DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

December 10, 2009

DEBKAfile‘s military sources report that this message Iran’s defense minister Ahmad Vahidi brought to Damascus where he is attending a session of the high Iranian-Syrian defense committee which went into its second day Thursday, Dec. 10. Syrian defense minister Ali Habib is in the chair.

The Iranian visitor indicated that Tehran expects an Israeli attack within a month. According to Iranian intelligence, Jerusalem will take its green light from President Barack Obama’s forced admission after Christmas that his policy of dialogue and stiffer sanctions have failed in the face of Tehran’s rejection of the international proposal to send its enriched uranium for overseas processing.

“The countdown for war is coming close to its end,” said Vahidi to the joint defense committee. “And we must get our strategic partnership in shape ahead of time.”

The leitmotif of the Iranian defense secretary’s talks in Damascus was the fate Iran and Syria share and their strategic partnership as the only safeguards against what he called “‘American-backed Zionist aggression.” Syria must commit itself to joint military action against Israel, because “stronger defense ties between Iran and Syria are elements of deterrence in confronting the Zionist regime’s threats to the countries of the region.”

For the first, time, Gen. Vahidi openly threatened to respond to a possible Israel attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by striking Israel’s “chemical, microbiological and banned nuclear weapons” production sites.

His message brought forth a tepid Syrian response: The Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Syrian Secretary of Defense Ali Habib as commenting early Thursday, December 10, that an attack on Iran by any party would be deemed an attack on Syria and draw commensurate retaliation.

But DEBKAfile‘s military sources point out that comment did not satisfy Tehran because it is short of clear language pledging specific military action. Iranian officials mean to stay in Damascus and keep up the pressure until they elicit a firm, binding Syrian commitment to strike Israel on its ally’s behalf if Iran comes under attack.

Gen. Vahidi arrived in Damascus Tuesday aboard a special Iranian military aircraft. It carried the largest Iranian military delegation ever seen in the Syrian capital, representing every branch of Iran’s armed forces, Revolutionary Guards Corps and intelligence.

Preparations for coordinated retaliation for a potential Israeli attack also brought a top Hizballah delegation incoming from Lebanon to Damascus Tuesday night, Dec. 8, headed by its secretary general Hassan Nasrallah.

When they met, Syrian and Iranian military officials proposed that Hizballah and the Palestinian terrorist organizations start heating up Israel’s borders in the coming days to draw the attention from the world’s focus on the Iranian and Syrian nuclear programs.

Sunday, December 6, DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources reported that the Obama administration was about to launch a campaign against Syria’s covert military nuclear program based on the “smoking gun” of traces of highly processed plutonium found by UN inspectors at the bombed Syrian-North Korean facility at Dir a-Zur. The campaign will focus on this finding as evidence of Iran’s covert nuclear activities and proliferation activities

MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON – With its pomp and glitter, a White House state dinner is a symbol as much as a meal — social evidence of the central leadership role that America plays in world affairs.

 But as President Barack Obama prepares to host his first such dinner — for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — I have a nagging sense that all of that grandeur has become a little deceiving.

 I’m not sure the rest of the world sees the White House as “the place to be” any more. And that will have unsettling consequences for all of us.

 Obama’s role as the elegant, path-breaking, intercultural celebrity is not enough to reverse a steady erosion of our global dominance — especially not if he’s seen merely as a new hood ornament on an economic clunker.

 My concern is merely anecdotal. But I have been collecting anecdotal evidence for decades. It’s what I do for a living.

 I was in London and Paris last week while Obama was making his first trip to Asia. I kept paging through the local papers for stories about the trip. They were only few — almost none. He was all but invisible, except when bowing deeply to the emperor of Japan. There weren’t many stories about the United States, either.

 In the business world of London, the talk last week was all about the money pouring into China, India, and Brazil, and to a lesser extent, Russia.

 The cash under discussion wasn’t from American investors, but rather Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf and Europe — and even trickles from one BRIC to another.

 Every fund manager who was living in or passing through London bragged about just having been to — or about to leave for — China.

 I never thought the glitter of Regent Street could match Manhattan, but it does.

 In Paris, the headlines and the political talk I heard and read did not focus on our president or our prospects, but on the selection of a new — and no longer merely symbolic — leader for a United Europe. Europeans were talking to each other directly; Americans were not, as far as I could tell, very much a part of the conversation.

 Even in matters of science and technology, I saw cause for concern. Europe is now pressing ahead successfully with its CERN supercollider, the largest experiment in the history of physics. The open-source management of the project is itself something new — and, like the World Wide Web, a non-U.S. invention.

 Now, I know that one can never — should never — sell the U.S. short. Our economy, as inequitable and capricious as it is, remains the largest if not the strongest of them all. And our military, over-extended as it is, is the only one that can keep peace on the planet.

 I’m not a “declinist.” I have faith in our special destiny and re-generative powers. And the U.K. and Europe have their own fiscal problems — it still isn’t clear whether the BRICs can contain the explosion they’ve unleashed.

 Still, my trip made me ask two questions: why and so what?

 After rivers of cash poured into the U.S., a “flight to safety” induced — ironically, thanks to our own profligacy. Now the world’s trillions are being shipped elsewhere in search of better returns. And the hoard is no longer being counted solely in dollars.

 Much of that money is piled up in China and the Gulf — two places where business is increasingly being done without Wall Street as the middle man.

 For one thing, it’s more efficient. For another, there are fewer cultural and security concerns.

 When Osama Bin Laden attacked New York City, he meant to assault the central switching station for capital assets and direct them elsewhere.

 To some extent, it has worked. In London I met Arab and Muslim moneymen who left the U.S. after 9/11 — and have not been back. “The security is just too much of a hassle,” said one Dubai-based investor. “It’s not worth it.”

 And now New York — the erstwhile center of the financial action — is about to become paralyzed by the emotions of reliving Sept. 11 by the courtroom ravings of Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

 Washington may not prove to be an attractive a place for investors, either. We’re busy here trying to figure out how to deal with a national debt of $12 trillion — which could double in a decade.

 Other countries are just as heavily leveraged as we are — or even more so — including the UK and Japan. But they don’t have the world’s reserve currency, or our colossal global military commitments.

 Meanwhile, the growth rate in the BRICs for the most part re-mains strong. You can’t overstate smart money’s obsession with China even as our own global brand has been damaged.

 Right now, we seem to be known abroad primarily for war, debt and dirt in the air — and not as the beacon and example of humanity at its best. The wars and borrowing of the Bush administration are a good part of the reason why — and it’s a grim reality Obama confronts every day.

 And so what?

 The “so what” is about the American standard of living, but, more importantly, the standard of thinking. We are built on faith in the future. Our narrative has always been upward and outward.

 So now, we may have to turn inward for a while, and turn the microscope on ourselves. How do we renew and restore ourselves?

 Maybe the prime minister of India has some ideas.

DEBKAfile Special Report

November 19, 2009

DEBKAfile‘s military sources report that the UN inspectors’ October visit to Iran turned up dual-track progress in support of its nuclear weapons program: Feverish activity was registered in the production of plutonium at Isfahan as an alternative to the Fordo enriched uranium plant near Qom which starts up in 2011.

The IAEA experts discovered 30 metric tons-IS of heavy water hidden in 600 tanks, each holding 13 gallons, according to the report they handed in last week to agency headquarters in Vienna.

From the shape of the tanks and other indications, the experts concluded that this stock had not come from the heavy water plant at Arak but was imported.

Metric tons-IS measure the amount of energy a given quantity can release. The force and types of nuclear bombs are gauged in kilotons or megatons. The American nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II was equal to 20 kilotons of TNT. By this standard, the amount of heavy water discovered at Isfahan would be enough to make at least one plutonium bomb when the plutonium reactor under construction near the Arak heavy water facility is finished.

Other than its civilian uses, heavy water may be used to produce tritium, which intensifies the explosive force of nuclear warheads. The discovery of quantities of heavy water at Isfahan confirms the suspicions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program in three respects.

1. The long concealment of the Fordo site suggested to the UN inspectors that Iran has more hole-in the-corner nuclear facilities in the country. The discovery of a stock of heavy water further confirmed that Tehran is working hard to attain a nuclear weapon capacity on more than one track and at additional covert sites.

2. The IAEA wants to know who is selling Iran heavy water in violation of Security Council resolutions banning the sale or export of nuclear materials to Iran.

The very fact that some government or outside entity is willing to flout UN resolutions demonstrates that any further international sanctions would be ineffective for halting Iran’s nuclear drive, even assuming that President Barack Obama gained Russian and Chinese backing for such penalties. This backing has so far been withheld.

DEBKAfile‘s sources report from Vienna that on November 10, IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei sent a request to the Iranian Nuclear Energy Committee asking it to confirm the presence of the heavy water and document its origin with a full explanation. Tehran has yet to reply.

3. The presence of the heavy water tanks at Isfahan is additional proof that the reactor at Arak is designed for military purposes, not a peaceful installation as Tehran claims.

DEBKAfile Special Report

October 19, 2009

Iranian Revolutionary Guards chief Mohammed Ali Jafari

The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafary, Monday, Oct. 19, threatened “crushing” retaliation against the US, UK and Pakistan including the invasion of its eastern neighbor. Tehran links all three to the suicide bombing attack in Sistan-Baluchistan Sunday, Oct. 18, which killed 42 people including seven senior Guards officers. One was Gen. Nur Ali Shoustari, Jafari’s deputy, who was identified by DEBKAfile‘s counter-terror sources as commander of the al Qods clandestine terror bases in Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Jafary said: “Behind this scene are the American and British intelligence apparatus and there will have to be retaliatory measures to punish them.”

DEBKAfile‘s Iranian sources note that is the first time in Iran’s 30-year Islamic revolution that a military leader has gone to the extreme lengths of threatening to strike US and British military targets, a measure of the damage the regime and Guards suffered from the suicide attack, which has since been condemned and denied by Washington.

Jafari expanded on his charge by saying: “New evidence has been obtained proving the link between yesterday’s terror attack and the US, British and Pakistani intelligence services.” He spoke of evidence showing that all three supported the group. “A delegation would soon travel to Pakistan to present it,” he said.

A military official in Tehran then suggested Iran might launch a military thrust into Pakistan against the group blamed for the attack. Lawmaker Payman Forouzesh said: “There is even unanimity that these operations (could) take place in Pakistan territory.”

Tehran accuses the Sunni secessionist terrorist group Jundallah of Baluchistan, which is fighting for the predominantly Sunni province’s independence, of carrying out the suicide bombing in provincial town of Pisheen near the Pakistan and Afghanistan borders. In the past, Tehran has charged the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence agency and the CIA of supporting the group. It has carried out a string of terrorist attacks on regime and Shiite targets including in 2007 a failed assassination attempt on president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

DEBKAfile‘s Iranian sources report that Tehran will have to make good on its threats without too much delay or lose face among the political and ethnic minority dissidents plaguing on the regime, especially those who rose up in protest against the tainted June 20 presidential election. Hesitation will be seen as weakness.

Past Iranian reprisals were usually carried against the US or Britain indirectly in the Persian Gulf or by local Islamic surrogates like Hizballah in Iraq. Jafari’s words point to a more direct showdown this time by the IRGC or its terrorist arm al Qods.

TIMES ONLINE

October 9, 2009

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

PAJAMAS MEDIA

October 9th, 2009

THE ENGLISH DEFENSE LEAGUE  in the spirit of St. George presents,

THE DAY OF RECKONING

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RKgK-0HwN30

Reuters

October 2, 2009

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, Oct 2 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama’s politically risky Olympics gamble failed to bring home the gold on Friday, with the Olympics committee’s refusal to grant the 2016 Summer Games to his hometown Chicago.

The president, whose even-tempered personality has earned him the nickname “No Drama Obama,” broke from that mold to make an overnight dash from Washington to Copenhagen to personally lobby for Chicago.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, had taken their star power to the Danish capital to make Chicago’s case, ignoring the carping from Republican opponents who charged it was a bad time to go with foreign policy challenges in Iran and Afghanistan and the U.S. Congress bogged down in a domestic healthcare debate.

“I’m asking you to choose Chicago. I’m asking you to choose America,” Michelle Obama told committee members.

Her husband said, “If you do, if we walk this path together, then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud.”

All that was for naught as Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting, a decision that brought gasps from the Chicago contingent at the Copenhagen meeting.

The Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, was unsparing in his criticism in a statement issued before the decision was announced and on a day when the U.S. jobless rate rose to 9.8 percent, a 26-year high.

“As President Obama travels to Copenhagen to bring the Summer Olympics to his hometown seven years from now, Americans back home are increasingly concerned they won’t have a job seven months from now as they see more and more of their neighbors and friends lose jobs today,” Steele said.

BAD NEWS

Obama had originally planned not to go but changed his mind when it was clear that other leaders wanting their countries to host the 2016 Games would be there.

The Democratic president got the bad news as Air Force One flew him back to Washington, where just about every move he makes goes under a partisan microscope.

While more Republican criticism was likely, it was unclear whether the failure would have a lasting impact on Obama’s political image. His job approval rating has stabilized at slightly above 50 percent after dropping about 10 points over the summer.

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said he believed the issue would not linger.

“It’s a classic political hullabaloo that will fade quickly,” he said. “I think it actually points up a problem the Republicans are having, which is focusing the unhappiness and disagreement they have with Obama. In politics you have to be able to complain about the right things.”

(Editing by Howard Goller)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iKuMVqht4U

DEBKAfile

September 23, 2009,

Up above a big military parade in Tehran on Tuesday, Sept. 22, as Iranian president declared Iran’s armed forces would “chop off the hands” of any power daring to attack his country, two air force jets collided in mid-air. One was Iran’s only airborne warning and control system (AWACS) for coordinating long-distance aerial operations, DEBKAfile‘s military and Iranian sources disclose.

The proud military parade, which included a march-past, a line of Shehab-3 missiles and an air force fly-past, was planned to give Ahmadinejad a dazzling send-off for New York and add steel to his UN Assembly speech Wednesday.

Dubbed “Simorgh” (a flying creature of Iranian fable which performs wonders in mid-flight), the AWACS’ appearance, escorted by fighter jets, was to have been the climax for the Iranian Air force’s fly-past over the parade. Instead, it collided with one of escorting planes, a US-made F-5E, and both crashed to the ground in flames. All seven crewmen were killed.

Eye witnesses reported that the flaming planes landed on the mausoleum burial site of the Islamic revolution’s founder Ruhollah Khomeini, a national shrine. According to Western observers, no distress signals came from either cockpit indicating that the collision and explosions were sudden and fast.

DEBKAfile‘s military sources say the disaster was a serious blow to the Iranian Air Force not long after its first and only AWACS went into service in April 2008. It was a renovated version of the Russian Ilyushin 76, part of Saddam Hussein‘s air force before it was transferred to Iran in 1991 during the first Gulf War.

Tehran hired Russian technicians to carry out renovations and install up-to-date radar. At the launching ceremony of the upgraded AWACS, Air Force commander Brig. Gen. Ahmad Miqani boasted its new radar systems were made in Iran and able to spot any airplane or missile at a distance of 1,000 kilometers from Iran’s borders.

The loss of this airborne control system has left Iran’s air force and air and missile defenses without “electronic eyes” for surveillance of the skies around its borders.

The Wall Street Journal

September 15, 2009

Bret Stevens

Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July’s G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the “ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations” and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, “respect for the rights of nations,” and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran’s nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What’s an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn’t a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel’s skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran “unacceptable,” he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama’s decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities; and by Russia’s announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won’t lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the “international community.” So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

Thus, unlike Israel’s air strike against Iraq’s reactor in 1981 or Syria’s in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn’t taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn’t really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will “be able to produce a weapon’s worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months.” No less critical in determining Israel’s timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel’s best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America’s supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn’t need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran’s disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower’s responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver’s seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

DEBKAfile Special Report

September 5, 2009

Iran’s IAEA delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh

Barack Obama has been in the White House for nine months and Binyamin Netanyahu in the Israeli prime minister’s office six months. Both have spent precious time batting the numbers of settlement apartments to and fro instead of taking resolute steps to thwart Iran’s spectacular advances on the road to a nuclear weapon. DEBKAfile‘s military and intelligence sources note that Tehran has made good use of this time for the longest strides towards its objective than at any time since its program was surreptitiously launched.

The progress confirmed by our sources consists of four major steps:

1. Iran has succeeded in secretly combining uranium processing, airborne high-explosive tests and work on designing a missile cone to fit a nuclear warhead, according to Western intelligence updates.

2. The conflicting reports on the amount of uranium enriched and number of fast centrifuge machines in operation obscure the following hard facts: The Iranians have doubled the number of ever faster centrifuges that are working at their enrichment plants.

They are moreover completing tests on a more advanced homemade centrifuge, the IR4, which will halve the time taken for converting low-grade enrichment uranium into weapons-grade material.

3. By February 2010 – and some say sooner – Tehran will have stocked enough high-grade enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs.

4. Iran has also gone into home production of nuclear fuel rods for plutonium.

Barack Obama’ repeatedly held up his plan to engage Tehran in dialogue – first until the June 12 presidential election (hoping a more rational president would replace Mahmoud Ahmedinejad); then, until the popular unrest following the disputed poll died down (for fear of being accused of interfering); and finally on the assumption that the turmoil would divide and weaken the Islamic regime and make it easier to engage constructively.

The six world powers, US, Russia, China, France, the UK and Germany accordingly gave Iran until Sept. 15 to start talks.

It turned out that these delays, instead of weakening Iran’s rulers, hardened their position.

Reacting to the new intelligence presented to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran’s delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh said Friday, Sept. 4: “The government of the United States has not handed over the original documents to the agency since it does not in fact have any authenticated documents and all it has are forged document”

An anonymous US official in Vienna said Soltanieh’s accusations were baseless and the IAEA itself “had accepted the material as credible.”

But by then, the Iranian delegate had come up with a new self-serving initiative: a proposal for the agency’s board of governors to ban member states from attacking the nuclear facilities of other nations.

Then on Saturday, Sept 5, Soltanieh, made it clear that Tehran was virtually scrapping the Western powers incentives offer which has been gathering dust since last year as the basis for talks and was about to put forward its own “comprehensive package on issues, including nuclear and economic cooperation as well as concerns about the proliferation of atomic weapons.”

The Iranian package will be handed in this week.

What do Washington and Jerusalem propose to do now in the face of Iran’s aggressive nuclear and diplomatic offensives? Will the foot-dragging continue until Iran conducts its first nuclear test?

Four years ago, prime minister Ariel Sharon said Israel must meet US demands on containing West Bank settlement “because we would need the Americans on the Iran issue.”

His successor, Ehud Olmert and foreign minister Tzipi Livni held off Israeli action by reiterating it was up to the “international community” to stop Iran’s advance toward a nuclear bomb.

Has anything changed in Washington and Jerusalem?

August 17, 2009

CARACAS (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama is “lost in the Andromeda” galaxy on Latin American policy, his chief critic in the region, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, said on Sunday, while demanding the closure of U.S. military bases.

Last week Obama said critics of U.S. involvement in Latin America who are now asking Washington to do more to restore the ousted president of Honduras “can’t have it both ways.”

“We are not asking you to intervene in Honduras, Obama. On the contrary, we are asking that “the empire” get its hands off Honduras and get its claws out of Latin America,” Chavez said in a rambling weekly television and radio show.

“President Obama is lost in the Andromeda Nebula, he has lost his bearings, he doesn’t get it,” he said.

Chavez repeated an accusation that the United States had prior knowledge of the coup that deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on June 28 and the military plane that flew Zelaya out of the country had used a U.S. base in Honduras.

Despite Chavez’s frequent tirades against U.S. imperialism, the United States remains the main client for Venezuelan oil, though the OPEC country is gradually increasing sales to other countries, especially China.

Chavez, who expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela at the end of the Bush administration but allowed him back when Obama took office, said he still believes Obama has good intentions.

Obama has promised to improve U.S. relations with Latin America. U.S. officials say his administration will put more effort into ties with the region to counter Chavez’s growing influence.

The leftist Venezuelan leader is furious, however, at a U.S. security agreement with Colombia that will give the Pentagon access to seven Colombian military bases. Chavez has cut trade with his neighbor as a reprisal.

The United States and Colombia say the deal is an expansion of an existing accord and will help fight drug traffickers and guerrillas involved in the Colombian cocaine trade. Chavez says a larger U.S. troop presence risks sparking war in the region.

Venezuela is planning to beef up its army by buying tanks and other weapons from Russia, Chavez said, adding that his country needs to be prepared for an attack.

Chavez claims the United States wants to control Venezuela’s huge oil reserves as well as the Amazon region.

“This is just the start of an imperial military expansion,” Chavez said of the U.S.-Colombian security arrangement.

Chavez asked Obama to withdraw U.S. forces from the Palmerola air base in Honduras (also known as Soto Cano) and from Guantanamo Bay which the U.S. Navy has used as a base in Cuba for over a century.

“Until when? Get with it, Obama — get with it, brother,” Chavez said.

(Reporting by Patricia Rondon; Writing by Frank Jack Daniel; Editing by Anthony Boadle)

NATIONAL REVIEW

by Anne Bayefsky

August 03, 2009

Associated Press

August 3, 2009

MELBOURNE, Australia — Australian police launched a major anti-terrorism operation on Tuesday, arresting four men they said were part of a terrorist cell that was planning to launch a suicide attack on several Army bases in the country.

The Melbourne-based group was believed to be linked to an Islamic extremist group in Somalia, al-Shabaab, and had planned to use automatic weapons in their attack, Australian Federal Police Acting Commissioner Tony Negus said.

“The men’s intention was to actually go into the Army barracks and to kill as many soldiers as they could before they themselves were killed,” Negus told reporters in the southern city of Melbourne.

The men were arrested after about 400 officers from state and national security services took part in 19 pre-dawn raids on properties in Melbourne, Negus said. They were to appear in court later Tuesday.

“This operation has disrupted an alleged terrorist attack that could have claimed many lives,” Negus said.

The men arrested are Australian citizens ranging in age from 22 to 26, Victoria state police said. Several others were being questioned Tuesday.

The group had been under investigation since January, Negus said.

The United States has designated al-Shabaab a foreign terrorist organization. The U.S. State Department’s annual terrorism report in April said al-Shabaab was providing a safe haven to al-Qaida “elements” wanted for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Saudi Arabia has thoroughly rejected appeals by U.S. President Barack Obama that the Arab world make modest gestures to Israel to show it is interested in advancing a regional peace that would include the establishment of a Palestinian Authority state within Israel’s current borders.

“The question is not what the Arab world will offer,” Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said at a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday. “The question really is: What will Israel give in exchange for this comprehensive offer?”

The Saudi rebuff, which also ignored an appeal by more than 200 members of Congress for “gestures” towards Israel, leaves President Obama with little room for maneuvering after his two-month-old demand that Israel freeze all building for Jews in eastern Jerusalem as well as in Judea and Samaria fell on deaf ears in Israel. American media and the Jewish community increasingly have criticized President Obama for going too far in trying to pressure Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and a close ally of the United States.

Prince Saud sidestepped a question from a reporter who asked what Saudi Arabia would do if Israel were to agree to a freeze on building, as the U.S. has demanded. He charged that Israel is “trying to distract attention from the core issue” of creating a new PA state.

“This is not the way to peace,” he said, warning that Israel may face a future of more “instability and violence.”

He reiterated demands for a “comprehensive approach.” which would include full acceptance of the Saudi Arabia 2002 initiative. It calls for Israel to surrender all of the land restored to the Jewish state in the Six-Day War in 1967, including the Old City in Jerusalem and several residential neighborhoods in the capital that are home to approximately 300,000 Jews. The plan also demands that Israel allow the immigration of five million foreign Arabs who claim to have ancestry in Israel.

Israel for the past several years has continually granted concessions to the PA while allowing the U.S. to change its Roadmap peace plan and skip over steps for an interim PA state, pending moves to halt violent and incitement.

Reporters covering the State Department have noted that the U.S. in effect has been a proxy negotiator for the PA over a future state. In an attempt to change the focus from Israel to the PA, State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said at the Friday news briefing in Washington that the PA has a “responsibility to promote the peace process and return to negotiation.”

Following recent comments by American officials that indicated a more moderate tone towards Israel, Crowley added, “There’s this perception that we’re leaning in one direction and not others. We’re leaning in all directions.” One reporter drew laughter from colleagues when he responded, “Is that physically possible?”

Fox News

August 2, 2009

Remains of the first American lost in the 1991 Persian Gulf War have been found in the Anbar province of Iraq after a nearly 20-year search, the U.S. Navy said Sunday.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology has positively identified the remains of Captain Michael “Scott” Speicher, whose disappearance has bedeviled investigators since his jet was shot down over the Iraq desert on the first night of the 1991 war.

The Navy said the discovery illustrates the military’s commitment to bring its troops home.

“This is a testament to how the Navy never stops looking for one of its own. No matter how long it takes,” Commander Cappy Surette, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy, told FOX News.

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, added, “we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Captain Speicher and his family for the sacrifice they have made for our nation and the example of strength they have set for all of us.”

The Pentagon initially declared Speicher killed, but uncertainty — and the lack of remains — led officials over the years to change his official status a number of times to “missing in action” and later “missing-captured.”

Family spokeswoman Cindy Laquidara said relatives learned on Saturday that Speicher’s remains had been found.

“The family’s proud of the way the Defense Department continued on with our request” to not abandon the search for the downed pilot, she said. “We will be bringing him home.”

Laquidara said the family would have another statement after being briefed by the defense officials, but she didn’t know when that would be.

“My heart goes out to the family, again,” said Sen. Bill Nelson, the Florida senator who was instrumental several years ago in getting the Navy to renew a search for the missing pilot. “We all clung to the slim hope that Scott was still alive and would one day come home to his family.”

After years, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq finally gave investigators the chance to search inside Iraq. And it led to a number of leads, including what some believed were the initials “MSS” scratched into the wall of an Iraqi prison.

The search also led investigators to excavate a potential grave site in Baghdad in 2005, track down Iraqis said to have information about Speicher and make numerous other inquiries in what officials say has been an exhaustive search.

Officials said Sunday that they got new information from an Iraqi citizen in early July, leading Marines stationed in Anbar province to a location in the desert which was believed to be the crash site of Speicher’s jet.

The Iraqi said he knew of two other Iraqis who recalled an American jet crashing and the remains of the pilot being buried in the desert.

“One of these Iraqi citizens stated that they were present when Captain Speicher was found dead at the crash site by Bedouins and his remains buried,” the Pentagon said in a statement.

He was positively identified through a jawbone found at the site and dental records, said Read Adm. Frank Thorp.

Speicher was shot down over west-central Iraq on Jan. 17, 1991.

Hours after his plane went down, the Pentagon publicly declared him killed — then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney went on television and announced the U.S. had suffered its first casualty of the war. But 10 years later, the Navy changed his status to missing in action, citing an absence of evidence that Speicher had died. In October 2002, the Navy switched his status to “missing/captured,” although it has never said what evidence it had that he ever was in captivity.

Another review was done in 2005 with information gleaned after Baghdad fell. The review board recommended then that the Pentagon work with the State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and the Iraqi government to “increase the level of attention and effort inside Iraq” to resolve the question of Speicher’s fate.

Last year, then Navy Secretary Donald Winter ordered yet another review of the case after receiving a report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which tracks prisoners of war and service members missing in action. Many in the military believed for years that Speicher had not survived the crash or for long after; intelligence had never found evidence he was alive, and some officials felt last year that all leads had been exhausted and Speicher would finally be declared killed.

But after the latest review, Winter said Speicher would remain classified as missing, despite his strong reservations about the pilot’s status and cited “compelling” evidence that he was dead. Announcing his decision, Winter criticized the board’s recommendation to leave Speicher’s status unchanged, saying the review board based its conclusions on the belief that Speicher was alive after ejecting from his plane. The board “chose to ignore” the lack of any parachute sighting, emergency beacon signal or radio communication, Winter said.

Speicher’s family — including two college-age children who were toddlers when Speicher disappeared — believed more evidence would surface as Iraq became more stable.

FOX News’ Jennifer Griffin and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Politico

July 26, 2009

By MIKE ALLEN

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Iran will never achieve its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, declaring to Tehran: “Your pursuit is futile.”

“What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen,” Clinton said.

“First, we’re going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. … We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

As a security summit in Thailand earlier this week, Clinton raised the possibility of a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East to protect other nations from a nuclear-armed Iran, marking the first time a senior administration official has publicly broached the prospect of the Persian nation succeeding in building a nuclear weapon.

Clinton said the Obama administration might still engage with Iran’s regime, even though she thinks the people there “deserve better than what they’re getting.”

Moderator David Gregory asked Clinton if the U.S. would be betraying Iran’s democratic movement if the administration decides to negotiate with the government over its nuclear program.

“I don’t think so, David,” she replied. “We have negotiated with many governments who we did not believe represented the will of their people. Look at all the negotiations that went on with the Soviet Union. …

“That’s what you do in diplomacy. You don’t get to choose the people. That’s up to the internal dynamic within a society. But, clearly, we would hope better for the Iranian people. We would hope that there is more openness, that peaceful demonstrations are respected, that press freedom is respected.”

Gregory asked if Iran is run by an illegitimate regime.

“You know, that’s really for the people of Iran to decide,” Clinton said. “I have been moved by the … cries for freedom. … People that go back millennia, that have such a great culture and history, deserve better than what they’re getting.”

Clinton chuckled heartily when Gregory played a clip of her being asked overseas if she would ever be U.S. president.

“This is a subject that is on the minds of people literally around the world,” Clinton said.

About a run for herself, she said: “I have absolutely no belief in my mind that that is going to happen.”

Clinton said her right elbow is still recovering after a fall last month. “There are certain moves that I can make, but there are others that are still kind of painful,” she said. “But I do my physical therapy — that was what everybody told me I had to do.”

Appearing live for the full hour, Clinton continued her increasingly tough talk on North Korea, saying: “They’ve engaged in a lot of provocative action in the last months. … It’s not going to work this time.”

“It’s not only that North Korea has, against the international norms … proceeded with this effort, but they also are a proliferator,” she said. “We know that for a fact. So it’s not only the threat they pose to their neighbors, and eventually beyond, but the fact that they’re trying to arm others.”

Clinton was asked if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear has failed: “No, I don’t think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages.”

“They are very isolated now,” she continued. “They don’t have any friends left. … We’ve seen even Burma saying that they’re going to enforce the resolution of sanctions.”

Clinton began by saying: “What’s important here is the clear message that we’re sending to North Korea. … North Korea must change their behavior, and we have to get back to moving toward verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. … We’re imposing the most stringent sanctions we ever have. We have great cooperation from the world community.

“We still want North Korea to come back to the negotiating table to be part of an international effort that will lead to denuclearization. But we’re not going to reward them … for half-measures. They now know what we and the world community expect.

“We want to make clear to North Korea that their behavior is not going to be rewarded. In the past, they believed that they have acted out — doing things which really went against the norms of the international community—and somehow then were rewarded. Those days are over.”

During the appearance, Clinton also seemed to distance the administration from some harsh comments Vice President Joe Biden had made in an interview with the Wall Street Journal about Russia.

Biden had told the paper: “The reality is the Russians are where they are. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they’re in a situation where the world is changing before them and they’re clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.”

Asked whether this meant that the U.S. would now act as if it possessed the upper hand, Clinton responded, “No, I don’t think that’s all what the Vice President meant.”

She added that the US still views Russia “as a great power.”

“Every country faces challenges,” Clinton said. “We have our challenges. Russia has their challenges. And there are certain issues that Russia has to deal with on their own. We want to make clear as we reset our relationship we are very clearly not saying that Russia can have a 21st century sphere of influence in eastern Europe. That is an attitude and policy we reject. We are also making it very clear that any nation in eastern Europe that used to be a part of the Soviet Union…[can] choose whatever alliance they want to join.”

Clinton acknowledged that Russia has been “very helpful” in its support of the U.S. efforts to deal with North Korea, and that the nations continue to work together on matters of nuclear arsenals, loose fissile material and violent extremism.

“There is an enormous amount of work to be done between us and Russia,” Clinton said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25426.html#ixzz0MNr4TEqB

DEBKA

July 25, 2009

A flock of US presidential emissaries descends on Israel this week. DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources report that their briefs reflect US president Barack Obama’s new caution on his next Middle East steps. He has backed away from formulating a new Middle East plan which he was widely reported as preparing to unveil at the end of July and shied away from a showdown with Israel on such touchy issues as settlement expansion.

The coming week’s arrivals, for which prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu prepared by convening his kitchen cabinet of six ministers Friday, will be led by defense secretary Robert Gates followed by national security adviser James Jones and presidential adviser Dennis Ross. Special Middle East envoy George Mitchell is first stopping off in Damascus Saturday, July 25, for talks set up by his Syrian deskman Fred Hof.

The visitors to Israel will be accompanied by a large party of CIA and military high-ups.

Our sources report that Obama began reassessing his Middle East initiatives last month. To complete this turnabout, he is awaiting a response from prime minister Netanyahu, who is drawing much criticism in Washington for being slow to respond. The Israeli government has allowed the public and local media columnists to believe that a crisis in US-Israel relations is ongoing and that the Obama’s US administration would be the first to try and impose a peace settlement on Israel.

His envoys have tried to dispel this impression by informing Israeli leaders that the US president was not about to launch any new Middle East peace initiatives. Obama has furthermore watered down his demand for a total freeze on settlement construction and is willing to countenance expansion for accommodating natural growth. However, here too, the Israeli government is accused of holding back the figures and refusing to specify whether it covers 400 or 4,000 building starts.

Some White House sources complain that only after Netanyahu met Obama in the White House on May 18 did he affirm his acceptance of Palestinian statehood in four public statements. Had he said “two-state solution” out loud at that meeting, the relationship would have got off on a friendly footing from the start instead of appearing to go downhill.

DEBKAfile‘s Washington sources add that Mitchell is visiting Damascus for the second time in a month to explore the resumption of Syrian-Israel talks. The White House now appreciates that the peace process with the Palestinians is going nowhere any time soon. A high-ranking US official told our sources that this track will remain in deadlock for as long as Arab rulers like Saudi King Abdullah reject any gestures towards Israel in return for concessions and the Fatah-Hamas feud continues to keep the West Bank Gaza Strip apart under separate administrations.

President Obama has accordingly decided “to avoid a situation where he gets nothing from Arab leaders and is at odds with the Jews.” This will more easily permit common ground to be broached on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Associated Press

July 18, 2009

By ROBERT BURNS

MUMBAI, India — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton opened a three-day visit to India on Saturday by urging India not to repeat American mistakes in contributing to global pollution, and she passionately defended U.S. demands for help in fighting terrorism.
“We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” she said. “We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.”
She was referring to Obama’s statement in Italy earlier this month that the U.S. had “sometimes fallen short” of its responsibilities in controlling its carbon emissions.
Speaking at a news conference on the pool side patio of the Taj Mahal Palace & Hotel, which was strewn with bodies after terrorists attacked this coastal city last November, she cast India and the United States as allies in the fight against terrorism.
“Yesterday’s bombings in Jakarta, Indonesia, provide a painful reminder that the threat of such violent extremism is still very real. It is global. It is ruthless. It is nihilistic and it must be stopped,” she said.
“We have a great sense of solidarity and sympathy, having gone through what we did on 9/11,” she added.
Her voice rising, Clinton insisted that the U.S. demand for international action against terrorist should not be taken lightly.
“We know how important (it is). We are fighting wars to end the threat of terrorism against us, our friends and allies around the world.” She said India can choose its own way of contributing but must be part of a broader effort to defeat the threat.
“We expect everyone” who shares the U.S. goal of a more stable world “to take strong action to prevent terrorism from taking root on their soil and making sure that terrorists are not trained and deployed” from their territory to carry out attacks elsewhere, she added.
Earlier, Clinton attended a ceremony commemorating the Mumbai attack, which killed 166 and raised tensions between nuclear rivals India and Pakistan. At the event were five staffers from the Oberoi Hotel and 10 from the Taj, including general manager Karambir Kang, who lost his wife and two children during the three-day siege.
The event was closed to reporters.
In a memorial book she wrote: “Americans share a solidarity with this city and nation. Both our people have experienced the senseless and searing effects of violent extremism. And both can be grateful and proud of the heroism of brave men and women whose courage saved lives and prevented greater harm on 26/11 and 9/11. Now it is up to all nations and people who seek peace and progress to work together. Let us rid the world of hatred and extremism that produces such nihilistic violence.”
She also met with 11 Indian business leaders, including Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, the largest privately held company in India.
Echoing remarks made by Ambani at the meeting, Clinton said that India should leapfrog the developed world to come up with its own innovative way to encourage environmentally friendly growth.
“Just as India went from a few years ago having very few mobile phones to now having more than 500 million mostly cell phones by leapfrogging over the infrastructure we built for telephone service, we believe India is innovative and entrepreneurial enough to figure out how to deal with climate change while continuing to lift people out of poverty and develop at a rapid rate,” she said.
Seeking to assuage Indian concerns that the U.S. pressured India into making concessions to Pakistan despite that nation’s failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack, Clinton emphasized that the U.S. respects India’s sovereign right to make its own decisions.
“Discussion between India and Pakistan is between India and Pakistan,” she said.
The visit marked a return to the world stage for Clinton, who has been slowed since mid-June by an arm injury that forced her to cancel plans to attend international meetings in Italy and Greece last month and to accompany President Barack Obama on his visit to Russia earlier this month.
Clinton is scheduled to hold talks Sunday and Monday in New Delhi with Indian government officials on a wide range of issues, including nuclear nonproliferation, strengthening trade ties and combatting climate change. She is to attend talks in Thailand later in the week with representatives of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Associated Press writer Erika Kinetz in Mumbai contributed to this report

July 19, 2009

By Jeffrey Heller

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying he would not take orders over Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem, rejected on Sunday a U.S. demand to halt plans to build more homes for Jews in the disputed area.

New friction with Washington over the project to build 20 apartments in a part of Jerusalem captured by Israel in a 1967 war could deepen the most serious rift in relations between the two allies in a decade.

Israeli officials said the State Department had summoned Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, and told him plans for the construction approved this month by Israel’s Jerusalem municipality should be suspended.

“We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and buy (homes) anywhere in Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said, calling the city Israel’s united capital, a claim that is not recognized internationally.

“I can only imagine what would happen if someone would suggest Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods of New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a great international outcry,” he told reporters at the weekly cabinet meeting. “We cannot accept this edict in Jerusalem.”

Netanyahu and President Barack Obama are already at loggerheads over the U.S. leader’s call for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement on occupied land Palestinians want for a state.

Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, due back in the region soon, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak have been trying to work out a settlement deal that would include initial steps by Arab countries to normalize relations with Israel.

But constraints on Jewish settlement in Jerusalem could put a heavy strain on Netanyahu’s coalition, in which the future of the holy city is a red-flag issue for Jewish religious and ultranationalist partners.

Responding to Netanyahu’s comments, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat said the Israeli leader had to realize that “settlements and peace are two parallels that do not go together.”

ABANDONED HOTEL

Israel annexed East Jerusalem and declared all of the city its capital after the 1967 war. Palestinians say Jewish settlement on occupied land could deny them a viable state.

The housing project is within a compound in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood where the now-defunct Shepherd Hotel stands. It was bought in 1985 by an American Jewish millionaire who has been funding Jewish housing projects in East Jerusalem.

Israel’s Jerusalem municipality said its planning committee, acting in “full transparency,” gave approval for the 20 apartments and pledged to preserve “the historic structure” at the site.

Palestinians have questioned the legality of the acquisition, saying the compound had belonged to the former grand mufti, the leading Muslim cleric in Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. He went into exile in 1937 and died in 1974.

Israel designated the plot as “absentee property” after the 1967 war.

(Editing by Peter Millership)

World Net Daily

July 18, 2009

WASHINGTON – Radio talker Michael Savage told WND he was “stunned” by the quick decision by incoming United Kingdom Home Secretary Alan Johnson to scrap his predecessor’s list of people banned from Britain – a list that included Savage along with Islamic hate preachers and terrorists.

Savage had sued outgoing Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for libel for listing him, along with 15 others, as “least wanted” visitors in the country. Meanwhile, Smith’s successor, Alan Johnson, called the move a terrible blunder and told the London Daily Mail he would scrap the policy of maintaining such enemies lists.

“I am stunned by this sudden sign of sanity in the UK government,” Savage told WND. “But I won’t believe it until they send a letter to me confirming it.”

Savage said he also demands an apology from Smith.

Don’t be silent! Sign the petition to block government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Johnson said Smith had no right to put Savage, the third highest rated radio talker in America, on the same list as a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, a skinhead gang leader and a Hezbollah militant.

Last week, Jacqui Smith admitted she was not up to being home secretary, saying she should have been given some training for the job before being named.

“When I became home secretary I’d never run a major organization,” she told Total Politics magazine. “I hope I did a good job but if I did it was more by luck than by any kind of development of skills. I think we should have been better trained. I think there should have been more induction.”

Last month, Smith resigned her position in the wake of scandal over personal use of taxpayer funds and her controversial ban of Savage.

Savage took the offensive against her by appearing on a BBC radio program and filing his lawsuit.

Smith contended upon announcing the ban of Savage May 5 that the talk host was “someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country.”

Savage also has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking that she call on the British government to withdraw the ban.

The complaint against Smith notes the home secretary’s office said in a press release that the “controversial daily radio host” is “considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.”

The allegations are “entirely false,” the complaint asserts.

“At no time has our client provoked or sought to provoke others to commit crimes or serious criminal acts.”

Savage hosts the nation’s third most popular radio talk show in the U.S., with an estimated 8 million listeners a week on about 400 stations, according to his syndicator, the Talk Radio Network.

Savage told WND after the ban was announced last month that his message for Smith and the people of the U.K. was, “Shame on you. Shame that you’ve fallen to such a low level.”

“It’s interesting to me that here I am a talk show host, who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values – borders, language, culture – who is now on a list banned in England,” Savage said. “What does that say about the government of England? It says more about them than it says about me.”

The U.K. list also includes Hamas leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American pastor Fred Phelps, known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals. Phelps’ daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper also is on the list.

On his website, Savage appealed to his listeners to contribute his legal fund, which he has used for various efforts, including a lawsuit last year against the Council on American-Islamic Relations for waging a boycott using excerpts of his copyrighted remarks. In the case of Savage’s U.K. ban, however, CAIR has sided with Savage, arguing “freedom of speech is a two-way street.”

ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 18, 2009

WASHINGTON – The American soldier who went missing June 30 from his base in eastern Afghanistan and was later confirmed captured, appeared on a video posted Saturday to a web site by the Taliban, two U.S. defense officials confirmed.

The soldier is shown in the 28-minute video with his head shaved and the start of a beard. He is sitting and dressed in a nondescript gray outfit. Early in the video one of his captors holds the soldier’s dogtag up to the camera. His name and Social Security number are clearly visible. He is shown eating at one point and sitting on a bed.

The soldier, whose identity has not yet been released by the Pentagon pending notification of members of Congress and the soldier’s family, says his name, age and hometown on the video, which was released Saturday on a Web site pointed out by the Taliban. Two U.S. defense officials confirmed to The Associated Press that the man in the video is the captured soldier.

The soldier said the date is July 14. He says he was captured when he lagged behind on a patrol.

He is interviewed in English by his captors, and he is asked his views on the war (extremely hard), Islam ( wants to learn more it) and the morale of American soldiers (which he said was low.)

Asked how he was doing, the soldier said:

“Well I’m scared, scared I won’t be able to go home,” he said on the video. “It is very unnerving to be a prisoner.”

It is unclear from the video whether the July 14 date is authentic. The soldier says that he heard that a Chinook helicopter carrying 37 NATO troops had been shot down over Helmand. A helicopter was shot down in southern Afghanistan on July 14, but it was carrying civilians on a reported humanitarian mission for NATO forces. All six Ukrainian passengers died in the crash, and a child on the ground was killed.

On July 2, the U.S. military said an American soldier had disappeared after walking off his base in eastern Afghanistan with three (Afghan counterparts and was believed to have been taken prisoner. No further details were released.

A U.S. defense official said the soldier was noticed missing during a routine check of the unit on June 30 and was first listed as “duty status whereabouts unknown.” The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Details of such incidents are routinely held very tightly by the military as it works to retrieve a missing or captured soldier without giving away any information to captors.

But Afghan Police Gen. Nabi Mullakheil said the soldier went missing in eastern Paktika province near the border with Pakistan from an American base. The region is known to be Taliban-infested.

The most important insurgent group operating in that area is known as Haqqani network and is led by warlord Siraj Haqqani, whom the U.S. has accused of masterminding beheadings and suicide bombings including the July 2008 attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul that killed some 60 people. The Haqqani group also was linked to an assassination attempt on Afghan president Hamid Karzai early last year.

On Saturday, a U.S. military official in Kabul, Col. Greg Julian, said the U.S. was “still doing everything we can to return him safely.”

Julian said U.S. troops had distributed two flyers in the area where the soldier disappeared. One of them asked for information on the missing soldier and offered a $25,000 reward for his return. The other said “please return our soldier safely” or “we will hunt you,” according to Julian.

A number of civilians have been abducted in Afghanistan including aid workers and journalists, both foreigners and Afghans.

But the only other service member that officials could recall who had been captured was Petty Officer 1st Class Neil C. Roberts, a 32-year-old Navy SEAL. Roberts fell from a Chinook and was captured and killed by al-Qaida in March 2002. Later, a second helicopter returned under fire and dropped troops near where Roberts fell. Six more Americans died in the fighting.

___

DEBKAfile Special Report

July 18, 2009, 11:18 AM (GMT+02:00)

Kavir Lut: Iranian desert site for coming A-test

DEBKAfile‘s military sources reveal that Iran is in the last stages of construction of a nuclear test site in the Kavir Lut desert between Tehran and its eastern border with Afghanistan. The work is managed by the Iranian experts invited to attend North Korea’s nuclear test this year. (DEBKAfile reported June 27 that Iran has opened the way for a nuclear test.)

Two of the diplomats attached to the UN nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna confirmed to the Associated Press Saturday July 18 that Iran now has the means to test a weapon within six months. One said more specifically: “Iran has the capacity, if not the intention, to set off a test explosion in six months.”

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the two diplomats emphasized there were no indications of plans for a nuclear test and in their opinion Iran is unlikely to risk heightened confrontation with the West and chances of an Israeli attack with such a course.

For the last six months, DEBKAfile‘s intelligence sources have all stressed that this supposition is wishful thinking having confirmed that Iran is squarely on the fast track for an N-test. Once preparations are complete, its leaders will not hesitate to conduct one, following the North Korean model.

And indeed the two diplomats in Vienna admitted the Iranians were blocking UN nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring resources.

As recently as July 9, DEBKAfile‘s military sources reported: “The US, Europe – and even the Binyamin Netanyahu government – appear to have adopted the same strategy for North Korea and Iran. It is a combination of harsh oral rebukes coupled with a refusal to address North Korea’s violations and Iran’s race for a nuclear bomb in any practical way, even though sanctions are clearly of no effect at all.

A blind eye is equally turned to the close collaboration between Pyongyang and Tehran on their missile and nuclear development programs. The two rogue states are also clearly in tune on their nuclear diplomacy and timetables.

According to DEBKAfile‘s intelligence sources, North Korea shared the results of its latest missile launches with Iran, exactly as it did after its nuclear and ballistic tests. But neither Washington nor Jerusalem has raised a hand. Both nuclear transgressors are getting away with the gross, ongoing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and making a mockery of international law and UN resolutions.”

Therefore, the diplomat’s estimate Saturday that the Iranians will not risk confrontation with the West or chance an Israeli attack is completely unfounded, as are the theories that the Iranian leadership is in too shaky a position at home to go forward with a nuclear test. As soon as the test site is ready, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not be deterred from taking the nuclear plunge by the unrest at home, any more than grave illness has stopped Kim Jong-II flouting international prohibitions.

Still, the US and Europe will not fall out of their chairs because they have given the ayatollahs all the time they needed to attain a nuclear weapon.

By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) – Diplomats say Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic activities and now has the means to test a weapon within six months.
The diplomats emphasize there are no indications of plans for such a nuclear test. They told the AP Friday it was unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West—and chances of Israeli attack—with such a course.

But one said Iran has the capacity, if not the intention, to set off a test explosion in six months. And he and a colleague said Tehran is resisting International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to increase surveillance of its uranium enrichment site meant to keep pace with the plant’s increased operations.

Both demanded anonymity for revealing confidential information.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Tens of thousands of government opponents packed Iran’s main Islamic prayer service Friday, chanting “freedom, freedom” and other slogans as their top clerical backer Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani delivered a sermon bluntly criticizing the country’s leadership over the crackdown on election protests.
Outside, police and pro-government Basiji militiamen fired tear gas and charged thousands of protesters who chanted “death to the dictator” and called on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to resign. Dozens were arrested, piled in trucks and taken away, witnesses said.

Plainclothes Basijis stood in front of a line of riot police and pumped canisters of tear gas, which young protesters with green bandanas over their faces kicked away across the pavement, away from the crowds. Some set a bonfire in the street and waved their hands in the air in victory signs.

The opposition aimed to turn the Friday prayers at Tehran University into a show of their continued strength despite heavy government suppression since the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims to have won the election, sat in the front row of worshippers, attending for the first time since the turmoil began. Many of the tens of thousands at the prayers wore headbands or wristbands in his campaign color green, or had green prayer rugs.

In his sermon broadcast live on radio nationwide, Rafsanjani reprimanded the clerical leadership for not listening to people’s complaints over the election, which was declared a victory for Ahmadinejad despite opposition claims of fraud.

“Doubt has been created (about the election results),” Rafsanjani said. “There is a large portion of the wise people who say they have doubts. We need to take action to remove this doubt.”

Rafsanjani couched his sermon in calls for unity in support of Iran’s Islamic Republic. But his sermon was an unmistakable challenge to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared Ahmadinejad’s victory valid and ordered an end to questioning of the results. Rafsanjani said the dispute has split clerics and warned of “crisis.”

Worshippers interrupted Rafsanjani with chants of “azadi, azadi”—Persian for “freedom”—and the cleric got tears in his eyes as he spoke of how Islam’s Prophet Muhammad “respected the rights” of his people. Rafsanjani said the leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, “knew that people’s vote was the most important thing in our country” and insisted it be enshrined in the founding of the Islamic Republic.

“Where people are not present or their vote is not considered, that government is not Islamic,” Rafsanjani said.

He criticized the postelection wave of arrests, saying the leadership should show sympathy for protesters and release those detained. “Sympathy must be offered to those who suffered from the events… and reconcile them with the ruling system,” he said. “We need to placate them.”

Rafsanjani, a former president, regularly gives the Friday sermon but had not appeared since the election turmoil began. He is bitter rival of Ahmadinejad and is considered Mousavi’s top supporter within Iran’s clerical leadership, heading two of the three main clerical bodies that oversee the government. His daughter and four other relatives who openly backed Mousavi were briefly detained during protests last month.

In the days after the June election, hundreds of thousands marched in the streets in support of Mousavi. But after Khamenei validated the results, police, elite Republican Guards and Basiji militiamen launched a fierce crackdown on protesters in which hundreds were arrested and at least 20 killed—though human rights groups say the figure could be several times that official toll.

The scene outside the university on Friday was tumultuous. Before the sermon, police fired tear gas at hundreds of Mousavi backers trying to enter. When Mahdi Karroubi, another pro-reform candidate in the June election, headed for the prayers, plainclothes Basijis attacked him, shoving him and knocking his turban to the ground, witnesses said. “Death to the opponent of Velayat-e-Faqih,” they chanted as they attacked him, referring to the supreme leader, the witnesses said.

Also arrested was a prominent women’s rights activist, Shadi Sadr, who was beaten by militiamen, pushed into a car and driven away to an unknown location, Mousavi’s Web site http://www.mowjcamp.com and a women’s rights site http://www.meydaan.com said.

Inside the prayers—held on a former soccer field covered with a roof—some worshippers rubbed their eyes as tear gas from outside drifted in. They traded competing chants with some hard-liners in the congregation. When the hard-liners chanted “death to America,” Mousavi supporters countered with “death to Russia” and “death to China.”

It was a reference to Ahmadinejad’s alliance with both countries. Ahmadinejad has come under criticism in Iran for not criticizing Beijing over Muslim deaths in China’s western Xinjiang province.

After the prayers, some worshippers joined the protests outside, swelling their numbers to thousands, witnesses said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fears of government retaliation.

In his sermon, Rafsanjani—known as a mercurial and savvy political insider—was careful not to mention Khamenei. But he sharply criticized the Guardians Council, a powerful clerical body that has become Khamenei and Ahmadinejad’s strongest backers. The Guardians Council oversaw the election, then conducted a partial recount that validated Ahmadinejad’s victory. Opponents dismiss the recount.

Rafsanjani said the Guardians Council had had an “opportunity to unite the people and regain their trust,” but the chance was “not used properly.”

Rafsanjani heads two other top clerical bodies, the Experts Council and the Expediency Council. In the past week, a behind-the-scenes power struggle between Rafsanjani and the Guardians Council has become public, fueling heavy hard-liner criticism of Rafsanjani.

Rafsanjani also openly spoke of the split among clerics over the election. Many other prominent clerics have been sharply critical of the government or have failed to announce their backing for Ahmadinejad, including most of the country’s “maraje’-e-taghlid,” or “sources of emulation,” Shiite clerics of the highest rank whose religious rulings are closely obeyed by their many followers.

“The maraje’-e-taghlid have always supported and served (the people). Why some of them are offended?” Rafsanjani said. “We need to keep them beside us. We need to support them and rely on them.”

By Our Foreign Staff
Published: 2:20PM BST 16 Jul 2009

Israeli and Egyptian officials said two ships had sailed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea.
Media reports in Israel said the two Saar-class missile ships had been sent as a “message” to the Tehran government, which has repeatedly issued threats against Israel and is developing nuclear technology believed by the West to be intended for atomic weapons programme.

While Iran denies this, saying its enrichment of uranium is for civlian purposes only, so that it can generate electricity.
Israel has also deployed a submarine using the Suez Canal, but it has since returned to the Mediterranean.
Defence experts in Israel said this week that the naval activity had been publicised with the intent of sending a message to Iran.
The Israeli government has reserved the right to carry out a first strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if the country continues to defy the international community and spreads instability in the Middle East.
Israel also accuses Iran of sponsoring the Hizbollah movement in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

 Israeli and American military have worked closely together for decades.  Here’s another instance of their close cooperation, despite the repeated refusal of the Obameister and his administration to do the same.  The true test will come very soon as the Israeli-Iranian showdown ensues.  Will the stubborn admin stay on the sidelines and consequently force the American military to reluctantly stand down? 

The Washington Times

July 16, 2009

By Nicholas Kralev

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday offered reconciliation and a chance to reintegrate into Afghan society to any Taliban members who quit fighting and renounce al Qaeda ahead of presidential elections next month.

Although the Bush administration tried to reach out to some Taliban elements at the end of its term, Mrs. Clinton’s call was more forceful. It was timed to encourage maximum participation in the Aug. 20 vote, which the United States hopes will produce a government more willing and able to fight corruption and improve Afghans’ lives.

“We understand that not all those who fight with the Taliban support al Qaeda, or believe in the extremist policies the Taliban pursued when in power,” the secretary said in a major foreign policy speech before the Council on Foreign Relations.

“Today, we and our Afghan allies stand ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces al Qaeda, lays down their arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the Afghan Constitution,” she said.

Analysts and other U.S. officials said Mrs. Clinton was trying to create divisions within the Taliban movement to determine whether it’s possible to separate “good” Taliban – such as young people who fight for money, not ideology – from irreconcilables.

“She deliberately, explicitly and consciously emphasized both our commitment [to Afghanistan] and the fact that the door is open for people who want to reintegrate into Afghan society,” Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told The Washington Times after Mrs. Clinton’s speech. “It was a very intentional remark.”

The speech was also a kind of coming-out for Mrs. Clinton, who has largely deferred during the past six months to President Obama – her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination – in publicizing U.S. foreign policy.

She sketched out in the speech priorities for her term as secretary, from reversing the spread of nuclear weapons to defeating terrorists, reaching out to Muslims, pursuing Middle East peace, advancing global economic recovery, countering climate change and promoting democracy and human rights.

On nonproliferation, Mrs. Clinton warned Iran that time is running out for the Islamic republic to enter talks with the United States and other world powers aimed at preventing it from building a nuclear weapon.
“We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely,” she said.

Mr. Obama – who sent a letter in May to Iran’s supreme leader that has received no apparent response – has indicated he will review his engagement strategy in September when world leaders gather at the United Nations and again at the end of this year.

“Neither the president nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election,” she added, referring to mass protests in Iran after a disputed presidential election.

“But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.”

The U.N. Security Council has imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran in the past two years in an attempt to persuade the country to suspend enrichment of uranium, which can be used for civilian or military use. Iran insists its program is only for producing energy.

“We know how far its nuclear program has advanced and we know that refusing to deal with the Islamic republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran’s treatment of its citizens,” the secretary added.

In her speech, Mrs. Clinton, who leaves on a trip to India and Thailand Thursday, also derided some of the Bush administration’s approaches in foreign policy.

“We will not tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that they are either with us or against us,” she said. “In today’s world, that’s global malpractice.”

Mrs. Clinton, who said she plans to visit Pakistan in the fall, said the administration’s goal in that region remains “to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either” Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Americans often ask, why do we ask our young men and women to risk their lives in Afghanistan when al Qaeda’s leadership is in neighboring Pakistan? And that question deserves a good answer,” she said. “We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al Qaeda and depends on it for support, sometimes coordinating activities. In other words, to eliminate al Qaeda, we must also fight the Taliban.”

Thomas Donnelly, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that U.S. troops on the ground may be more successful in changing Taliban members’ minds than a speech in Washington.

“So much of what turns people has to do with local considerations and what’s in their self-interest. An average local leader of 100 men will be affected [by] things in his world and what he thinks the local balance of power is,” Mr. Donnelly said.

c Barbara Slavin contributed to this report.

KABUL – July is shaping up as the deadliest month of the Afghan war for U.S.-led international forces, with the number killed already matching the highest full-month toll of the nearly eight-year conflict, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.
As of Wednesday, at least 46 international troops, including 24 Americans, had been killed in Afghanistan this month, according to statements by the U.S. military and the NATO command. That matches the tolls for the two previous deadliest months — June and August of 2008.
The rate of deaths in July — about three a day — is approaching some of the highest levels of the Iraq war.
The latest reported deaths occurred Tuesday. They include an American soldier who was killed by a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan and two Turks, including a colonel, who died in a traffic accident in the north of the country.
In addition, six Ukrainian civilians and a 6-year-old Afghan were killed Tuesday when an Mi-6 transport helicopter crashed in southern Afghanistan. The helicopter’s owners in the former Soviet republic of Modova said the helicopter was shot down, and the Taliban claimed responsibility.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell acknowledged that the U.S. has lost troops “at an alarming rate this month.”
He told reporters that July has been “an extraordinarily difficult month for all of us who are so heavily invested in trying to better the situation in Afghanistan.”
U.S. commanders have been expecting higher casualties since President Barack Obama ordered 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year to curb a resurgent Taliban that threatens not only the U.S.-backed Kabul government but also Afghanistan’s nuclear-armed neighbor, Pakistan.
There are about 57,000 U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, and the number is expected to rise to at least 68,000 by the end of 2009.
Obama’s decision has effectively shifted the focus on the global war against Islamic extremism from Iraq, where the United States still maintains about 130,000 troops. Only two U.S. service members have died in Iraq this month — both from non-hostile causes, according to the Pentagon.
With the increase in troops heading for Afghanistan, the U.S. has stepped up the tempo of combat operations. About 4,000 U.S. Marines this month launched their biggest offensive since 2001 to break the Taliban stranglehold on the southern province of Helmand, the center of the country’s opium poppy cultivation and a major insurgent smuggling route from Pakistan.
British forces, meanwhile, have been locked in fierce combat with Taliban fighters in another part of Helmand. Britain’s 9,000-strong military force has lost 15 soldiers this month — including eight in a 24-hour period. Those deaths have prompted national debate in Britain over whether the Afghan conflict is winnable.
For their part, the Taliban have increased their attacks, including deadly roadside or suicide bombings that rose by 25 percent in the first four months of 2009 over the same period last year. The U.S. command expects bombings to rise 50 percent this year to 5,700 — up from 3,800 last year.
Other deaths this month among international forces include four Canadian soldiers and one Italian paratrooper.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this week that international troops in Afghanistan face a difficult summer of intense fighting. He has long called on other NATO allies, and European nations, to play a larger role in combat operations in Afghanistan and insisted that the Afghan army should provide larger numbers of soldiers.
The Afghan government provided only about 650 soldiers and police to join the ongoing Marine offensive in Helmand.
During a visit to Helmand on Wednesday, the outgoing chief of the British army, Gen. Richard Dannatt, said the international mission needs more soldiers to control territory won from the Taliban to give Afghans more confidence in security and wean them away from the Taliban.
“I have said before, we can have effect where we have boots on the ground. I don’t mind whether the feet in those boots are British, American or Afghan. But we need more, to have the persistent effect to give the people confidence in us,” Dannatt told BBC radio from the British base in the Helmand town of Sangin. “That is the top line and the bottom line.”
The U.S. is sending thousands more soldiers to train Afghanistan’s police and army.
Obama said Tuesday that he hopes military operations in Afghanistan can move to a different phase after the Afghan presidential election set for Aug. 20. Obama said he is looking for an exit strategy in which the Afghan army, police, courts and government take more responsibility for the country’s security.
During last year’s election campaign, Obama accused President George W. Bush of diverting U.S. resources from the war in Afghanistan, where al-Qaida’s leadership planned the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, to what he termed an unnecessary war to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
___
Associated Press Writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report from Washington.

REUTERS

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama’s nuclear adviser suggested that progress on a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms pact could help persuade Moscow to be more cooperative on Iran.

“There are no reasons to link these issues or count on Russia being more cooperative in toughening sanctions against Iran if there is progress in talks with the United States on further cuts in strategic offensive weapons,” the source said.

Russia is negotiating a new nuclear arms cuts deal with the United States to replace the 1991 START-1 pact, which expires in December. It is also involved in international efforts to persuade Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

The sharp tone of the Russian comments contrasted with the positive mood that dominated last week during Obama’s visit to Moscow aimed at “resetting” thorny bilateral ties.

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev committed themselves during the talks to working on the new START pact despite outstanding disagreements over U.S. plans to deploy elements of an anti-missile system in Europe.

Obama has said that the European elements of the missile shield will not be needed if Iran halts what the West argues is a military program to create its own nuclear bomb.

Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has been reluctant to allow strong sanctions against Iran and has praised Obama for promising to pursue direct dialogue with Iranian leaders.

Obama’s special assistant for arms control, Gary Samore, made his comments about the potential for a change in Russia’s stance at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies last week.

“If we make concessions on strategic nuclear issues the Russians are much more willing to be cooperative when it comes to Iran,” Samore told experts.

A Kremlin source told Reuters that the exchange of remarks over START and Iran did not indicate any change in the overall atmosphere of Russia-U.S. contacts.

“It was nothing more than an exchange of remarks over a specific suggestion,” the source said.

 So is this the brilliant strategy of the Obama administration- out of the frying pan in Iraq and into the oven in Afghanistan?

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

July 13, 2009

By ANAND GOPAL in Kabul, MATTHEW ROSENBERG in New Delhi and ALISTAIR MACDONALD in London

A series of attacks in Afghanistan has left four U.S. Marines and eight British soldiers dead in recent days, stoking concern among U.S. and allied forces over a surge in battlefield deaths, as thousands of troops pour into the country.

 

Getty ImagesU.S. Marines with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade cross a river during a weekend patrol in Mian Poshteh, Afghanistan. The Marines are part of Operation Khanjari, launched to take areas in Helmand province used by Taliban fighters, and to help prepare for Afghan’s presidential elections.

 

The mounting deaths have contributed to harsh criticism of the war in a handful of NATO countries that have lost soldiers in recent months, including Canada, Germany and France. It has been an especially divisive issue in Britain, which has lost 15 soldiers in the past 11 days, including the eight killed Friday. Those deaths have brought Britain’s total losses to 184, a tally that now exceeds the 179 British military personnel killed in Iraq.

So far this year, 192 foreign soldiers have been killed, including 103 Americans — a 40% jump from the same period last year, and a 75% increase from 2007, say U.S. military officials. That figure doesn’t include the latest U.S. casualties.

The Military Toll in Afghanistan

Deaths of U.S., allied troops there since 2001.

• More photos and interactive graphics

“There are more troops operating in more areas where [the] enemy is located compared to last year,” said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Clarence Counts Jr., a spokesman at Bagram Air Field, the main American military base in Afghanistan.

Since the start of July, the death toll for U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops has been comparable to casualty levels in Iraq during the height of violence there, averaging roughly 3.5 a day, according to the Web site icasualties.org, which monitors military deaths in both countries. British forces have suffered more casualties than any country except the U.S.

More

• U.K. Defends Afghan Role After Deaths

The latest deaths came Sunday when four Marines were killed in two separate roadside-bomb blasts in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, said U.S. Army Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a spokeswoman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. She couldn’t provide additional details on how the men died, but thousands of American Marines are in the middle of a massive operation to dislodge Taliban insurgents in Helmand.

Eight British soldiers were killed in Helmand in four separate attacks over a 24-hour period that ended Friday. Five of the British soldiers were killed Friday afternoon when twin bomb blasts hit their foot patrol, according to Britain’s defense ministry.

Hours earlier, an explosion killed another soldier on a foot patrol; one soldier succumbed to wounds suffered in a firefight with insurgents near the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah; and another died when his vehicle hit a roadside bomb.

Two days earlier, seven American soldiers were killed in a single day in separate attacks across the country. Six were in vehicles that hit roadside bombs, while the other was killed in a gunbattle.

The number of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has increased by about 50% since 2007, as has the number killed, officials say. They warn the trend most likely will continue as more troops arrive before the Aug. 20 presidential elections.

In the U.K. in recent days, a host of opposition politicians, retired military officers and media commentators have questioned Britain’s eight-year-long presence in Afghanistan. They say that there is no strategic end game and that British forces are underequipped for the role with, for instance, little helicopter cover.

Nick Clegg, the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat party, said that troops’ lives in Afghanistan were being “thrown away.” Critics have also questioned whether it is wise for the cash-strapped British government — which is spending £3 billion ($4.9 billion) on its Afghan campaign this year — to be pouring money into the conflict when it needs to make budget cuts at home. Britain, with 9,000 troops, has the second-largest contingent in Afghanistan after the U.S.

The government has countered such criticism by arguing that Britain’s security depends on helping Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda. British intelligence estimates that three-quarters of the serious terrorist threats faced by the U.K. come from the mountains that straddle Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban’s heartland.

In a six-page letter to members of Parliament, Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently said the strategy in Afghanistan was to provide security for the coming elections and work on building a stable government that could effectively counter the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The insurgency, meanwhile, has grown in strength and deadliness, and its increasing reliance on roadside bombs is a major concern for U.S. and NATO commanders. The bombs are buried in ditches and culverts, making them hard for forces operating in Afghanistan’s rugged terrain to detect. They are responsible for the majority of casualties.

“We expect to see a 50% increase in such attacks this year,” said U.S. Army Col. Jeffrey Jarkowsky, commander of Task Force Paladin, an Afghanistan-based unit that works to counter the bombs.

DEBKA

July 13, 2009

Iran is slowing down the manufacture of the Shehab-3 surface missile in favor of mass production of the more accurate two-stage 2,000-kilometer range Sejil II ballistic missile powered with solid fuel, DEBKAfile‘s military and Iranian sources report.

More than 1,000 new Sejil IIs are projected to come off production lines in five years, at the rate of 200 a year.

Western sources say the Iranians are over-ambitious and can deliver no more than 10-15 missiles a year at present, although with a huge multi-billion dollar investment they might raise output to 30.

Liquid-fuel missiles like the Shehab take hours to prepare for firing, during which time they are exposed to oversight by US and Israel spy satellites, whereas the Sejil because it is powered by solid fuel has the huge advantage of stealth. It can only be detected by military satellites and early warning radar systems like the American FBX-T posted in the Israeli Negev after it is airborne and winging towards target.

Iran has also recruited Chinese missile experts to assist in the production of mobile launchers for the Sejil II. The combination of the solid-fuel Sejil mounted on mobile vehicles will give an Iranian missile attack the advantage of surprise, because of the difficulty of tracking and targeting them from space or the air.

DEBKAfile‘s military sources add that Iran is going all out to fill its arsenal with Sejil II missiles for outwitting Israel’s Arrow interceptors if and when they attack Israel. Western missile experts calculate that if Iran lets loose against Israel a simultaneous barrage of dozens of Shehab-3 and a handful of Sejil II, the Arrow will only intercept some of them; the rest will reach their targets.

Iran’s arms industry is driving forward at top speed to attain this capability. Israel has entered the arms race by stepping up production of the Arrow anti-missile systems.

At some point, Israel strategists had hoped the surge of unrest in Tehran sparked by the disputed June 12 presidential election would result in the regime pulling funds out of nuclear and missile industries and investing in projects for improving the lives of the disaffected populace. But the challenge to its authority has had the opposite effect. The Islamic rulers have opted for speeding up weapons production and maximizing their tools of war rather than home benefits.

July 13, 2009

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has life-threatening pancreatic cancer, a news report said Monday, days after new images of him looking gaunt spurred speculation that his health might be worsening following a reported stroke last year.

The 67-year-old Kim was diagnosed with the cancer around the time he was felled by a stroke last summer, Seoul’s YTN television reported, citing unidentified intelligence officials in South Korea and China.

The report cited the officials saying the disease is “threatening” Kim’s life.

Pancreatic cancer is usually found in its final stage, and considering Kim’s age, he is expected to live no more than five years, the report said.

South Korea’s spy agency said it could not confirm the report. Unification Ministry spokesman Chun Hae-sung told reporters he knows of nothing of the report.

Kim’s health is a focus of intense media speculation due to concerns about instability and a power struggle if he were to die without naming a successor. His third and youngest son, Kim Jong Un, has widely been reported as being groomed as heir, but the regime has made no announcement to the outside world.

Monday’s report came after Kim last week made a rare public appearance, in an annual memorial for his late father and North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung.

Television footage showed him markedly thinner and with less hair — only the second state event he has attended in person since the reported stroke. He also limped slightly, and the sides of his tightlipped mouth looked imbalanced in what were believed to be the effects of a stroke.

The images touched off speculation that he could have other health problems.

South Korea’s spy agency has long suspected that Kim has diabetes and heart disease.

Medical doctor and professor Min Yang-ki of Seoul’s Hallym University Medical Center has said diabetes usually leads to weight loss. The neurologist also said Kim’s limping appears to be a result of a stroke. However, he said, overall it appeared Kim has recovered from that reported illness.

Kim walked on his own into a Pyongyang auditorium for last week’s memorial at a normal pace and bowed while standing during a moment of silence.

North Korea experts said the latest images of Kim show he is still fit enough to rule.

The totalitarian leader, whose rule is buttressed by an intense cult of personality, knew that the people of North Korea would pay great attention to the memorial, and his appearance there is a message that he is in charge, Yang Moo-jin, a professor at Seoul’s University of North Korean Studies, said last week.

Kim Jong Il took over North Korea after his father died in 1994 of heart failure at age 82, though he did not take on his father’s title of president. He runs the North from his post as chairman of the National Defense Commission.

In early April, he presided over a parliamentary meeting where he was re-elected as leader.

The South’s spy agency believes that Kim’s 26-year-old youngest son, Jong Un, is sure to inherit North Korea, Seoul’s Chosun Ilbo daily reported Monday, citing a recent report to the National Assembly by the National Intelligence Service.

The agency also reported that Kim Jong Il is expected to officially designate the son as his successor in 2012, the centennial anniversary of late national founder Kim Il Sung’s birth, the paper said.

But the regime under the son is expected to be unstable and vulnerable to internal political strife as Kim Jong Il’s brother-in-law, Jang Song Thaek, could attempt to snatch power, the paper said.

The spy agency declined to confirm the report.

July 11, 2009

By Caroline Copley

BERLIN (Reuters) – Wannabe Latin lovers can improve their technique by playing with the erogenous zones of naked mannequins at a new interactive exhibition that has now opened in Berlin.

The “Amora sex academy” that opened in Berlin on Thursday welcomes visitors with the wry slogan, “Finally — an exhibition for those who always have to touch everything.”

More than 50 interactive displays guide visitors through the intimate areas of the male and female bodies, offering helpful tips on everything from striptease to oral sex and how to achieve a perfect orgasm.

“A lot of couples come in here together to learn something,” said Uta Barkow, the manager of the Beate Uhse sex chain which is hosting the academy. “It’s been very well received so far. A lot of exhibits have that ‘aha’ effect on a lot of people.”

The show features several life-sized plastic models, naked and in various positions. One female mannequin light ups when touched in the right spot. A voice shrieks “That’s it!” when the visitor manages to put his finger on the elusive G-spot.

Next to it is what the museum called its “Spank-o-meter.” It measures the level of pleasure a mannequin receives when spanked with a leather whip.

“So far we’ve had just as many women in here as men,” Barkow said. “Women coming in tend to have fewer inhibitions while the men tend to be a bit more embarassed.”

The museum also shows film clips of various sexual positions, including the “Italian chandelier” that the viewer learns can burn up to 920 calories per hour.

Founded by Frenchman Johan Rizki, the sex academy opened in London earlier this year and is also due to come to Barcelona.

(Editing by Paul Casciato)

By Alastair Crooke

July 12, 2009

Writing From Beirut — The troubles that have followed the Iranian presidential elections have been generally misread by the Western media and policymakers. What we are witnessing is not a frustrated East European-style “color revolution”; nor is presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s movement an uprising of liberal, Westernized sympathizers against the principles of the Iranian Revolution — although there are surely some who are hostile to the revolution among his supporters.

Rather, what we have been seeing is a power struggle — between factions of the “Old Guard” clergy who all initially assumed power in 1979 — that erupted into public view in the recent presidential election campaign. As that dispute is settled over the coming months, we can expect big changes in the top ranks of the power elite. But the revolution is not about to implode.

The essential dispute centers around prominent clerics — mainly former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — who have sought to weaken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ability to pursue his populist attack on their privileged position. These clerics also have sought to diminish the political weight of the Revolutionary Guard, which they see as increasingly at odds with their interests.

This faction of the elite is deeply threatened by Ahmadinejad’s assault on their personal wealth, and by his claims that it was these senior clerics’ pursuit of their own narrow self-interest, at the expense of ordinary people, that is the root cause of Iran’s economic woes.

It was this group of powerful clerics that stood behind the Mousavi challenge to Ahmadinejad. It was Khatami who was designated by this faction to propose to Mousavi that he stand for election; it was Khatami who initially offered the opposition leader the umbrella of their powerful political standing at the center of Iran’s elite.

Thanks in no small part to this blessing, Mousavi and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, could credibly campaign on the platform of their revolutionary credentials: They were “children of the revolution”; they both participated in it, were shaped by it; and they remained disciples of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Their quarrel, they made clear, was with Ahmadinejad and his conduct of government.

Mousavi’s casting of his mission as one of restoring the revolution to its original ideals was not only an internal message; it was also replayed widely in the Arab media. But the West seemed to be hearing and hoping for something else: that he was challenging the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and would seek to flout the institutions of the revolution. In other words, that he was seeking to ignite a “color revolution” — such as Ukraine’s Orange Revolution — to change the system.

The extent to which Mousavi intended to send this signal and benefit by leveraging Western support is unclear. But that perception has opened Mousavi and his prominent backers to the risk of severe repercussions internally in the wake of the postelection turmoil.

Indeed, it is on the basis of such allegations that Hossein Shariatmadari, the influential editor of the conservative Kayhan newspaper, has called for both Mousavi and Khatami to face trial for “frightful crimes and overt acts of treason.”

Paradoxically, the Western understanding that Ahmadinejad is a tool of the clerical leadership who stands with the repressive Revolutionary Guard and Basij (the popular militia) against reform could not be more wrong. It was Ahmadinejad who campaigned against the wealth and self-interest of some of the clerical elite. Mousavi was more closely allied to those interests.

The West should also understand that there are clerics in both Qom and Tehran, some of whom despise Ahmadinejad, who nonetheless share his view that some senior clerics have failed to actualize the spirit of the revolution in their lifestyles. The Revolutionary Guard too is probably much more radical in wanting genuine reform than is generally understood.

What we are dealing with is a complex struggle over the future course of the revolution. It is a struggle for the future vision of Iran that is overlaid by deep personality differences that in turn arouse deep passions.

For now, it is clear that a powerful determination has emerged in the wake of the election to exorcise the Rafsanjani-Khatami circles from the establishment, fueled by a growing popular anger as the evidence of their external links to the West is being carefully examined. Rafsanjani, who is well aware of the dangers of becoming isolated and excluded from the circles of power, is now walking a tightrope.

On July 4, he was quoted as saying that the election crisis reflected a power struggle at the “highest levels of the system.” In a carefully worded statement, he warned that any “awakened consciousness” could not be ignored, but he also spoke of the need to safeguard revolutionary institutions. Though one step removed, his Kargozaran party has gone further, calling the election results “unacceptable” as a result of “massive election fraud.”

The impact of these recent events on Iranian foreign policy is likely to be the opposite of what Western commentators have foreseen. It is not likely that the Revolutionary Guard, which is under the control of Khamenei, will be paralyzed, but rather the reverse.

In many respects, the regional situation works to Iran’s advantage: Iraq remains at a crucial juncture; Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to be on the slide; Turkey has distanced itself from the European stance on the elections; and China has never before expressed such staunch solidarity with the Iranian regime. Neither Syria nor Hezbollah nor Hamas are poised to disengage with Iran. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem questioned the legitimacy of the street protests in Tehran and warned: “Anyone betting on the fall of the Iranian regime will be a loser. The Islamic Revolution is a reality, deeply rooted in Iran, and the international community must live with that.”

As for Iran’s relations with the West, Ahmadinejad left hardly anything to interpretation when he stated at the end of June: “Without doubt, Iran’s new government will have a more decisive and firmer approach toward the West. This time, the Iranian nation’s reply will be harsh and more decisive.”

Similarly, Khamenei has made it clear that Iran will not easily forget the disparagement and condescension displayed toward the Islamic Republic in recent weeks. From the perspective of many in Iran, a “red line” was crossed as Western leaders seemed to be trying to fan the dissent of Mousavi’s supporters into an instrument to delegitimize the revolution and execute “soft regime change.”

Despite such hopes in the West, however, an end to the revolution is not in sight. More likely is a counter-reaction that will lead to the isolation of Mousavi and his associates as popular forces allied with Ahmadinejad seek to inject new stimulus into the revolution by cleansing it of the corrupted elements of its Old Guard.

——–

Alastair Crooke, a former British intelligence agent, was advisor to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Middle East issues from 1997 to 2003. He also advised the Mitchell commission looking into the causes of the Palestinian intifada and has been involved in negotiating with Hamas and other Islamist movements. He heads the Conflicts Forum in Beirut.

OK, so the Obameister wants to jump out of the frying pan and into the oven, right?  Good thinking!

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis

July 11, 2009

The approximately 60,000 NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan are unable to achieve the goals of the war – even with the additional 21,000 US combat troops promised this year and “the big jump in the size of Afghan security forces” demanded by the new US commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

DEBKAfile‘s military analysts see no real corroboration for the UK Chief of Defense Staff Sir Jock Stirrup’s assertion that the Taliban is “losing” in Afghanistan and “real governance” is emerging in Afghanistan.

He spoke Saturday, July 11 after the deaths of eight British troops in 24 hours in the embattled South Afghan province of Helmand, which the British death toll in 10 days to 15 and 184 in the nine-year war.

The 3,000 British troops were hit devastatingly in the third week of their Operation Panther’s Claw, launched to clear central Helmand of Taleban insurgents before Afghanistan’s August elections. A total 9,000 UK troops are deployed in the country.

The main thrust of the effort, the large-scale Operation Khanjar or Strike of the Sword, was mounted on July 2 by 4,000 US marines and 650 Afghan troops in the southern part of the province bordering on Pakistan.

July already threatens to become one of the bloodiest months of the war, with seven US troops killed Monday, July 6, and another five NATO soldiers in southern Afghanistan Friday, July 10.

Most of the losses were caused by powerful roadside bombs (IEDs) and some suicide attacks.

The two combined operations are not expected by most military observers to meet expectations in Washington and London for altering the course of the nine-year old war. In fact, the situation is expected to deteriorate further. Taliban spies in the local population have identified the smaller British force as the weaker link and are pounding it ruthlessly, so as to bring the American units to the rescue and slow their advance in the south.

The Taliban have the advantage of not being dependent on outside supplies of food, water or ammo, like the NATO forces; they have buried numerous secret bases hidden in the local villages where they go to ground to strike at approaching American or British units by stealth. When pressed, they melt into the population and become invisible.

In a typical instance last week, when US marines trapped Taliban fighters in a residential compound and persuaded them to let the women and children leave, they discovered too late that some of the “women” were insurgents hidden under burqas.

The Taliban can also call on their ties with local drug lords in nearby Pakistan for fresh fighting strength, cash, weapons and ammo.

The American commanders of Strike of the Sword are under orders to capture and “to hold” territory in Helmand and strike up friendly relations with the local population. But no one in Helmand, Kabul or even Washington can tell how long US forces must – or can – hold onto these areas in order to win them away from the Taliban. Can they hang on in combat situations for two or three years?

This predicament applies to other Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan – especially the east and south, where they are mounting successful attacks against the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Afghan government. In the last three years they have regained lost terrain in key provinces such as Wardak near the capital Kabul and are close to retaking the southern town of Musa Qala.

The only silver lining in the Afghan war cloud for now is that the Taliban cannot hope to recover the whole of Afghanistan in view of its many tribal enemies at home.

Ooops, Mr. President, guess you really blew it!  Nothing like backing the wrong horse in international affairs.  Guess you “misread” this one, too, just like the economy…

Under the country’s Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal.

By Miguel A. Estrada

July 10, 2009

Honduras, the tiny Central American nation, had a change of leaders on June 28. The country’s military arrested President Manuel Zelaya — in his pajamas, he says — and put him on a plane bound for Costa Rica. A new president, Roberto Micheletti, was appointed. Led by Cuba and Venezuela (Sudan and North Korea were not immediately available), the international community swiftly condemned this “coup.”

Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras — but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya’s arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya’s home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country’s attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court’s website. They make for interesting reading.

What you’ll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country’s borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must “succeed one another” in a “republican form of government.”

In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection “shall cease forthwith” in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any “infraction” of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general’s complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude — as virtually everyone in Honduras did — that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya’s close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela.

It is also worth noting that only referendums approved by a two-thirds vote of the Honduran Congress may be put to the voters. Far from approving Zelaya’s proposal, Congress voted that it was illegal.

The attorney general filed suit and secured a court order halting the referendum. Zelaya then announced that the voting would go forward just the same, but it would be called an “opinion survey.” The courts again ruled this illegal. Undeterred, Zelaya directed the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, to proceed with the “survey” — and “fired” him when he declined. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and ordered Vasquez reinstated.

Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, but these were impounded by customs when they were brought back to Honduras. On June 25 — three days before he was ousted — Zelaya personally gathered a group of “supporters” and led it to seize the ballots, restating his intent to conduct the “survey” on June 28. That was the breaking point for the attorney general, who immediately sought a warrant from the Supreme Court for Zelaya’s arrest on charges of treason, abuse of authority and other crimes. In response, the court ordered Zelaya’s arrest by the country’s army, which under Article 272 must enforce compliance with the Constitution, particularly with respect to presidential succession. The military executed the court’s order on the morning of the proposed survey.

It would seem from this that Zelaya’s arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn’t.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya’s arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya’s own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya’s vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya’s term.

It cannot be right to call this a “coup.” Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country’s elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement.

True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.

———–

Miguel A. Estrada is a partner at the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. A native of Honduras, he was a member of the official U.S. delegation to President Zelaya’s 2006 inauguration.

HUMANEVENTS.COM

July 7, 2009

by Chuck Norris

As I gazed onto a parade route sprinkled with red, white and blue everything on July Fourth, I thought about what patriots past and present have sacrificed for our freedom. I also thought about the people in Iran fighting for “azadi,” the Persian word for “freedom.”

The White House has offered what amounts to diplomatic dribble in response to their plight for liberty. I’m not saying our president should send a militia to muscle the mullahs, but shouldn’t he at least show stronger solidarity for the protesters? Isn’t it time his actions superseded his rhetoric? Negotiating with extremists has never worked. Trying to reform them only morphs them into different monsters.

Is it just I, or are others experiencing a Carter deja vu?

Former President Jimmy Carter didn’t do enough to support an Iranian popular revolt. His foreign policy was ridiculously idealistic. Carter believed that he could negotiate his way out of anything. He tried to pacify every party. Carter believed international thugs and terrorists could be swayed from extremism by our simply presenting them what he thought was a better way.

Carter is a major reason that we are in our Middle Eastern dilemma with Iran today because, while allegedly fighting for human rights, he set the stage for the rise of two of the worst human rights violators in history — Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and ultimately his modern successor, the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

As many recall, during the early 1970s, democratic-flavored reforms flourished in Iran because of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, from economic and educational reforms to increased rights for women, religious minorities, etc. And the Nixon and Ford administrations applauded and rewarded these reforms.

With Carter’s induction as president and push for human rights in international affairs, the Shah of Iran’s popularity declined because of accusations that he tortured thousands of prisoners. Carter demanded the shah release political prisoners, break up military trials, and permit free assemblies, among other requests — all of which only fostered political and social unrest.

Carter’s push for social reform in the name of human rights prompted the further uprising of extremists and anti-government rallies. And by the fall of 1977, anti-shah Shiite clergy and university students were conducting well-organized resistances. Carter’s connection to and influence over the shah prompted this pro-Western leader’s backlash in Iran and around the world. Even while visiting the White House in November 1977, the shah and his empress were met by thousands of protesters.

Instead of bringing further social reform to Iran, Carter fed the fire for a political revolution and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was then a 78-year-old theological scholar and cleric who provided leadership to Shiites. Having spent more than 14 years in exile in Iraq, in 1978 he was kicked out of the country by none other than Saddam Hussein (a tension that would lead to the eight-year war between the countries, from 1980 to 1988).

Khomeini, however, would not return to Iran until the shah was disposed. And so, on Jan. 16, 1979, the shah left Iran on an “extended holiday,” not to return. Two weeks later, Khomeini stepped back onto Iranian soil, with 6 million welcoming him and the full fanfare of even Western media.

In power, Khomeini reversed many of the shah’s reforms and ushered in an era of Islamic extremism that would serve as a model and catalyst for future terrorist groups. Nine months after Khomeini came back to Iran, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was taken over by extremists, and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. (It is reported that among the extremists was none other than 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though he personally denied it to Time magazine and others. Whatever the exact nature of his involvement, he eventually would become a Khomeini successor and the president of Iran — he who denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, and is in the process of building a nuclear arsenal.)

And who’s to thank for Ahmadinejad’s rise to power? Among the primary contributors is Jimmy Carter’s “fight for human rights” with the shah and Iran.

Carter carried on a political policy that ultimately enabled dictatorial rule and disabled democratic resistance, and it appears our current president is, as well. When will we learn that soft talk and small sticks get you beat up on the playground of world affairs? That is why even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently advised President Barack Obama to crank up his lukewarm lingo.

The recent civil unrest in Iran is a clear indicator that the people there are not happy with the present regime and their rule and oppression by severe Shariah law. I think what Iranians need is a new government in Tehran — and not just Mir Hossein Mousavi versus Ahmadinejad. They need a regime change and an overthrow of the 1979 Islamic revolution. They need a truly representative form of government. But that is not what our president is going to fight for.

But then, what is he fighting for? One thing is for sure: We all will reap what he sows.

KPTM

July 8, 2009

NYSE Euronext and Nasdaq OMX Group said their public Web sites were targets of “cyber attacks,” though market operations were unaffected.

Neither exchange would say whether the attacks were linked to a wide-ranging assault on other sites included the U.S. Treasury, the State Department and the White House.

Websites for institutions like the Treasury Department and the Federal Trade Commission, among others, were down for most of the weekend thanks to a cyber-attack on government, financial and media sites in both the US and South Korea.

A “denial of service” attack involves multiple computers directing overwhelming traffic to specific Web sites, and is considered by experts to be a relatively unsophisticated technique that’s nevertheless hard to trace.

A NASDAQ spokeswoman declined to comment beyond confirming the attack Wednesday.

The attack on NYSE Euronext’s Web site follows several technology-related incidents at the exchange last week, which included an erroneous notice of delisting for American International Group and an issue with trading systems that required Thursday’s session to be extended by 15 minutes.

A series of coordinated attacks on government and financial Web sites in the U.S. and South Korea were believed to have started on July 4, around the same time North Korea tested new missiles and faced fresh sanctions from the United Nations.

Tagged: Honduras, Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Zelaya ]]> http://blog.mycountrymatters.com/2009/07/07/an-apology-to-honduras-is-in-order/feed/ 0 lokiwhitewood http://blog.mycountrymatters.com/2009/07/07/obama-absolutely-no-green-light-for-israel-to-attack-iran/ http://blog.mycountrymatters.com/2009/07/07/obama-absolutely-no-green-light-for-israel-to-attack-iran/#comments Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:25:42 +0000 Paul Monti http://mycountrymatters.wordpress.com/?p=558 ]]> Monti Says: All I know is if King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia has given Israel the green light, why shouldn’t Barack? After all, he already bows down to him.

The Jerusalem Post

Jul 7, 2009
By JPOST.COM STAFF

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday strongly denied that the United States had given Israel an approval to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Asked by CNN whether Washington had given Israel a green light for such an attack, Obama answered: “Absolutely not.”

In the interview, which was broadcast from Russia, where Obama is on an official visit, he added: “We can’t dictate to other countries what their security interests are.

“What is also true is, it is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” Obama said.

This would be achieved “through diplomatic channels,” he added.

On Sunday, US Vice President Joe Biden was asked on ABC’s ‘This Week’ whether the US would stand in the way militarily if the Israelis decided they needed to take out Iran’s nuclear program.

The US “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do,” he said.

“Israel can determine for itself – it’s a sovereign nation – what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” he said.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, however, denied that the vice president was giving Israel American approval for an attack on Iran.

“I certainly would not want to give a green light to any kind of military action,” Kelly said, while at the same time reiterating Israel’s right to determine its security needs as a sovereign state.

“We’re not going to dictate its actions,” Kelly added. “We’re also committed to Israel’s security. And we share Israel’s deep concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.”

Earlier Tuesday, The Washington Times reported that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his top deputies had not formally asked for US aid or permission for a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, since they feared the White House would not approve.

The report quoted two unnamed Israeli officials.

An anonymous senior Israeli official was cited by the Times as saying that Netanyahu was determined that “it made no sense” to press the matter after the negative response former US president George W. Bush gave the prime minister’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, when he asked early last year for US assistance for possible military strikes on Iran.

“There was a decision not to press this because it was probably inadequate for the engagement policy and what we know about Obama’s approach to Iran,” he said.

Israel is unlikely to attack Iran without at least tacit US approval, in part because it would require cooperation from the United States. At the very least, Israel would most likely have to fly over Iraqi airspace, which is still effectively controlled by the US Air Force.

However, a Sunday Times report claimed that talks conducted by Mossad head Meir Dagan resulted in Saudi Arabia agreeing to let IAF jets fly over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

White House officials have declined to comment on the substance of discussions between US and Israeli officials on Iran.

July 5, 2009
Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter

The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.

The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials.

“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week.

Although the countries have no formal diplomatic relations, an Israeli defence source confirmed that Mossad maintained “working relations” with the Saudis.

John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations who recently visited the Gulf, said it was “entirely logical” for the Israelis to use Saudi airspace.

Bolton, who has talked to several Arab leaders, added: “None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn’t trumpet it as a big success.”

Arab states would condemn a raid when they spoke at the UN but would be privately relieved to see the threat of an Iranian bomb removed, he said.

Referring to the Israeli attack on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility in 2007, Bolton added: “To this day, the Israelis haven’t admitted the specifics but there’s one less nuclear facility in Syria . . .”

Recent developments have underscored concerns among moderate Sunni Arab states about the stability of the repressive Shi’ite regime in Tehran and have increased fears that it may emerge as a belligerent nuclear power.

“The Saudis are very concerned about an Iranian nuclear bomb, even more than the Israelis,” said a former head of research in Israeli intelligence.

The Israeli air force has been training for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear site at Natanz in the centre of the country and other locations for four years.

The Washington Times

July 5, 2009

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to give Israel a green light for military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, saying the United States “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”

Israel considers Iran its most dangerous adversary and is wary of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who just won a disputed re-election. He repeatedly has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and contends the Holocaust is a “myth.”

Israel and the United States accuse Iran of seeking to develop weapons under the cover of a nuclear power program. Iran denies that.

“Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” Mr. Biden told ABC’s “This Week” in an interview broadcast Sunday.

“Whether we agree or not, they’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed,” Mr. Biden said.

The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says it prefers to see Iran’s nuclear program stopped through diplomacy but has not ruled out a military strike.

“If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice,” Mr. Biden said.

Asked about Mr. Biden’s comments, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that the U.S. position on Iran and a military strike involves a “political decision.”

“I have been, for some time, concerned about any strike on Iran. I worry about it being very destabilizing, not just in and of itself but unintended consequences of a strike like that,” Adm. Mullen said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“At the same time, I’m one that thinks Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I think that is very destabilizing,” he said.

While most experts agree there’s a good chance Iran could have a usable nuclear bomb sometime during his presidency, President Obama told the Associated Press in an interview Thursday, “I’m not reconciled with that.”

A nuclear-armed Iran, Mr. Obama said, probably would lead to an arms race in the volatile Mideast, and that would be “a recipe for potential disaster.” He said opposing a nuclear weapons capacity for Iran was more than just “a U.S. position” and that “the biggest concern is not simply that Iran can threaten us or our allies, like Israel or its neighbors.”

Israel also is concerned about Iran’s close support for two of its most committed enemies, Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Obama said in May, after his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu at the White House, that the Iranians had until year’s end to get serious about international talks on curbing their nuclear ambitions. “We’re not going to have talks forever,” he said.

But Mr. Obama sees movement on Israeli-Palestinian peace as key to building a moderate Arab coalition against Iran, while Mr. Netanyahu says that dealing with the Iranian threat must take precedence over peacemaking with the Palestinians.

Most experts believe that wiping out the Iranian nuclear program is beyond the ability of Israel’s military. In 1982 the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in a lightning strike, but Iran’s facilities are scattered around the country, some of them underground.

Mr. Biden was asked in the interview that if the Israelis decide they need to try to take out Iran’s nuclear program, would the United States stand in the way militarily?

“We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do,” the vice president replied. “Israel has a right to determine what’s in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what’s in our interests.”