Tuesday, June 23, 2009

"... The Israelis should get the Saudis to buy them ... or else..."

Via the PULSE, here

Eli Bardenstein in Ma'ariv:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has announced that if Israel wishes to prevent the sale of S-300 missiles to Iran, it must either buy them itself or work to have another country, Saudi Arabia for example, purchase them. An official from the Russian Foreign Ministry told Ma'ariv that Medvedev told this to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman during their meeting at the beginning of the month.

As early as the end of 2007, Russia signed a contract worth USD 800 million to supply advanced S-300 ground-to-air missiles to Iran. However, as of today, Russia has not provided the missiles themselves although the first payments have been made for them, according to Russian sources.

The S-300 system, which is also called SA-20, is the Russian version of the American Patriot battery. The advanced model of these missiles, which is carried on trucks, can bring down cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and fighter jets up to a range of 196 kilometers and an altitude of 27 kilometers. Its sophisticated version can locate one hundred targets simultaneously. IDF and security establishment officials claimed that Iran's receiving of the missiles would make an attack difficult. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert also spoke about the matter with his Russian counterpart, asking him to prevent the deal.

High-ranking Russian officials have said time and again that the deal was stopped at the political level by the Kremlin, in the wake of pressure from the United States and Israel, which claimed that this was a weapon that would damage the strategic balance in the Middle East. Medvedev reiterated this in his conversation with Lieberman, claiming that orders had been given not to complete the deal for now.

Medvedev's statements combine with the assumption in Israel that Russia is using the deal as political leverage. By means of the deal, Russia is seeking to infiltrate Israel and increase its hold in the region, politically and otherwise. The deal is also significant for relations between Russia and the United States. The recent unmanned aerial vehicle deal between Israel Aerospace Industries and Russia, which the United States approved, was interpreted as an attempt to prevent the fulfillment of the deal between Russia and Iran. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who is responsible for defense deals in Russia, visited Israel secretly last week and met with high-ranking officials in the government and in the defense industries."

Dennis Ross’s expanded portfolio has Iraq 'concerned'...

LR at the Cable, here

"... The confusion has been matched inside the administration, where the decision is also being treated with a high degree of secrecy. Members of Ross's team at the State Department are being assured they will be taken care of, but it isn't clear if they will all be moved from State to the NSC as well. And of course, people at the NSC already working the Middle East and Iran portfolios have been perplexed at what the decision means for their turf too.

Now Iraq hands are concerned, as word from reports and multiple sources has it that Ross will take over the Iraq portfolio as well. What's going on?

The Cable has learned that deputy national security advisor Thomas Donilon, among others, is positioning Ross to assume an uber-senior NSC position overseeing Iran, Iraq, and the Middle East. The Iraq portfolio formerly assigned to holdover war czar Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute will be shifted to Ross, leaving Lute to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Puneet Talwar, the NSC's senior director for the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Iran, will report to Ross, as will Daniel Shapiro, the NSC's senior director for the Middle East and North Africa.

Under the new NSC structure, there will be no dedicated senior director for Iraq and there will be only two or three directors for Iraq, reporting to Talwar....

National security advisor Jim Jones is said to be sensitive to the concerns, while Donilon is said to be pushing for the move, along with NSC chief of staff and longtime close Obama foreign policy aide Mark Lippert. Lippert and Donilon didn't respond to queries. Other officials declined to speak on the matter. (Wait for the announcement before interpreting the Ross move, suggested one.)

Ross's team at State includes Iran expert Ray Takeyh, Special Assistant Ben Fishman, State Department Senior Policy Advisor Elisa Catalano, and State Department Senior Science Advisor Alex Deghan.

The other group said to be concerned by Ross's perceived takeover of Middle East turf is the team of Middle East Peace special envoy George Mitchell, who now has to contend not only with resistance from all quarters of the region, but also a rival power center in the NSC that hasn't tended to see Middle East peace issues the same way."

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Streets of Tehran left empty as protesters wait in vain for sign

"...Protesters who have shaken the authorities by venting anger en masse at the "stolen" elections that returned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to office spoke of a hiatus, even a despair, settling on the movement after yesterday's Saturday's clashes killed at least 10 and wounded scores more. State television blamed the casualties on clashes between police and "terrorist groups".

Tonight, sporadic gunfire was heard in northern parts of Tehran, yet there was no repeat of the mass protests that have brought hundreds of thousands to the streets of the capital in the last week.

Some opposition figures were still hoping that their figurehead, the defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, would emerge tomorrow to lead another rally calling for the elections to be annulled. But Saturday's crackdown, in which police wielded guns, truncheons, tear gas and water cannon, showed that the state intends to follow through on veiled threats of zero tolerance from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei....."


هل يزور عبد اللّه دمشق فينتقل سـعد إلى السرايا؟

قبلات بين الرئيس الأسد والملك عبد اللّه في قمّة الكويت الاقتصاديّة (أرشيف ــ رويترز)

 لكن الخلاصة هي أن المعارضة تقترب من مواجهة استحقاقات كثيرة داخلياً وإقليمياً، وعليها أن تعدّ العدة منذ الآن لاتخاذ الموقف المناسب. وجديد الحراك، قرار الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله عقد لقاءات مباشرة ونقاش مفتوح مع حلفائه، سعياً إلى مراجعة المرحلة الماضية ورسم أفق المرحلة المقبلة، وعلى جدول مواعيده فائزون وخاسرون من قوى المعارضة، لكن اللقاء الأهم المرتقب هو بينه وبين العماد ميشال عون «في أي وقت» على حد تعبير المقربين.
وإذ بدا لقاء زعيم المقاومة بوليد جنبلاط قد جاء خارج السياق المباشر، إلا أنه مثّل حدثاً لم يكن مستغرباً منذ أحداث السابع من أيار. يومها ظهرت النتيجة الأولى لهذه المعركة الخاطفة بأن فرضت على جنبلاط جدول اهتمامات أكثر واقعية، واكتشف أنه لم يعد صالحاً لقيادة السنّة بدلاً من الراحل رفيق الحريري، وأن الأمر ليس مرتبطاً فقط برغبة أو قدرة، بل لإدراكه أن جمهور «المستقبل» شعر بأن جنبلاط خذله وهرب من معركة بيروت، وعقد صفقة في الجبل، وانتهى الأمر عند تحالفات من نوع مختلف، جرى تظهيرها تباعاً حتى موعد الانتخابات.

■ اهتمامات جنبلاط وهواجسه

في اللقاء الطويل بين نصر الله وجنبلاط، لم يكن هناك ما هو مفاجئ. قبل اللقاء بأيام قليلة، عُقد لقاء لم يعلن عنه بين جنبلاط وشريكه في الزعامة الدرزية طلال أرسلان بحضور الوزير غازي العريضي. كان الاجتماع بمثابة إعداد للقاء الضاحية، لكنه كان مناسبة لأن يقول جنبلاط كلاماً يشبه كلامه في الخلوة الدرزية، وهو أيضاً جزء من عرضه في اللقاء مع نصر الله.
كان لا بد من استعادة سريعة لكل المرحلة الماضية. قرر جنبلاط مسبّقاً أن لا يثير مع نصر الله ملف العلاقة مع سوريا. لم يشر جنبلاط إلى الأمر بتاتاً في اللقاء. كان يعرف أن نصر الله لا يملك الجواب، كما كان يعرف هو ونصر الله أن الاتصالات التي يجريها طلال أرسلان في هذا الصدد لم تصل إلى نتيجة بعد. لذلك ركّز جنبلاط على أمور كثيرة، من بينها:
أولاً: تأكيده على ما اعتبرها خلفية المواقف التي صدرت عنه في الأعوام الأربعة الماضية، بما فيها تلك التي طالت المقاومة أو سوريا، وانتهى إلى خلاصة من حواضر اليوم، لناحية شعوره بأن إسرائيل ربما تخطّط لعدوان كبير، وأن على الجميع العمل على توحيد الموقف بما يمنع أي انعكاس داخلي لمثل هذا العدوان، وتأكيده أنه سيكون إلى جانب المقاومة، مجدّداً التأكيد أن ملف سلاح المقاومة ليس مدرجاً على جدول أعمال أحد.
ثانياً: عكس جنبلاط مخاوفه من أمور داخلية كثيرة، بينها حذره المستعاد من قوى مسيحية مثل الكتائب و«القوات اللبنانية» وآخرين، وأشار صراحة هذه المرة إلى خشيته من تنامي «الأصولية السنية» وانتشار هؤلاء في أمكنة عدة من لبنان، بما في ذلك إقليم الخروب، أي عنده في ساحل الشوف. وهذه نقطة كان قد لفت إليها جنبلاط عندما التقى أرسلان ثمّ خلال لقائه وفد حزب الطاشناق. وأشار جنبلاط إلى أن هذه المجموعات ليست ذات صلة بالنائب سعد الحريري.
ثالثاً: قال جنبلاط إنه يدعم بقاء الرئيس نبيه بري في رئاسة المجلس النيابي، وهو يدعم أيضاً وصول النائب سعد الحريري إلى رئاسة الحكومة، وقال إنه بانتظار عودة الحريري من السعودية، وتبيان ما إذا كان سيقوم بهذه المهمة أم لا. فهو يميل إلى تكليف الحريري، ولذلك يتمنّى على حزب الله وعلى قوى المعارضة أن تتعاون مع القيادي الشاب، وأن تسهّل له أموره، وأن تجري مساعدته على تأليف حكومة مريحة، وأنه أفضل من فؤاد السنيورة، وأنه يقول هذا الكلام لأنه يشعر بفائدته في ما خص إعادة الاستقرار والتعاون بما يخدم البلد، مشدداً على أنه لا يحمل رسالة، وليس آتياً بقصد أن يأخذ جواباً لأحد، كما أنه لا يعرف ما إذا كان سعد سيعود ومعه موافقة على الثلث الضامن أو لا.
رابعاً: يهتم جنبلاط بتوثيق العلاقة بين الدروز والشيعة، وهو يريد استنئناف تواصل كان قائماً بقوة في سنوات سابقة، وعلى مختلف الصعد، وأن يبذل كل الجهد لتعديل المزاج القائم في الأوساط الدرزية، غامزاً من قناة بعض رجال الدين في الجبل من الذين لا يزالون في مرحلة توتر. وهو يطلب من الحزب العمل بالوتيرة نفسها وعلى الموجة نفسها، ورفع مستوى التنسيق والتواصل بين الحزبين وبين المجموعات، وخصوصاً في المناطق المختلطة عند ساحل بيروت الجنوبي.

■ مصر تتوسّط بين بنشعي وقريطم

ولأن جنبلاط يعي أهمية الدور السعودي ـــــ السوري في متابعة ملف الحكومة، استمع إلى رأي نصر الله الذي يشدد على أنه لا يمكن سعد الحريري أن يترأس حكومة ويدير بلداً وهو يتبنى موقفاً معادياً لسوريا. وسأل عن كيفية تصرف الرجل إذا كان رئيساً للحكومة، وزار الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد لبنان، أو أوفد رئيس حكومته أو حصل أن يكون هناك اجتماع ضروري في دمشق مثلاً. وكرر نصر الله أمام جنبلاط أنه ليس هناك من فيتو لدى أحد على تولّي سعد الحريري رئاسة الحكومة، ولكن يجب أن يكون الجميع أمام واقع وممارسة وأسلوب إدارة غير الذي شهدناه. وأوضح نصر الله أن المعارضة لم تقرّر بعد وجهتها النهائية، وهي بانتظار سماع رأي الطرف الآخر، بعد أن يكون المعنيون قد اتخذوا قرارهم بشأن من سيكون مرشح فريق الغالبية النيابية لرئاسة الحكومة.
هذا الكلام ناقشه نصر الله مع حليفه وصديقه النائب سليمان فرنجية، وسأله عن موقفه الرافض لتسمية الحريري لرئاسة الحكومة. فأكد الأخير أن موقفه ليس شخصياً، بل يرتبط بما قام به الحريري ضده: لقد قاد معركة قاسية ضدّي في الانتخابات، وأصوات السنّة التي أتى بها إلى الكورة هي التي هزمتنا هناك، وهو حاول فعل الأمر نفسه في زغرتا نفسها، وربما كاد ينجح في الأمر، كما موّل أعنف معركة ضدي في المنطقة، وليس منطقياً أن أسمّيه لرئاسة الحكومة.
تفهّم نصر الله موقف الرجل الذي تابع: جاءني السفير المصري في بيروت أحمد البديوي قبل أيام، يطرح عليّ أن أتعاون مع سعد الحريري، وأن أُسهّل له الأمر وقال لي: إن الحريري مهتم بك، وهو أتى على ذكر تيار المردة وأهمية تمثيله في الحكومة مرتين، ومن الأفضل التعاون معه إلا إذا كنت تفضّل السنيورة عليه! فردّ فرنجية على السفير المصري: الاثنان من صنف واحد، ولا أرى أي ضرورة لأن أسمّي أياً منهما لرئاسة الحكومة.

■ لننتظر السعوديّة وسوريا؟

فرنجية الذي تربطه علاقة وثيقة بالرئيس السوري بشار الأسد، يعرف أن سوريا فوجئت بنتائج الانتخابات، وهي لم تكن مرتاحة إلى ما حصل، وسألت عن الأسباب وعن الخلفيات، وهي تتابع موقف المعارضة في المرحلة المقبلة، ولا سيما ملف تأليف الحكومة الجديدة. وسمع فرنجية مباشرة من المعنيين الكبار في دمشق، أن سوريا لا تمانع في تولي سعد الحريري رئاسة الحكومة وهي تفصل بينه وبين ملف وليد جنبلاط، لكن فرنجية يعرف أن الأمر في سوريا مرتبط أيضاً بما يجري مع السعودية.
قادة المعارضة، ومنهم نصر الله وفرنجية، وصلتهم معلومات عن حركة موفدين سعوديين إلى دمشق، وأن نجل الملك السعودي الأمير عبد العزيز بين عبد الله طلب موعداً عاجلاً لمقابلة الرئيس الأسد، وثمة زيارة لوزير الإعلام عبد العزيز الخوجة، ولكن علينا الانتظار لنعرف ما هي أبعاد هذا الحوار وإلى أين سيصل، وما هي تأثيراته على القرار السعودي بشأن تولي سعد الحريري رئاسة الحكومة.
لكن البارز على هذا الصعيد، هو الكلام عن أن زيارات الموفدين إنما تمهّد لزيارة قد يقوم بها الملك السعودي إلى دمشق، وأنها يجب أن تحصل بعدما يكون التفاهم قد جرى على أمور كثيرة تخص الملف اللبناني، وبالتالي فإن في المعارضة من يعتقد بقوة بأن «طريق سعد الحريري إلى السرايا سوف تمر حكماً من دمشق، وأن زيارة الملك السعودي وحصول تفاهم بين الرياض ودمشق يسهّلان على سعد التقدم نحو مرحلة جديدة من العلاقات مع دمشق، وأن نقاشاً كبيراً يجري بشأن هذا الأمر، وهناك أيضاً من وجد الفتوى لسعد الحريري: إذا كان ملك السعودية، وهو بمثابة والد لك، وهو يمثّل لك مرجعية من جوانب عدة، قد زار دمشق، فهذا يعفيك من أيّ سؤال يمكن أن يوجّه إليك من جانب حلفاء أو مناصرين أو حتى خصوم عن سبب قرارك بناء علاقة مع سوريا، ثم إن ملف التحقيق في جريمة اغتيال والدك رفيق الحريري قد صار بيد المحكمة الدولية، وهي سوف تقرر النتيجة».

and lest we stop rejoicing, "16 Yemenite Jews arrive in Israel.."


YNETnews, here


"... it's not just personnel that is, that is involved here ... It's policy..."


"... MR. GREGORY:  Let me ask you about the nature of the Iranian threat.  Mohamed ElBaradei, who, as you know, runs the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in an interview with the BBC on Wednesday the following:  "The ultimate aim of Iran," he said, "as I understand it, is they want to be recognized as a major power in the Middle East.  [Increasing their nuclear capability] is to them the road to get that recognition, to get that power and prestige.  It is also an insurance policy against what they have heard in the past about regime change." My question, Prime Minister, what does all that's happening on the streets of Iran do, in your estimation, to the nature of the threat from Iran? Is this a game changer in some way?

MR. NETANYAHU:  First of all, I, I don't subscribe to the view that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a status symbol.  It's not.  These are people who are sending thousands and thousands of missiles to their terrorist proxies Hezbollah and Hamas with the specific instruction to bomb civilians in Israel. They're supporting terrorists in the world.  This is not a status symbol.  To have such a regime acquire nuclear weapons is to risk the fact that they might give it to terrorists or give terrorists a nuclear umbrella.  That is a departure in the security of the Middle East and the world, certainly in the security of my country, and so I wouldn't treat the subject so lightly.  Would a regime change be a game changer?  A policy change would be a game changer.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

MR. NETANYAHU:  I suppose that goes along with--it's not just personnel that is, that is involved here.

MR. GREGORY:  But what--but we may not have regime change here.

MR. NETANYAHU:  It's policy.

MR. GREGORY:  You may not have regime change if--even if there's not, is everything that's happened on the street, does it make Iran more or less likely to engage with the West over its nuclear program?

MR. NETANYAHU:  I don't know.  I think it's too early to say what'll transpire both in Iran and is--and on the international scene.  As I said, I think something fundamental is taking place here.  But I did speak to President Obama about the question of engagement before this happened, and he made it clear that engagement is not an end in itself, it's a means to an end. And the end has to be to prevent this regime from developing nuclear weapons capability, and he said he'd leave all options on the table.  And I'd say if it was right before these demonstrations, well, it's doubly right now...."

Mousavi's manifesto: "He accepts the principles & the institutions of the Islamic Republic, including the IRGC & the basij, but denounces "deviations"

Gary's Choice, here

" ... Although he denounces the “lies and fraud” of the leadership, particularly in the recent election, he views the fraudulent election as only as the symptom of something far more serious. He describes a revolution gone wrong, a revolution that was originally based on attention to the voice of the people but has resulted in “forcing an unwanted government on the nation.”

He acknowledges, interestingly, that his own voice at the beginning was less ‘eloquent’ than he would have wished and that the people were ahead of him in turning the movement green.

He denounces both extremes of the political spectrum: those on one hand who believe that “Islamic government is the same as Tyranny of the Rightful;” and on the other, those who “consider religion and Islam to be blockers for realization of republicanism,” i.e. those who believe that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

That is truly a revolutionary statement. He says he will stand by the side of all those seeking “new solutions” in a non-violent way. He accepts the principles and the institutions of the Islamic Republic, including the Revolutionary Guard and the basij, but denounces “deviations and deceptions.” He demands reform “that returns us to the pure principles of the Islamic Revolution.”

Mousavi has in fact issued a manifesto for a new vision of the Islamic Republic. The repression and disdain of the government has brought the opposition to a place they probably never dreamed of going. And no one knows where any of the parties are likely to go next...."

Syrian-Saudi rapprochement ... continue'


"The Lebanese daily Al-Diyar has reports that Prince 'Abd Al-'Aziz, the son of the Saudi king, met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus on June 20, 2009, in preparation for a meeting between Assad and the king.

The daily also reports that Saudi Information Minister 'Abd Al-Aziz Al-Khoja has likewise visited Syria for a meeting with his Syrian counterpart, Mushen Bilal. According to the daily, the ongoing rapprochement between Syria and Saudi Arabia may affect the political atmosphere in Lebanon and the establishment of its new government.

According to the Kuwaiti daily Al-Anba, Syria has informed Saudi Arabia that it does not object to the appointment of Sa'd Al-Hariri as Lebanese PM, but that it demands that that the investigation of Rafiq Al-Hariri's assassination have no affect on Syrian-Lebanese relations.

Netanyahu: Israel wants a free Iran...

Reuters, here
"... Peres earlier Sunday lauded post-election protests in Iran and said he hoped the Islamic Republic's government would disappear. 
"Let the young people raise their voice of freedom for a positive policy. Let the Iranian women, who are a very courageous group of people, to voice their thirst for equality, for freedom," Peres said in English in a speech to visiting Jewish fundraisers. 
"I really don't know what will disappear first, their enriched uranium, or their poor government," said Peres, whose post is largely ceremonial. "Hopefully, the poor government will disappear." 
...
Israeli leaders have avoided taking sides publicly over the protests that erupted in Iran...

...When Blair told the Commons that he hoped conflict with Iraq could be averted, he already knew the White House had picked 1,500 targets...

In the Observer, here

"... It is precisely such gaps between the private and public versions of events that, many believe, would be exposed by an open inquiry into the Iraq war. ...

"The original genius of the Security Council resolution in November 2002 was that it charged Saddam to prove his innocence: then, by becoming obsessed with finding a smoking gun or getting him to do something loony like shoot down a drone [the plan changed]. People suddenly realised that they had to prove him guilty. The onus of proof shifted, which was a serious own goal."...

Allied planes already patrolling the existing no-fly zone were coming under increasing threat of being shot down. Did this give Bush his idea? For the Americans, it was clear that time was running out. Two days before the 31 January meeting, Bush used his annual State of the Union address to prepare his nation for war.... Blair needed the resolution to win over not only the British public, but parliament and wavering cabinet ministers such as Robin Cook and Clare Short. He was also due to face the wrath of the grassroots at Labour's spring conference in mid-February, the same weekend as the planned Stop the War march.

Against this background, the two-hour meeting on 31 January in Bush's private apartments at the White House - involving the two men and six senior officials - was critical. The British press were briefed that their prime minister would push the need for a UN mandate, for the sake of domestic and international opinion. That much is borne out by the memo, which has Blair suggesting a second resolution would provide "an insurance policy".

US journalists, meanwhile, were told the two men would discuss a timetable for war if no second resolution materialised. Behind closed doors, the memo confirms that the Americans had virtually given up on that resolution and were clutching at increasingly improbable straws, from encouraging Iraqi defections to assassination.

Past accounts from senior members of both administrations have suggested Blair exacted generous concessions from Bush at this meeting. The Manning memo seems to portray Bush as the driving force, while Blair is recorded reassuring the Americans that he was "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

Blair is widely thought to have tried at this meeting to get the invasion delayed until April. But the memo reveals there was little chance of that;..."

Viewed from the White House, the furore may seem odd. Barack Obama's administration is untainted by Iraq; it has little to fear and may even benefit from an inquiry exploring a previous Republican administration's murkiest hours. By contrast, Brown sat in Blair's war cabinet, a little too close for comfort..."

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Which Iran would Israel bomb?

If, as Barbara Slavin facebooked Steve Clemons with the tidbit that the Islamic Republic ceased to exist as Iran "became just another military dictatorship", ... then ISRAEL faces a dilemma of sorts .... Zvi Bar'el, in Haaretz, here
"... Israel is now gaining a more intimate, accurate familiarity with the Iranian public. The demonstrations have made quite clear that there is not one Iran or even two, but rather a number of Irans. There is the Iran that belongs to those who screamed, "Death to America and to Israel," and there is the Iran that screams, "Down with the dictator."....
 It is still too early to predict how the demonstrators will act and in what fashion the Revolutionary Guards will respond, but this past week's events will leave a historic mark in post-revolutionary Iran. It is a mark that should also be seared into the minds of the West in general, and the United States and Israel in particular. All in all, 30 years have passed since the Khomeini revolution, and the Iranian public is now rebelling against the system. True, this constituency has twice elected a reformist president who disappointed, and this time it does not appear that it is ready to give up, at least not easily. But hundreds of thousands of demonstrators did not pour into the streets due to American intervention or threats from Israel. They want a better Iran for themselves, not for Obama or Benjamin Netanyahu. They will be the ones to determine what qualifies as a better Iran. 
This is the crux of the confusion that we have stumbled upon. The grand enemy that was neatly packaged into a nuclear, Shi'ite-religious container has come apart at the seams. On the one hand, it threatens, while on the other hand it demonstrates for democracy. On one street, it raises a fist against America, and in another alley, streams of protesters march for human rights. For goodness' sake, who is left to bomb? Until one week ago, the path was well-lit. 
An Israeli decision to strike depends on American policy, which depends on the outcome of the dialogue that President Obama seeks to begin with Iran. And, as military jargon so succinctly teaches us, the prescribed plan of action can be interrupted by unforeseen events. This is a segment of the Iranian population that is beginning to give rise to new questions. If there is a chance to change the system of rule - perhaps not now, but in the next Iranian election in four years - if there is a chance that Obama will gain greater leverage because the Iranian leader understands that he must compromise with his people, this will be a route that must be tried anew. 
All the more so when one gets the sneaky suspicion that the military challenge from a nuclear Iran does not pose as menacing a threat as we were warned to believe. If the head of the Mossad pushes the threat back to 2014, and since we place trust in our defense leaders whether they say the threat will be realized in another year or within a few months, and if the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says it is impossible to prevent a state from acquiring know-how in the field of nuclear technology, there is no alternative but to explore the path that will weaken the motivation to use a nuclear weapon. And that is to speak with Iran through the Iranians."

... "No, I am not aware of that meeting" between Dennis Ross & Avigdor Lieberman...

From the State Department press conference Friday:

QUESTION: Has Dennis Ross moved yet? Has he packed his bags? Has he gone over to the White House yet?
MR. KELLY: Dennis Ross is still here. I’ve been in communication with him. He’s still actively advising the Secretary.
QUESTION: Any idea when the moving van’s coming?
MR. KELLY: I don’t have any information about anything regarding Dennis’s future right now.
QUESTION: Can you tell us anything about his meeting this morning with the Israeli foreign minister?
MR. KELLY: No, I am not aware of that meeting.
QUESTION: Thank you.

Friday, June 19, 2009

IRAN: THE START OF THE END GAME IN TEHRAN

EURASIA report, here

"It would appear that Iran’s political crisis is entering the end-game phase. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared to slam the door June 19 on any chance of a political compromise. The only way now open for Iran to resolve the presidential election controversy is through a test of strength.

The harsh tone of Ayatollah Khamenei’s sermon suggests that hardliners are prepared to resort to force in order to defend Iran’s theocracy. According to some reports, Revolutionary Guard units will be deployed on June 20 to confront demonstrators,...

While offering unrelenting support for Ahmadinejad’s power grab, the supreme leader also appeared to tacitly offer his chief antagonist, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an olive branch. He suggest that personal attacks against Rafsanjani concerning corruption had gone too far..... Rafsanjani does not seem inclined to make peace with Ayatollah Khamenei. Rafsanjani has made no public comments since the election confrontation erupted. But, according to a source familiar with Rafsanjani’s political style, when he is silent, he is plotting..... Rafsanjani and others pushing for the creation of a collective religious leadership are said not to be interested in jettisoning Ayatollah Khamenei, but merely in placing checks on his authority. Attempting to oust the supreme leader, they believe, could easily precipitate civil war at this stage....

 It was unclear whether the report was merely a tactic designed to keep hardliners guessing as to when and where the June 20 demonstration would take place, or whether the supreme leader’s sermon was having the desired effect of causing protest supporters to back down. Other reports, meanwhile, had Mousavi issuing a call to attend a protest march that was scheduled to begin at 4 pm on June 20...."

Nasrallah, Jumblatt meet in reconciliation step

Ap, here

Mossad, CIA & 'locals', hitting Hezbollah hard...

Jeff Stein, in CQ, here
"American and Israeli intelligence organizations, in cooperation with local security services, have scored notable recent successes against Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terror organization, according to a new report.
Intelligence Online (IO), a subscription-only insider newsletter based in Paris, cited the roll-ups of Hezbollah operatives in Azerbaijan and Egypt and an embarrassing diplomatic flap in Colombia as setbacks to the Iran- and Syria-backed organization......
IO claims that the arrests of Ali Karaki and Ali Najmeddin were the result of the "active cooperation between the CIA outpost in Azerbaijan, Turkey's Milli Istihbarat Teskilati and Israel's Mossad."
A Cairo court, meanwhile, is expected to see the appearance this week of another suspected Lebanese Hezbollah operative, the newsletter reports. Sami Chehab was arrested in April on charges of assembling a terrorist cell of 48 persons in Egypt.
"The investigation of the three, who reportedly turned over 12 per cent of their gains to Hezbollah, was carried out by the U.S. Drug Enforcement agency in league with its Colombian counterpart." 

WINEP very anxious to see blood in Iran ...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sits amid a vast crowd, listening to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's address to the nation on Friday. (AP)
Clawson, afflicted with the LEBANESE syndrome of "Crowdo-mania" talked to LR in the CABLE, here

".... Speaking at Friday prayer services in Tehran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei endorsed the disputed vote count that declared incumbent PresidentMahmoud Ahmadinejad the landslide winner, and warned opposition leaders they would be responsible for "bloodshed and chaos" if the protests continue.

News reports said thousands of people attended the prayer service, among them Ahmadinejad. "If on Friday, they can't turn out [huge numbers] for prayers, and you just have Khamenei appearing in front of the Basiji, and there are no mass demonstrations," the regime is in trouble, said the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Patrick Clawson in an interview Thursday.

Of the crowd at the Friday prayer service, Clawson said, "It was pathetic.  They have had a week to organize for this moment, and that was the best they could do? The speech is a 'screw you' to the protestors and to [former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani. The kind words about him fit an Iranian stereotype: praise the guy you are about to arrest.  No signs of a compromise."

Israeli Security Establishment Criticize Mossad Chief: "He Caused Damage To Israel"

Via The PULSE, here

"Mossad Director Meir Dagan's recent statements about the timing of Iran's possession of nuclear weapons sharply differ from the assessments made by the IDF Intelligence Branch and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Ben Caspit in Ma'ariv:

Harsh criticism of Mossad Director Meir Dagan's statements in Foreign the Affairs and Defense Committee this past Tuesday has been heard in recent days from high ranking sources in both the IDF and the security establishment.

Many in the Prime Minister's Bureau also raised an eyebrow after Dagan was quoted as saying that Iran would possess a launch-ready nuclear rocket only in 2014, and added that recent riots in Tehran would soon die out and not jeopardize the regime. There were those in the security establishment who said that even if Dagan's remarks were misconstrued, such statements caused Israel damage in view of the fact that the country has mounted an effort in recent years to warn of the Iranian nuclear threat.

The assessment by the IDF Intelligence Branch regarding the date by which Iran will attain nuclear capabilities differs from that of Dagan, while the recently publicized discord between Israel and the United States on this very issue is the focal point of the talks between the two countries.

Netanyahu's bureau refused to comment on the matter. Meanwhile, associates of the prime minister expressed behind closed doors their dissatisfaction with Dagan's statement, which was given wide international coverage, saying that it undermined the foundations on which Netanyahu's policy was based. The prime minister is investing all his energy in an effort to warn of the looming Iranian threat and its fast expiring timetable....

A clarification with sources in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee confirms that Dagan provided a time span and spoke of an Iranian bomb sometime between 2011 and 2014. However, his statements indicated that the 2011 option was fairly insignificant and would become feasible only if the Iranians went all out.

Dagan's predictions about the riots in Iran were also criticized, and sources in the security establishment commented, "Why did he have to go and say that?"....

"What To Do With Hezbollah Now"

Yup, you guessed it: David Schenker in the WS, via CBSNews, here
"...March 14 is not out of the woods. Despite the majority's victory there are no mandates in Lebanese politics. And if recent history is any indication, the coming months will be perilous for the majority, especially if it tries to take bold initiatives. ....Given Hezbollah's preponderance of force, March 14 may not ultimately succeed in its effort to deny the blocking third or to compose a ministerial statement that strengthens state sovereignty vis-à-vis the Shiite militia. But the Obama administration should not undermine March 14's ambitious attempts to effect real change in Lebanon. While the election was a good start, Washington's continued support for March 14 in this difficult period will be critical if there is any hope of consolidating the election gains." 

Bringing Back The Syrian Track?

Via the PULSE, here

"...Shimon Shiffer reports in Yediot Acharonoth:

In messages relayed in the last few days to Ankara by figures close to Netanyahu it was said: "Israel is willing to renew the talks with the Syrians." However, it was made clear that the Netanyahu government would not withdraw from the Golan Heights and would not reply in the affirmative to the Syrian demand to begin the talks from the point they were left off by the Olmert government.

Basically, the proposal being made by Netanyahu and his advisers is that it is better to discuss with the Syrians various issues important to both countries and not begin drawing up a map of an Israeli withdrawal. The Syrians will have to internalize that the current government will not agree to discuss the Syrians' "all or nothing" parameter.

Netanyahu's position is in contrast to the conception expressed by the security establishment leaders. They say that Israel should try and reach an agreement with the Syrians and to pay the full price of a withdrawal from the Golan Heights, and in return, Syria will sever its strategic connections with Iran and stop threatening Israel with surface-to-air missiles. A top adviser to Netanyahu completely rules out this assumption and says that the Syrians will not relinquish their special relationship with Iran.

Khamenei to Moussavi: ...You Decide whether your opposition remains in the realm of politics, or cross over into the realm of "by other means"...


Judah Grunstein in the WPR, here
"... the moment another march heads out, there really is no turning back, either for the opposition or the regime. And the standoff, which so far has been somewhat static or parallel-tracked, becomes a collision-course game of chicken.....Should Moussavi cross that line, or should the demonstrators do so without him, they enter into open revolt. At that point, the battle widens, with the center of gravity being no longer only the hearts and minds of the Iranian populace, but those, too, of the Iranian security apparatus...."