WAR 02/22 to 02/28 ***The***WINDS***of***WAR***

[The Flying Dutchman]

=




02/14 to 02/21 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?399429-02-14-to-02-21-***The***Winds***of***WAR***

We may strike first, warns Iran

Tuesday February 21 2012
http://www.newrossstandard.ie/breaking-news/world-news/we-may-strike-first-warns-iran-3026877.html​

A top Iranian general has warned that it will pre-emptively strike anyone who threatens it.

The statement by General Mohammed Hejazi, who heads the military's logistical wing, continues the defiant tone Tehran has taken in its confrontation with Western countries that claim it is developing nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. "We do not wait for enemies to take action against us," said Hejazi, according to the Fars news agency. "We will use all our means to protect our national interests."

The US and Israel have not ruled out strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran also said that a visiting UN team did not plan to inspect the country's nuclear facilities and will only hold talks with officials in Tehran. The statement cast doubt on how well UN inspectors can gauge whether Iran is moving ahead with its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The visit by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team, which started on Monday, is the second in less than a month.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said the visiting IAEA team was made up of experts, not inspectors. He told reporters that the IAEA team was holding discussions in Tehran to prepare for future cooperation between Iran and the UN watchdog. He said this co-operation is at its "best" level.

"The (title) of the members of the visiting delegation is not 'inspectors.' This is an expert delegation. The purpose of visit is not inspection," said Mehmanparast. "The aim is to negotiate about co-operation between Iran and the agency and to set a framework for a continuation of the talks."

Visits to Iranian nuclear sites were not part of the IAEA visit three weeks ago. But on Monday, Iranian state radio said the UN team had asked to visit the Parchin military complex outside Tehran - a known, conventional arms facility that has been suspected of making secret weapons - and to meet Iranian nuclear scientists involved in the country's controversial programme.

The visit comes as Iran carries out air defence war games to practice protecting nuclear and other sensitive sites.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Gordon Campbell on the looming
“pre-emptive” war on Iran

Wednesday, 22 February 2012, 10:41 am
Column: Gordon Campbell
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL12...ll-on-the-looming-pre-emptive-war-on-iran.htm​

Iran’s rulers preside over one of the most thuggish, repressive regimes on the planet, but the West’s apparent readiness to go to war over Iran’s nuclear programme is a hair-raising over-reaction. Somehow, the nuclear club that can regard its own ownership of such weapons as being right and proper, and that can co-exist with Pakistan, India and North Korea as nuclear armed states must, must, must go to war with Iran in order to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. If there’s a logic here, it eludes me.

Currently, Iran is at roughly the same stage of nuclear development as Japan is now, and as apartheid-era South Africa used to be. Even if and when Iran obtained such weapons – and the capacity to deploy them is still years away, even in the worst case scenario – then containment of a nuclear Iran by diplomatic means is still an entirely viable option, just as the world manages to contain and co-exist with Pakistan and North Korea today.


This time, the war talk about Iran could prove to be dangerous for New Zealand as well – since in any armed conflict in the Middle East on the scale that would be triggered by a so called “pre-emptive “ attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would almost certainly see Foreign Minister Murray McCully and Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman signing up New Zealand as part of the West’s team. Helen Clark deftly kept us out of overt participation in the West’s last ‘pre-emptive’ war against weapons of mass destruction in the region, and thus spared us from being included on the list of nations subject to a terrorist backlash. Under a National-led government, the capacity for similar finesse is virtually non-existent. Right now, New Zealand should be declaring its opposition to any pre-emptive attack on Iran by any party.

If you want to scare yourself about the implacable illogic of the West’s position, read this interview with British Foreign Minister William Hague in the Daily Telegraph:


“It is a crisis coming down the tracks,” he said. “Because they are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme … If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons. And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilising effects in the Middle East. And the threat of a new cold war in the Middle East without necessarily all the safety mechanisms … That would be a disaster in world affairs.”
Mr Hague repeatedly stressed that “all options must remain on the table” when confronting the Iranian regime, despite Liberal Democrat concerns that the Government may be dragged into another military conflict.

He added that we “have to be concerned” that Britain could be in range of Iranian nuclear weapons – or that nuclear materials could fall into the hands of terrorists.

In one package, Hague has included every half-baked rationale for conflict. Take the terrorist angle that Hague mentions… why would Iran be any more likely to hand over nuclear weapons to terrorists than Pakistan, the West’s own unstable ally and supporter of terrorist groups? And if we are so very concerned about nuclear profileration in the Middle East as Hague purports to be, why has Britain – and New Zealand – voted against UN resolutions in the past aimed at making the Middle East into a nuclear free zone? That would be because Israel already has nuclear weapons, and that is seen to be a good thing by the West. (In reality, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East could be traced far more accurately by Hague not to Iran, but to the US covertly enabling Israel to attain nuclear weapons, many years ago.)

Even if Iran does intend to develop nuclear weapons – and the intent is unproven, much less the capacity to deploy them – one comes back, as one so often does in this region, to the contentious role of Israel. Why would having another nuclear-capable state in the Middle East be necessarily any more destabilising than the current situation, where Israel is the sole nuclear state in the region?

And before anyone replies by citing Iranian rhetoric against Israel – weren’t the Cold War safety mechanisms, that Hague recalls so fondly, based on both sides having nuclear weapons, which created a mutually assured destruction form of deterrence? Rhetoric is rhetoric. An article I link to below cites Mao promising a nuclear war in which "imperialism would be razed to the ground, and the whole world would become socialist”. Yet a nuclear China never did deliver on that rhetoric, and is now regarded as a responsible member of the nuclear club.

Actually I loved the bit in Hague’s interview where he talked about those “safety mechanisms” lacking right now in the Middle East, but which presumably existed in the past, during the Soviet/US nuclear standoffs. Yes, the world felt so much safer back then with all those safety mechanisms in place, and when our leaders would re-assure us in these cool, calm rational terms:


Thus unwillingly our free society finds itself mortally challenged by the Soviet system. No other value system is so wholly irreconcilable with ours, so implacable in its purpose to destroy ours, so capable of turning to its own uses the most dangerous and divisive trends in our own society, no other so skillfully and powerfully evokes the elements of irrationality in human nature everywhere, and no other has the support of a great and growing center of military power.

As the Daily Telegraph indicates, its not as if the Israelis aren’t currently trying to blackmail us into falling in line with their agenda:


Western diplomats believe that the Israelis are calculating that they have to destroy the Iranian facilities this year, before they are hidden too deep underground and while the election puts Barack Obama under added pressure to support the action.
American intelligence chiefs were this week forced to announce that “to the best of their knowledge” Israel was not poised to launch an attack. But Western officials believe an Israeli strike is likely over the summer.

So, start a war while Obama is politically vulnerable, and while he couldn’t afford to refuse to back you to the hilt, and too bad if the West then spends a generation picking up the pieces, That doesn’t sound in the least bit crazy and unscrupulous. (Thank goodness we don’t have anyone on our side as dangerous as those folks in North Korea.) To be sure, Hague does make the usual noises near the end of the Daily Telegraph interview about his preference for diplomacy, but the dog whistling about war – “ all options must be on the table” – is really the gist of his message. For a well reasoned argument by Iranian expert Shashank Joshi (of the Royal United Services Institute think tank) as to why the current war talk against Iran is unjustified, go here.

A more detailed account of the diplomatic and military options regarding Iran, written by the same author, is here.

Joshi’s conclusion sums up the current state of affairs pretty well:


The alarmist response to Iran's nuclear programme reflects a failure of imagination and ignorance of history. Iran has an obligation to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations to explain the possible military dimensions of its nuclear programme. But if we…fool ourselves into thinking that a nuclear Iran cannot be contained, we increasingly back ourselves into a corner from which we will eventually be able to do little but lash out.

We have all been here before, during the run-up to the invasion of March 2003, against the regime in Iraq. In all likelihood, we still have a couple of months grace to make our own diplomatic voice heard.





=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

An attack on Iran would be an act of criminal stupidity

US and Israeli leaders are talking themselves into a disastrous
conflict that will make Iranian nuclear weapons a certainty

Seumas Milne
guardian.co.uk
Tuesday 21 February 2012 17.20 EST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/21/attack-on-iran-criminal-stupidity​

After a decade of calamitous western wars in the wider Middle East, the signs are becoming ever more ominous that we're heading for another. And, hard as it is to credit, the same discredited arguments used to justify the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan – from weapons of mass destruction to sponsorship of terrorism and fundamentalist fanatics – are now being used to make the case for an attack on Iran.

War talk about Iran and its nuclear programme has been going on for so long it might be tempting to dismiss it as bluster. The mixed messages about Iran coming from the US and Israeli governments in recent weeks have become increasingly contradictory and bewildering. Maybe it's all a game of bluff and psychological warfare. Perhaps Iran's offer of new talks or this week's atomic energy inspectors' visit might lead to a breakthrough.

But the mood music has become more menacing. US defence secretary Leon Panetta has let it be known there is a "strong likelihood" Israel will attack Iran between April and June, even as Barack Obama says no Israeli decision has yet been taken. US officials told the Guardian last week they believed the administration would be left with "no alternative" but to attack Iran or watch Israel do so later this year.

Meanwhile, a US-Israeli stealth war is already raging on the ground, including covert assassinations of scientists, cyber warfare and attacks on military and missile installations. And Britain and France have successfully dragooned the EU into ramping up sanctions on Iran's economic life-blood of oil exports as a buildup of western military forces continues in the Gulf.

Any of this could easily be regarded as an act of war against Iran – and Iranian retaliation used as the pretext for a more direct military assault, as the risk of escalation grows. But instead of challenging what is a profoundly dangerous path to full-scale regional conflict – with or without western intervention in Iran's ally, Syria – the bulk of the western media and political class is busy softening up the public to accept another war as the unfortunate consequence of Iranian intransigence.

When it was reported that British officials expected the Cameron government to take part in a US attack on Iran, it passed with barely a murmur. In a parliamentary debate on Monday, only six votes were mustered to press for the threat of attack on Iran to be withdrawn. The Times claimed yesterday it to be "beyond doubt" that Iran "is trying to develop a nuclear weapon", even though neither the US nor the IAEA has managed to prove any such thing.

And even when US and British leaders have called for Israeli restraint, as William Hague and US joint chiefs of staff chairman Martin Dempsey have done in recent days, the issue is only one of timing. Military force would, they say, be "premature" and unwise "at this point".

If an attack is launched by Israel or the US, it would not just be an act of criminal aggression, but of wanton destructive stupidity. As Michael Clarke, director of the British defence establishment's Royal United Services Institute, points out, such an attack would be entirely illegal: "There is no basis in international law for preventative, rather than pre-emptive, war."

It would also be guaranteed to trigger a regional conflagration with uncontrollable global consequences. Iran could be expected to retaliate against Israel, the US and its allies, both directly and indirectly, and block the fifth of international oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. The trail of death, destruction and economic havoc would be awesome.

But while in the case of Iraq an attack was launched over weapons of mass destruction that didn't in fact exist, the US isn't even claiming that Iran is attempting to build a bomb. "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No," Panetta said bluntly last month. Israeli intelligence is said to be of the same view. Unlike Israel itself, which has had nuclear weapons for decades, it believes the Iranian leadership has taken no decision to go nuclear.

The issue, instead, is whether Iran – which has always insisted it doesn't want nuclear weapons – might develop the capability to build them. So Iran – surrounded by US bases and occupation troops, nuclear-armed states from Israel to Pakistan and Gulf autocracies begging the Americans to "cut off the head of the snake" – is threatened with a military onslaught because of a future potential the aggressor states have long ago turned into reality.

Such a capability wouldn't be the "existential threat" Israeli politicians have claimed. It might, of course, blunt Israel's strategic edge. Or as Matthew Kroenig, the US defence secretary's special adviser until last summer, spelled it out recently, a nuclear Iran "would immediately limit US freedom of action in the Middle East". Which gets to the heart of the matter: freedom of action in the Middle East is the prerogative of the US and its allies, not independent Middle Eastern states.

But if the western powers and Israel are really concerned about the threat of a nuclear arms race in the region, they could throw their weight behind negotiations to acheive a nuclear-free Middle East – which most Israelis favour.


What is clear, as both US and Israeli officials acknowledge, is that neither sanctions nor war are likely to divert Iran from its nuclear programme. Military attack can set it back – along with the prospects for progressive change in Iran – but would offer the strongest incentive possible for Iranian leaders to take the decision they haven't yet done and develop nuclear weapons.

Obama has every interest in heading off an Israeli attack on Iran that would draw in the US, until at least until after the presidential election. But as the sabre-rattling, crippling sanctions and covert attacks increase, so do the risks of stumbling into an accidental war. A military confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz in the next two or three months is now "quite likely", Clarke believes: "western policy towards Iran is a slow-motion road accident".

There is another factor driving towards war. The more they talk up the supposed threat from Iran's nuclear programme and the military option, the more US and Israeli leaders risk undermining their own credibility if they end up doing nothing. A potentially catastrophic attack isn't inevitable, but it's becoming perilously more likely all the time.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=


AZProtector;

Pard, methinks you "got out of Dodge" just at the right time. I hope you got your preps all refilled. Because it appears that the "furr" is going to "Fly" sooner then later ~ Dutch

New claims suggest sweep of Iran's covert plots

Associated Press
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:46 pm
http://www.stltoday.com/news/world/...cle_4a3207e2-f2ed-5647-a5fe-7855ba4d8253.html​

Piece by piece, the tools for an alleged Iranian-directed murder team were smuggled into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea. A sniper rifle with silencer. Pistols. Sixteen pieces of plastic explosives and detonators.

Finally came a dossier with photos, names and exacting details _ down to workplace drawings _ for Israeli targets in the capital of Azerbaijan.

Each step, according to authorities in Baku, was overseen by Iran's intelligence services for what could have been a stunning attack weeks before the suspected shadow war between Jerusalem and Tehran flared in Azerbaijan's neighbor Georgia and the megacities New Delhi and Bangkok.

The shadow war is picking up as concerns are growing over Iran's alleged weapons experiments. Iran denies charges by the West that it seeks atomic weapons, insisting its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only, such as power generation.

The allegedly unraveled Baku plot in January, recounted through interviews and police records, has been largely overshadowed by this month's arrests and attacks that suggest Iranian payback after the slayings of at least five Iranian scientists in the past two years _ all with some links to Tehran's nuclear program.

But the Baku claims offer a wider portrait of Iran's alleged clandestine operations, and how they appear tailored to different locales.

"The moves against Israel taken in other countries and thwarted in Baku are undoubtedly interconnected," said Arastun Orujlu, the head of East-West, an independent Baku-based think tank. "Iran tries to provoke Israel. Iran needs an external factor to mobilize and unite the society, but it realizes that it will lose a big war. That is why Iran is trying to provoke Israel to engage in smaller-scale confrontation."

In Bangkok, the three Iranian suspects in custody took advantage of Thailand's foreigner-friendly culture to party with bar girls while allegedly organizing a bomb cache whose targets, police say, included the Israeli Embassy. In New Delhi, the wife of an Israeli diplomat and three others were wounded by attackers using magnetic bombs _ the same tactic used to kill a senior nuclear official in Tehran last month in an attack that Iran claims was masterminded by Israel. The same day as the New Delhi blast, a similar "sticky bomb" was found on the car of a driver for the Israeli Embassy in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

The Baku allegations bring a different scenario: local mercenaries suspected of being recruited by a well-known gangster with alleged ties to Iranian secret services.

"Each alleged plot has its own signature," said Theodore Karasik, a security expert at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, who was part of a fact-finding trip to Baku after the January arrests in Baku. "They all seem to have a bit of an amateur quality about them, however, as if Iran is trying various tactics to see what works."

But the shifting tactics remain difficult to interpret, say security experts.

Some speculate they indicate a level of sophistication and preplanning to adapt plans that take local conditions and opportunities into account. An opposing view also is frequently cited: They represent a scattershot approach that shows panic and disarray as sanctions _ and suspected covert attacks inside Iran _ rattle Tehran's leadership.

Iran denies any links to the attacks outside its borders, but accuses Israel of directing the slayings of the Iranian scientists as well as other clandestine acts such as a computer virus that targeted uranium enrichment equipment.

"There is no way to interpret its belligerent and violent behavior, which all but defies all operational and diplomatic logic, as anything but a sign that the decision-makers in Tehran are acting from their gut and not their head," wrote Yoav Limor, a prominent defense correspondent for Israel's national TV station.

The Baku case bridges both elements: A suggestion of some methodical planning, but also a risky reliance on the local underworld in a city that with a history of tensions between Iran and Israel.

The former Soviet republic _ flush with Caspian oil and friendly to the West _ sits on Iran's western shoulder with deep connections into the Islamic Republic through Iran's ethnic Azeri community, one of the nation's largest whose members include Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Baku's outward-looking policies also have been packaged into an international PR campaign as it bids for the 2020 Olympics.

In 2007, Azerbaijan convicted 15 people in connection with an alleged Iranian-linked spy network accused of passing intelligence on Western and Israeli activities. The following year, Azerbaijan officials said they foiled a plot to explode car bombs near the Israeli Embassy in retaliation for the killing in Syria of a top commander in Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group. Two Lebanese men were later convicted in Baku for the bombing attempt.

Now, as Iran's nuclear showdown with the West deepens, the Islamic Republic sees the Azeri frontier as a weak point. Earlier this month, Iran's foreign ministry accused Azerbaijan of allowing the Israeli spy agency Mossad to operate on its territory and providing a corridor for "terrorists" to kill members of Iran's scientific community.

Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Elman Abdullayev, dismissed the Iranian claims as "slanderous lies" designed to turn attention away from the alleged assassination plot uncovered last month.

Authorities in Azerbaijan's National Security Ministry allege the weapons and explosives were smuggled into the country bit by bit beginning in October. The cache included three pistols and a military-grade sniper rifle with a silencer.

The suspected ringleader was a local thug, Balagardash Dadashev, who had a record that included kidnapping and robbery. Azeri officials believe Dadashev, at some point, branched out to make connections with Iranian agents, possibly linked to the powerful Revolutionary Guard, the ultimate defender of Iran's ruling system.

From a safe haven in Iran, Dadashev then reached out to two Azeri underworld figures to carry out killings of Israeli citizens.

Police say he first approached his brother-in-law, Rasim Aliyev, who at first rejected the idea. Then, authorities say, he and his Baku neighbor returned with a demand for $200,000. Dadashev countered with $150,000 and gave Aliyev a $9,300 advance as well a plan of a Jewish school in Baku and photos of two Israeli teachers working there. Police say Dadashev said they could target either of the two at their choice.

Aliyev's neighbor, Ali Guseinov, used some of the money to buy a used car, according to investigators. He then requested a sniper rifle after seeing security cameras at the school, which caters to Azerbaijan's small Jewish community. Police say pistols, explosives and detonators also were part of the plot's arsenal.

The alleged plot collapsed with a series of raids and arrests announced Jan. 19. Dadashev was believed to be in Iran and out of the reach of Baku authorities. But in a purported confession shown on Azerbaijani state television, Aliyev said Dadashev had told him it was revenge for the alleged Israeli slayings in Iran. Some Israeli reports, which have not been officially confirmed, said the country's ambassador also was a target.

On Tuesday, Azerbaijan's National Security Ministry announced that it had busted a second suspected group plotting attacks against foreign citizens on behalf of Iran's secret services. The group was gathering intelligence and had acquired a large number of weapons and explosives, the ministry said in a statement.

The announcement came hours after authorities arrested some 20 young people in Baku's suburb of Nardaran. Authorities gave no information about the arrests, but some local media reported that a nephew of the alleged mastermind of January's botched plot was among those arrested.

Israeli security officials refuse to give further details about their investigations or coordination with authorities in Baku. Last week, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted the alleged Azerbaijan plot as part of Israel's efforts to work with security forces around the world.

"In recent months, we have witnessed several attempts to attack Israeli citizens in several countries, including Azerbaijan, Thailand and others," he said. "In each instance, we succeeded in foiling the attacks in cooperation with local authorities."



Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/world/...2ed-5647-a5fe-7855ba4d8253.html#ixzz1n3gUmj1g




=

 

[momof23goats]

I think about the time you said Dutch, I think you were right.

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Endangered Iran would strike’

Tehran winning with $120 oil: Trader

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/179922/reftab/69/Default.aspx​

TEHRAN, Feb 21, (Agencies): Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt its national interests were endangered, the deputy head of the Islamic Republic’s armed forces was quoted by a semi-official news agency as saying on Tuesday.

“Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” Mohammad Hejazi told Fars news agency.

Iran is facing increasing international pressure and isolation over its disputed nuclear activity. Expanded Western sanctions aim to block its economically vital oil exports and Tehran has said it could retaliate by shutting the Strait of Hormuz shipping lane vital to global energy supplies.

Still, a top US intelligence official said last week that while US spy services believed Iran would respond if attacked, they thought it was unlikely to start a conflict.
Israel and the United States do not rule out military action against Iran if sanctions and diplomacy fail to rein in its nuclear energy campaign.

Senior UN inspectors have begun their second round of talks in Tehran in three weeks, seeking Iranian explanations with respect to intelligence about “possible military dimensions” to the Iranian nuclear programme.

Iran denies Western accusations that it is covertly seeking the means to build nuclear weapons and in recent weeks has again vowed no nuclear retreat, but also voiced willingness to resume negotiations with world powers without preconditions.

Iran says it is enriching uranium solely as fuel for a future network of nuclear power stations, not for bombs.

The European Union enraged Tehran last month when it decided to slap a boycott on its oil to take full effect on July 1.

On Sunday, Iran’s oil ministry announced a retaliatory halt in oil sales to French and British companies, though that step will be largely symbolic as those firms had already greatly reduced purchases of Iranian crude.

On Monday, the European Commission said Belgium, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands had already stopped buying Iranian oil, while Greece, Spain and Italy were cutting back purchases.

Tighter sanctions including the pending embargo on Iranian oil imports into the EU have helped push oil prices up to $119 a barrel from $107 at the start of the year.
Meanwhile, Iran said on Tuesday it views its nuclear activities as a non-negotiable right, but confirmed they will be discussed in mooted talks with world powers aimed at defusing a crisis containing the seeds of a new Middle East war.

“The issue of our country’s peaceful nuclear activities will be on the agenda of talks between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany),” foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters in a televised briefing.

“Our main demand is recognition of our right to possess the (nuclear) technology for peaceful purposes,” Mehmanparast said.

“That right has been achieved, and we don’t think there is a negotiable issue regarding our nuclear activities.”

Mehmanparast’s comments came on the second day of a two-day visit by officials from the UN nuclear watchdog for talks focused on “possible military dimensions” of the nuclear programme.

The visit was seen as an important precursor to the possible P5+1 talks.
The ministry spokesman said the aim of the visit by the International Atomic Energy Agency officials was not inspections but to talk about “a framework to pursue dialogue and cooperation between Iran and the IAEA.”
A previous IAEA visit to Tehran late last month was inconclusive.

Tensions have risen dramatically this year over Iran’s nuclear programme, which much of the West suspects includes research to develop atomic weapons.

Israel has provoked increasing speculation it is poised to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, raising the possibility of a wider conflict being triggered that could draw in the United States, EU nations, and Saudi Arabia.

Iran on Monday announced its military was holding exercises to boost air defences around its nuclear facilities.

Vulnerable

Despite its confident saber-rattling, Israel’s concern is growing that the country is vulnerable to a devastating counterstrike if it attacks Iran’s nuclear program.
An announcement this week that a mobile rocket-defense system will soon be built just outside Tel Aviv, where Israel’s sprawling military headquarters sits smack in the middle of office towers, museums, night spots and hotels, caused some jitters. Israeli officials cite intelligence reports that Tel Aviv would be a main target of any attack.

Increasingly, the debate in Israel is turning to whether a strike can do enough damage to the Iranian program to be worth the risks. Experts believe that any attack would at best set back, but not cripple, the Iranians.

Skepticism about Israel’s ability to defend itself runs deep here. Israelis still remember Iraqi Scuds landing in the center of the country 20 years ago. In 2006, the Lebanese Hezbollah militia seemed able to rain rockets at will during a monthlong conflict with the Jewish state. A scathing government report issued months ago suggested the homefront is still woefully unprepared.

In a questionably timed move, the Cabinet minister in charge of civil defense in recent days resigned to become the ambassador to faraway China.

Vice Prime Minister Dan Meridor, who also serves as minister of intelligence and atomic energy, indicated Monday that Israel was facing a new type of peril.

“Whereas in the past, there was a battlefield where tanks fought tanks, planes fought planes, there was a certain push not to see the homefront affected. Now the war is mainly in the homefront,” the normally tight-lipped Meridor told The Associated Press.

“The whole of Israel (is vulnerable to) tens of thousands of missiles and rockets from neighboring countries. So of course we need to understand the change of paradigm,” he continued. “If there is a war, and I hope there isn’t a war, they are not just going to hit Israeli soldiers. The main aim is at civilian populations.”
Both Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb - a charge Tehran denies. Israel believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its very existence, citing Iranian leaders’ calls for its destruction.

Israel has welcomed international sanctions imposed on the Islamic regime, but it has pointedly refused to rule out military action. In recent weeks, top leaders have sent signals that patience is running thin.

An Israeli military strike would very likely draw an Iranian retaliation, experts believe, which would involve either Iran firing its long-range Shahab missiles or acting via local proxies of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza or even Assad loyalists in Syria.

Meanwhile, two Iranian warships sent by Tehran to the Mediterranean last week to help “train the Syrian navy” entered the Suez canal early on Tuesday on their way back to Iran, a canal authorities source told AFP.

The ships, a destroyer and supply vessel, came from the Syrian port of Tartus and were heading south towards the Red Sea, the source said, adding that they were due to complete their transit of the canal by Tuesday afternoon.

Their arrival in Tartus, announced by Iranian state media on Monday, came amid heightened tensions between Iran and Israel, fuelled by a longstanding row over Tehran’s nuclear programme, and as unrest continues to rock Syria.

Speculation has been rising that Israel might launch air strikes against Iranian atomic facilities.

Iran is a key ally of President Bashar al-Assad, and accuses Israel and the West of seeking to destabilise Syria, where activists say the regime’s 11-month crackdown on pro-democracy activists has left more than 6,000 people dead.

Oil

An increase in world oil prices above $120 has more than compensated Iran for revenues lost to lower crude exports because of sanctions imposed by the West, the head of the world’s leading oil trader said on Tuesday.

Ian Taylor, chief executive of privately-held Vitol, said a decline in the value of the euro versus the US dollar had also lifted the cost of dollar-denominated oil sales to European Union countries.

“The Iranians now want the price as high as possible as they’ve got less volumes to sell. I reckon they are probably quite close to winning based on the numbers. That was what everybody in the industry always thought would be the likely result,” said Taylor.

“The politicians are all avoiding the subject at the moment but as you know oil is extremely expensive, especially in euros,” he said.

Brent crude traded near $121 a barrel on Tuesday, up from $107 a barrel at the start of the year but below a record high in 2008 of $147.

A decline in Iranian oil sales since the European Union announced an embargo on Iranian oil imports from July 1 has been a leading factor in the price rise. The weaker euro means oil measured in euros is near record highs. Brent in euros touched a high of 91.8 euros a barrel last week compared to a record 93.46 euros in July 2008.

The US and Europe imposed tough financial measures on Iran in an attempt to stop Tehran developing what they fear is a nuclear weapons capability. Western diplomats say sanctions, including the EU embargo, aim to cut Iran’s oil revenues.
Iran says its nuclear programme is to generate electricty and that it will find other customers for its oil. It has retaliated by ordering a halt to oil sales to British and French companies.

Taylor, a former Shell executive, said that the likelihood of an Israeli airstrike on Iran had increased and was likely to push oil prices to $150 a barrel.

“I used to think this would never happen but everyone you speak to says the Israelis will have a go at striking at Iranian nuclear sites,” he said.

“The day that happens, you have to believe the Iranians throw a few mines in the Strait of Hormuz and for a few hours at least, or maybe more, I cannot see a scenario where prices would not be at that sort of level ($150 a barrel).”
“A macro fund tends to trade the flat price and for those guys I suspect they will just want to buy,” he said.

The Vitol executive said he saw little chance in the short-term of a retreat in oil prices from levels near eight-month highs.

Export disruptions from Syria, Yemen and Sudan had contributed to higher prices.
“My problem is I can’t see what will bring it down ... I just can’t see enough pressure points to the downside,” Taylor said.

He estimated that Iran needed to find a home for about 500,000 barrels per day displaced from European buyers.

He said he expected backwardation in the oil market, a structure indicative of tight supplies where spot prices trade at a premium to forward values, is set to endure.
“You’ve got some producer selling at the back and not so much consumer buying. There tends to be more traffic on the sell-side on the far out (contracts) rather than the buy side,” he said.

Meanwhile, China, India and Japan are planning cuts of at least 10 percent in Iranian crude imports as tightening US sanctions make it difficult for the top Asian buyers to keep doing business with the OPEC producer.

The countries together buy about 45 percent of Iran’s crude exports. The reductions are the first significant evidence of how much crude business Iran could lose in Asia this year as Washington tries to tighten a financial noose around Tehran.

The cuts would add to a European Union ban on Iran oil imports, which comes into effect on July 1, to restrict the flow of vital foreign exchange to Tehran under pressure over its nuclear programme.

Japan is close to an agreement with Washington on the size of cuts needed to win waivers from the US sanctions, two ministers said. The Yomiuri newspaper, citing unidentified sources, said the two sides would settle on an 11 percent cut.

The Indian government is pushing its refineries to cut imports by at least 10 percent, two sources said. India has said it will not abide by US unilateral sanctions, so its response could indicate the increasing uncertainty of doing business with Iran.
China’s Unipec, the trading arms of Sinopec Corp, is likely to cut imports by 10 percent to 20 percent under 2012 supply contracts, a Chinese industry executive with direct knowledge of the deal said.

China had already cut back sharply on Iran crude purchases in the first quarter of 2012 while it haggled over full-year supplies contracts. Taking those cuts and planned purchases by China’s only other major importer — Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp — into account, Reuters calculates China’s total cuts this year will amount to about 14 percent.

In a further blow to Tehran, East Asian purchases of Iranian fuel oil is set to slump to a six-month low in March, according to comments from Singapore-based oil traders and an examination of shipping reports.

US financial sanctions imposed since the beginning of this year are playing havoc with Iran’s ability to buy imports and receive payment for its oil exports.

Washington is pushing ahead with the sanctions because it fears Iran might use its nuclear programme to develop nuclear weapons.

The European Union has imposed an oil imports embargo on Iran. In response, Tehran ordered a halt of oil sales to Britain and France.

Iran, the biggest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries after Saudi Arabia, denies Western suspicions that its nuclear programme has military goals, saying it is for purely peaceful purposes.

For Japan, avoiding US sanctions is essential to protect its financial sector’s operations abroad, but cutting oil imports could pose a risk to its struggling economy.

Japan’s reliance on oil imports has grown since a 2011 earthquake and tsunami triggered the Fukushima radiation crisis, leading to the shut down of most nuclear power reactors.

“We are closely negotiating with the United States and are moving forward towards mutual understanding, but it is not the case that we have reached a conclusion,” Trade Minister Yukio Edano told reporters. His comments were echoed by Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba.





=

 

[AzProtector]

Fear NOT Mi Amigo...we are safe and sound...all our preps came with us.

=


AZProtector;

Pard, methinks you "got out of Dodge" just at the right time. I hope you got your preps all refilled. Because it appears that the "furr" is going to "Fly" sooner then later ~ Dutch

New claims suggest sweep of Iran's covert plots

Associated Press
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:46 pm
http://www.stltoday.com/news/world/...cle_4a3207e2-f2ed-5647-a5fe-7855ba4d8253.html​

Piece by piece, the tools for an alleged Iranian-directed murder team were smuggled into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea. A sniper rifle with silencer. Pistols. Sixteen pieces of plastic explosives and detonators.

Finally came a dossier with photos, names and exacting details _ down to workplace drawings _ for Israeli targets in the capital of Azerbaijan.

Each step, according to authorities in Baku, was overseen by Iran's intelligence services for what could have been a stunning attack weeks before the suspected shadow war between Jerusalem and Tehran flared in Azerbaijan's neighbor Georgia and the megacities New Delhi and Bangkok.

The shadow war is picking up as concerns are growing over Iran's alleged weapons experiments. Iran denies charges by the West that it seeks atomic weapons, insisting its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only, such as power generation.

The allegedly unraveled Baku plot in January, recounted through interviews and police records, has been largely overshadowed by this month's arrests and attacks that suggest Iranian payback after the slayings of at least five Iranian scientists in the past two years _ all with some links to Tehran's nuclear program.

But the Baku claims offer a wider portrait of Iran's alleged clandestine operations, and how they appear tailored to different locales.

"The moves against Israel taken in other countries and thwarted in Baku are undoubtedly interconnected," said Arastun Orujlu, the head of East-West, an independent Baku-based think tank. "Iran tries to provoke Israel. Iran needs an external factor to mobilize and unite the society, but it realizes that it will lose a big war. That is why Iran is trying to provoke Israel to engage in smaller-scale confrontation."

In Bangkok, the three Iranian suspects in custody took advantage of Thailand's foreigner-friendly culture to party with bar girls while allegedly organizing a bomb cache whose targets, police say, included the Israeli Embassy. In New Delhi, the wife of an Israeli diplomat and three others were wounded by attackers using magnetic bombs _ the same tactic used to kill a senior nuclear official in Tehran last month in an attack that Iran claims was masterminded by Israel. The same day as the New Delhi blast, a similar "sticky bomb" was found on the car of a driver for the Israeli Embassy in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

The Baku allegations bring a different scenario: local mercenaries suspected of being recruited by a well-known gangster with alleged ties to Iranian secret services.

"Each alleged plot has its own signature," said Theodore Karasik, a security expert at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, who was part of a fact-finding trip to Baku after the January arrests in Baku. "They all seem to have a bit of an amateur quality about them, however, as if Iran is trying various tactics to see what works."

But the shifting tactics remain difficult to interpret, say security experts.

Some speculate they indicate a level of sophistication and preplanning to adapt plans that take local conditions and opportunities into account. An opposing view also is frequently cited: They represent a scattershot approach that shows panic and disarray as sanctions _ and suspected covert attacks inside Iran _ rattle Tehran's leadership.

Iran denies any links to the attacks outside its borders, but accuses Israel of directing the slayings of the Iranian scientists as well as other clandestine acts such as a computer virus that targeted uranium enrichment equipment.

"There is no way to interpret its belligerent and violent behavior, which all but defies all operational and diplomatic logic, as anything but a sign that the decision-makers in Tehran are acting from their gut and not their head," wrote Yoav Limor, a prominent defense correspondent for Israel's national TV station.

The Baku case bridges both elements: A suggestion of some methodical planning, but also a risky reliance on the local underworld in a city that with a history of tensions between Iran and Israel.

The former Soviet republic _ flush with Caspian oil and friendly to the West _ sits on Iran's western shoulder with deep connections into the Islamic Republic through Iran's ethnic Azeri community, one of the nation's largest whose members include Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Baku's outward-looking policies also have been packaged into an international PR campaign as it bids for the 2020 Olympics.

In 2007, Azerbaijan convicted 15 people in connection with an alleged Iranian-linked spy network accused of passing intelligence on Western and Israeli activities. The following year, Azerbaijan officials said they foiled a plot to explode car bombs near the Israeli Embassy in retaliation for the killing in Syria of a top commander in Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group. Two Lebanese men were later convicted in Baku for the bombing attempt.

Now, as Iran's nuclear showdown with the West deepens, the Islamic Republic sees the Azeri frontier as a weak point. Earlier this month, Iran's foreign ministry accused Azerbaijan of allowing the Israeli spy agency Mossad to operate on its territory and providing a corridor for "terrorists" to kill members of Iran's scientific community.

Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Elman Abdullayev, dismissed the Iranian claims as "slanderous lies" designed to turn attention away from the alleged assassination plot uncovered last month.

Authorities in Azerbaijan's National Security Ministry allege the weapons and explosives were smuggled into the country bit by bit beginning in October. The cache included three pistols and a military-grade sniper rifle with a silencer.

The suspected ringleader was a local thug, Balagardash Dadashev, who had a record that included kidnapping and robbery. Azeri officials believe Dadashev, at some point, branched out to make connections with Iranian agents, possibly linked to the powerful Revolutionary Guard, the ultimate defender of Iran's ruling system.

From a safe haven in Iran, Dadashev then reached out to two Azeri underworld figures to carry out killings of Israeli citizens.

Police say he first approached his brother-in-law, Rasim Aliyev, who at first rejected the idea. Then, authorities say, he and his Baku neighbor returned with a demand for $200,000. Dadashev countered with $150,000 and gave Aliyev a $9,300 advance as well a plan of a Jewish school in Baku and photos of two Israeli teachers working there. Police say Dadashev said they could target either of the two at their choice.

Aliyev's neighbor, Ali Guseinov, used some of the money to buy a used car, according to investigators. He then requested a sniper rifle after seeing security cameras at the school, which caters to Azerbaijan's small Jewish community. Police say pistols, explosives and detonators also were part of the plot's arsenal.

The alleged plot collapsed with a series of raids and arrests announced Jan. 19. Dadashev was believed to be in Iran and out of the reach of Baku authorities. But in a purported confession shown on Azerbaijani state television, Aliyev said Dadashev had told him it was revenge for the alleged Israeli slayings in Iran. Some Israeli reports, which have not been officially confirmed, said the country's ambassador also was a target.

On Tuesday, Azerbaijan's National Security Ministry announced that it had busted a second suspected group plotting attacks against foreign citizens on behalf of Iran's secret services. The group was gathering intelligence and had acquired a large number of weapons and explosives, the ministry said in a statement.

The announcement came hours after authorities arrested some 20 young people in Baku's suburb of Nardaran. Authorities gave no information about the arrests, but some local media reported that a nephew of the alleged mastermind of January's botched plot was among those arrested.

Israeli security officials refuse to give further details about their investigations or coordination with authorities in Baku. Last week, however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted the alleged Azerbaijan plot as part of Israel's efforts to work with security forces around the world.

"In recent months, we have witnessed several attempts to attack Israeli citizens in several countries, including Azerbaijan, Thailand and others," he said. "In each instance, we succeeded in foiling the attacks in cooperation with local authorities."



Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/world/...2ed-5647-a5fe-7855ba4d8253.html#ixzz1n3gUmj1g




=

 

[momof23goats]

well, I look for a strike from them.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....."Turkish Hezbollah"...interesting...

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.agi.it/english-version/i...h_hezbollah_cell_in_found_in_terni_9_arrested

Turkish Hezbollah cell in found in Terni: 9 arrested

09:17 21 FEB 2012

(AGI) Terni - The Terni Police found a criminal gang associated to the Turkish Hezbollah that facilitated illegal immiigration.

The police operation was coordinated by the UCIGOS Central Anti-terrorism Service. The police agents executed 9 preventative detention orders and 41 search warrants against the gang members. The investigation was initiated after a Turkish national who was the object of an international arrest warrant for terrorism was arrested in Lombardy. The investigation shed light on the existence and operation in Italy of an unlawful Turkish Hezbollah cell which facilitated the illegal immigration of Kurdish and Palestinian migrants carrying counterfeit documents and telling unreal stories on the basis of which they sought political asylum and a residence permit. . .

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/six-turks-arrested-in-italy.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14293&NewsCatID=351

Six Turks arrested in Italy

Anatolia News Agency

Six Turkish citizens were arrested in Italy for allegedly links to the Hezbollah terror organization and for aiding illegal immigration, according to Anatolia news agency.

The police investigation and consequent arrests of nine people, six of whom are Turkish, took place in Terni in the central Italian region of Umbria. A search warrant that was approved by Turkish and European law enforcement officials for 41 additional suspects has also been issued for facilitating illegal immigration to Italy using counterfeit travel documents.

“The joint coordination of the Central Bureau for General Investigations and Special Operations (UCIGOS), Terni and other Italian cities’ General Investigations and Special Operations Divisions (DIGOS), and the Terni public prosecutor, has resulted in the arrests of nine suspects and search warrants for 41 additional suspects who have been linked to the Hezbollah terrorist organization and activities aiding illegal immigration,” Ankara’s Italian embassy said following the arrests.

The previous arrest and questioning of a suspect who was indicted in Turkey for links to international terror organizations during a raid in Lombardy revealed the existence of a Turkish Hezbollah group with sophisticated methods of bringing illegal immigrants of Palestinian and Kurdish origin into Italy, the statement said.

February/21/2012

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/21/4279831/pentagon-irans-ships-didnt-dock.html

US softens stance on arms for Syria rebels

By MATTHEW LEE and BRADLEY KLAPPER
Associated Press

Last modified: 2012-02-21T20:35:54Z
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 - 12:10 pm
Last Modified: Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 - 12:35 pm
Copyright 2012 . All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration opened the door slightly Tuesday to international military assistance for Syria's rebels, with officials saying new tactics may have to be explored if President Bashar Assad continues to defy pressure to halt a brutal crackdown on dissenters.

In coordinated messages, the White House and State Department said they still hope for a political solution. But faced with the daily onslaught by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians, officials dropped the administration's previous strident opposition to arming anti-regime forces. It remained unclear, though, what, if any, role the U.S. might play in providing such aid.

"We don't want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of Syria because that could take the country down a dangerous path," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. "But we don't rule out additional measures if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken."

The administration has previously said flatly that more weapons are not the answer to the Syrian situation. There had been no mention of "additional measures."

At the State Department, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland used nearly identical language to describe the administration's evolving position.

"From our perspective, we don't believe that it makes sense to contribute now to the further militarization of Syria," she told reporters. "What we don't want to see is the spiral of violence increase. That said, if we can't get Assad to yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures."

Neither Carney nor Nuland would elaborate on what "additional measures" might be taken but there have been growing calls, including from some in Congress, for the international community to arm the rebels. Most suggestions to that effect have foreseen Arab nations such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia - and not the West - possibly providing military assistance.

Other officials said discussions are now under way about adding a military component to a package of humanitarian and political aid to the opposition that's to be discussed at a major international conference on Syria this week in Tunisia.

More than 70 countries have been invited to meet Friday in Tunisia for a "Friends of Syria" meeting. The meeting follows the failure of the UN Security Council to endorse an Arab plan that would have seen Assad removed from power.

The meeting of the "Friends of Syria" in Tunis is not likely to produce decisions on military aid or even recognition of Syria's disparate opposition groups, according to U.S. officials. But countries are considering creating large stockpiles of humanitarian aid along Syria's borders, the officials said.

U.S. officials stressed that discussion of military assistance is still preliminary. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the diplomacy. To maintain the pressure against Assad, Washington is trying to keep as many countries as possible involved in the international coordination against Syria's government - even if there is no consensus strategy on arming the rebels.

This week's talks will seek to clarify some of the confusion. The U.S. is trying to get a clearer picture of what promises countries such as Syria's Arab neighbors are making to elements of the opposition; which rebels each government might support; and some agreement on what types of assistance would be helpful or damaging.

The backdrop to the discussions is the increasing fear that Syria could descend into an all-out civil war.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon on Tuesday disputed reports that Iranian ships docked at a Syrian port over the weekend.

Iranian state-run Press TV said Saturday that an Iranian navy destroyer and a supply ship had docked in the port of Tartus to provide training to ally Syria's naval forces, as Syria tries to crush the opposition movement.

But Defense Department press secretary George Little said Tuesday the U.S. military saw no indication that the ships docked or delivered any cargo. Little said Tehran's ships went through the Suez Canal and now appear to be going back through the canal again.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106843

To Arm or Not to Arm Syrian Rebels, That Is the Question
By Samer Araabi and Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Feb 21, 2012 (IPS) - Just days before the opening meeting of the new international "Friends of Syria" in Tunis Friday, the debate over whether the United States should provide more support – including weapons – to opposition forces is gathering steam.

Over the weekend, two influential Republican senators called for Washington to provide greater material and other support, including arms, to rebel fighters associated with the opposition in an effort to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

"I am in favour of weapons being obtained by the opposition," said Senator John McCain, who accused Russia and Iran of arming Assad, during a visit to Kabul, Afghanistan.

"People that are being massacred deserve to have the ability to defend themselves," he declared, noting that Washington could provide arms indirectly through "third-world countries" and the Arab League.

His appeal was echoed both by Sen. Lindsay Graham, who was travelling with McCain, and by an open letter to President Barack Obama issued by two right-wing pro-Israel groups - the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) and the Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD) - and signed by more than four dozen foreign policy analysts and writers, most of them prominent neo-conservatives.

"Given American interests in the Middle East, as well as the implications for those seeking freedom in other repressive societies, it is imperative that the United States and its allies not remove any option from consideration, including military intervention," wrote the letter's signatories, many of whom championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and have urged Washington to prepare for war with Iran.

But prominent figures, both in and outside the administration, are pushing back against the growing pressure from the right to intervene, particularly with arms, in what may well become a regional powder keg.

In the latest statement by a senior administration official, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued Sunday against any overt support for the still-untested opposition movement.

"I think it's premature to take a decision to arm the opposition movement in Syria, because I would challenge anyone to clearly identify for me the opposition movement in Syria at this point," said Dempsey in an interview with CNN.

"There's a number of players, all of whom are trying to reinforce their particular side of this issue. And until we're a lot clearer about, you know, who they are and what they are, I think it would be premature to talk about arming them," he noted.

In a policy brief published Tuesday by the Center for a New American Security, senior fellow Marc Lynch acknowledged that "military intervention will allow Americans to feel they are doing something," but warned that "unleashing even more violence without a realistic prospect of changing the (Syrian) regime’s behaviour or improving security is neither just nor wise."

Lynch, a George Washington University Middle East expert who is known to consult frequently with the White House, said Washington should instead "focus on engaging in a sustained and targeted campaign of pressure against the Assad regime with the end goal of bringing key components of the ruling coalition to the negotiating table to devise a post-Assad political path forward."

His 13-page report called in particular for Washington to refer Assad to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if he refuses to step down, tighten existing economic sanctions against specific individuals in the Assad regime, and encourage the opposition to develop a "unified political voice".

Despite numerous attempts to unify the opposition into a single cohesive movement, significant cleavages remain between various members of the opposition, and between the various anti-Assad organisations they represent.

Even the Syrian National Council, often considered by the West and the Arab League as the official representative body of the Syrian opposition, has witnessed a number of fractious disputes over the question of foreign military intervention, with individuals such as Washington-based Radwan Ziadeh calling for direct foreign military involvement, and others, such as chairman Burhan Ghalyoun, arguing for a supportive, second-hand role.

Opponents of any foreign involvement have flocked to the National Coordination Committee, nominally led by Syrian dissident Haytham Al- Manna, which maintains a formal independence from the SNC.

Perhaps in response to the fractured nature of the opposition, and the continuing violence from American-armed Libyan rebels, U.S. officials appear to be reticent to support the military aspect of the opposition.

Recent reports of a growing presence by the Iraq-based Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia have raised new and complex questions about whether increased involvement by Washington would encourage or deter its spread into Syria. Bombings in Damascus and Aleppo earlier this year may well have been the work of Al-Qaeda, according to recent testimony by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper.

A statement today by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland emphasised that "our position fundamentally has not changed. We believe that a political solution to this is the best way to go, that is what is needed in Syria, and that if Assad will heed the view of the international community or respond to the pressure that we are bringing to bear, that we still have a chance for a political solution, we still have a chance to get to the kind of transition scenario that the Arab League has laid out and that many of the Syrian groups support."

A panel hosted today by George Washington University’s Project on Middle East Political Science echoed many of these concerns.

Steve Heydemann, a Senior Adviser for the Middle East at the U.S. Institute of Peace, warned that the "fairly decisive failure of U.S. policy toward Syria" in the past year is ill-equipped to manage the "unregulated, unchecked militarisation" of the current conflict, and called for a greater U.S. role in steering the armed Syrian opposition into a more cohesive, structured framework.

Other panelists, such as George Mason University’s Bassam Haddad, director of the Middle East Studies Program and co-founder of the popular online news journal Jadaliyya, warned that increasing foreign military intervention could have disastrous consequences.

Haddad cautioned that U.S. military intervention in any form was likely to bolster the regime’s domestic support, partly due to a perceived hypocrisy regarding Washington’s silence on the repression of uprisings in Bahrain.

Many of the strongest advocates of military involvement in Syria have included a number of former George W. Bush administration officials, including top officials of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Paul Bremer and Dan Senor; former undersecretary of defence for policy Eric Edelman; as well as Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of Dick Cheney, who served in a senior State Department post, and John Hannah, the former vice president's top Middle East aide.

The "Friends of Syria" coalition is scheduled to meet in Tunis later this week, though Russia and China have declined invitations to join after vetoing a United Nations Security Council condemning the Assad regime’s violence.

The meeting will likely set the parametres for international involvement in Syria, but with or without Washington’s express support, it appears likely that Syrian opposition movements will receive significant military and logistical assistance from a variety of other state and non-state actors. With the death toll already surpassing 6,000, it appears unlikely that the situation will end decisively for quite some time.

*Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.

(END)

 

[OldArcher]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... Dutch, it looks like the fox is about to get into the hen house... With Iran's mating with Al Qaeda, ties with Hamas and Hezbollah, and its funding of every terrorist organization on the planet, it looks as if Hell's coming to breakfast here, sometime soon... IF Iran attacks us, one would hope that it would get turned into a glassed over parking lot- pronto...

Think of Cowboys and Ragheads, instead of Cowboys and Indians... No tags, no limits, no prisoners, no quarter, and no remorse...

Good Luck, God Speed, and Good Hunting...

OA, out...

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204131004577237043753285600.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

* MIDDLE EAST NEWS
* FEBRUARY 21, 2012, 5:54 P.M. ET

Iraqi Tribes in Bind Over Syria Arms
Locals Sympathize With Anti-Assad Fighters but Fear Weapons Trade Will Reinvigorate al Qaeda

By SAM DAGHER
Comments 1

RABIAH, Iraq—Many Iraqis in the tribal region that runs through this border town share family ties, tribal bonds and sympathies with opposition fighters just over the border in Syria. But their leaders worry that an expanding cross-border arms trade here is re-energizing a radical group they say they have only just brought under relative control—al Qaeda in Iraq.

Weapons and ammunition are already flowing in small quantities from this Sunni majority area to Syrian fighters who are arming up against President Bashar al-Assad, according to local officials and tribesmen. These people said that some Sunni-majority regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are applying pressure and promising incentives as they aim to step up the flow of arms to anti-Assad fighters across the porous border.

"Arms are going through," said Abdul-Rahim al-Shammari, the head of the local government security committee in Nineveh Province, which encompasses the Iraqi city of Mosul and the Syrian border crossing at Rabiah. He said the Islamic State of Iraq—an al Qaeda affiliate widely believed to be based in Nineveh—has a virtual monopoly on the flow of arms and fighters to Syria.

Such weapons are buoying the armed resistance to Mr. Assad, and in turn fueling government crackdowns in a conflict that the United Nations says left 5,400 people dead last year and hundreds more this year. Syria's government on Tuesday continued its offensive on Homs, where residents and activists have reported daily shelling for nearly three weeks in neighborhoods the opposition has long said are in the hands of the dissident Free Syrian Army and allied local militias.

On Tuesday, witnesses saw 56 tanks and armored vehicles advancing on the Damascus-Homs highway toward Homs, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported. By the afternoon, 13 people had been killed in Homs's Bab Amr neighborhood alone in shelling that started at 6 a.m., the U.K. based opposition group said.

Russia on Tuesday said it wouldn't attend a "Friends of Syria" contact group meeting set to convene for the first time in Tunis on Friday to forge an international consensus to end Syria's violence. Moscow, which along with Beijing vetoed a U.N. Security Council action on Syria, instead proposed that the U.N. send a special envoy to Syria to coordinate on security issues and humanitarian aid. China said Tuesday it was still reviewing an invitation to attend the meeting.

Syria's chaos presents hard choices for leaders in the tribal areas northwest of Baghdad. Tribal and religious ties bind them not only to many anti-Assad fighters in Syria but also to Sunni capitals across the Middle East. But after nearly a decade of deadly fighting close to home, many of these leaders are loath to be at the center of more.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the states taking a lead in backing armed anti-Assad groups and pledging to do everything they can to strengthen these forces. Several Sunni Arab Iraqi tribal leaders said they are coming under direct and indirect pressure from Gulf Arab states to follow suit.

The pitch, they say, is simple: The collapse of the Assad regime would be a blow to Iran, which they see as a common enemy. Iran strongly supports the Syrian regime, as well as what these tribal groups often perceive as an increasingly autocratic and Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.

Two Saudi officials didn't respond to requests for comment. But Gulf Arab officials are generally wary of arming Syria's opposition, one Gulf official said, because of the impact it might have on regional stability and their own countries' security. "This isn't Libya," the official said.

Arming Syria's opposition raises the specter of weapons falling into the hands of unknown groups, including militants, said Ibrahim Sharqieh, deputy director of the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, and sets the foundation for a protracted civil war. "You do not know who you are arming, and their agendas," he said.

Treading a fine line over Syria, Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki held an emergency meeting over the weekend to take measures to "stop all activity, most notably arms smuggling," at the border, according to a statement issued by his office.

But several officials and tribesmen in this area say the transshipment of arms provides a lucrative business opportunity along Iraq's approximately360-mile border with Syria.

The Islamic State of Iraq, the al Qaeda affiliate, is exploiting what Mr. Shammari called fear among the tribes and corruption at the poorly manned border.

The Nineveh security official said two Syrians, presumed to be linked to the group, were arrested last month for attempting to illegally enter Iraq with large amounts of cash and Iraqi, Lebanese and Saudi SIM cards, which would allow their phones to work on those various countries' networks.

The struggle against al Qaeda and its ideology has been an intensely personal one for members of Mr. Shammari's tribe, the Shammar, and others in Nineveh and Anbar Province to the south.

In Rabiah, about 10 miles from the Syrian border, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was followed by an influx of foreign fighters linked to al Qaeda, including Saudis and Syrians. They came, locals say, to wage holy war against the American occupiers and the Baghdad government, which they saw as an apostate agent of the U.S.

The fighters were initially welcomed by most of the Sunni tribes, from which they also successfully drew recruits. Mr. Shammari said one of his cousins is an emir, or prince, of the Islamic State of Iraq, and is now a fugitive.

But al Qaeda members gradually turned an indiscriminate brutality against the Iraqi tribesmen, who later joined forces with the U.S. military to drive them out in what became known as the Awakening movement.

"Enough bloodshed. We do not want to see blood," Shammar Humeidi Ajeel al-Yawer, a member of the clan that presides over the Shammar tribe, said at his family estate in Rabiah. "As Iraqis, we are unprepared to fight for anyone," said Mr. Yawer, who oversees the family's farming business in the area.

His brother Abdullah heads a political party within the predominantly Sunni Iraqiya bloc—a reluctant partner in the current coalition government headed by Mr. Maliki. Two other brothers from the same party are a Parliament member in Baghdad and a deputy governor of Nineveh, respectively.

Like the Shammars, Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders affiliated to Iraqiya and hailing from Nineveh and Anbar are being asked by Gulf Arab officials or through intermediaries such as Jordan-based Iraqi businessmen to support the Syrian opposition, according to people taking part in recent meetings.

But the reaction among Iraqi tribes has appeared to be tepid. Several anti-Assad rallies were staged in recent weeks in Anbar's principal cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. But very few of those in attendance said they supported sending weapons or fighters to Syria, favoring instead humanitarian assistance and making their homes available to Syrian relatives fleeing the violence.

Last week, the political party of the Shammars launched a public campaign in solidarity with the Syrian people that would start with prayers only.

There was barely a mention of Syria last Friday during prayers in Algana, a cluster of unfinished one-story houses and mud huts near the Shammar mansion. A few dozen men in tribal gear huddled in the unheated prayer hall of a small mosque to listen to the sermon.

The cleric, who identified himself by his nickname Abu Obaidah, was skeptical when asked later whether he would support the flow of fighters and weapons to Syria from here.

"We have seen horrors in Iraq," he said, explaining that he lost a brother and a cousin a few years ago to a suicide bombing in the area, ordered against the police force by the al Qaeda affiliate. "The Syrians know what's best for them."
—Nour Malas, Margaret Coker
and Ellen Knickmeyer contributed to this article.

Write to Sam Dagher at sam.dagher@wsj.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/0...iers-to-counter-rogue-attacks-on-nato-troops/

Afghanistan to spy on its own soldiers to counter rogue attacks on NATO troops

Published February 21, 2012 | The Wall Street Journal

KABUL – Afghanistan is rolling out an ambitious plan to spy on its own soldiers, the most serious attempt so far to halt a string of attacks by Afghan troops on their Western comrades-in-arms, according to Afghan and American military leaders.

As part of the effort, agents of the National Directorate of Security (NDS), the country's spy agency, will be deployed to army units across the country to monitor Afghan soldiers at every step, from recruitment and training to deployment and home leave.

The intent is to identify and weed out any potential troublemakers before problems turn deadly, Afghan Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak said in an interview. "Every soldier has to become an informer," he said.

So-called green-on-blue attacks by Afghan servicemen on coalition personnel claimed at least 77 lives in the past five years, with three quarters occurring since early 2010. Last year, an analyst for the US military warned that the attacks were turning into a "growing systemic threat" to the mission, in a study that has since become classified.

US Marine Gen. John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, said the Afghan government was taking "unprecedented steps" to address the problem following the killing of four French soldiers by an Afghan service member on Jan. 20. That incident, in Kapisa province, prompted Paris to accelerate the withdrawal of its troops.

Afghan and American officials say they realize that sowing distrust between ISAF soldiers and their Afghan counterparts has become a Taliban strategy.

"They recognize that the real center of gravity on our side, the thing that holds us together, gives us our strength, is the relationship between Afghans and ISAF," said US Army Lt. Gen. Daniel Bolger, commander of the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan. "They are going to continue to attack that."

As part of the new effort, NDS agents will keep watch on new recruits, conduct more thorough background checks than the Afghan army can currently undertake, monitor the young soldiers as they go through training, and embed in military forces with soldiers at their bases, officials said. The plan will include both uniformed Afghan intelligence officers mingling with the units and covert operatives among the soldiers who will report back to the NDS, officials said.

NDS will also attempt to keep an eye on Afghan soldiers when they go on leave. Military commanders are especially concerned about soldiers who return home to Taliban-infiltrated areas of Afghanistan and visit parts of neighboring Pakistan where the insurgent leaders plot their strategies.

 

[momof23goats]

Executive Branch - POLITICS
Obama administration opens door to aid for Syrian rebels

Published February 21, 2012
| Associated Press

Print Email Share Comments
inShare.7 Text Size

AP

Feb. 8, 2012: A Syrian rebel runs for cover during an exchange of fire with army troops, unseen, in Idlib, Syria.
The Obama administration opened the door slightly Tuesday to international military assistance for Syria's rebels, with officials saying new tactics may have to be explored if President Bashar Assad continues to defy pressure to halt a brutal crackdown on dissenters.

In coordinated messages, the White House and State Department said they still hope for a political solution. But faced with the daily onslaught by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians, officials dropped the administration's previous strident opposition to arming anti-regime forces. It remained unclear, though, what, if any, role the U.S. might play in providing such aid.

"We don't want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of Syria because that could take the country down a dangerous path," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. "But we don't rule out additional measures if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken."

The administration has previously said flatly that more weapons are not the answer to the Syrian situation. There had been no mention of "additional measures."

At the State Department, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland used nearly identical language to describe the administration's evolving position.

"From our perspective, we don't believe that it makes sense to contribute now to the further militarization of Syria," she told reporters. "What we don't want to see is the spiral of violence increase. That said, if we can't get Assad to yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures."

Neither Carney nor Nuland would elaborate on what "additional measures" might be taken but there have been growing calls, including from some in Congress, for the international community to arm the rebels. Most suggestions to that effect have foreseen Arab nations such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia -- and not the West -- possibly providing military assistance.

Other officials said discussions are now under way about adding a military component to a package of humanitarian and political aid to the opposition that's to be discussed at a major international conference on Syria this week in Tunisia.

More than 70 countries have been invited to meet Friday in Tunisia for a "Friends of Syria" meeting. The meeting follows the failure of the UN Security Council to endorse an Arab plan that would have seen Assad removed from power.

The meeting of the "Friends of Syria" in Tunis is not likely to produce decisions on military aid or even recognition of Syria's disparate opposition groups, according to U.S. officials. But countries are considering creating large stockpiles of humanitarian aid along Syria's borders, the officials said.

U.S. officials stressed that discussion of military assistance is still preliminary. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the diplomacy. To maintain the pressure against Assad, Washington is trying to keep as many countries as possible involved in the international coordination against Syria's government -- even if there is no consensus strategy on arming the rebels.

This week's talks will seek to clarify some of the confusion. The U.S. is trying to get a clearer picture of what promises countries such as Syria's Arab neighbors are making to elements of the opposition; which rebels each government might support; and some agreement on what types of assistance would be helpful or damaging.

The backdrop to the discussions is the increasing fear that Syria could descend into an all-out civil war.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon on Tuesday disputed reports that Iranian ships docked at a Syrian port over the weekend.

Iranian state-run Press TV said Saturday that an Iranian navy destroyer and a supply ship had docked in the port of Tartus to provide training to ally Syria's naval forces, as Syria tries to crush the opposition movement.

But Defense Department press secretary George Little said Tuesday the U.S. military saw no indication that the ships docked or delivered any cargo. Little said Tehran's ships went through the Suez Canal and now appear to be going back through the canal again.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-door-to-aid-for-syrian-rebels/#ixzz1n4FNjvBs

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.irantracker.org/roundup/iran-news-round-february-21-2012

Iran News Round Up February 21, 2012

A selection of the latest news stories and editorials published in Iranian news outlets, compiled by Ali Alfoneh, Ahmad Majidyar and Michael Rubin. To receive this daily newsletter, please subscribe online.

(E) = Article in English

Politics

* The Revolutionary Tribunal opens legal proceedings against 32 individuals allegedly involved in the Saderat Bank $1.5 billion embezzlement case. The key individuals involved are the owners of the Aria Investment Company, the four sons of Mansour-Khan Amir-Khosravi, landowner from Amarlou area in Roudbar. Also here.

Diplomacy

* Asr-e Iran releases the Persian translation of Mojtaba Amani's interview with Al-Ahram. Amani is the head of the Iranian interest section in Egypt:
o "We are ready for an immediate resumption of diplomatic relations with Egypt."
o "Iran is ready to provide immediate economic aid to Egypt so that this country can resist Washington in the face of American threats of severing economic aid to Egypt."
o "Iranians are thirsting for traveling to Egypt. Resumption of relations would mean 5,000 Iranian tourists visiting Egypt annually."
o "As a confidence building measure, one can subject Iranian visitors to Egypt to security surveillance so the Egyptian authorities can be sure of them. During Saddam, Iranian pilgrims would go to the sacred shrines [in Iraq] under similar conditions."
o "I stress this: The existing instability and insecurity in Egypt would not prevent Iranians from visiting Egypt. Iranians are used to travel under insecurity. For example, Iranians travel to Iraq without fear."
+ Asr-e Iran's columnist wonders why the Islamic Republic is begging for resumption of diplomatic relations with Egypt.
* Shi'a News warns against "a new wave of arrest of Islamists in Nardaran" in the Republic of Azerbaijan.
* Police in Baku arrest Fars News' reporter.

Military and Security

* Commander Mohammad Hejazi, General Staff Logistics and Industrial Research commander: "The change of strategy announced by the Supreme Leader means that we will not wait until the enemies take action against us... Whenever we feel that the enemies want to threaten our national interests and are about to take a decisive action, we too will use all our tools to preserve our national interests and retaliate against them... In the case of the foolishness of the Zionist regime, we have the means to deal with it in any ways."
* Iran Press News releases passport photos of two Iranian terror suspects in Thailand.
o [E] Fars News: The wife of Martyr Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast, who was assassinated by Mossad agents in Tehran in January, reiterated on Tuesday that her husband sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly.
o [E] Fars News: An Iranian spokesman on Tuesday stressed Tehran's preparedness to cooperate with Thailand's probe into the recent bombings in Bangkok, but meantime said that Israel is using the anti-Iran terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) to demonize Iran.
* Ramezan Sharif, Revolutionary Guards Public Relations commander:
o "The Islamic Republic of Iran has the power and capabilities of countering threats. Therefore, the United States and Israel don't dare to attack. Should they do so, it would have terrible and unimaginable consequences for them."
o "In the near future, the revolutionary anger of the people of Arabia will spread to the Saud family since the foundations of unjust rule will be ruined."
* A certain Mr. Ahangaran, Intelligence Ministry technical deputy, says the Stuxnet virus has affected "16,000 computers in Iran," and adds that Iran can't update its antivirus programs because of the international sanctions regime.
* Hojjat al-Eslam Ali Saidi, Representative of the Supreme Leader to the Revolutionary Guards, says the IRGC will soon establish a "theological seminary" in order to educate "theological students armed with the science of the day."

Nuclear Issue

* Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi:
o "In these negotiations [with the 5+1 Group] we are looking for a mechanism to resolve Iran's nuclear issue in a win-win situation. We too understand the conditions of the counterpart and we know that the counterpart is looking for ways to leave the issue honorably. We too are ready to create the conditions so they can honorably leave. We will go to this meeting with a positive view and in good faith and we hope that the counterpart too shows its good faith."

Trade

* Iran stops oil exports to Britain and France.
* Mohsen Rezaei, Expediency Council secretary:
o "It is not entirely correct that we have always been under sanctions regimes. Even during the war [with Iraq] we did not have the sanctions that we have had during the past five years... I predict that the sanctions will continue five more years. Therefore, we must learn to live under the conditions of the sanctions..."

Photos of the Day

* Empty chairs at the Islamic Resistance Front's debate at Tarbiat Modarres University in Tehran.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/sa...-iran.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14285&NewsCatID=352

Saudi Arabia vows iron fist on riots, blames Iran

RIYADH
Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry said Feb. 20 its security forces would use “an iron fist” to end violence in a Shi’ite Muslim area of the country and defended its tactics against what it called foreign-backed troublemakers.

Sunni Muslim kingdom Saudi Arabia has blamed an unnamed foreign power, widely understood to mean Shi’ite Iran, for backing attacks on its security forces in its Eastern Province. But members of the Shi’ite minority in the area have accused the kingdom’s own security force of using violence against protesters.

“It is the state’s right to confront those that confront it first ... and the Saudi Arabian security forces will confront such situations ... with determination and force and with an iron first,” the ministry said in a statement.

First envoy to Iraq since 1990
The statement came in response to a sermon preached in the Qatif area of the Eastern Province last week that criticized the government’s handling of the situation, in which at least six people have been killed, a ministry spokesman said, Reuters reported. The statement said the security forces were using “the greatest restraint ... despite continuing provocations” and “will not act except in self defense and will not initiate confrontations.” “Some of those few (who attacked security forces) are manipulated by foreign hands because of the kingdom’s honorable foreign policy positions towards Arab and Islamic countries,” the ministry’s spokesman said in the statement.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has named an ambassador to Iraq to re-establish full diplomatic ties for the first time since Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring Kuwait, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said yesterday. “For the first time since 1990, the Saudis have named an ambassador to Iraq,” Zebari said. Iraq will quickly approve the nomination of a non-resident Saudi ambassador, the Iraqi premier’s spokesman said.

February/22/2012

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67269

Army Wants to Change to Keep Soldiers ‘Excited’ About Service

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2012 – Army leaders are aware of the differences between field forces and garrison forces and look to minimize the differences, the Army chief of staff said today.

Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told the Defense Writers Group that he wants to ensure soldiers “stay excited” about being in the Army, and is looking at ways to do that.

“What I’m trying to do is excite our young men and women about developing a future,” he said. “They will help us all develop what the Army is going to look like and how we might fight in the future.”

Over the course of 10 years of war, younger soldiers have assumed a great deal of responsibility in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general explained. Yet when they get back to their home stations, he said, they often find multiple levels of supervision where there was just one during their deployments.

As the Army drops in numbers, Odierno said, the new budget looks to build “reversibility” into the service. This means the service will retain more officers and noncommissioned officers to be able to rebuild the force if the strategy is wrong and the nation needs more land power. These officers and NCOs do not necessarily need to be in line outfits, he added.

“Over the last eight years we’ve created holes in our Army,” Odierno said. For example, the service’s Training and Doctrine Command used to be full of officers and NCOs. “We significantly reduced that over the last seven to eight years to fill the ranks for Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said, noting that civilians and contractors filled those jobs at the command.

The general told the writers he wants to reduce that trend and put experienced officers and NCOs back into those slots. That enables the Army to take advantage of their combat experience and improve future strategies, techniques and doctrine, he said.

Odierno cited Fort Benning, Ga., as another example of a place to host these officers and NCOs. In the past, “we always had small group leaders – captains, majors and NCOs – and that has gone away,” he said. “We want to reinvigorate that and put officers and NCOs in those places.” If leaders decide the Army does not need to shrink as much as now planned, then these officers and NCOs would be perfectly placed to rebuild battalions and brigades, Odierno said.

The general said he does not want soldiers to panic over the upcoming changes. The Army will drop to about 480,000 soldiers by the end of 2017. Odierno said this measured, careful and slow drop will allow the service to take advantage of natural attrition. “There’s still lots of opportunity to make a career out of the Army,” he said.

Three or four years ago, the service recruited large numbers of soldiers, the general said, and he expects a similar attrition rate in the next few years. “There will be something we will have to do around the fringes that will cause us to ask some of those who would have been asked to stay before, to leave,” he said. “But that’s going to be limited, in my view.”

Soldiers at all levels have a great deal of combat experience and knowledge, Odierno said. “We have a great Army, and I want to keep the experience, I want to keep the best,” he said. “We want to ensure that those who are doing very, very well have a chance to continue to succeed in Army.”

Biographies:
Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno

Related Articles:
Odierno Fleshes Out Pacific Strategy, Afghan Advisory Mission

____

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=67267


Odierno Fleshes Out Pacific Strategy, Afghan Advisory Mission

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2012 – The Army will remain strong in the Pacific to reflect the increased emphasis on the region, the Army chief of staff said here today.

The Army already has a strong presence in the region, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told a Defense Writers Group roundtable.

“If you added up the number of people, the Army has more people over there than the Navy and the Air Force,” he said.

These numbers will not drop despite overall reductions in the Army’s size, the general told the group. “We will sustain what we have and then review how we do our business,” he said. “This issue over the past eight years has been that many of the forces in the region were used in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

This means troops nominally assigned to the region actually fought in U.S. Central Command, the general explained. The 25th Infantry Division, for example, recently returned to Hawaii after completing its mission in the Centcom region, Odierno said.

This model will change, he added. Going forward, if the Army must use Pacific forces outside the region, commanders will replace that capability. “There will always be a baseline of capability in the Pacific,” he said.

But the numbers tell only one part of the story, Odierno said. The service will review pre-positioned stocks around the world to ensure these are positioned properly in case of a contingency. In the Pacific, the general said, the most important aspect is to accomplish multilateral training, noting that he is working with regional Army chiefs to find ways to increase this training.

These army-to-army contacts are important, Odierno said. Seven out of the 10 largest armies are in the Pacific, he noted, and 22 of the 27 nations in the region have an army officer as chief of defense. “Us engaging with them to build relationships will help us in the long run in the Pacific,” the general told the defense writers.

Odierno also talked about the “advise and assist” brigades that will deploy to Afghanistan shortly, and said they will become more important for Afghan units in the future. The Army is putting together two of these brigades now, the general said, and they will deploy with the numbers of officers and noncommissioned officers needed to advise and assist Afghan national security forces.

Most soldiers in the brigades will be combat veterans and will understand what these Afghan forces need, Odierno said. With the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq, he added, more forces are available for the advise-and-assist mission in Afghanistan. The general told the writers he expects the number of advise-and-assist units to grow as the deadline for turning over security responsibility to the Afghan forces approaches at the end of 2014.

Special operations and conventional forces will work even more closely together to accomplish this training mission, Odierno said, and the Army forces will work with Marine advise-and-assist teams as well. The general added that he sees no duplication of effort with special ops, the Marines and the Army pitching in to train Afghan soldiers and police. “There’s room for all of us to do this in order to sustain it for a longer period of time,” he said.

This shows the Army is flexible, Odierno said, as Army brigades can “own ground,” conduct counterinsurgency operations, send a brigade to conduct high-end operations in Korea, all while being able to conduct the training and advising mission.

“That shows the flexibility of our organization and the kind of organization we will need in the future,” he added. “We are going to have a lot of diverse operations to do.”

Biographies:
Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17122738

21 February 2012 Last updated at 20:13 ET
Iran nuclear row: UN inspectors barred from Iran site
Breaking news

The UN nuclear watchdog says Iran has stopped a team of inspectors from visiting a key military site.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says no deal was been reached on inspecting the Parchin site, south of Tehran, despite "intensive efforts".

The inspectors had sought to clarify the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran says its programme is for peaceful purposes, but the West suspects it is geared towards making weapons.

 

[CapeCMom]

You guys are the best-this is the first thread I look for when I cruise around in the morning....Thank you so much for all of your hard work!

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Beware of Iran's female ninja assassins

By Mike Strobel ,Toronto Sun
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 07:48 PM EST
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/21/beware-of-irans-female-ninja-assassins​

TORONTO - UN inspectors are in Iran this week — but if you ask me a nuclear weapon is the least of our worries.

Here’s the real bombshell: Tehran is training 3,500 women as ninja assassins in case Israel or anybody tries to go over there and scramble some atoms.

According to TV reports from the regime of President Mahmoud Achmena... Ahoodada... Amyhooja... what’s his name, a school in Tehran is teaching these women ninjutsu, the martial art of the ninja.

Master Akbar Faraji, who runs the school, tells Al Arabiya News, “We train women to have strength and ability. We have to do everything in our power to protect our homeland.”

He sounds serious. If I were the UN inspectors, I’d check out that school, pronto.

I’d sooner have 15 megatons of enriched uranium land on my head than face any of those 3,500 lethal ladies in a dark alley. At least the bomb would be a painless death.

Ninjas fight dirty. They’re the street toughs of martial arts. They ambush, gouge, bite, scratch, impale and hurl pointy things at you.

You saw them in movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Get those silly turtles out of your head.

Centuries ago in Japan and China, ninjas’ tasks included murder, arson, sabotage and espionage. They were said to walk on water, merge with trees, float on air, and even change shape. Like Bob Rae.

They’re sort of like samurai, except nastier, sneakier and more ruthless.

My kind of woman.

Cautiously, nervously, I track down one of Canada’s few female ninjas, Shirley Imaizumi.

She’s a fourth-degree black belt in ninjutsu. (See torontowomensmartialarts.com)

At 64, Ms Imaizumi could hand me my head on a tray. Or any other body part of her choosing.

She has seen the Iranian TV video of the “assassins” and says:

“They’re green belts, maybe.” Promising novices.

“It’s very pretty, though. They look like gymnasts or dancers.”

So more Karen Kain than Carlos the Jackal. Well, that’s a relief.

“I think it’s sabre-rattling. Or more like mascara-rattling.

“But give them another 20, 30 years of training and...”

By then, I’m sure Iran will be a shining example of democracy and tolerance.

Brimming with the spirit of gendai budo, sashay up to Wu Xing martial arts dojo on Dupont St. (wuxingmartialarts.com). See the video with this column at torontosun.com.

The cavernous dojo is owned by Sifu (teacher) Ali Siadatan, 38, who left Iran as a boy, and is a third-degree black belt in kung fu, and his tai chi teacher wife Shellie, 37,

Kung fu is akin to ninjutsu, but not so dirty. It was Bruce Lee’s schtick.

We peruse the Iranian TV spot.

“The deadly flowers,” Ali says with a chuckle. He’s quite likeable, for a potential killer. He tells me many Iranians are “national soldiers,” taking combat courses at neighbourhood centres. Israel and company have more to fear from them, than from a troupe of dancing models.

“Assassins?” says Ali. “They’d be great for a movie. Their movements are very precise and it’s a lot of hard work,

“But they’re not going to assassinate anyone like that.”

Shellie’s not so sure. “These are people everyone should fear. Women in Iran are highly controlled, but they’re very powerful.”

They need to be.

Remember, Iran considers a woman to be half the legal value of a man. The regime won’t even let her ski without an escort or play with Barbie dolls.

On the other hand, looks like it’s okay for her to chop, stab and hack you, poke out your eyes and kick you in the groin.

Mahmoud Whatisname may talk like a maniac — but he fights like a girl.






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

03:09 22.02.12

Iran’s real weapon

As things stand, Iran has achieved its goals without
needing to stockpile nuclear bombs in its arsenal.

By Zvi Bar'el
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/iran-s-real-weapon-1.414054​

How many centrifuges does North Korea have? How much enriched uranium does Pakistan have? What nuclear fuels are in Israel’s possession?

Even if someone does have the answers to these questions, it’s not because these countries have volunteered the information − far from it. But Iran, on the other hand, won’t shut its mouth for a second.

We don’t know everything about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but recall how Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood in front of television cameras and peeled the plastic wrapping off the country’s centrifuge rods. He doesn’t conceal the fact that he has enriched uranium at levels of 3.5 percent and 20 percent. Iran also readily discloses how many new centrifuges it has in its possession and when they were assembled.

Yet more surprising is Ahmadinejad’s public declarations about precisely what he intends to develop, assemble and enrich, and when. It’s as though he’s producing television promos. One might wonder why Iran is so public about its nuclear program. Why, for instance, does it not adopt Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity?
The answer is that Iran simply does not want to do so.

There is a consensus in the West, and also in Israel, that Iran has not yet decided whether to develop a nuclear weapon. But why hasn’t it decided? If it has no intention of producing such a weapon, then what’s all the fuss about? And if Iran does really want to develop a nuclear weapon, why is it waiting?

If sanctions imposed by Europe and the United States are truly stifling Iran’s decision-making process, then there’s no obvious reason to attack its nuclear facilities. Keeping the sanctions in place permanently should be enough to preserve peace. The sanctions might even be lifted at some point, so long as the West threatens to reinstate them should Iran risk a change in policy.

Yet the answers to all these questions appear to be deeper than we might initially think. It’s hard not to be astounded by Iran’s diplomatic successes over the past decade. Thanks to America’s occupation of Iraq, Iran managed to come across as Iraq’s patron. It also functions as Syria’s strategic backer; and via Hezbollah, Tehran controls Lebanon’s domestic affairs. It invests considerable funds in Afghanistan, and helps Pakistan manage wide-ranging affairs with India. This week it offered to help Egypt bolster its economy, should the United States decide to freeze aid to Cairo; in Egypt, there is vocal support for such a relationship with Iran.

Iran also maintains close relations with Turkey, Qatar and several North African countries.

And it isn’t very fastidious about an ally’s Sunni or secular character, either. Tehran is not motivated by the creation of Shi’ite coalitions or by Islamic revolutions. The Iranians are aware that Sunni states are wary of dealing with Shi’ites, and also that Sunni Islamic thinkers and leaders loathe the Shi’ite movement, which is regarded by many of them as outright apostasy. Iran’s calculations are not spiritual; they are strategic and rational. Many observers, including the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, are certain of this fact.

Iran also is not content with strengthening its regional status. Its major success involves the way it manipulates Western powers’ foreign policy with regard to Eastern powers − China and Russia. Iran stirs up disputes between Israel and the United States, which opposes an attack on Iran. And it has been able to forestall attacks on Syria. No country or coalition from the West wants to put Iran to the test, particularly not at a time when the overriding goal is to engage in a nuclear dialogue with Tehran.

In this way, the West has shown Iran that it has no need for a nuclear bomb. It has been enough for Iran to simply demonstrate its capacity to develop unconventional weapons. Such a threat has transformed Iran into a superpower able to manipulate the positions of countries around the world. Iran isn’t in a hurry to cross the line between having the potential to manufacture a bomb and actually producing such a weapon. It might never cross that line. Why should it furnish the West with a pretext to attack or impose more sanctions against it?

As things stand, Iran has achieved its goals without needing to stockpile nuclear bombs in its arsenal. Which is ideal, as far as Tehran is concerned. Iran has attained optimal deterrent power. The gist is this: Tell your friends what you’re capable of doing to them, should you choose to do so, and wait for them to embrace you. Wait a second, that’s Israel’s policy, isn’t it?






=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Gangster with alleged ties to Iranian secret
services said to be behind murder plot

BRIAN MURPHY
BEIRUT— The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 8:15PM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ehind-murder-plot/article2345630/?from=sec431​

Piece by piece, the tools for an alleged Iranian-directed murder team were smuggled into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea. A sniper rifle with silencer. Pistols. Sixteen pieces of plastic explosives and detonators.

Finally came a dossier with photos, names and exacting details – down to workplace drawings – for Israeli targets in the capital of Azerbaijan.

Each step, according to authorities in Baku, was overseen by Iran’s intelligence services for what could have been a stunning attack weeks before the suspected shadow war between Jerusalem and Tehran flared in Azerbaijan’s neighbour Georgia and the megacities New Delhi and Bangkok.

The shadow war is picking up as concerns are growing over Iran’s alleged weapons experiments. Iran denies charges by the West that it seeks atomic weapons, insisting its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes only, such as power generation.

The alleged plot, which unravelled in January, was recounted through interviews and police records. It has been largely overshadowed by this month’s arrests and attacks in Thailand, India and Georgia that suggest Iranian payback after the slayings of at least five Iranian scientists in the past two years – all with some links to Tehran’s nuclear program.

The Baku allegations bring a different scenario: local mercenaries suspected of being recruited by a well-known gangster with alleged ties to Iranian secret services.

Flush with Caspian oil and friendly to the West, Azerbaijan sits on Iran’s western shoulder with deep connections into the Islamic Republic through Iran’s ethnic Azeri community, one of the nation’s largest whose members include Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Baku’s outward-looking policies also have been packaged into an international PR campaign as it bids for the 2020 Olympics.

As Iran’s nuclear showdown with the West deepens, the Islamic Republic sees the Azeri frontier as a weak point. Earlier this month, Iran’s foreign ministry accused Azerbaijan of allowing the Israeli spy agency Mossad to operate on its territory and providing a corridor for “terrorists” to kill members of Iran’s scientific community.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Elman Abdullayev, dismissed the Iranian claims as “slanderous lies.” .

The suspected ringleader of the plot was a local thug, Balagardash Dadashev, who had a record that included kidnapping and robbery. Azeri officials believe Mr. Dadashev branched out to make connections with Iranian agents, possibly linked to the powerful Revolutionary Guard, the ultimate defender of Iran’s ruling system.

From a safe haven in Iran, Mr. Dadashev then reached out to two Azeri underworld figures to carry out killings of Israeli citizens.

Police say he first approached his brother-in-law, Rasim Aliyev, who at first rejected the idea. Then, authorities say, he and his Baku neighbour returned with a demand for $200,000. Mr. Dadashev countered with $150,000 and gave Mr. Aliyev a $9,300 advance as well a plan of a Jewish school in Baku and photos of two Israeli teachers working there. Police say Mr. Dadashev said they could target either of the two at their choice.

Mr. Aliyev’s neighbour, Ali Guseinov, used some of the money to buy a used car, according to investigators. He then requested a sniper rifle after seeing security cameras at the school, which caters to Azerbaijan’s small Jewish community. Police say pistols, explosives and detonators also were part of the plot’s arsenal.

The alleged plot collapsed with a series of raids and arrests announced Jan. 19. Mr. Dadashev was believed to be in Iran and out of the reach of Baku authorities. But in a purported confession shown on Azerbaijani state television, Mr. Aliyev said Mr. Dadashev had told him it was revenge for the alleged Israeli slayings in Iran.

On Tuesday, Azerbaijan’s National Security Ministry announced that it had busted a second suspected group plotting attacks against foreign citizens on behalf of Iran’s secret services. The group was gathering intelligence and had acquired a large number of weapons and explosives, the ministry said in a statement.





=

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...bruary/opinion_February86.xml&section=opinion

Kim grips the throne
Choe Sang Hun (Issues)

22 February 2012
North Korea announced plans to convene a Workers’ Party conference in mid-April, giving Kim Jong-un an opportunity to inherit top party posts that were held by his father, Kim Jong-il.

Although the authorities did not reveal the exact date and agenda of the meeting, such conferences in the past were used by the leaders of North Korea to bolster their authority. Kim and his closest aides are expected to tighten the top party ranks by doling out key party posts among themselves and those most closely tied to his rise to power, analysts in South Korea said.

“The April party conference means that North Korea is intent on an early completion of power transfer to Kim Jong-un,” said Cheong Seong-chang of the Sejong Institute. “It is likely that those party elders who didn’t play a key role in Kim Jong-un’s consolidation of power will recede, and those younger and closer to him will make their way into the party’s Central Committee and get promoted.”

The last party conference took place in September 2010. At that meeting, which was the first party gathering in 30 years, Kim made his debut as his father’s successor and was made vice chairman of the party’s Central Military Commission. After Kim Jong-il’s death on Dec. 17, North Korea upheld the son as supreme commander of the Korean People’s Army. But Kim, believed to be still in his late 20s, has yet to assume the other top titles his father had held, including general secretary of the party and chairman of its Central Military Commission.

On Monday, North Korea said the party’s Political Bureau had decided to convene the April conference to “glorify the sacred revolutionary life and feats of Kim Jong-il for all ages” and rally around Kim Jong-un. In the past weeks, North Korea has begun unveiling statues and stamps, large portraits and gigantic mountainside inscriptions in honour of Kim Jong-il.

In his last years, Kim Jong-il ruled the country as chairman of the National Defence Commission. He made the commission the top governing agency after leaving the presidency permanently vacant in memory of his father, Kim Il-sung, the North’s founding president, who died in 1994. Analysts said Kim Jong-un might take the top commission title or make his father the commission’s “eternal chairman” and create a governing agency through a constitutional revision. Either step requires action by the Legislature, which usually meets in early April.

Analysts in the region are closely watching how Kim Jong-un’s attempts to build his own authority will affect North Korea’s relations with its neighbours. He casts himself as a faithful follower of his father’s “songun,” or military-first, strategy, where Kim Jong-il often let his hard-line military policies play a central role in decision-making.

On Monday, North Korea repeated its threat to attack South Korea, calling live-fire drills by South Korean marines an attempt to incite a war. Thousands of villagers on five islands close to the southern coast of North Korea took refuge at bomb shelters after North Korea warned them to evacuate because it might have to attack their islands in retaliation.

The islands lie within the range of North Korea’s coastal artillery, which attacked one of them, Yeonpyeong, in November 2010, killing two marines and two civilians.

Heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula came three days before US and North Korean officials are to meet in Beijing for their first senior-level talks since last October.

The meeting, in Beijing on Thursday, will give the Americans the first serious opportunity to test Pyongyang’s intentions since Kim Jong-il’s death.

© IHT

 

[Be Well]

The leftists whining about Israel either think the Iran doesn't mean any harm to Israel, or agree with Iran and think that Israel should be destroyed. People thought Hitler would never do what he said he would do either.

 

[Housecarl]

The leftists whining about Israel either think the Iran doesn't mean any harm to Israel, or agree with Iran and think that Israel should be destroyed. People thought Hitler would never do what he said he would do either.

And people forget, Hitler was from the Left, not the Right of the political spectrum.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/iran-threatens-us-contains-israel_631676.html

Iran Threatens, While U.S. Contains Israel
Daniel Halper
February 21, 2012 10:21 AM

NBC reports: "Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt its national interests were endangered, the deputy head of the Islamic Republic's armed forces was quoted by a semi-official news agency as saying Tuesday. . . . Iran announced air defense war games to practice protecting nuclear and other sensitive sites, the latest in a series of military maneuvers viewed as a message to the West that Iran is prepared both to defend itself against an armed strike and to retaliate."

And America's posture toward the Iranians? Warning the Israelis not to strike. "We think that it's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran," Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Gen. Martin Dempsey said over the weekend on CNN. "I mean, that's been our counsel to our allies, the Israelis, well-known, well-documented."

As a Wall Street Journal editorial explains:

Is the Obama Administration more concerned that Iran may get a nuclear weapon, or that Israel may use military force to prevent Iran from doing so? The answer is the latter, judging from comments on Sunday by Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey.

Appearing on CNN, General Dempsey sent precisely the wrong message if the main U.S. strategic goal is convincing Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. He said the U.S. is urging Israel not to attack Iran—because Iran hasn't decided to build a bomb, because an Israeli attack probably wouldn't set back Iran by more than a couple of years, and because it would invite retaliation and be "destabilizing" throughout the Middle East. . .

In a single sound bite, General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel's main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn't likely to work in any case, and the U.S. fears Iran's retaliation. It's as if General Dempsey wanted to ratify Iran's rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.

Whole thing here.

Copyright 2012 Weekly Standard LLC.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/w...er-iran-echoes-of-iraq-war-news-analysis.html

News Analysis

In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers Echo​

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 21, 2012

WASHINGTON — The United States has now endured what by some measures is the longest period of war in its history, with more than 6,300 American troops killed and 46,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ultimate costs estimated at $3 trillion. Both wars lasted far longer than predicted. The outcomes seem disappointing and uncertain.

So why is there already a new whiff of gunpowder in the air?

Talk of war over Iran’s nuclear program has reached a strident pitch in recent weeks, as Israel has escalated threats of a possible strike, the oratory of American politicians has become more bellicose and Iran has responded for the most part defiantly. With Israel and Iran exchanging accusations of assassination plots, some analysts see a danger of blundering into a war that would inevitably involve the United States.

Echoes of the period leading up to the Iraq war in 2003 are unmistakable, igniting a familiar debate over whether journalists are overstating Iran’s progress toward a bomb. Yet there is one significant difference: by contrast with 2003, when the Bush administration portrayed Iraq as an imminent threat, Obama administration officials and intelligence professionals seem eager to calm the feverish language.

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a CNN interview on Sunday that the United States had advised Israel that a strike now would be “destabilizing,” adding that Iran had not yet decided whether to build a weapon. And American officials are weighing an Iranian offer to renew nuclear talks as a stream of threats from Tehran continued on Tuesday and international nuclear inspectors reported their mission to Iran had failed.

Still, unforeseen events can create their own momentum. Graham Allison, a leading expert on nuclear strategy at Harvard University, has long compared the evolving conflict over Iran’s nuclear program to a “slow-motion Cuban missile crisis,” in which each side has only murky intelligence, tempers run high and there is the danger of a devastating outcome.

“As a student of history, I’m certainly conscious that when you have heated politics and incomplete control of events, it’s possible to stumble into a war,” Mr. Allison said. Watching Iran, Israel and the United States, he said, “you can see the parties, slowly but almost inexorably, moving to a collision.”

Another critical difference from the prewar discussion in 2003 is the central role of Israel, which views the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to its very existence and has warned that Iran’s nuclear facilities may soon be buried too deep for foreign bombers to reach.

Israel’s stance has played out politically in the United States. With the notable exception of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, Republican presidential candidates have kept up a competition in threatening Iran and portraying themselves as protectors of Israel. A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday released a letter to President Obama saying that new talks could prove a “dangerous distraction,” allowing Iran to buy time to move closer to developing a weapon.

Despite a decade of war, most Americans seem to endorse the politicians’ martial spirit. In a Pew Research Center poll this month, 58 percent of those surveyed said the United States should use military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Only 30 percent said no.

“I find it puzzling,” said Richard K. Betts of Columbia University, who has studied security threats since the cold war. “You’d think there would be an instinctive reason to hold back after two bloody noses in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

In the same survey, 75 percent of respondents said that Mr. Obama was withdrawing troops from Afghanistan at the right pace or not quickly enough, a finding in keeping with many indications of war weariness.

Micah Zenko, who studies conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, sees an old pattern. “It’s true throughout history: there’s always the belief that the next war will go much better than the last war,” he said.

Faced with an intractable security challenge, both politicians and ordinary people “want to ‘do something,’ ” Mr. Zenko said. “And nothing ‘does something’ like military force.”

Yet it is the military and intelligence establishment that has quietly sought to counter politicians’ bold language about Iran’s nuclear program, which the Iranians contend is solely for peaceful purposes. At a hearing last week, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, pressed James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence.

“Do you have doubt about the Iranians’ intention when it comes to making a nuclear weapon?” Mr. Graham asked.

“I do,” Mr. Clapper replied.

“You doubt whether or not they’re trying to create a nuclear bomb?” Mr. Graham persisted.

“I think they are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision,” Mr. Clapper replied. “But there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time,” he added, apparently a reference to specific steps to prepare a nuclear device. Haunting such discussions is the memory of the Iraq war. The intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, which was one of the Bush administration’s main rationales for the invasion, proved to be devastatingly wrong. And the news media, including The New York Times, which ultimately apologized to readers for some of its coverage of claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, are again under scrutiny by critics wary of exaggerated threats.

Both the ombudsman of The Washington Post and the public editor of The New York Times in his online blog have scolded their newspapers since December for overstating the current evidence against Iran in particular headlines and stories. Amid the daily drumbeat about a possible war, the hazard of an assassination or a bombing setting off a conflict inadvertently worries some analysts. After a series of killings of Iranian scientists widely believed to be the work of Israel, Israeli diplomats in three countries were the targets last week of bombs suspected to have been planted by Iranians.

In October, an Iranian American was charged in what American authorities assert was an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States, possibly by bombing a Washington restaurant. Mr. Clapper, the intelligence director, told Congress in January that the accusation demonstrated that Iranian officials “are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

An actual Iranian attack inside the United States — possibly following an Israeli strike on Iran — would inevitably result in calls for an American military retaliation.

Peter Feaver of Duke University, who has long studied public opinion about war and worked in the administration of President George W. Bush, said the Obama administration’s policy was now “in the exact middle of American public opinion on Iran” — taking a hard line against a nuclear-armed Iran, yet opposing military action for now and escalating sanctions. But as the November election approaches, Mr. Feaver said, inflammatory oratory is likely to increase, even if it is unsuited to a problem as complicated as Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“This is the standard danger of talking about foreign policy crises in a campaign,” he said. “If you try to explain a complex position, you sound hopelessly vague.”

A version of this news analysis appeared in print on February 22, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers Echo.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-21/american-prisoner-iran-death/53199244/1

Mother visits American sentenced to death in Iran
Updated 1h 2m ago

FLINT, Mich. (AP) – The mother of a former U.S. Marine sentenced to death in Iran on a spying conviction has visited her son in an Iranian prison, a spokesman for the Michigan family said Tuesday.

Eric Volz said that Benhaz Hekmati was able to see her 28-year-old son Amir several times during a visit to Iran. The visit was first reported by The New York Times.

Volz said the trip went well, and there were no problems with the interactions she had with Iranian authorities. She has since returned home, he said.

*
STORY: Iran sentences Michigan man to death

The visit is a possible good sign that the Iranians may be willing to discuss his case further. Tensions have been high for years between the U.S. and Iran, and several dual citizens have been jailed by the Iranian government on various charges.

Amir Hekmati is a former military translator and holds dual U.S.-Iranian citizenship. He was born in Arizona and attended high school in Michigan.

Hekmati's family said he was in Iran to visit his grandmothers when he was arrested. Iranian prosecutors say Hekmati was working for the CIA.

Iran accuses Hekmati of receiving special training and serving at U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan before heading to Iran for an alleged intelligence mission. In December, Iran broadcast a video on state television in which Hekmati was shown delivering a purported confession in which he said he was part of a plot to infiltrate Iran's Intelligence Agency.

He was sentenced to death in January. The U.S. government has called Hekmati a victim of false charges.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/middleeast/iranian-ships-reported-to-leave-syria.html

The New York Times
February 21, 2012
Syrian Allies Reject Calls for Unified Pressure to Halt Violence
By ROD NORDLAND

CAIRO — China, Russia and Iran all made declarations of support for the Syrian government on Tuesday, reaffirming their alliances in the face of broad, intense international lobbying for unity against President Bashar al-Assad as his nearly yearlong crackdown on domestic opponents has sharpened against restive areas.

The worst violence on Tuesday was reported in the central city of Homs, which has been under sustained assault for more than two weeks. The day’s toll of that city’s residents, as compiled by various groups that try to track the violence from inside and outside the country, ranged from 16 to more than 40 killed. At the same time, the faction of the opposition that is armed has claimed several more lives, according to the Syrian government, whose news agency reported the funerals of three soldiers killed in or near Damascus and in the city of Hama, to the north.

Russia announced that it would not participate in a meeting in Tunisia on Friday of a contact group of Western and Arab nations, Friends of Syria, where opposition figures were expected to lobby for greater international recognition and support. The Syrian government’s news agency, SANA, reported that a Chinese special envoy to the Middle East, Wu Sike, visited Damascus on Tuesday and called for dialogue with all sides in the crisis. SANA also reported from Beijing on a news conference by the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Hong Li, in which he called for “the international community to respect the sovereignty, stability and unity of Syria.”

Mr. Li did not say whether China would attend the Friends of Syria conference.

Iranian officials, at a regular foreign ministry news conference in Tehran, did not explicitly discuss the conference, but denounced Western meddling in the affairs of its longstanding ally as benefiting Israel at the expense of those who resist its power. “What is happening in Syria serves the best interests of Israel and weakens the resistance,” said a ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, as quoted by SANA.

But the United States threw some of the Iranian’s support for Syria into question, suggesting that Iran’s reports that it has sent two warships to help train Syrian forces were false. “We have absolutely no indication whatsoever the Iranian ships ever docked in Syrian ports,” a Pentagon spokesman, George Little, was quoted by Reuters as saying.

Iran’s Press TV satellite broadcaster had said the two ships, a destroyer and a supply ship, docked in Tartus on Saturday “to provide maritime training to naval forces of Syria under an agreement signed between Tehran and Damascus a year ago.”

Red Cross officials did not respond to calls on Tuesday seeking to establish whether the organization’s efforts to secure even a brief ceasefire from government forces had been successful. But based on reports from activist groups and official Syrian media, the violence appeared unabated. Foreign journalists are generally not allowed in Syria, so such reports cannot be verified.

The assault on Homs appeared to be a continuation of the government attack on the city that began Feb. 4, after China and Russia vetoed a resolution condemning the violence and backing an Arab League plan for Mr. Assad to step aside. (Last week, in the strongest international rebuke to date, the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to pass the same resolution in nonbinding form.)

A new Cairo-based group, the Activist News Association, has been collecting information from a network of “citizen journalist” contacts inside of Syria. Rami Jarrah, a Syrian activist who helped create the group, said that Syrian government and ground forces were massing outside of Homs. “Active resistance has long since stopped but the government is using the excuse of ‘armed resistance’, in quotes, to continue this bombardment,” Mr. Jarrah said. “They’re killing the democratic movement.”

Based on photographs of victims sent from inside Syria, he said, at least 79 deaths took place around the country on Tuesday, 46 of them in Homs, where shelling of the Sunni Arab neighborhood of Baba Amr was particularly heavy, and 33 in Idlib to the north. That toll was likely to rise, he said.

Another exile activist group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, reported that in the northern city of Aleppo, unknown gunmen shot and killed Mohammad Ramadan, a businessman who supported the government. It also reported scattered protests and skirmishing in the capital, Damascus, where a group of youths raised an opposition flag at the Al-Jaawzeh Bridge at the southern entrance of the capital, the London-based Observatory said.

Meanwhile, the Hamas authorities in the Gaza Strip allowed Palestinians to demonstrate against Mr. Assad for the first time, a move that came weeks after the top Hamas leadership abandoned its longtime base in Damascus. The unusual rally was organized by a group called the Palestinian Gathering to Support Syrian People, a new body run by the sons of late Hamas leaders from Gaza.

About 200 students rallied at Islamic University before marching with Palestinian and Syrian flags to downtown Gaza. There, some 100 more Palestinians joined the rally, including women. The protesters burned posters of Mr. Assad and carried banners bearing slogans like “Allah, Syria and Freedom,” and “Shame on Child Murderers.”

The Hamas leadership has refused to express support for Mr. Assad despite pressure from Iran, a main backer of Hamas. But with some 650,000 Palestinian refugees living inside Syria, Hamas officials are unlikely to draw Syrian ire by openly criticizing the leadership.

Fares Akram contributed reporting from Gaza.

More in Middle East (1 of 38 articles)
News Analysis: In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers Echo

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/21/rude_awakening

Rude Awakening

Promoting democracy in places like Egypt or Iraq is about changing the status quo. So why are we so surprised when it turns out that not everyone is in favor?
BY CHRISTIAN CARYL | FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Imagine this: You're a member of the post-revolutionary Egyptian cabinet, one of the very last holdovers from the Mubarak era. You also happen to be a civilian, so you can't depend on your buddies in the officers' club to protect you. And on top of everything else you're a woman, in a society that doesn't exactly have a rich history of high-ranking female politicians. What do you do to shore up your career?

Why, you go after the Americans, of course.

Faiza Abul-Naga, Egypt's somewhat ironically titled Minister of International Cooperation, has vastly boosted her notoriety by placing herself at the center of a scandal involving U.S. democracy assistance. On December 29, Egyptian security forces raided the offices of 17 local and foreign non-government organizations around the country, accusing them of the illegal use of funds and various other crimes. (The photo above shows Egyptian security forces guarding the Cairo office of the U.S. National Democratic Instititue, one of the U.S. groups raided.) Several observers, including U.S. Senator John McCain, have pointed the finger at Abul-Naga, who is said to have orchestrated the crackdown on NGOs as a way of diverting attention from the poor performance of the military-led government. The minister is not making any effort dispel that impression: "Every country has pressure cards in the political field," she apparently told an Egyptian newspaper. "Egypt is no exception."

The U.S. reaction veered between indignation and disbelief. "We are very concerned because this is not appropriate in the current environment," said U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. The raids put Egypt's ruling military junta and the U.S. "on an unprecedented collision course," puffed Newsweek. Analysts dutifully pointed out that the raids could jeopardize the $1.3 billion in direct aid the U.S. pays to the Egyptian military each year. Now the Egyptians say they're preparing to put the 43 civil society workers they've arrested (including 16 Americans) on trial for their presumed offenses.

Amid all the fuss linger several unanswered questions: Why would the generals do such a stupid thing? Are they thinking straight? Are they really in control? After all, the organizations under attack are simply trying to promote democracy and help build institutions in the wake of Egypt's chaotic revolution. Surely even the generals ought to be able to understand that such efforts are in the interest of all Egyptians.

In fact, though, the commentators should have been asking a different question about Abul-Naga -- namely, what took her so long. After all, the Americans have been deeply unpopular in Egypt for years. Washington supported Mubarak for decades. Washington is a close friend of Israel. Washington has been invading and occupying Muslim countries. A recent Gallup Poll showed that 70 percent of Egyptians were opposed to further U.S. funding to their country, which they view (without knowing much about the details) as interference in their internal affairs. It shouldn't really come as a surprise that some enterprising Egyptian politician decided to capitalize on such sentiments.

To understand Egypt's NGO scandal, it might help to look at another Arab country where the U.S. has spent billions trying to promote democratic institutions: Iraq. Earlier this month The New York Times reported that Washington is planning to slash the civilian presence at its massive embassy in Baghdad. Though the State Department pushed back against the paper's claim that the plans could mean a 50 percent reduction in the staff there, it still looks likely that the cuts will be substantial.

What's obvious, though, is that the Americans are not going to be able to maintain the ambitious presence that they had hoped would buttress their influence in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. As recently as a year ago, we were still being told that the embassy's civilian staff would grow even as the troops departed. But now that the "war on terror" seems to be winding down, so, too, is enthusiasm for the much-touted civilian engagement that was supposed to reinforce and extend America's achievements on the battlefield. Remember all that impressive talk from Hillary Clinton about ramping up "civilian power"?

That's history now. For one thing, America has already spent reams of money to fund grand democracy-building exercises like the ones followed its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Those efforts were never particularly popular with ordinary Americans even before the financial crisis devastated the U.S. economy. Remember how George W. Bush campaigned against "nation building" as a presidential candidate back in 2000? President Obama returned to the theme last year, memorably declaring in one of his speeches last year that "it is time to focus on nation-building here at home."

Promoting sound institutions and good governance in other countries was never going to be a push-over. It requires enormous amounts of time and labor. It's expensive. And it's hard to track results. Here's what one Iraqi who works for a U.S.-funded NGO wrote me in a recent email:

For more than a year now there have been signs that the U.S. is losing interest in the civilian aspects of the transition in Iraq -- transparency, accountability, rule of law, participation, rights, etc. It's sad to watch. There is a U.S. psychological retreat that began when the last Provincial Reconstruction Teams were closed down, in September 2010 I believe, accompanied by American disappointment in the results of U.S. involvement in Iraq since 2003... The political problems in Iraq were so intractable in 2010 and 2011 and stability so precarious -- still is -- that the U.S. has little leisure to worry about democracy, rule of law, etc...

The other point of this story it's that it's not at all clear that the Iraqi government wants those civilians to be in Baghdad in the first place. The Times story pointed out that one of the major problems that could be prompting the drawdown is the Iraqi government's reluctance to issue visas and permits to the people who are supposed to work at the embassy. Many of those people, it turns out, are private security contractors -- widely hated by the Iraqis since the notorious 2007 incident involving guards from the now-defunct security company Blackwater, who were accused of shooting 17 Iraqi civilians.

The Iraqi resentment of such firms, which during the U.S. occupation all too often acted like a law unto themselves, is entirely understandable. The problem is that the civilians who have far more benign agendas -- like, say, the United States Institutes of Peace staffers who have been training local Iraqis in the urgently needed skill of conflict resolution -- can't do their work without guards to protect them.

But it doesn't stop there. The Iraqi government also has its equivalents of Faiza Abul-Naga. For them, the presence of all those police instructors and anti-corruption consultants is an affront, an irritant, and perhaps even a threat. Of late, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki has shown every indication that he aims to concentrate power in himself, his political party, and his Shiite sectarian brethren. Does he really care whether those U.S.-funded democracy promoters get their visas? Probably the opposite.

We Americans tend to see promoting democracy in other societies as a gentle, win-win, do-gooding exercise. What we tend to forget, though, is that introducing democratic institutions into previously authoritarian societies means changing the structure of power. And we should hardly expect those who are losing power to step aside quietly. Those catchwords so favored by the humanitarians may sound harmless, but in certain quarters they have explosive force. "Transparency" is a curse to the intriguer in the shadows. "Accountability" is a nightmare for the unelected autocrat. And "good governance" fills the corrupt official with dread.

Do I believe that democracy promoters (American and otherwise) should keep doing what they're doing? Absolutely. But those of us who hail them for their efforts should never forget that what they're doing is not charity work. It's politics. And politics is no business for the faint of heart.

Christian Caryl, a senior fellow at the Legatum Institute and a contributing editor of Foreign Policy, is the editor of Democracy Lab.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/21/playing_a_dangerous_game_in_egypt

Playing a dangerous game in Egypt
Posted By Mohamed El Dahshan Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 10:20 AM

I've been waiting for this story to die away but it doesn't appear to want to. I'm observing its escalation with amused horror. Amused, because it looks like the Egyptian military government is effectively bullying the U.S. in a crisis neither really controls. Horror, because when all is said and done the losers will be the Egyptian people.

A brief recap: In December, the Egyptian authorities raided the offices of 17 humanitarian organizations. The police confiscated documents, money, computers. The government, basing its actions on a shameful and draconian Mubarak-era law, accused the groups of receiving illegal funding from overseas and operating in Egypt without proper registration.

Four of the 17 are U.S.-based organizations: the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ), and Freedom House. One is German, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. Several of the groups' staffers, including such notable figures as Nasser Amin, director of the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and Legal Profession, were detained and questioned for hours on end.

The charges are ludicrous. Suffices it to say that the "revelations" publicized by the investigating judge include things like "maps of Egypt divided into four" found in the offices of one organization, cited as evidence of a nefarious plan to fragment the country. The organization in question responded that those were government-supplied maps that showed voting districts.

The funding for these groups is generally quite transparent, and all of them have filed for registration, some as early as 2005 - without ever receiving a response, positive or negative. It's also hard to claim that they've been operating out of the public eye, since they all regularly cooperate with state public institution. Both IRI and NDI were authorized to deploy election monitors to the parliamentary elections in November and January.

The only thing these organizations really did wrong was to fall in the same trap as many of us Egyptians: they assumed that freedom was on the rise. They failed to foresee the forces that were pushing in the opposite direction, or that these forces might rely on Mubarak-era dictatorial laws to prosecute them. Perhaps we should have all seen it coming. After all, the person behind this latest attack on our liberties is the minister of international cooperation, Fayza Abul-Naga, a Mubarak-era relic who has outlived a revolution and three post-revolutionary cabinets. She's the one who has been spearheading the attacks -- with the blessing of the ruling military body, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

On Feb. 6, the Egyptian authorities announced they would refer 43 people to a criminal court for trial. Of those, 19 are US citizens. Some sought refuge at the U.S. embassy. All are banned from leaving the country.

Why now? Some members of Egyptian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) believe that the purpose is to divert attention away from the military's own shortcomings by creating a hypothetical foreign attack on national sovereignty even while intimidating the very organizations most likely to criticize them for poor governance.

The American government is understandably nervous. Its official statements have wavered between miscomprehension, delicate diplomacy, and forceful objection. On Feb. 14, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo felt compelled to issue a "fact sheet" explaining the rationale behind American support for organizations promoting democracy and human rights overseas. The whole exercise felt embarrassingly tentative.

Lately the U.S. has also been sending emissaries to Cairo to clean up the mess. On Sunday, visiting Senator John McCain, who had just met with senior officials, predicted that the Egyptian government would "find an acceptable solution" to the row.(He's shown in the photo above, during a Cairo press conference with three of his fellow senators.)

The U.S. government, of course, is not a disinterested bystander. Each year Washington pays a grant of $1.3 billion to the Egyptian military (significant amounts of which, it should be noted, are siphoned off for non-military purposes). An additional $250 million (less than a fifth of the military aid) goes to food and other economic assistance. So theoretically this should give the U.S. some leverage. Members of the U.S. Congress recently tabled bills that threatened to cut aid to Cairo if the issue isn't resolved. Earlier this month 41 members of Congress sent a letter to the same effect to SCAF head Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi.

Even though I'm one of many who believe the United States should stop bankrolling dictatorial governments, these threats won't be enough to solve the impasse. Here's why:

First, the threat to cut aid just doesn't look serious. Two congressmen submit bills to restrict assistance to Egypt, but said funds remain unchanged in President Obama's proposal for the 2012 federal budget. Washington issues threats from afar but when its envoys arrive in Egypt they're all smiles and seem intent on avoiding any serious rifts. They know that SCAF holds some good cards - 19 of them, to be exact. And in the background there's the threat that the government could annul the Egypt-Israel 1979 peace treaty, a cornerstone of U.S. regional policy as well as the main motive for American military aid to Egypt.

Second, the SCAF has complete control over the state media in Egypt, and for a year now it's been using that control to create a surge of xenophobia. These latest accusations against the NGOs give it the perfect opportunity to rail against evil American designs on Egypt. After blaming the aid workers for pretty much everything but spreading cholera or kidnapping babies, last week it turned on the long-established American University in Cairo, indirectly accusing its faculty and students of being a "tool" of the American government. Then, via its Muslim Brotherhood allies, it turned its fire on Anne Paterson, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, accusing her of "leading a U.S.-Zionist scheme to induce sedition in Egypt as she did in [her previous posting in] Pakistan." These are a lot of fronts for the U.S. to fight on at once, and the Americans are likely to prefer resolving the issue as rapidly as possible.

It may sound irrational for a client state to play chicken with its benefactor, but from its own perspective SCAF doesn't really have anything to lose. That's because SCAF isn't betting with its own money: it's betting with Egypt's finances as well as its international reputation and credibility - but as it has repeatedly shown over the past year, these are things it doesn't really seem to care about much. Sure, the U.S. provides subsidies for wheat, a staple of the Egyptian diet. But the army produces its own bread, so there's no need to worry about that. And so what if xenophobia is on the rise, the tourism industry decimated? None of that has much bearing on the army's resources.

If SCAF wins and the U.S. folds, that will reinforce SCAF's brutal hold over Egyptian civil society while maintaining its funding.

And even if the Americans follow through on their threats to curtail aid, SCAF will win populist points (heartily supported by the state media machine) for having "stood up" to the United States. And the generals will have no scruples about making up the difference from the national budget, especially when it's controlled by their political allies from the Muslim Brotherhood, which now dominates Parliament. In fact, SCAF's cheerleaders have been suggesting raising the equivalent amount of the U.S. assistance from all Egyptians under the guise of "achieving sovereignty." (That this would primarily benefit SCAF at the expense of ordinary people goes without saying.)

And now the Muslim Brotherhood has chimed in, declaring it will seek to review the Egypt-Israel 1979 peace treaty if the United States cuts assistance to the country.

An end to the crisis is probably near. Everyone, including SCAF, realizes that the accusations are a sham, and that the whole thing is intended to intimidate civil society and thwart criticism of the government's human rights violations. The accused Egyptians and Americans will be eventually acquitted (the Americans probably sooner). The terms of their release are unknown, but they will almost certainly include maintaining U.S. aid. The main victims will be weakened Egyptian civil society, Egypt's public image in the U.S., and U.S.-Egyptian relations as a whole.

There are, however, a few signs of hope. One of them is that the congressional debate about aid to Egypt may finally help Americans to comprehend the extent to which subsidizing a military dictatorship damages U.S. standing. If that actually comes about, then this whole crisis will not have been in vain.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://mideastposts.com/2012/02/22/in-new-egypt-old-divides-still-rule/

In New Egypt, Old Divides Still Rule
Added by Rania Al Malky on 22/02/2012.
Saved under Crime, Egypt, Featured, Life
Tags: Christians, Coptic, Egypt, Sectarian

With a renewed wave of sectarian clashes and heightened tension between Egypt and the US over the “NGO hostage crisis”, the new Egypt doesn’t seem so new after all.

The Muslim-Christian violence in Amreya, just outside Alexandria, triggered by the all too familiar inter-religious love affairs, or rumors to that effect, saw a deplorable precedent in dealing with such issues.

Following customary law reconciliation sessions led by the constituency’s MPs, affiliated with the Salafi Al-Nour Party, and the village elders, it was decided that eight “culprit” Coptic families would leave their homes in the village of Sharbat. A committee was also set up to sell their property, in a decision that was officially rejected by the Melli Council of the Orthodox Church in Alexandria and several rights groups.

Hundreds of the village’s Muslim residents had attacked on Jan. 27 the home and shops of a Coptic tailor, Murad Girgis, and property belonging to his family, after the circulation of video footage showing an illicit relationship between him and a Muslim woman.

Fearing for his life, Girgis handed himself over to the police but the homes and shops of relatives were still later set on fire.

Reactions to the strange turn of events by political players have either been muted or utterly unacceptable. Even though the developments were criticized by PA Speaker Saad El Katatny, who had stepped down from his leading position in the Muslim Brotherhood group’s political arm the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) to accept his role as house speaker in the FJP-dominated lower house of parliament, the FJP’s official reaction was vague at best.

An article published on the party’s website on Feb. 15 said that Hossam Al-Wakil, FJP media spokesman in Alexandria, claimed that Copts in the Alexandria village lived among Muslims “without any problems whatsoever.”

To add insult to injury, he said that “the crisis that broke out between Muslims and Christians … ended with a decision by the village’s residents to remove the people of both Christian and Muslim families involved only, in order to prevent further bloodshed and sectarian [clashes]”, clearly trumpeting the “solution” as a breakthrough in handling messy sectarian squabbles.

An informal delegation of 16 MPs and community leaders met Thursday for an eight-hour session in an area near the village, after which Coptic MP Ihab Ramzy declared in a joint statement the delegation’s condemnation of the lack of rule of law and announced that the families will return to their homes as soon as the rebuilding in complete. He added that separate criminal investigation is already underway. A Coptic clergyman who attended the session also condemned the media’s use of the term “displacement” to describe the “temporary removal” of the families, stressing that the political outbidding by some parties and interest groups was unacceptable and betrayed a lack of understanding of the social nature and customs of tribes in his village.

The compound layers of reservations I have about how this issue has been mishandled cannot be overstated.

First, the delayed response by the security officials. In fact, it is abundantly clear that there was hardly any security presence in the village when people’s homes and shops were deliberately burnt to the ground. And if there was enough police, how could they have failed so miserably to stop the arson?

Second, the very notion that by removing the “guilty parties” whether Muslim, Christian or both, from the village, is sufficient to resolve the issue is fundamentally wrong. While it may be seen as a temporary panacea, it is in fact more likely to backfire both inside the village in question and nation-wide, leading to a copycat incidents that can even be contrived to create a veneer of legitimacy for a minority of vocal extremists wishing to “purge” their villages from Coptic residents whose ancestors have lived on the land for centuries. In short: this is a very dangerous precedent even though it is being framed as a temporary measure.

Third, the farcical idea that the police is undertaking a serious criminal investigation enjoys zero credibility. If such investigations had ever been serious, then why is it that to this day there has been no disclosure of who was behind the Al-Qeddisin Church bombing on New Year’s eve last year, or Atfih, Imbaba and Maspero, to name a few examples from 2011 alone? Paying lip service to calls for implementing the rule of law in a transparent process where culprits on both sides are punished for criminal behavior without any pressure by either side to skew the results of the investigation, is not enough. The state, specifically the interior ministry, must create a mechanism through which to report to the public the developments in probes of such high-profile and politically-sensitive issues.

Fourth, the FJP’s perpetuation of our culture of “burying our heads in the sand” is a far cry from the party’s thunderous statements about achieving justice. When their official spokesman claims that there are no problems in the blighted village and welcomes a disastrous move to displace families on both sides as a viable solution, then what exactly have they achieved to prove that they are at the forefront of a new Egypt?

Half-baked measures that do more harm than good, the false, self-congratulating attitude of the holier-than-thous, which leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of the victims and anyone who believes in unwavering justice, are not what we expected in the wake of this “glorious revolution”.

 

[Ragnarok]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/21/4279831/pentagon-irans-ships-didnt-dock.html

US softens stance on arms for Syria rebels

By MATTHEW LEE and BRADLEY KLAPPER
Associated Press

Last modified: 2012-02-21T20:35:54Z
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 - 12:10 pm
Last Modified: Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012 - 12:35 pm
Copyright 2012 . All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration opened the door slightly Tuesday to international military assistance for Syria's rebels, with officials saying new tactics may have to be explored if President Bashar Assad continues to defy pressure to halt a brutal crackdown on dissenters.

In coordinated messages, the White House and State Department said they still hope for a political solution. But faced with the daily onslaught by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians, officials dropped the administration's previous strident opposition to arming anti-regime forces. It remained unclear, though, what, if any, role the U.S. might play in providing such aid.

"We don't want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of Syria because that could take the country down a dangerous path," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. "But we don't rule out additional measures if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken."

The administration has previously said flatly that more weapons are not the answer to the Syrian situation. There had been no mention of "additional measures."

At the State Department, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland used nearly identical language to describe the administration's evolving position.

"From our perspective, we don't believe that it makes sense to contribute now to the further militarization of Syria," she told reporters. "What we don't want to see is the spiral of violence increase. That said, if we can't get Assad to yield to the pressure that we are all bringing to bear, we may have to consider additional measures."

Neither Carney nor Nuland would elaborate on what "additional measures" might be taken but there have been growing calls, including from some in Congress, for the international community to arm the rebels. Most suggestions to that effect have foreseen Arab nations such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia - and not the West - possibly providing military assistance.

Other officials said discussions are now under way about adding a military component to a package of humanitarian and political aid to the opposition that's to be discussed at a major international conference on Syria this week in Tunisia.

More than 70 countries have been invited to meet Friday in Tunisia for a "Friends of Syria" meeting. The meeting follows the failure of the UN Security Council to endorse an Arab plan that would have seen Assad removed from power.

The meeting of the "Friends of Syria" in Tunis is not likely to produce decisions on military aid or even recognition of Syria's disparate opposition groups, according to U.S. officials. But countries are considering creating large stockpiles of humanitarian aid along Syria's borders, the officials said.

U.S. officials stressed that discussion of military assistance is still preliminary. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the diplomacy. To maintain the pressure against Assad, Washington is trying to keep as many countries as possible involved in the international coordination against Syria's government - even if there is no consensus strategy on arming the rebels.

This week's talks will seek to clarify some of the confusion. The U.S. is trying to get a clearer picture of what promises countries such as Syria's Arab neighbors are making to elements of the opposition; which rebels each government might support; and some agreement on what types of assistance would be helpful or damaging.

The backdrop to the discussions is the increasing fear that Syria could descend into an all-out civil war.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon on Tuesday disputed reports that Iranian ships docked at a Syrian port over the weekend.

Iranian state-run Press TV said Saturday that an Iranian navy destroyer and a supply ship had docked in the port of Tartus to provide training to ally Syria's naval forces, as Syria tries to crush the opposition movement.

But Defense Department press secretary George Little said Tuesday the U.S. military saw no indication that the ships docked or delivered any cargo. Little said Tehran's ships went through the Suez Canal and now appear to be going back through the canal again.

Al Qaeda urges Muslims to help Syria rebels
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57376121/al-qaeda-urges-muslims-to-help-syria-rebels/

Al Qaeda Backs Syrian Rebels
http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/13/e...b-league-vows-increased-support-for-uprising/

So... Just like we did in Iran, by backing the al qaeda linked Jundallah, we are aligning ourselves with the very "terrorists" we are sending our sons and daughters of to die in the "war" against them...

Jundallah was formed in 2003 and is believed to have about 1000 members. Its base of operations is in Pakistan's Baluchestan province. Jundallah is led by Albolmalek Rigi, a Sunni fundamentalist. Jundallah is a Sunni Salafi group, the most extreme sect of Islam, of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda variety, and has links to both groups. Jundallah has been involved in drug trafficking as well.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/10/jundallah.html#ixzz1f7byiQxa

Jundullah was allegedly headed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaeda operational commander of the September 11 terrorist attack in the US.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jundullah#Background




...So, Jundallah is an affiliate of al-qaeda, just as the Syrian rebels are being supported by al qaeda and any support of them by US citizen's is subject to arrest...




According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran
that are benefitting from U.S. support.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-black-ops-against-Iran.html

What kind of bizarro world is this??

 

[DennisRGH]

Thanks to Dutch, Housecarl and all newshounds here.

The Iranians love to be in the news on the world stage, that's for sure. They ask for negotiations, and allow inspectors in, but don't let them inspect anything. They are doing themselves more harm than good. OR, are they doing it on purpose? Afterall, they have been daring the West to strike, for years now. Crafty. They are playing a game with the West. methinks.

 

[Housecarl]

Well this isn't going to go away any time soon apparently...

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/police-anti-american-demos-afghanistan-cities-15763273

Police: Anti-American Demos in Afghanistan Cities

Comment
KABUL, Afghanistan February 22, 2012 (AP)

Police say anti-American demonstrations are under way on the outskirts of the Afghan capital and in another city over an incident that the U.S. says was inadvertent burning of Muslim holy books at a military base.

Kabul provincial police spokesman Ashmatullah Stanekzai says hundreds of people are gathering on Wednesday outside the Camp Phoenix base on the main highway linking Kabul with the eastern Jalalabad city, closing the main trade route.

Police in Jalalabad say thousands are gathering in parts of the city to demonstrate.

The U.S. apologized Tuesday for the burning of books, including Qurans, that had been pulled from the shelves of a detention center library adjoining Bagram air base because they contained extremist messages or inscriptions.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S. apologized Tuesday for the burning of Muslim holy books that had been pulled from the shelves of a detention center library adjoining a major base in eastern Afghanistan because they contained extremist messages or inscriptions.

null
AP
An Afghan protestor, left, shouts slogans... View Full Caption

The White House echoed military officials in saying that the burning of Qurans and other Islamic reading material that had been tossed in a pile of garbage was an accident.

But more than 2,000 Afghans protested the incident outside the Bagram Air Base that stoked rising anti-foreign sentiment and fueled Afghan claims that foreign troops disrespect their culture and Islamic religion even as the Americans and other NATO forces prepare to withdraw by the end of 2014.

Demonstrators who gathered outside Bagram Air Field, one of the largest U.S. bases in Afghanistan, shouted, "Die, die, foreigners!" Some fired rifles into the air. Others threw rocks at the gate of the base and set tires on fire.

U.S. Gen. John Allen, the top commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said the books had been mistakenly given to troops to be burned at a garbage pit at Bagram, a sprawling U.S. military base north of the Afghan capital, Kabul.

"It was not a decision that was made because they were religious materials," Allen said. "It was not a decision that was made with respect to the faith of Islam. It was a mistake. It was an error. The moment we found out about it we immediately stopped and we intervened."

The Quran is the most sacred object in the daily lives of Muslims and burning it is considered an offense against God. The Quran is so important in the faith that Islamic teaching spells out how it should be handled, including directing anyone who touches it to be in a state of ritual purity. Muslims can only dispose of Qurans in very specific ways, including burning or burying those that have been damaged or corrupted to prevent God's word from being defiled.

A Western military official with knowledge of the incident said it appeared that the Qurans and other Islamic readings in the library were being used to fuel extremism, and that detainees at Parwan Detention Facility, which adjoins Bagram, were writing on the documents to exchange extremist messages. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The military official said that several hundred Islamic publications, including Qurans, were removed from the library. Some of the publications had extremist content; others had extremist messages written on their pages by detainees, the official said. The official said the documents were charred and burnt, but none of them were destroyed.

"We will look into the reason those materials were gathered," Allen said. "We will look into the manner in which the decision was made to dispose of them in this manner."

Allen issued a new directive ordering all coalition forces in Afghanistan to complete training in the proper handling of religious materials no later than March 3. The training will include the identification of religious materials, their significance, correct handling and storage, he said.

The White House also apologized, with press secretary Jay Carney saying it was a "deeply unfortunate incident" that doesn't reflect the respect the U.S. military has for the religious practices of the Afghan people. Carney did not address details about what occurred.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta added his voice, saying he disapproved of the conduct. He promised to review the results of the coalition's investigation to ensure that all steps are taken to prevent it from happening again.

In a statement, Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the incident and appointed a delegation to investigate. He said initial reports were that four Qurans were burned.

Early Tuesday, as word of the incident spread, about 100 demonstrators gathered outside the base in Parwan province. As the crowd grew, so did the outrage.

One protester, Mohammad Hakim, said if U.S. forces can't bring peace to Afghanistan, they should go home.

"They should leave Afghanistan rather than disrespecting our religion, our faith," Hakim said. "They have to leave and if next time they disrespect our religion, we will defend our holy Quran, religion and faith until the last drop of blood has left in our body."

Ahmad Zaki Zahed, chief of the provincial council, said U.S. military officials took him to a burn pit on the base where 60 to 70 books, including Qurans, were recovered. The books were used by detainees once incarcerated at the base, he said.

"Some were all burned. Some were half-burned," Zahed said, adding that he did not know exactly how many Qurans had been burned.

Zahed said five Afghans working at the pit told him that the religious books were in the garbage that two soldiers with the U.S.-led coalition transported to the pit in a truck Monday night. When they realized the books were in the trash, the laborers quickly worked to recover them, he said.

"The laborers there showed me how their fingers were burned when they took the books out of the fire," he said.

Afghan Army Gen. Abdul Jalil Rahimi, the commander of a military coordination office in the province, said he and other officials met with protesters, tribal elders and clerics to try to calm their emotional response. "The protesters were very angry and didn't want to end their protest," he said.

Later, however, the protesters ended the rally and said they would send 20 representatives from the group to Kabul to talk with Afghan parliamentarians and demanded a meeting with Karzai, Rahimi said.

The governor's office in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan called the incident a "shameful move by some stupid individuals."

Zia Ul Rahman, deputy provincial police chief, said between 2,000 and 2,500 protesters demonstrated at the base.

"The people are very angry. The mood is very negative," Rahman said while the rally was going on. "Some are firing hunting guns in the air, but there have been no casualties."

Police said a similar protest on Tuesday just east of Kabul ended peacefully.

In April 2011, Afghans protesting the burning of a Quran by a Florida pastor turned deadly when gunmen in the crowd stormed a U.N. compound in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif and killed three staffers and four Nepalese guards.

Also on Tuesday, NATO said four NATO service members were killed in southern Afghanistan — three in a roadside bombing and one in a non-battle related injury. The international military coalition did not give any other details about their deaths. So far this year, 47 NATO service members have been killed in Afghanistan.

———

Associated Press writer Amir Shah contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://rt.com/news/murder-attempt-president-abkhazia-911/

Attempt on life of Abkhazian president

Published: 22 February, 2012, 09:49

An assassination attempt has been made on the President of Republic of Abkhazia Aleksandr Ankvab. The president was unharmed, however, one bodyguard is dead and two more are seriously injured.

*According to an Interfax news agency report, the convoy of the president was blown up by a powerful roadside bomb in the Gadaut region of the republic of Abkhazia, in the North Caucasus. After that, the convoy came under crossfire from a machine gun and a grenade launcher.

The pilot escort car bore the brunt of the assault, which explains the bodyguards being wounded.

Bomb experts are working to verify the capacity of the explosive device.

Ankvab’s convoy was attacked while the president was on the way to his office.

“I was not hurt,” said the president to journalists by phone. He continues working as usual in his office.

Aleksandr Ankvab became the third president of Abkhazia last August, winning the elections with almost 55 per cent of the vote.

Before this morning, there have been several other attempts on Ankvab’s life. Since 2005 his residence and his cars have been hit by RPGs and gunfire five times. He has been wounded on several occasions.

Before becoming president, Aleksandr Ankvab served as prime minister (2005) and vice-president (2009).

Russia recognized the independence from Georgia of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008, after the military conflict in the latter country.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.thenational.ae/thenation...d-line-on-iran-has-left-no-room-to-compromise

The US hard line on Iran has left no room to compromise

Tony Karon
Feb 22, 2012

Listen to Barack Obama explain his Iran policy, and it becomes obvious that the US president has dug himself into a hole.

He's desperate to avoid a war that could be disastrous for America, the Middle East and the world economy, yet he fears that Israel may ignore his concerns and start a fight that could draw in the US.

As a result, the organising principle of his Iran policy appears to be the need to restrain Israel from starting a war - principally by ratcheting up sanctions against Iran, and touting those as a lower-risk option to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Sanctions are working, say administration officials, imploring the Israelis to give the strategy more time. Look, Iran is feeling the heat and signalling a readiness to talk about its nuclear programme.

But the Israelis, by virtue of their military threat, have a veto.

The problem, of course, is that while Iran may be ready to talk, it is not about to capitulate, particularly given the defiance of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who detests being seen to yield to foreign pressure.

At a Senate armed services committee hearing last week, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, the Defense Intelligence Agency chief, bluntly reported that the assessment of the US intelligence community was that despite the unprecedented sanctions, "Iran is not close to agreeing to abandon its nuclear programme."

In the sanctions-as-alternative-to-war logic, that may be a problem, particularly as negotiations are defined as a test of Iran's willingness to cry uncle. Tehran has made clear that it has no intention, right now, of doing that: its nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili suggested that Iran will return "without preconditions" to the negotiating table with the P5+1 (the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany). That means that Iran won't demand that sanctions be ended before talks start, but it also means that Tehran has no intention of heeding western demands that it suspend uranium enrichment as a basis for negotiations. Indeed, Mr Jalili promised that Iran would bring "new initiatives" of its own to the negotiating table.

Iran has previously signalled support for a Russian proposal of sequential steps by both sides to choreograph an easing of sanctions, and Iranian measures to establish confidence in the peaceful intent of its nuclear programme.

Former Iranian diplomat Hossein Mousavian, currently a scholar in residence at Princeton University, suggested last week that a plausible solution would require western powers to accept Iran's right to nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment, and the removal of sanctions. In exchange, Iran would accept maximum transparency requirements under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including intrusive monitoring of all its nuclear work. Tehran would also have to accept limits on its enrichment levels (abandoning enrichment to 20 per cent for medical isotope production) and on the amount of low-enriched uranium it can stockpile - since such materiel can be reprocessed to create bomb materiel - as well as other limits on its nuclear activities during a confidence-building period.

There's no sign that Mr Mousavian's views have the support of Iran's leadership, but if Tehran were willing to move along those lines, that would raise a new headache for the Obama administration, which may have created conditions for itself in which accepting a compromise that leaves Iran with the capacity to build nuclear weapons would be difficult.

Should Iran prove willing to negotiate seriously, the key question will be this: what level of Iranian nuclear capability is the US and its allies prepared to accept, if Tehran satisfies concerns over its previous nuclear work and accepts enhanced inspections and other safeguards against weaponisation?

Until now, Israel and France have insisted that Iran cannot be allowed even the peaceful enrichment capability permitted under the NPT, because of its dual-use potential. The Bush administration concurred, as did the Obama administration initially. More recently, though, the White House has backed a "negotiated solution that restores confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme while respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy consistent with its obligations under the NPT".

It's quite possible, however, for Iran to meet its NPT obligations but at the same time maintain the civilian enrichment technology that would give it the capability to build nuclear weapons. That capacity is currently enjoyed by the likes of Japan, Brazil, Argentina and other NPT signatories. Iran already has that capability, too, although it hasn't yet decided to use it to build bombs, say US intelligence officials. They note that if Tehran broke out of the NPT, it would still take a further two to three years to deploy nuclear warheads.

Still, the political pressures on the US administration are obvious, not only in the Israeli threat of unilateral military action, but also in moves such as the current bipartisan Congressional effort to pass a resolution that would draw the US "red line". That would not be at an Iranian move to weaponise nuclear material, but only at Iran maintaining the capability to build a bomb - which, of course, it already has.

Without Iranian capitulation or military action, the only option left to Mr Obama on this issue is diplomacy. But diplomacy takes time and could involve uncomfortable compromises, which Mr Obama could struggle to make in the face of resistance from the Israelis and their supporters on Capitol Hill in a tough election year.

It may take all of Mr Obama's political and diplomatic nous - and a level of responsible behaviour by the Israelis and Iranians not currently evident in either side's rhetoric - to muddle through to November elections without a new calamity in the Middle East.

Tony Karon is an analyst based in New York.

Follow on Twitter: @TonyKaron

 

[Lee Penn]

Russian Orthodox Church representative predicts global war

FYI. Although this story is from 2/17, it is still news. A spokesman for the Russian Orthodox Church is saying that global war - with annihilation of cities - is almost inevitable.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=9080

=================================================

17 February 2012, 13:59

Russian Church: Global war almost inescapable

Moscow, February 17, Interfax - The current global contradictions could deteriorate into a global war sooner or later, the Moscow Patriarchate said.

"There are many processes ongoing in the world in which Russia should play a much more active role, since the economic and social contradictions that have cropped up in the world are so strong that they are sure to blow up into serious military operations," head of the Synodal Department for Church and Society Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said in an interview with the Svobodnaya Pressa (Free Press) Publishing House.

""In order to ensure that these military operations not unfold in our territory or in the vicinity of our borders, we need to keep our armed forces combat ready and to participate in settling all situations that may lead to a war, be it the Middle East or Central Asia where the situation is also tense," he said.

"By all accounts, we will not manage to escape a big war," he said.

Father Vsevolod also said that the development track of the civilization may lead to the annihilation of cities.

=================================================

Lee