Top Stories
AP: "Shiite militias backed by Iran have ramped up attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, making June the deadliest month in two years for American forces. The militiamen's goal is to prevent the U.S. military from extending its presence in the country past the end of this year. Three separate militias have been involved in the attacks, particularly a small but deadly group known as the Hezbollah Brigades, believed to be funded and trained by Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard and its special operations wing, the Quds Force... The Hezbollah Brigades, which has links to the Lebanon-based Hezbollah, is solely focused on attacking U.S. troops and other American personnel and claimed responsibility for a June 6 rocket attack that killed five soldiers in Baghdad. The force, estimated at about 1,000 fighters, receives unlimited funding from Iran, an Iraqi lawmaker familiar with militia operations said. Its militants are paid between $300 to $500 each month, said a senior Iraqi intelligence official. He described the militia as the most difficult for counterterror forces to penetrate because, like al-Qaida, operatives are segregated into cells that strictly kept apart." http://t.uani.com/kYLHPp
WSJ: "A U. S. government agency on Thursday reported it hasn't found any government-contracted information technology companies selling censoring gear to Iran-illustrating the difficulties in identifying vendors of online repression. In July 2010, existing U.S. sanctions on Iran were expanded to forbid the U.S. government from doing business with any company that exports sensitive technology to Iran. The four-month study by the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, was aimed to help put the ban in place. The study was a response to two congressional acts resulting from the violent crackdown in Iran after the contested 2009 Iranian presidential election, and an acknowledgment by Nokia Siemens Networks that it had provided telephone-monitoring equipment to Iran. The joint venture of Siemens AG, the German conglomerate, and Nokia Corp., the Finnish cellphone company, has said it exited that business earlier in 2009. At the time, Nokia Siemens Networks had nearly 2,000 contracts with the U.S. government valued at more than $250 million, according to a federal government funding website... 'This report underscores the challenges inherent in preventing Iran from using technology to cripple the efforts of Iranian human-rights activists,' said Ashley Mushnick, spokeswoman for Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), who is sponsoring legislation that would impose sanctions on companies selling censoring technology to Iran, among other related measures. 'Many of the technologies used to provide Internet access are the same ones that can be used to disrupt it,'Ms. Mushnick added. The GAO said in the report it was unable to identify companies selling such gear to Iran in part because of this dual-use nature of Internet technology, a concept called lawful intercept." http://t.uani.com/ilpSBL
Reuters: "National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) has said it will cut supplies for Indian clients in August if the two countries have still not found a way to make payments for the oil, three industry sources said on Friday. NIOC told refiners of the deadline on the more than six-month old dispute in a letter dated June 27 to Indian refiners, the sources, who requested anonymity, told Reuters. 'We regret to inform you that NIOC would hardly be in a position to deliver the Iranian crude oil to our partners in India ... in August 2011 unless concrete solutions are worked out for remittances of NIOC's dues,' the letter said, according to two sources who have seen the letter. NIOC added in the letter that 'high-ranking delegates from banking, financial and oil sectors of both countries are presently devoting a great deal of effort to settle the matter,' according to the sources." http://t.uani.com/itm10A
Nuclear Program & Sanctions
The Hindu: "A series of actions by India over last year, including not signing a deal on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, signal New Delhi's steps to join the US-led efforts 'to shut Iran out of the international financial system', a Congress report says. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) in its latest report prepared for US lawmakers, many of whom had in the past voiced concerns over India-Iran ties, said that steps taken in late 2010 to prevent some banking transactions with Iran, could suggest that New Delhi is now cautious about any expansion of energy or other commercial relations with Iran. 'Previously, the threat of imposition of US sanctions had not dissuaded Indian firms from taking some equity stakes in various Iranian energy projects,' said the report by CRS, which is a bi-partisan research wing of the US Congress. CRS said India was almost out of the $7-billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project. 'India did not sign a memorandum between Iran and Pakistan finalising the deal on June 12, 2010. India reportedly has been concerned about the security of the pipeline, the location at which the gas would be officially transferred to India, pricing of the gas, tariffs, and the source in Iran of the gas to be sold,' it said." http://t.uani.com/ifG6Mm
AP: "Israel's foreign minister warned Thursday that Iran is using Mideast unrest as a smoke screen to advance missile and nuclear programs in its alleged development of nuclear arms... Frequent Israeli depictions of Iran as representing the greatest danger to Mideast peace received enforcement Wednesday with British warnings that the Islamic Republic has conducted secret tests of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Britain believes Tehran has conducted at least three secret tests of medium-range ballistic missiles since October, amid an apparent escalation of its nuclear program and increased scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy Agency... Lieberman on Thursday said Iran is exploiting 'international community ... attention to the Arab Spring to develop and move as soon as possible with their nuclear and missile programs.'" http://t.uani.com/lr9Pro
Human Rights
CNN: "With their loved ones' trial less than a month away, the families of two American hikers detained in Iran for two years took their appeal Thursday to the United Nations. A day after meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the families of Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer appealed for their release in a press conference held at UN headquarters. 'Holding two innocent people in prison due to their nationality is unconscionable,' Sarah Shourd, who was arrested with Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer but released after more than 13 months, said. In a private meeting, Ban told the families that the two Americans' detention was 'totally unacceptable,' according to Laura Fattal, Josh's mother. 'He promised to continue to urge Iran to finally live up to its promises of justice and compassion, and release Josh and Shane immediately and unconditionally,' she said. The mothers have been holding a hunger strike for several days to stand in solidarity with their sons." http://t.uani.com/mG7Txq
AFP: "Tehran on Friday rejected comments made by the mothers of two US hikers held in Iran for nearly two years who said their sons were abused, the official IRNA news agency reported. 'The comments made about the conditions of the two imprisoned Americans are rejected,' said a statement issued by Iran's mission at the United Nations reported by IRNA. The mothers of US hikers Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal have urged the United Nations to investigate what they they described as psychological torture, physical abuse and sexual harassment of their sons. The made the appeal in a letter Thursday after a meeting the previous day with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The comments raise 'serious suspicion (that they were made under) political pressure,' the Iranian statement said. Bauer, 28, and Fattal, 29, were arrested in late July 2009 near the border between northern Iraq and Iran." http://t.uani.com/mg2CLZ
Opinion & Analysis
Yoel Guzansky in The Australian: "Until recently it appeared that US security guarantees would be a preferred alternative to Riyadh's pursuit of a nuclear option. However, the combination of Iran's steady nuclear progress and Riyadh's growing frustration with Washington's 'Arab Spring' policies threaten to drive the Saudis in precisely this direction. As a leading Arab state and as Iran's ideological-religious rival and main competitor for regional influence, Saudi Arabia will find it difficult to sit quietly should Iran obtain military nuclear capability. The same week that the UN nuclear watchdog raised new concerns of 'undisclosed nuclear-related activities in Iran' it was reported that Saudi Arabia was to build 16 nuclear reactors at a cost of more than $US300 billion... In terms of nuclear development, these two Sunni nations located on either side of Shia Iran have overlapping interests: Pakistan has knowledge and skilled manpower, but lacks cash, while Saudi Arabia has vast cash reserves but lacks the relevant infrastructures and skilled manpower. The two might seek to balance Iran's power by increasing co-operation, despite the political risks primarily to their already strained relations with the US and the fact that doing so would contradict Saudi international commitments and its own public position favouring a nuclear-free Middle East... The Saudi strategy perhaps depends most of all on if and how Iran crosses the nuclear threshold. Should Iran not cross the nuclear threshold, Saudi Arabia may be able to turn a blind eye or aspire to become a threshold state itself. However, should it become certain Iran is a nuclear weapons state, Saudi Arabia would feel obligated to acquire similar capability. Former head of the Saudi intelligence service and ambassador to the US, Turki al-Faisal, stressed recently that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon 'Saudi Arabia might feel pressure to acquire a nuclear deterrent of its own'. Earlier this month The Wall Street Journal reported another Saudi threat to go nuclear or 'to pursue policies that could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences', should Iran do the same." http://t.uani.com/kfkYhw
Justin Elliott in Salon: "Last August, the Atlantic published a splashy cover story by Jeffrey Goldberg that led with a startling prediction: Israel would more likely than not launch bombing raids on Iran's nuclear sites by July 2011, according to Goldberg's mostly Israeli (and unnamed) sources... The piece, packaged with a provocative cover image and headline ('ISRAEL IS GETTING READY TO BOMB IRAN') was the subject of intense debate when it came out... A common critique of the piece was precisely what Goldberg tried to preemptively address in the excerpt above: that his Israeli sources, with the protection of anonymity, were overstating the possibility and imminence of an Israeli strike in order to persuade Washington to more aggressively pressure Iran, or even launch its own attack. As Ben Smith wrote at the time, the 'unstated logic here [is] that, if Israel is going to bomb Iran, the U.S. might as well do it itself.' That critique seems to have been strengthened by the fact that the central prediction of the article didn't pan out. Reached by phone at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Goldberg told me that he believes the article captured the 'high level of anxiety' about Iran he encountered during a month reporting in Israel last summer. 'We wrestled with how to frame it and decided to frame it in a way that would drive concentrated attention to what we thought was a serious and urgent problem,' he said. 'I would point out that by saying there's a greater than 50 percent chance, we were still suggesting there's a 40-plus percent chance it wouldn't happen.' Goldberg also pointed to several 'interesting' developments after the publication of his story: revelations about the Stuxnet worm dealing a blow to Iran's nuclear program; a series of high-profile statements by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan opposing a strike on Iran as 'stupid;' and communications between American officials and their Israeli counterparts that Goldberg said were prompted by his Atlantic story. He said that Obama officials reached out to the Israelis to reassure them that 'we've got this' -- but Goldberg added he's not sure how much stock to put in those communications. I asked Goldberg about the argument that his Israeli sources were hyping the possibility of an attack in order to ratchet up pressure on the Obama administration. 'I talked to a lot of people I've known for a long time, and I did not sense that this was a campaign,' he said. 'There was no campaign organized to get me to say x, y or z.' Goldberg still believes that in certain circumstances the current Israeli government would attack Iran's nuclear sites. 'Meir Dagan is doing what he's doing now because he's scared of an Israeli attack,' he said. 'If you don't think Bibi Netanyahu is crazy enough to launch an attack on Iran, you don't understand this prime minister.' One other thing: Atlantic Editor James Bennet is standing by the story, sending over this statement: 'I'm proud of the story, and I think it holds up very well. We didn't anticipate Stuxnet specifically, but we did emphasize that changing circumstances could affect the timeline we described in the piece. The story succeeded in provoking a tremendous amount of debate about one of the biggest foreign policy questions of our time, and nine months after we published it, it remains the definitive article on the complex strategic thinking here and abroad about Iran's nuclear program.'" http://t.uani.com/jYwm1m
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment