Tuesday, July 31, 2012

NYTIMES:Pakistan’s New Spy Chief Visits Washington at a Time of Frayed Relations

Pakistan’s New Spy Chief Visits Washington at a Time of Frayed Relations

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/pakistans-new-isi-chief-is-an-enigma-in-the-west.html?ref=world

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — As befits any newly installed spymaster, a vague air of mystery surrounds Lt. Gen. Zahir ul-Islam, the head of Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, who is visiting Washington in his official capacity for the first time on Wednesday.

Beyond the bare details of his résumé, American officials acknowledge they know little of General Islam, a tall man in his 50s with a flop of black hair, except that he comes across as taciturn, thoughtful and passionate about sports.

His first trip to the United States in 1984, he fondly told one American official recently, was to attend the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. A decade later, while attending a course at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., he adapted his cricket skills for use on a local baseball team.

“He seemed to be saying, ‘Look, I can master your sport, too,’ ” the official noted, speaking on condition of anonymity because it was a private conversation.

Common ground may be harder to find, though, when General Islam meets with American officials, including David H. Petraeus, the Central Intelligence Agency director, at a time of American frustration and distrust toward the ISI.

Relations between Pakistani and American spies reached a low point in the past year after a series of contentious episodes, including the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden, the shooting of two Pakistanis by a C.I.A. contractor, Raymond A. Davis, and continuing accusations that the ISI is shielding Islamist militants.

From Wednesday, Mr. Petraeus and General Islam will seek to rebuild a counterterrorism relationship that has severely frayed, Pakistani and American officials said.

“Petraeus will try to forge a relationship with him,” one senior Obama administration official said. “We’ve got business to do. Let’s get on with it.”

Since his appointment to Pakistan’s pre-eminent intelligence post in March, General Islam has maintained a conspicuously low profile in Pakistan. After being featured in a handful of newspaper articles filled with starchy compliments typically reserved for powerful generals, he largely disappeared from view —by most accounts, a deliberate strategy.

Long feared as a blunt instrument of army power, the ISI has undergone unusual turmoil over the past 12 months. The Bin Laden raid, which took place under the ISI’s nose, dented its prestige among the public and, equally important, inside the army. The killing of an investigative journalist, Syed Saleem Shahzad, widely viewed as an ISI job, brought international condemnation.

In politics, General Islam’s predecessor, Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, had became embroiled in a political crisis that at one point threatened to bring down President Asif Ali Zardari’s government.

And the Supreme Court, headed by a strong-willed judge, has raised difficult questions about the ISI role in numerous human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, and a multimillion-dollar election-rigging campaign that the agency ran in the early 1990s.

“There’s been a lot of commotion,” said Kamran Bokhari, an analyst with the research group Stratfor. “So now it makes sense for General Islam to pull back, reassess, see where things are going.”

In contrast with General Pasha, who was known for his sharp-tongued, sometimes impassioned private outbursts, General Islam is described as a low-profile operator, happy to take a back seat in meetings. “He is cool as a cucumber,” said a serving ISI officer, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But he has maintained General Pasha’s short rein on C.I.A. activities in Pakistan.

One senior American official says the ISI now treats its American counterparts with deep hostility. C.I.A. visas are frequently refused, and its officials are periodically stopped and searched. Meanwhile, Pakistani employees of the American Embassy and consulates have come under intense intimidation: subjected to strip searches, kept in prison for weeks, induced to “turn” against America, and sometimes threatened with weapons, the official said.

“It’s Moscow rules,” he said. “The ISI has become very K.G.B.-like — but without the restraint.”

A senior ISI official, speaking on condition of anonymity, denied such accusations, and blamed the C.I.A. for souring a once-close relationship through displays of arrogance. During the January 2011 controversy over Mr. Davis, General Pasha was furious that the former C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, had initially denied that Mr. Davis worked for the agency.

Last summer the previous C.I.A. station chief, who had stormy relations with General Pasha, left his post after just five months, ostensibly for health reasons. He has since been replaced with an undercover officer who officials from both sides say is more open to strengthening the C.I.A.’s relationship with the ISI.

In his talks in Washington, the ISI official said, General Islam will press the C.I.A. to stop its drone strike campaign in the tribal belt. Instead, he will propose that the United States upgrade Pakistan’s fleet of F-16 warplanes so that it can do the same job — a proposal one Washington official called a “nonstarter.”

General Islam will also request American help in halting cross-border incursions by the Pakistani Taliban from their bases in Afghanistan — a growing Pakistani concern that last week caused testy exchanges between Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, Sherry Rehman, and a senior Obama administration official at a conference in Colorado.

General Islam has a strong military pedigree, and many analysts see him as a favorite to succeed the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, when he steps down in late 2013.

He hails from a stout military clan in the army’s Punjabi heartland: his father and brothers were officers, while two uncles retired as three-star generals. Unusually for an ISI chief, he has experience in espionage: Between 2008 and 2010 he ran the ISI’s internal wing, which oversees security inside Pakistan.

For Americans, however, it is General Islam’s attitude toward the situation in Afghanistan that is the most pressing unknown.

With more than 100,000 NATO troops due to leave by the end of 2014, Pakistani help in blunting the insurgency is necessary. American officials worry particularly about ISI links to the Haqqani network, a militant group that straddles the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

ISI help is also considered important for any possible peace talks with the insurgents.

But until now, General Islam’s career has been focused to the east, on Pakistan’s archrival, India. Before his ISI postings, he fought in the mountains of Kashmir and commanded an army corps in Karachi.

“A lot hinges on this man,” one American official said. “And we just don’t know anything about him.”

BROOKS:Dullest Campaign Ever

BROOKS:Dullest Campaign Ever

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/brooks-dullest-campaign-ever.html?_r=1&hp

A few weeks ago, Peggy Noonan wrote a column in The Wall Street Journal that perfectly captures my attitude toward this presidential campaign: It’s incredibly consequential and incredibly boring all at the same time.

Since then, I’ve come up with a number of reasons for why it is so dull. First, intellectual stagnation. This race is the latest iteration of the same debate we’ve been having since 1964. Mitt Romney is calling President Obama a big-government liberal who wants to crush business. Obama is calling Romney a corporate tool who wants to take away grandma’s health care.

American politics went through tremendous changes between 1900 and 1936, and then again between 1940 and 1976. But our big government/small government debate is back where it was a generation ago. Candidates don’t even have to rehearse the arguments anymore; they just find the gaffes that will help them pin their opponent to the standard bogyman clichés.

Second, lack of any hint of intellectual innovation. Candidates used to start their campaigns by giving serious policy addresses at universities and think tanks to lay out their distinct philosophies. Bill Clinton was a New Democrat. George W. Bush was a Compassionate Conservative.

But the ideological climate has ossified. Candidates know that they’d be punished for saying something unexpected — by the rich, elderly donors and by the hyperorthodox talk-show hosts. Instead of saying something new, now they just try to boost turnout within their own demographic niches and suppress turnout in the other guy’s niches.

Third, increased focus on the uninformed. Four years ago, Barack Obama gave a sophisticated major speech on race. Mitt Romney did one on religion. This year, the candidates do not feel compelled to give major speeches. The prevailing view is that anybody who would pay attention to such a speech is already committed to a candidate. It’s more efficient to focus on the undecided voters, who don’t really follow politics or the news.

Fourth, lack of serious policy proposals. Has there ever been a campaign with so few major plans on the table? President Obama’s proposals are small and medium-size retreads, while Mitt Romney has run the closest thing to a policy-free race as any candidate in my lifetime. Republicans spend their days fleshing out proposals, which Romney decides not to champion.

Fifth, negative passion. Both parties are driven more by hatred than by love. Both sides feel it would be a disaster for the country if the other side had power during the next four years. Neither side is propelled by much positive enthusiasm for their own side.

Many Democratic politicians think Obama looks down on them as a bunch of lowlife hacks. As Noonan wrote in that column, he sometimes seems to regard politics as a weary duty on his path to greatness. The Republican coolness toward Romney is such that he’s having trouble recruiting people to work on the campaign.

Sixth, no enactment strategy. To avert catastrophe, the next president will have to rally bipartisan majorities around a budget deal and many other things. That will require personal and relationship skills neither has demonstrated. The polarizing, negative tactics the candidates use to get elected will make it impossible to succeed after one of them wins.

Seventh, ad budget myopia. Both campaigns fervently believe that more spending leads to more votes. They also believe that if they can carpet bomb swing voters with enough negative ads, then eventually the sheer weight of the barrage will produce movement in their direction. There’s little evidence that these prejudices are true. But the campaigns are like World War I generals. If something isn’t working, the answer must be to try more of it.

Eighth, technology is making campaigns dumber. BlackBerrys and iPhones mean that campaigns can respond to their opponents minute by minute and hour by hour. The campaigns get lost in tit-for-tat minutiae that nobody outside the bubble cares about. Meanwhile, use of the Internet means that Web videos overshadow candidate speeches and appearances. Video replaces verbal. Tactics eclipse vision.

Finally, dishonesty numbs. A few years ago, newspapers and nonprofits set up fact-checking squads, rating campaign statements with Pinocchios and such. The hope was that if nonpartisan outfits exposed campaign deception, the campaigns would be too ashamed to lie so much.

This hope was naïve. As John Dickerson of Slate has said, the campaigns want the Pinocchios. They want to show how tough they are. But the result is a credibility vacuum. It’s impossible to take ads seriously. They are the jackhammer noise in the background of life.

This is the paradox. As campaigns get more sophisticated, everything begins to look more homogenized, less effective and indescribably soporific.

CNN:Violence in Iraq? It’s the politics, stupid!

Violence in Iraq? It’s the politics, stupid!

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/violence-in-iraq-its-the-politics-stupid/

Joost Hiltermann is deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group. The views expressed are the writer's own.

With all eyes trained on Syria’s unfolding civil war, the only headline-grabbing news to emerge from the former battleground, Iraq, concerned a fresh wave of violence. Last week, well over a hundred Iraqis were killed and several hundred injured in a series of attacks throughout the country that were claimed by Iraq’s al Qaeda franchise, the Islamic State of Iraq. Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had warned of what was to come the day before, announcing a “Breaking the Walls” campaign. On Thursday, Islamic State militants battled with security forces for the first time in years, succeeding even in bringing down a helicopter. It looks as if, having been driven out of most of the areas they controlled and dealt a body blow during the U.S. surge in 2007-08, al Qaeda is rebounding and launching its own military surge now that U.S. troops have gone.

Car bombs explode in central Baghdad

It’s easy to be distracted by an uptick in violence in Iraq and ignore the larger political crisis in which al Qaeda, however diminished in its capabilities, can operate with apparent impunity. Despite last week’s events, violence has been at a steady level since 2008 – too high for sure to those caught up in the spasms that occur, but sufficiently low to nonetheless convey a general sense of stability – a vast improvement over the days of sectarian fighting some years ago. Spectacular attacks have punctuated a pattern of declining violent incidents, causing mass casualties even as overall casualty levels have gone down. Shia militias, which mainly targeted the U.S. presence, put their guns back under their beds after the military component of that presence came to an end late last year.

Violent actors such as al Qaeda are likely to be around for some time, but without a political crisis, they could be contained. Iraqi security forces are still in the early stages of their development (after the Bush administration disposed of the former regime’s army wholesale), and still exhibit clear vulnerabilities, especially in intelligence gathering and coordination that could prevent violent attacks, as well as in their explosives-detection capacity at checkpoints. (Security officers employ a piece of equipment that Western experts and journalists have referred to as a “divining rod” or “magic wand” for its inability to detect anything.) Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither will be Iraq, nor its security forces. Yet by and large, these forces have been able to prevent a serious resurgence of violence.

What matters in Iraq today isn’t so much its sporadic violence, however spectacular in nature, as the total absence of basic consensus over how the country should be run, as deepening discord could trigger a new round of civil war.

Iraq's deadliest day of 2012

The latest crisis began when judicial authorities issued an arrest warrant against Vice President Tareq al-Hashimi last December. He and other Sunni leaders had fallen out with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, accusing him of amassing power and cutting them out. Things deteriorated sharply from then on, and by April, Maliki’s erstwhile governing partners were openly calling for his removal via a parliamentary no-confidence vote. Many meetings later, these same leaders have signally failed in their objective, with Maliki firmly in place and his opponents lacking a strategy to call him to account, much less get rid of him by democratic means. They haven’t given up, though, and so the standoff continues, with no prospect of its being resolved any time soon.

Maliki may have won this round – he survived – but all Iraqis lost, as political stalemate is further hampering governance. General elections should take place only two years from now, but with Baghdad all wound up in a knot, campaigning effectively has started, sucking up all the air. Parliament, in which Maliki’s enemies are well represented, does very little; its legislative record is disappointing, and it now faces the daunting task of swiftly passing pivotal laws, including for provincial and parliamentary elections, as well as the regulation of political parties, if the next elections are to have any chance of occurring on time and succeeding.

To stick with the Rome metaphor, it’s as if instead of rebuilding Iraq, politicians are fiddling as the embers of conflict are being relit. They are expert tacticians, masters at the art of political survival, but bereft of a vision for the country, unable to lay out a strategy that could parlay today’s relative calm into economic progress and a fair share in Iraq’s immense oil wealth for everyone.

In this unhappy state of affairs, the Syrian crisis threatens to exacerbate political tensions in Iraq and give them a renewed sectarian cast. As the minority-based Assad regime goes down, Syria’s Sunnis are certain to rise, re-empowering Iraq’s Sunnis, who have felt marginalized since 2003. Shiite perceptions of a looming Sunni alliance of Gulf states, Turkey, and a new Syria arrayed against the remaining Shia-run bastion of Iran and Iraq – with the intent of bringing down Maliki to deal a further blow to Iran’s influence in the region – are increasing sectarian polarization in Iraq. This is the perfect breeding ground for groups such as al Qaeda, which may find it easier to recruit in Sunni quarters, finding deep frustration and grievance, but also new Syria-inspired hope that the tide is again turning in their favor.

If Iraqis are to avoid another civil war, once again led by al Qaeda but this time catalyzed by events in Syria, they should put their own house in order posthaste. Only by restoring basic consensus about how to run the country and by putting in place a workable power-sharing arrangement as they intended two years ago will they be able to contain and eventually stamp out violent actors and begin moving toward more effective governance.

REUTERS:Al Qaeda decline hard to reverse after Bin Laden killing: U.S.

Al Qaeda decline hard to reverse after Bin Laden killing: U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/us-usa-terrorism-idUSBRE86U15C20120731

Osama bin Laden's death sent al Qaeda into a decline that will be hard to reverse, the United States said on Tuesday in a report that found terrorist attacks last year fell to their lowest level since 2005.

Describing 2011 as a "landmark year," the United States said other top al Qaeda members killed last year included Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, reportedly the militant organization's No. 2 figure after bin Laden's death, and Anwar al-Awlaki, who led its lethal affiliate in Yemen.

"The loss of bin Laden and these other key operatives puts the network on a path of decline that will be difficult to reverse," the State Department said in its annual "Country Reports on Terrorism" document, which covers calendar year 2011.

The report attributed the killings, which included the May 2011 raid in which U.S. commandoes shot bin Laden in Pakistan, to improved cooperation on counterterrorism. But it also said al Qaeda is adaptable and poses "an enduring and serious threat."

While saying there were no terrorist attacks in the United States last year, the report said the U.S. government remains concerned about "threats to the homeland," citing the foiled 2009 Christmas Day attempt by the Nigerian "underwear bomber" who sought to blow up a Detroit-bound aircraft.

The report included a statistical annex prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center, part of the U.S. intelligence community, that showed that the overall number of terrorist attacks worldwide fell to 10,283 last year from 11,641 in 2010.

The number of worldwide fatalities fell to 12,533 last year from 13,193 the year before, according to the statistics, which NCTC issued in a report published on June 1.

That was the lowest level since 2005, when there were more than 11,000 attacks and more than 14,000 fatalities. The general decline in terrorism-related fatalities - which peaked at more than 22,000 in 2007 - reflects, in part, less violence in Iraq.

The State Department report said that as al Qaeda's "core has gotten weaker," affiliated groups have gained ground, citing al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as a particular threat and voicing concern about al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

It also reported an increase in terrorist attacks in Africa, due largely to Nigeria's Boko Haram militant group, as well as in the Western Hemisphere, which it attributed chiefly to FARC insurgents in Colombia.

Daniel Benjamin, the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism, said last year was also significant for the "Arab Spring" of popular protests and what he described as its rebuff to al Qaeda's ideology.

"We saw millions of citizens throughout the Middle East advance peaceful public demands for change without any reference to al Qaeda's incendiary world view," he said, adding upheavals also present risks.

"Revolutionary transformations have many bumps in the road," he added. "Inspiring as the moment may be, we are not blind to the attendant perils."

CNN:Leaders of Congress reach deal to fund government, avoid shutdown showdown

Leaders of Congress reach deal to fund government, avoid shutdown showdown

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/leaders-of-congress-close-to-deal-to-fund-government-avoid-shutdown-showdown/?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) - Congressional leaders announced a deal Tuesday on a six-month bill to fund the federal government, thereby removing the possibility of a government shutdown - and the political spectacle that would go with it - before the election.

"It will provide stability for the coming months," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters. "It will be free of riders. This is very good because we can resolve these critical issues that directly affect the country as soon as the election is over and move on to do good things."

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

"Leader Reid and I have reached an agreement by which the House and Senate will approve a six-month continuing resolution in September to keep the government operating into next year," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement. "During the August district work period, committee members and their staff will write legislation that can be passed by the House and Senate in September and sent to President Obama to be signed into law."

Current funding for federal agencies is due to expire at the end of September.

Tuesday's announced deal, on what is known as a continuing resolution, would continue funding through March 2013, two months after the presidential inauguration, giving both parties time to avoid another messy spending fight.

"I think it's the right thing to do," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, told CNN before the announcement. "Thank God we're not going through another threatened government shutdown from the Republicans."

Several members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, who had previously pushed for a lower spending level in spending bills, reversed course in the last couple of weeks and told House GOP leaders they could support a six-month measure at the spending level agreed to in last summer's debt deal.

That level - $1.047 trillion - had been a key point for Senate Democrats who insisted that it not drop below that level.

Some conservatives believe that if Republicans win the White House and take control of the Senate in November, they can get bigger spending cuts and policy changes in next year's government funding bills.

Not all House Republicans support the move. Some GOP aides believe that removing the pressure to reach an agreement on spending at the end of the year - the same time Congress needs to deal with the expiration of tax cuts and automatic spending cuts - could mean giving up a key bargaining chip in negotiations with the Democratic-led Senate.

Lawmakers from both parties complain when Congress drops the regular appropriations process, which adds scrutiny to the spending of tax dollars. But continuing resolutions have become a reality in recent years as partisanship has prevented the type of compromise needed to pass appropriations bills.

"This is not our preference," Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee, told CNN. "The chairman believes we should do our work in regular order. It's the responsibility to do the fiscal and budget work of the Congress every year."

YNETNEWS:Iranians disregard Israeli threat

Nuclear-technological immunity zone: A situation in which Iran's ability to produce a number of nuclear bombs will become irreversible – to the point where sanctions, diplomatic pressure and even a strike cannot affect it. In practical terms, such a situation calls for Iran possessing enough uranium enriched to a fissile concentration of 20% and more to produce 2-4 nuclear warheads, as well as the knowledge to mount a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. Such a development would alter the strategic balance in the Middle East and Iran would be able to leverage its position as a nuclear power to soften the sanctions and deter other countries from attacking.


...
but Jerusalem has not reached the point where it has to decide whether or not to strike. Israel may reach this point by the end of the year or the middle of 2013 – depending on Khamenei's actions. In the meantime, the "forum of eight," which consists of ministers with vast security-related experience, has yet to discuss this possibility (any decision to attack Iran will likely be reached by the Cabinet).

...In summation, it is safe to say that Iran is close to creating the "immunity zones" that will allow it to cross the nuclear threshold. But there remains a period of six months to a year in which even Israel alone would be able to set Iran's nuclear program several years back. In any case, the Americans can halt Iran's race towards a bomb by either attacking its nuclear plants or imposing even harsher sanctions that would be backed by a credible threat of a strike. But in order for this to happen, Israel must convince the US to act with resolve. Therefore, this week's talks with visiting Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are incredibly important.

Iranians disregard Israeli threat

Analysis: Khamenei certain Israeli military strike can't stop Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities, believes West won't attack due to oil crisis threat

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4262697,00.html

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his close advisors have reached the conclusion that that the "military option" placed on the table by Israel and the West is a mere empty gun, at least until the end of the year because of the elections in the US. The Iranian deterrence is based mostly on money, and more specifically the assumption that an attack on its nuclear facilities would result in a sharp rise in oil prices. Even if the Gulf States increase their oil production, Iran's retaliatory measures (such as mining the Strait of Hormuz) would lead to a shortage of crude oil and expectations of a shortage. The result would be a price hike that would deal a devastating blow to the chance that the economies of Europe, the US, China and India would recover from the deepening global economic crisis anytime soon.

As for an Israeli strike, as frustrating and insulting as it may be, the Iranians are not in the least bit concerned. They believe that Israel's military capabilities alone are not enough to cause any significant or long-term damage to their missile arsenal and nuclear plants. But that's not all. There are other reasons why Tehran estimates Israel won't attack:

  1. The ayatollahs are convinced that the Israeli government and people are extremely fearful of the response such an attack would trigger from Iran, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas (from Gaza) and perhaps even Syria.
  2. Khamenei and his aides believe the relations between the US and Israel are a mirror image of the ties between Iran and Hezbollah – classic patron-client relations in which there is concern for the client's military and economic needs, but the client provides services to the patron and follows orders. According to this premise, just as Hezbollah must shower Israel with rockets in the event of an attack on Iran, Israel must refrain from striking at this stage if Washington believes it would hurt Obama's interests.
  3. The Iranians believe Israel is already isolated in the international community and would not dare isolate itself even more by launching an attack and risk being blamed for deepening the economic crisis.

The regime in Tehran is dealing with a host of internal economic and social problems stemming from the harsh sanctions imposed by the West, but at the same time it is advancing its nuclear and strategic missile programs. Therefore, Israeli officials estimate, only a real physical threat or an actual strike can stop or at least delay Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Officials in Jerusalem, Washington and London believe the sanctions will eventually cause Iran to stop enriching uranium, particularly if Tehran's efforts to bypass these sanctions are also curtailed. But until this happens, in at least two years' time, the nuclear threat will have reached the US as well.

Jeremy Issacharoff, deputy director-general for strategic affairs at the Foreign Ministry, believes the sanctions offer a window of opportunity to resolve the nuclear crisis without military intervention. "As long as the Iranians are under the impression that they are paying a small price for the uranium enrichment – they will continue. But if they realize that the West is determined with regards to the sanctions and that they will suffer even more in the future, then they will stop enriching uranium," he said.

"This is proven by the fact that their key demand in the negotiations with the West is to lift the sanctions. If they realize that the sanctions will not be removed, they may stop enriching uranium or at least make some concessions (that will slow down the pace of enrichment). This is happening now because they are confidant. The real test is not the threats but what is happening on the ground."

In order to achieve nuclear capabilities Iran must create not one but three "immunity zones" (the term was coined by Defense Minister Barak):

Military-technological immunity zone: Protection of its missile stockpiles and nuclear plants from a strike. The nuclear facility in Fordo, for example, was built inside a mountain, covered by layers of rock.

Nuclear-technological immunity zone: A situation in which Iran's ability to produce a number of nuclear bombs will become irreversible – to the point where sanctions, diplomatic pressure and even a strike cannot affect it. In practical terms, such a situation calls for Iran possessing enough uranium enriched to a fissile concentration of 20% and more to produce 2-4 nuclear warheads, as well as the knowledge to mount a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. Such a development would alter the strategic balance in the Middle East and Iran would be able to leverage its position as a nuclear power to soften the sanctions and deter other countries from attacking.

Political immunity zone: Meant to provide Iran's nuclear and missile scientists, as well as its Revolutionary Guards, with enough time to create the other immunity zones. A key factor here is the talks with the West, in which Iran is stalling for time by hinting that it would possibly make concessions with regards to uranium enrichment to 20% if sanctions are eased. But EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton found that the Iranian representatives to the talks have no authority to even discuss such matters.

As part of their efforts to create an immunity zone, Iran is also threatening to mine the Hormuz shipping lane and attack oil fields in the Gulf States – an act that would surely lead to a spike in oil prices. However, this appears to be a false threat, because by mining Hormuz Iran would be mining its own exporting route, while Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait have other shipping lanes. But this threat – real or not – is causing Europe and the US to all but rule out a military strike.

Israel believes Iran will be crossing the "red line," after which only a military strike can stop it from achieving nuclear capabilities, when it possesses the technological know-how and enough uranium to produce one or more nuclear bombs – even if it has yet to make a "breakthrough" towards building a nuclear bomb. But the Obama administration contends that a military strike should only be carried out if and when the Islamic Republic makes this "breakthrough." But by then, Netanyahu, Barak and Strategic Affairs Minister Ya'alon claim, it will be too late – and perhaps too little. Why? First of all, because it is not clear whether western intelligence agencies will learn of such a breakthrough in time, and secondly, after Iran will be "on the brink" of achieving nuclear capability, even the American bombers won't be able to destroy Iran's enriched uranium and stop its plans for a nuclear warhead.

American officials visiting Jerusalem and the Kirya army base in Tel Aviv these days are trying to allay Israel's concerns, saying they have operational plans in place. Our bombers are capable of flying back and forth to Iran until the nuclear weapon components are destroyed, they say; we have large forces deployed in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean that are prepared to carry out these operational plans, and our Air Force has recently announced that the 30,000-pound behemoth bunker buster is ready to be used if needed. Even the Fordo plant cannot be protected from these bombs, they argue, so even if word of a "nuclear breakthrough" arrives a little late – it won't really matter.

It's safe to assume that Israel is currently focusing its efforts on creating a viable and available military option, but Jerusalem has not reached the point where it has to decide whether or not to strike. Israel may reach this point by the end of the year or the middle of 2013 – depending on Khamenei's actions. In the meantime, the "forum of eight," which consists of ministers with vast security-related experience, has yet to discuss this possibility (any decision to attack Iran will likely be reached by the Cabinet).

In summation, it is safe to say that Iran is close to creating the "immunity zones" that will allow it to cross the nuclear threshold. But there remains a period of six months to a year in which even Israel alone would be able to set Iran's nuclear program several years back. In any case, the Americans can halt Iran's race towards a bomb by either attacking its nuclear plants or imposing even harsher sanctions that would be backed by a credible threat of a strike. But in order for this to happen, Israel must convince the US to act with resolve. Therefore, this week's talks with visiting Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are incredibly important.

WASHPOST;Iran wants to boost its defenses against sanctions ‘warfare’ by retooling oil-reliant economy

Iran wants to boost its defenses against sanctions ‘warfare’ by retooling oil-reliant economy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/irans-ahmadinejad-dismisses-western-sanctions-against-his-country-as-ridiculous/2012/07/31/gJQAvpK8LX_story.html

Iran wants to boost its defenses against sanctions ‘warfare’ by retooling oil-reliant economy

By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, July 31, 1:00 PM

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian officials unleashed sharper attacks against tightening Western sanctions Tuesday, equating the financial pressure to “warfare” and vowing to counter by retooling the country’s oil-dependent economy.

The defensive remarks from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the head of Iran’s central bank appear to reflect two sides of the economic squeeze on the country: Growing anxiety about the drain from sanctions and high-level efforts to find ways to ride them out.

Ahmadinejad’s remarks came after Congress pressed ahead late Monday with a new package of sanctions on Iran, expanding financial penalties and further targeting Tehran’s energy and shipping sectors in the hope that economic pressure will undercut the country’s suspected nuclear weapons program. Iran denies it seeks atomic weapons, saying its nuclear activities have aimed at power generation and cancer treatment.

Iran has managed to overcome U.S.-led embargoes and other attempts at economic isolation with self-sufficiency moves such as developing domestic industries and emphasizing high-tech advances including an aerospace program. But the current sanctions are hitting Iran in its most vulnerable spot — its vital oil exports — and are forcing major reassessments within a nation that was recently OPEC’s No. 2 exporter.

Ahmadinejad, speaking at an expansion of an oil refinery facility in Tehran, echoed calls for Iran to move away from crude oil export as its mainstay and heavily invest in networks to produce car-ready fuels and other petrochemical products. A similar call was made earlier this week by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Their comments mark an indirect acknowledgment that oil exports — accounting for 80 percent of Iran’s foreign revenue — are a weak link now targeted by Western sanctions seeking to rein in Iran’s nuclear program. The drop in oil sales from sanctions also means less money to buy the fuel and other products needed for consumers and businesses.

Officials are particularly worried about potential shortages of some food items and protests with elections for Ahmadinejad’s successor less than 11 months away. Local media have been warned against reports on the sanctions’ fallout that could “harm” national interests. The government also has already begun to stockpile needed foodstuffs such as wheat, meat, sugar and cooking oil.

Ahmadinejad called the sanctions “political warfare” seeking to deny Iranian oil to an energy-hungry world.

“It’s very funny. They (the West) use oil as a political weapon against a country that is an oil producer itself,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech broadcast on state TV.

The 27-nation European Union — which once accounted for around 18 percent of Iran’s oil exports — stopped all contracts with Tehran on July 1. Meanwhile, the U.S. is pressuring Iran’s key Asian oil customers such as India and South Korea to look to the Gulf and other suppliers.

“The ones that need oil use what they need as a tool to pressure (others),” Ahmadinejad said. “We should move toward a point in which we would not export crude anymore.”

Such a goal, however, would likely take decades and huge investments to transform an economy based on oil exports.

The central bank governor, Mahmoud Bahmani, was quoted as describing sanctions as “no less than a military war” and said Iran must respond with its own “asymmetrical” economic countermeasures.

The report on the official IRNA news agency said a special headquarters has been set up coordinate efforts to fight back against the sanctions.

A further blow to Iran has been stagnant oil prices, which have cut into revenues among its shrinking number of customers in Asia and elsewhere.

In Tehran, however, Iran’s oil minister said there is no need for an additional OPEC meeting to discuss oil prices. A report by the semiofficial Mehr news agency quoted Rostam Ghasemi as saying the current price does not merit an extraordinary meeting of the oil-exporting cartel.

Ghasemi said $100 per barrel seems like a “fair” price. Benchmark crude drifted above $90 a barrel Tuesday in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

HAARETZ:Israel's message to Panetta: U.S. can't prevent an attack on Iran Another major topic of discussion will be efforts to prevent Syria's chemica

Israel's message to Panetta: U.S. can't prevent an attack on Iran

Another major topic of discussion will be efforts to prevent Syria's chemical weapons from reaching Lebanon.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-s-message-to-panetta-u-s-can-t-prevent-an-attack-on-iran-1.455061

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta arrived in Israel last night for a brief visit that will focus on the American-Israeli dispute over whether to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak plan to stress that Israel reserves the right to defend itself, and to make its own decision on whether to attack.

Another major topic of discussion will be efforts to prevent Syria's chemical weapons from reaching Lebanon.

A senior government official told Haaretz that even if Jerusalem attacks Iran over Washington's objections, he doesn't think the United States will turn its back on Israel. Israel, he added, must retain sole responsibility for its security.

Panetta's visit comes against the backdrop of a rash of media reports about the possibility of an Israeli strike. In a series of interviews with Israeli television stations on Tuesday, Netanyahu said, "Iran wants to annihilate us. I won't let that happen."

He also stressed that regardless of the defense establishment's views, it's the government that will make the decision on whether to attack. He was responding to media reports stating that virtually all senior defense officials, including Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, vehemently oppose an attack now, in the run-up to the U.S. election in November.

While no decision on an Israeli strike has yet been made, a complex campaign is being waged over the issue on at least three fronts: between the Obama administration and the Israeli government; between President Barack Obama and his rival, Republican candidate Mitt Romney; and between politicians and defense professionals within Israel. All sides are making heavy use of the media.

The American-Israeli dispute revolves around both whether to attack, and when. Twice in the last 48 hours, Panetta acknowledged that sanctions haven't yet caused Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but insisted that they have had a major impact on Iran's economy, as witnessed by its willingness to discuss a negotiated solution. Therefore, he said, what's needed is to keep up the international pressure.

Panetta also denied that Jerusalem and Washington would discuss detailed military plans against Iran, but said they would "continue to work on a number of options."

Netanyahu, meanwhile, said on Tuesday that "things that affect our fate, our very existence, we don't entrust to others - not even to our best friends. Obama and Romney both said that Israel has the right to defend itself against any threat, and we are obligated to make the decisions."

The public statements have been accompanied by an unprecedented campaign of American leaks, including Haaretz's report that Netanyahu was shown American plans for attacking Iran (and given the message: "We can do it better" ), Yedioth Ahronoth's report that America would attack Iran within a year and a half, and a surprising report about how Israel eavesdrops on the CIA in Tel Aviv (the message: "We also know some unpleasant things about you" ). The bottom line of all these reports is that America is committed to decisive action against Iran, but not now. And it is embracing Israel in an effort to prevent an Israeli attack before November.

That embrace is also connected to the Obama-Romney race: During his visit to Jerusalem this week, Romney outflanked Obama to the right on Iran, while Obama sought to preempt by announcing new legislation on American-Israeli security cooperation and reiterating his previous pledge of another $70 million for Israeli missile defense systems.

Barak also intervened in the battle for Jewish American voters' hearts on Monday, when he told CNN that the Obama administration has done more for Israel's security than any of its predecessors.

Finally, there's the internal Israeli front, where Netanyahu and Barak are lined up against the defense professionals. In his television interviews on Tuesday, Netanyahu said he will listen willingly to the professionals' views "in the proper place: in closed forums, not in the media. The media discussion is irresponsible and undermines national security."

It is a matter of principle, he added, that in Israel, "as in every democracy, it's the government that decides, and the executive agencies execute."

As for international objections to an Israeli strike, he said, "I'd be happy if the world, and the United States, would do the job." But while international pressure has hurt Iran's economy, "it hasn't set its nuclear program back by so much as a meter."

Gantz, for his part, said on Tuesday that "None of the media reports in recent days were from me or on my behalf."

JPOST:PM: Elected, not military leaders to decide on Iran attack

PM: Elected, not military leaders to decide on Iran attack

08/01/2012 01:33

Netanyahu says his mind is still not made up on bombing nuclear reactors, recalls Begin's decision to bomb Iraq reactor despite opposition from Mossad, military intelligence heads.

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=279597

The decision whether to attack Iran will be taken by the country’s elected political leadership, and not by the defense and security establishment, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in a number of television interviews Tuesday.

Netanyahu’s comments followed a front page headline in Tuesday’s Yediot Aharonot saying that the US administration believes Israel’s top military and intelligence brass – including IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, Air Force Commander Maj.- Gen. Amir Eshel, Head of Military Intelligence Maj.- Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Mossad head Tamir Pardo, and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) head Yoram Cohen – are all opposed to an Israeli attack without US backing.

Stressing that he has not yet made a decision regarding an attack on Iran, Netanyahu told Channel 2 that in democracies the political echelon decides, and the professional echelon carries out those decisions.

“That is the way it has always been, and will always be,” he said. To illustrate the point, Netanyahu said that former prime minister Menachem Begin chose in 1981 to attack the nuclear reactor in Iraq despite opposition at the time from the heads of the Mossad and military intelligence.

In a rare move during his current term in office, Netanyahu granted four television interviews – to channels 1, 2, 10 and the Russian-language Channel 9 – primarily to get across his message regarding the government’s current economic steps. The interviews, however, spilled into other areas, including Iran.

The prime minister said that while he has not yet made a decision regarding an attack on Iran, he sees “the regime of the ayatollahs declaring what it has etched on its banner – to destroy us.

It is working to destroy us, and is preparing atom bombs to destroy us. As much as it is dependent on me, I will not let that happen.”

Reminded that both US President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney have said they will not countenance a nuclear Iran, Netanyahu said that the “source and foundation of the State of Israel is that we will not leave in the hands of others, not even our best friends, matters concerning our fate.”

Regarding Syria and the threat of chemical weapons being transferred to Hezbollah, Netanyahu stopped short of saying what Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said a few days ago: That this would serve as a clear justification for war.

However, he did say that while not eager to take action in such circumstances, “I don’t rule out the possibility that in a situation like this – of leakage of chemical weapons to Hezbollah or extreme groups – Israel does not rule out that possibility that it will take action.”

Asked by Channel 9 about the recent Romney visit, Netanyahu stressed that he met Romney in the same way in which he – as opposition head – met Obama when he came to Israel as a candidate just three months before the 2008 elections.

Netanyahu said Romney’s visit went exactly according to the same protocol that governs all visits by leading presidential candidates from both parties.

AFP;Defiant Iran ups uranium enrichment

The IAEA report in May said there were 9,330 installed centrifuges in Natanz, of which 8,818 were being fed uranium hexafluoride gas to produce enriched uranium.

The Fordo facility, near the holy city of Qom, had 696 working centrifuges, the report said.


Defiant Iran ups uranium enrichment
(AFP) – 6 days ago

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilq3MNG9E_2_RTWoqnJBekPzszMw?docId=CNG.b4cc08dc997a311f5dff666028b265a6.e1

TEHRAN — Iran is defiantly forging on with its controversial nuclear activities by activating hundreds more uranium enrichment centrifuges, according to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"There are currently 11,000 centrifuges active in enrichment facilities" in Iran, he was quoted by state media as saying late on Tuesday in a meeting with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior regime officials.

That was more than the 10,000 centrifuges Iran was last said to have had operating, according to a May 25 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Ahmadinejad's reported comments did not give a more precise figure nor detail how many centrifuges were now working at each of Iran's two enrichment sites: Natanz and the heavily fortified underground bunker of Fordo.

Fordo has emerged as one of the most contentious points in fruitless negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group of nations, which comprises the top UN Security Council powers the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, plus Germany.

The Security Council has demanded Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and has imposed four sets of sanctions to pressure it to comply. The IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, has said it suspects there is a military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme.

The United States and the European Union have added their own sanctions on Iran, but the Islamic republic has defiantly said it would continue with its nuclear activities.

The IAEA report in May said there were 9,330 installed centrifuges in Natanz, of which 8,818 were being fed uranium hexafluoride gas to produce enriched uranium.

The Fordo facility, near the holy city of Qom, had 696 working centrifuges, the report said.

The enrichment activities have produced stockpiles of uranium enriched to purities of 3.5 percent and 19.75 percent.

Iran says the former is to fuel its nuclear power reactor in the southern city of Bushehr, while the higher-grade uranium is to make medical isotopes for cancer patients in its Tehran research reactor.

Western powers, though, fear the 19.75-percent enriched uranium could, in just a few technical steps more, be processed into bomb-grade, 90-percent uranium.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, but has rebuffed repeated attempts by the IAEA to expand its ongoing surveillance and inspections, notably to include a suspect sprawling military facility in Parchin, outside Tehran.

MIDDLEEASTONLINE:Iran activates more uranium enrichment centrifuges

Iran activates more uranium enrichment centrifuges

Iranian President says there are currently 11,000 centrifuges active in enrichment facilities in Iran.


http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=53560

TEHRAN - Iran is defiantly forging on with its controversial nuclear activities by activating hundreds more uranium enrichment centrifuges, according to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"There are currently 11,000 centrifuges active in enrichment facilities" in Iran, he was quoted by state media as saying late on Tuesday in a meeting with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior regime officials.

That was more than the 10,000 centrifuges Iran was last said to have had operating, according to a May 25 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Ahmadinejad's reported comments did not give a more precise figure nor detail how many centrifuges were now working at each of Iran's two enrichment sites: Natanz and the heavily fortified underground bunker of Fordo.

Fordo has emerged as one of the most contentious points in fruitless negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group of nations, which comprises the top UN Security Council powers the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, plus Germany.

The Security Council has demanded Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and has imposed four sets of sanctions to pressure it to comply. The IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, has said it suspects there is a military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme.

The United States and the European Union have added their own sanctions on Iran, but the Islamic republic has defiantly said it would continue with its nuclear activities.

The IAEA report in May said there were 9,330 installed centrifuges in Natanz, of which 8,818 were being fed uranium hexafluoride gas to produce enriched uranium.

The Fordo facility, near the holy city of Qom, had 696 working centrifuges, the report said.

The enrichment activities have produced stockpiles of uranium enriched to purities of 3.5 percent and 19.75 percent.

Iran says the former is to fuel its nuclear power reactor in the southern city of Bushehr, while the higher-grade uranium is to make medical isotopes for cancer patients in its Tehran research reactor.

Western powers, though, fear the 19.75-percent enriched uranium could, in just a few technical steps more, be processed into bomb-grade, 90-percent uranium.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, but has rebuffed repeated attempts by the IAEA to expand its ongoing surveillance and inspections, notably to include a suspect sprawling military facility in Parchin, outside Tehran.

NEWMAX:Uneasy US Gulf Allies Adding to Arsenals

Uneasy US Gulf Allies Adding to Arsenals

http://www.newsmaxworld.com/global_talk/gulf_arms_sales/2012/07/30/465406.html

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates � While Iran's military loudly trumpets every new project or purported advance in hopes of rattling the United States and its Gulf Arab allies, the Pentagon is quietly answering with an array of proposed arms sales across the region as part of a wider effort to counter Tehran.

In the past two months, the Defense Department has notified Congress of possible deals totaling more than $11.3 billion to Gulf states such as Qatar and Kuwait, which are seen as some of America's critical front-line partners in containing Iran and protecting oil shipping lanes.

The proposed sales � including Patriot missile batteries and Apache attack helicopters � are still modest compared with massive Gulf purchases such as Saudi Arabia's $60 billion package last year. That deal included more than 80 new F-15SA fighter jets, missiles, radar warning systems and other equipment.

But the recent flurry of expected deals, outlined in notifications to Congress, underscores the growing emphasis among nervous Gulf states on seeking quick upgrades to existing firepower and defensive networks.

Gulf worries about possible military action against Iran have increased with diplomatic efforts making little headway in easing the showdown over Tehran's nuclear program, which the West and others fear could eventually develop atomic weapons. Iran says it only seeks reactors for energy and medical uses.

An Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported Sunday that National Security Adviser Tom Donilon briefed Israeli officials on possible U.S. attack plans if diplomacy and sanctions fail to pressure Tehran to scale back its nuclear enrichment program. A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential talks, denied the Haaretz report.

The news reports reflect the uncertainties in the region with negotiations nearly stalled and Iran trying to push back against deepening sanctions on its vital oil exports.

"There was a bit of a breather in the region when [nuclear] talks resumed," said Bruno Tertrais, senior researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. "That is quickly fading."

In its place: a sense of military adjustments moving at a faster pace.

Washington plans to keep at least 13,500 troops in Kuwait � down slightly from the current 15,000 � but with an expanded mission as a potential rapid-reaction force for the region. The Pentagon also has scores of warplanes and other assets across the Gulf, including air bases in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

At sea, the U.S. Navy plans to lead maneuvers in September that include minesweeping drills � a clear response to Iran's threats to block oil tankers from passing through the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf in retaliation for the tightening Western sanctions.

The United States is also boosting its Gulf flotilla, directed by the Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain. Among the additions: a floating assault base aboard the retrofitted USS Ponce and accelerated deployment of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis to ensure two carriers are in the Gulf region at all times.

"We are seeing more and more bluster from the Iranian side and the U.S. and Gulf allies showing the Iranians they are a united front," said Theodore Karasik, a regional security expert at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. "The Gulf states are nervous. They show this nervousness by buying more weapons."

Among the proposed U.S. sales is a $4.2 billion package to Kuwait for 60 Patriot missiles and related systems to "strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats," the Defense Department said in a statement. Kuwait could also buy, pending congressional approval, a $49 million arsenal of 300 Hellfire II missiles, which can be launched from helicopters or drones.

For Qatar � which hosts one of the Pentagon's command hubs � the Defense Department is seeking clearance for a $6.6 billion air support upgrade that includes 24 AH-64D Apache attack helicopters, 12 Blackhawk helicopters, and 22 Seahawk helicopters, with options to buy six more.

The Apaches would assist with "protection of key oil and infrastructure and platforms which are vital to U.S. and Western economic interests," the Defense Department said.

Oman, which shares control of Hormuz with Iran, is seeking an $86 million purchase that includes 55 Sidewinder missiles as part of plans to upgrade its F-16 fighter fleet.

For decades, the Gulf had looked mostly to Washington for its weapons, but European arms deals also appear on the rise.

In Berlin, German government spokesman Georg Streiter said Monday there has been an "expression of interest" by Qatar in about 200 Leopard II tanks. A similar Leopard tank deal with Saudi Arabia was reported last year by German media.

In May, Saudi Arabia signed a $3 billion deal with Britain for air force training planes apparently linked to a 2007 agreement to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters.

The weapons requests also reinforce the toughening stance against Iran by main rival Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab states. The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council has repeatedly warned Tehran about "meddling" in Gulf affairs. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have taken a leading role in supporting Syrian rebels trying to topple Bashar Assad's regime, which is Iran's main Mideast ally.

Last week, a commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards warned that "hated Arab" rivals could face repercussions for their efforts to bring down Assad.

Although the Gulf Arab states have no direct ties to Israel, any military strike on Iran by the Jewish state could require some degree of coordination, with Washington likely to play an intermediary role. Gulf military forces also could be quickly drawn into a wider conflict or a confrontation over the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for one-fifth of the world's oil.

"Amid the standoff between Iran, Israel and the West, there's another side that is often overlooked," said Sami al-Faraj, director of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies. "It is the Gulf states. They are the ones caught in the middle."


Read more: Uneasy US Gulf Allies Adding to Arsenals

RUBIN:Obama’s chaotic approach to the Middle East

Obama’s chaotic approach to the Middle East

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-chaotic-approach-to-the-middle-east/2012/07/31/gJQAtrIUMX_blog.html

I really can’t explain the Obama Iran policy. On Monday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta conceded the obvious: Sanctions haven’t “worked.” The Associated Press reports:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged Monday that increasingly stiff international sanctions have yet to compel Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. But he argued that more pressure eventually would lead Iran to “do what’s right.”
These sanctions are having a serious impact in terms of the economy in Iran,” he told reporters during a visit to the North Africa American Military Cemetery, where 2,841 U.S. servicemen killed in the North Africa campaign against Nazi Germany in 1942-1943 are buried.
“And while the results of that may not be obvious at the moment, the fact is that they have expressed a willingness to negotiate (with the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) and they continue to seem interested in trying to find a diplomatic solution,” he said.
Those on-again, off-again negotiations have not come close to resolving a problem that U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has cast as one of the biggest failures of the Obama administration. Romney was in Israel this week showing support for Israel and asserting that if he were president Iran would never get the atomic bomb.

Well in that regard, Panetta, Mitt Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who declared the sanctions haven’t affected Iran’s nuclear program “one iota”) are finally in sync.

Given that the current sanctions haven’t worked, you would think the Obama administration and Democrats in the House and Senate who have talked down the military option would be chomping at the bit to ratchet up the pressure. You’d be wrong.

Josh Rogin reports on apparent agreement between the House and Senate on new sanctions:

The bill does not contain proposed language offered by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) in the Senate and Reps. Ted Deutch (D-FL) and Robert Dold (R-FL) in the House that would expand energy-sector sanctions on Iran by declaring the country a “zone of proliferation concern,” thus barring any businesses or service providers from dealing with the Iranian petroleum sector in any way. Instead the bill includes a non-binding “sense of Congress” that Iran is a zone of proliferation concern.

The bill also omits sanctions that would have expanded from the Central Bank of Iran to “all financial institutions.”

Outside sanctions experts told Right Turn the bill certainly could have been stronger. One such expert who agreed to speak only on background explained: “The bill doesn’t comprehensively prohibit the actual purchase of Iranian natural gas by targeting the buyer. Iran has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. It has become a small net exporter of natural gas. If it was able to export significant volumes via pipeline, it would translate that into significant leverage over Europe and Turkey — and even Asia if it could liquefy and ship the gas.” He noted that this is “just an example of a sanctionable transaction that seems to be missing and would have been caught by a blacklisting of the entire energy sector as a zone of proliferation concern.”

Meanwhile, the State Department wasn’t very effective in conveying any sense of urgency at its briefing on Monday:

QUESTION: Well, what is the next step? Because it seems to me that it’s all about stalemated at the moment. There aren’t talks going on. Nothing’s happening.
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, after the last round, there was a technical discussion to try to understand each other’s positions, after which [EU foreign minister Lady Catherine] Ashton’s deputy met with [chief Iranian negotiator Saeed] Jalili’s deputy, and the next step is for Cathy Ashton and Jalili to have a conversation as well. I don’t think that that’s been scheduled. I would refer you to the EU.
But the Secretary, as you know, last week or the week before when we were in Egypt, laid down a very strong marker that the proposals we’ve seen from Iran so far are complete nonstarters, that they really need to go back to the drawing board and make a fundamental choice. So that’s what we’re looking for. We’re looking for Iran to decide is it serious about making diplomacy work.
QUESTION: And have you had any indications from Tehran yet that they are doing so?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, we will look to this next meeting between Ashton and Jalili, or this next conversation, to see how the conversations we’ve had have been absorbed in Tehran.

Ask the Brits. We’ll have a technical meeting. No wonder Netanyahu thinks he’s on his own. He is.

And just to top off “how wimpy can the Obama crew be,” the State Department once again would identify the capital of the Jewish state (“administrations of both parties have had the same position, which is that the status of Jerusalem has to be solved through negotiations. So that is the position of the administration. It’s been the position of the United States across party lines since 1967.”). But in fact, while the borders of Jerusalem will be a final status negotiation, there is no “problem” identifying it as Israel’s capital. (Hint: It is where the national government resides.)

Nathan Diament of the Orthodox Union, who has personally been very supportive of the administration and has been invited to a number of administration “outreach” sessions with other Jewish leaders, did not hide his views in a blog post yesterday:

Last week, the White House press spokesman would not acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.
Today, the State Department spokesman seems to compelled to do the same.
How far we have fallen.
In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama made a much more (in our view commendable) assertive statement: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
This generated howls of protest from the Arab world and, unfortunately, a “clarification” from Mr. Obama.
Now, Mr. Romney acknowledges the simple fact that Jerusalem serves as Israel’s capital – without any explicit statement that it must remain so for eternity or remain undivided, and the Arabs protest and the U.S. Administration suggests it a gaffe.
Facts are fact. Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.
Moreover, as far as the United States is concerned, for more than a decade, the duly enacted law of the United States has stated, as a matter of official policy, that:“(1)Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.” (This statement of policy stands on its own, irrespective of whether the U.S. Embassy to Israel is relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem or not.)

The White House should actually listen to Diament next time he’s invited in.

For reasons known only to the Obama crew, it can’t manage to display seriousness about sanctions nor to speak plain truths about the Middle East. No wonder the United States has alienated friends and encouraged foes in the region and become a laughingstock among foreign policy gurus across the ideological spectrum.

BALTIMORESUN:Is Israel fixing the intelligence to justify an attack on Iran? Netanyahu's rhetoric has eerie echoes of the run-up to the Iraq war

Is Israel fixing the intelligence to justify an attack on Iran?

Netanyahu's rhetoric has eerie echoes of the run-up to the Iraq war

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-israel-iran-20120730,0,5791324.story

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's strong pro-Israel statements over the weekend, including his endorsement of Jerusalem as Israel's capital (a reversal of long-standing U.S. policy), increases the pressure on President Barack Obama to prove that he is an equally strong backer of Israel.

The key question is whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will interpret the presidential campaign rhetoric as an open invitation to provoke hostilities with Iran, in the expectation that President Obama will feel forced to jump in with both feet in support of our "ally" Israel. (Since there is no mutual defense treaty between the U.S. and Israel, "ally" actually is a misnomer — at least in a juridical sense.)

As we saw 10 years ago with respect to Iraq, if one intends to whip up support for war, one needs to find a casus belli — however thin a pretext it might be. How about juxtaposing "weapons of mass destruction" with terrorism. That worked to prepare for war on Iraq, and similar rhetorical groundwork for an attack on Iran is now being laid in Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu broke all records for speed in blaming Iran and Hezbollah for the recent terrorist attack that killed five Israelis in Burgas, Bulgaria, and in vowing that "Israel will react powerfully against Iranian terror."


But what is the evidence on Iranian or Hezbollah involvement? Bulgarian officials keep saying they have no such evidence. More surprising still, government officials in Washington and elsewhere keep warning against jumping to conclusions.

So far the "evidence" against Iran consists primarily of trust-me assertions by Mr. Netanyahu. On Fox News Sunday on July 22, Mr. Netanyahu claimed Israel has "rock-solid evidence" tying Iran to the attack in Bulgaria. The same day onCBS's Face the Nation, Mr. Netanyahu said, "We have unquestionable, fully substantiated intelligence that this [terrorist attack] was done by Hezbollah backed by Iran," adding that Israel gives "specific details to … responsible governments and agencies."

Did the Israelis somehow forget to give "specific details" to Bulgarian and U.S. officials?

At a joint news conference with White House counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan in Sofia early last week, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov admitted that he was aware of no information concerning the terrorist or those who dispatched him.

Mr. Brennan's July 25 talks with top Israeli officials, it appears, were similarly unproductive. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on July 26: "A week after the Burgas attacks, Israeli, Bulgarian, and U.S. [officials] still have no leads regarding the identity of the suicide bomber."

These events took place against an historical backdrop pregnant with relevance. July 23 was the 10th anniversary of a meeting at 10 Downing Street, at which the head British intelligence casually revealed the fraudulent origins of the coming attack on Iraq.

The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to London's Sunday Times, which ran them on its front page May 1, 2005. No one has disputed their authenticity.

This is how the minutes record the core of the briefing by Sir Richard Dearlove, the British intelligence chief, who had just conferred with his U.S. counterpart, George Tenet, at CIA headquarters on July 20, 2002, on what was in store for Iraq:

"… Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. …"

The "fixing" of intelligence is bad enough. But note Mr. Dearlove's explanation that war with Iraq was to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD." Translation: We will claim Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that he might well give them to terrorists — unless he is stopped forthwith.

Mr. Netanyahu is now taking the same line on Iran. On Face the Nation on July 22, he pointedly asked:

"Just imagine what the consequences would be if these people [terrorists] and this regime [Iran] got a hold of nuclear weapons. … [We need to] make sure that the world's most dangerous regime doesn't get the world's most dangerous weapons."

Never mind the elusive evidence on the perpetrators of the attack in Bulgaria. Never mind that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta posed the direct question to himself on Face the Nation on January 8 and then answered it: "Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No." Never mind that 10 days later Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack said essentially the same thing during an interview on Israeli Army Radio.

The likelihood of hostilities with Iran before the presidential election in November is increasing. Beware of "fixed" intelligence.

Ray McGovern is a retired 27-year veteran of CIA's analysis division whose responsibilities included preparing and delivering the president's daily brief. His email is rrmcgovern@gmail.com.

CHICAGOTRIB:Iran sanctions having impact, even if not obvious: U.S.

Iran sanctions having impact, even if not obvious: U.S.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-30/news/sns-rt-us-usa-iran-israelbre86t120-20120730_1_iran-sanctions-israeli-military-strike-nuclear-weapon

TUNIS (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Monday Western sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program were working even if the impact on decision-making in Tehran was not obvious at the moment.

Panetta made his comments ahead of a visit this week to Israel, which has said the sanctions had failed to stop Iran's nuclear program and warned that time was running out before Iran achieves a "zone of immunity" in which Israeli bombs cannot penetrate deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities.

Panetta, asked by reporters in Tunisia about concerns in Israel over the effectiveness of sanctions, said they were having a serious impact "in terms of the economy of Iran."

"And while the results of that may not be obvious at the moment, the fact is that they have expressed a willingness to try to negotiate with the P5+1, and they continue to seem interested in trying to find a diplomatic solution," Panetta said, referring to diplomatic efforts by the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany.

Widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear arsenal, Israel is determined to stop hostile neighbors acquiring weapons that it fears could be used to wipe out the Jewish state.

Talks between world powers and Iran to resolve the standoff have so far failed to secure a breakthrough and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in July that Iran's proposals so far within the P5+1 talks were "non-starters."

ALL OPTIONS

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said during a visit to Israel on Sunday that "any and all measures" must be used to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

A top aide said Romney would support an Israeli military strike if all options had been exhausted, but the candidate himself balked at repeating that position.

Panetta, who would not directly comment on remarks by Romney, said he and President Barack Obama had made clear that the United States would not "tolerate an Iran that develops a nuclear weapon."

"And that we are prepared to exercise all options to ensure that that does not happen. And I am not going to go into specific descriptions of what those options are -- except to say that we have a full range of options to deal with that potential," he said.

Iran denies Western accusations of a covert agenda to develop a nuclear weapon, insisting it wants to stockpile enriched uranium solely to generate more electricity for a rapidly growing population and radio isotopes for medical use.

Panetta's comments followed talks with leaders in Tunisia, which Washington has held up as a model for democratic change in the Middle East after a popular revolt forced autocratic leader Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to flee the country on January 14, 2011, touching off a wave of political unrest across the Arab world.

LATIMES:In Afghanistan, targeted attacks on leaders an ominous trend The attacks on Afghan leaders come as the NATO force hands over more security dut

In Afghanistan, targeted attacks on leaders an ominous trend

The attacks on Afghan leaders come as the NATO force hands over more security duties to the Afghan police and army and begins its troop drawdown in earnest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-assassinations-20120731,0,2787043.story

KABUL, Afghanistan — Tamim Nuristani used to own a pizza chain in California. Now he's a marked man in Afghanistan.

This month, insurgents ambushed the provincial governor's convoy in northeastern Afghanistan, sparking a fierce battle that pinned down his entourage for the night. When the motorcade tried to move in the morning, the assailants struck again. Miraculously, all those in the convoy survived.

It was not the first attempt on Nuristani's life; he did not expect it to be the last. Not long ago, security forces discovered and defused a remote-controlled explosive device apparently meant for him, and a defecting Taliban fighter told officials that he had been personally tasked with assassinating the Nuristan governor.

"Based on the intelligence reports we receive, myself, the police chief, the provincial head of intelligence and a lawmaker from Nuristan are high on the list of targets," Nuristani said. "But I will do my best to keep serving my country."

Taliban and other insurgent groups have long targeted Afghan government officials and community leaders. But this month has seen an extraordinary spate of assassinations and attempted assassinations of public figures, raising the specter of many more such killings as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization force here begins its troop drawdown in earnest.

Over a span of four days beginning July 13, a provincial women's affairs chief in eastern Afghanistan was killed by a car bomb; the mayor of a western town was gunned down on the way home from evening prayers; a prominent member of parliament was slain in a suicide attack that also killed 18 others at festivities for his daughter's wedding; a district police chief in Kandahar was killed in a drive-by shooting; a Cabinet minister and another provincial governor escaped uninjured when their motorcade was bombed; and a district chief in northern Kunduz province hopped out of his vehicle to shop — just before the car blew up.

The latest jolt came Sunday, when the governor of Chak district in Wardak province, Mohammad Ismail Wafa, was shot to death by assailants. His young son died with him. And the Muslim holy month of Ramadan proved no protection for a prominent imam in Oruzgan province: He was killed Monday by a bomb outside his mosque.

Authorities are uncertain whether the recent drumbeat of attacks represents a coordinated campaign by a single group or if the strikes were unrelated actions by disparate militant organizations — or even whether internal power struggles were at play.

Either way, the seeming open season on Afghan public servants represents an ominous trend as the NATO force hands over more security responsibilities to the Afghan police and army, while simultaneously trying to build public confidence in all levels of the Afghan government.

"What better way to undermine government power than by killing the Afghan leadership?" asked Brig. Roger Noble, an Australian serving as a senior military operations officer with NATO's International Security Assistance Force. At a recent shura, or consultative session with tribal elders, he said, the most urgent request was for more support for vulnerable district officials.

Ramadan, which began Friday, could prove particularly perilous, because politicians and dignitaries are expected to mingle with crowds of constituents at the daily iftar, the evening meal that breaks the daytime fast observed by devout Muslims. And the Taliban has vowed no letup in violence during the time of fasting and prayer.

The latest series of killings and attacks was unusual in that it was largely concentrated inAfghanistan'snorth, a region that is mainly populated by ethnic minorities with a more pronounced grass-roots distaste for the Taliban than is seen in the predominantly Pashtun south and east, historically the war's main battlegrounds.

Some non-Taliban insurgent groups such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and Pakistani-based organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba have made inroads in the north in recent years. And the security situation is complicated by internecine tensions among some former comrades in arms from the Northern Alliance, the U.S.-backed militia that helped drive the Taliban from power.

Some northern strongmen have reportedly been stockpiling weapons in advance of a potential power vacuum when Western combat troops depart, or in the event of a peace pact with the Taliban, which most of them strongly oppose.

The wedding hall blast in Samangan province that killed the father of the bride, well-connected lawmaker Ahmad Khan Samangani, swiftly gave rise to a rash of conspiracy theories about his rivalries with other northern power brokers.

But the Samangan police chief, Gen. Khalil Andarabi, blamed what he described as an Al Qaeda-linked faction assembled by the late Mullah Amir Gul, a onetime Taliban shadow governor in the province who also once served in the Afghan army.

The Taliban movement, made up of sometimes-quarreling factions and with fluid and shifting alliances with other militant organizations, has claimed responsibility for some of the recent attacks, including the one against Nuristani. But its leadership has disavowed responsibility for others, such as the July 13 car bombing that killed Hanifa Safi, a respected women's rights advocate in Laghman province.

Although Taliban fighters have repeatedly targeted and threatened women's activists, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid — disingenuously, perhaps — suggested that "personal enmity" might lie behind Safi's murder. No arrests have yet been made in her death, which brought an outpouring of grief and anger from the community, including many conservative male tribal elders.

"The people who commit these despicable acts are enemies of peace and security," said a Laghman provincial spokesman, Sarhadi Zewak. "They don't care who they kill — men or women, tribal elders or government officials. Their targets are simply anyone who is working for the betterment of this country."

laura.king@latimes.com