"... Fast-forward to 2011 and we're left wondering if these same newspapers have really taken on board the lessons of Iraq. Here, for example, is David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent of the New York Times, writing in its Sunday Review last weekend:At the White House and the CIA, officials say the recently disclosed Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States – by blowing up a tony Georgetown restaurant frequented by senators, lobbyists and journalists – was just the tip of the iceberg.Note how the allegation of an "Iranian plot" in the US – which was greeted with a good deal of scepticism when it first surfaced last month – now appears to have become an established fact (even though it has yet to be tested in court). Not only that. Sanger's anonymous officials are now asking us to believe it is part of a bigger and even more menacing Iranian plot which stretches across continents from the Yemen to Latin America.At the Washington Post, meanwhile, Joby Warrick has been briefed by David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who now heads the Institute for Science and International Security. Citing Albright, Warrick describes Iranian work on a detonation device known as the R265 generator:"According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas [design and testing] was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran's Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country's nuclear programme."The way this is presented in the Washington Post, it points very clearly to the idea that Iran was working on a trigger for a nuclear bomb. But look elsewhere and that interpretation becomes less certain: possibly it wasn't nuclear at all, but (See MoonOfAlabama) a project to manufacture nanodiamonds.Of course, these are extremely murky waters and I'm not at all sure who to believe. There is probably a lot of deception taking place on both sides. But what seems to me extraordinary is the reluctance of journalists – especially in the US mainstream – to acknowledge the uncertainties and their willingness to accept what, as far as Iran is concerned, are the most incriminating interpretations.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
'Failing yet again to absorb the lessons of Iraq & WMD'
"The US is headed toward another strategic disaster in the Middle East!"
"Ever since Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei stepped down as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late 2009, the United States and some of its allies have pushed Baradei’s successor, Yukiya Amano, to ratify Western arguments that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Today, Amano authorized the release of an IAEA report, see here, purporting to do just that.
Predictably, the report is being treated in some quarters as an effective casus belli. As the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy commented after the document’s release, ... the report “should serve to shift the public debate from whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, to how to stop it”. It is not difficult to imagine how Republican presidential candidates will strive to “out-hawk” one another—and, especially, President Obama—during their next debate this coming Saturday as to their willingness to go to war to stop the Islamic Republic from building a nuclear bomb.
But the report—arguably the most anticipated document of its kind since the NPT was first advanced in 1968—does not in any way demonstrate that Iran is “developing a nuclear weapon”. Rather, it once again affirms, as the IAEA has for decades, Iran’s “non-diversion” of nuclear material. In other words, even if the Islamic Republic wanted to build nuclear weapons (and Tehran continues to deny, at the highest levels of authority, that it wishes to do so) it does not have the weapons-grade material essential to the task.
Nevertheless, Amano chose to focus the report on unsubstantiated intelligence reports, provided almost entirely by the United States, Israel, and other Western governments, alleging that the Islamic Republic is working on a nuclear weapons program. Most of this information has been available to the IAEA for years. But Baradei refused to publicize it during his tenure as the Agency’s chief—because he could neither corroborate it nor be confident about its provenance and quality. Remember, Baradei had been right about the state of Iraq’s nuclear program in 2002, when all of the intelligence services and national governments that would later try getting him spun up about Iran had been spectacularly wrong. And he was not going to let the United States or anyone else steamroller him on Iran.
Amano, unfortunately, does not bring the same kind of intellectual and political integrity to his job as his predecessor. The United States, Israel, and other Western governments had to work hard to get the IAEA’s Board of Governors to elect Amano in 2009, by the narrowest possible margin, barely overcoming a challenge from South Africa’s distinguished ambassador to the Agency, Abdul Minty. But Washington and its allies got what they wanted. An October 2009 cable from the U.S. mission to the IAEA, published last year by Wikileaks, see here, reported that Amano had “reminded [the U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA] on several occasions that he would need to make concessions” at times to developing countries, “but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision”, including “the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”
And so the latest IAEA report treats its readers to sensational stories of Iranian nuclear weapons designs and experiments on things that can supposedly only be applied to the fabrication of nuclear weapons. None of these stories is corroborated by hard evidence, but the Amano-led IAEA passes them on anyway, with its effective imprimatur. ... ... ... ...
Iranian efforts to develop a “nuclear weapons capability”, as described by Baradei, may make American and Israeli elites uncomfortable. But it is not a violation of the NPT or any other legal obligation that the Islamic Republic has undertaken. While the NPT prohibits non-nuclear-weapon states from building atomic bombs, developing a nuclear weapons capability is, in Baradei’s words, “kosher” under the NPT, see here. It is certainly not a justification—strategically, legally, or morally—for armed aggression against Iran.
In the end, the United States and its allies have a choice to make. They can continue down a path that will ultimately prompt them to launch yet another illegal and ill-considered war for hegemonic domination in the Middle East. But the consequences of attacking Iran are likely to be far more damaging for America’s strategic position in the Middle East than the reverses it suffered as a result of its 2003 invasion of Iraq. (We would ask anyone who questions whether the Iraq war was profoundly counter-productive for the United States simply to compare Washington’s standing and influence in the Middle East 10 years ago to its standing and influence there today; viewed through this prism, the measure of self-inflicted damage to America’s strategic position in this critical region is truly extraordinary.)
Alternatively, the United States and its allies can accept the Islamic Republic as an enduring political order with legitimate interests and sovereign rights, and come to terms with it—much as the United States came to terms with the People’s Republic of China in the 1970s. In the nuclear arena, specifically, this means accepting, in principle and in reality, the continued development of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium, while working with Tehran to put in place multilateral arrangements to ensure that the proliferation risks associated with uranium enrichment in Iran (as in any other country) are controlled.
Based on our conversations with senior Iranian officials, we are convinced that this is precisely the sort of conversation Tehran wants to have with Western and other international interlocutors about their nuclear program. But the United States—under the Obama Administration every bit as much as under the George W. Bush Administration—refuses to pursue this sort of dialogue.
Until that changes, the United States is headed toward another strategic disaster in the Middle East. And, by succumbing to American pressure, the IAEA has raised the odds that this is precisely what will occur. "
Russia thinks IAEA Iran report's a dud intended for 'regime change'
"... "Any additional sanctions against Iran will be seen in the international community as an instrument for regime change in Iran. That approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such proposals," Interfax quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov as saying...."
Five Reasons Why Obama Won't Bomb Iran
... and last but certainly not least,
"...at number 5. It's the Economy, Stupid: If there's one reason above all others that likely stays the administration's hands it's the impact any prospective war against Iran would have on the U.S. (indeed, the global) economy in the short-term. Economies in both Europe and the U.S. are wobbly, if not in outright recession territory. An attack on Iran would open the door for Iranian retaliation targeted at the industrial world's largest vulnerability - the 20 percent of global oil supplies that pass through the narrow chokepoint of the Straits of Hormuz. An Iranian attempt to close Hormuz would send oil prices soaring and almost certainly send the Eurozone into a recession (if it's not already there) and push America right back to the brink, or over the edge. "
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Geagea: "Kidnapping of Syrians distorts Lebanon's image"
LORD ALMIGHTY! I guess the 'Barbara Checkpoint among others...were Ministry of Tourism PR Offices run by Geagea's Crminial-stewards?
Geagea: kidnapping of Syrian dissidents distorts Lebanon's image
'Lebanon's Image as seen through Geagea's prism!'
Geagea: kidnapping of Syrian dissidents distorts Lebanon's image
Israel's 'Fifth-Column' in Britain: "Bragging in a leaked email of how BBC and Sky News editors “changed their narrative” on stories related to Israel...'
Thanks to 'C-Alex-O';
"... Ahead of a widely-expected Israeli-led attack on Iran, Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, an elitist pro-Israeli lobbying firm, has been caught “briefing” the British mainstream media on how to present news items relating to Israel, bragging in a leaked email of how BBC and Sky News editors “changed their narrative” on stories after meeting with BICOM representatives.
''Libya's Simon Bolivar & Uber-Zionist, Bernard Henry Levy & Zionist Billionaire, billionaire Chaim “Poju” Zabludowicz'
The revelations came to light as a result of the fallout from the Liam Fox scandal. British Defence Secretary Fox was forced to resign last month after details emerged of Fox’s relationship with Adam Werritty, a front man for the now defunct Atlantic Bridge Research and Education Scheme, a lobbying group that posed as a charitable “think tank” which was designed to promote neo-conservative thinking amongst foreign policy hawks in the US and UK.
Werritty attended numerous defence meetings with Fox despite the fact that he was not employed in any official capacity by the British government. It later emerged that Werritty had plotted with the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to carry out regime change in Iran and had traveled to Iran to meet with various Iranian opposition groups.
Werritty’s Atlantic Bridge group received funding from BICOM via the patronage of Michael Lewis. “Bicom has been linked to Werritty, and paid for the 33-year-old’s flight and hotel bills when he attended a conference in Israel in 2009 to speak about Iran,” reported the London Guardian.
BICOM is bankrolled by billionaire Chaim “Poju” Zabludowicz (pictured above), ranked 18th on a list of the wealthiest people in the United Kingdom. The organization has financially contributed to all three main political parties in the UK.
The current CEO of the group is former Labour Member of Parliament Lorna Fitzsimons, who revealed her contempt for the democratic process when she told a conference last year, “Public opinion does not influence foreign policy in Britain. Foreign policy is an elite issue.” Fitzsimons took over from previous BICOM chief Danny Scheck, a former high-level Israeli foreign minister.
Fitzsimons unwittingly spilled the beans on the astounding influence wielded by BICOM when she mistakenly sent an internal email to members of the press that was subsequently leaked on the Internet.
However, the shocking contents of that email have barely even been mentioned by any mainstream media source since its release. This is an eye-opening illustration of how the establishment media is fed talking points and controlled not by objective integrity, but by well-financed and agenda-driven lobby groups.
In the email, Fitzsimons reveals how BICOM officials regularly meet with editors and journalists from the BBC, Sky News and the Financial Times to ‘brief’ them on how to frame issues relating to Israel in order to ensure that, “the most objectively favourable line was taken.”..." (Continue, here)
Clinton: "There will be times when not all of our interests align!"
(Reuters) - U.S. interests sometimes clash with its support for democracy in the Middle East, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged on Monday, but she said democratic freedoms were the best guarantee of stability in the long run.
In a speech on Washington's response to the Arab Spring that toppled several U.S. allies, Clinton implicitly faulted the military council that succeeded Mubarak for moving too slowly on elections.
She also acknowledged that the United States sometimes deals differently with pro-democracy movements, saying no two situations are the same and that diverging U.S. interests sometimes force it to adopt varying stances.
Clinton used her her speech to the National Democratic Institute to address questions such as why the United States built a military coalition to force Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi from power while it has been more cautious in Syria.
The U.S. justification for intervention in Libya -- to protect civilians -- would also appear valid in Syria, where activists say that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces have killed hundreds of civilians seeking an end to his rule.
"Sometimes, as in Libya, we can bring dozens of countries together to protect civilians and help people liberate their country without a single American life lost, In other cases, to achieve that same goal, we would have to act alone, at a much greater cost, with far greater risks and perhaps even with troops on the ground, Our choices also reflect other interests in the region with a real impact on Americans' lives -- including our fight against al Qaeda; defense of our allies; and a secure supply of energy," she said.
"Over time, a more democratic Middle East can provide a more sustainable basis for addressing all three. But there will be times when not all of our interests align. We work to align them, but that is just reality," she added.
In the careful language of diplomacy, Clinton had tough words for the military council that took power in Egypt after forcing long-time U.S. ally Mubarak from office following mass protests against his three-decade authoritarian rule.
"If, over time, the most powerful political force in Egypt remains a roomful of unelected officials, they will have planted the seeds for future unrest. Egyptians will have missed a historic opportunity. And so will we."
Clinton said the United States must be prepared to work with democratically elected leaders that do not agree with it, including Islamist parties such as that which just won Tunisia's first free election last month.
"What parties call themselves is less important than what they do," Clinton said, saying parties which respect the rule of law, renounce violence, protect freedoms of speech and assembly and the rights of women should all be regarded as legitimate political players.
Clinton said the United States would continue to have "frank conversations" with long-time allies such as Bahrain, where the Sunni ruling family brought in troops from Sunni allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to help crush a protest movement earlier this year.
"Mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens and will not make legitimate calls for reform go away," Clinton said, saying the tiny Gulf country's monarchy had made public promises to begin political dialogue and investigate abuses.
"We intend to hold the Bahraini government to these commitments and to encourage the opposition to respond constructively to secure lasting reform," she said.
In other cases such as Syria, where the Assad government continues to respond violently to political protests, the message must be equally clear, she said.
"Those leaders trying to hold back the future at the point of a gun should know their days are numbered," she said, adding that another long-time U.S. foe, Iran, showed "breathtaking hypocrisy" when it claimed to back democracy abroad while killing protesters at home.
Clinton acknowledged that the issue of the Palestinians, who have sought U.N. recognition of their statehood despite Israeli protests and a U.S. vow to veto the measure in the U.N. Security Council, rankled many across the Middle East.
But she stressed the U.S. position that only negotiations with Israel can produce a real, viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel.
"It would shortsighted to think either side can simply put peacemaking on hold until the current upheaval is done. The truth is, the stalemate in the Arab-Israeli conflict is one more status quo in the Middle East that cannot be sustained," she said.
"Je ne peux plus le voir, c'est un menteur!"
"..."Je ne peux plus le voir, c'est un menteur": c'est ainsi que Nicolas Sarkozy a traité le Premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Netanyahu, le 3 novembre au G20 à Cannes. Selon le site Arrêt sur images qui a révélé les propos, Barack Obama aurait rétorqué: "Tu en as marre de lui, mais moi, je dois traiter avec lui tous les jours!".
Contentieux sur la Palestine
Au cours du même échange, Barack Obama aurait reproché à Nicolas Sarkozy de ne pas l'avoir prévenu qu'il allait voter en faveur de l'adhésion de la Palestine à l'Unesco, à laquelle s'oppose les Etats-Unis.
Alors que l'échange Sarkozy-Obama aurait dû rester off, comment ces propos ont-ils été entendus par des journalistes? L'organisation du G20 avait remis aux médias avec un peu d'avance les boîtiers permettant la traduction de la conférence de presse Obama-Sarkozy. Or, certains journalistes ont branché rapidement leurs casques, réussissant à capter quelques échos de la conversation privée, fait valoir le site. Plusieurs journalistes, interrogés par l'AFP, confirment également ces propos, alors qu'on ignore s'il existe un enregistrement sonore de ces déclarations...."
Monday, November 7, 2011
"Israel & its '5th Column' all over the world are engaged in "perception management" designed to bring the US into war with Iran!"
I have made a number of arguments and observations over the years and months that it seems I must repeat:
- Israel is not necessarily a "rational actor." Fear drives them and they may well do something foolish and wildly destructive to all including themselves.
- Using non-nuclear munitions Israel is incapable of inflicting anything like conclusive damage on the Iranian nuclear program, whether or not that program is specifically and purposively intended to produce deliverable nuclear weapons.
- In that knowledge Israel and its 5th Column all over the world are engaged in "perception management" designed to bring the US into war with Iran. Thus far they have not succeeded in spite of their influence in the US Congress.
- If Israel attacks Iran unilaterally that will constitute a decisive failure of the NPT, not so much on the side of the putative proliferator, but on the side of the Israelis. If that occurs then non-proliferation will have to be enforced by sheer force of arms. If not by the US, then, by whom?... ...
- Americans! Don't let anyone drag us into war. If you are going to wage war, do it for your own good reasons."
"There has been no planning, no thought, & no discussion about any intervention into Syria "
"... Daalder said that there were three overarching conditions that need to be met before the Obama administration would even consider any future military intervention such as occurred in Libya.
"The formula was that there needs to be a demonstrable need, regional support, and sound legal basis for action," said Daalder. "It's those three things we need to look for before we even think about the possibility of action. None of them apply in Syria."
Daalder also noted that there is not enough evidence that air strikes would be effective in Syria, that the opposition and the Arab League have not asked for intervention, and that the U.N. Security Council has refused to act.
Daalder said several times that the United States had not been "leading from behind" in Libya, and he offered his take on the Obama administration's foreign-policy philosophy, as implemented during the Libya intervention.
"The administration came to power with a particular view about how the world worked. And that was a view that in an age of globalization, security was no longer principally determined by geography, but developments anywhere in the world could have a major security impact at home ..."
"With Iran it's a different project" ... The 'Begin Doctrine' is Dead!
"... Israel's message is now more guarded..... Such talk robs Israel of some of the element of surprise if it really is planning an assault on Iran. Could it instead be a loud reminder to the rest of the world of its problem with Iran in the hope that Washington or another power might intercede?
Interviews in recent months with government and military officials -- most speaking on condition of anonymity -- and independent experts suggest that Israel prefers caution over a unilateral strike against the Iranians....
Israelis have known for years that an attack on Iran would be much more difficult than their Iraq strike. Iran is larger, more distant and, perhaps because it learned the lessons of Iraq, has built numerous and well-fortified facilities. Taking these out would require a sustained campaign by the Israeli air force, which is more geared for precision strikes through the use of advanced technology.
"With Iran it's a different project. There is no one silver bullet (with which) you can hit," a senior Israeli defense official told Reuters, in a rare admission of his country's tactical and strategic limitations...."We have to learn that the situation is changing, the region is changing. Not everything that was possible before is possible now and new possibilities open up," said Dan Meridor, deputy prime minister in charge of Israel's nuclear and intelligence affairs...."This was something counter-intuitive for Israel, especially for the military. Israelis like to be on the attack, not on the defensive," Meridor said....
The most obvious example of Israel's shifting stance is its pioneering missile shield, which incorporates a network of radar-guided interceptors designed to shoot down everything from the ballistic Shehab and Scud missiles of Iran and Syria to the lower-flying, Katyusha-style rockets of Hezbollah and Palestinian guerrillas.... "Hermetic protection will be impossible," Colonel Zvika Haimovitch of the air defense corps told Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in a September 5 speech. "I assess that, in any conflict, rockets and missiles will fall here."
But others, including INSS scholar and retired Israeli general Shlomo Brom, argue for Israel's defensive posture to be expanded, and perhaps even for the secrecy to be eased around the country's own, reputed atomic arsenal. Aiming to avoid a regional arms race and skirt international anti-proliferation scrutiny, Israel currently neither confirms nor denies having the bomb.
"The answer is mutual deterrence, with the other side knowing the price it would pay for launching a nuclear strike -- mutual destruction," said Brom.
Israel did loose its jets on Syria in 2007, to destroy a desert installation that Washington later described as a nascent, North Korean-supplied atomic reactor. Damascus denied having such a facility and Israel has never formally taken responsibility for the raid. In his memoir, former U.S. President George W. Bush said Israel's prime minister at the time, Ehud Olmert, preferred the reticence "because he wanted to avoid anything that might back Syria into a corner and force (President Bashar) Assad to retaliate".
Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was not surprised that Israel went it alone. "I ... remembered 1981, when the Israelis had ignored world opinion and launched an air strike to destroy a nuclear reactor Saddam Hussein was building at Osirak in Iraq," Cheney wrote in his autobiography. "For the Syrians and the North Koreans ... the private message was clear -- Israel would not tolerate this threat."
But some argue the attack on Syria was designed to send a message to Iran.
"We noted a whole lot of Iranian interest in what happened in Syria -- trips by consultants, intense communication," said a one-time adviser to Olmert, breaking Israel's official silence around the episode.
By tackling Syria, Israel hoped to make the Iranians think twice about pursuing their nuclear program. To illustrate, the ex-adviser cited "Family Business", a 1989 crime drama in which a veteran jailbird, played by Sean Connery, counsels his grandson on how to survive prison: "You pick out a tough guy, kick his ass right away ... Word gets around, and it makes your time easier."
Of course, the Americans also took note. Visiting Israel last month, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was asked by a reporter about the possibility that the 2007 sortie augured an Israeli attack on Iran. Panetta did not answer directly....
Israelis often question U.S. President Barack Obama's resolve in the Middle East. But even if he loses power in next year's presidential election to a more hawkish Republican, it may be too late for Israel, which predicted last January that Iran could have its first nuclear device in two years. That forecast was echoed by Britain.
"If they (Israel) feel they could achieve their objective, or at least initiate the kind of conflict that would meet their objective, through a one-off strike, that would be feasible," said Richard Kemp, a retired British army colonel who has studied Israeli strategy.
Israel's military does not comment on prospective operations. But many in Israel's defense establishment have gone out of their way to downplay the feasibility of a unilateral attack. Former Mossad spymaster Meir Dagan has repeatedly ridiculed the idea in briefings to Israeli reporters.
"Attacking the reactors from the air is a stupid idea that would have no advantage," he said in May. "A regional war would be liable to unfold, during which missiles would come in from Iran and from Hezbollah in Lebanon."..."
"Weapons delivered by the Qataris should fool no one; These are French weapons sent by France!"
"... D'après BHL, bien d’autres livraisons ont eu lieu à d’autres endroits et beaucoup plus tôt.Le 16 avril, Nicolas Sarkozy reçoit en secret le chef militaire de la rébellion libyenne, le général Younes, celui-là même qui sera assassiné quelques semaines plus tard. Younes lui demande des armes. Mais « nous vous aidons déjà, lui répond le président français. Nous avons livré, nous vous livrons, beaucoup de choses… (…) Nous livrons à travers le Qatar, bien sûr. Mais cela ne trompe personne. Tout le monde sait que les armes livrées par le Qatar sont des armes livrées par la France...."
'Wrinkles' in the IAEA Iran report? You betcha!
"...The IAEA report is certain to cause a storm of controversy. It isn’t clear, however, if the IAEA has genuinely new information to report, or whether it simply plans to elaborate on evidence it’s had since 2004. At least one new wrinkle, though, is almost guaranteed to revive memories of the flawed and fabricated intelligence about what turned out to be a nonexistent weapons of mass destruction program, namely, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2003 testimony to the United Nations Security Council, in which he revealed photographs of what he said were mobile biological weapons labs that turned out to be bogus. In this case, according to the Washington Post, the IAEA has “acquired satellite photos of a bus-size steel container” used to field test “the kinds of high-precision conventional explosives used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.” ..."
"This would be a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences,"
"..."This would be a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said when asked about reports that Israel planned a military strike against Iran.Lavrov said there could be no military resolution to the Iranian nuclear problem and said the conflicts in Iran's neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, had led to human suffering and high numbers of casualties.A raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would be likely to provoke Tehran into hugely disruptive retaliatory measures in the Gulf that would sever shipping routes and disrupt the flow of oil and gas to export markets, political analysts believe. ..."
Sunday, November 6, 2011
'Eyeing Syria, Qatar Conquers Iran's Airspace'
"... sanctions preventing the country from purchasing parts to maintain aircraft or new Western planes to update aging fleets, and denying some European refueling points on international flights, may have caused the country to swallow that pride and look abroad for help.
Relief, it appears, will come from Qatar Airways, which has been tapped to take over an unspecified number of domestic flights within Iran. The unprecedented announcement was promptly followed by news that the Doha-based airline plans to greatly expand its flight offerings to Iranian cities.
Deputy Minister of Roads and Urban and Development Shahriar Afandizadeh announced on October 30 that a deal on domestic flights had been finalized, and said the date of implementation would be announced by his ministry.
Few details were provided, but based on the agreement Qatar Airways will have to cooperate with Iranian airlines as required by Iranian regulations banning foreign companies from operating domestic routes.
"The reason for the move is to increase the capabilities of our airlines," Afandizadeh was quoted as saying by Iran's news agencies.
The measure is also seen by some as a means of countering sanctions.
"Allowing Qatar or any other foreign country to operate some of our domestic flight is aimed at diminishing the pressure of the sanctions, and it is a suitable policy under the current conditions," Iranian lawmaker Ali Akbar Moghanjoughi was quoted as saying about the agreement.
Kamran Dadkhah, a U.S.-based professor of Middle Eastern economies, says the deal could be seen as a way of allowing Iran to bypass sanctions but that it would come at a heavy price."A very small country will be in charge of Iran's domestic flights. As the result of the deal the services provided by Iranians and their jobs will practically be under the control of another country," Dadkhah said.
Blake Hounshell, the Doha-based managing editor of "Foreign Policy," tells RFE/RL the deal between Iran and Qatar could be viewed as a setback in U.S. efforts to isolate the Islamic republic over its sensitive nuclear work.
"It's going to be seen -- in Washington certainly -- as one more example of Qatar not being as cooperative as United States would like about sanctions. I don't think Qatar is violating any laws here but they're certainly violating the spirit of isolating Iran," Hounshell said.
He believes the deal is part of a pattern in Qatari foreign policy of playing Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States against one another.
"A lot of that has to do with Syria, and the Qataris believing that they can persuade Iran to put pressure on Syria to reform or get rid of Assad. So I think the Qataris are using the open door, and the relatively good relations they have with Iranians to try to be useful," Hounshell said..."
Hamid the 'blogger' warns Israel: 'Don't attack Iran; This will unify the 'crazy regime'!'
"... Hamid (a pseudonym), the Iranian, concedes that his country’s leaders are “crazy,” he warns:"... You’d do yourself a favor if you took seriously the responses of the Ayatollahs to your threats. We’re used to such threats. We’ve heard them all before. The Iranian people don’t attach any importance to them. If the Revolutionary Guards detect a real military threat they will start World War III. Israelis understand that such a war wouldn’t be worth fighting.This is a crazy regime. Tell Mr. Netanyahu not to attack.The number of opponents isn’t that large. Many support them, and to the rest it doesn’t matter whether they survive or fall.Iran needs to develop nuclear technology in order to become more industrially self-sufficient and to force western nations to take us more seriously.We’ve been hearing the same threats for 20 years. We no longer attach any importance to them...."
I’m afraid I don’t agree with Hamid that there’s little chance Israel will attack Iran. But I do agree that if Israel or anyone in the world thinks that Israeli threats will cause anyone’s heart to flutter or skip a beat in Teheran, they’re sadly mistaken. That doesn’t mean they’re not prepared to receive such a blow. They are. They know Israel and its history of attacking enemies and imagined enemies. But just as they fought a war for eight years with Iraq, so they’re willing, if they have to, to defend against an Israeli attack and take the fight to the enemy."
More White House 'leaks': Israel refused to commit to 'No-Iran-Attack''
"... Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did not get a clear commitment from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak that Israel would not take action against Iran..."
White House & DoD concerned that Israel could go 'rogue' on Iran attack
DOD 'leaking' this to CNN.
"... The United States has become increasingly concerned Israel could be preparing to strike Iran's nuclear program, a senior U.S. military official told CNN on Friday.The U.S. military and intelligence community in recent weeks have stepped up "watchfulness" of both Iran and Israel, according to the senior U.S. military official and a second military official familiar with the U.S. actions. Asked if the Pentagon was concerned about an attack, the senior military official replied "absolutely." Both officials declined to be identified because of the extreme sensitivity of the matter.
Both the U.S. Central Command, which watches developments in Iran, and the U.S. European Command, which watches developments in Israel, are "increasingly vigilant" in watching potential military movement in both countries. U.S. satellites are a crucial method of gathering intelligence in both arenas, though the official did not specify that was the method being used.
Separately, another senior U.S. military official is now calling Iran the largest threat to the United States in the Middle East. Concerns about the threat to American interests from Iran has grown for several reasons, according to military officials. In addition to the country's nuclear ambitions, recent allegations have come to light about an Iranian assassination plot in Washington, Iranian shipment of weapons into Iraq, and continued Iranian support for the militant group Hezbollah...
The military official told CNN that the United States is watching any Israeli military movements closely as well as those inside Iran. In the past, the U.S. officials felt they had assurances from Israel that it would give warning to the United States of any attack.
"Now that doesn't seem so ironclad," the official said.
The American assessment is that an Israeli strike could likely include both manned aircraft and use of Israeli Jericho ballistic missiles. Manned aircraft are particularly risky because Israeli pilots would have to cross into third-country airspace, and likely engage in mid-air refueling that could be detected by radars in the region. In addition, Iranian air defenses are "top notch," (Now they are top notch?!) according to the official, and pose a threat to both manned aircraft and missiles.... ... The official also strongly emphasized the United States has no current intention of striking Iran."
Saturday, November 5, 2011
White House: "No possibility of a US attack on Iran!"
"For all the glitz of the G20 summit the discourse in Washington remains subdued and introverted. Personal charges and counter charges fill the air in the Republican presidential nomination race, with important policy issues failing to command attention. While the expectation remains that Governor Romney will eventually win the nomination, the selection process is diminishing all the candidates. A sense of pessimism accompanies the deliberations of the Congressional “super-committee” mandated to find some $1.3 trillion in deficit reductions measures over the coming decade. Experienced observed fear that the outcome will be that the Congress faces another sustained period of paralysis. None of this bodes well for a smooth execution of foreign policy. With the Middle East peace process on hold and concerns that the “Arab Spring” is fragmenting along national lines, US policy in the region now faces an additional challenge. As the momentum for Palestinian statehood gains momentum among the UN specialized agencies, the US faces the prospect of continued mandatory cessation of US funding. This has already happened in the case of UNESCO and may extend soon to other agencies like the IAEA. With the latter poised to issue a hard-hitting report on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, Administration officials are trying to find ways to maintain a US presence in these agencies even if they grant Palestinian statehood. On Iran, we have reported the increase in decibel level of calls from some conservative organizations for military action – either unilaterally or in support of Israel – against the nuclear research sites. Once the IAEA report is released, these will certainly intensify. Our Administration contacts tell us, however, that there is no possibility of a US attack on Iran. Nor do they expect one from Israel at this juncture. Of more far-reaching consequence is the report from the National Counterintelligence Executive alleging massive cyber attacks on government agencies and businesses by China and Russia. A consensus is forming among US defense experts that the US is increasingly vulnerable in this area. Significant resources are being devoted to cyber security and the issue has the capacity to bedevil relations with China."
STATE Official: "Many of those describing themselves as Islamists are not necessarily anti-democratic."
"... The State Department is trying to convince Congress not to cut U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority (PA), despite the fact that the Palestinians are defying the United States by seeking statehood at the United Nations and specialized U.N. agencies.
"Congress should be aware of the potential second and third order effects of cutting off assistance to Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority," Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of State for political-military affairs, told an audience at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on Friday. "We must ask ourselves, if we are no longer their partner, who will fill the void? We must think about the other potential partners that could fill the space left behind, and that should give us pause."..."
Most Islamists are America's 'strategic' friends!
"Abd al-Mun'im Abu 'l-Futtuh, a senior Egyptian Brotherhood official who is running independently for the presidency of Egypt, has told al-Arabiya columnist Abdel Rahman Al-Rashed that he would not necessarily pursue the annulment of the Camp David Accords. In other contexts, he has indicated that the Saudi-backed "Arab Peace Initiative," could be a basis for the Brotherhood to enter talks with Israel.... In short, the West should avoid the mistake of approaching each country's Islamist phenomenon with one policy. There are powerful Islamists in Libya with whom direct political engagement may be futile. By contrast, there is an Islamist movement in Tunisia that could potentially serve as a bridge between the West and more extreme Islamist groups in other countries -- beginning with its Libyan neighbors. The Algerian regime, though a sworn enemy of Islamist groups, is not a friend to the region's freedom agenda, while the Egyptian Brotherhood, though ideologically anti-Western, may not be an enemy to America's security paradigm (read ISRAEL!) ..."
Jeffrey Feltman warns Lebanon on the 'Hariri-Carnival' ..again!
Not one week passes without this! Feltman feels that Lebanon's sovereign decision to stop funding a much discredited & highly politicized body, that threatens its stability, is a red line! Funny, because just this past week, the US just about stopped funding ALL WORLD Organizations that annoyed Israel!
"... "If Lebanon is unable to produce its share of the funding for the Special Tribunal, we're going to have to take some pretty tough decisions, and I think you're going to see some consequences in terms of the US-Lebanese bilateral relationship," Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman said in an interview with Al-Arabiya television in Washington.
"I'd expect the same thing in terms of some other countries as well."..."
Friday, November 4, 2011
Netanyahu orders investigation of Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin over 'leaks'
Is that a first in Israel? Mossad & Shabak investigating their former heads?
Debunking the Iran "Terror Plot"
As a good friend said: "The Real Question remains: What was the Administration's motivation?"
Violence on new South Sudan-Sudan border ...
"... The rebel group, which calls itself the South Sudan Liberation Army, is one of several militias that are battling the government of South Sudan, which became independent from Sudan in July. Despite hopes that South Sudan's independence would end decades of civil war, the months since have been marked by continued fighting between partisans of the South Sudanese government in Juba and the Sudanese government in Khartoum.In a statement Thursday, the rebel South Sudan Liberation Army said it would consider U.N. peacekeepers "a legitimate target" if the U.N. troops "continue transporting the SPLA army to fight."..."
“If they don’t leave, the Libyan Army will remove them by force”
"...People are turning in weapons every day, he said. “But some won’t give us weapons and we go into their homes and take them by force,” he explained. The day before we met, he told me, El Jedek’s men took three AK-47s from the home of a supposed Qaddafi supporter. How did he know? Neighbors tell the local council who they think is stockpiling arms, he said, and El Jedek’s guys go in and try to nab them. The room with all the returned or repossessed weapons was brimming with rocket-propelled-grenade launchers, Kalashnikovs, missiles, FNs and anti-aircraft guns.“We go to take their weapons because they are Qaddafi supporters and they are very dangerous,” El Jedek said. “Otherwise they would register them with us.” But there’s no way to really know who was on whose side, or which neighbors are just using the opportunity for unrelated vendettas. Soon, he said, they will ask all residents to register every weapon no matter who they are. ...
And what about those rebel fighters, the ones from outside Tripoli, who refuse to return from whence they came? El Jedek had a warning for them. “If they don’t leave, the Libyan National Army will remove them by force and power,” ..."
" It is & always has been textile factory!"
"... “It is, and always has been, a textile factory,” said one of the researchers, Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear policy expert at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies and publisher of the blog Arms Control Wonk.Lewis and his colleagues were initially intrigued by news reports that linked Syria’s al-Hasakah Spinning Co. to the country’s clandestine nuclear program, which came to light four years ago when Israeli warplanes bombed a building that turned out to be a partly completed plutonium reactor...."
"The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are..."
"... This is the new standard, according to a blockbuster piece in the Wall Street Journal: “men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known.” The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups. The article does not define the standards are for “suspicion” and “association.”...
And bulk really means bulk. The Journal reports that the growth in clusters of people targeted by the CIA has required the agency to tell its Pakistani counterparts about mass attacks. When the agency expects to kill 20 or more people at once, then it’s got to give the Pakistanis notice.
Determining who is a target not a question of intelligence collection. The cameras on the CIA fleet of Predators and Reapers work just fine. It’s a question of intelligence analysis — interpreting the imagery collected from the drones, and from the spies and spotters below, to understand who’s a terrorist and who, say, drops off the terrorists’ laundry. Admittedly, in a war with a shadowy enemy, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two.
Fundamentally, though, it’s a question of policy: whether it’s acceptable for the CIA to kill someone without truly knowing if he’s the bombsmith or the laundry guy...."
" Who is Qatar? I do not rule out Qatar setting up a Hezbollah party in Libya..."
"... Until now, such criticism has been couched in polite, but firm terms: Thanks for helping liberate us, but you need to butt out now. Qatar even signed an agreement pledging non-interference in Libya's internal affairs.
But yesterday, Abdel Rahman Shalgham, Qaddafi's longtime foreign minister and later U.N. ambassador who broke with the old regime in a dramatic, tear-filled speech in New York on Feb. 25, unloaded on Qatar.
Emirati commentator Sultan al-Qassemi translated some of Shalgham's extraordinary remarks, which were broadcast by Deutsche-Welle's Arabic channel and published on YouTube:On possible Qatar led coalition in Libya - Shalgam: I don't understand this coalition & I don't accept itShalgam: Even the Libyans don't understand this (possible Qatar led coalition) Qatar leading America & France? Who is Qatar?Shalgam: Does Qatar even have an army? Qatar only has mercenaries, from Nepal & from Bangladesh & from Pakistan.Shalgam: What capability does Qatar have? Our brothers from Qatar helped us but I fear Qatar will meet the fate of Gaddafi's megalomania.Shalgam: Qatar might have delusions of leading the region. I absolutely do not accept their presence (in Libya) at all.Shalgam: The number of Libyan martyrs & injured & missing, if you count them, is greater than the number of Qatar's residents.Shalgam: What is Qatar doing there (in Libya)? Qatar isn't neutral with all parties. Qatar will gather these weapons & give them to others.Shalgam: Libya is in no need of Qatar's money. It was Nato that played a decisive role.Shalgam: The professionals who run the oil & banking industries in Qatar are Libyans.Shalgam: What makes Qatar so special that it sets up an operations room (in Libya) to lead Britain & the US, this is totally unacceptable.Shalgam: All of Qatar isn't worth a neighbourhood in Libya. The Libyan experts are the ones who are leading Qatar.Shalgam: We don't need Qatar in anything, thanks for their efforts, we will decide our own destiny, we don't want them to interfereShalgam: We don't consider them neutral in Libya, they are backing certain people, we know their names.Shalgam: We don't need America or Qatar, we have officers and everything. | Question from anchor - "Was Qatar forced on the Libyans?"Shalgam: This is unacceptable. There was no document. They gathered in meeting in Doha. Qatar forced Qatar (on Libya)Shalgam: Sheikh Mustafa Abdul Jalil (NTC head) went to Qatar with apolitical people who don't know the background & didn't read the documentShalgam: They accepted the document. I warn our brothers in Qatar, if they continue this path to dominate Libya they would be delusional.Shalgam: We will resist the Qataris by all means. We will not accept to be used by Qatar.Shalgam: We will not accept to be a new emirate that belongs to the new "Emir of the Believers" in Qatar.Shalgam: I do not rule out Qatar setting up a Hezbollah party in Libya. We don't want a foreign country to interfere...."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)