Feeds:
Articole
Comentarii

Archive for noiembrie 2011

On Monday, Iran’s powerful Guardian Council endorsed the Majlis’ resolution adopted the previous day to downgrade the country’s ties with Britain. The speed with which the process gathered momentum conveys the message that it carries the stamp of a decision at the highest levels of the Iranian leadership.

That and the overwhelming mood of support for the move within the Majlis also indicate that the locus of power in Iran is shifting to a hard line.

The move includes expelling the British ambassador in Tehran and downgrading the representation to the level of charge d’affaires. By Tuesday afternoon, dozens of Iranian protesters forced their way into the British compound in Tehran, tearing down the Union Flag and throwing documents from windows. A signpost

has been put up in Tehran that can be ignored only at some peril.

The protesters raised three main slogans: „Down with Britain”, „Down with America”, and „Down with Israel”. They carried photographs of Iranian scientist Majid Shahriari and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Major-General Qassem Soleimani. Tuesday was also the first anniversary of Shahriari’s murder, which was believed to have been carried out by Israel’s Mossad with the support of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6.

Asymmetrical response
But the tipping point must be London’s steps toward removing the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MKO) from the list of terrorist organizations. The MKO has been responsible for some of the most devastating terrorist attacks in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran holds the MKO responsible for more than 17,000 killings over the years. The most „celebrated” were of course those of Ayatollah Muhammad Behesti (who was next only to Imam Ruhollah Khomeini in the pantheon of the revolutionary leadership) in June 1980 and of the popularly elected Iranian president Muhammad Rajayi in August of the same year. The second terrorist strike came close to eliminating the entire revolutionary leadership under Khomeini.

It must be one of the quirks of modern history that Western intelligence has depended on the MKO, which practices an ideological mix of Marxism, nationalism and Islam, as the principal instrument to subvert the Islamic regime in Iran. Iranian security personnel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah busted in a major counterintelligence operation in Beirut the entire network of the US Central Intelligence Agency in Lebanon and Iran.

The CIA was apparently using Lebanon as the „gateway” to penetrate Iran, given the relative freedom of movement between the two countries. Through May and June, Iranian security officials arrested more than three dozens Iranians who were working for the CIA. Their interrogation revealed that recent covert operations against Iran were the joint ventures of the CIA, Mossad and the MKO.

Thus the British move to rehabilitate the MKO (whose leadership is based in Brussels and is allowed to travel freely to the European capitals) has infuriated Tehran to no end. It seems to be the real reason behind the present crisis. Tehran is resorting to „asymmetrical” response by striking at the symbol of British power because it lacks the capacity to pay back to London in the same coin.

A deep chill is setting in with Iran’s ties with Britain. The relationship has been a hugely troubled one historically, the high-water mark in recent history being the coup leading to the overthrow of the government of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in 1952, which is commonly attributed to the CIA but was actually the handiwork of MI6. And Iran remembers it. Iran knows better than most countries that Britain continues to be the „brain” behind America’s policies – be it toward Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Myanmar.

Britain will almost certainly take its grouse over the Iranian snub to the European councils and will seek a „regional” consensus in the Western world to make diplomatic moves against Iran in unison. The predictable pattern will be that given the heightened feelings in London, such countries as Germany that have extensive involvement in Iran will fall in line. All the same, it becomes an occasion to take the temperature on European unity when chips are down over the Iran situation in the coming months.
This, in a manner of speaking, will also be the trial run for the Middle East. The lines are being drawn as the night of the long knives begins. Everyone understands it. And for the autocratic regimes in the Persian Gulf, there will be no corner to go and hide in. The hurried visit by King Abdullah of Jordan to Israel shows the panic over the gathering storm. Saudi Arabia’s robust efforts to divide the region on Sunni-Shia sectarian lines haven’t succeeded. The Arab street will find it difficult to accept the Western push against Iran. That is the thought worrying Abdullah most. What if this mass indignation erupts in Jordan?

The United States and Israel will no doubt work overtime in the European capitals to get the West to downgrade ties with Iran and if they succeed, they will beat the drums that Iran faces „international” isolation. But it may have no value other than propaganda. Clearly, Tehran has factored in the downstream diplomatic fracas that will follow by insulting Britain, and is nonetheless going ahead with its decision to downgrade ties.

So, what is on the Iranian mind? Some serious conclusions can be drawn. First, Tehran estimates that a US-British-Israeli axis is in any case gearing up for a confrontation. The strategic ambiguity – „all options are on the table” – no longer exists really, after the hardline policy speech by US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon at the Brookings Institution in Washington last week.

Evidently, Donilon spoke up for President Barack Obama, fully mindful of the criticality of an already supercharged Middle East situation:

We have enhanced our significant and enduring US force presence in the region. In addition, we have worked to develop a network of air and missile defenses, shared early warning, improved maritime security, closer counterterrorism cooperation, expanded the programs to build partner capacity, and increased efforts to harden and protect our partners’ critical infrastructure.

The steps demonstrate unmistakably to Tehran that any attempt to dominate the region will be futile. And they show the United States is prepared for any contingency … President Obama has said as recently as last week, we are not taking any options off the table in pursuit of our basic objectives.

Second, Tehran estimates that this confrontation may take place within Obama’s first term as president – because it may well ensure the success of his bid for a second term. The manner in which the Obama administration jacked up the tensions with Iran almost in parallel with the commencement of his re-election bid hasn’t escaped Tehran’s attention. Third, emanating out of the above, Tehran has little choice left but to take to the high ground, as it is no longer a matter of Iran being flexible on the nuclear issue or not, of Iran being conciliatory toward Israel or not, or of Iran being „moderate” on the Palestine problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict or not.

It is pure power play and realpolitik. A similar situation arose in 1980 when Tehran couldn’t care less anymore what the US and Britain thought of its revolution, and Tehran feels today once again that it is far better off without the British hanging about. The Iranian historical consciousness still regards Imperial Britain as a poisonous serpent that every now and then crept up from India to devour the succulent Persian fruit.

Collective memory
The animus against Britain comes out clearly in the statement issued by the student protesters who stormed the embassy: The embassy of the old fox should have been occupied much earlier. Every free-minded Iranian whose heart is beating for this land and has observed the crimes of the old colonialism against Iran and the Iranians should know that occupation of the embassy of the old fox serves the interests of Iran and our country’s national interests.

The recent statements by Iranian military commanders have warned that Iran has known (and unknown) capabilities to retaliate if attacked. By warning explicitly, it hopes to inject some rational thinking into the US-British-Israeli discourses that are bordering on delusional estimations regarding Iran’s policies and choices. But Tehran senses the futility of trying to influence the undergirding of the Obama administration’s disposition anymore in the near term.

In the Iranian estimation, Obama is simply not interested in hearing Iran’s narrative. His obsessive concern is his 2012 re-election bid, and his campaign interests lie in diverting the locus of the political discourse away from his failings in mending the US economy. A regime change in Syria and a move toward cracking down on the Hezbollah are just the kind of decisive leadership that he needs to project to get over the image that he „leads from the rear”.

With an amazing degree of belligerence, Donilon continued in his speech at Brookings: The end of the [Bashar al-] Assad regime [in Syria] would constitute Iran’s greatest setback in the region, a strategic blow that would further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran. Tehran would have lost its closest ally in the region. To be sure, the „revolutionary” mood in Tehran is developing against the regional backdrop. Tehran links Donilon’s belligerence with the stationing of the nuclear aircraft carrier USS George H W Bush off Syria. The US 6th Fleet is also patrolling the eastern Mediterranean off Syria. The US and Turkey have asked their nationals to leave Syria.

Again, US Vice-President Joseph Biden has arrived on a surprise visit to Iraq, en route to Turkey on a mission to display US backing for Ankara’s interventionist role in Syria. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu hinted for the first time on Tuesday that his country was ready for an intervention in Syria.

According to Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, a secret meeting was held in Istanbul last Friday between Turkish officials and representatives of the Libyan „opposition” to work out the logistics to bring Libyan fighters who were trained and equipped by the West to fight in Syria.

There are reports in the Russian media that the first contingent of 600 Libyan fighters may have already been transferred to Syria. The dilemma facing Turkey and its Western allies is that the Syrian armed forces have overwhelmingly remained loyal to the regime. Thus the fig leaf of Syrian „resistance” is unavailable, which in turn would expose the gamut of the outside intervention. The Libyan fighters are expected to make up for this operational deficiency.

In short, the writing is there on the wall that a Western intervention in Syria led by Turkey is shaping up. France has openly called for creating a European Union-backed humanitarian corridor that would allow Western intelligence and military advisers to move through Turkey into Syria and mastermind the regime change. Turkey was specially invited to the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels on Tuesday.

All in all, Tehran is left in no doubt that the time has come to switch the Iranian nation into a revolutionary mode. The intrusion into the British Embassy invokes archetypal symbols of defiance and resistance, which are embedded in the Iran’s revolutionary consciousness – especially when the collective memory about Britain is summoned. It is Iran’s ultimate line of defense – as was the hostage crisis with the US in the months following the revolution when Iran came under siege.

Clearly, Obama, who has a panache for taking political gambles – and has so far won in a meteoric political career – is on a slippery path. Syria is a hard nut to crack; Hezbollah is waiting in the wings; so is Hamas. The odds are 50-50 that things may not happen the way Donilon tried to persuade us to anticipate, even if they may not be an exact replay of the outcome that horrified Jimmy Carter. On Tuesday afternoon, the US-Iran standoff moved to a flashpoint.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML01Ak02.html

Read Full Post »

Sheera Frenkel, reporting in the Times of London has gotten several high-level Israeli intelligence officials to go on record confirming yesterday’s explosion at Isfahan’s uranium enrichment facility was sabotage, and not an accident as Iran initially reported (later it withdrew this claim and said no accident had occurred at all). Iran’s outright denial that any accident occurred is reminiscent of Hezbollah’s denial that it’s arms cache in south Lebanon exploded recently, despite the fact that local villagers, the Daily Star, and an Israeli source here in this blog reported the sabotage.

Among the more colorful and typically Israeli macho statements was by Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland who said coyly that he didn’t know if the Mossad did it, and that it could very well be “the hand of God:”

 ”There aren’t many coincidences, and when there are so many events there is probably some sort of guiding hand, though perhaps it’s the hand of God,” he said.

How many nations in today’s world do you know whose citizens would refer, even obliquely, to their spy agency unironically as the hand of God??

The tragedy of this black ops program is that it will not rattle or deter Iran, as Israeli intelligence believes. It will have the opposite effect. It will make them redouble their efforts. It will make them less, rather than more willing to compromise in any meaningful way with western efforts to rein in their nuclear program. And once Iran has a nuclear weapon it will make it more, rather than less likely it will use such weapons as North Korea does–as a cudgel over the heads of their enemies.

One false argument neocon hawks and the Obama administration make is that a nuclear Iran will use WMD to force hegemony on its neighbors.  The truth is that the only thing that will do that is driving Iran to the wall, attacking it, and trying to wipe out its nuclear program.  If you turn Iran into a martyr regime, it will become our worst nightmare.  This is what makes Israeli and U.S. policy a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Contrary to what Israeli generals believe, the Iranians are not pushovers, they can’t be intimidated.  They’re willing to die for their country even more than Israelis.  They’ve fought defensive wars going back decades and lost millions in conflict.  A few explosions, assassinations, and computer viruses will not spook them.  In fact, I believe Iran would be far more willing to absorb casualties in any ongoing conflict than the Israeli public would.  That’s why I think alas, Israel’s policy is one devised by fools.

I’ve come to the reluctant conclusion that Israel knows that black ops will turn Iran more intransigent.  It welcomes such Iranian rigidity because it means the day is closer when it will be set loose on the Iranians. Israel’s policy toward Iran is scorched earth. It has decided the Ayatollahs are willing to die for their nukes and Israel wants to make their dreams come true. But it wants the world to go along, at least tacitly, which is the only reason it hasn’t attacked already.

Israel, like Dick Cheney circa 2003, has a complex agenda that involves reinforcing Israeli hegemony over its regional interests.  In truth, Iranian nukes are not an existential threat to Israel.  Rather, the true existential threat (as viewed by the Bibites) is Palestinian sovereignty.  Spooking the world with the specter of Iranian nukes is a convenient diversion from the far more important and intractable problem of Israel-Palestine.  There would be nothing like a little regional war to take Israel’s and the world’s mind off the rights of the Palestinian people.  It should be good for at least a two year respite I should say.  Meanwhile, teaching the Iranians a lesson would go a long way toward intimidating any other regional powers like Turkey, Syria or Egypt who give any thoughts toward competing with Israeli interests.

Further, Israeli wars go a long way to puncturing any social justice movements seeking to point to economic and political inequities inside the country.  No Israeli activist or political party with a reform agenda can make any headway against a far right government pursuing a war policy.  Just as they will in Iran, the common folk will rally round the flag and the nation under threat.  All other competing tensions or interests will be thrown aside in a bid for national unity.  This is yet another tragedy of war (cf. 1982, 2006, 2009, 201?).

Returning to Iran, contrary to the war hawk view of its policymakers as intent on mystical national suicide, probably understands Israel’s intent.  This may be why Iran has reacted in a tightly controlled manner to the attacks.  It understands that much is at stake and that it is being goaded into overreacting so the west can use this as a pretext to strike.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/11/29/israeli-intelligence-officials-all-but-take-credit-for-isfahan-blast/

Read Full Post »

By Tom Burghardt 

November 29, 2011 „Information Clearing House” –   The Iranian people know what it means to earn the enmity of the global godfather.

As William Blum documented in Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, 1953’s CIA-organized coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, guilty of the „crime” of nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, may have „saved” Iran from a nonexistent „Red Menace,” but it left that oil-rich nation in proverbial „safe hands”–those of the brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

Similarly today, a nonexistent „nuclear threat” is the pretext being used by Washington to install a „friendly” regime in Tehran and undercut geopolitical rivals China and Russia in the process, thereby „securing” the country’s vast petrochemical wealth for American multinationals.

As the U.S. and Israel ramp-up covert operations against Iran, the Pentagon „has laid out its most explicit cyberwarfare policy to date, stating that if directed by the president, it will launch ‘offensive cyber operations’ in response to hostile acts,” according to The Washington Post.

Citing „a long-overdue report to Congress released late Monday,” we’re informed that „hostile acts may include ‘significant cyber attacks directed against the U.S. economy, government or military’,” unnamed Defense Department officials stated.

However, Air Force General Robert Kehler, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) told Reuters, „I do not believe that we need new explicit authorities to conduct offensive operations of any kind.”

The Pentagon report, which is still not publicly available, asserts: „We reserve the right to use all necessary means–diplomatic, informational, military and economic–to defend our nation, our allies, our partners and our interests.”

Washington’s „interests,” which first and foremost include „securing its hegemony over the energy-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia” as the World Socialist Web Site observed, may lead the crisis-ridden U.S. Empire „to take another irresponsible gamble to shore up its interests in the Middle East … as a means of diverting attention from the social devastation produced by its austerity agenda.”

Recent media reports suggest however, that offensive cyber operations are only part of Washington’s multipronged strategy to soften-up the Islamic Republic’s defenses as a prelude to „regime change.”

Terrorist Proxies

For the better part of six decades, terrorist proxies have done America’s dirty work. Hardly relics of the Cold War past, U.S. and allied secret state agencies are using such forces to carry out attacks inside Iran today.

Asia Times Online reported that „deadly explosions at a military base about 60 kilometers southwest of Tehran, coinciding with the suspicious death of the son of a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, have triggered speculation in Iran on whether or not these are connected to recent United States threats to resort to extrajudicial executions of IRGC leaders.”

And Time Magazine, a frequent outlet for sanctioned leaks from the Pentagon, reported that the blast at the Iranian missile base west of Tehran, which killed upwards of 40 people according to the latest estimates, including Major General Hassan Moqqadam, a senior leader of Iran’s missile program, was described as the work „of Israel’s external intelligence service, Mossad.”

An unnamed „Western intelligence source” told reporter Karl Vick: „‘Don’t believe the Iranians that it was an accident,’ adding that other sabotage is being planned to impede the Iranian ability to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon. ‘There are more bullets in the magazine,’ the official says.”

While Iranian officials insist that the huge blast was an „accident,” multiple accounts in the corporate press and among independent analysts provide strong evidence for the claim that Israel and their terrorist cat’s paw, the bizarre political cult, Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) were responsible for the attack.

Richard Silverstein, a left-wing analyst who writes for the Tikun Olam web site, said that the blast was a sign that „the face of the Israeli terror machine may have reared its ugly head in the world.”

Citing „an Israeli source with extensive senior political and military experience,” Silverstein’s correspondent provided „an exclusive report that it was the work of the Mossad in collaboration with the MEK.”

Hardly a stranger to controversial reporting, Silverstein published excerpts of secret FBI transcripts leaked to him by the heroic whistleblower Shamai Leibowitz. Those wiretapped conversations of Israeli diplomats caught spying on the U.S., „described an Israeli diplomatic campaign in this country to create a hostile environment for relations with Iran.”

In a Truthout piece, Silverstein wrote that Leibowitz, a former IDF soldier who refused to serve in the Occupied Territories, „explained that he was convinced from his work on these recordings that the Israel foreign ministry and its officials in this country were responsible for a perception management campaign directed against Iran. He worried that such an effort might end with either Israel or the US attacking Iran and that this would be a disaster for both countries.”

Unfortunately, while Leibowitz sits in a U.S. prison his warnings are all but ignored.

According to Silverstein’s latest account, „it is widely known within intelligence circles that the Israelis use the MEK for varied acts of espionage and terror ranging from fraudulent Iranian memos alleging work on nuclear trigger devices to assassinations of nuclear scientists and bombings of sensitive military installations.”

Silverstein noted that „a similar act of sabotage happened a little more than a year ago at another IRG missile base which killed nearly 20.”

Terrorist attacks targeting defense installations coupled with the murder of Iranian scientist, five „targeted killings” have occurred since 2010, aren’t the only aggressive actions underway.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported that „a series of mysterious incidents involving explosions at natural gas transport facilities, oil refineries and military bases … have caused dozens of deaths and damage to key infrastructure in the past two years.”

According to the Post, „suspicions have been raised in Iran by what industry experts say is a fivefold increase in explosions at refineries and gas pipelines since 2010.”

With Iran’s oil industry under a strict sanctions regime by the West, maintenance of this critical industrial sector has undoubtedly suffered neglect due to the lack of spare parts.

However, „suspicions that covert action might already be underway were raised when four key gas pipelines exploded simultaneously in different locations in Qom Province in April,” the Post disclosed.

„Lawmaker Parviz Sorouri told the semiofficial Mehr News Agency that the blasts were the work of ‘terrorists’ and were ‘organized by the enemies of the Islamic Republic’,” hardly an exaggerated charge given present tensions.

Whether or not these attacks were the handiwork of Mossad, their MEK proxies or even CIA paramilitary officers and Pentagon Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) commandos, as Seymour Hersh revealed more than three years ago in The New Yorker, it is clear that Washington and Tel Aviv are „preparing the battlespace” on multiple fronts.

‘Collapse the Iranian Economy’

Along with covert operations and terrorist attacks inside the Islamic Republic, on the political front, a bipartisan consensus has clearly emerged in Washington in favor of strangling the Iranian economy.

Indeed, congressional grifters are threatening to crater Iran’s Central Bank, an unvarnished act of war. IPSreported that neocon Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), „a key pro-Israel senator,” has offered legislation „that would effectively ban international financial companies that do business with the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) from participating in the U.S. economy.”

„Dubbed the ‘nuclear option’ by its critics,” Jim Lobe reported that „the measure, which was introduced Thursday in the form of an amendment to the 2012 defence authorisation bill, is designed to ‘collapse the Iranian economy’… by making it virtually impossible for Tehran to sell its oil.”

However, „independent experts,” Lobe wrote, „including some officials in the administration of President Barack Obama, say the impact of such legislation, if it became law, could spark a major spike in global oil prices that would push Washington’s allies in Europe even deeper into recession and destroy the dwindling chances for economic recovery here.”

That amendment was introduced as tensions were brought to a boil over allegations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its latest report that Iran may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano claims the Agency has „identified outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these.”

„Since 2002,” Amano averred, „the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new information.”

However, despite the fact that the „Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities,” to whit, that such materials have not been covertly channeled towards military programs, Amano, reprising former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s famous gaff that „the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence,” the IAEA „is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

Far from being an independent „nuclear watchdog,” the IAEA under Amano’s stewardship has been transformed into highly-politicized and pliable organization eager to do Washington’s bidding.

As a 2009 State Department cable released by WikiLeaks revealed, U.S. Ambassador Glyn Davies cheerily reported: „Yukiya Amano thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.” (emphasis added)

Although the new report „offered little that was not already known by experts about Iran’s nuclear programme” IPS averred, „it cited what it alleged was new evidence that ‘Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device’ since 2003–the date when most analysts believe it abandoned a centralised effort to build a nuclear bomb’.”

But as the United States, with the connivance of corporate media, bury the conclusions of not one, but twoNational Intelligence Estimates issued by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, it is clear to any objective observer that „nonproliferation” is a cover for aggressive geopolitical machinations by Washington.

Both estimates, roundly denounced by U.S. neoconservatives and media commentators when they were published, insisted that „in fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program,” a finding intelligence analysts judged with „high confidence.”

In contrast, the highly-politicized IAEA report is a provocative document whose timing neatly corresponds with the imposition of a new round of economic sanctions meant to crater the Iranian economy. Never mind that even according to the IAEA’s own biased reporting, they could find no evidence that Iran had diverted nuclear materials from civilian programs (power generation, medical isotopes) to alleged military initiatives.

Indeed, with sinister allusions that hint darkly at „undeclared nuclear materials,” the agency fails to provide a single scrap of evidence that diverted stockpiles even exist.

Another key allegation made by the Agency that Iran had constructed an „explosives chamber to test components of a nuclear weapon and carry out a simulated nuclear explosion,” was denounced by former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley as „highly misleading,” according to an IPS report filed by investigative journalist Gareth Porter.

With „information provided by Member States,” presumably Israel and the United States, the IAEA said it „had ‘confirmed’ that a ‘large cylindrical object’ housed at the same complex had been ‘designed to contain the detonation of up to 70 kilograms of high explosives’. That amount of explosives, it said, would be ‘appropriate’ for testing a detonation system to trigger a nuclear weapon.”

„Kelley rejected the IAEA claim that the alleged cylindrical chamber was new evidence of an Iranian weapons programme,” Porter wrote. „We’ve been led by the nose to believe that this container is important, when in fact it’s not important at all,” the former nuclear inspector said.

But as Mark Twain famously wrote, „A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” This is certainly proving to be the case with the IAEA under Yukiya Amano.

Another player „solidly in the U.S. court” is David Albright, the director of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a Washington, D.C. „think tank” funded by the elitist Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

In an earlier piece for IPS, Porter demolished Albright’s „sensational claim previously reported by news media all over the world that a former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist had helped Iran construct a detonation system that could be used for a nuclear weapon.”

„But it turns out that the foreign expert, who is not named in the IAEA report but was identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko, is not a nuclear weapons scientist but one of the top specialists in the world in the production of nanodiamonds by explosives,” Porter wrote.

„In fact,” Porter averred, „Danilenko, a Ukrainian, has worked solely on nanodiamonds from the beginning of his research career and is considered one of the pioneers in the development of nanodiamond technology, as published scientific papers confirm.”

„It now appears that the IAEA and David Albright … who was the source of the news reports about Danilenko, never bothered to check the accuracy of the original claim by an unnamed ‘Member State’ on which the IAEA based its assertion about his nuclear weapons background.”

It is no small irony, that Albright, corporate media’s go-to guy on all things nuclear, penned an alarmist screed in 2002 entitled, „Is the Activity at Al Qaim Related to Nuclear Efforts?”, an article which lent „scientific” credence to false claims made by the Bush White House against Iraq.

As investigative journalist Robert Parry pointed out on the Consortium News web site, „Albright’s nuclear warning about Iraq coincided with the start of the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign to rally Congress and the American people to war with talk about ‘the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud’.”

„Yet,” Parry noted, „when the Washington Post cited Albright on Monday, as the key source of a front-page article about Iran’s supposed progress toward reaching ‘nuclear capability,’ all the history of Albright’s role in the Iraq fiasco disappeared.”

History be damned. Congressional warmongers and corporate media who cite these fraudulent claims, are „spurred by Israel’s whisper campaign to create a sense of urgency on Capitol Hill where the Israel lobby, acting mainly through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, exerts its greatest influence,” as IPS noted, and punish Iran for the „crime” of opening its nuclear facilities to international inspection!

That „whisper campaign” has now bloomed into a full court press for war by „liberal” Democrats and „conservative” Republicans alike, even as public approval of Congress’s work by the American people tracks only slightly higher than the popularity enjoyed by child molesters or serial killers.

As tensions are dialed up, the United States is spearheading a relentless drive to throttle Iran’s economy. The New York Times reported that „major Western powers took significant steps on Monday to cut Iran off from the international financial system, announcing coordinated sanctions aimed at its central bank and commercial banks.”

A strict sanctions regime was also imposed on Iran’s „petrochemical and oil industries, adding to existing measures that seek to weaken the Iranian government by depriving it of its ability to refine gasoline or invest in its petroleum industry,” the Times reported.

In a move which signals that even-more stringent sanctions are on the horizon, the U.S. Treasury Department „named the Central Bank of Iran and the entire Iranian banking system as a ‘primary money laundering concern’.”

That’s rather rich coming from an administration which slapped Wachovia Bank on the wrist after that corrupt financial institution, now owned by Wells Fargo Bank, pleaded guilty to laundering as much as $378 billion for Mexico’s notorious drug cartels as Bloomberg Markets Magazine reported last year!

Going a step further, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy called on the major imperialist powers „to freeze the assets of the central bank and suspend purchases of Iranian oil.”

The Guardian reported that Britain „went the furthest by, for the first time, cutting an entire country’s banking system off from London’s financial sector.”

Playing catch-up with war-hungry Democrats and Republicans, President Obama stated that the „new sanctions target for the first time Iran’s petrochemical sector, prohibiting the provision of goods, services and technology to this sector and authorizing penalties against any person or entity that engages in such activity.”

„They expand energy sanctions, making it more difficult for Iran to operate, maintain, and modernize its oil and gas sector,” Obama said.

„As long as Iran continues down this dangerous path, the United States will continue to find ways, both in concert with our partners and through our own actions, to isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime.”

Last summer, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a strong backer of punishing sanctions, echoed Richard Nixon’s vow to „make the economy scream” prior to the CIA’s overthrow of Chile’s democratically-elected socialist president, Salvador Allende, and wrote in The Hill that „critics … argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.”

With a new round of crippling economic sanctions on tap from the West, „liberal” Democrat Sherman might just get his wish.

Targeting Civilian Infrastructure

While the Obama administration claims that their aggressive stance towards Iran is meant to promote „peace” and „help” the Iranian people achieve a „democratic transformation,” ubiquitous facts on the ground betray a far different, and uglier, reality.

Anonymous U.S. „intelligence officials” told The Daily Beast „that any Israeli attack on hardened nuclear sites in Iran would go far beyond airstrikes from F-15 and F-16 fighter planes and likely include electronic warfare against Iran’s electric grid, Internet, cellphone network, and emergency frequencies for firemen and police officers.”

According to Newsweek national security correspondent Eli Lake, „Israel has developed a weapon capable of mimicking a maintenance cellphone signal that commands a cell network to ‘sleep,’ effectively stopping transmissions, officials confirmed. The Israelis also have jammers capable of creating interference within Iran’s emergency frequencies for first responders.”

But Israel isn’t the only nation capable of launching high-tech attacks or, borrowing the Pentagon’s euphemistic language, conduct „Information Operations” (IO).

The U.S. Air Force Cyberspace & Information Operations Study Center (CIOSC) describe IO as „The integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.”

In this light, The Daily Beast disclosed that „Israel also likely would exploit a vulnerability that U.S. officials detected two years ago in Iran’s big-city electric grids, which are not ‘air-gapped’–meaning they are connected to the Internet and therefore vulnerable to a Stuxnet-style cyberattack–officials say.”

The anonymous officials cited by Lake informed us that „a highly secretive research lab attached to the U.S. joint staff and combatant commands, known as the Joint Warfare Analysis Center (JWAC), discovered the weakness in Iran’s electrical grid in 2009,” the same period when Stuxnet was launched, and that Israeli and Pentagon cyberwarriors „have the capability to bring a denial-of-service attack to nodes of Iran’s command and control system that rely on the Internet.”

But as Ralph Langer, the industrial controls systems expert who first identified the Stuxnet virus warned in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, the deployment of military-grade malicious code is a „game changer” that has „opened Pandora’s box.”

Among a host of troubling questions posed by Stuxnet, Langer said: „It raises, for one, the question of how to apply cyberwar as a political decision. Is the US really willing to take down the power grid of another nation when that might mainly affect civilians?”

But as we have seen, most recently during the punishing air campaign that helped „liberate” Libya–from their petrochemical resources–the U.S. and their partners are capable of doing that and more.

Future targeting of Iran’s civilian infrastructure may in fact have been one of the tasks of the recently-discovered Duqu Trojan, which Israeli and U.S. „boutique arms dealers” are suspected of designing for their respective governments.

And whom, pray tell, has the means, motives and expertise to design weaponized computer code?

As BusinessWeek disclosed in July, when one of America’s cyber merchants of death, Endgame Systems, pitch their products they „bring up maps of airports, parliament buildings, and corporate offices. The executives then create a list of the computers running inside the facilities, including what software the computers run, and a menu of attacks that could work against those particular systems.”

According to BusinessWeek, „Endgame weaponry comes customized by region–the Middle East, Russia, Latin America, and China–with manuals, testing software, and ‘demo instructions’.”

„A government or other entity,” journalists Michael Riley and Ashlee Vance revealed, „could launch sophisticated attacks against just about any adversary anywhere in the world for a grand total of $6 million. Ease of use is a premium. It’s cyber warfare in a box.”

Kaspersky Lab analyst Ryan Naraine, writing on the Duqu FAQ blog averred that Duqu’s „main purpose is to act as a backdoor into the system and facilitate the theft of private information. This is the main difference when compared to Stuxnet, which was created to conduct industrial sabotage.”

In other words, unlike Stuxnet, Duqu is an espionage tool which can smooth the way for future attacks such as those described by The Daily Beast.

As The Washington Post disclosed last May, while the military „needs presidential authorization to penetrate a foreign computer network and leave a cyber-virus that can be activated later,” it does not need such authorization „to penetrate foreign networks for a variety of other activities.”

According to the Post, these activities include „studying the cyber-capabilities of adversaries or examining how power plants or other networks operate,” and can „leave beacons to mark spots for later targeting by viruses.”

Or more likely given escalating tensions, Iranian air defenses and that nation’s power and electronic communications grid which include „emergency frequencies for firemen and police officers” who would respond to devastating air and missile attacks.

Countdown to War

We can conclude that Israel, NATO and the United States are doing far more than placing „all options on the table” with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Along with ratcheting-up bellicose rhetoric, moves to collapse the economy, an assassination and sabotage campaign targeting Iranian scientists and military installations, cyberwarriors are infecting computer networks with viruses and „beacons” that will be used to attack air defense systems and civilian infrastructure.

After all, as Dave Aitel, the founder of the computer security firm Immunity told BusinessWeek, „nothing says you’ve lost like a starving city.”

As Global Research analyst Michel Chossudovsky warned last year, now confirmed by CIA and Pentagon leaks to corporate media: „It is highly unlikely that the bombings, if they were to be implemented, would be circumscribed to Iran’s nuclear facilities as claimed by US-NATO official statements. What is more probable is an all out air attack on both military and civilian infrastructure, transport systems, factories, public buildings.”

With the global economy in deep crisis as a result of capitalism’s economic meltdown, and as the first, but certainly not the last political actions by the working class threaten the financial elite’s stranglehold on power, the ruling class may very well gamble that a war with Iran is a risk worth taking.

As Chossudovsky warned in a subsequent Global Research report, „there are indications that Washington might envisage the option of an initial (US backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright US-led military operation directed against Iran.”

„The Israeli attack–although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO–would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of world opinion,” Chossudovsky wrote, „a military intervention of the US and NATO with a view to ‘defending Israel’, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be ‘obligated’ to ‘defend Israel’ against Iran and Syria.”

This prescient analysis has been borne out by events. As regional tensions escalate, the USS George H.W. Bush, „the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, has reportedly parked off the Syrian coast,” The Daily Callerreported.

Earlier this week, the financial news service Zero Hedge disclosed that „the Arab League (with European and US support) are preparing to institute a no fly zone over Syria.”

„But probably the most damning evidence that the ‘western world’ is about to do the unthinkable and invade Syria,” analyst Tyler Durden wrote, „and in the process force Iran to retaliate, is the weekly naval update from Stratfor.”

According to Zero Hedge, „CVN 77 George H.W. Bush has left its traditional theater of operations just off the Straits of Hormuz, a critical choke point, where it traditionally accompanies the Stennis, and has parked… right next to Syria.”

In an earlier report, citing Kuwait’s Al Rai daily, Zero Hedge warned that „Arab jet fighters, and possibly Turkish warplanes, backed by American logistic support will implement a no fly zone in Syria’s skies, after the Arab League will issue a decision, under its Charter, calling for the protection of Syrian civilians.”

The BBC reports that the Arab League „has warned Syria it has one day to sign a deal allowing the deployment of observers or it will face economic sanctions.”

„Meanwhile,” BBC averred, „France has suggested that some sort of humanitarian protection zones,” à la Libya, „be created inside Syria.”

American moves towards Syria are fraught with dangerous implications for international peace and stability. As analyst Pepe Escobar disclosed in Asia Times Online the Arab League, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Saudi Arabia and repressive Gulf emirates, dances to Washington’s tune.

„Syria is Iran’s undisputed key ally in the Arab world–while Russia, alongside China, are the key geopolitical allies. China, for the moment, is making it clear that any solution for Syria must be negotiated,” Escobar wrote.

„Russia’s one and only naval base in the Mediterranean is at the Syrian port of Tartus. Not by accident,” Escobar notes, „Russia has installed its S-300 air defense system–one of the best all-altitude surface-to-air missile systems in the world, comparable to the American Patriot–in Tartus. The update to the even more sophisticated S-400 system is imminent.”

„From Moscow’s–as well as Tehran’s–perspective, regime change in Damascus is a no-no. It will mean virtual expulsion of the Russian and Iranian navies from the Mediterranean.”

„In other words,” Zero Hedge warned, „if indeed Europe and the Western world is dead set upon an aerial campaign above Syria, then all eyes turn to the East, and specifically Russia and China, which have made it very clear they will not tolerate any intervention. And naturally the biggest unknown of all is Iran, which has said than any invasion of Syria will be dealt with swiftly and severely.”

Despite, or possibly because no credible evidence exists that Iran is building a nuclear bomb as a hedge against „regime change,” belligerent rhetoric and regional military moves targeting Syria and Iran simultaneously are danger signs that imperialism’s manufactured „nuclear crisis” is a cynical pretext for war.

Tom Burghardt : A researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly, Love & Rage and Antifa Forum, he is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military „Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press. http://www.antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2011/11/target-iran-washingtons-countdown-to.html

Read Full Post »

While there were good connections and relations between Syria and Turkey only a year ago, today we began to talk different scenarios about the NATO intervention led by Turkey against Syria.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haberYazdir&ArticleID=82111&tip=

Most commentators suggest that Syria came to the end of the road… Interestingly, old-friend Turkey is among the states which raise their loud voices against the Syrian Assad regime. „Our wish is that the Assad regime, which is now on a knife-edge, does not enter this road of no return, which leads to the edge of the abyss,” Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said. „No regime can survive by killing or jailing. No one can build a future over the blood of the oppressed.”

While there were good connections and relations between Syria and Turkey only a year ago, today we began to talk different scenarios about the NATO intervention led by Turkey against Syria.

Although the Turkish position is being portrayed as a defender of oppressed Syrian people in the world media, there are some questions which cannot be answered independently of war scenarios led by the U.S. against Iran.

Today, we will try to look at the roots of Turkey’s position on events in Syria and its connection with the plans of global actors on the Middle East and new war scenarios in the region.

Looking at the Syrian Case from Different Viewpoints…

In this analysis, we do not talk about the oppressions of Assad regime. It is true that Bashar Al-Assad is a dictator and oppressor president and also unhesitatingly, Syrian people need to live in better conditions. Additionally, it is not possible to approve any pressure and oppression against the Syrian people. All things which are said in this issue are true…

But, we want to look at the big-not small- picture of the Syrian case in the light of new plans on Middle East… As Michel Chossudovsky, from Global Research, says, „While the Syrian regime is by no means democratic, the objective of the US-NATO Israel military alliance is not to promote democracy. Quite the opposite, Washington’s intent is to eventually install a puppet regime.”

In „Winning Modern Wars” General Wesley Clark states the following:

„As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”

After we read these sentences, it is required for us to think again about all the Middle Eastern developments and events. The Syrian case is not exception…

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, from Global Research, „Damascus has been under pressure to capitulate to the edicts of Washington and the European Union. This has been part of a longstanding project. Regime change or voluntary subordination by the Syrian regime are the goals. This includes subordinating Syrian foreign policy and de-linking Syrian from its strategic alliance with Iran and its membership within the Resistance Bloc.”

„War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in ‘an advanced state of readiness’ for several years.” says Michel Chossudovsky. „The July 2006 bombing of Lebanon was part of a carefully planned ‘military road map’. The extension of ‘The July War‘ on Lebanon into Syria had been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. It was abandoned upon the defeat of Israeli ground forces by Hezbollah.”

On the other hand, according to Chossudovsky, „the road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (‘regime change’) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.” And Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya supports Chossudovsky’s argument in a detailed manner:

„The events in Syria are also tied to Iran, the longstanding strategic ally of Damascus. It is not by chance that Senator Lieberman was demanding publicly that the Obama Administration and NATO attack Syria and Iran like Libya. It is also not coincidental that Iran was included in the sanctions against Syria. The hands of the Syrian military and government have now been tied internally as a new and broader offensive is being prepared that will target both Syria and Iran.”

In addition to them, Stephen Lendman’s approach is very helpful in order to understand the real picture in the Middle East:

„Israel wants regional rivals removed. Washington and key NATO partners want independent regimes ousted, replaced with subservient ones.

At issue is establishing regional dominance. New targets can then confronted politically, economically, and/or belligerently.

Fabricated IAEA Iranian documents escalated tensions. Rhetorical saber rattling followed. Stiffer sanctions are threatened and perhaps war.

Syria’s been targeted for months. Libya’s insurgency was replicated. Street battles rage daily. Violence engulfs the country. Assad’s government is unfairly blamed. Washington’s dirty hands are at fault. So are Israel’s and other conspiratorial allies.”

According to former UK official Alastair Crooke, there is a „great game” in the issue of Syria and Iran. „Regime change in Syria is a strategic prize that outstrips Libya – which is why Saudi Arabia and the west are playing their part.” he said. „(S)et up a hurried transitional council as sole representative of the Syrian people, irrespective of (its legitimacy); feed in armed insurgents from neighboring states; impose sanctions that will hurt the middle classes; mount a media campaign to denigrate any Syrian efforts at reform; try to instigate divisions within the army and the elite; and ultimately President Assad will fall – so its initiators insist.”

Moreover, „suppose this was a Hollywood script conference and you have to pitch your story idea in 10 words or less. It’s a movie about Syria. As much as the currently in-research Kathryn Hurt LockerBigelow film about the Osama bin Laden raid was pitched as ‘good guys take out Osama in Pakistan’, the Syrian epic could be branded ‘Sunnis and Shi’ites battle for Arab republic’.” says Pepe Escobar. „Yes, once again this is all about that fiction, the „Shi’ite crescent„, about isolating Iran and about Sunni prejudice against Shi’ites.”

Last developments/events in Syria and the Turkish viewpoint…

„Washington and the E.U. have pushed Turkey to be more active in the Arab World. This has blossomed through Ankara’s neo-Ottomanism policy. This is why Turkey has been posturing itself as a champion of Palestine and launched an Arabic-language channel like Iran and Russia.” says Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. „Ankara, however, has been playing an ominous role. Turkey is a partner in the NATO war on Libya. The position of the Turkish government has become clear with its betrayal of Tripoli. Ankara has also been working with Qatar to corner the Syrian regime. The Turkish government has been pressuring Damascus to change its policies to please Washington and appears to possibly even have a role in the protests inside Syria with the Al-Sauds, the Hariri minority camp in Lebanon, and Qatar. Turkey is even hosting opposition meetings and providing them support.”

Again, as Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya emphasizes, „The violence in Syria has been supported from the outside with a view of taking advantage of the internal tensions and the anger in Syria. Aside from the violent reaction of the Syrian Army, media lies have been used and bogus footage has been aired. Weapons, funds, and various forms of support have all been funnelled to elements of the Syrian opposition by the U.S., the E.U., the March 14 Alliance, Jordan, and the Khalijis. Funding has been provided to ominous and unpopular foreign-based opposition figures, while weapons caches were smuggled from Jordan and Lebanon into Syria.”

We, gradually, have seen the changing position of Turkey on Syria. Today, many Syrian opponents are organized in Turkey. Even, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mikdad claimed that Ankara helped establish the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) and Free Syrian Army (FSA). SNC recognition accompanied Syria’s suspension.

On the other hand, as Tony Karon says, „The current Turkish government sees itself as a bridge between the West and the Arab world, and even between the West and Iran. And it is also as a supporter of Arab democracy and the principle that conflicts must be resolved by political solutions that reflect the popular will. In Libya, despite its longstanding relationships with Colonel Gaddafi, it has pressed for a democratic political solution, remaining actively engaged with and support of the Benghazi-based opposition at the same time as maintaining its good offices with the regime. It has done the same with Syria, urging the regime to make democratic reforms, and criticizing the use of force against demonstrators – and allow Syrian opposition groups to use Istanbul as a base from which to try and organize themselves.”

While Robert W. Meryy encourages Turkey for its role in the Middle East by saying that „Turkey should be encouraged to develop its role as Islamic interlocutor, perhaps even as something of a core state for Islam. It can help guide the Middle East through its current travails and struggles far better than the United States can. That’s because we live in the era of the Clash of Civilizations.”; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya criticizes Turkey’s new role in the region:

„Turkey is viewed in Washington and Brussels as the key to bringing the Iranians and the Arabs into line. The Turkish government has been parading itself as a member of the Resistance Bloc with the endorsement of Iran and Syria. U.S strategists project that it will be Turkey which domesticates Iran and Syria for Washington. Turkey also serves as a means of integrating the Arab and Iranian economies with the economy of the European Union. In this regard Ankara has been pushing for a free-trade zone in Southwest Asia and getting the Iranians and Syrians to open up their economies to it.

In reality, the Turkish government has not only been deepening its economic ties with Tehran and Damascus, but has also been working to eclipse Iranian influence. Ankara has tried to wedge itself between Iran and Syria and to challenge Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Turkey also tried to establish a triple entente between itself, Syria, and Qatar to push Syria away from Tehran. This is why Turkey has been very active vocally against Israel, but in reality has maintained its alliance and military deals with Tel Aviv. Inside Turkey itself, however, there is also an internal struggle for power that could one day ignite into a civil war with multiple players.

…..

This project to manipulate and redefine Islam and Muslims seeks to subordinate Islam to capitalist interests through a new wave of political Islamists, such as the JDP/AKP. A new strand of Islam is being fashioned through what has come to be called ‘Calvinist Islam’ or a ‘Muslim version of the Protestant work ethic.’ It is this model that is being nurtured in Turkey and now being presented to Egypt and the Arabs by Washington and Brussels.

This ‘Calvinist Islam’ also has no problem with the ‘reba’ or interest system, which is prohibited under Islam. It is this system that is used to enslave individuals and societies with the chains of debt to global capitalism.”

Today, Libya’s model targets Syria. According to Israel’s Mossad-linked DEBKAfile, NATO and Turkey plan intervening in Syria by enlisting and arming thousands of insurgent forces. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon’s Hariri March 8 alliance, Jordan and Israel are involved. Washington’s in charge orchestrating events.

On the other hand, Michel Chossudovsky claimed that „Turkey is a member of NATO with a powerful military force. Moreover, Israel and Turkey have a longstanding joint military-intelligence agreement, which is explicitly directed against Syria.

…A 1993 Memorandum of Understanding led to the creation of (Israeli-Turkish) ‘joint committees’ to handle so-called regional threats. Under the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed ‘to cooperate in gathering intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries’ military capabilities.’

Turkey agreed to allow IDF and Israeli security forces to gather electronic intelligence on Syria and Iran from Turkey. In exchange, Israel assisted in the equipping and training of Turkish forces in anti-terror warfare along the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian borders.”

As supportive information of this argument, as Tony Karon says, „some analysts suggest there’s already a tacit agreement among U.S. and Saudis that Turkey will take the lead in shaping any international response to the Syria crisis. The Israeli media has suggested that some in Washington see the breakdown between Turkey and Iran over Syria as an opportunity to draw Ankara back into the U.S.-Israeli camp on dealing with Iran.”

Moreover, „There is increased talk of military pressure to come through arming members of the opposition to the Syrian regime – should it persist in its obstinacy and bloody repression – could lead to rebellion and a split within the Syrian army.” says Raghida Dergham. „While NATO will not engage in airstrikes against the regime in Damascus – on par with its operations in Libya – the alliance may provide financial support and armaments to the dissidents through Turkey in support of ground operations, not air strikes, should the regime continue with its military approach. The countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) may also follow suit. Last week, the GCC countries said they were running out of patience with the Syrian regime and began a wider effort in close collaboration with Turkey. This has made Iran increasingly concerned, perhaps even irate as well – something which everyone is now closely observing to see how it shall be translated on the ground in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq as well.”

Iran-Turkey rivalry in the Middle East and the Syrian case…

„With the ‘Arab Spring’, Iran started to see Turkey as the major obstacle/rival before its regional policy.” says Assoc. Prof Mehmet Sahin. „The main reason of the fact that Iran is uncomfortable with Turkey is Turkey’s increasing influence on the region. It should not be overlooked that Iran came first among the countries following the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visits to Egypt, Tunisia, Libya within the scope of the ‘Arab Spring’ tour. As long as Turkey is effective in the region, Iran draws away from the region. ”

As a parallel comment, Tony Karon said that „And even while Turkey has distanced itself from the U.S. strategy of isolating and pressuring Iran over its nuclear program, Tehran and Ankara are also rivals for influence in the wider Middle East.”

We can see this rivalry between Turkey and Iran in the Syrian case again. In the comment of Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily News, it is said that „It is no secret that Turkey and Iran have a different approach toward the Arab Spring and especially on its effects on Syria. After Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria has become another regional issue where Ankara and Tehran follow diverging policies.”

On the other hand, according to Tony Karon, „Turkey and Iran are Syria’s key foreign allies, but they have very different relationships with Damascus – Tehran’s being a long-established strategic alliance, while Ankara’s is based on having lately emerged as the key source of trade and investment critical to Syria’s prospects – and very different ideas on how the Assad regime should deal with the political crisis.”

Today, we know that Iran feels discomfort Turkey’s hurtful policies on the Middle East. Whilst Iran was satisfied from Turkey, what has changed? According to the Economist, „Turkey’s mollycoddling of the mullahs has angered America, most recently when Mr Erdogan’s government voted against imposing further sanctions on Iran at the United Nations last year. Turkey has since sought to make amends. It has agreed to NATO plans for a nuclear-defence missile shield that is clearly aimed at Iran. And after some dithering, it is co-operating with the alliance’s military operations in Libya.”

Because of this reality, Iran warns Turkey regularly. Assoc. Prof. Mehmet Sahin categorizes Iranian authorities’ criticism for us:

„According to the Iranian authorities;

1- Turkey wants to give an explicit message to Iran and Russian Federation by letting the deployment of NATO’s missile shield with early warning radar system on her territories.

2- The fact that Turkey suggests countries such as; Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya a new regime model, based on a ‘secular system’, is an unexpected and unbearable situation, as the people in the region are Muslim.

3- Turkey which is under the pressure of the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia, has been making its third strategic mistake by trying to liven up the protest demonstrations in Syria.

As the Iranian authorities made these statements above, they could not also stop accusing Turkey. In this context, they claim that Turkey follows its foreign policy ‘in accordance with the directives of the U.S., as well as in order to protect the interests of the U.S. and to protect Israel.’ They suggest that the main objective of the Missile Shield Project is to protect Israel. At the same time, the Iranian authorities, who made statements, underline that Turkey will face new problems in the region, particularly in terms of the commercial affairs with Iran, if she maintains her current foreign policy.”

Iran-Syria Relations and the possibility of regional war…

„And what do Iran’s ‘Revolutionary Guards’ think of Syria? They believe that Assad’s government constitutes an exception.” says Wahied Wahdat-Hagh. „They claim that whilst almost all Arab governments have been touched by the change afoot in the Arab world, with most of these falling due to their ‘pro-Western’ policies, Syria is ‘an exception.’ Syria is counted amongst the ‘ranks of resistance,’ they say.”

On the other hand, when Amir Taheri focuses on the details of Iran-Syria relations, he gives place to these sentences in his article:

„Iran, however, stands dead set against the scheme. Over the last decade, Syria has become more of a client state than an ally.

Iran has kept Syria’s moribund economy alive with frequent cash injection and investments thought to be worth $20 billion, and also gives Syria ‘gifts,’ including weapons worth $150 million a year. Tehran sources even claim that key members of Assad’s entourage are on the Iranian payroll.

During Bashar’s presidency, the Iranian presence has grown massively. Iran has opened 14 cultural offices across Syria, largely to propagate its brand of Shiite Islam. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard also runs a ‘coordination office’ in Damascus staffed by 400 military experts, and Syria is the only Mediterranean nation to offer the Iranian navy mooring rights.

The two countries have signed a pact committing them to ‘mutual defense.’ Syria and North Korea are the only two countries with which Iran holds annual conferences of chiefs of staff.”

Moreover, „Under a mutual defense pact signed between Syria and Iran in 2005, Syria agreed to allow the deployment of Iranian weapons on its territory. On June 15, 2006, Syria’s defense minister, Hassan Turkmani, signed an agreement with his Iranian counterpart for military cooperation against what they called the ‘common threats’ presented by Israel and the United States. ‘Our cooperation is based on a strategic pact and unity against common threats,’ said Turkmani. ‘We can have a common front against Israel’s threats.'” says Mitchell Bard. He also looks at the strategic importance of Syria for Iran in his article:

„Syria harbors in Damascus representatives of ten Palestinian terrorist organizations including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine(DFLP), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine all of which are opposed to advances in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. These groups have launched terrible attacks against innocent Israeli citizens, which have resulted in hundreds of deaths. Syria also supports the Iranian-funded Hezbollah.

For more than 30 years, Lebanon was essentially controlled by Syria. With Syrian acquiescence, Lebanon became the home to a number of the most radical and violent Islamic organizations. Hezbollah (Party of God), in particular, has been used by the Syrians as a proxy to fight Israel.”

Today, we began to talk about the elimination of these two allies. Although some observers only focuses on the Syria, many of them indicate „regional war”. In this regional war, Iran will be main target. According to Austin Bay, the civil war has now expanded into a twilight regional war between Iran and NATO, with Turkey as NATO’s frontline actor.

As a parallel comment, „The involvement of Iran, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, and other gulf states has turned the Syrian uprising from an internal event – resulting from mass poverty, oppression, and a lack of economic and political future – into a potential regional war.” says Zvi Bar’el. „Syria, whose regional strategic importance is based less on oil and natural resources, and more on its strong relationship with Iran and ability to intervene in Iraqi affairs, has been able to prevent the establishment of a military front against it. As opposed to the immediate international consensus that allowed for a military offensive in Libya, there has been no initiative to promote a similar UN Security Council in regards to Syria.”

On the other hand, „All the ingredients for a conformation led by the U.S. against Iran exist.” says Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. „Iranophobia is being spread by the U.S., the E.U., Israel, and the Khaliji monarchies. Hamas has been entangled into the mechanisms of a unity government by the unelected Mahmoud Abbas, which would mean that Hamas would have to be acquiescent to Israeli and U.S. demands on the Palestinian Authority. Syria has its hands full with domestic instability. Lebanon lacks a functioning government and Hezbollah is increasingly being encircled.”

Today, we are hearing some allegations in order to aim Iran at the target. Necessarily, we are thinking that while Syria is second target, the main target is Iran in the Middle East?

Wayne Madsen’s comments approve our argument: „Israel’s strategy is to make certain that its plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and, perhaps other targets, meet no opposition from diplomatic circles in the United States… Israel has placed its own interests well beyond and in contravention of those of the United States.”

He also mentions a polarization between regional powers as a component part of this puzzle:

„Countries in Asia are scrambling to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as full members. Confronted by a belligerent United States, NATO, and Israel intent on toppling the governments of Syria and Iran, the economic, cultural, and de facto collective security pact that comprises Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan announced after its prime ministers’ summit in St. Petersburg that SCO would soon be opening its doors for full membership for Pakistan, Iran, and India. The Asian nations want to freeze the United States out of interference in Asia.”

Moreover, „The structure of military alliances respectively on the US-NATO and Syria-Iran-SCO sides, not to mention the military involvement of Israel, the complex relationship between Syria and Lebanon, the pressures exerted by Turkey on Syria’s northern border, point indelibly to a dangerous process of escalation.” says Michel Chossudovsky. „Any form of US-NATO sponsored military intervention directed against Syria would destabilize the entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan and China.”

If we attach the excuses against Iran to this polarization process, it can be more easily to read this picture…

According to Wayne Madsen, „Israel, using its agents of influence in the UN delegations of the United States, Britain, Germany, Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands, has ensured that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano has tainted his agency’s report on Iranian nuclear developments in a manner that would have never been tolerated by his predecessor, Mohammed ElBaradei. Amano certainly took no interest in the fact that his own nation, Japan, was secretly producing nuclear weapons at the Fukushima nuclear complex in contravention of IAEA rules. The aftermath of the destructive earthquake in Japan laid open the secret work going on at Fukushima. Amano is perfectly willing to act as a cipher for Israel and the Israel Lobby in ‘discovering’ IAEA violations by Iran.”

On the other hand, giving an ear to Pepe Escobar about the producing fabrication causes in order to aim Iran at the target can be very helpful:

„It’s Christmas in October – as the United States government has just handed it the perfect gift; in the excited words of US Attorney General Eric Holder, ‘A deadly plot directed by factions of the Iranian government to assassinate a foreign ambassador on US soil with explosives.’

….

The plot is very handy to divert attention from Saudi Arabia as the beneficiary of a multi-billionaire US weapons sale. And also very handy to divert attention from Holder himself – caught in yet another monstrous scandal, on whether he told lies regarding Operation Fast and Furious (no, you can’t make this stuff up), a federal gun sting through which no less than 1,400 high-powered US weapons ended up, untracked, in the hands of – you guessed it – Mexican drug cartels. Seems like the Fast and the Furiousfranchise is the entertainment weapon of choice across all levels of the US government.

Washington wants to ‘unite the world’ against Iran (‘world’ meaning the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO) and is graphically threatening to take Iran to the United Nations Security Council – all over again.

So let’s anxiously wait for a hushed R2P (‘responsibility to protect’) resolution ordering NATO to establish a no-fly zone over every House of Saud prince across the world. A resolution which would be interpreted as a NATO mandate to bomb Iran into regime change. Now that’s a script you can believe in. ”

How will Turkey have position in the event of any NATO intervention?

In recent days, Turkey sends severe messages to Syria. Do this mean that Turkey preferred to be on America and NATO’s side in this polarization war in the region?

The Turkish government said it was suspending joint oil exploration and considering stopping electricity supplies to its neighbor. What does it mean for Turkey’s position?

As Tony Karon says, „Turkey fears Syria being turned into another sectarian quagmire on the same lines as Iraq, but it’s not following the line of its BRIC allies – Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa – at the U.N.”

„Turkey’s new approach to Syria also has the potential to create tension with Iran in the medium term.” says Nihat Ali Ozcan. „A possible shift of power will end the role of Syria as the ‘strategic ally’ of Iran; which will in turn assign a partial responsibility for such an outcome to Turkey.”

Additionally, Kaveh L Afrasiabi warns Turkey about is policies against Iran and Russia: „As Turkey’s principal energy partners, Russia and Iran provide roughly 70% of Turkey’s energy imports, yet both Tehran and Moscow are about to send Ankara the chills of negative reactions if Turkey goes ahead with its threat of sanctions on Syria.

Already, Turkey’s embrace of the bid by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to station an anti-missile radar on its territory has angered both Russia and Iran.”

And he adds: „Turkey is bound to lose a great deal of its appeal as conflict mediator in the region if it continues to alienate neighbors like Iran and Syria by pursuit of regime change in Damascus. This is in light of its willingness to host Syrian opposition groups which are now setting up shop in Turkey for a Libya-style transitional government, thus overlooking the major differences between Libya and Syria.”

In contrast to Nihat Ali Ozcan and Kaveh L Afrasiabi’s comments, Barçın Yinanç looks at the issue from a some different perspective. „While the AKP has burned most of the bridges with the Bashar al-Assad regime, it seems that its stance on Iran has not yet been affected.” she said. „News about a possible Israeli attack on Iran, triggered by the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s report due to be released this week, will turn eyes to Turkey, whose policies in the recent past have been in favor of Iran when it came to efforts to increase international pressure on Tehran.

Now that the regional rivalry between Turkey and Iran has intensified, will Turkey change its stance on Iran? Will it make Turkey happy to see that international pressure intensifying on the country, prompting fresh sanctions? Is a military strike on Iran the worst option as far as Turkey’s interests are concerned?

….

It looks like Turkey is not going to deviate from this stance, even if Iran’s role in the Arab Spring increasingly conflicts with Turkey’s interests. Or at least one can say that Iranian actions have not come to such a point of damaging Turkish interests that they would prompt Ankara to change its stance on the nuclear issue. After all, Turkish-Iranian history has been about avoiding open hostilities despite intense regional rivalry behind the scenes.

….

The realignment of Turkey’s policies with those of the Western bloc during the Arab Spring must have eased Western concerns that Turkey has been leaning too much in favor of Iran. Yet, does Davutoglu believe he still has the trust of the Iranians and does he believe he still has influence over Iran due to his personal relations? Will he again consider the conditions appropriate enough to step in? This remains to be seen.”

Conclusion…

As Robert Dreyfuss emphasizes that „The New York Times carries a piece titled: ‘U.S. Tactics in Libya May Be a Model for Other Efforts.’ By model, of course, they mean the mobilization of lethal force, including coordinated bombing attacks and precision missile strikes, tied closely to rebel military tactics, jointly run by the United States and NATO. In it, President Obama’s advisers—including Ben Rhodes, the humanitarian interventionist hawk who supported the U.S. war in Libya—suggest that the Libyan action might easily be applied elsewhere. ‘How much we translate to Syria remains to be seen,’ says one adviser, anonymously. And the Times notes:

‘The very fact that the administration has joined with the same allies that it banded with on Libya to call for Mr. Assad to go and to impose penalties on his regime could take the United States one step closer to applying the Libya model toward Syria.'”

And he concludes his article so: „It’s fair to say that Syria and Iran are far more difficult cases than Libya, a empty desert nation whose civil conflict was likely not to spread. By contrast, war in Syria could affect Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan, and war in Iran could have incalculable consequences from Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf. Still, you can already imagine the drumbeat from neocons and liberal interventionists that the United States cannot allow Syrians, or Iranians, to be massacred.”

After looking at this big picture, it seems that the Syrian case is connection with broader agendas. Here, it is required for Turkey to think its position on Syria again and again…

Although Turkey claims that it will not be pawn for the regional war, its actions and comments say a different thing.

Today, the U.S., the West, and the NATO nor deal with the future of Syrian people neither desire more democratic systems in the Middle East. Their only aim is to guarantee their oppression systems. If, today, Bashar Al-Assad says that O.K., I will abandon Iran, I will block Iran’s passing weapons to Hezbollah and Palestinian groups, and also I want to cooperate with the U.S. and the West in the region after that; we will see that all these disinformation and manipulation processes will, gradually, be abandoned in the world media and psychological war against to Syria will end. In the event of any changing in policies of Syria, both the U.S. and the West will keep their mouth shut about Assad’s oppressions to his people…

So, Turkey backs the wrong horse again… What a shame!

Read Full Post »

Consensus opinion now seems to be that Israel will attack Iran. So it might be worth thinking about what sort of war might follow. It might also be worth thinking about how such a war would end.

In the last month or so, there seems to have been a shift in perception about Israel’s plans for Iran. If before, a lot of informed people might have bet that if and when push came to shove, Israel would hold back from bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, I don’t think there are many such bettors today.

Quite a bit has happened recently. There was the International Atomic Energy Agency report, which offered more evidence that Iran is pointing toward the Bomb; the news reports in Israel about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s determination to attack Iran, even though the security establishment opposes them for now; the two big bombs that went off in the faces of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and Hizbullah; Barak’s statement that an Iranian counterattack wouldn’t result “in even 500 deaths if we all stay inside our homes” (he meant to calm the public with that); Netanyahu and Barak’s refusal to promise CIA head Leon Panetta that they would clear any attack on Iran with the U.S. first, which is what Panetta came to Jerusalem for; and the Republican presidential candidates’ televised enthusiasm (except for Ron Paul’s Quixotic dissent) for an Israeli, American or Israeli/American assault on Iran’s nukes. All this, plus whatever other items slipped my mind, seems to have brought folks in general around to the idea that if Iran doesn’t change its mind and give up its nuclear project – which seems unlikely – and unless Obama decides to do the job – which also seems unlikely – Israel will start a war with Iran within the next year.

That’s certainly my bet. And I think it’s going to cause a catastrophe for Israel, the Middle East and the world at large. I’ll let Niall Ferguson describe the sort of thing I’m talking about. Ferguson, a British-American historian and one of the West’s leading “public intellectuals,” wrote a showcase essay last weekend in The Wall Street Journal titled “2021: The New Europe.” The futuristic piece ends with a look “back” at what happened in 2012:

The events of 2012 shook not just Europe but the whole world. The Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities threw a lit match into the powder keg of the ‘Arab Spring.’ Iran counterattacked through its allies in Gaza and Lebanon.

Having failed to veto the Israeli action, the U.S. once again sat in the back seat, offering minimal assistance and trying vainly to keep the Straits of Hormuz open without firing a shot in anger. (When the entire crew of an American battleship was captured and held hostage by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, President Obama’s slim chance of re-election evaporated.)

Turkey seized the moment to take the Iranian side, while at the same time repudiating Ataturk’s separation of the Turkish state from Islam. Emboldened by election victory, the Muslim Brotherhood seized the reins of power in Egypt, repudiating its country’s peace treaty with Israel. The king of Jordan had little option but to follow suit. The Saudis seethed but could hardly be seen to back Israel, devoutly though they wished to avoid a nuclear Iran.

Israel was entirely isolated. The U.S. was otherwise engaged as President Mitt Romney focused on his Bain Capital-style ‘restructuring’ of the federal government’s balance sheet.

It was in the nick of time that the United States of Europe intervened to prevent the scenario that Germans in particular dreaded: a desperate Israeli resort to nuclear arms. Speaking from the U.S.E. Foreign Ministry’s handsome new headquarters in the Ringstrasse, the European President Karl von Habsburg explained on Al Jazeera: ‘First, we were worried about the effect of another oil price hike on our beloved euro. But above all we were afraid of having radioactive fallout on our favorite resorts.’

So ends the war that Israel started – with mediation by Germany, which Ferguson foresees as the dominant power in a new Europe. There’s one problem, though – he doesn’t say how Germany persuaded Israel not to fire its nukes. Nor is there anything about what happened in the Middle East afterward. (There’s nothing about the extent of the death and destruction that occurred, either.) The war’s happy ending just happens.

Anybody want to bet on that?
http://972mag.com/apocalypse-soon-the-aftermath-of-an-attack-on-iran/28417/

Read Full Post »

The trillion-dollar question in the „Arab Winter” is who will blink first in the West’s screenplay of slouching towards Tehran via Damascus.

As they examine the regional chessboard and the formidable array of forces aligned against them, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the military dictatorship of the mullahtariat in Tehran must face, simultaneously, superpower Washington, bomb-happy North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, nuclear power Israel, all Sunni Arab absolute monarchies, and even Sunni-majority, secular Turkey.

Meanwhile, on their side, the Islamic Republic can only count on Moscow. Not as bad a hand as it may seem.

Syria is Iran’s undisputed key ally in the Arab world – while Russia, alongside China, are the key geopolitical allies. China, for the moment, is making it clear that any solution for Syria must be negotiated.

Russia’s one and only naval base in the Mediterranean is at the Syrian port of Tartus. Not by accident, Russia has installed its S-300 air defense system – one of the best all-altitude surface-to-air missile systems in the world, comparable to the American Patriot – in Tartus. The update to the even more sophisticated S-400 system is imminent.

From Moscow’s – as well as Tehran’s – perspective, regime change in Damascus is a no-no. It will mean virtual expulsion of the Russian and Iranian navies from the Mediterranean.

Yet key lateral moves by the West are already on. Diplomats in Brussels confirmed to Asia Times Online that the former Libyan „rebels” – now trying to come up with a credible government – have already given the go-ahead for NATO to build a sprawling military base in Cyrenaica.

NATO has no final say in such matters. This is decided by the boss – the Pentagon – interested in emboldening Africom in coordination with NATO. As many as 20,000 boots are expected to be deployed on the ground in Libya – at least 12,000 of them Europeans. They will be responsible for Libya’s „internal security”, but also be on alert for possible, further military campaigns targeted at – who else – Syria and Iran.

Bring those Shi’ites down 
As much as the latest „coalition of the willing” – which by the way repeats the Libya model – is against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, it also represents a Christian/Sunni war against Shi’ites, be they the Alawite minority in Syria or the Shi’ite majorities in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon.

This is part and parcel of the „strategic opportunity” identified by the powerful Israel lobby in Washington; if we strike against the Damascus-Tehran link, we deal a mortal blow to Hezbollah in Lebanon. That, ideologues believe, can now be sold to world public opinion under the cover of the former Arab Spring – now „Arab Winter” after a metamorphosis, before „Arab Summer”, into the Arab counter-revolution).

As Tehran sees it, what’s really going on regarding Syria is a „humanitarian” cover for a complex anti-Shi’ite and anti-Iran operation.

The road map is already clear. A fractious, unrepresentative Syrian National Council – Libya-style – is already in place. Same for a heavily armed Sunni „insurgency” crisscrossing the borders in Lebanon and Turkey. Sanctions are already essentially hurting the Syrian middle class. A relentless, international campaign of vilification of the Assad regime has been deployed. And psy ops abound, with the aim of seducing sections of the Syrian army to defect (it’s not working).

A report [1] by a Qatar-based researcher for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) even comes close to admitting that the self-described „Free Syria Army” is basically a bunch of hardcore Islamists, plus a few genuine army defectors, but mostly radicalized Muslim Brotherhood bought, paid for and weaponized by the US, Israel, the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. There’s nothing „pro-democracy” about this lot – as incessantly sold by Western corporate and Saudi-owned media.

As for the National Council, based in Washington and London and sprinkled with the usual dodgy exiles, its program calls for governing Syria alongside the same military that has been – a la the Egyptian military junta – shooting civilian protesters. Makes one think that the only sensible solution would be for the people in Syria to topple the police state Assad regime, while being vehemently against the dodgy Syrian National Council.

This year’s model (dictator) 
Then there’s the usually misguided and misinformed West, which believes that the Arab League – now no more than a puppet of US foreign policy – is siding with the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people. Angry Arab blogger As’ad Abu Khalil is correct when he says that after the fall of president Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, „the League is now an extension of the Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC]”.

The GCC is in fact the Gulf Counter-revolution Club. Their favorite sport is to privilege „model” dictators – starting with themselves, but also including Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and the little kings of Jordan and Morocco, who will be annexed to the GCC because they wish they were in the Persian Gulf (geography dictates they aren’t). On the other hand, the GCC abhors „bad” dictators – the snuffed-out Muammar Gaddafi and Assad, who not by accident are from secular republics.

The House of Saud, Jordan and rising Qatar are more than comfortable doing the US’s and Israel’s bidding. The House of Saud – the GCC’s top dog – invaded Bahrain with 1,500 troops to smash pro-democracy protests very much like the ones in Egypt and Syria. The House of Saud helped the ruling, Sunni al-Khalifa dynasty in 70% Shi’ite Bahrain to conduct widespread torture; Bahrainis confirm that everyone tortured was forced to confess direct links with „evil” Tehran.

In Egypt, the House of Saud supported Mubarak even after he was deposed. Now it supports – with over US$4 billion so far – a military junta that basically wants to keep power, unchecked, over a „democratic” facade.

The House of Saud couldn’t possibly coexist with a successful, democratic Egypt. Anyone believing the House of Saud’s claim to defend human rights and democracy in the Middle East should check into an asylum.

The Arab League – also a House of Saud extension – gave a green card to NATO to bomb a member state. It suspended Syria on November 12 – as it had done with Libya on February 22 – because, unlike in Libya, US and European designs in the United Nations Security Council were duly vetoed by Russia and China.

Welcome to a „new” Arab League where if you don’t prostrate in front of the GCC altar, you’re condemned to regime change.

Worshipping the GCC can’t compare to worshipping the Pentagon and NATO. Jordan and Morocco are members of NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue, and Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are members of NATO’s Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. In addition, Jordan and the UAE are the only Arabic Troop Contributing Nations for NATO in Afghanistan.

Ivo Daalder, the Obama administration’s ambassador to NATO, has already ordered Libya to enter the Mediterranean Dialogue, alongside Morocco, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Mauritania and Israel. And early this month he told the Atlantic Council what’s needed for an attack on Syria; an „urgent necessity” (such as giving the impression Assad is going to raze Homs to the ground); „regional support” (that will come in a flash from the GCC/Arab League); and a UN mandate (it won’t happen, as Russia and China had made it clear).

So one may expect exactly that from the „coalition of the willing”; some black ops blamed on the Assad regime; immediate support from GCC/Arab League; and probably unilateral action, because via the UN is a no-no.

The Greater Middle East dream 
No wonder some sound minds in Damascus, watching the tea leaves, decided to take some action. Damascus did send secret couriers to sound out Washington’s mood. The price to be left alone; to cut all ties with Tehran, for good. The Assad regime was left wondering what would they get in return.

The Alawites, roughly 12% of the population and members of the ruling elite, won’t desert the Assad regime. Christians and Druze expect only the worst from a possible, hardcore, Muslim Brotherhood-dominated new order. Same for a crucial neighbor, the Nuri al-Maliki government in Baghdad.

Russia knows that if the current Libyan model is reproduced in Syria – and with Lebanon already under a de facto NATO blockade – the Mediterranean will indeed become that dream, a NATO lake, which is code for total US control.

Moscow also sees that in the US-conceived Greater Middle East – and talk about „great”, spanning from Mauritania to Kazakhstan – the only countries that are not linked with NATO through myriad „partnerships” are, apart from Syria: Lebanon, Eritrea, Sudan and Iran.

As for the Pentagon, the name of the game is „repositioning”. As in if you leave Iraq you go somewhere else in the „arc of instability”, preferably the Gulf. There are 40,000 US troops already in the Gulf – 23,000 of them in Kuwait. A secret army for the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency is being trained by former Blackwater, „repositioned” as Xe, in the UAE. A NATO of the Gulf is being born. NATOGCC, anyone?

When the US neo-conservatives ruled the universe – that was only a few years ago – the motto was „Real men go to Tehran”. An update is in order. Call it „Real men go to Tehran via Damascus only if they have the balls to stare down Moscow”.

Note
1. See Revolutionary road: Among the Syrian opposition.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK24Ak01.html

Read Full Post »

A report Thursday said that Russia has supplied Syria with advanced S-300 missiles, and has sent advisers to help Syria run the system.

missile

missile
morgufile royalty free

Russian warships that have reached waters off Syria in recent days were carrying, among other things,Russian technical advisors who will help the Syrians set up an array of S-300 missiles Damascus has received in recent weeks, a report in the London-based Arabic language

Despite the mounting opposition in the West and even in the Arab world against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad for his assaults on protesters seeking to unseat him as leader of the country, Russia maintains its support for Assad, the report said. Russian and Syria military officials are working together to maintain Assad’s rule, and to deflect a possible attack by NATO or the U.S and EU.

Along with the missiles, the report says that Russia has installed advanced radar systems in all key Syrian military and industrial installations. The radar system also covers areas north and south of Syria, where it will be able to detect movement of troops or aircraft towards the Syrian border. The radar targets include much of Israel, as well as the Incirlik military base in Turkey, which is used by NATO.

The S-300 system is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems available. The system’s radar is able to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12. Deployment time for the S-300 is five minutes, and they have a very long life span, with no maintenance needed.

Russia had attempted to sell the system to Iran, but that sale was cancelled due to pressure by the U.S. and Israel, with Russia returning Iran’s deposit. According to the report, the Iranians paid for Syria’s S-300 missile system. It is not known if some of the missiles have reached Iran as well.

Read Full Post »

If a man seeks to understand Rome’s casuss reason for each foreign conquest, he needs only look into the Treasury.

— Tacitus, AD 56 – AD 117

As the US and UK lead towards more illegal overthrows, invasions and destruction in Iran and Syria, a political pattern of manipulation and disinformation has become an art form.

Libya, under Colonel Gaddafi, with highest (UN) Human Development Index in Africa, and living standard which drew immigrants from across the region, has been air brushed out and replaced with a “mad dog” – and a liberating lynching. Oil, spoils and reconstruction contracts, though, are being divvied out apace.

Iraq, formerly described in UN Reports as approaching “First World” standards, also much in ruins, shattered infrastructure trumpeted as due to “thirty years of neglect.” No mention of over fifteen years of decimating embargo and bombings, culminating in “Shock and Awe.” Pretty glaring omissions.

Now President Assad of Syria is being subject to the same build up – or taking down – with calls for a Libya-style “no fly zone.” Being an independent-minded Arab leader certainly comes with a health warning.

On 20th November, Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak commented:  “And it’s clear to me that what happened a few weeks ago to Qaddafi… and what happened ultimately to Saddam Hussein, now might await him.”

Another day, another “despot”, more chilling alarm calls. Ehud Barak is surely in line for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But a decade or so is a long time in politics, especially with Western allies emboldened by a lynching or two.

Consider this from political analyst Sami Moubayid, author of Steel and Silk, Men and Women who have Shaped Syria and other scholarly literary over-views of the country’s  modern history.

In December 2000, six months into Bashar Al-Assad’s tenure, he wrote of a “cultural revolution” the new President was implementing, entitling the piece “A Modern-Day Attaturk.”

“Overnight the thousands of pictures of Hafez Al-Assad … disappeared”, following a statement committing to a “realistic” policy that did not immortalize and over-exaggerate leaders. “A relief … from the ever increasing photo-mania” of Syria (and the region’s) political culture.

Decades old bureaucratic laws were scrapped, a 25% wage increase was instituted  – not universally welcomed, as rumors had been circulating that it would be far higher, but quite a start. Compulsory military service was “somewhat” reformed – a service instituted to counter the perceived “ever present” Israeli military threat.

Freedom of speech was “marginally” restored and the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, jailed since 1982, perceived a threat to the regime’s existence, were released. A conciliatory hand extended. An Ex-chief of staff to his father, Hikmat Shihabi, with close links to Washington, who had fled the country after allegations of corruption, was welcomed back and received as a guest in the Presidential palace. Another returnee was an “outspoken” newspaper Editor, Aref Dalila, formerly critical of the regime – who resumed his criticisms.

Before becoming President, Bashar had opened the country up to internet and mobile ‘phone use.

When his father had traveled : “… roads were sealed (and) his entourage comprised ten cars, a mine detector and an ambulance.” Bashar began driving himself, with two car security, eating in public restaurants and attending prayers in various mosques.

He was, concluded Moubayed: “ … revolutionizing Syrian society at a slow and delicate pace”, warning of the ”the challenge of living up to his people’s very high expectations.”

Given the subsequent turmoil in the region and Syria’s hosting of nearly two million post-invasion Iraqi refugees, he has walked a challenging political and financial tight rope.

Media, politicians and rights groups citing human rights abuses as excuse for regime change, seemingly forget Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, and uncounted renditions to unknown detention dungeons across the world; torture, water boarding, and simply disappearing.

In an imperfect world, threatened Syria is fighting an enemy within, but the US, UK and allies most recent marauding, is uncounted horrifying deaths, acres of communities turned to rubble, culminating in the second lynching of a sovereign leader.

The remodeling of the Middle East, however, has been long on the cards .”9/11”, it is increasingly clear, provided the perfect excuse.

Maidhc Ó Cathail, in a recent article, recalled a 2003 comment written by Patrick Buchanan:

In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad.

The road to Baghdad, of course, had been planned since 1998, when the Iraq Liberation Act declared:

… that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

(Authorizing) the President … to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training …

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President’s criteria.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy….

By July 2002 when a bunch of US funded Iraqi opposition were welcomed by the British government and hosted in Kensington Town Hall, in a pattern now depressingly familiar in countries doomed to “democratization”, US officials “have reported that SAS troops and MI6 agents are already in Iraq working with opposition groups in the northern Kurdish areas of the country.”

In 1946 a US State Department Report had described Iraq as “… a stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history”.

Compared to that, Syria does not have vast natural resources (comparatively limited petroleum, with phosphates, chrome and manganese ores, asphalt, iron ore, rock salt, marble, gypsum, hydropower). However, it is geographically “The doorway to Asia and the Middle East.”

Iraq had its “liberation Act”, in  May 2004, the United States imposed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, imposing, in all too familiar words: “ …a series of sanctions against Syria for its support of terrorism … weapons of mass destruction programs and the destabilizing role it is playing in Iraq.” Jaw dropping stuff from a country which illegally attacked Iraq, having worked tirelessly on its destabilization for years. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2006, the US Department of the Treasury imposed “special measures” against the Commercial Bank of Syria. As ever, Judge, jury and executioner.

In 2007, Israel bombed an undeclared “nuclear facility” – except it wasn’t. Another weapons of mass destruction myth. It was a textile factory. AGerman journalist tracked down machine suppliers, but the designing engineer.

A re-run of the Iraq baby milk factory, declared a chemical weapons factory and flattened – transpiring to be a British engineered baby milk factory. The Al-Shifa pharmacetical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, suffered a similar fate under US bombs in August 1998, also accused of making chemical weapons.

It manufactured mainly veterinary medicines and malarial drugs, antibiotics, at prices which undercut the Western multinationals.  The suppliers for construction had included the US, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany.

Beware of Western governments making assertions.

Meanwhile, British Foreign Minister and Conservative Friend of Israel, William Hague, met “Syrian opposition representatives” (insurgents?) on Monday declaring: “…we will do what we can to support democracy in Syria in the future.”  He appointed former Ambassador to Lebanon and Yemen, Frances Guy, to lead London’s co-ordination with them.

Iraq and Libya revisited.

In the myriad political games, arm twisting, manipulation and propaganda, it should be remembered that President Assad is Regional Secretary of the Arab Ba’ath Party. With Saddam Hussein gone and the concept of a Pan-Arab state now outlawed in Iraq, Syria is the remaining symbol of America’s nemesis, but a concept close to many Arab hearts.

The fathers of the vision of Pan-Arab national ideals combined with socialism, of course, were Damascus  born Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, who formed the Ba’ath Party in the early 1940s.

The commitment included freeing the Arab world of Western colonialism.

Arguably, the overthrow of the last bastion of this ideal on the road through Damascus would be a powerful Crusaders “victory.”

Echoing Foreign Minister Hague, President Genghis Obama has vowed that the US will: “continue to work with our friends and allies to pressure the Al Assad regime and support the Syrian people as they pursue the dignity and transition to democracy they deserve.” He omitted the “delivered by tens of thousands of air strikes.”

Assad’s hand of conciliation to the Muslim Brotherhood has been badly bitten as they push for a “no fly zone”, implemented by NATO Member, neighbouring Turkey.

Further, Tony Cartalucci argues that:

The ‘’Free Syria Army’ is literally an army of militant extremists, many drawn not from Syria’s military ranks, but from the Muslim Brotherhood, carrying heavy weapons back and forth over the Turkish and Lebanese borders, funded, supported, and armed by the United States, Israel, and Turkey.

Pepe Escobar  concurs, citing:

A report by a Qatar-based researcher for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) even comes close to admitting that the self-described ‘Free Syria Army’ is basically a bunch of hardcore Islamists, plus a few genuine army defectors, but mostly radicalized Muslim Brotherhood bought, paid for and weaponized by the US, Israel, the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.

He adds:

As Tehran sees it, what’s really going on regarding Syria is a ‘humanitarian’ cover for a complex anti-Shi’ite and anti-Iran operation.

The road map is already clear … And psy-ops abound …

In context, one Washington allegation last week accused Syria of aggression towards Lebanon by mining their common border.  Lebanese de-mining teams combed the border and found none. (Jordan Times, 18th November 2011.)

This week both Iran and Lebanon have claimed to have arrested alleged CIA spy rings. The Lebanese Cabinet is to summon the US Ambassador, Maura Connelly to question her on the issue. They have also submitted a complaint to the UN on alleged Israeli covert activities.

Baghdad, so extensively destroyed in 2003, was the “Paris of the 9th Century.” Damascus ,“City of Jasmin”, is widely thought to be the oldest continually inhabited city on earth. The Old City is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The superb Umayyad Mosque,built in the 7th century, is a monument to inspirational wonders of that millennium.

Inside a shrine to John the Baptist, believed by Christian scholars to have baptized Jesus, is perhaps a reminder across the millenia of the secular nature of Syrian society – as broadly, Iraq and Libya before Western intervention.

Saint Paul was sent to what is now Syria to destroy the Christians, believers are taught. His conversion on the road to Damascus changed all that. It can only be fervently hoped that today’s marauders also have a Damascene conversion for the sake of Syria’s population of today and most ancient of nations.

Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist with special knowledge of Iraq. Author, with Nikki van der Gaag, of Baghdad in the Great City series for World Almanac books, she has also been Senior Researcher for two Award winning documentaries on Iraq, John Pilger’s Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq and Denis Halliday Returns for RTE (Ireland.) Read other articles by Felicity.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/11/spinning-invasions-from-the-nile-to-the-euphrates-and-beyond/

 

Read Full Post »

Who’s going to stop the Zionists from using the US military to attack Iran?

 

by Kevin Barrett

 

The President can’t do it – not in an election year.

The Congress can’t do it – not in an election year, or any year for that matter.

The Zionists have a down payment on the White House, and they own Congress free and clear. Zionist sources are said to provide roughly half of the bribe money euphemistically known as “campaign contributions.” They’ve turned the entire US political class into a gang of treasonous whores who daily pledge undying allegiance to the Israeli flag.

So who can stop them? Who can prevent a ruinous war on Iran?

Only the US military.

US military leaders – the intelligent ones, not the “my God is bigger than your God” loonies like Gen. Boykin – need to schedule some visits to key political leaders. Some very, very brief visits. All they need to say is: “The answer is no.” Then: “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?” And finally: “Any Israeli planes that attempt to attack Iran will be shot out of the sky; and any American involvement in an Israeli-instigated war with Iran will be on the side of Iran.”

The Zio-con traitors will whine: “What happened to civilian oversight of the military? Doesn’t the military have to obey executive orders and congressional mandates” ?

Memorial Day honours American men and women who have died in military service.

Once again, the answer is no. If the executive orders a war crime, or congress mandates a war crime, those orders are null and void. The proper course for a military person ordered to participate in a war crime is to arrest, or in the worst-case scenario kill, the person or persons giving the illegal order.

An Israeli attack on Iran would not only be a war crime; it would be a clear example of the most terrible, most evil of all war crimes: the crime of aggression. 

Any US officer who participates in an attack on Iran would be committing the worst possible war crime – the worst possible crime against humanity.

If the White House and Congress ordered the US military to participate in the long-planned Zionist attack on Iran, it would be more honorable, and more legally and morally defensible, to bomb the White House and Congress to smithereens and kill all the traitors in those usurped buildings, than to fire even one bullet in anger against a people who have never attacked or threatened us.

But it shouldn’t have to come to that. If our sane military leaders (assuming that isn’t an oxymoron) make it clear that they will “just say no” if ordered to commit more war crimes – especially if the war crimes in question are part of a treasonous and suicidal attack on Iran for Israel – the bribe-sucking traitors dressed as politicians will presumably refrain from issuing any such illegal orders.


Related article:

Gordon Duff : Restore The Draft, Israel Is Demanding It

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/23/military-should-just-say-no-to-iran-attack/

Read Full Post »

Russia has accused the west of exacerbating the already tense situation in Syria. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says calls for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime are nothing but a provocation. The Russian FM reaffirmed Moscow’s stance on Syria: Russia wants to see both sides coming together to discuss peacefully how to lead the country out of crisis. This is not the first time the Russian FM has leveled accusations at the west regarding Syria. When the Arab League made its decision to expel the country, Mr Lavrov suggested the “shadowy hand of western powers” was behind the move.

British Israel-Firster Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Monday the international community would do its best to turn up the heat on Syria.

Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned Bashar al-Assad that his days as Syrian leader were numbered and he cannot remain in power indefinitely with the help of the military force.

Webster G. Tarpley PhD, one of America’s renowned journalist, author and blogger. In a recent interview he gave to Russian Television RT, he clamed that CIA, Mossad and MI6 were behind the militant insurgency in Syria. Watch video below.

The West is doing its best to destabilize the situation in Syria, author and journalist Webster Tarpley told RT. According to him, civilians have to deal with death squads and blind terrorism, which is typical of the CIA.

“What average Syrians of all ethnic groups say about this is that they are being shot at by snipers. People complained that there are terrorist snipers who are shooting at civilians, blind terrorism simply for the purpose of destabilizing the country. I would not call this civil war – it is a very misleading term. What you are dealing with here are death squads, you are dealing with terror commandos; this is a typical CIA method. In this case it’s a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad, it’s got money coming from Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Qatar,” he explained.

He added that Syrian society is the most tolerant society in the Middle East, the one place where all kinds of people live together in remarkable harmony, Muslims and Christians of all kinds.

“After Libya becoming a bloodbath with 150.000 dead and now with Egypt showing what it was all along – there was no revolution there, it was a complete failure and now people are beginning to understand that. Still, Hillary Clinton and Ms Rice (sic) continue to push this bankrupt model of the colour revolution, backed up by terrorist troops – people from Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a growing movement inside the Islamic community, which says ‘We want reconciliation, we want law and order, and we want legality’,” he said.

http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/cia-mossad-and-mi6-behind-regime-change-in-syria/

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »