Top Stories
WashPost: "Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta this week became the latest U.S. official to blame Iran for a recent series of deadly attacks on U.S. forces. The new Pentagon chief also suggested the United States would respond in self-defense against the Iranians if necessary. But how is the U.S. so sure that the weapons and training are coming from Iran? 'We have a very comprehensive understanding of where the rockets are manufactured,' Maj. Gen. Jeffrey S. Buchanan, chief spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, said in an interview. 'We can identify what factory they were made in by certain markings. We've seen markings recently of rockets that were manufactured in Iran in 2010. These are not things that were just buried in old cache sites. They continue to come across the border in very large numbers.' U.S. officials say three Shiite militia groups - the Promised Day Brigade, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah - are responsible for the deaths of at least 18 U.S. troops in the past seven weeks. The groups have been trained and supplied by Iranian Revolutionary Guard special forces, who U.S. officials say are crossing the border into Iraq to provide training and materiel. Singling out the Kataib Hezbollah, Buchanan said: 'We get fingerprints off of a certain cache or a certain rocket that we can tie biometrically to an individual who lives in Iran, he's a top leader of Kataib Hezbollah, he lives in Iran, he is trained by the Quds Force. All of that together is a very compelling set of evidence.'" http://t.uani.com/o77rDC
Reuters: "Iran is stepping up centrifuge development work aimed at making its nuclear enrichment more efficient, diplomats say, signalling a possible advance in the Islamic Republic's disputed atomic programme. Two newer and more advanced models of the breakdown-prone machine that Iran now operates to refine uranium are being installed for large-scale testing at a research site near the central town of Natanz, the diplomats told Reuters this week. If Iran eventually succeeds in introducing the more modern centrifuges for production, it could significantly shorten the time needed to stockpile material that can have civilian as well as military purposes, if processed much further. But it is unclear whether Tehran, subject to increasingly strict international sanctions, has the means and components to make the more sophisticated machines in bigger numbers... Marking a potential step forward for those plans, diplomats said work was under way to set up two units of 164 new machines each. Until now, only smaller chains or individual centrifuges of the IR-4 and IR-2m models have been tested at the R&D site. 'They are moving forward here,' said one senior diplomat, from a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency. 'This is slow and steady but notable progress they are making.'" http://t.uani.com/qlY6Ae
JPost: "Iran has overtaken North Korea in the development of long-range sophisticated missiles, as demonstrated by the recent launch of a number of new missiles during military maneuvers in Iran, Uzi Rubin, the former head of Israel's Homa Missile Defense Agency, said on Thursday. According to Rubin, during the Great Prophet War Games held earlier this month, Iran displayed a new ballistic missile that has been converted to be used against ships. This is considered a significant breakthrough since most anti-ship missiles are cruise missiles that fly parallel to the water's surface while this missile takes a ballistic course toward its target. 'This is a direct threat on the US Navy along Iran's coast,' Rubin said. 'The Iranians took a Fateh-110 rocket, which is also in Hezbollah hands, installed on it a guidance system and turned it into an anti-ship missile.' Rubin's remarks came ahead of a missile defense conference later this month near Tel Aviv, which will be attended by senior defense officials from around the world, including US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Space and Defense Policy Frank Rose, US Missile Defense Agency Deputy Director for International Affairs Rob Helfant and the deputy defense minister of the Czech Republic." http://t.uani.com/q2uN1N
Nuclear Program & Sanctions
AFP: "Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi is in Nigeria for a meeting of eight developing countries that want to boost trade, government officials and diplomats said Thursday. Relations between Iran and Nigeria got frosty last year following the discovery in Lagos of a weapons shipment that was loaded in Iran. 'He came to Nigeria for a D8 meeting of ministers and commissioners,' Nigeria's foreign affairs spokesman Damian Agwu told AFP. Iranian embassy officials also confirmed the minister's visit. An alleged Iranian Revolutionary Guard member is on trial over the importation of rockets, explosives and grenades falsely declared as building materials. The arms were seized in October at Nigeria's main port in the economic hub of Lagos. The case drew international attention because it may constitute a violation of UN sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme. Nigeria reported the seizure to the UN Security Council, which has approved four sets of sanctions against Iran, including a ban on arms sales. Agwu said the visit had nothing to do with the arms case." http://t.uani.com/rhUS94
NYT: "That a victim of a Palestinian suicide bombing would seek legal redress from an American museum might seem baffling to the uninitiated. But for Daniel Miller, 27, it is simply a way of extracting justice from a government that he blames for his suffering. Because Iran helped to train and support members of Hamas, the militant group that carried out the attack along a Jerusalem shopping promenade in 1997, Mr. Miller and four other Americans who survived the attack decided to seek damages from the Iranian government in American courts. In 2001 they won a judgment against Iran in federal court in Chicago; in 2003 a United States District judge in Washington awarded them about $71 million in compensatory damages and $180 million in punitive damages, to be paid by the Iranian government, according to the plaintiffs' lawyer. To collect on the judgment, the plaintiffs seized upon an unusual strategy shortly afterward: laying claim to some 2,500-year-old cuneiform tablets that are on loan from Iran to the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute." http://t.uani.com/q10UXu
Human Rights
Fox News: "Iran's Supreme Court says an evangelical pastor charged with apostasy can be executed if he does not recant his faith, according to a copy of the verdict obtained by a religious rights activist group. Christian Solidarity World says Iranian-born Yousef Nadarkhani, who was arrested in 2009 and given the death sentence late last year, could have his sentence suspended on the grounds that he renounce his faith. Those who know him say he is not likely to do that, for if he were disposed to giving it up, he would have done it long ago. If Nadarkhani does not recant, his fate is unclear. It's believed his case would then be remanded to lower courts in Iran." http://t.uani.com/pYXCwY
Opinion & Analysis
WT Editorial Board: "The United States is engaged in a deadly but seldom mentioned proxy war with Iran. In a rare act of candor, two senior Obama administration defense officials have addressed the open secret of Iran's active support for insurgent groups fighting U.S. troops overseas. Earlier this week, during a visit to Iraq, newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta strongly denounced Iranian support for increasingly violent Shiite militia groups in that country. 'We are very concerned about Iran and the weapons they are providing to extremists here in Iraq,' he said. 'We're seeing more of those weapons going in from Iran, and they've really hurt us.' Mr. Panetta pledged that America would take action against Iran's provocations. 'We cannot sit back and simply allow this to continue to happen,' he said. 'This is not something we're going to walk away from. It's something we're going to take on head-on.' Last week, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised the alarm against Iran's support for insurgents. He told the Pentagon Press Association, 'Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups, which are killing our troops. There is no question they are shipping high-tech weapons in there ... that are killing our people. And the forensics prove that.' Iranian support for insurgencies is rarely raised so publicly at such high levels. Iran has been directly or indirectly responsible for more U.S. combat deaths than any other country since the end of the Vietnam War. For years, Iran has supplied arms and other support to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that threaten coalition troops in overseas war zones, there is nothing improvised about the explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) that Iran has been supplying to militant groups. These sophisticated weapons are powerful enough to defeat the heaviest U.S. armored vehicles, and a 2006 classified intelligence report leaked in the New York Times asserted, 'All source reporting since 2004 indicates that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Corps-Quds Force is providing professionally-built EFPs and components to Iraqi Shia militants.' The latest State Department report on Iranian support for international terrorism states, 'Iran's Quds Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives and indirect fire weapons. Since at least 2006, Iran has arranged arms shipments to select Taliban members, including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107 mm rockets and plastic explosives.' A 2010 story in the London Sunday Times reported that Iranian front companies in Afghanistan funnel salaries of $233 a month to Taliban fighters with bonuses of $1,000 for killing American troops and $6,000 for knocking out American military vehicles. The Obama administration has been reticent to draw attention to Iran's support for insurgents. Early in 2009, the White House initiated a high-profile outreach effort to Tehran, which was rebuffed quickly and foundered after the brutal crackdown on Iranian pro-reform demonstrators that same summer. Since then, relations have grown steadily worse because of Iran's nuclear program and dismal human rights record. With U.S. forces exiting the region, it would be strategically sound to signal the Islamic republic that America won't tolerate continued support for insurgent groups that threaten our allies and interests. As Mr. Panetta said, it's about time the United States takes this issue head-on." http://t.uani.com/oD1dRt
Meir Javedanfar in The Atlantic: "The Iranian government did not wait long. Two days after the announcement that the U.S. will be withholding more than one third of its annual $2 billion in aid to Pakistan's military, the state-controlled Tehran Times reported that Iran's Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar will be visiting Pakistan. The newly announced visit is scheduled to take place at the end of next week. According to the same report, the purpose of the visit will be to 'hold talks on economic, regional and security cooperation between the two countries'. The current rift between Islamabad and Washington could not have come at a better time for Iran's leaders. Feeling increasingly isolated, they could now try to improve relations with Pakistan. And, in all likelihood, the initial signs are bound to be positive for the leaderships of the two nations. Pakistan is currently facing a major energy crisis, which some analysts believe may be the worst in its history. It desperately needs Iranian gas and is not shy to say it. 'Our dependence on the Iran pipeline is very high. There is no other substitute at present to meet our growing demand for energy' stated Pakistani minister for petroleum, Asim Hussain recently. The import of gas from Iran has been part of a long running project, called The Peace Pipeline, to build a pipeline from Iran to go through Pakistan first and then India to deliver gas to both countries. In 1995 Pakistan and Iran signed a preliminary agreement. Due to U.S. pressure against it, this deal was not finalized until June 2010. Iran and India signed an agreement in 1999, but, due to pressure from Washington, India never finalized the deal. Even when Pakistan did sign on, it never gave the order to start work on the construction of the pipeline from its border to import Iran's gas, until July 6th this year. Two major factors seem to have pushed the Pakistanis over the start line. One is the ensuing energy crisis at home. The other is that the competitor to the Peace Pipeline, the Trans Afghanistan Pipeline, is considered to be too risky as the main source of Pakistan's energy, since it runs through Taliban territory in Afghanistan. It's possible that this, as well as the expulsion of U.S. trainers, was partly responsible for the U.S. decision to suspend part of its military aid to Pakistan. But, whether or not the two events are explicitly linked, the current rift with Washington has made it easier for Pakistan to ignore U.S. pressure and pursue the Peace Pipeline deal with Iran. Not only have the Iranians secured Pakistan as a client, they know Pakistan's dire need for Iranian gas means they will not be leaving Iran's side anytime soon. Some analysts have estimated that gas from Iran provide at least 20 percent of Pakistan's energy needs. Others have suggested 50 percent. The question that must now be asked is, how far will the Pakistan-Iran rapprochement go? In all likelihood, not very far. Aside from this recent victory, the most that Iranians can look forward to is the possibility of closer security cooperation with the Pakistanis against the remnants of the Jundollah terrorist organization, an ethnic Baloch group that spans both countries. When it comes to Iran's nuclear program and its influence in the Middle East, Tehran is unlikely to find Pakistan of much help." http://t.uani.com/mRPVzC
Lisa Daftari in Fox News: "Iran may not be importing cyber spy equipment, according to a newly released government report, yet the Iranian regime's beefed up cyber surveillance abilities have many believing that Tehran has begun producing its own homegrown spy technology. The report, issued last week by Congress' investigative division, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), was unsuccessful in tracking specific suppliers selling high-level communications spy technology. Recent government crackdowns, however, have officials certain that Iran is employing sophisticated monitoring equipment in suppressing online opposition. The finding was announced at the end of a four-month study, aimed to enforce broadened sanctions imposed against the Iranian government in July 2010, which forbade the U.S. government from doing business with companies that export sensitive technology to Iran. The question remains whether communications technology is purchased from abroad or developed by Iranians, making the government self-sufficient in defending itself against the opposition's ongoing cyber revolution. Since the 2009 post-election uprisings in Iran, protesters facing brutal government retaliation on the street turned to the Internet and the use of social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as well as blogging sites, as effective and popular avenues to unite, organize and voice disenchantment against the government. 'I don't think they're completely self sufficient,' said Austin Heap, executive director of the Censorship Research Center, who also works on developing technologies for increasing Internet freedom. 'But having seen the Iranian government's operating manuals, I can say for a fact that they are definitely producing technology in Iran.' Shortly after the 2009 Iranian elections, Heap, a 26-year-old programmer living in Northern California, instructed Iranians on how to run proxy servers to access government-blocked Internet sites. After studying the Iranian government's technology, he developed Haystack, a piece of software that encrypts data and hides Web activity. 'I don't think any company sold them a complete censorship package. It's three-fold. It's partially the technology parts they've already received; it's using programming from other countries, and they most certainly are getting better. If you look at 2009 till now, they've gotten so much smarter.'" http://t.uani.com/oquicC
Ali Alfoneh in AEI: "On May 18, President Barack Obama imposed sanctions against Major General Qassem Suleimani, chief of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), who is identified as 'the conduit for Iranian material support' to the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate. To counter Suleimani and the Quds Force, US strategists need to understand his history of overconfident behavior and military successes. A survey of the open-source literature pertaining to Suleimani reveals a man who became a successful general without much formal training. Though a shrewd tactical leader, Suleimani is not a strategist... Addressing students at the Haqqani Theological Seminary in Qom on May 22, 2011, Suleimani declared that the social revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa 'provide our revolution with the greatest opportunities.' He continued, 'Today, Iran's victory or defeat no longer takes place in Mehran and Khorramshahr. Our boundaries have expanded and we must witness victory in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. This is the fruit of the Islamic revolution.' Suleimani's statements confirm earlier press reports that the Islamic Republic has actively -supported its ally Syria in deadly crackdowns on protesters and, more specifically, charges that Suleimani's Quds Force has been exploiting the Arab Spring in Tehran's favor. This is also why, on May 18, Obama imposed sanctions not only against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and six senior aides, but also Suleimani, who is identified as 'the conduit for Iranian material support' to the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate. Despite Suleimani's prominence, little is known about him personally; he remains something of an enigma. This Outlook addresses this problem by analyzing open-source Persian-language materials to help provide some insight into Suleimani's leadership style, his military career, and his recent ideological rhetoric in support of exporting the Iranian revolution. These sources include Suleimani's speeches, references to Suleimani's war record in the Tehran-based IRGC Center of War Research and Studies' Iran/Iraq War Chronology, and biographical materials from Suleimani's fellow war veterans. Admittedly, the IRGC and Quds Force operations that must be dealt with today differ considerably from the operations conducted during the 1980-88 Iran/Iraq war. However, as the generation of war-era IRGC commanders such as Suleimani rises to prominence in Iran, a study of their past behavior can provide valuable insights into their behavior today. This is especially true for Suleimani, whose familiarity with contemporary military literature was minimal preceding the war, and whose leadership style was shaped by formative battlefield experiences and military staff deliberations." http://t.uani.com/pp9Xcp
Javad Mirabdal & Javid Shenasi in UPI: "Almost exactly a year ago, on July 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the U.S. State Department to re-evaluate the 'terrorist' designation of Iran's main dissident movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq. After an inexplicable yearlong delay, the State Department continues to drag its feet even as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism -- the Iranian regime -- sardonically uses the label as a pretext to kill MEK members and supporters in Iran and through its proxies in Iraq. Many are left wondering why Washington is so conciliatory toward Tehran's demands despite the regime's rogue behavior. The inclusion of the MEK -- an organization dedicated to establishing a democratic Iran -- on the U.S. terrorist list has a murky history and even more intriguing are the motivations. In essence, terrorism is the last thing it's about. What it is and has always been about is placating the tyrannical regime in Iran. 'Iranian officials for years have made suppression of the MEK a priority in negotiations with Western governments, according to several diplomats who were involved in those talks,' according to The Wall Street Journal. In 1997, Tehran got its wish. Enamored with the (spurious) 'reformist' streak in Tehran, and in order to instigate a thaw in bilateral relations, Washington took several unilateral steps, most important among them restricting the MEK. 'The inclusion of the [MEK on the terror list] was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran,' a senior U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times at the time. In 2002, another official described it as 'a signal of the U.S.'s desire for rapprochement with Tehran's reformists.' Tehran interpreted the MEK's listing as a sign of American weakness, and in the ensuing months and years, it intensified its nuclear activities and terrorism. Still, as several former high-ranking officials have said, the MEK was kept on the list even 'during the administration of George W. Bush, in part out of fear that Iran would provide (improvised explosive devices) to our enemies in Iraq, which of course the mullahs are doing anyway.' Kowtowing to pressure from Tehran, in 2001 and 2002, Britain and the European Union followed suit both blacklisting the MEK but they were unable to produce a shred of evidence to actually back up the allegations against the organization. Predictably, both the United Kingdom and the European Union were forced to delist the MEK in 2008 and 2009, respectively, following successive court rulings. In 2007, U.K. courts concluded that the designation of the MEK was 'perverse,' a highly unconventional criticism of a government decision. And, the country's highest court noted that after seeing all the evidence, both open and classified, that it 'reinforced' its view that the MEK is not a terrorist group. Indeed, the MEK has explicitly and repeatedly rejected all forms of violence as far back as a decade ago. Its members in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, are unarmed civilians and are considered 'protected persons' under the Fourth Geneva Convention. All members were investigated and interviewed thoroughly by agencies like the FBI and the State Department after the 2003 Iraq war during a 16-month investigation. According to the U.S. government itself, none had violated U.S. laws. The July 16, 2010, appeals court decision said that the MEK's due process rights were violated and questioned the State Department's flawed evidence. The decision 'strongly' suggested that the designation should be revoked. The clock continues to tick on an issue that is not simply a political one, although its implications are strategically important. As seconds go by, the State Department's deliberate delay in implementing the court ruling helps raise the specter of another massacre against thousands of lives in Ashraf." http://t.uani.com/pX0mZS
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment