic ambition. Nevertheless there is little public support for the Iranian position in the Gulf states.

Meanwhile, according to Iranian sources, sanctions are not hurting Iran too much. It is selling 2.4 million barrels of oil a day at above US$100 barrel. As for the sanction against Iran’s Central Bank, they say many banks, unaffiliated with the US, are ready to trade; and so are new suppliers in many countries. While the use of these circuitous routes has pushed up prices, the money flow from rising energy prices offsets the costs. Given the Russian and Chinese reservations over the new UN sanctions Iran does not yet seem to be heading for a national collapse.

The US impression that the Iranian leadership will disintegrate under pressure is a serious miscalculation. With the string of US military bases around it, Iran obviously is resentful that it remains under siege by the West. The West’s posturing and sanctions actually bring consequences opposite to the ones sought by the US and these powers.

Sajjad Ashraf, Pakistan’s High Commissioner to Singapore 2004-2008, contributed this article specially to RSIS Commentaries. He is now an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore and a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
About the author:

RSIS

RSISRSIS Commentaries are intended to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy relevant background and analysis of contemporary developments. The views of the author/s are their own and do not represent the official position of the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU, which produces the Commentaries.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/15/sanders-i-will-see-you-and-raise-you/

SANDERS: I will see you - and raise you?
By Sol Sanders
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Comments

President Obama has launched a new round of international diplomatic poker with what’s called a “a trailing hand.” It is impossible to exaggerate the forces on the table - economic, foreign and domestic - and their interplay.

When he signed the latest Iran provisos Dec. 31, Mr. Obama was handed new clout to cut Iran’s energy jugular in the effort to halt Tehran’s march toward nuclear weapons - and domination of the Persian Gulf with half of the world’s oil. Although he has to report back to Congress, the law gives the president unlimited discretion to act.

Mr. Obama’s ace in this hand is the ability to go after Iran's central bank. By indirectly sanctioning dealings with foreigners, he could theoretically bring the mullahs to their knees. He could scramble Iran’s oil exports - the world’s third largest at about 2.3 million barrels a day, mostly to Asia, bringing in 60 percent of the government’s income. The law permits the president to play a marginal hand, for example allowing for dickering on “variances” for countries that deal with Iran. (Greece, near default and heavily dependent on Iranian oil, comes to mind.)

After the U.S. stopped importing Iranian oil in 1987, Washington blocked American companies, France’s Total, Royal Dutch Shell and Japanese interests from helping develop Iran’s enormous energy potential. That’s partly why Iran also faces domestic disaster with 40 percent of its gasoline and 11 percent of its diesel now imported. In the murky world of spot trading, two companies supply most of Tehran’s imports - including one firm descended from the notorious Marc Rich, given a last-minute pardon by President Clinton in January 2001 for illicit trading with Iran back in the 1970s. Other targets of American sanctions include not only the oil majors, but just as important, refining equipment makers, insurers and shippers.

But dissuading governments from buying Iran’s crude and selling its refined product may take better cards. True, the European Union - which buys about 450,000 barrels daily from Iran - makes encouraging noises about eventually halting purchases. Cautious bankers are backing off from financing Iranian imports as Tehran’s storage facilities bulge.

Pressuring Tokyo to end Japan’s dependence on Iranian imports, declining but still equal to 10 percent of the country’s needs, has brought a government split in Tokyo as the country’s tsunami-damaged nuclear plants remain offline. NATO’s increasingly dubious ally, Turkey, also refuses to give up its imports.

When Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner went lobbying to Beijing, he had to read China’s hand: China is Iran’s biggest single customer and Iran accounts for about 11 percent of the country’s oil imports and 5 percent of its overall oil consumption. Beijing’s blunt refusal to honor sanctions came despite Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s tour of Gulf suppliers - pointedly excluding a Tehran stop. He undoubtedly is checking whether Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, increasingly feeling endangered by Iran’s bellicosity, would throw increased production on world markets. (In fact, given Iran’s shakier economic outlook, oil mavens expect Beijing would use sanctions to whittle Tehran’s price.)

Mr. Geithner’s Beijing importuning was further undercut by China’s trade surplus with the U.S., which widened in December by 24.2 percent to $17.4 billion. This American vulnerability suggests why Mr. Obama’s fellow players might call any bluff. Throw in the arbitrary time limits he set on Iraq and Afghanistan withdrawal after less-than-conclusive victory and his call for massive military budget cuts, and you see why it will take more than a poker face at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to win this hand.

The president is, in fact, reversing his three-year campaign - often waged overseas - to denigrate America’s post-World War II hegemony. Washington responded forcefully to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat, a probable feint, to close off the Strait of Hormuz. But along with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s round of fun and games visiting anti-U.S. Latin American dictators, the threat has to be taken into account. If nothing else, Mr. Ahmadinejad spiked volatile world oil prices (increasing his own revenue) at a time of euro crisis, stagnant growth in Japan and America’s staggering unemployment and its stuttering recovery. Additional U.S. sanctions would aggravate all these strains if alternative supply - and decreasing demand because of worldwide recession - do not restrain prices.

Still, answering Republican candidates who are pounding him for the failure of his campaign to appease Iran has begun to take priority at Mr. Obama’s Chicago political GHQ. Sanctions on Iran could be seen as part of a bid to turn attention away from the president’s continued vulnerability on the domestic economic front. Reminding voters that he concluded the hunt for Osama bin Laden, while Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton aggressively sides with Southeast Asians against Chinese oil and gas claims, as ludicrous as it might have seemed only weeks ago, could be part of a new Obama claim to strong international leadership in hopes of an electoral success in November.

• Sol Sanders, a veteran international correspondent, writes weekly on the intersection of politics, business and economics. He can be reached at solsanders@cox.net and blogs at www.yeoldecrabb.wordpress.com.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120116n1.html

Monday, Jan. 16, 2012

For the sake of avoiding all-out war with Iran, give Tehran another peek at a different future

By JEFFREY GOLDBERG
Bloomberg

NEW YORK — Three years ago, President Barack Obama came into office with a very good idea: He would reach out to the mullahs in Iran to see whether they were interested in rethinking their hate-based relationship with the U.S.

So, Obama, despite criticism from Republicans, wrote private letters to the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and made a public appeal for a fresh start.

"In this season of new beginnings, I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders," Obama said in a message broadcast in early 2009. "We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community."

When the Iranian people rose up later that year, Obama only tepidly endorsed them, and he was measured in his criticism of the vicious manner in which the Iranian leadership suppressed the protests. He may have been motivated partly by an assessment that the uprising wouldn't succeed, and that the U.S. would still have to grapple with the Iranian theocracy. His approach was neither morally nor emotionally satisfying, but it showed a certain cold logic. Nothing happened, of course: The ayatollahs showed no interest in Obama's entreaties.

Fast-forward three years. The Obama administration is now tougher on Iran than was the administration of George W. Bush. It has imposed the most sweeping sanctions ever placed on the country, including sanctions against the Iranian central bank. It is helping coordinate a threatened international boycott of Iranian oil.

And, according to diplomatic sources I spoke to this month, it has asked its Gulf Arab allies — including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — to sharply limit their contacts with official Iranian delegations.

So Republicans who still call Obama soft on Tehran are either delusional or cynical. His administration has moved a long way from engagement. In fact, it now appears to be moving inexorably toward war.

The issue that will provoke that war is the Iranian nuclear program. The administration has left itself no maneuverability on this question.

Last month, Denis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, told a group of Jewish leaders that he was furious "that there are people out there who doubt our resolve to stop Iran."

On Jan. 8, Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense, said that the U.S. would act if it found that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon: "I think they need to know that if they take that step — that they're going to be stopped."

It appears that Iran is unmoved by such threats. Not only has it intensified its belligerent rhetoric — threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz to oil-tanker traffic and suggesting that U.S. aircraft carriers aren't welcome in the Persian Gulf — it has sentenced to death a former marine named Amir Mirzaei Hekmati on charges that he spied against Iran for the CIA. (The U.S. denies that Hekmati was a spy.)

More ominously, the pro-regime Iranian newspaper Kayhan reported that uranium enrichment has begun at a nuclear site called Fordow near the holy city of Qom. This is a consequential move: Most of Iran's nuclear sites are vulnerable to air attack, but Fordow is a hardened underground site. Because Israel has only a limited ability to penetrate deeply buried bunkers, a decisive move underground by Iran could push Israel to attack pre-emptively.

The argument is also being made in Washington that the U.S. should strike Iran now, or in the very near future.

Some Republican presidential candidates have been agitating for a pre-emptive strike, and their cause has been buttressed by an influential article in Foreign Affairs magazine by Matthew Kroenig, a nuclear-security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, who says that a U.S. attack could set back the Iranian program decisively, and even cause the regime to abandon it.

Kroenig argues that a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten U.S. allies and be prohibitively expensive to contain. He writes: "Iran's rapid nuclear development will ultimately force the United States to choose between a conventional conflict and a possible nuclear war.

"Faced with that decision, the United States should conduct a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, absorb an inevitable round of retaliation, and then seek to quickly de-escalate the crisis."

Kroenig is correct to identify the Iranian nuclear program as a foremost threat to American national security. But he is wrong — or at least premature — to advocate for a pre-emptive strike. A strike now would exchange a theoretical nightmare (a difficult-to-contain nuclear Iran) with an actual nightmare — a large-scale conventional war across the Middle East.

The U.S. may one day have to stop Iran's nuclear program by force. Before it takes such drastic action, it should, once again, attempt to show Iran the possibility of a different future, one in which it is allowed to rejoin the community of nations.

The president would have to spend significant political capital, in an election year no less, by again reaching out to America's foremost adversary. He could do it in a way that doesn't convey weakness, but simply horror at the prospect of war.

Obama would have to convince the Iranians that he is offering one final chance at real dialogue — not out of weakness, but because, as a peace-loving person, he doesn't want to order the destruction of Iran's military and industrial infrastructure. And he could offer material prospects for normalized relations with the West, which might be more meaningful now that he has demonstrated his commitment to isolating the regime economically.

The chance for success is slim. Anti-Americanism is a pillar of the Iranian regime's faith, and the case of Moammar Gadhafi, who gave up his weapons of mass destruction and then saw the U.S. aid the rebels who eventually did him in, is on the minds of Iran's leaders.

And Israel, along with the United States' Arab allies, would have to be convinced that this is a time-limited offer.

A war with Iran could be a disaster for everyone involved, and even those uninvolved. A last attempt at dialogue — a last attempt to build an off ramp for the Iranians — seems to have fewer downsides than a rush to war.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist and a national correspondent for the Atlantic. The opinions expressed are his own.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
This assumes it is over or nearing so....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/01/what-comes-after-long-war/2099536

What comes after the Long War?
By: James Carafano | 01/15/12 8:05 PM
Examiner Columnist

Each war's end produces an iconic visual. World War II had "The Kiss" -- a nurse and sailor in lip-locked celebration at Times Square.

Vietnam had a far different final image -- the last helicopter lifting off the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.

What visual will come to symbolize the end of the Long War on terrorism? After all, it can be argued that the conflict is over.

Historians may point to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, the tapering off of the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan, and the death of bin Laden as landmark events signaling the end of hostilities sparked by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

The Long War doubtless will go down as one of the strangest wars in history. Americans could not agree on who they were fighting -- or even what to call the conflict. Some criticized calling it a War on Terrorism, noting terrorism was just a tactic.

A bizarre objection, to be sure. The Cold War wasn't a battle against hypothermia. The War of Jenkins' Ear was not a conflict over a body part. South America wasn't a battleground in either World War, so they weren't really "world" wars after all.

War titles are meant to be evocative -- not literal -- to remind a generation of something important about the war. That was what Paul Rosenzweig and I sought to do when we initially dubbed this conflict "The Long War" (a phrase later popularized by theater commander Gen. John Abizaid and President Bush). And, whatever else you might say about this conflict, you'd have to agree that we were right: It was long.

On matters other than length, however, few firm assessments of this conflict can be made -- other than that it ended more ambiguously than either side had anticipated.

Yes, bin Laden is dead. Yet President Obama's determination to pull out from Afghanistan means the U.S. will leave the field with the enemy still standing.

Furthermore, after the American withdrawal, the Taliban may well sweep back and re-establish control of parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda could well follow, even as it continues to build up bases of operations elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.

The American homeland also remains a target. At least 44 Islamist-related terrorist plots on the United States have been hatched and, thankfully, thwarted since 9/11. And the pace of these attempts has increased, even as Obama wound down U.S. action in the war.

A war's end is not always unmitigated good news. Especially if the way it ends sows the seeds of future conflicts.

When Americans abandoned South Vietnam in 1975, we paid a heavy price. The Soviets interpreted the U.S. withdrawal as a sign America was in retreat.

The Kremlin redoubled its nuclear weapons building program, sowed dissent in Western Europe, instigated insurgencies in Africa and South Africa, funded transnational terrorist attacks on the U.S., and invaded Afghanistan. The world became a more dangerous after we ran away from Vietnam.

A belligerently aggressive Iran ... an anti-democratic Russia ... an expansive China ... a wet-behind-the-ears "Dear Leader" in North Korea ... enduring threats from narco-terrorists and Islamist terrorists ... there is every sign that, when Obama's four years are up, the world will be a potentially far more dangerous place than it was when he first took office.

Whatever iconic image comes to mark the end of this Long War, it may also be regarded as the harbinger of the next one.

Examiner Columnist James Jay Carafano is a senior research fellow for national security at the Heritage Foundation.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.......
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2104446,00.html

Russia: The Revolution Will Be Tweeted and Facebooked and YouTubed
By Simon Shuster / Moscow Sunday, Jan. 15, 2012
Comments

When Russia's protest movement came alive last month, bringing tens of thousands of people onto the streets of Moscow, it only took an Internet connection to realize that its most vital cogs and gears were online. There had to be hundreds if not thousands of them, like an army of virtual worker ants, doing the grunt work that goes into a revolution in the 21st century. Someone had to be facilitating the movement's Facebook groups, making its YouTube clips, tweeting and blogging its propaganda. And so there were. On a snowy night in December, dozens of them got together at a bar called Masterskaya, just down the street from the Kremlin, and turned the place into a buzzing revolutionary workshop.

At the time, the next big protest against Vladimir Putin's government was only two days away, and the Prime Minister (who has said that he rarely uses the Internet) had just given the protesters an adrenaline shot by comparing them to Bandar-log, the wayward monkeys from Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book. Their meeting at Masterskaya (the name of the bar, appropriately enough, means Workshop) was partly geared toward proving him wrong.

The volunteers were not only better organized than a lot of Russia's bureaucracy but also far more dedicated. "I haven't slept in three days," boasted Rustem Davydov, 42, a scruffy TV producer wearing three layers of hooded sweatshirts. By day, Davydov told TIME, he worked at a state-run television channel, wearing a suit and tie, by night he put on his sweatshirts and sat on Facebook coordinating the opposition groups. Two weeks of this schizophrenic schedule had made him look like he needed a drink, but he refused one. "There is too much work to do," he said. (Read "The Russian Winter: Putin Goes Prophylactic with the Protests.")

At a table near the bar, a group of college students were cutting white ribbons — the symbols of the movement — from little plastic spools, taking the time to flay the ends of each to make it pretty. (Putin, in another snide remark, had said on live TV a week before that the ribbons looked like "dangling condoms.") Near the entryway, graffiti artists were spray-painting posters of Putin with the horns of a ram. "Go Roam in Another Country," its caption read. Stacks of stickers were passed around, showing Putin's face with a big red line through it, like a no-smoking sign. (Almost everyone in the place, by the way, was smoking, and the bar's dimly lit rooms were filled with a noxious haze.)

At one point, a producer for the BBC went up to Maria Baronova, a chemist who has volunteered to be a press secretary for the movement, and asked who was in charge of flash mobs. Baronova, a svelte blond, promptly shouted the question out — "Who's got flash mobs?!" — and a group of eight beatnik-looking men and women turned away from their huddle and raised their arms. Every table was crammed with its own team of activists, and standing among them felt like being inside some churning organism, where each cluster of cells was fulfilling its own function but for the same basic purpose: change.

One of the projects debated that night was far more ambitious than stickers and flash mobs. Its goal was to create a kind of virtual democracy in Russia, allowing people to register on a newly designed website, verify their identities and vote directly on the aims and leaders of the opposition movement. Alexei Navalny, the blogger who has been at the forefront of the protests, imagines it as a "reconstituted Facebook," and brushes off the notion that such chat-room politics could have little impact on the real world. In the present day, he says, "the split between the virtual and real worlds is no longer relevant." In December, the opposition organized the biggest protests Russia has seen since the fall of the Soviet Union, and it did so by virtual means, primarily using Facebook. "Nonetheless, I think [the protests] were more than real enough," Navalny tells TIME. (Watch TIME's video "Kashmir: Taking the Revolution Online.")

After the second protest, which brought 50,000 people onto Moscow's Bolotnaya Square, the Kremlin started making real concessions, proposing a law to make it easier for opposition groups to take part in actual elections, not virtual ones. But a new problem quickly arose: Who were the leaders of the opposition movement? Navalny says there are none. "Nobody has a mandate right now to negotiate for [all the protesters]," he says. "If any person says he's going to speak on their behalf, he's little more than a braggart and an aphorist at this point, including me." The only way to get this mandate is to create a parallel democracy online, where the protesters can choose a team of leaders.

One attempt to hold such a vote was made in late December, using an online polling service called SurveyMonkey.com, but it ended in a fiasco. Navalny came in first place, as predicted, but in second place was the convicted conman Sergei Mavrodi, who has nothing to do with the opposition. In third place was another spurious outsider, the neo-Nazi leader Maxim Martsinkevich, who goes by the nickname Tesak, meaning Hatchet. The movement's organizing committee, which is chaired by Navalny, ruled that the vote had obviously been rigged and scrapped it. One of its IT gurus, Alexander Gornik, 27, soon set out to develop a special site to avoid a repeat of the embarrassment. By early January, around 60 people, including a handful of software engineers, had volunteered to help build the "electronic democracy," Gornik says. The main criteria, he tells TIME, "are simplicity and speed of implementation, so we can vote in time for the next protest," which is scheduled for Feb. 4.

The idea of an electronic democracy is unprecedented in Russia, but in other parts of the world such projects have been known as Democracy 2.0, an umbrella term for letting regular folks influence politics through the Internet. It's most famous application came in 2009, when U.S. President Barack Obama created the Citizen's Briefing Book just after his inauguration. It was a bold attempt to crowdsource policy ideas online, and it received 44,000 proposals, on which 1.4 million online votes were cast. But the results were an embarrassment, not so much for Obama as for the voters taking part. "In the middle of two wars and an economic meltdown, the highest-ranking idea was to legalize marijuana," the columnist Anand Giridharadas wrote in the New York Times that fall. "Revoking the Church of Scientology's tax-exempt status garnered three times more votes than raising funding for childhood cancer." (Read "The Revolution Will Be YouTubed: Syria's Video Rebels.")

So it makes sense that some of Russia's opposition leaders are concerned about switching to an online democracy, because it can always be skewed by the Internet's abundance of kooks and fraudsters. A few of them have complained that someone like Ksenia Sobchak, a celebrity heiress often called Russia's Paris Hilton, would win any online election. On Twitter, she has almost 300,000 followers, nearly twice as many as Navalny. "But I tell them, 'Dudes, it's a vote,'" Navalny says. "If you're scared Ksenia Sobchak will beat you, then why are you saying you want the presidency? If you're afraid of a vote, sit home.'"

In any case, the Russian opposition has little choice but to have their supporters vote online, because Putin's Democracy 1.0 has effectively locked them out. When several of the opposition leaders tried to form a political party last summer, they were denied registration by the Ministry of Justice, and thus banned from taking part in elections. Nor do they have the option of holding a physical summit, where paper ballots could be cast. This would require renting a venue big enough to hold a quorum of the protesters, like a stadium, and no landlord would risk angering the government by renting such a space to the opposition, Navalny says. "The police will come and break it up."

Sure enough, that fear was confirmed when the activists tried to gather for a second night at Masterskaya. By midnight, the police showed up, and a handful of the activists were detained, taken to the station and released without charge. "It was just a stupid act of intimidation," says Baronova, the movement's spokeswoman. But in some sense, it worked. The activists were forced to look for another venue, while many retreated back to the safety of the Web. Clearly the split between the real and virtual worlds is not as irrelevant as Navalny claims.

Read "Occupy the Kremlin: Russia's Election Lets Loose Public Rage."

Read "Can Crusading Blogger Alexei Navalny Save Russia?"
 
=






..

Iran makes arrests for scientist killing

AFP – 12 hrs ago...
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-makes-arrests-scientist-killing-005912829.html

Iran has made arrests over a scientist's assassination last week blamed on Israel and the US, parliament speaker Ali Larijani said Monday, vowing his country would avenge the death using "non-terrorist" tactics.

He did not specify how many people were arrested or when the arrests were made, or give any details on the suspects' identities or nationalities.


"We have discovered some clues and some arrests have been made. Investigations are ongoing," Larijani told Iran's Arabic-language broadcaster Al-Alam.

Various Iranian officials have blamed Israel and the United States for the January 11 killing of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a 32-year-old deputy director of Iran's main uranium enrichment plant.

Ahmadi Roshan died along with his driver after assassins on a motorbike fixed a magnetic bomb to his car.

It was the fifth such attack targeting Iran's scientists in the past two years. Four other scientists -- three of them involved in Iran's nuclear programme -- died in the attacks, while one managed to escape.

Iranian military commanders have said they are looking at "punishing" those responsible.

But Larijani said Iran would not resort to terrorism to take its revenge.

"We will not hesitate in punishing the Zionist regime (Israel) so that it realises such actions have clear responses. There will definitely be a response but our action will be of a non-terrorist nature," he said.

On Saturday, the deputy chief of Iran's joint armed forces, Masoud Jazayeri, said Iran was mulling a response to hold the US, Israel and Britain "accountable" for their perceived involvement in the attacks.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Thursday blamed the US and Israeli intelligence services for the latest killing.

He said Iran would "continue with determination" its nuclear activities, which Western governments suspect mask a drive for a weapons capability despite Tehran's repeated denials.

Washington has issued strongly worded denials of any role in the murders. Israel, widely seen as the prime suspect, has neither denied nor confirmed involvement, in line with its policy of not commenting on intelligence matters.






=
 
=






War with Iran is not inevitable,
but our leaders' lack of communication makes it increasingly likely


By Michael Burleigh
Last updated at 1:01 PM on 16th January 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-communication-makes-increasingly-likely.html

Threat: Foreign Secretary William Hague has refused to rule out military action against Iran, if it moves to close the Strait of Hormuz.

And so Foreign Secretary William Hague says that 'he' is not taking a military response off the table should Iran seek to close the Strait of Hormuz. I thought that was a decision for the Prime Minister? Will that response be with the jet fighters which have been so badly designed that they miss the 'hook' which they use to land on carriers we no longer have?


Meanwhile, three huge US carrier groups are slipping into position, to act in precisely that eventuality, although it is noteworthy that the US Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, is being much more cautious in talking about war, while stating that he believes Iran is not currently trying to build a nuclear bomb.

The international noose around Iran's leaders is certainly tightening. The US has effectively criminalised anyone using the Bank of Iran as a clearing house for payments for Iranian crude oil. Next week the EU is likely to follow suit, while catching up with Britain on tougher oil sanctions.

Last week, the US Treasury Secretary toured Asia - the biggest customer for Iranian oil - persuading Japan and South Korea to seek alternative supplies. And as a monopoly consumer, the Chinese will certainly drive a very hard bargain about the future price. Iran is essentially a rentier state, in which key things like petrol, are heavily subsidised. That becomes more difficult if oil and gas revenues shrink, while inflation surges and the rial has been massively devalued. They have also been panicked enough to warn the Gulf states (and especially Saudi Arabia) not to raise their production of oil to take up the projected shortfall. The Saudis are currently pumping around 10 million bpd; they could raise this to the maximum of 12.5 million bpd. No wonder Iran is issuing threats left, right and centre.

More...Iran warns of dire consequences for Saudi Arabia if they increase oil production to help the West

The Chinese haven't given up on Iran yet, hence why they barely bother to attend meetings designed to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. They regard Iran as a useful pawn in restraining US dominance of the Middle East (hence why they supply it with ballistic missile and passive radar technology) and it is the most suitable place for them to develop 'upstream' oil interests, such as refineries, terminals and pipelines. For China's big concern is its future energy security, its greatest vulnerability in terms of rivalry with the US.

Posturing: Iran has been showing off its naval and missile capabilities
And then there is Iran itself. Over Christmas the Iranians carried out the most extensive naval exercises in recent history: Velayat-90 in the Straits of Hormuz. Over eleven days they sought to advertise their asymmetric capabilities, from surface to surface missiles; sophisticated mines; midget stealth submarines; and three different types of high powered speed boats.

They think they could close the Strait of Hormuz - whose shipping channel narrows to two miles - before the US can bring its massive seaborne firepower to bear from Gulf states further south. They and the Iraqis tried to do this with Kuwaiti tankers in the 1987 Tanker War (which developed towards the end of the Iraq-Iran eight year conflict). In the end, both the Soviets and the US effectively put Kuwaiti tankers under their own flags and escorted them in and out.

Meanwhile, British service chiefs have warned that if the Iranians close the Strait, the effect will not be on our oil supplies (less than 1% of our oil moves through this route) but on liquified natural gas imports, since half of our needs come through that waterway, mainly from Qatar. Supplies from Qatar have risen 67% in the last year, while those from Norway have fallen by 17% and there is not much either coming from the North Sea. I doubt whether Algeria, another important supplier, can make up the shortfall.

Out of control: The riot that closed the British Embassy in Tehran shows the lack of communication between different sections of the Iranian leadership
The biggest danger here is of miscommunication or no communication at all. The Iranian and US governments have few means of talking, not least because they have no embassies. It is even more unlikely that Iranian and US naval commanders on the spot can communicate either. All it might take, for war to erupt, would be for some Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander to take aggressive action, moreover, not necessarily with the knowledge and approval of the rival factions vying for power in Iran.

We saw that already with the riot that closed down the British embassy, which was against he wishes of both the IRG high command and Ahmadinejad himself. Iranian decision making is likely to become more and more fractured and incoherent as parliamentary and presidential elections loom this and next year, especially if there is mass dissent, when these will inevitably be rigged. In a different way, the US presidential elections don't help much either, since rival Republican nominees are competing to sound tough on Iran, which inevitably influences Obama's own electoral rhetoric.

Amidst all this talk of war, we are hearing less and less about talks designed to enable Iran to develop civil nuclear power, without the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon, or at least to reach the stage of potential nuclear 'break out', where they could assemble a functioning bomb without too much difficulty.

What, if anything, is the International Atomic Energy Agency or the UN, doing to devise a solution that satisfies all interested parties? What is China, which likes to be seen as a responsible player on the global stage, doing to lever the Iranians into a more compliant position? For ultimately, China is not interested in Iran per se, but in its own energy security and long term strategic position.

Rather than issuing vaguely belligerent threats, I wish the Foreign and Defence Secretaries would occasionally explain the complexity of what is going on, and the steps needed to achieve a peaceful resolution. It is the lack of intelligence and self-awareness that is ultimately so depressing. If a war breaks out in the Gulf, then we can kiss goodbye to any prospect of economic recovery since the price of oil will go through the roof. The recent promised reductions in domestic gas prices will also seem a distant memory.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-makes-increasingly-likely.html#ixzz1jd0cYQ7W



=
 
Top