SYRIA: Syrian crisis: Russia air strikes 'strengthen IS'

Areas held by the US-backed Free Syrian Army have reportedly been hit by Russian strikes
  

Syrian crisis: Russia air strikes 'strengthen IS' 

US President Barack Obama has said the Russian bombing campaign in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad is driving moderate opposition underground and "only strengthening" Islamic State.

Mr Obama said he rejected the Russian assertion that all armed opponents of the "brutal" Mr Assad were terrorists. 

Moscow insists its air strikes - which began on Wednesday - are targeting IS.

But the Syrian opposition and others have suggested non-IS rebels are bearing the brunt of Russian attacks.

Russia said its aircraft had hit IS command centres, arms depots and military vehicles. Targets included the IS stronghold of Raqqa, but also Aleppo, Hama and Idlib - provinces with little IS presence. 

Watch videos and read full article here

Syria's war 

Russia's intervention lifts Syria crisis to new level

1 October 2015 
Syria crisis: Where key countries stand

2 October 2015 
Russia joins Syrian war: Key points
1 October 2015  
Syria: What can Russia's air force do?

1 October 2015 
How Putin blindsided the US

30 September 2015 
West 'walking into abyss' on Syria

28 September 2015 
Why Gulf states are not letting Syrians in

7 September 2015 
Syrian ruins that influenced the West

27 July 2015 
Syria: Mapping the conflict

 10 July 2015 
Syria: The story of the conflict

12 March 2015

ISRAEL: Lengthy?!

Lengthy Iran conflict likely to cost Israeli economy billions of shekels

Former finance ministry director general says nuclear Iran involves considerable economic cost to Israel, adds that war with Iran would be much more expensive than Second Lebanon War.

By Moti Bassok and Hagai Amit | Aug.14, 2012 | 4:59 AM

In the heart of the Jerusalem hills is a "pit" which, like its twin in the Tel Aviv headquarters of the Defense Ministry, is intended for use by top government officials in the event of a national security emergency.

It's safe to assume that, in light of growing talks during the past few weeks about an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, the pits have been getting thorough inspections and sprucing up.

Construction on the Jerusalem underground war room began in 2002, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and it took a few years and somewhere between NIS 500 million and NIS 1 billion to complete.

In the event of an Israeli strike on Iran and an anticipated Iranian counterstrike, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the core of government activities will likely move to the pit in the Jerusalem hills, while Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the top commanders of the Israel Defense Forces can be expected to go underground in Tel Aviv.

They aren't the only ones preparing for an emergency. The Bank of Israel, for example, has its own underground hideaway, more than an hour's drive from Jerusalem, as does the Finance Ministry, while the Central Bureau of Statistics protects its precious data from nuclear attack with radiation-proof storage facilities.

Price for no war, too

While all government ministries and top agencies have protocols in place in the event of war with Iran, including an Iranian counter-attack against Israel, most are tight-lipped about the details. And while no one knows whether Israel will attack Iran or how Iran would respond, what is known is that a war with Iran could cost Israel tens of billions of shekels.

Yarom Ariav, Finance Ministry director general from 2007-2009, is considered an expert in defense budgets.

"Before talking about the implications of war with Iran, it must be said that the alternative carries a price, too. A nuclear Iran involves considerable economic cost to Israel, from its effect on our economic rating to large security outlays," Ariav points out.

He notes that after the Second Lebanon War of 2006 - which lasted 34 days, involved only one front and did not require full troop deployment - the treasury issued an NIS 8.2 billion extraordinary allocation to refill the IDF's emergency armories. In addition, the state paid out NIS 7 billion in compensation and rebuilding costs after the war.

"And that was before the expensive weapons systems we have now - the Arrow, Magic Wand and Iron Dome," Ariav notes, adding that a war with Iran would be much more expensive.

"There's also the collateral damage. Israel's daily domestic product is around NIS 3 billion per day. The question is how many days the economy would be paralyzed if war breaks out. If 50% of the economy is paralyzed, that's a loss of NIS 1.5 billion a day, NIS 45 billion a month," Ariav notes, adding that the long-term effects cannot be forgotten.

"Economists called the decade after the Yom Kippur War 'the lost decade.' There was a decline in the standard of living. Enormous amounts were diverted into restoring the military establishment, at the expense of civilian budgets," Ariav said, adding that a war would hurt Israel's credit rating, tourism and foreign trade.

In April, Fitch Ratings announced that Israel's credit rating would rise if the tension with Iran abated and noted that its decision to retain its Stable outlook for Israel "does not incorporate event risk in the shape of a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities."

An executive at an international investment bank, who maintains close contact with investors, said this week that foreign investors are very concerned about the situation with Iran, noting that foreign activity on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange is near zero these days, largely because of the Iran issue.

 

Gilad Alper, an analyst at Excellence Nessuah Investment House, disagrees, saying that for foreign investors, “Israel always has a dark cloud hovering above.”

Alper notes that credit default swaps on Israeli bonds − “a classic measurement of the risk the market assigns to a state” − have not risen. According to Alper, the possibility of Israel attacking Iran does not affect whether foreigners invest in the country. He even suggests that a brief, successful Israeli strike could benefit the local economy. “You remove the cloud hanging over the economy, Israel demonstrates its technological superiority − and a few articles go up on Bloomberg about how Israel achieved that superiority,” Alper says, adding that Iran is not the main problem with the Israeli economy.

Giora Eiland, a former head of the National Security Council who is now a senior research fellow at the National Institute for Security Studies, also does not believe that a strike on Iran will critically damage the Israeli economy.

“The direct cost of the attack itself is negligible. What costs is preparing for a strike − the spending on intelligence and the relevant armaments − and most of that we’ve already paid. It’s part of the reason for the increase in the defense budget in the past few years,” Eiland says. The costs arising from an Iranian counterstrike, Eiland admits, cannot be estimated “without knowing the nature of the response − and I personally think it won’t be dramatic.” 

 Effects of War

IRAN/ISRAEL: NATO official: Soon, Israel won’t have unanimous support for Iran strike

In exclusive interview with Haaretz, Canadian general warns that military strike could serve interests of jihadis.

 

By Akiva Eldar | Aug.13, 2012 | 12:54 AM

The commander of the NATO mission in Libya that toppled Muammar Gadhafi's regime last year vehemently opposes a military strike on Iran at this time, regardless of whether it would be carried out by Israel or the United States.

Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, who retired from the Royal Canadian Air Force four months ago, told Haaretz in an exclusive interview Sunday that he doesn't believe Israel would take such an illogical and irresponsible step as to attack Iran without international support.

And NATO won't unanimously support a military campaign against Iran any time soon, he said, nor will the UN Security Council.

As someone familiar with Israel's senior military leadership, because of his work at NATO, Bouchard said he is convinced that Israel will not set in motion a process that could lead to chaos in the entire region, by launching a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The military option, he said, could be a boomerang that will end up harming Israel and uniting the entire Muslim world against it.

Bouchard, a native of Quebec, is a former deputy commander of the joint U.S.-Canadian military operation NORAD. He said the strategic price of a preventative war against Iran would be several times higher than the tactical benefit that might be gained. 

The chance of a 100 percent success rate in a military operation is infinitesimally small, said Bouchard, adding that Israel won't get a second chance and that it won't be a quick lightning strike like the Six-Day War.

He added that while all countries obviously have the right to defend themselves, Israel should take into account that global jihad would exploit an Israeli military assault and use it to incite against the West. He said Islamic fundamentalists can be expected to portray an attack as a Jewish-Christian conspiracy against Islam.

Bouchard called on whoever wins the next U.S. presidential election to look to historic groundbreaking diplomacy for examples of what could be accomplished, like Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China and Anwar Sadat's 1977 visit to Jerusalem.

The solution is not a zero-sum game, said Bouchard, but a compromise in which each side concedes something.

Russia holds the key to securing international support on Iran, he said, adding that this is a chance for Russian President Vladimir Putin to act like a leader by preventing another round of a Cold War. The situation around the world, and in the Middle East in particular, needs to settle down first, Bouchard said, warning that Israel must not get itself dragged into hasty and premature actions.

The violence in Syria is completely different from that in Libya when Bouchard headed Operation Odyssey Dawn, he said, adding that it more closely resembles the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, in that it requires long-term international intervention.

In addition, Gadhafi was backed by sidelined leaders like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, and opposed by other African countries as well as the Arab League and Qatar, which sent aircraft to help topple him.

By contrast, Syria has strong supporters like Iran, Russia and China, as well as terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

The question, said Bouchard, is whether it's possible to defeat Syrian President Bashar Assad and if so, at what cost? And how long will it take?

In addition, the Libyan opposition was prepared to take power, while removing Assad from power at this point is likely to result in chaos, he said. If Assad gets desperate, he is liable to attack Israel, on the assumption that if he is going down, he may as well take Israelis with him, warned Bouchard.

The retired commander said NATO was successful in Libya because it didn't send in ground forces, but the geography and political instability of Syria mean that a battle in that country can't be fought exclusively by air. In addition, he warned, air strikes on Syria could cause significant casualties and provoke outrage against the West among countries in the region.

In an effort to avoid such a response to the NATO bombing of Libya, Bouchard said he ordered the pilots to avoid hitting water installations, hospitals, roads and mosques at all costs, even though he knew that Gadhafi's troops sometimes took refuge in such facilities. Two-thirds of the time, the order to drop bombs was canceled and the planes turned around, when it became clear there was a risk they would harm innocent civilians, he said.

In the battle against Libya, NATO planned for the day after, Bouchard said, adding that the forces were in Libya to protect the civilians and that he was pleased that the Muslim Brotherhood did not win the elections there.

It's too bad that Gadhafi was lynched by rebels, said Bouchard, adding that's not why NATO launched its campaign. Bouchard said he would have liked to see Gadhafi facing a war crimes tribunal.

ISRAEL/IRAN: I thought Israel Nuclear rector in Dimona did not exist!!!, Ha, ha, ha...

An Israeli strike on Iran nuclear facilities could endanger Israel's Dimona reactor

Senior Haaretz analyst Amir Oren says the main question that should bother Israel's leaders is what would be the reaction of the Obama administration to an uncoordinated attack in Iran.

By Amir Oren | Aug.10, 2012 | 10:15 AM

A foul wind is blowing over Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, with weekend gusts toward Caesarea. A wind of pugnacity. Before the eyes of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and in the spirit of the chants of which he is so fond ("They are frightened"; "There's no free lunch" ) - it's as if a new sign has been raised high, bearing the words: "Strike now!"

Iran's nuclear weapons are not the story. A vast majority of the Israeli public and its elected representatives quite reasonably do not have faith in the ayatollahs and the Tehran regime, nor do they believe that once the Iranians attain nuclear warheads, they will use them only for deterrence and prestige. The debate is over how to act before that moment arrives, and the extent to which an impulsive move might harm Israel more than it helps.

The question posed in the summer of 2012 is very specific: Should Iran be attacked at this time, prior to the November 6 U.S. election, in defiance of the clear stand taken by President Barack Obama and the American intelligence community?

The Pentagon's "Annual Report on Military Power of Iran," updated in April, ascribes to Tehran a security policy based on the elements of deterrence, subversion, threat of asymmetrical retaliation, a war of attrition and regional influence. When it comes to the nuclear realm, the drafting of the report is cautious: "Iran continues to develop technological capabilities applicable to nuclear weapons."

The Pentagon - which, as per federal law, carefully notates the cost of preparing the report ("approximately $22,000" ) - also emphasizes the term "technically capable" in another context: By 2015, it says, "Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental missile."

Anyone who reads this document can conclude that the Iranians, in their preparations for a conflict with an Israeli-American enemy, are suspending any decision on the production of nuclear weapons - which would necessarily be detected and would trigger a war against them - until such a time when they have achieved strike capability and deterrence, not only against Tel Aviv but Washington as well. It would be foolish for them to produce a nuclear warhead before they have a missile with the required range. And according to U.S. intelligence, that will only happen three years from now.

The modus operandi to be used against Iran, when the time comes, is the subject of professional controversy among American military planners. Last month, the American Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert - a former submarine officer - proposed investing more heavily in missiles that are high-precision and theoretically more expensive than theoretically inexpensive but actually more expensive missiles dropped from planes. According to his thinking, the bill should include the cost of training crews, of maintenance and of the logistics of bringing manned warplanes into launch range. The advanced American jets, Greenert noted, are also dependent on stealth technology, but in the next few years new developments are liable to eliminate this advantage (and in so doing, cast a dark shadow on the value of the F-35 fighter jets that Israel plans to buy ).

In an attack with precision missiles, the Americans are unlikely to lose a single pilot or aircraft, just as the Israel Air Force did not lose any pilots or aircraft in the attacks on the Iraqi reactor in 1981 and the Syrian nuclear facility in 2007. Yet there is a substantial difference between the operational capacity to complete a specific mission, and the broad context of a prolonged conflict that would escalate into a barrage of ballistic and cruise missiles aimed at the West. Therefore, the American military is not recommending that Obama launch an attack, but rather that he restrain himself.

Since Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, a handful of generals and the directors of the Mossad and the Shin Bet security service are all aware of this data, the objections of the professional ranks to an Israeli attack do not reflect narrow-mindedness or even a fear that the opening salvo of the war might fail. Rather, it's the opposite - an absence of political and personal considerations - that is leading the elected officials.

The Dimona question

On September 6, 1963, an important political-security consultation was held in Israel. Among the six people who took part were the prime minister, Levi Eshkol, and two individuals who would go on to become prime minister - Golda Meir and Shimon Peres. Also present were the then-chief of staff, Tzvi Tzur, Education Minister Abba Eban, and former chief of staff Moshe Dayan, who was agriculture minister at the time. Dayan and Eban were present because of their past experience, whether in the IDF, Washington, D.C. or the United Nations.

Three security mavens - Dayan, Peres and Tzur - versus three civilians - Eshkol, Meir and Eban. Minutes of the discussion are preserved in the State Archives and were detailed years ago by Dr. Avner Cohen .

It was a most serious discussion, the revelation of which may make an important contribution to our own present discourse: Eshkol: "What do we do when the entire Egyptian army is arrayed in eastern Sinai, and it costs money and is nerve-racking?"

Tzur: "If Nasser's 4th and 8th divisions were in Sinai, it would be best if we took the risk on ourselves and threw the first punch."

(By the way, the question of communication with the U.S. Sixth Fleet, which Israel had been assured would rush to its aid if it were attacked, was discussed in this consultation - five decades before ships equipped with Aegis antimissile defense systems were planned to take part in downing the (Iranian ) Shahab missiles. These systems will be showcased in the joint military exercise to be held in late October, to the greater glory of Barack Obama and the greater envy of Mitt Romney. )

In any event, a key issue in the 1963 discussion was Dimona. Said Tzur, decades before the Arab Spring: "Our situation is good, because right now there is a holy commotion in the arena. No one is speaking to his own brother. If there is any cause for anxiety as to what the future holds, it relates to the more distant future. It looks murky. Where are we going to be in the '70s? Then there will be a need for something nonconventional. We have to be careful not to find ourselves in a situation in which Dimona is the pressure point. It cannot be that they gave us $100 million a year for Israel's security, and we sold Dimona with it."

Dayan: "The most important thing in terms of security, which could shift our balance of security, is the finished product of Dimona. There is no substitute for it, and no other ingenious solution. I'm not talking about mechanism, but about finished product. So long as we have a chance of reaching it, we must not do anything that is liable to stand between us and it. It is not worthwhile talking to the Americans, because they'll tell us: 'Is your aim security or Dimona? Why do you care so much about Dimona?'"

Peres: "We can reach agreement on capability."

Dimona, Eshkol clarified, constituted deterrence, but not the only possible deterrence. If President John F. Kennedy were to say there was no reason for Dimona because the Arab states will acquire similar capability, then, added Eshkol, "[Israel must] provide other deterrence, like Moshe has been saying - all of the weapons they give to NATO, only without atomic warheads. The Egyptians have pinpoint missiles. We want them, too. We need parity. We have to demand something that safeguards us and deters our neighbors, such-and-such hundreds of missiles and other weapons. Which is why I say: deterrence vs. deterrence. Of course, even then I am not demolishing Dimona, I am waiting with Dimona. For instance, we will also tell [French president Charles] de Gaulle that we won't start making anything without his knowledge. When the matter is finished, I can afford to tell him."

Kennedy was assassinated two and a half months later. By the end of his term, Lyndon Johnson in 1968 agreed to sell Phantom jets to Israel, where they would be the weapon of both deterrence and choice of the late '60s and early '70s. Without forfeiting Dimona. Richard Nixon handed Meir a triple achievement - Phantoms, a blind eye to Dimona, and abstention from pressure to return the territories. The achievement was so great that it contributed to Anwar Sadat's decision to embark on the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

During that war, the DIA - the Pentagon's intelligence agency - ascribed limited future value to Israel's nuclear deterrence, which it say would not maintain its monopoly status forever. "In spite of the deterrent threat," it wrote, "the Arabs are liable to attack, as they will assume that Israel will not make good on the threat, or they will succeed despite Israel's use of nuclear weapons - perhaps with chemical or biological weapons. They might also reap the benefits of an international response to Israel's realization of its nuclear threat. And, of course, the deterrent effect of such an Israeli threat would be diminished if the Arab states would themselves have nuclear weapons."

From Johnson and Nixon to George W. Bush and Obama, leaving Dimona off the playing board is a presidential decision. But the one who permitted it to exist can also change its mind, should conditions change. For instance, if that were to be the price named by Russia and China for backing the stepped-up pressure on Iran to scrap its nuclear program. An American president whose declared vision is to work for a world more free of nuclear weapons, and who aspires to get even with someone who has expressly interfered in his reelection effort, is capable of altering his policy - particularly if the U.S. public becomes angry with the foreign country that entangled it in a war.

Attacking Iran despite Obama's objections would endanger Dimona. Has any express discussion of this matter taken place, in any framework? Do the cabinet ministers understand the consequences? Who authorized them to interfere, for the sake of two men's caprice, with the nuclear capability of Israel?

USA/ISRAEL/IRAN: The Slide to War.

The Slide to War

Posted: 24 Feb 2012 11:10 AM PST

by CONN HALLINAN

Wars are fought because some people decide it is in their interests to fight them. World War I was not started over the Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination, nor was it triggered by the alliance system. An “incident” may set the stage for war, but no one keeps shooting unless they think it’s a good idea. The Great War started because the countries involved decided they would profit by it, delusional as that conclusion was.

It is useful to keep this idea in mind when trying to figure out if there will be a war with Iran. In short, what are the interests of the protagonists, and are they important enough for those nations to take the fateful step into the chaos of battle?

First off, because oil and gas are involved, a war would have global ramifications. Iran supplies China with about 15 percent of its oil, and India with 10 percent. It is a major supplier to Europe, Turkey, Japan and South Korea, and it has the third largest oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. Some 17 million barrels per day pass through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, a significant part of the globe’s energy supply.

In short, the actors in this drama are widespread and their interests as diverse as their nationalities.

According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran is building nuclear weapons that pose an “existential” threat to Israel. But virtually no one believes this, including the bulk of Tel Aviv’s military and intelligence communities. As former Israeli Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said recently, Iran “is not an existential” threat to Israel. There is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb and all its facilities are currently under a 24-hour United Nations inspection regime.

But Israel does have an interest in keeping the Middle East a fragmented place, riven by sectarian divisions and dominated by authoritarian governments and feudal monarchies. If there is one lesson Israel has learned from its former British overlords, it is “divide and conquer.” Among its closest allies were the former dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, and it now finds itself on the same page as the reactionary monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman.

Iran is not a military threat to Israel, but it is a political problem, because Tel Aviv sees Teheran’s fierce nationalism and independence from the U.S. and Europe as a wildcard. Iran is also allied to Israel’s major regional enemy, Syria—with which it is still officially at war— and the Shiite-based Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq.

In the Netanyahu government’s analysis, beating up on Iran would weaken Israel’s local enemies and at little cost. Tel Aviv’s scenario features a shock and awe attack, followed by a United Nations mandated ceasefire, with a maximum of 500 Israeli casualties. The Iranians have little capacity to strike back, and, if they did attack Israeli civilian centers or tried to close the Hormutz Strait, it would bring in the Americans.

Of course that rose-colored scenario is little more than wishful thinking. Iran is not likely to agree to a ceasefire—it fought for eight long years against Iraq—and war has a habit of derailing the best-laid plans. In real life it will be long and bloody and might well spread to the entire region.

Iran’s leaders use a lot of bombast about punishing Israel if it attacks, but in the short run, there is not a lot they could do, particularly given the red lines Washington has drawn. The Iranian air force is obsolete, and the Israelis have the technology to blank out most of Teheran’s radar and anti-aircraft sites. Iran could do little to stop Tel Aviv’s mixture of air attacks, submarine-fired cruise missiles, and Jericho ballistic missiles.

For all its talk about “everything being on the table.” The Obama administration appears to be trying to avoid a war, but with the 2012 elections looming, would Washington remain on the sidelines? On the “yes” side are polls indicating that Americans would not look with favor on a new Middle East war. But on the “no” side are a united front of Republicans, neo-conservatives, and the American Israeli Political Action Committee pressing for a confrontation with Iran.

Israeli sources suggest that Netanyahu may calculate that in the run-up to the 2012 American elections, an Israeli attack might force the Obama Administration to back a war and/or damage Obama’s re-election chances. It is no secret that there is no love lost between the two leaders.

But the U.S. also has a dog in this fight, and one not all that different than Israel’s. American hostility to Iran dates back to Teheran’s seizure of its oil assets from Britain in 1951. The CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and install the dictatorial Shah. The U.S. also backed Saddam Hussein’s war on Iran, has had a longstanding antagonistic relationship with Syria, and will not talk with Hezbollah or Hamas. Tel Aviv’s local enemies are Washington’s local enemies.

When the Gulf monarchs formed the GCC in 1981, its primary purpose was to oppose Iranian influence in the Middle East. Using religious division as a wedge, the GCC has encouraged Sunni fundamentalists to fight Shiites in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, and blocked the spread of the “Arab Spring” to its own turf. When Shiites in Bahrain began protesting over a lack of democracy and low wages, the GCC invaded and crushed the demonstrations. The GCC does not see eye-to-eye with the U.S. and Israel on the Palestinians—although it is careful not to annoy Washington and Tel Aviv—but the GCC is on the same page as both capitals concerning Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

The European Union (EU) has joined the sanctions, although France and Germany have explicitly rejected the use of force. Motivations in the EU range from France’s desire to reclaim its former influence in Lebanon to Europe’s need to keep its finger on the energy jugular vein. In brief, it isn’t all about oil and gas but a whole lot of it is, and, as CounterPunch’s Alexander Cockburn points out, oil companies would like to see production cut and prices rise. A war would accomplish both.

Iran will be the victim here, but there will be some who would take advantage of a war. An attack would unify the country around what is now a rather unpopular government, allow the Revolutionary Guard to crush its opposition, and give cover to the current drive by the Ahmadinejad government to cut subsidies for transportation, housing and food. A war would cement the power of the most reactionary elements of the current regime.

There are other actors in this drama—China, Russia, India, Turkey, and Pakistan for starters, none of whom support a war—but whether they can influence events is an open question. In the end, Israel may just decide that its interests are served by starting a war, and that the U.S. will go along because it is much of the same mind.

Or maybe this is all sound and fury signifying nothing?

The sobering thought is that the three most powerful actors in this drama—Israel, the U.S. and its European allies, and the Gulf Cooperation Council—have many of the same interests, and share the belief that force is an effective way to achieve one’s goals.

On such illusions are tragedies built.

The United States Of Israel. 

What a joke!

 

USA/ISRAEL/IRAN: Israel Betrays America into War with Iran

Israel Betrays America into War with Iran

War with Iran -George Galloway

Egypt

USA/ISRAEL/IRAN: Israel's involvement in terror group killing of Iran's nuclear scientists...

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News

NBC News - http://bit.ly/A8yhSx 

Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.

The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, known by various acronyms, including MEK, MKO and PMI, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.

Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describes what Iranian leaders believe is a close relationship between Israel's secret service, the Mossad, and the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States.

“The relation is very intricate and close,” said Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, speaking of the MEK and Israel.  “They (Israelis) are paying … the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents … (are) providing Israel with information.  And they recruit and also manage logistical support."

Moreover, he said, the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is training MEK members in Israel on the use of motorcycles and small bombs.  In one case, he said, Mossad agents built a replica of the home of an Iranian nuclear scientist so that the assassins could familiarize themselves with the layout prior to the attack.

Much of what the Iranian government knows of the attacks and the links between Israel and MEK comes from interrogation of an assassin who failed to carry out an attack in late 2010 and the materials found on him, Larijani said. 

Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News  the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” 

As it has in the past, Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined comment. Said a spokesman, "As long as we can't see all the evidence being claimed by NBC, the Foreign Ministry won't react to every gossip and report being published worldwide."

For its part, the MEK pointed to a statement calling the allegations “absolutely false.”  Ali Safavi, a long-time representative of the MEK, underscored the denial after publication of this article. "There has never been and there is no MEK member in Israel, period," he said. "The MEK has categorically denied any involvement. The idea that Israel is training MEK members on its soil borders on perversity. It is absolutely and completely false."

The sophistication of the attacks supports the Iranian claims that an experienced intelligence service is involved, experts say.  In the most recent attack, on Jan. 11, 2012, Mostafa Ahamdi Roshan died in a blast in Tehran moments after two assailants on a motorcycle placed a small magnetic bomb on his vehicle. Roshan was a deputy director at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and was reportedly involved in procurement for the nuclear program, which Iran insists is not a weapons program.

Previous attacks include the assassination of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, killed by a bomb outside his Tehran home in January 2010, and an explosion in November of that year that took the life of Majid Shahriari and wounded Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, who is now the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

In the case of Roshan, the bomb appears to have been a shaped charge that directed all the explosive power inside the vehicle, killing him and his bodyguard driver but leaving nearby traffic unaffected.

Although Roshan was directly involved in the nuclear program, working at the huge centrifuge facility between Tehran and Qom, at least one other scientist who was killed wasn’t linked to the Iranian nuclear program, according to Larijani.

Speaking of bombing victim Ali-Mohammadi, whom he described as a friend, Larijani told NBC News, “In fact this guy who was assassinated was not involved in the nitty-gritty of the situation.  He was a scientist, a physicist, working on the theoretically parts of nuclear energy, which you can teach it in every university. You can find it in every text.”

“This is an Israeli plot.  A dirty plot,” Larijani added angrily. He also claimed the assassinations are not having an effect on the program and have only made scientists more resolute in carrying out their mission.

Not so, said Ronen Bergman, an Israeli commentator and author of “Israel’s Secret War with Iran” and an upcoming book tentatively titled, “Mossad and the Art of Assassination.”

"WHITE DEFECTIONS"

Bergman said the attacks have three purposes, the most obvious being the removal of high-ranking scientists and their  knowledge. The others:  forcing Iran to increase security for its scientists and facilities and to spur “white defections.”

He explained the latter this way: “Scientists leaving the project, afraid that they are going to be next on the assassination list, and say, ‘We don't want this. Indeed, we get good money, we are promoted, we are honored by everybody, but we might get killed.  It isn't worth it.  Maybe we should go back to teach … in a university.’”

There are unconfirmed reports in the Israeli press and elsewhere that Israel and the MEK were involved in a Nov. 12 explosion that destroyed the Iranian missile research and development site at Bin Kaneh, 30 miles outside Tehran.  Among those killed was Maj. Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, director of missile development for the Revolutionary Guard, and a dozen other researchers. 

Indeed, there may be other covert operations carried out either by Israel acting alone or in concert with others, according to Bergman. “Two labs caught fire,” said Bergman, enumerating the attacks. “Scientists got blown up or disappeared.  A missile base and the R&D base of the Revolutionary Guard exploded some time ago, with the director of the R&D division of the Revolutionary Guard being killed along with … his soldiers.”  Bergman added, “So, a long series of … something that was termed by an Israeli (Cabinet) minister … as ‘mysterious mishaps’ happening and re-happening to the project. 

PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE

Dr. Uzi Rabi, director of the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, said the supposed accidents could all be part of “psychological warfare” conducted against Iran. “It seems logical. It makes sense,” he said of possible MEK involvement, “and it’s been done before.”

Rabi, who regularly briefs Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, on Iran also said the ultimate goal of the range of covert operations being carried out by Israel is “to damage the politics of survivability … to send a message that could strike fear into the rulers of Iran.”

For the United States, the alleged role of the MEK is particularly troublesome.  In 1997, the State Department designated it a terrorist group, justifying it with an unclassified 40-page summary of the organization’s  activities going back more than 25 years.  The paper, sent to Congress in 1998, was written by Wendy Sherman, now undersecretary of state for political affairs

ISRAELI ALLIES KILLED AMERICANS AND FOUGHT FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN

The report, which was obtained by NBC News, was unsparing in its assessment. “The Mujahedin (MEK) collaborated with Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow the former shah of Iran,” it said. “As part of that struggle, they assassinated at least six American citizens, supported the takeover of the U.S. embassy, and opposed the release of the American hostages.”  In each case, the paper noted, “Bombs were the Mujahedin's weapon of choice, which they frequently employed against American targets.”

“In the post-revolutionary political chaos, however, the Mujahedin lost political power to Iran's Islamic clergy. They then applied their dedication to armed struggle and the use of propaganda against the new Iranian government, launching a violent and polemical cycle of attack and reprisal."

U.S. officials have said publicly that the information contained in the report was limited to unclassified material, but that it also drew on classified material in making its determination to add the MEK to the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. 

The MEK and its sister organizations have since the beginning been run by Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, a husband-wife team who have maintained tight control despite assassination threats and internal dissent. Massoud Rajavi, 63, founded the MEK, but since the U.S. invasion of Iraq has taken a backseat to his wife.The State Department report describes the Rajavis as  “fundamentally undemocratic” and “not a viable alternative to the current government of Iran.”

One reason for that is the MEK’s close relationship with Saddam Hussein, as demonstrated by a 1986 video showing the late Iraqi dictator meeting with Massoud Rajavi. Saddam recruited the MEK in much the same way the Israelis allegedly have, using them to fight Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War, a role they took on proudly.  So proudly, they invited NBC News to one of their military camps outside Baghdad in 1991.

“The National Liberation Army (MLA), the military wing of the Mujahedin, conducted raids into Iran during the latter years of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War,” according to the State Department report. The NLA's last major offensive reportedly was conducted against Iraqi Kurds in 1991, when it joined Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the Kurdish rebellion. In addition to occasional acts of sabotage, the Mujahedin are responsible for violent attacks in Iran that victimize civilians.”

“Internally, the Mujahedin run their organization autocratically, suppressing dissent and eschewing tolerance of differing viewpoints,” it said. “Rajavi, who heads the Mojahedin’s political and military wings, has fostered a cult of personality around himself.”

The U.S. suspicion of the MEK doesn’t end there. Law enforcement officials have told NBC News that in 1994, the MEK made a pact with terrorist Ramzi Yousef a year after he masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.  According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Yousef built an 11-pound bomb that MEK agents placed inside one of Shia Islam’s greatest shrines in Mashad, Iran, on June 20, 1994.  At least 26 people, mostly women and children, were killed and 200 wounded in the attack.

In recent years, the MEK has said it has renounced violence, but Iranian officials say that is not true, that killings of Iranians continue. Still, through some deft lobbying, the group has been able to get the United Kingdom and the European Union to remove it from their lists of terrorist groups.

The alleged involvement of the MEK in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists provides the U.S. with a cloak of deniability regarding the clandestine killings.

Iranian officials initially accused the Israelis and MEK of being behind the attacks, but they have since added the CIA to the list. Three days after the Jan. 11, 2012, bombing in Tehran that killed Roshan, the state news agency IRNA reported that Iran’s Foreign Ministry had sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. claiming to have “evidence and reliable information” that the CIA provided “guidance, support and planning” to assassins directly involved in the attack.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  immediately denied any connection to the killings. “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Clinton told reporters on the day of the attack.

At least two GOP presidential candidates have no problem with the targeting of nuclear scientists.  In a November debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed “taking out their scientists,” and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum called it, ”a wonderful thing.”

CROSS-SECTION OF U.S. POLITICIANS AND TOP COPS SUPPORT TERROR GROUP

The MEK’s opposition to the Iranian government also has recently earned it both plaudits and support from an odd mix of political bedfellows. A group of former Cabinet-level officials have joined together to support the MEK’s removal from the official U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization list, even taking out a full-page ad last year in the New York Times calling for the removal of the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list.  Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton; former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Rep. Patrick Kennedy were among those whose signatures were on the ad.

“There’s an extraordinary group of bipartisan or even apolitical leaders, military leaders, diplomats, the United States … the United Kingdom, the European Union, even a U.S. District Court in Washington, said that this group that was put on the foreign terrorist organization watch list in 1997 doesn’t deserve to be there,” Tom Ridge said in November on “The Andrea Mitchell Show” on MSNBC TV.

U.S. politicians also have been pushing the U.S. government to protect the 3,400 MEK members and their families at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, about 35 miles north of Baghdad.  With the departure of U.S. troops, the MEK feared that Iraqi forces, with encouragement from Iran, would attack the camp, leading to a bloodbath. At the last minute, however, agreement was brokered with the United Nations that would permit the MEK members’ departure for resettlement in unspecified democratic countries.  As of this week, there’s been little movement on the planned resettlement.

The Iranians see what’s happening as terrorism and hypocrisy by the United States.  They have forwarded documents and other evidence to the United Nations – and directly to the United States, they say.

Daniel Byman, a professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and also a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said that if the accounts of the Israeli-MEK assassinations are accurate, the operation borders on terrorism.

“In theory, states cannot be terrorist, but if they hire locals to do assassinations, that would be state sponsorship,” said Byman, author of the recent book, “A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism.” 

“You could argue that they took action not to terrorize the public, the purpose of terrorism, but only the nuclear community.  An argument could also be made that degrading the program means that you don’t have to take military action and thus, this is a lower level of violence and that really these are military targets, where normally terrorist targets are civilians.”

But ultimately, Byman said, there is a “spectrum of responsibility” and that Israel is ultimately responsible.

Ronen Bergman, while not speaking on behalf of the Israeli government, suggests that there is a justification, citing an oft-repeated but disputed quote in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.

NAZI ANALOGY AS ALIBI FOR ISRAELI TERROR

“Meir Degan, the chief of Mossad, when he was in office, hung a photograph behind him, behind the chair of the chief of Mossad,” notes the Israeli commentator.  “And in that photograph you see -- an ultra-orthodox Jew -- long beard, standing on his knees with his-- hands up in the air, and two Gestapo soldiers standing -- beside him with guns pointed at him.  One of -- one of them is smiling. “And Degan used to say to his people and the people coming to visit him from CIA, NSA, et cetera, ‘Look at this guy in the picture. This is my grandfather just seconds before he was killed by the SS,’” Bergman said. “’… We are here to prevent this from happening again.’"