"On October 4, a brief, ominous release came from the state-controlled Saudi Press Agency in Riyadh acknowledging that there had been violent clashes in the eastern city of Qatif ... it pointed the finger of blame for the riots at a "foreign country," a thinly veiled reference to archrival Iran.
... In fact, if there was a moment of the Arab revolt that sounded the death knell for a broad and rapid transition to representative government across the Middle East, it came on the last day of February, when Saudi tanks rolled across the border to help put down the mass uprising that threatened the powers that be in neighboring Bahrain. ... The column of tanks also served as a symbolic shot across the bow of Iran: The brazen move was a clear signal from Riyadh to every state in the Middle East that it would stop at nothing, ranging from soft diplomacy to full-on military engagement, in its determination to lead a region-wide counterrevolution.
From the Arab Spring's beginning, Riyadh reached directly into local conflicts. As far back as January, the kingdom offered refuge to Tunisia's deposed leader, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Eager that popular justice not become the norm for Arab dictators, Riyadh has steadfastly refused to extradite Ben Ali to stand trial. (He remains in Riyadh to this day.) Moreover, Ben Ali's statements, issued through his lawyer, have consistently called on Tunisians to continue the path of "modernization." For fear of upsetting his Saudi hosts, he has not been able to express what must be his horror as a secularist at the dramatic emergence of Ennahda ("Awakening"), the main Islamist party, on the Tunisian political scene. Ennahda's meteoric rise is widely believed to be, at least in part, bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries.
Islamists across the region are working in Riyadh's favor. As with the fall of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Saudis gained newfound influence with the Muslim Brotherhood and its even more hard-line Salfi allies, who reportedly take funds from the Saudis...
All of this makes the situation in Yemen look quite familiar. .... Saleh may not matter much: In the capital of Sana'a, the exhausted protesters have largely departed the main square they had occupied. It has been taken over by activists from Islah (or, the Islamist Congregation for Reform), the country's main Islamist party. Islah was founded by leading members of the powerful, Saudi-backed Hashid tribal confederation, whose decision to turn against Saleh was a key moment in the uprising. Whichever side emerges triumphant from the power struggle now under way, the Saudis have both eventualities -- either Saleh or the Hashids -- covered.
Looking at the future of the Middle East, perhaps the most decisive change could come in Syria. It was with a heavy dose of irony that King Abdullah condemned Syria ... If the Syrian regime collapses (which is hardly imminent... ), it would mean the end not only of a brutal dictatorship but also of the only other ostensibly secular Arab country apart from Tunisia -- another boon for Riyadh. ... That may be hoping against hope, at least in the short term, because Syria is more likely to descend into a bloody, sectarian-driven civil war than witness a smooth transition to a new government...
If the Arab Spring had any hope of ushering in greater freedom and democracy, it would have had to challenge from the beginning the influence of Saudi Arabia, the region's Washington-allied superpower and its most antidemocratic, repressive regime. That is a tall order indeed. The tragic irony of the uprisings is that the exact opposite happened."
Friday, October 14, 2011
"Saudi Arabia 'outmaneuver' Iran in the Arab Spring"
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Submit Your Iranian Terror Plot: "Train dolphins to speak english, then have them kill foreign leaders with limpet mines..."
"... We think you can do better. Not with explaining the assassination plot — it’s the Obama administration’s job to make that case. Rather, we think the distributed collective intelligence of our readership can accurately predict, Iarpa style, what the next insane Iranian plot will be. Use our Reddit widget to vote on the choices offered or submit your own. And please: nothing as implausible as the Qods Force turning to a used car salesman to link up with a Mexican drug cartel with whom it never previously worked to pull off an operation so dangerous it could have launched a new Mideast war.
Show alleged terror plots that are: hot | new | top-rated or submit your own name
Submit a terror plot
"It’s a fusion-cuisine salad bar of U.S. security anxieties..."
"... It’s a fusion-cuisine salad bar of U.S. security anxieties. Crazy Iranian terrorists and violent Mexican narcotraffickers. No wonder FBI Director Robert Mueller called the plot straight out of Hollywood.
But here’s why you should hope it really went down the way the government describes, as hard as that is to believe...If any of this is remotely true, then the crack intelligence work of the Qods Force is stunning to behold. The Mexican informant taped Arbabsiar’s telephone calls. They reveal some laughably insipid code words. Icing al-Jubair is referred to as “painting the house” (sigh, Sigh, sigh...)— Arbabsiar made sure to remind his interlocutor that the house couldn’t be left half-painted — and al-Jubair himself was “Chevrolet.”... In custody, Arbabsiar cracked and blamed the Qods Force for the plot....The Qods Force is no joke — or, until the release of the criminal complaint, it was hard to think of it as a joke. The U.S. accused it of smuggling deadly bombs into Iraq (though sometimes without much evidence). As Thomas Jocelyn the Weekly Standard reminds, the Qods Force — and specifically Shahlai — was behind one of the most sophisticated and brazen attacks on U.S. forces of the whole Iraq war, an ambush on a Karbala facility. And it’s believed to be responsible for training and funding Iran’s various terrorist proxies, chiefly Hezbollah.Which raises an obvious question: Why would such a sophisticated organization with ties to known terrorists risk establishing a new partnership with an unknown Mexican drug gang for an operation with such high stakes? ...... let’s give the government the benefit of the doubt. If the plot really went down the way the government alleges, then Iran’s most feared military/intelligence arm looks like a bunch of miscalculating buffoons. And these are the people, David Petraeus has recounted, whom Iran’s regime relies upon to cultivate Iranian influence throughout the Mideast. ...."
Fmr. CIA Counterterror Chief: "It’s so clearly an act of war that it’s hard to imagine why the Iranians would sign on to that..."
".... “If it weren’t for things like large amounts of money being deposited, and a guy floating around whom I assume they know to be a member of the Quds Force, I would say it just doesn’t feel right,” said Charles Faddis, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, “beginning with the selection of a target in downtown D.C. It’s so clearly an act of war that it’s hard to imagine why the Iranians would sign on to that. And the tradecraft seems amateurish and sloppy. It’s crazy.”..."
Martin Indyk: 'Release of Shalit & the 'plot' show a weak Iran!
The Iranian Connection - By Martin Indyk | Foreign Policy
'Sign of Weakness: Hezbollah flags at Palestinian rally celebrating the prisoners swap!'
"10 reasons that Arbabsiar cannot be Iran’s answer to 007"
...Here are the top 10 reasons that he cannot be Iran’s answer to 007:
10. Arbabsiar was known in Corpus Christi, Texas, “for being almost comically absent-minded”
9. Possibly as a result of a knife attack in 1982, he suffered from bad short-term memory
8. He was always losing his cell phone
7. He was always misplacing his keys
6. He was always forgetting his briefcase and documents in stores
5. He “was just not organized,” a former business partner remarked
4. As part owner of a used car dealership, he was always losing title deeds to the vehicles
3. Arbabsiar, far from a fundamentalist Shiite Muslim, may have been an alcoholic; his nickname is “Jack” because of his fondness for Jack Daniels whiskey
2. Arbabsiar used to not only drink to excess, but also used pot and went with prostitutes. He once talked loudly in a restaurant about going back to Iran, where he could have an Iranian girl for only $50. He was rude and was thrown out of some establishments.
1. All of his businesses failed one after another
The downward trajectory of Arbabsiar’s life, with his recent loss of his mortgage, all his businesses, and his second wife, along with his obvious cognitive defect, suggests to me that he may have been descending into madness...
OK, Qasim Soleimani, the head of the Qods Brigade special operation forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, may not be a nice man. But he is such a competent man that US officials in Iraq widely believed that he repeatedly outmaneuvered and defeated them there.
The allegation that Soleimani was running a hard-drinking incompetent with no memory and no sense of organization like Arbabsiar on the most delicate and dangerous terrorist mission ever attempted by the Islamic Republic of Iran is falling down funny...
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Wikileaks: "UAE seeks an 'excuse' to hold SADDIQ for long"
[For those who have not seen this before]
S E C R E T ABU DHABI 000438
SUBJECT: UAE CANNOT HOLD SADDIQ FOR LONGClassified by Charge d'Affaires Douglas Greene, reasons 1.4 (b) and(d).1. (S) As Charge made reftel points (on former Syrian intelligence officer Mohamed Zuhair Siddiq) to Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr. Anwar Gargash on May 5, Dr. Gargash said "I know all about the case." The UAE faces a "conundrum," he continued, as it is indeed holding Siddiq for "local offenses" and has received a Syrian request for his extradition. The UAEG recognizes the downside to sending him back to Syria yet is getting no response from either Lebanon or the Hariri tribunal to help the UAEG hold Siddiq muchlonger.2. (S) Elaborating, Gargash said Siddiq had reportedly made repeated trips to the UAE but evaded attention when the Tribunal came looking. Two officers of the Tribunal did eventually succeed in interviewing him in the UAE, after which the UAEG got a note of appreciation from The Hague for its cooperation. Siddiq was subsequently arrested for a "local offense" (nfi) in the UAE and is now being held. Syria has asked formally for Siddiq's return and the UAEG is obligated to respond -- due to bilateral extradition commitments. That said, the UAEG informally reached out to Lebanon and to the Hariri Tribunallooking for cover (an "excuse") so it can delay the Syrian request. The UAEG has received no reply from either one.3. (S) The Tribunal asked again "10 days ago" whether Siddiq had been arrested in the UAE, to which Gargash said they were given four clear points:--- yes, he was arrested and is detained in the UAE;--- his arrest was on a local offence and has nothing to do with theTribunal;--- the UAE only has one request for his extradition and that is from Syria (with whom it has a reciprocal agreement on extraditions); and--- why is the Tribunal not asking for him?4. (S) The UAEG has been delaying a response to Syria and seeks an "excuse" for not complying with Syria's request. Gargash said the UAEG wants the same outcome as the USG and may write to the Tribunal to ask its preference -- essentially pressing the Tribunal to give the UAE cover to hold Siddiq longer or transfer him to Lebanon.5. (S) Very aware of the pitfalls of Siddiq returning to Syria prior to Lebanon's June elections, Gargash was not optimistic that the UAE could hold Siddiq that long without help from the Tribunal. MFA cannot make this judgment without the Ministry of Interior and the courts, he said, who only have Siddiq detained on a minor offense.The UAEG needs a request from the Tribunal stating its interests and asking the UAE to hold him. The UAE "cannot stretch this out for another month" without the Tribunal's help, he insisted.6. (S) Charge closed the meeting by reiterating our key concerns, and requests, for the UAEG."
Ziocons: "Didn't 'they 'like the freedom?' Don't "they" realize what a debt of gratitude 'they' owe us? How could this be?"
So, Iraq is a done no-deal! Moving to Afghanistan Lang writes:
"In New York a couple of years ago I debated the "big war" men over the question "Can the US ever win in Afghanistan?" I insisted at that time that an attempt to re-design Afghanistan would ultimately fail because attempts to re-create whole countries in our image are inherently doomed to failure. Why is that? Simple. Such attempts cost too much, last too long and inherently become increasingly brutal as frustration sets in on both sides. People rebel against that brutality with the passage of time.
'يا يما ... وين رحت؟ ارجع لمك يا يما ... يا حبيبي...'
COIN as a doctrine was formalized in the colonial powers following World War 2 as a response to national wars of liberation in their overseas posessions. This doctrine was imported to the United States in the Kennedy era as a panacea for Soviet and Chinese sponsorship of such revolts. I was a practioner of that doctrine in the '60s and '70s. It rarely worked for us in any situation in which large scale "investment" of resources was required. The US Government and its citizens consistently balked at the effort if the costs got high enough. The colonial powers persisted far longer than we generally did. This was understandable since the colonial powers were fighting to defend what they saw as their ownership of battlefield countries.
I advocate a counter-terrorism based strategy for Afghanistan based on; small SOF forces, remotely controlled weapons, good quality targeting intelligence and cooperation with whatever Afghan government eventually proves viable. If a strategy of that kind had been adopted instead of COIN, a small but substantial continuing presence serving such a strategy would have been possible in Afghanistan..
Time has moved on. Our economy and those of our NATO allies are shambles. Social unrest in our midst is beginning to focus on these wars as a proximate factor in economic decline. Ten years have passed. A multitude have been struck down in the armed forces. Patience is fast disappearing. Military and political leders who appear to cling to the war they know rather than a peace in which their power will diminish look increasingly self absorbed.
After 2014? Look for a very small presence in Afghanistan but a continuing war against our enemies, a war in the shadows."
Reuters: "...An assassination attempt, particularly in America, is so un-Iranian!"
"... U.S. evidence rests mainly on Arbabsiar's (a self professed Anti-Iran Regime petty criminal from Texas!) alleged confession that he had acted for men he thought were top Quds officials.
Yet questions abound over the putative plot, not least the classic ones of motive and means. Many analysts are skeptical.
What could Iran hope to gain from an assassination that would have brought fierce retribution? Why try to recruit a hitman from a Mexican drug cartel instead of using its own?...
"Killing the Saudi envoy in America has no benefit for Iran," said independent Iranian analyst Saeed Leylaz. "Why should Iran create hostility when the region is boiling?
Dismissing the "very amateur scenario" as out of character, he said: "Iran might have conducted some political adventurism like denying the Holocaust, but an assassination attempt, particularly in America, is so un-Iranian."
It would certainly be a departure for Iran, although it has assassinated its own dissidents abroad since the 1979 Islamic revolution, and it has used Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Shi'ite militias in Iraq to further its own aims.
Decision-making in Tehran is murky and factional rivalry is rife. But the idea that rogue Quds elements could concoct such a momentous plot seems a stretch. (Little Saad Hariri peddles 'rogue Hezbollah elements' all the time!) That Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would authorize it seems more so....
"However, this plot seems far-fetched considering the Iranian intelligence services' usual methods of operation and the fact that its ramifications would involved substantial political risk," it added.
Former CIA agent Robert Baer poured scorn on the reported Iranian conspiracy. "This stinks to holy hell," he told Britain's Guardian newspaper. "The Quds Force are very good. They don't sit down with people they don't know and make a plot. They use proxies and they are professional about it."...
The BIG story: Iraq to Washington: '5000 + NO immunity: 'take it or leave it!'
"..."We have agreed to retain more than 5,000 American trainers, without giving them immunity," Talabani said. "We have sent them our agreement to retain this number and are awaiting their response: yes or no." ..."
The Iran-Saudi assassination "hoax"
"I have been staring incredulously at my TV screen these past few hours as the story of Iran’s alleged assassination attempt of a Saudi diplomat in Washington unfolds in dramatic increments.
Reporters keep repeating the theme “like out of a Hollywood script” as they eke out increasingly unlikely details about this “terror” plot.
My immediate thoughts? Ah. So this is how Washington intends to overrule objections to its $120 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Arab dictatorships of the Persian Gulf.
Forget Hollywood. If I channeled the worst of Washington’s Mideast policymakers, past and present – say, a John Bolton and a Dennis Ross – I could have written this story myself. A modern-day Wag the Dog if you will – the 1997 Dustin Hoffman/Robert De Niro black comedy in which a Hollywood producer helps Washington fabricate a war-on-celluloid in order to divert attention from a presidential sex scandal.
It so happens that I am in the midst of writing a revealing piece about a US military effort to test narratives about what unites and divides Arabs and Iranians. (Watch myblog for this in the next few days)
The most interesting aspect of this military-sponsored exercise is the timing – it took place less than three months after the onset of the Arab revolts that swept the Mideast.
Very quickly after the uprisings began, it became obvious that Iran stood to gain a geopolitical advantage if pro-US despots fell and Arab populations turned against the status quo which has long favored Washington goals: Israeli regional hegemony, unfettered access to cheap oil, the marginalization of political Islam…and now, the sale of hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to the US’s remaining autocratic allies.
It also very quickly became apparent that selling the $120 billion worth of armaments – half of which are intended for the Saudis (Saudi Arabia: $67 billion, UAE: $35-40 billion, Oman: $12 billion, Kuwait: $7 billion) – to repressive regimes was going to be extremely difficult in the face of our public stances on democracy and human rights.
Weapons sales would be particularly hard to defend in the case of Saudi Arabia, by far the most repressive regime in the wider Middle East and North Africa, and ironically, America’s closest Arab ally.
Saudi Arabia’s position in the region today is so poor that it holds the distinction of being labeled the “Counter-revolution” state for its aggressive attempts to roll back these popular revolts. The Saudis spirited away to safety Tunisian dictator Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali after his ousting, fought with Washington over its dwindling support of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak, rolled troops into Bahrain to violently quell protests, poured money into the coffers of corrupt monarchs from Jordan to Morocco, and are backing the immensely unpopular Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh against all odds.
So, how could the US fulfill those previously-approved weapon sales to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf-Cooperation Council (GCC) autocracies without taking a global bashing?
Easy stuff: manufacture an “Iranian” threat and make the image-challenged Saudis look like victims desperately in need of protection.
Washington excels at divide-and-rule narratives, and leads its Mideast allies in sowing discord between Shia and Sunni, Arabs and Iranians and Islamists and secularists. Our favourite bogeyman bar none is the “Iranian, Shiite, Islamist” one, and we parade it around to great effect when we need an extra card to bulldoze through any reasoned policy challenges.
This “news” story on the alleged Iranian plot to kill a Saudi official is no different. But let’s collectively decide to scrutinize this one in a way we never did with the Iraq WMD allegations or the yellowcake uranium fabrication.
Tonight I found myself anticipating details of the case before the news anchor had even announced them. Where would Ross-Bolton, I thought, go with this story? The ideal scenario would be to create narratives quickly and decisively and flood the media marketplace with those impressions.
The goal: 1) to swing popular Arab opinion away from Iran and its allies, thereby influencing the direction of the Arab Revolts, and 2) to stack domestic and international opinion in favor of the pending US arms deals.
Ross-Bolton would have thoroughly approved of the details of this assassination plot. Firstly, it takes place in the United States and not the logistically-simpler Middle East, which provides rational cover for Washington to lead a new international jihad against the Iranians.
Secondly, it features the bizarre Mexico connection, an immediately obvious attempt to draw in Hezbollah, which we allege is involved in “terrorist” operations and drug smuggling south of our border – when actually, we are just trying to find a way to halt financial contributions from wealthy Lebanese-origin Latin Americans to Hezbollah, a group that also offers widespread social services to many Lebanese civilians – hospitals, schools, infrastructure and the like. US policymakers must be exceedingly frustrated that nobody actually buys these stories – Israel, Canada, the US and the Netherlands are still the only nations to categorize the Lebanese resistance group as a terrorist organization.
And finally, a Ross-Bolton personal touch: the assassination plot apparently also includes discussion of blowing up the Israeli embassy in Washington, gaining both sympathy points for the Jewish state at a time when it is becoming a pariah, and ensuring that the mindlessly pro-Israel US Congress will jump on board any and all efforts to nail the Iranians and reward the Saudis.
No questions asked.
Anyway, do enjoy the drama and keep an eye on how this spins out. Prepare for those “difficult” arms sales to breeze through. I will shortly publish my piece on the US military’s efforts to shine a spotlight on Arab-Iranian divisions – I think it will provide the requisite backdrop to explain why we find ourselves watching Hollywood at the top of the news hour today.
'Does this sound like an intel service to you?'
"...As Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress asked, "Wiring money into US? Talking about plot on phone? Does that sound like an intel service to you?"
All that said, it really is possible that this is exactly what Holder says it is. Stranger things have happened, and Iran may have simply made an enormous, if out-of-character and obviously self-hurting, blunder. It's also possible that the two Iranian men really were planning to bomb the ambassador, but are either rogue members of the Revolutionary Guards or not really members at all. Clearly, there is much more information in this story that has not yet been made public. Maybe that information, if it ever comes out, will back up the official U.S. version -- which the White House already says it will use to escalate sanctions -- and maybe it will tell a different story. But the plot as we now know it doesn't seem like something that Iran's leaders would think was a good idea."
Clinton: "... Stranger than fiction, nobody could make that up, right?"
"... This really, in the minds of many diplomats and government officials, crosses a line that Iran needs to be held to account for," Clinton told The Associated Press in an interview. She said the plot — it allegedly involved Iranian government agents trying to contract a Mexican cartel to kill Saudi Ambassador Adel Al-Jubeir — was stranger than fiction.
"The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador, nobody could make that up, right?" she said in a nearly hour-long, wide-ranging interview..."
Preliminary Questions About The Alleged Iranian Terror Plot
"... So from the looks of things, Iran has been planning a terrorist plot on U.S. soil, right? Wrong, at least for now that is. There are many holes in this story that need to be filled before the government of Iran can be credibly accused of committing what could be interpreted as an act of war. For a summary of related events so far, read Jim Lobe’s report, and following are some preliminary questions that need answering:
1) Who has the authority to operate on behalf of the Iranian government?
If a relative of a member of the U.S. military or CIA plans a murder on foreign soil and claims he was ordered to even though the U.S. denies it, would we consider that a terrorist plot by the U.S.?
The accused named in the FBI press release are Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old Iranian-American from Texas with dual citizenship, and Gholam Shakuri, an alleged Iran-based member of Iran’s secretive Quds Force. What does the U.S. have that proves they were acting on behalf of the Iranian government, which, by the way, quickly denied the charges?
2) Who approached who first?
If Arbabsiar approached the agent first, how did he find them? If the FBI put Arbabsiar under surveillance for suspicious activities and then lured him into direct communication (which could have been the initial point of contact), was the FBI involved in other persuasive activities as well? Considering the loony aspects of this story which even Hillary Clinton has alluded to, is it wrong to question the sanity of Arbabsiar? Is it unfathomable that the FBI could have found a crazy and/or impressionable person who was acting on his own accord but was in some way related to elements of the Iranian government?
Update: A report in the Washington Post by Greg Miller and Julie Tate sheds some light on who Arbabsiar really is. According to House intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.):
It is my belief he was recruited for this particular operation
3) What are the exact details of Arbabsiar’s confession and under what conditions was it made?
4) While in FBI custody, Arbabsiar made calls to his “cousin” in Iran who is allegedly a “big general” in the Iranian army and a “senior member of the Qods Force”. How did the FBI verify his cousin’s identity?
Did the cousin verify his identity on the phone? If yes, why would he do that if they knew one another? Would the alleged cousin really have been that imprudent while speaking to someone that he was planning an assassination plot with?
5) Why is the “cousin” unnamed?
6) Why would a government that is constantly accused of conniving to build nuclear weapons so that it can allegedly wreak destruction upon its adversaries attempt to assassinate someone as insignificant as the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in such a poorly conducted plot and with the use of such low-level assailants?
While nothing is impossible, Iran has shown its capabilities in Lebanon and Iraq and this plot is not its style. You would think that after surviving for 32 years with the most powerful countries in the world against it, the leaders of the Islamic Republic would have learned a few things about carrying out high-risk operations with diligence and maximum impact — clearly not the case here.
7) What could Iran gain from this plot?
Certainly tensions have increased between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the past year, but Iran has been battling the Saudis in other ways, by exerting influence over Iraq’s government, for example. As Jim Lobe points out, if this plot is really Iran’s doing, it will only lead to more strangling sanctions and bring the threat of war closer. Unless you are among the misguided group of people who think that Iran’s current government is suicidal, taking part in an event like this is simply not in Iran’s interest.
8) What can Iran lose from this plot?
As Lobe and Josh Rogin have pointed out, anti-Iran, pro-Israel advocates and hawks are having a field day with this story. Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) immediately called for the U.S. to collapse Iran’s central bank and unsigned opinion pieces are urging further action (what comes after sanctions?) against the Iranian “threat.” This story was also broken on the same day that further OFAC sanctions were announced, with more on the way.
I am not doubting that suspicious and worrisome events took place with regard to Arbabsiar or that Iran has animosity towards Saudi Arabia and the U.S. and vice versa (recall Saudi Arabia urging the U.S. to bomb Iran), but do we really have enough evidence to claim that the government of Iran directly attempted to carry out an assassination plot on U.S. soil? That’s a serious, game-changing charge. Even if you don’t want to accept Iran’s official denial, you need to produce more facts before you can make that case. It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will do its job and provide us with them."
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Saddam 'double' escapes Alexandria porn kidnap gang, again
Saddam 'double' escapes Alexandria porn kidnap gang, again - Politics - Egypt - Ahram Online
Thanks Bloedi & move over Chad Hunt, Saddam De Sade is here!
Big Day for 'drinkers' today, especially those on the Liberal Left ...
"... This alleged assassination plot simultaneously may indicate both the intensity of anti-Saudi passion among Iran's senior leaders and a greater aggressiveness by Iran against the U.S.This is a serious situation -- and if Iran was indeed willing to attack a Saudi Ambassador and close confidante of the Saudi King on U.S. soil and countenance the death of 100-150 Americans, then the U.S. has reached a point where it must take action..."
REMINDER-PRETEXT: 1982/ London's Dorchester Hotel/ Shlomo Argov/ Israeli Invasion of Lebanon!
ELECTIONEERING-PRETEXT: 2011/ Foggy Bottom & or Cafe Milano in Georgetown/ Adel al Jubeir/ ....what next?
'Hariri Carnival' from the top down: "Cassese Abandons Ship!"
"... Citing health problems, the president of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Judge Antonio Cassese, announced he was resigning from his post on Sunday. "I do not feel able to provide the leadership that the Tribunal requires and deserves," he added.
The court has already announced Cassese’s replacement: David Baragwanath of New Zealand..."
Monday, October 10, 2011
READ THIS NOW: A 'worthy' invasion of Iraq is the model for Syria!
Yup, the crescendo is half way! But Diehl & his ilk should factor in this & well: this is not gonna happen; not under Obama's watch nor, and most importantly, under Bashar's watch!
"... I could write a column about all of this. But I’d like to propose, instead, that we think again about the war in Iraq.
With U.S. troops less than three months away from withdrawal, that mission is now generally regarded in Washington as, at best, a waste of American lives and resources, and at worst a monumental folly — and that’s among the Republican presidential candidates. But the misnamed Arab Spring, which has turned from a euphoric winter in Tunisia and Egypt to a savage summer in Libya, Yemen and Syria, casts Iraq in a different light...
Assad has been written off by most of the West’s intelligence services, but his tanks and artillery are proving more than a match for the ragtag groups of army defectors in towns such as Homs and Rastan...Libya was the limit for the Obama administration, Britain and France: There will be no such operation in Syria or Yemen, goes the constant refrain... In Syria we could see, at worst, a repeat of the history of Lebanon: sectarian war, interspersed with interventions by neighbors and transnational operations by terrorists.
This brings us back to Iraq. As former Bush administration strategist Meghan O’Sullivan recently wrote in The Post, Iraq has fallen well short of both American and Iraqi expectations. The pain and cost of that war are some of the reasons the United States and its allies have sworn off intervention in Syria
Iraq, however, looks a lot like what Syria,...Iraq remains an ally of the United States, an enemy of al-Qaeda and a force for relative good in the Middle East. It is buying $12 billion in U.S. weapons ... All of this happened because the United States invaded the country... The Arab Spring, in short, is making the invasion of Iraq look more worthy — and necessary — than it did a year ago. Before another year has passed, Syrians may well find themselves wishing that it had happened to them."
Al Hayat: "After the civil wars in Lebanon, Iraq, Libya & Yemen the West brings to you Syria!
"...والآن، بعد أن تم لمعارضي الخارج ما أرادوا واستطاعوا التوافق بدأوا اتصالاتهم للاعتراف بـ «المجلس الوطني» الذي شكلوه في إسطنبول «ممثلاً وحيداً» للشعب السوري، مستبشرين بحماسة وخفة ساركوزي، وكراهية البيت الأبيض وآل كلينتون لدمشق، واندفاعة أردوغان واستعجاله تكريس نفسه زعيماً للشرق الأوسط، ورأس جسر للحلف الأطلسي في الإقليم.
اجتازت المعارضة السورية في الخارج «المرحلة الأصعب»، على ما قال الناطق باسم المجلس برهان غليون، وبدأت المرحلة السهلة، أي استدراج الاعترافات (اقرأ العروض) الدولية والعربية.
باسم الشعب السوري نزع البيت الأبيض الشرعية عن الأسد. وباسم هذا الشعب أيضاً دعته فرنسا وألمانيا وتركيا ودول أخرى إلى التنحي. والآن يأتي «المجلس الوطني» ليطالب بهذه الشرعية. وطموحه أن تتعامل معه الأمم المتحدة مثلما تعاملت مع «المجلس الانتقالي العراقي»، و «الانتقالي الليبي». فلنستعد لحرب أهلية أخرى، بعد لبنان والعراق وليبيا واليمن، في ظل الشرعية الدولية. ..."
Slogan by Egypt's Copts: "Egypt a secular state not a Saudi emirate!"
"... "Why didn't they do this with the Salafists or the Muslim Brotherhood when they organize protests? This is not my country any more," said Alfred Younan, a Copt speaking near Cairo's Coptic Christian hospital where many of the dead were taken...."
"Ali Khamenei learned from Sadat and is luring Israel into an attack on Iran..."
"... Israel must not embark on a war that is unjustified in terms of immediate survival without American permission. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who visited Tel Aviv to publicly coordinate with Israel on Iran, acted like an American father informing his son that he can have the family car for the weekend only if he checks with him first...."
Al Jazeera on Egypt: "Nothing short of Disgusting!"
"Yesterday, Aljazeera's coverage on Egypt was nothing short of disgusting with its hostility to Copts. The anchor would yell at a guest: are not Copts calling for international intervention in Egypt? Are not some Copts armed? You wanted to yell at the screen: Is Qatar not sponsoring the Syrian opposition group that calls for international intervention? Was Qatar not the mid-wife of the NATO intervention in Libya? And since when does Qatar objects to weapons in the hands of protesters? "
Sunday, October 9, 2011
"Syria will not stay with its arms crossed. If Turkey throws us a flower, we will send them one back!"
Turkey, known for killing about 100 Kurds a day, called the death of a Syrian Kurd (reports indicate that he may have been killed by Turkish Intelligence)"loathsome". Muallem responded:
"... "There are groups carrying out acts of violence in Syria and who have killed a great number of martyrs. The West speaks of a peaceful revolution and does not admit these groups exist but arms them anyhow," Muallem said.
He also issued a thinly veiled warning to Turkey, which has condemned Friday's assassination of Kurdish politician and SNC member Meshaal Tamo as a "loathsome" act.
"Syria will not stay with its arms crossed. If Turkey throws us a flower, we will send them one back," he said.
Assad told a visiting delegation from Latin America that Damascus was focusing both on reform and neutralising the "armed groups" it blames for the unrest sweeping the country since mid-March.
“A permanent set-back in US-Pakistan relations' the most lasting implication of our engagement in Afghanistan!"
Congressional action is intruding on the Administration’s foreign policy. As we had earlier reported, Congress is seeking to cut State Department and USAID funding. This will have a long-term impact on the civilian side of US diplomacy. More immediately, Congress acting in a rare bipartisan consensus has suspended aid to the Palestinian Authority, is threatening to cut off aid to Pakistan and is pushing the Administration to impose trade sanctions on China for “currency manipulation.” At the same time, Mitt Romney, the leading Republican presidential candidate, has launched a blistering attack on President Obama’s handling of foreign policy. Romney’s vision of an expansive and expensive US foreign policy based in US global “supremacy” attracts critics within his own party. Nonetheless, his and the actions by Congress have combined to add further pressure on Obama. Assuming that the enabling legislation against China passes the Congress (and this is not a foregone conclusion), Obama faces an awkward dilemma. Successive Administrations have resisted calls to confront China on currency issues, but the continuing anemic job creation statistics have changed the political dynamics. Treasury contacts tell us privately that they are recommending that Obama vetoes any sanctions legislation, but that they are unsure that he will do so. Regarding Afghanistan, the 10th anniversary of the US invasion prompted an outpouring of review articles, mostly dividing on predictable lines between those who want to “win the war” and those who want a “change of course.” With American public opinion souring on the war and even former top commanders raising doubts, Pentagon insiders tell us that the Administration will not postpone its 2014 deadline for withdrawal. These same contacts report, however, that the US will increase the tempo of its operations against what are perceived as “safe havens” in Pakistan. The side effects in terms of Pakistani attitudes to the US may be significant. As one senior Administration official commented to us recently: “A permanent set-back in US-Pakistan relations may be the most lasting implication of our engagement in Afghanistan.”
"Iraq sends a lifeline to Assad"
Seen first here at FLC, today in the WaPo. One has to remember that the Syrian business elite/ Mercantile elite & Bazaris would have been the FIRST to jump off SS Syria had they sensed that the Regime was in any real danger. With the Russia-Iran-Iraq-Lebanon stellar alignment, these vested interests are feeling a bit more comfortable!
"... More than six months after the start of the Syrian uprising, Iraq is offering key moral and financial support to the country’s embattled president, undermining a central U.S. policy objective and raising fresh concerns that Iraq is drifting further into the orbit of an American arch rival — Iran.
Iraq’s stance has dealt an embarrassing setback to the Obama administration, which has sought to enlist Muslim allies in its campaign to isolate Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad. While other Arab states have downgraded ties with Assad, Iraq has moved in the opposite direction ...
After Iraq sent conflicting signals about its support for Assad last month, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spoke firmly against regime change in Syria in an interview broadcast on Iraqi television Sept. 30. “We believe that Syria will be able to overcome its crisis through reforms,” Maliki said, rejecting U.S. calls for the Syrian leader to step down. His words echoed those of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who weeks earlier proposed that Syrians should “implement the necessary reforms by themselves.”...
U.S. officials acknowledged disappointment with Iraq over its dealings with Assad, while noting that other Middle East countries also have been reluctant to abandon Assad at a time when the outcome of the uprising remains uncertain.
“The Iraqis should be more helpful, absolutely,” said a senior administration official involved in Middle East diplomacy....
U.S. intelligence officials predict that Syria’s uprising will eventually topple Assad, most likely after the mounting cost of sanctions causes the business elite to turn against him. But the timeline for change is far from clear.
The Obama administration hailed a decision in August by three Persian Gulf Arab states — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain (BOTH in the business of violently silencing dissent!)— to recall their ambassadors to Damascus to protest Assad’s violent suppression of anti-government demonstrators...
But other experts say Iraq’s support for Syria underscores the influence of Iran, which has staked billions of dollars on ensuring Assad’s survival. Pollock, the former State Department adviser (actually a WINEP/AIPAC 'expert'), said Iraqi leaders fear repercussions from Iran and its Syrian protege as much they covet increased revenue from trade. “Iran is certainly important behind the scenes, and the Iraqis know the Iranians are looking over their shoulders,” .... noted that Iranian-backed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr — a firebrand Iraqi Shiite with tens of thousands of devoted followers — has publicly backed Assad, calling him a “brother.”...
Only in mid-September, after six months of worsening violence, did the Iraqi government issue a statement that appeared to call for Assad’s ouster. In that statement, on Sept. 20, Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Moussawi was quoted as telling New York Times reporters in Baghdad that Iraq had privately urged Assad to step down.... But less than 24 hours later, the Iraqi government began to backpedal. The same spokesman, Moussawi, told reporters on Sept. 21 that Iraqi leaders had never called for Assad’s resignation and said he had been misquoted....
Assad has survived by relying on hard-currency reserves and Iranian loans to maintain subsidies for Syria’s military and business elites, ... Syria also has found support from Iraq and other neighbors as it scrambles to refill its hard-currency coffers ...
Iraq and Syria, which share historical and cultural ties, have long been trading partners, and smuggling in border towns has generated immense profits even during times of war. Scores of private traders regularly ferry tons of diesel fuel and other goods ... "
Saturday, October 8, 2011
"...The reports are gruesome"
"...The reports are gruesome, from both sides: Syrian security forces are rounding up dissidents and torturing some of them. Opposition forces have engaged in reprisal killings. Western and Syrian government sources both say that captured soldiers are sometimes decapitated, and even dismembered; a few Alawite captives had their eyes gouged out. Afraid of the spiraling violence, a Syrian “silent majority” — composed of Sunni business leaders, Christians and some Alawites — has stayed on the fence.
The protesters chant “peaceful, peaceful.” ....
Mikati & Salam: 'If Lebanon votes against the UNSC Syria resolution, we will resign!'
Most parties withing the 'new' majority in Lebanon were in favor to vote with Russia & China!
Friday, October 7, 2011
Pollack & Takyeh on Iran: 'Doubling Down on Failure!'
"... For starters, Pollack and Takeyh admit that their past prescriptions have been a bust. They take credit for what they call the Obama administration's "two track" approach, writing that "the two of us were among the very first to propose this policy." Then they freely admit "it is time to acknowledge that the current version of the two-track policy has failed." The chutzpah here is impressive: although their own policy recommendations have failed, they think we should continue to respect their insights and follow their advice...
Second, Pollock and Takeyh present a one-sided narrative of U.S. policy toward Iran that exaggerates the carrots we've supposedly offered and overstates Iranian recalcitrance.... in reality, the United States made a couple of purely symbolic gestures but quickly reverted to mostly sticks when the symbolism didn't produce immediate Iranian concessions. Moreover, the United States and its allies have never made Iran a concrete offer; the supposed "path" to a deal was merely a list of topics Washington said it was willing to discuss as soon as Iran agreed to give us what we wanted (i.e., an end to nuclear enrichment).
In other words, when Pollack and Takeyh write that the administration was "offering the theocratic leaders a respectful path of out of their predicament," that "respectful path" was defined as complete Iranian acquiescence to Washington's demands. You surrender, and then we'll talk...
Third, Pollack and Takeyh never confront the inherent contradiction in the "two-track policy" (which, to repeat, they admit has been a failure). This policy is supposed to convince Tehran that the United States is not irrevocably hostile, and that we would really, really like to have a better relationship. It is also designed to convince Tehran that it has no need for a nuclear deterrent, or even a latent nuclear capability that could be used to get a bomb at some point down the road. But while we are supposedly trying to reassure Iran about our intentions, the United States has been ratcheting up sanctions, almost certainly engaging in covert action against the clerical regime, pointedly emphasizing that all options (including the use of force) are "on the table," and making it abundantly clear that we would be perfectly happy if regime change occurred...
Yet despite the protracted failure of this entire approach, Pollack and Takeyh now want us to "double down" on it: ramping up more sanctions, reaching out to the Green movement, possibly inserting Special Forces into Iran (!), and engaging in cyber-warfare and other forms of pressure. Never mind that the leader of the Green Movement, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is also one of main architects of Iran's current nuclear program (which means that a "Green Revolution" might not end it). The bigger point is that these steps are more likely to reinforce Iranian intransigence and make them think harder about the value of some sort of deterrent.
Pollack and Takeyh also fail to see the irony -- or it is hypocrisy? -- in their own prescriptions. They say at the beginning of their piece that the US must "compel Iran to relinquish its nuclear ambitions, adhere to prevailing norms on terrorism and human rights, and respect the sovereignty of its neighbors" (my emphasis) Yet with a straight face they then proceed to outline a menu of options designed to violate Iran's sovereignty...
...
Fourth, their article is also inconsistent about Iran's motivations and our knowledge of them. On the one hand, they portray Iran's leaders as almost impossible to fathom, saying it is "a land that revels in ambiguity, opacity and complexity," and ...On the other hand, they outline an ambitious blueprint for additional sticks, apparently confident that they really do know how Iran will react...
In short, there is little reason to think that "doubling down" will do anything more than increase Iran's interest in moving closer to a latent nuclear capacity. It is a recommendation for more of the same policy that has been failing for over a decade. Instead of persisting with a failed policy, the United States ought to be rethinking both the goals it is trying to achieve and the means it is using to reach them. Ending enrichment is not in the cards, but it might be possible to convince Iran not to weaponize. That approach would require ratcheting down the pressure, making concrete offers instead of vague hints, and exercising a lot more patience instead of expecting a quick and decisive breakthrough. But because this approach -- which has never been tried -- is anathema inside the insulated Beltway mind-set, we end up with the endless recyling of failed approaches.
But my real concern goes deeper. It is hard to read this piece without hearkening back to Pollack's The Threatening Storm, the book that convinced many liberals to support the invasion of Iraq in 2003. What made that book especially persuasive was Pollack's depiction of himself as a former dove who had oh-so-reluctantly concluded that there was no option but to go to war. Similarly, this article explicitly says that it is not yet time to bomb, and that we have time to try a few more options first. But by falsely portraying the United States has having made numerous generous offers, by dismissing Iran's security concerns as unfounded reflections of innate suspiciousness or radical ideology, and by prescribing a course of action that hasn't worked in the past and is likely to fail now, Pollack and Takeyh may be setting the stage for a future article where they admit that "doubling down" didn't work, and then tell us -- with great reluctance, of course -- that we have no choice but to go to war again...."
Wikileaks: 'Jordanian Arab Bank, PLC used to transfer cash to North Korea'
"... In the cables, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, U.S. officials warned their counterparts in Jordan that North Korea was using Amman-based Arab Bank PLC to receive money from Syria and Iran, circumventing international sanctions... The cables don't say how large the purported transactions were, or their purpose. Nor do they say what, if anything, was done after the warnings..."
“No intention whatsoever!”
"... “No intention whatsoever,” emphasized NATO’s secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, earlier this week in Brussels.The reason is a brew of international political complications, worries over unleashing a civil war and plausible risks of touching off a wider Middle East conflict with archfoes Israel and Iran in the mix. In the end, Assad has more powerful friends and carries far more wild cards than Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya, analysts say....But some see even greater dangers if Assad falls without a clear successor, such as the transition administration built by Libya’s former rebels. Syria has an array of competing factions and allegiances, including some Sunni groups falling behind Saudi Arabia pitted against Assad’s Alawite minority ...“Israel is more worried if there is civil war,” said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born regional analyst based in Israel. “During the chaos, Iranian-backed factions could take the opportunity to strike Israel. The last thing Iran wants is a Saudi-allied regime emerging in Syria. Iran will not sit by as spectators.”Assad also still carries favor in Moscow and Beijing, which on Tuesday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have condemned Syria... both Russia and China worry that the downfall of Assad will be a severe blow to their interests in the Middle East.... ... no one in Washington or elsewhere is raising the option of airstrikes — such as NATO’s campaign in Libya — or other types of military action to try to cripple Assad’s regime. Libya shows another likely reason why: Gadhafi’s security forces battled for six months against rebels despite being hammered by NATO strikes, and they continue to fight in pockets a month after the fall of Tripoli... “Syria is not Libya,” said Khaled Mahadeen, a Jordanian columnist and former government adviser in Amman. “Any such action will have serious repercussions across the Arab world.”...'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)