LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February
28/2010
Bible Of the
Day
Mark: 11/19-25: " When evening came, he went out of the city. 11:20 As they
passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots.
11:21 Peter, remembering, said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which you
cursed has withered away.” 11:22 Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. 11:23
For most certainly I tell you, whoever may tell this mountain, ‘Be taken up and
cast into the sea,’ and doesn’t doubt in his heart, but believes that what he
says is happening; he shall have whatever he says. 11:24 Therefore I tell you,
all things whatever you pray and ask for, believe that you have received them,
and you shall have them. 11:25 Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have
anything against anyone; so that your Father, who is in heaven, may also forgive
you your transgressions. 11:26 But if you do not forgive, neither will your
Father in heaven forgive your transgressions.”
Free Opinions, Releases, letters & Special
Reports
Canada Condemns Iranian President’s
Anti-Israel Comments/February
27/10
New York
Times:
Iran moves nuclear fuel to above-ground plant/Isreali News/February
27/10
Nuclear Madmen? Israel's
Security and Enemy Rationality/By: Professor Louis Rene Beres/February
27/10
Egyptian Human Rights Organization
Condemns Iraqi Christian Killings/AINA/February
27/10
Will the
Dubai hit increase Israel's global isolation?/By
Haaretz Editorial/February 27/10
Syria will not leave Iran/By: Hanin
Ghaddar/February 27,10
Latest News Reports From
Miscellaneous Sources for February 27/10
Israel Calls For Significant
Sanctions Against Iran/VOM
Nasrallah to
Ahmadinejad: Hezbollah ready for any threat, Al-Madina reports/Now
Lebanon
Nasrallah: Israel incapable of
starting war Hezbollah chief tells Syrian, Iranian presidents/Israeli News
Hezbollah TV says two former cops
among Lebanese citizens suspected of spying for Israel/AP
Clinton: We Expect Syria to Safeguard Lebanon Independence./Naharnet
Hizbullah Urges Tighter Measures at
Beirut Airport amid Irish Concerns, British Reservations./Naharnet
Russia
Agrees to Provide Lebanon with Mi-24 Helicopters Instead of MiG Fighters./Naharnet
Nasrallah Met Assad, Ahmadinejad in Damascus to Discuss Israeli Threats./Naharnet
Suleiman: Lebanon a Sovereign State … Not an Arena, Dialogue Table Convenes Soon./Naharnet
Kabbara's Bodyguards Arrest Driver of Car That Tried to Intercept MP's Convoy in
Tripoli./Naharnet
Barak: A nuclear Iran threatens
world stability/Haaretz
Report: Dubai police chief tells
Mossad head to 'be a man/Haaretz
Yossi Melman / Is Iran 'inviting'
Israel to strike its nuclear facility?Haaretz
Report: Israel pressing US not to send new envoy
to Syria/Ha'aretz
'Iran challenges world's stability/Jerusalem
Post
Harb: Jumblatt’s stance maintains
March 14 majority/Now Lebanon
Jumblatt ends Turkey trip/Now
Lebanon
Russia to provide Lebanon with
choppers/Israeli News
Top
Israeli official: A nuclear Iran would endanger world stability
By Charley Keyes, CNN
February 26, 2010 --
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/26/israel.iran.nuclear/index.html
Washington (CNN) -- Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday that Iran's
nuclear program poses a danger that extends beyond Israel
"Iran is not just a challenge for Israel. I believe it is a challenge for the
whole world," Barak said in a speech in Washington. "I can hardly think of a
stable world order with a nuclear Iran."
Barak said he doubts that Iran is "crazy" enough -- he used the Yiddish word "meshugah"
-- to launch a nuclear attack against Israel, but warned the existence of a
nuclear-armed Iran could endanger the region, disrupt oil supplies and empower
Iran's terrorist allies.
"I don't think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, are going to drop it in
the neighborhood," Barak said. "They fully understand what might follow -- they
are radical but not total 'meshugah.' They have a quite sophisticated
decision-making process and they understand realities."
Iran maintains it is interested in nuclear development only for power-generation
and other civilian uses. But Barak said all countries must reject what he called
"the verbal gymnastics" Iran uses to justify its nuclear research.
"It means they are not just trying to create a Manhattan-project-like crude
nuclear device," he said. "They are trying to jump directly into the second or
second-and-a-half generation of nuclear warheads that could be installed on top
of ground-to-ground missiles with ranges that will cover not just Israel, but
Moscow or Paris."
I don't think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, are going to drop it in
the neighborhood. They fully understand what might follow.
After his speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Barak met
with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the State Department. The United
States is working to rally international support for more stringent economic
sanctions against Iran.
"Iran is not living up to its responsibilities and we are working with our
partners in the international community to increase pressure on Iran to change
course," Clinton said in a photo-taking session with Barak.
On efforts to revive stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians,
Barak said most Israelis are prepared to do what is needed.
"There is a strong, silent majority in Israel which is ready to make tough,
painful decisions to reach peace once they feel there is readiness on the other
side and we are not having this tango alone," Barak said in his speech. He
insisted that Israel will seek peace and protect its security. "We have to stand
firm on our two feet, open-eyed, without a drop of self-delusion about the
realities of our neighborhood, but having one hand, preferably the left hand,
looking for any window, turning every stone in order to find opportunities for
peace, while the other hand, the right one, will be pointing a finger, very
close to the trigger, ready to pull it when it is ultimately a necessity," Barak
said.
Nasrallah to Ahmadinejad: Hezbollah ready for any threat, Al-Madina reports
February 27, 2010 /Saudi newspaper Al-Madina reported on Saturday that Hezbollah
Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah assured Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad during their meeting in Syria on Thursday that his party is ready to
face any threat against “Lebanon and the Islamic Nation,” An anonymous source
told the paper that Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad discussed the dimensions of
Israeli threats against Lebanon and Iran, and both expressed their belief that
Israel would lose any war it launches. Nasrallah met with Ahmadinejad and Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on Thursday. -NOW Lebanon
Clinton: We Expect Syria to Safeguard Lebanon Independence
Naharnet/The U.S. State Department has identified the major expectations it
wants Syria to meet – help bring stability to Iraq, work toward Middle East
peace and safeguard the independence and sovereignty of Lebanon. U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton told Congress on Thursday that the renaming of a U.S.
ambassador to Damascus was "not a reward to Syria, but a decision that serves
our national interest."She said Washington is committed to clarify what it
expected the Syrians to do "and the presence of our ambassador in Damascus will
enable us to clarify those expectations." Pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat,
meanwhile, quoted U.S. officials as saying that a decision by Barack Obama's
Administration to intensify dialogue with the Syrian government, including the
dispatch of high-level officials to Damascus and the return of its ambassador,
does not mean that the U.S. had resolved its points of disagreement with Syria,
but rather it is looking for another way to solve the dispute. Regarding
Clinton's call on Syria to distance itself from Iran, a U.S. State Department
official told the newspaper that Washington has no objection to a "healthy
bilateral relationship between Iran and Syria." "The problem, however, is with
the aspect of the Syrian-Iranian relationship which weakens peace and regional
security," the official added. Beirut, 26 Feb 10, 11:10
Israeli Military Drills for Possible 2-War Front with Lebanon, Gaza
Naharnet/Israel has completed a massive military exercise that examined the
readiness for the possibility of a two-front war with Lebanon and Gaza, while
politically it followed up on a new round of strategic talks with the United
States. Militarily, a large number of Israeli soldiers and reserve officers took
part in the wide-scale military drill that ended on Thursday.
According to Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, The drills focused on
various combat scenarios in the north and simulated developments that included a
Hizbullah missile attack combined with massive rocket fire from Gaza targeting
strategic and national facilities. He said these exercises were important to
"improve the army's readiness."
Ashkenazi said the exercise examined combat methods and cooperation procedures
among land, air, and naval forces.
He said the drill also looked into the Israeli army's ability to engage in
combat on several fronts in terms of logistics and intelligence, together with
the need to address the home front and maintain ongoing dialogue. Israeli army
officials said the drill aimed at implementing the lessons of the 2006 war on
Lebanon and the 2009 war on Gaza.
"Israel has no interest in seeing escalation in the region, yet we closely
monitor developments and make sure to maintain a prepared, deterring, and primed
army," Ashkenazi said. "The drills enable us to prepare for possible scenarios,
improve our readiness, and implement lessons."
Israeli Defense Minister Barak said Israel's defense establishment has engaged
in much training and preparation work in recent years, but hoped that there
would be no need to use the army's capabilities. On the political front, a new
round of semi-annual strategic talks between the U.S. and Israel was held at the
Israeli Foreign Ministry on Thursday.
The meeting took place at the time when Barak was holding talks with his U.S.
counterpart Robert Gates in Washington.
According to Barak's office, discussions focused on issues related to "the
radical axis -- Iran, Syria and Hizbullah -- in the wake of the meeting between
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in
Damascus."Barak told Gates that Israel considered as 'very dangerous' the
continued supply of arms to Hizbullah. Beirut, 26 Feb 10, 08:26
Hizbullah Urges Tighter Measures at Beirut Airport amid
Irish Concerns, British Reservations
Naharnet/The Lebanese General Security Department at Rafik Hariri International
Airport has started to tighten security measures for European passengers
arriving in Beirut in light of Hizbullah's official request from the Lebanese
authorities to keep an eye on foreigners coming from countries whose passports
were used in the operation of assassinating Hamas top official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh
in Dubai, the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat cited well-informed Lebanese
sources. General Security Director Maj. Gen. Wafiq Jezzini told the newspaper
that the general security is observing a circular of Jewish family names, noting
that "when someone arrives in Lebanon with a foreign passport and a surname that
indicates a Jewish origin, the border crossing points are sending the
passenger's data to the central information office in the General Directorate of
General Security that follows up on this person, especially that this person
would have registered a temporary residence address in Lebanon."
"We are following up on the inbound passengers and the individuals who receive
them at the airport," he added.
"There is another method which we can follow, and usually imply, that is to
inspect or authenticate the birth place of the inbound passengers."
The newspaper noted that "no complaints from Irish or British nationals have
been recorded so far about harassments upon arriving in Beirut." However, the
British foreign ministry confirmed "it will examine the situation," adding that
it would directly submit any complaints to the Lebanese government.
As to Ireland, it expressed its "deep concerns" against the new measures. An
Irish foreign ministry spokesperson told the newspaper that "the issue now is
the responsibility of the European Union," adding that a meeting for the foreign
affairs council was held last Monday to discuss immunizing European passports.
He stressed that the EU will decide "step by step" the necessary decisions in
this regard, noting that the council has already condemned the usage of forged
European passports in murdering al-Mabhouh, describing the incident as "deeply
worrying." The spokesperson called for the cooperation of all concerned nations
with the investigation opened by the Dubai police.
Twelve British, six Irish, four French, one German and three Australian
passports were used by the suspects, according to Dubai police.
On the other hand, Hizbullah MP Hassan Fadlallah, who had previously raised the
passports issue in the last parliamentary session, told Asharq al-Awsat that
"Interior Minister Ziad Baroud submitted a written answer stressing that his
ministry will take the necessary measures." "Lebanon has always been a target
for Israeli security penetrations and the many operations that had taken place
in the last years carried the Israeli fingerprints. Hence, the government has to
take the necessary measures to preserve security and stability in the face of
Israeli attempts," he added, noting that "many Israelis had previously managed
to enter Lebanon with European and non-European passports." Beirut, 27 Feb 10,
11:28
Russia Agrees to Provide Lebanon with Mi-24 Helicopters Instead of MiG Fighters
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman returned Friday afternoon to Beirut
concluding a 2-day official visit to Moscow, the first ever visit by a Lebanese
head of state to Russia.
Suleiman said the Russian authorities agreed to substitute the 10 MiG-29 fighter
jets previously mulled military aid with Mi-24 advanced military helicopters
"based on the request of the Lebanese side that conducted technical and
functional studies on the Russian fund for the Lebanese Air Force."
The Lebanese side based the request on army command's recommendation that the
vital need currently is for this type of military helicopters that can be
equipped with missiles and advanced combat means. On Thursday, Suleiman met with
his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow where he signed a memorandum
on bilateral military cooperation.
Medvedev, whose country is keen to preserve influence in the Arab world that
dates back to Soviet times, described the visit as a "landmark event" in
relations between Moscow and Beirut. Suleiman, who in turn labeled the visit as
historic, hailed Medvedev for his support of Lebanon. He said the two
sides had discussed signing a long-term military cooperation agreement. "It is a
framework agreement and is planned to be signed in the near future," said the
head of Russia's military-technical cooperation agency, Mikhail Dmitriyev.
Beirut, 26 Feb 10, 21:04
Suleiman: Lebanon a Sovereign State … Not an Arena, Dialogue Table Convenes Soon
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman on Friday stressed that Lebanon has become a
sovereign state rather than an arena for regional conflicts, adding that the
national dialogue table will convene soon to discuss the pending issues. In an
interview with Russia Today TV network, Suleiman said Israeli threats aim at
avoiding international pressure to resume the peace process.
"It is trying to blow out of proportion the alleged threats coming from Lebanon,
Syria, Iran, or any place in the world so that it says it cannot pursue the
peace process and give the Palestinians their rights in land and nationality."
Answering a question about the phone call he received from Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Suleiman said: "This is a normal thing, and it took place
after the intense Israeli threats against Lebanon … Israel threatened the
government and its public administrations, the thing that prompted Ahmadinejad
to phone the president of Lebanon to tell him: We're ready to help you and stand
by you in case you were attacked." On the other hand, Suleiman noted that "the
national dialogue table will convene soon to discuss the national defensive
strategy," stressing that "everything the Lebanese yearn for can be solved at
the dialogue table and within the Lebanese interior, because gone is the time
when things used to be solved outside Lebanon." Suleiman returned Friday
afternoon to Beirut concluding a 2-day official visit to Moscow, the first ever
visit by a Lebanese head of state to Russia. Beirut, 26 Feb 10, 22:36
Kabbara's Bodyguards Arrest Driver of Car That Tried to Intercept MP's Convoy in
Tripoli
Naharnet/A security incident took place Friday evening in Tripoli when a man
driving a Renault Rapid-type car tried to intercept MP Mohammed Kabbara's
convoy, the state-run National News Agency reported. After a verbal quarrel, the
bodyguards fired at the interceptor's car before arresting him and handing him
over to the security forces that started an investigation. Beirut, 26 Feb 10,
21:41
Jumblatt ends Turkey trip
February 27, 2010
Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt ended his official four day
visit to Turkey and is headed back to Beirut, his party said in a statement on
Saturday. Two Democratic Gathering bloc members—Public Works and Transportation
Minister Ghazi Aridi and MP Marwan Hamadeh—travelled to Turkey as well, after an
invitation from the country’s Foreign Ministry, the National News Agency (NNA)
reported. -NOW Lebanon
Harb: Jumblatt’s stance maintains March 14 majority
February 27, 2010 /Now Lebanon
In an interview with the Voice of Lebanon radio station on Saturday, Labor
Minister Boutros Harb said that as long as Progressive Socialist Party leader MP
Walid Jumblatt remains in a “center position,” the March 14 alliance will remain
a majority. He added that many political sides expected Prime Minister Saad
Hariri to change his political stance following his visit to Syria in December,
but he remained part of the March 14 alliance, Harb said. The minister said
Lebanon cannot rest in the face of continuous Israeli threats. But, he said, no
decisions from Iran and Syria should make their way to Lebanon without the
Lebanese cabinet’s involvement. On Thursday, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed
Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. “The Lebanese people should not be the
victims of some political parties taking non-Lebanese positions,” he added. Harb
talked about the parliament’s failure on Monday to pass a draft law that would
have lowered the legal voting age from 21 to 18. The minister said he and his
allies were not against the proposal, but against the timing. The cabinet is
expected to meet on Saturday evening to finalize discussions on suggested
reforms to the municipal electoral law.
-NOW Lebanon
Syria will not leave Iran
Hanin Ghaddar,
February 27, 2010
Now Lebanon
Bashar al-Assad’s Syria will never break with Iran. No matter how hard the West
tries to cajole or compel Damascus, the regime will continue to prize its
regional role, bolstered by its alliance with Tehran over any improved
relationship with regional and Western powers. Indeed it is an alliance worth
more to Syria than even the Golan Heights.
The meeting held Thursday night in Damascus between Hezbollah Secretary General
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a clear message to the West, that as Ahmadinejad
declared, the relationship between Syria and Iran is “as solid as ever.”
Assad, for his part, also stressed that the alliance between the two countries
would endure, and said that the political situation in the Middle East favored
“resistance groups.”
“We hope the day will come when we can celebrate our religious victories and
[the opposing forces’] great loss. This day will come.”
Whether it does or not, so long as Assad believes it will, he will remain
faithful to Tehran. And Assad along with Nasrallah represents the two high cards
Iran holds, Syrian and Lebanon, as it prepares to confront the West’s increasing
pressure against its nuclear program.
Lebanon, through Hezbollah, has limited say in the matter—it is being hijacked
by the Iranian regime to protect its influence in the region. But Syria is
adopting the role of a bargaining chip willingly, hoping to squeeze out the
maximum advantage possible, standing firmly by Iran, but positioning itself as a
potential mediator, a strategy that has so far paid off.
America, France and Saudi Arabia have recently softened their approach toward
Syria, hoping that they can encourage the regime to distance itself from Iran.
But despite being courted by the West, and exploiting that courtship for its
favor, the regime is not about to separate itself from what Assad believes to be
the most powerful state in the region, Iran.
And why would he? Everyone wants to talk to the Syrian regime now.
France was the first to change its rhetoric. Then the Saudis decided to open up
to Damascus, hoping that a collaboration with Syria in Lebanon after the 2009
parliamentary elections and in Iraq ahead of next month’s polls, might help pull
Syria from Iran’s orbit.
In the same vein, the US named an ambassador to Syria for the first time in
years, the previous one having been removed in the wake of the 2005
assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Indeed, Assad has been
receiving more American delegations of late than he had ever dreamed of.
Assad probably doesn’t want much more. Perhaps, as some have argued, Assad is
desperate to rid his country of continuing American sanctions and improve
Syria’s dire economic situation. But the reality remains that the level of
cooperation Syria has offered so far has been minimal.
Establishing diplomatic relations with Lebanon, as Syria has in the past year,
has not proven that Damascus actually respects Lebanese sovereignty.
Except for the exchange of embassies between Damascus and Beirut, Syria has not
fulfilled any of its promises regarding Lebanon, such as border demarcation,
curbing Palestinian armament outside the refugee camps and resolving the issue
of political detainees in Syrian prisons.
On the contrary, Syria is benefiting from its alliance with Iran to gain more
control over Lebanon. During the civil war, Syria had the upper hand here,
controlling all security and political decisions. Today, however, Hezbollah and
Iran are the strongest players, and Syria, having withdrawn its forces in 2005,
counts on them to maintain what influence it has left.
But Syria surely would like to increase that influence, and is hoping that
regional dynamics will help it do so by unfolding in Iran’s favor, preferably
without international and regional pressure. Then all issues will be resolved in
Syria’s interest.
Meanwhile, Lebanon will have to remain in limbo, with the country’s government
all but paralyzed on all the key issues, political, economic, administrative,
financial or otherwise.
With Lebanon effectively held hostage, the Syrian regime cannot be happy with an
Iran under ever increasing pressure from the West — not just out of sympathy for
Assad’s allies in Tehran, but also because Damascus does not want to be under
such international pressure itself. It is still reeling from the consequences of
years of sanctions and not-so-long ago isolation. Also, there is always the risk
of being cut off again by the international community if things went wrong.
In standing by Iran, Assad is shielding his own regime. His ambition is to
remove the sanctions and position Syria as a strong regional power. The irony is
that, in the current paradigm, Syria’s only chance to sustain its regional role
is to retain its commitment, and subservience, to Tehran.
Recently the regime in Damascus has become increasingly vocal in its defense of
the Islamic Republic and its nuclear program. If Iran succeeds, it will be the
most powerful state in the region, and Syria will be its best friend.
This is why the international community should focus on pressuring Iran, not
engaging Syria. Syria under Bashar Assad has become second fiddle. The power is
with Iran.
'Israel pressing U.S. not to send new envoy to Syria'
By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service
27/02/2010
Israel is urging the United States to freeze its decision to send a new envoy to
Syria, in the wake of this week's tripartite meeting between Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah leader Hassan
Nasrallah, according to a report Saturday in London-based Arabic daily A-Sharq
Al-Awsat.
According to the report, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and an aide to Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu both made the request during meetings with U.S.
officials in Washington this week. The report added that Israeli officials made
the request after witnessing Assad's public defiance of U.S. calls to curb its
ties with Iran this week. Assad said his long-standing alliance with Tehran
remains strong despite overtures from Washington intended to shift his
loyalties. With Ahmadinejad by his side, Assad told America not to dictate
relationships in the Middle East. "I find it strange how they talk about Middle
East stability and at the same time talk about dividing two countries," Assad
told reporters when asked about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's call on
Wednesday for Syria to move away from Iran. Taking a further swipe at Clinton,
he said that perhaps he and Ahmadinejad had misunderstood, due to a translation
error or their own limited understanding. In a show of unity, the two signed an
agreement canceling travel visas between their countries.
The report also said that Israeli officials said Syria had interpreted the
appointment of a new U.S. envoy as a sign of weakness on Washington's part, and
not as a decision to improve ties between the two countries. U.S. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday said that the recent decision to send an
ambassador to Syria did not mean American concerns about that country have been
addressed. Speaking to lawmakers in Washington, Clinton said the nomination of
career diplomat Robert Ford signaled a slight opening with Syria.
But she said the administration remained troubled by Syria's alleged support for
militant groups in Iraq and elsewhere, interference in Lebanon and close
relationship with Iran.
Will the Dubai hit increase Israel's global isolation?
By Haaretz Editorial
Last update - 07:12 26/02/2010
These are the known facts: The Dubai police claim that 26 visitors entered and
exited the emirate over the past year on false British, Irish, Australian,
German and French passports. Some or all were involved in the assassination of
senior Hamas operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who also entered Dubai under a false
identity. The Dubai police chief has accused the Mossad of the January 19 hit.
He has presented no proof, but more than half of the fake passports in Dubai
bore the names of Israelis.
The European Union and the countries whose passports were counterfeited have
criticized the misuse of their identity documents without mentioning the names
of those responsible. French President Nicolas Sarkozy termed the assassination
utterly unjustified - "nothing more than a murder." Israel has neither confirmed
nor denied involvement in Mabhouh's killing or in falsifying the documents, but
former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Dan Halutz said that such actions
attributed to Israel "deter terror organizations."
It is unclear whether terrorist groups are more deterred than in the past. What
is clear is that the plot is thickening as more suspects are uncovered. If the
claims of Israel's responsibility are correct, what appears to be cumulative
damage is getting worse.
The main question pertains to the planning of the operation, or operations, in
which the 26 holders of false passports were involved. It seems that the
planners did not take into consideration Dubai's ability to cross-reference
information from surveillance cameras in the airport, hotels and malls with
computerized information from its passport control. Even if none of the
suspected agents were caught in the act, clearly they will have difficulty
taking part in similar actions in the future. It's also possible that the
investigation will lead to the exposure of other suspects or other operations. A
week before the hit on Mabhouh, a nuclear scientist was killed in Tehran, and
Iranian leaders accused Israel.
The group that took out Mabhouh was exposed due to one weak point: the use of
false passports from Western countries bearing the identities of real Israelis
with dual citizenship. From now on, it will be much more difficult to use such
passports, and all Israelis with dual passports will be suspected of being
intelligence agents. There is no doubt that this revelation endangers, or at
least complicates, other operations.
Did Mabhouh's assassination justify taking such a risk? Was there negligence or
contempt for the adversary on the part of the planners, the commanders and those
who approved the operation (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to
foreign reports)? Were other operations compromised, that were even more
essential than the killing of a Hamas weapons smuggler? Is criticism by
countries whose passports were falsified just for the record, or will it limit
operatives' freedom of action in other hits? Will the affair increase Israel's
international isolation and present it once again as a lawless state?
If foreign reports are true about Israel's responsibility for the Mabhouh hit
and the forged passports, then a thorough clarification is warranted, which can
lead to conclusions about both organizations and individuals
Nuclear Madmen? Israel's Security and Enemy Rationality
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=167
February 25, 2010
Professor Louis Rene Beres
"Do you know what it means to find yourselves face to face with a madman," asks
Luigi Pirandello's Henry IV. "Madmen, lucky folk, construct without logic, or
rather with a logic that flies like a feather." What is true for individuals is
sometimes also true for states. In the often absurd theatre of modern world
politics, constructions that rest upon ordinary logic can quickly crumble before
madness.
Consider Israel, especially as it may soon have to confront an Iranian nuclear
adversary with a potentially “suicidal” preference ordering. Left to proceed
unhindered with its ongoing and illegal (under international law) program of
nuclearization, Iran’s current leadership (and possibly even a successor
“reformist” government in Tehran) could proceed to value Israel’s destruction
more highly than even its own physical security. Such a prospect is highly
improbable, to be sure, but – if rooted in particular visions of a Shiite
apocalypse - it is not inconceivable.
Israel’s ultimate source of national security lies plainly in nuclear
deterrence. Although obviously still implicit, and not at all open or
acknowledged, this policy that is necessarily based upon enemy rationality could
“crumble before madness.” In certain imaginable instances, the result of failed
Israeli retaliatory threats could be total destruction.
By definition, the logic of deterrence always rests upon assumptions of
rationality. History, however, reveals the persistent fragility of all such
assumptions. We know too well that nations sometimes even behave in ways that
are consciously self-destructive. Sometimes, perhaps even mirroring the
infrequent but decisively aberrant behavior of individual human beings, national
leaders choose to assign the very highest value to preferences other than
collective self-preservation.
Strange as it may seem, it has happened before, and it will happen again.
For the moment, no single Arab/Islamic adversary of Israel would appear to be
conclusively irrational. No current adversary appears ready to launch a major
first-strike against Israel using weapons of mass destruction (in the future,
this calculation could include nuclear weapons) with the recognition that it
would thereby elicit a devastating reprisal. Of course, miscalculations and
errors in information could always lead a perfectly rational enemy state to
strike first, but this decision, by definition, would not be the outcome of
irrationality or “madness.”
Still, certain enemy states, most likely Iran, could one day decide that
"excising the Jewish cancer" from the Middle East would be worth the costs, any
costs. In principle, this improbable prospect might be avoided by Israel with
timely and pertinent "hard target" preemptions, but any such expressions of what
is known under authoritative international law as "anticipatory self-defense"
are presently difficult to imagine. This difficulty lies in myriad operational
limitations (today, all Iranian nuclear assets are deeply hardened, widely
dispersed, and substantially multiplied), and also in expected political costs.
For now, this means that : (1) a tactically successful Israeli preemption must
remain very unlikely; and (2) any preemption, even a tactical failure, would
elicit overwhelming and possibly unendurable public and diplomatic condemnation.
Interestingly, a "bolt-from-the-blue" CBN (chemical, biological or even nuclear)
attack upon Israel that is launched with the expectation of city-busting
reprisals would not necessarily exhibit irrationality or madness. Within such an
attacking state's particular ordering of preferences, a presumed religious
obligation to annihilate the "Zionist Entity" could simply represent the
overriding value. Here, from the standpoint of the prospective attacker’s
authoritative decisional calculus, the expected benefits of producing such
annihilation would exceed the expected costs of any expected Israeli reprisal.
Judged from this critical standpoint, therefore, a seemingly “crazy” attack
decision would be perfectly “logical.”
To better understand this scenario, an enemy state with these particular sorts
of exterminatory orientations could represent the individual suicide bomber in
macrocosm. It is a powerful image. Just as individual Jihadists are now
manifestly willing to achieve "martyrdom,” so might certain Jihadist states
become willing to sacrifice themselves collectively.
In one more or less likely variation of this scenario, it is conceivable that
Iranian or other Arab/Islamic leaders making the decision to strike at Israel
would be willing to make "martyrs" of their own peoples, but not of themselves.
In this significant decisional variation, it would be judged “acceptable” by
these leaders to sacrifice more-or-less huge portions of their respective
populations, but only while they (and presumably their families) were themselves
already underway to a predetermined albeit still earth-bound safe haven.
There would be no alluring visions of paradise in these particular enemy
calculations.
So, what is Israel to do? It can't very well choose to live, indefinitely, with
enemies who might not always be reliably deterred by usual threats of
retaliation, and who are themselves armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Jerusalem can't readily decide to preempt against selected Iranian or other
threatening military targets, as the tactical prospects of success would now be
very remote, and because the global outcry (even in Washington) would be
deafening. It cannot place more than partial faith in anti-tactical ballistic
missile defenses, which, after all, would require a near-100% reliability of
intercept to be purposeful in any "soft-point" protection of Israeli cities.
The essential strategic opportunities still available to Israel now seem very
limited, and the existential consequences of failure could effectively include
national extinction. What, then, shall the Government of Israel do?
Here is one suggestion. If Israel's enemies were all presumably rational, in the
ordinary sense of valuing physical survival more highly than any other
preference or combination of preferences, Jerusalem could begin, among other
things, to productively exploit the strategic benefits of pretended
irrationality. Recognizing that in certain strategic situations it can be
rational to feign irrationality, Jerusalem could then work to create more
cautionary behavior among its relevant adversaries. In such cases, for example,
the threat of an Israeli resort to a "Samson Option" could be enough to dissuade
an enemy first-strike. Recalling the ancient Chinese strategist, any more
explicit Israeli hints of “Samson” could indicate a very useful grasp of
Sun-Tzu’s good advice to always diminish existential reliance on defense, and,
instead, to “seize the unorthodox.”
If, however, Israel's relevant adversaries were presumably irrational in the
ordinary sense, there would likely be no real benefit to pretended
irrationality. This is the case because the more probable threat of a massive
Israeli nuclear counterstrike associated in enemy calculations with
irrationality would be no more compelling to Iran or any other Arab/Islamic
enemy state than if it were confronted by a presumably rational State of Israel.
Israel could benefit from a greater understanding of the "rationality of
pretended irrationality," but only in special reference to expectedly rational
enemy states. In those circumstances where such enemy states were presumed to be
irrational, something else would be needed, something other than nuclear
deterrence, preemption and/or ballistic missile defense. Although many
commentators and scholars still believe the answer to this quandary lies in
far-reaching political settlements (President Obama still talks enthusiastically
of the Road Map and Mitchell Plan), this belief is born largely of frustration
and naïve self-delusion, and not of any deliberate or informed strategic
calculation.
No meaningful political settlements can ever be worked out with enemies who
openly seek Israel's "liquidation,” a word still used commonly and openly in
very many Arab/Islamic newspapers and texts.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. What is Israel to do? "In
the end," we may learn from the great classical poet, Goethe, "we depend upon
creatures of our own making." What, then, shall Israel "make?"
To begin, Israel must fully understand that irrationality need not mean
craziness or madness. Even an irrational state may have a consistent and
transitive hierarchy of wants. The first task for Israel, therefore, must be to
identify this operative hierarchy among its several state enemies. Although
these states might not be deterred from aggression by even the plausibly
persuasive threat of massive Israeli retaliations, they could still be deterred
by threats aimed toward what they do hold to be most important.
What, then, might be most important to Israel's prospectively irrational
enemies, potentially even more important than their own physical survival as a
state? One possible answer is the avoidance of shame and humiliation. Another
would be avoidance of the unendurable charge that they had somehow defiled their
most sacred religious obligations. Still another would be leaders' avoidance of
their own violent deaths at the hand of Israel, deaths that would be
attributable to Israeli strategies of "targeted killing" and/or
"regime-targeting" by Jerusalem. This last suggestion may be problematic,
however, to the extent that being killed by Jews for the sake of Allah could be
regarded as a distinct positive. In this connection, we must recall that there
is no greater form of power in world politics than power over death. Dying for
the sake of Allah could be regarded in certain contexts as a clerically-blessed
passport to heaven-bound immortality.
These tentative answers are only a beginning; indeed, they are little more than
the beginning of a beginning. Strategic problems are fundamentally intellectual
problems. What is needed, now, is a sustained and conspicuously competent
intellectual effort to answer such questions in much greater depth and breadth.
Clearly, Israel, in the future, will need to deal with both rational and
irrational adversaries. In turn, these enemies will be both state and sub-state
actors. On occasion, Israel’s leaders will even have to deal with various
complex and nuanced combinations of rational and irrational enemies, sometimes
simultaneously.
Israel must prepare to deal with “nuclear madmen,” both as terrorists and as
national leaders, but, at the same time, it must fashion a suitable plan for
dealing with nuclear adversaries who are neither mad nor irrational. With such
an imperative, Israel must do everything possible to enhance its deterrence,
preemption, defense and war-fighting capabilities. This means, inter alia,
enhanced and explicit preparations for certain “last resort” operations.
Concerning any prospective contributions to Israeli nuclear deterrence,
recognizable preparations for a Samson Option could serve to convince certain
would-be attackers that aggression would not be gainful. This is especially true
if such Israeli preparations were combined with certain levels of disclosure,
that is, if Israel’s “Samson” weapons were made to appear sufficiently
invulnerable to enemy first-strikes, and if these weapons were identifiably
“countervalue” (counter-city) in mission function.
The Samson Option, by definition, would be executed with countervalue-targeted
nuclear weapons. It is likely that any such last-resort operations would come
into play only after all Israeli counterforce options had been exhausted.
Concerning the previously mentioned “rationality of pretended irrationality,”
Samson could enhance Israeli nuclear deterrence by demonstrating a national
willingness to take existential risks, but this would hold true only if Israeli
last-resort options were directed toward rational adversaries.
Concerning prospective contributions to preemption options, preparations for a
Samson Option could convince Israeli leaders that their own defensive
first-strikes could be undertaken with diminished expectations of unacceptably
destructive enemy retaliations. This sort of convincing would depend, at least
in part, upon antecedent Israeli government decisions on disclosure (that is, an
end to “nuclear ambiguity”); on Israeli perceptions of the effects of disclosure
on enemy retaliatory prospects; on Israeli judgments about enemy perceptions of
Samson weapons’ vulnerability; and on an enemy awareness of Samson’s
countervalue force posture. In almost any event, the time to end Israel’s “bomb
in the basement” policy will soon be at hand.
Similar to Samson’s plausible impact upon Israeli nuclear deterrence,
last-resort preparations could enhance Israeli preemption options by displaying
a clear and verifiable willingness to accept certain existential risks. In this
scenario, however, Israeli leaders must always bear in mind that pretended
irrationality could become a double-edged sword. Brandished too flagrantly, and
without sufficient nuance, any Israeli preparations for a Samson Option could
actually impair rather than reinforce Israel’s nuclear war-fighting options.
Concerning prospective contributions to Israel’s nuclear war fighting options,
preparations for a Samson Option could convince enemy states that a clear
victory over Israel would be impossible. With such reasoning, it would be
important for Israel to communicate to potential aggressors the following very
precise understanding: Israel’s counter value-targeted Samson weapons are
additional to its counterforce-targeted war fighting weapons. Without such a
communication, any preparations for a Samson Option could impair rather than
reinforce Israel’s nuclear warfighting options.
Undoubtedly, as was formally concluded by Project Daniel more than seven years
ago (see Israel’s Strategic Future, the Report of Project Daniel), nuclear
warfighting should always be avoided by Israel wherever possible. But, just as
undeniably, there are some circumstances in which such exchanges could be
unavoidable. Here, some form of nuclear warfighting could ensue, so long as: (a)
enemy state first-strikes launched against Israel would not destroy Israel’s
second-strike nuclear capability; (b) enemy state retaliations for an Israeli
conventional preemption would not destroy Israel’s nuclear counter-retaliatory
capability; (c) conventional Israeli preemptive strikes would not destroy enemy
state second-strike nuclear capability; and (d) Israeli retaliations for enemy
state conventional first strikes would not destroy enemy state nuclear
counter-retaliatory capability. From the standpoint of protecting its overall
existential security, this means that Israel must take appropriate steps to
ensure the plausibility of (a) and (b), above, and also the implausibility of
(c) and (d).
“Do you know what it means to find yourself face to face with a madman?” This
opening question from Luigi Pirandello’s Henry IV does have considerable and
immediate relevance to Israel’s existential dilemma. At the same time, the
mounting strategic challenge to Israel will assuredly and primarily come from
enemy decision-makers who are not-at-all mad, and who are altogether rational.
With this in mind, Israel will need to promptly fashion a comprehensive and
suitably-calibrated strategic doctrine from which various specific policies and
operations could readily be extrapolated. This focused framework would identify
and correlate all available strategic options (deterrence, preemption, active
defense, strategic targeting, nuclear war fighting) with evident and
indisputable survival goals. It would also take close account of the possible
interactions between these strategic options, and of the determinable synergies
between all conceivable enemy actions directed against Israel. Figuring out
these particular interactions and synergies will be a computational task on the
very highest order of intellectual difficulty.
Nuclear strategy is a “game” that sane and rational people can and must play,
but to compete effectively and purposefully, a would-be winner must always first
assess (1) the expected rationality of each critical opponent; and (2) the
probable costs and benefits of pretending irrationality oneself. These are
undoubtedly complex, interactive and glaringly uncertain forms of assessment,
but they also constitute an utterly indispensable foundation for Israel’s
long-term security.
“For by wise counsel,” we learn from Proverbs (24, 6), “Thou shalt make thy
war.”
----------------
LOUIS RENÉ BERES is Professor of Political Science and International Law at
Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), he is the author of ten
books and several hundred published articles dealing with Israeli security
matters, including SECURITY OR ARMAGEDDON: ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR STRATEGY (Lexington
Books, 1986). Professor Beres served as Chair of "Project Daniel," a private
small-group effort to counsel former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on
existential nuclear threats to Israel. He was born in Zurich, Switzerland, on
August 31, 1945.
Canada Condemns Iranian President’s Anti-Israel Comments
http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2010/085.aspx
(No. 85 – February 26, 2010 – 6:15 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lawrence Cannon,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement regarding the
latest anti-Israel comments made by Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
“Canada strongly condemns the anti-Israel comments made by Iran’s President on
February 25, 2010. His repeated threats against Israel and the Jewish people are
deplorable and are outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour for the leader of
a member of the United Nations. His noxious views also undermine efforts for
reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
“Such comments add to the concerns of the international community over the
threat Iran poses to international peace and security. Canada will continue to
denounce all those who deny the existence of Israel and who threaten the Jewish
people. We will continue to speak out against such unacceptable and threatening
language.
“The Government of Canada also remains deeply concerned over the Iranian
regime’s continued stifling of democracy, its blatant disregard of basic human
rights, its failure to meet its nuclear obligations, and its irresponsible
behaviour, which threatens regional and global stability.”
- 30 -
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Catherine Loubier
Director of Communications
Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
613-995-1851
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Hezbollah chief Nasrallah meets Ahmadinejad in Syria
The head of the Lebanese Shia Islamist movement Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has
made a rare public appearance in the Syrian capital, Damascus.
Sheikh Nasrallah attended a dinner with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He is under an Israeli death threat and makes very few appearances in public.
When he addresses Hezbollah, he does so by video from a secret location.
Both Syria and Iran provide the group with financial and military support.
Hezbollah fought a 33-day war with Israel in 2006 during which more than 1,200
Lebanese people, mostly civilians, were killed. Some 160 Israeli people, most of
whom were soldiers, also died. In November, Sheikh Nasrallah vowed to boost the
capacity of its military wing and threatened to retaliate if Israel attacked
Lebanon.
'Deep' ties
Since 2006, the Hezbollah leader has made few public appearances in Lebanon,
even avoiding key religious and political occasions.
If the Zionist regime decides to repeat its past mistakes, the region will
finish it off His fear of an assassination attempt has been particularly
heightened since February 2008, when the commander of his group's military wing,
Imad Mughniyeh, was killed in a car bombing in Damascus.
Hezbollah blamed Israel for the attack, but it denied any involvement.
Before Thursday's dinner, Sheikh Nasrallah and President Ahmadinejad discussed
"the latest developments in the region, and Zionist threats against Lebanon and
Syria", Hezbollah's al-Manar television reported.
"If the Zionist regime decides to repeat its past mistakes, the region will
finish it off," al-Manar quoted the Iranian leader as saying.
After bilateral talks on Thursday, President Assad said Syria and Iran were
working together to confront "Israeli terrorism".
Both leaders dismissed US calls for Syria to distance itself from Iran,
emphasising their "deep and brotherly" ties.
The meeting came a week after the US signalled an attempt to improve ties with
Syria, sending a senior official to Damascus for talks and nominating a new
ambassador after the withdrawal of his predecessor five years ago.
Nasrallah updated Ahmadinejad on occurrences in the region and said he was
"certain the Zionist regime's threats would never bear fruit".
The Iranian president repeated that Israel was "headed for ruin" and that
victory was close at hand, in a possible bid to encourage terror organizations
in the area and deepen his government's ties with them as it faces new sanctions
from the West for its nuclear program.
"The Iranian nation supports resistance by the region's people, and if the
Zionist regime repeats its mistake and begins a new conflict it must be uprooted
in order to save the region from its hostility," he told Nasrallah. "As we
progress, the free nations and the region nears victory."
Earlier Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a meeting with his American
counterpart Robert Gates that Iran is not only Israel's problem and tough
sanctions are needed in order to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Barak's remarks follow an earlier announcement by a US spokesman suggesting that
Washington will not be seeking crippling sanctions against Tehran.
Egyptian Human Rights Organization Condemns Iraqi Christian Killings
http://www.aina.org/news/20100226192901.htm
GMT 2-27-2010 1:29:10
Assyrian International News Agency
(AINA) -- In a statement issued in Cairo on February 25, 2010, the Egyptian
Union for Human Rights (EUHRO) strongly condemned the killings committed aganst
the Christians in Iraq, particularly in Mosul. It also criticized the lax
attitude taken by the Iraqi Government with regards to the repeated killings of
Christians in Mosul and Kirkuk, as well as the demolition of their churches in
various parts of Iraq. The Organization called on the Middle East Council of
Churches, the Muslim World League and World Council of Churches to take a a
clear and more effective role to save the Christians of Iraq. Dr. Naguib
Ghobraeel, President of EUHRO asserted that EUHRO will file a complaint with the
International Council for Human Rights against the Iraqi government, calling for
the despatch of a fact-finding mission, as well as preparing arrest warrants for
Iraqi officials who are the perpetrators of this crime.
"The Organization affirms that the continued killing of the Christian Iraqis as
well as the systematic approach of evacuating Iraq of its Christians, and their
forced displacement, is incompatible with the principles of international law,"
said the statement. Together with other organizations, the EUHRO is considering
holding an international conference to save the Christians of Iraq as well as
other Christian minorities persecuted in some countries of the Arab world.
Translated from Arabic by Mary Abdelmassih.
Copyright (C) 2010, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use.
Israel Calls For Significant Sanctions Against Iran
Washington 26 February 2010
VOA/ Iranian Reformists Call for Release of Prisoners for New Year
Israeli Troops Clash With Palestinians in Biblical Hebron
Iran, Hezbollah Leaders Meet in Syria
Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak is calling for significant sanctions
against Iran, saying it is clear the country wants to be a nuclear weapons
power. Barak made the comments during a visit to Washington.
Israel sees Iran as an existential threat and has refused to rule out a
preemptive military strike against the Islamic republic because of its nuclear
program.
But Israel also says it favors the U.S. push for sanctions against Iran in an
effort to convince the country to agree to international demands to halt its
uranium enrichment program.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. "It is clear to us and I believe it will
become more and more clear to others that Iran tries to defy, deceit and deter
the whole world in regard to its nuclear ambitions," he said.
Barak spoke Friday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
He pointed to recent protests in Iran following disputed presidential elections
as proof the grip of the government over the people is weakening.
He predicted the Iranian government is likely to fall, but said such an event
could be many years away. "It is clear to me the clock toward the collapse of
the regime works much slower than the clock which ticks toward Iran becoming a
nuclear military power," he said.
The Israeli defense minister said the United Nations should impose what he
called significant, effective sanctions on Tehran that set a time limit to
compel Iran to stop enriching uranium.
He endorsed U.S. President Barack Obama's efforts to line up members of the U.N.
Security Council behind a new set of sanctions. "I feel that the administration
is doing its utmost effort to deliver an effective set of sanctions. We
appreciate it and we hope it will be successful," he said.
Barak also meet Friday with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who is
pursuing a dual-track approach toward Iran. "We remain committed to a
diplomatic, peaceful resolution. But as the recent IAEA report makes clear, Iran
is not living up to its responsibilities, and we are working with our partners
in the international community to increase pressure on Iran to change course,"
she said.
Tehran has already faced three rounds of U.N. sanctions for refusing to stop
enriching uranium, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors and
fissile material for an atomic bomb.
Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
Hezbollah TV says two former cops among Lebanese citizens
suspected of spying for Israel
Associated Press Published: 02.27.10, / Israel News
Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV reported that five Lebanese citizens have been detained
on suspicion of spying for Israel, raising the number of suspects captured this
week to six.
Lebanese security and military officials contacted by The Associated Press
refused to confirm or deny the Lebanese guerrilla group's report. Al-Manar said
Saturday that two former policemen were among those detained. It did not say
when the arrests took place. Lebanon considers itself to be in a state of war
with Israel and bans any contact with Israeli citizens. Lebanese authorities
have arrested more than 50 people suspected of collaborating with Israel, under
a crackdown that began last year. All have been accused of providing Israel with
intelligence on Hezbollah, which fought a fierce war with Israel in 2006.
Nasrallah: Israel incapable of starting war
Hezbollah chief tells Syrian, Iranian presidents 'Zionist regime engaging in
psychological warfare'
Dudi Cohen Published: 02.26.10,
Israel News
Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah told Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad during a summit in Damascus that "the Zionist regime is not capable
of starting a new war, and is only engaging in psychological warfare in order to
sow fear and violence in the region". Ahmadinejad concluded his visit to Syria
Friday with after meeting Nasrallah and Syrian President Bashar Assad jointly.
He reiterated his vision of "a new Middle East – without Zionists or
colonialists". Nasrallah updated Ahmadinejad on occurrences in the region and
said he was "certain the Zionist regime's threats would never bear fruit". The
Iranian president repeated that Israel was "headed for ruin" and that victory
was close at hand, in a possible bid to encourage terror organizations in the
area and deepen his government's ties with them as it faces new sanctions from
the West for its nuclear program. "The Iranian nation supports resistance by the
region's people, and if the Zionist regime repeats its mistake and begins a new
conflict it must be uprooted in order to save the region from its hostility," he
told Nasrallah. "As we progress, the free nations and the region nears victory."
Earlier Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a meeting with his American
counterpart Robert Gates that Iran is not only Israel's problem and tough
sanctions are needed in order to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Barak's
remarks follow an earlier announcement by a US spokesman suggesting that
Washington will not be seeking crippling sanctions against Tehran.
Report: Iran moves nuclear fuel to above-ground plant
New York Times says move baffled IAEA inspectors, as nuclear fuel now exposed to
Israel airstrike. 'There’s no technical explanation, so there has to be some
other motivation,' US official says. Military officials: This is a tempting
moment for the Israelis
Jonathan Weber Published:
02.27.10, 11:02 / Israel News
About two weeks ago Iran moved nearly its entire stockpile of low-enriched
nuclear fuel from the underground plant in Natanz to an above-ground plant, the
New York Times (NYT) reported Saturday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that on Feb. 14, with
inspectors present, the Iranians moved roughly 4,300 pounds of low-enriched
uranium out of deep underground storage to the small plant that they have
declared they will use to re-enrich the fuel to 20 percent purity. It takes 80-
to 90-percent purity to make a nuclear weapon, a "relatively small technological
leap" from 20 percent, the report said.
Hezbollah chief tells Syrian, Iranian presidents 'Zionist regime engaging in
psychological warfare'
NYT said the move baffled the IAEA, as an above-ground plant is exposed to
aerial attacks. It was as if a bull’s-eye had been painted on it, one official
was quoted as saying, while military officials said this is a tempting moment
for the Israelis, according to the American newspaper.
The report said the recent visits by National Security Adviser Jim Jones and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen to Israel were aimed
at making sure that Israel does not launch an attack on Iran.
"On the surface, the move made no sense. Iran does not need anywhere near that
much fuel for its ostensible purpose: feeding an aging reactor in Tehran that
makes medical isotopes. Moreover, the fuel now sits out in the open, where an
air attack, or even a carefully staged accident or fire, could destroy it,"
according to the NYT.
The report said the risk taken by Iran is the subject of "fervent debate" among
many who are trying to decipher Tehran's intentions.
"The theories run from the bizarre to the mundane: Under one, Iran is actually
taunting the Israelis to strike first. Under another, it is simply escalating
the confrontation with the West to win further concessions in negotiations. The
simplest explanation, and the one that the Obama administration subscribes to,
is that Iran has run short of suitable storage containers for radioactive fuel,
so it had to move everything," the NYT said.
"There’s no technical explanation, so there has to be some other motivation,”
one senior Obama administration official was quoted by the NYT as saying.
According to the report, the "strangest of speculations" is that Iran's
Revolutionary Guards are inviting an attack to unify the country after eight
months of anti-government street demonstrations.
A senior European diplomat told the NYT that an Israeli military strike might be
the “best thing” for Iran’s leadership, because it would bring Iranians together
against a national enemy, but Kenneth Pollack, a scholar at the Brookings
Institution told the NYT, "I really doubt they are taunting the Israelis to hit
them. It would be humiliating for the Iranian regime." He speculated that Iran
would have to retaliate, and “the ensuing confrontation would go in directions
no one can really predict.”
The NYT report said the simplest explanation for moving the nuclear fuel to an
above-ground plant is that the Iranians had no choice. "The fuel is stored in
one big, specialized cask. When someone ordered that the fuel begin being fed
into the giant centrifuges for further enrichment, engineers moved it to the
only spot available — the exposed plant," the report said.
“You can’t dismiss the possibility that this is a screw-up,” an American
intelligence official was quoted by the NYT as saying.
Report: Russia to provide Lebanon with choppers
Al-Nahar reports Lebanese president signed military cooperation deal with
Russian counterpart
Roee Nahmias Published:
02.26.10, / Israel News
Lebanese President Michel Suleiman returned Friday from a two-day visit to
Moscow and announced Russia had agreed to provide his country with Mi-24
helicopters, Al-Nahar reported.
Russia announced in December of 2008 that it would provide Lebanon with 10
Mig-29 type planes, but Suleiman asked instead to receive the state of the art
military choppers and the advanced missiles they carry.
The first Lebanese president ever to visit Moscow, Suleiman signed a military
cooperation deal with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday. The
latter described the visit as a "milestone" in relations between the two
countries. Suleiman said it was a historical event and praised Medvedev for his
support of Lebanon. In an interview with Russia Today he said Israel's threats
against his country were the focus of many of his conversa
"Israel is trying with its threats to achieve two things – escape from
international pressure placed on it to proceed in the peace process, and create
an atmosphere of sectarianism within Lebanon," Suleiman said. His visit followed
one by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who tried unsuccessfully to convince
Russia to cancel a deal providing Iran with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles.