'German Firm Helps Iran Monitor Israel'
'Report From Iran: Should We Really Bomb These People?'
'Israel: Calculations Of War And Peace'
'War And Peace, Israeli Style'
'Oil, Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Way Forward'
'Our Fool's Paradise To Crumble As Calamities Set To Collide'
Israeli Minister Threatens "Destruction Of The Iranian Nation"
'Petraeus Prepares The Battlefield For Iran'
'Invading Iran'
'Here's How Iran Is Vulnerable: A View From Israel'
'Nuclear Armed Israel Preparing For New War'
'Syria Plans Emergency Drill Amid Fears Of War With Israel'
'Syrian official: We're Prepared For War'
'Report: Lebanon Moves Civilians Away From Israel Border'
'Syria: Shocker From Iran About Militant's Death'
'Israeli Nuclear Whistleblower Vanunu's Fifth Year Of Restrictions Begins And Norway Caves'
'Iran Warns West Of 'Bloody Nose' Over N-Issue'
'US-Iran Conflict Likely To Deepen'
'Another Hot Summer?'
'Defense Focus: Subs Vs. Carriers - Parts 1-3'
'Six Comments On The Situation'
'Bush Launches Economic 'Shock and Awe' On Iran'
'U.S. Storm Over Iran Gathers Pace'
'Petraeus Points To War With Iran'
'President Bush Delivers Iran An Ultimatum'
'Mugniyah Murder Probe Points To Saudi Involvement'
'Newspaper: Israeli Drill Delays Mugniyah Report'
'Iran Points The Finger At Saudi Arabia For Mougniyah Killing'
'Iran Condemns Israel's Insolent, Outrageous, Unprovoked Threats'
'Has Iran Been Subjected To Tesla Scalar Howitzer Attacks?'
'The Coming War With Iran: It's About The Oil, Stupid'
'Hizbullah: We'll Take Fight To Israel's Backyard'
'Iran: We'll 'Eliminate Israel' If It Launches Attack'
'Israel Connects To America’s Ballistic Missile Early Warning System'
'Source: U.S. Strike On Iran Nearing'
'Iran Should Be "Set Up for an Attack"'
'Iran Says U.S. Aids Rebels At Its Borders'
U.S.: Iran's Threats To Defend Itself If Attacked By Israel 'Justify International Sanctions'
'Israel's Paramount Prism is The Iranian Threat'
'Indeed, Another War In The Middle East Is On The Horizon'
'Hizbullah Militants Regroup Amid War Jitters'
'Hizbullah: Has Israel Met Its Match?'
'Another Syrian Armored Division Masses On Israeli-Lebanese Borders'
'Iran Will Respond To Any Attack'
'Iran's President Shows Off Military Strength At Parade'
'Analysis: War Fever Grips Middle East'
'Could Israel Use Submarines Against Iran?'
'Hezbollah Official Speaks Of Possible Israeli Attack Along Lebanese Syrian Borders'
'Syria: War With Israel Is A Real Possibility'
'Envoys Fail To Reach Consensus On Iranian Nuclear Issue'
'Israel's Olmert Says Iran Will Never Be A Nuclear Power'
'Assad: U.S. Wants Israel To Declare War On Syria'
'October Surprise?'
'Hizbullah Will Dispatch Israeli Arabs To Attack From Rear In War'
'Who's Behind the Proxy Wars?'
'9/11 Attacks Good For Israel: Netanyahu'
'Saving The U.S. From Israel'
'Clinton Vows 'Massive' U.S. Retaliation If Iran Attacks Israel'
Brown To Bush: 'I'll Be A Better Poodle Than Blair Ever Was!'
'Diplomatic flurry As Iran, Israel Threaten'
'Can The U.S. And Iran Share The Middle East?'
'Iran Strikes Back In Operation Kaman 99'
'Bordering On Deceit'
Think you might escape the aftereffects of a limited nuclear war that happens on the other side of the globe from you? Think again.
Imagine that the long-simmering conflict between India and Pakistan broke out into a war in which each side deployed 50 nuclear weapons against the other country's megacities. Karachi, Bombay, and dozens of other South Asian cities catch fire like Hiroshima and Nagasaki did at the end of World War II.
Beyond the local human tragedy of such a situation, a new study looking at the atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war finds that the hot smoke from burning cities would tear holes in the ozone layer of the Earth. The increased UV radiation resulting from the ozone loss could more than double DNA damage, and increase cancer rates across North America and Eurasia.
"Our research supports that there would be worldwide destruction," said Michael Mills, co-author of the study and a research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "It demonstrates that a small-scale regional conflict is capable of triggering larger ozone losses globally than the ones that were previously predicted for a full-scale nuclear war."
Combined with the climatic impact of a regional nuclear war -- which could reduce crop yields and starve hundreds of millions -- Mills' modeling shows that the entire globe would feel the repercussions of a hundred nuclear detonations, a small fraction of just the U.S. stockpile. After decades of Cold War research into the impacts that a full-blown war between the Soviet Union and the United States would have had on the globe, recent work has focused on regional nuclear wars, which are seen as more likely than all-out nuclear Armageddon. Incorporating the latest atmospheric modeling, the scientists are finding that even a small nuclear conflict would wreak havoc on the global environment (.pdf) -- cooling it twice as much as it's heated over the last century -- and on the structure of the atmosphere itself.
Mills' work, which appears online today in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, used a model from National Center for Atmospheric Research to look at the impact of throwing 5 million metric tons of black carbon, or soot, into the atmosphere. He found that when a cluster of cities are burning together, they end up creating their own weather, pumping soot 20,000 feet into the atmosphere. Once there, sunlight would heat the smoke, and drive it up 260,000 feet above the earth's surface.
Along the way, the hot soot would cause a variety of atmospheric changes with a net result of huge reductions in ozone, which in the stratosphere serves as sunblock for the earth. In the middle latitudes, the researchers found the ozone layer would be reduced by 25 to 45 percent, with the polar regions losing 50 to 70 percent of their ozone coverage. This thinning is known as a "hole" in the ozone layer, and would be many times the size of the famed hole over Antarctica.
According to research cited by the paper, the increase in ultraviolet light falling to earth at the 45-degree latitude -- a little south of Portland, Oregon -- would cause damage to DNA to increase 213 percent.
"It would have a dramatic effect on skin cancer and cataracts and be very damaging to crops and ecosystems," Mills said.
The reduced levels of ozone would persist for five years, with substantial reductions in ozone continuing for another five years after that.
Even if the cause of the war were local, its impacts would be felt across the globe.
"Pretty much everywhere [would be] affected," Mills concluded.
Source: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/regional-nuclea.html
The Munich-based energy and electrical giant Siemens has with "high likelihood" delivered sophisticated data surveillance systems to Iran, an Austrian investigative journalist disclosed in a public broadcast ORF report on Monday.
Speaking from Vienna, journalist Erich Moechel told The Jerusalem Post that he was "99 percent certain" that "Monitoring Centers," used to track mobile and land-line phone conversations, had been sent to Iran. These systems could enable the Iranian intelligence service to document conversations between Israel and Iran and "build a communication profile."
According to Moechel, the technology can show "how many telephone conversations over the last 10 years between Israel and Iran" took place, as well as the locations of the communications.
Moechel, a specialist in the field of data protection and surveillance, said that he was highly certain that the Iranian regime had purchased German-designed "Intelligence Platform" systems, which allow the Iranian secret service to monitor "financial transactions and traffic and airplane movements."
The Intelligence Platform would enable the Islamic Republic to amass complex databases showing, for example, the activities of international companies in Iran that also conduct business with Israel and other countries.
When questioned about the delivery of intelligence equipment, Wolfram Trost, a Siemens spokesman, declined to confirm the sale of the Monitoring Centers and Intelligence Platforms to Iran. Trost said Siemens "adheres to the European Union, United Nations and German guidelines" covering restricted trade with Iran.
The sale of "dual-use goods" - which can be applied for military usage and a nuclear weapons program - to Iran is unlawful under EU and UN sanctions as well as German export control regulations.
Trost referred the matter to Siemens's joint partner in the Iranian deal, Nokia Siemens Network.
Telephone calls seeking a comment from the Nokia Siemens Network in Espoo, the Finnish telecommunications partner, were not returned.
Moechel wrote in his article that the integrated intelligence devices were used against persecuted minority groups and political dissidents in Iran. He cited German and Austrian privacy experts who noted that these types of machines would not be lawful within the EU.
The public prosecutor in Munich told the Post that Siemens was the subject of an ongoing bribery scandal investigation. The company has acknowledged that it spent €19 million to bribe Iranian officials in January.
Siemens, which conducts an over-$500-million trade relationship with Iran, provides vital engineering and technological equipment for Iran's infrastructure. American and Israeli critics have urged Siemens to sever its business ties with Iran.
Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207649965979&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
I'm in Shiraz, on the way to Esfahan.
It's good to get out of gray, smoggy Tehran, one of the least photogenic cities in the world, where black is the new black, from the hejabs on down.
One of the attractions of Shiraz is the tomb of Hafez, a Persian poet from the 14th century. It's thronged at night. Iranians bring flowers, then stand or kneel beside the sarcophagus and recite his poems. My personal reaction is, this is how writers should always be treated.
Iranians are among the most gracious and hospitable people I've ever met.
The question, of course, is whether we should bomb these people?
In America today, we tend to see things in Manichaean terms. That is, we divide things into absolute opposites, light and dark, good and evil, us and them.
We could, if we went back far enough, blame that on them. The word Manichaean refers to the Persian prophet Mani (from around 250 AD). The whole notion of good and evil, with man in the middle, having to make a choice, then rewarded and condemned in an afterlife, goes back to an even earlier Persian prophet, Zoroaster, from around 1,000 BC. Those ideas entered Judaism during the Babylonian exile and the liberation of the Jews by Cyrus the Great of Persia, and from there into Christianity.
There are still Zoroastrians and Jews in modern-day Persia, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
These are people with a rich and varied history. A very humanistic history.
The question is, why should we bomb these people?
The answer is that they are part of the Axis of Evil!
Iranians are somewhat confused by that designation.
The United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by a ragged group of conspirators called Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, headquartered in Afghanistan, where they were protected and nurtured by the Taliban. The Taliban were, and are, fanatical, fundamentalist Sunnis. They're the ones who put women in burkhas, those full-body coverings and veils; required men to be bearded; and banned all music, television, movies, photographs, statues, stuffed animals and dolls.
The Taliban came to power in 1996. They were supported by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
They were opposed by the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance was supported by Russia, India and, most of all, by Iran.
The United States was neutral from 1996 to 2001. After 9/11, we demanded that Afghanistan's Taliban government hand over Osama bin Laden. When it refused, we entered the war, primarily with air power, in support of the Northern Alliance. As Ray Takeyh wrote in Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic:
American links with the Northern Alliance were fragmentary ... Afghan opposition groups [were] suspicious of the United States. Tehran's mediation proved essential ... Iran also provided intelligence ... agreed to rescue American pilots ... allowed some 165,000 tons of U.S. food aid to traverse its territory ... [after the fighting] Iran was instrumental in crafting the interim Afghan government.Iran's president Khatami said, "Afghanistan provides the two regimes [the United States and Iran] with a perfect opportunity to improve relations."
The Bush administration embraced the people who had given the Taliban and Al Qaeda safe haven (Pakistan) and money (Saudi Arabia and the Emirates) and declared Iran, who aided us in our war against the Taliban, as part of the Axis of Evil.
The question is, shouldn't we bomb them because, in addition to being one of the two remaining parts of the Axis of Evil, they are part of the Islamo-Fascist Alliance to rule the world?
We moved on from the pleasures of Shiraz, to Esfahan which is a treasure. A miracle.
In the 16th century, when Shah Abbas I made it the capital of the Safavid dynasty, it was probably the greatest city in the world. It has been designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, along with the Great Wall of China, the Statue of Liberty, the Taj Mahal, and the historic center of St. Petersburg.
There, we connected with a group of 20- and 30-something Iranians, all of whom spoke excellent English, and went out to dinner with them. They were students, medical professionals, and small-business people, four men and three women. Because we were in public, the women wore the required headscarves but managed to make them fashion accessories. They constantly adjusted them with graceful gestures that drew attention to their beauty and femininity. It is worth pointing out that while women in Iran are not as free as in America or Western Europe, they have more freedom and participate more fully in public life than in the rest of the Islamic World.
The conversation was lively and fluid and touched on politics, world affairs, the regime, America, religion and even disbelief.
In the first ten minutes of almost any conversation with an Iranian, he or she will point out that they are not Arabs, they're Persians. They may even say that they don't like Arabs, or, more emphatically, "I hate f****** Arabs."
They liked Americans. They didn't like the regime. They didn't think they could do anything about the current government.
The question is, shouldn't we bomb them to help good people like that? Won't bombing them make them blame their leaders for forcing us to attack them, so they will rise up and change the regime?
A lot of people dislike the regime. And with good cause.
At times it seemed that this was a country where everybody went to prison. Everyone who thought, wrote, had opinions, was political, who had property that could be taken -- save for fervent supporters of the regime -- had gone to prison. Or worse, been tortured and executed.
People who had lovers and who danced, possessed illegal music, stood up for academic freedom, and were members of minority religions or clergy who didn't support Khomenie's radical re-interpretation of Shia'a Islam, were arrested, harassed, beaten, and thrown out of windows, and lost their jobs and careers, and went to prison. The country also has inflation, unemployment, underemployment and low wages. Heroin addiction is widespread and growing. Opium use is routine, even, according to gossip on the street, in the highest levels of government. Corruption is rampant and everyone knows it.
However, even their opponents gave the regime credit for certain things. Making Iran self-sufficient. Keeping a country of Persians, Kurds, Turkomans, Azerbaijanis, Pashtuns and Arabs together in spite of the centripetal forces of ethnic and tribal loyalties. It's a safe place. There's very little street crime. There are no car bombings. No terrorist incidents. No kidnappings.
An underlying thread became clear through all these conversations. The number one hot-button political issue in Iran is standing up to foreign powers. Their history, since Alexander the Great invaded and burned Persepolis, is one of being invaded, threatened, exploited and subverted by outsiders. As for the 20th century, the British exploited their natural resources, then the United States overthrew their democracy and put a compliant king in charge, and as soon as he was deposed, they were invaded by Saddam Hussein. He received support from America and other Western nations. That war lasted eight years, and Iran had somewhere between 750,000 and 1 million casualties.
The notion that bombing Iran will make the people overthrow the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians makes as much sense as imagining that a new 9/11 will make the American people thank Al Qaeda for their inspiration, then rise up and overthrow our president and senate with a government more receptive to Islamic ways.
There is one real argument. It is that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will use them. Specifically on Israel.
Iran is, ultimately, ruled by the Supreme Leader. He is deemed to be infallible. In 2003 he issued a fatwa, a ruling of holy law, against the development and use of nuclear weapons. This is when, according to the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, Iran stopped such developments.
Iran claims it only wants nuclear energy. Countries that produce nuclear energy include Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, South Africa, Czech Republic, Mexico and Brazil. At least 56 countries have nuclear research reactors.
So the argument goes back to intentions. That Iran is more dangerous than Russia, more of an enemy than China, more unstable than Pakistan, more warlike than Israel, and more likely to have aggressive leaders who will launch a pre-emptive war than the United States.
If they had nuclear weapons and used them, especially if they used them aggressively, as a first strike, then Israel and the United States would retaliate with far more force and effectively destroy Iran. What we are likely to have in reality is the sort of mutual stand-off we had with the Soviet Union for 50 years.
In addition to Esfahan's astonishing beauty, its historical value, its vibrant culture, arts and crafts, it is home to a nuclear research reactor and it's where uranium is processed toward producing nuclear fuel.
If Iran is bombed, Esfahan will undoubtedly be a target. One of hundreds. Those lovely people that I had dinner with will likely die. If not them, their parents, children, brothers and sisters. The student of English who sat and talked to me about Hafez for two hours. The man who makes the hand-printed table clothes in the bazaar. The mason working on the reconstruction of the great mosque.
I like to think that America can somehow overcome what's happened these last seven years. The unprovoked invasion of another country, the embrace of torture, the assault on civil liberties, the looting of our own economy, the failure to rescue the people of New Orleans and to rebuild it. Somehow.
But bombing Iran because it postures and provokes on the world stage will be a disaster that we won't live down. We might try to say it's something that our leaders did, we had no part in it, we could not stop them. If that's true, and it may be true, that's sadder still.
Larry Beinhart is the author of "Wag the Dog," "The Librarian," and "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin." All available at nationbooks.org.
Source: http://www.alternet.org/audits/81100/?page=entire
The cooling-down letters that were exchanged between Israel and Syria through back channels did not ease the strongly-worded statements and escalating field measures, particularly from Israel's side. Although each side denies any intention of attacking the other and waging a war, both sides pursue their preparations to retaliate for any attack.
Such has been the region's status for decades.
However, the novelty these days comes as follows: Hezbollah is expected to avenge the assassination of its military leader Imad Mughniyyeh in Damascus; Israel in turn declared it would consider such a revengeful response as an attack blamed on Syria - with the confrontation potentially evolving into a war. It is in this context that all Israeli declarations and moves are put, from the reinforced security measures in locations that might be the target of retaliatory response to the extended military maneuvers on the Northern border with Lebanon - not to mention the former decision to distribute protective masks to civilians, the leaks on the Syrian and Iranian rocket threat, as well as the rockets supplied to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
In parallel, talks of peace on the Syrian level are lagging, along with the diminishing wager on the international Moscow conference, which was supposed to complement the Annapolis conference, as a result of the American and Israeli reservations. These back channels simply send letters to cool down the situation and underline every intention of avoiding war, totally overlooking the circumstances or measures that might lead to negotiations. Also, the parties the most optimistic about peace on the Palestinian front have begun to reconsider their stances. For the maximum that can be reached is additional data about the Israeli-Palestinian peace, instead of the implementation of the two-state vision by the end of the year, according to the American promise.
In other words, the period of no war and no peace is ongoing, albeit with prevailing tension… unless a surprising turn of events comes along. Remarkably, a few days after the war was mentioned, the media and analysts in Israel placed this matter in the context of internal partisan conflicts, particularly the confrontation between the Labor party leader and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, and his predecessor Amir Peretz. In their opinion, Barak resorted to regional escalation in order to confirm his position - as the official responsible for the jeopardized Israeli security - and to embellish his image that was greatly tarnished by internal campaigns against him. He approved military maneuvers, cancelled a scheduled visit to Germany, and started making declarations about Israel's capacity to face the threats targeting it.
The re-focus on the northern front is thought to be a compensation for the impasse in which Israel found itself on the southern front with Gaza. Despite its bloodiness, the last military operation yielded no results according to Israeli calculations, particularly with respect to stopping the rockets fired. According to what was leaked in the Israeli press about internal discussions, it seems that no one, whether in the military leadership or on the political level, wishes to take responsibility for a wide-scale ground operation in Gaza, for fear of bearing the consequences of its expected failure - in light of the lessons learnt from the July war on Lebanon. And also in light of Ehud Olmert's close call with the Vinograd Commission regarding the Israeli failures during the war on Lebanon.
Another issue that enters in Israeli calculations regarding the issue of war and peace with Syria is the future of the American-Iranian confrontation - particularly amidst talks of a step George Bush might make before the end of his mandate. If the United States is genuinely striving to forcefully put an end to the Iranian nuclear program, along with what this would entail in terms of military attack on Iran and its capacities, Israel will be spared a prior confrontation with Syria, Iran's ally, since this would be Washington's mission. On the other hand, it may have to get ready for the repercussions of the American-Iranian confrontation, and therefore save its capacities for a subsequent stage, instead of currently losing itself in confrontations whose results are uncertain.
Source: http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/04-2008/Article-20080409-340b9514-c0a8-10ed-01e2-5c7360e63cb9/story.html
DAMASCUS - The Israelis insist they are not seeking war with the Syrians, even as Israel began its biggest military maneuver in its history since 1948. This was on the border with Syria, which has been calm since the June war of 1967.
This nation-wide "exercise" is being carried out by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Home Front Command, in cooperation with the recently-established National Emergency Authority.
President Shimon Peres insisted this was not a prelude to war with Syria, telling the Syrians not to worry. Israeli Radio, however, told citizens the scenario being practiced was for how things would look like on the fourth day of an "imaginary" war with Hezbollah on one front, and the Syrians on the other.
The training envisioned Kassam rockets and Katyusha missiles raining down on Israel, yet the IDF gave out a statement assuring Israelis not to worry, saying that the drill was "part of the IDF 2008 work plan". It stressed the exercise was not in preparation for any adventure, nor was it in retaliation for earlier skirmishes between Syria, Hezbollah and Israel. For its part, Hezbollah is uncomfortable with the Israeli maneuver, saying it neither routine - nor normal - for two countries technically at a state of war since 1948.
As part of the exercise, sirens went off inside Israel at 10am on April 8. News anchor Gadi Sukenik was called in to stage "emergency instructions" on television - and to do the same in the event of a real war. Between 10-11am, Channel 33, broadcasting from the Home Front Command's new studio, gave instructions on what to do in a time of war. Major General Yair Golan gave guidance and showed tutorial videos on how to behave while under attack.
Kindergarten teachers practiced how to deal with little children when and if war were to break out with Syria or Hezbollah, while a field exercise simulated various scenarios - conventional and unconventional rockets being fired onto Israel, a chemical attack, along with search and rescue training.
Adding spice to the show were the words of General Dan Harel, the deputy chief of staff of the IDF, who said, "Anyone who tries to harm Israel must remember that it is the strongest country in the region, and retaliation will be powerful - and painful."
If all of the above is not a prelude for war, then what is?
Last September, four Israeli warplanes invaded Syrian airspace and reached the village of Tal Abyan near Deir ez-Zour. Things became murky after that. Some said the planes struck at targets in Syria. Others denied this, until President Bashar al-Assad came out and confirmed the story, a few months later, confirming that they had struck, but he downplayed the targets.
Syria called it a "flagrant aggressive act" and said it confronted the planes, forcing them to drop their fuel and ammunition so they could fly faster and escape. The Israelis at first refused to comment, then confirmed they had in fact carried out an air intrusion into Syria.
The Israeli and international media were filled with speculation on why the story was leaked by the Syrians, not Israel. One theory said that the Israelis were preparing to back the Americans in an upcoming war with Iran and were trying to reach Iranian territory - thus explaining the extra fuel. Another theory claimed the Israelis were searching for Russian missiles that Syria had acquired, and wanted to test Syrian defenses.
This was seconded by Israeli counter-terrorism expert Boaz Ganor, who said his country was "collecting intelligence on long-range missiles" deployed by Syria in the north. A third speculation said the Israelis wanted to hit a training camp for Palestinian militants in Syria (Hamas and Islamic Jihad); and missed their target. A fourth tale claimed the Israelis were trying to flex their muscles and remind Syria that although taken aback - or as the Arabs would say "defeated" in the war with Lebanon in 2006, Israel was still around in the Middle East - and could create trouble. One theory even said that the Israelis were after North Korean weapons being stockpiled in Syria.
Regardless of what the target was, this was provocation and an early warning for the Syrians. The Israelis "were not to be trusted" and were capable - and willing - to engage in a new adventure with Damascus. It also made all talk of a peace process seem increasingly silly since nations interested in peace don't go around invading other nation's air space, dropping bombs then flying away.
There was much speculation in the summer of 2007 that "something" was going to happen on the Syrian-Israeli front. The Israelis had mobilized the IDF on the Golan border, and reports in Israeli dailies said that 70% of the army's reservists were taking part in exercises along the Golan. Israel also declared that one of its famous units, the Golan Brigade, had just completed intensive training in war games.
Guy Hazoot, the officer in charge of the 91st Division deployed along the border with Lebanon, noted: "The worst case is war, and we have to be prepared for the worst case." United Press International, quoted "well-informed sources in Washington" saying that a "confrontation between Syria and Israel may happen this summer".
This was echoed by Dennis Ross, a Middle East envoy of the era of US president Bill Clinton, who was quoted in Yediot Aharonot as saying there was a serious "risk" of war, adding, "The Syrians are positioning themselves for war."
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak came out, however, to defuse the tension, one week before the air invasion, saying Israel was going to withdraw its troops from the Golan Heights. The mobilization, he said, raised the risk of an "accidental confrontation" between the Syrians and Israelis, something that Israel wanted to avoid. He seemed to be pouring cold water on the tensions and telling the world that there would be no war between Israel and Syria.
Syria responded with similar commitments to peace, saying that ever since it went to Madrid in 1991, its choice had been a "just and comprehensive peace" based on United Nations Security Council resolution 242; the "land-for-peace" formula.
After the intrusion, Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Shara told the Italian daily La Republica, "All I can say is that the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming." When asked what kind of retaliation was expected from the Syrians, he replied: "I cannot reveal details." A journalist then spoke about an appeal from Peres to Syria, to which Shara responded: "Excuse me for smiling. The talks about peace are a disguise for blatant aggression. Israel's responses in light of the aircraft infiltration are amazing, with [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert saying he knows nothing about it."
The Syrians - who seem to be relatively calm about what is happening now - have not, however, crossed off the possibility of war with Israel. In May 2007, Assad spoke to parliament and said defeated leaders like Olmert could do strange things - like go to war rather than make peace with his neighbors, to right the wrongs done to Israel's image in 2006. Olmert responded in an interview with the Saudi channel al-Arabiyya, saying he was ready for peace with the Syrian president. "Bashar al-Assad, you know that I am ready for direct talks with you. I am ready to sit with you and talk about peace, not war." He added, "I will be happy if I could make peace with Syria. I do not want to wage war against Syria."
Assad in turn replied - indirectly - in his July 2007 inauguration address, saying: "The most Syria could do is send a Syrian to a neutral place to negotiate with a third party, who in turn would convey Syria's message to the Israelis, who might be staying at another hotel. Direct talks between Syria and Israel are also out of the question at this stage." The basis of the Syrian peace position would be resolution 242 and the border of June 4, 1967. Out of experience, however, he added, the Syrians do not trust Israel, "We did not trust them before the 1990s and now distrust them further."
The Syrians then went to Annapolis in the United States in November 2007, claiming beforehand that the entire peace conference was destined to fail because neither the Americans nor the Israelis was ready for peace. The Syrians believe Israel cannot sign a peace accord with the Palestinians or Syrians unless it corrects the damage done in the Lebanon war of 2006.
The Israelis, however, deny this, claiming that although the results were less than satisfying, they can live with them, just like the Americans learned to live with Vietnam. The Americans, however, in what remains of the George W Bush administration - are unwilling to engage the Syrians. They claim Syria is more interested in a peace process than a peace deal; a process aimed at breaking the isolation imposed by the US since 2005.
If the Israelis wanted to talk to the Syrians, however, the Americans insist they will not discourage them. They won't encourage - but they certainly won't say no. The Syrians, however, don't believe that, yet find themselves in a dilemma since they cannot enter into a peace process without an honest and reliable third party. The only acceptable broker (to the Israelis) is the United States.
The last eight months of the Bush administration cannot produce a peace deal, neither with the Syrians, nor with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas. Left hanging is the war option.
At first glance, it is in nobody's interest to see yet another war - the fourth in the Arab world since 2001. A deeper look shows the Israelis might have their reasons for seeking a confrontation to wage a limited war - then peace - with the Syrians.
The theory goes: you cannot go to peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict without first having obtained your war medals. Olmert needs that for domestic consumption - and for a better hand at the negotiating table with the Arabs. This peace has many strings attached to it; no Hamas, no Islamic Jihad and no Hezbollah.
While the first two are to be dealt with via the Palestinian track, the last runs through peace and war with the Syrians. Many in Israel are starting to re-emphasize that the only way to get rid of Hezbollah is to alienate it from its natural allies.
Another war against Hezbollah will not succeed - and a ground invasion of Lebanon could prove disastrous for the IDF. The Israelis couldn't do it in 2006.
The Lebanese system, which in itself is on the verge of collapse, couldn't do it in 2006-2008. The UN couldn't do it with its resolutions. The Iranians would never do it.
So the Israelis believe the only people able to find a solution to the Hezbollah problem are the Syrians, and they would only do that if a full peace treaty were reached with Israel. No peace process is possible with Syria, however, without a war - a war that would redraw the front lines, impose new realities on everybody, and psychologically prepare all parties for an end to the conflict.
Re-visiting Sadat
In times like these, it is illuminating to revisit the late Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt. Undoubtedly, the Israelis learned more from Sadat than the Arabs. Sadat scored a psychological and political victory in 1973 - in addition to the famed crossing of the Suez Canal - by catching the Israelis off guard.
He began to send off messages to Tel Aviv - using all kinds of language to assure them that Egypt was not seeking war with the Jewish state. First, he requested that all Soviet experts working in Egypt since the days of Gamal Abdel Nasser return to the Soviet Union in July 1972. In all, almost 20,000 advisors were expelled. He wanted to assure the Americans, and also wanted the Israelis to believe that he was not planning a war.
Israeli intelligence believed Egypt would not and could not go to war unless it had arms from the Russians. A spy in the Egyptian army, whose name until today has not been revealed and is known only as "the source", told the Israelis Egypt wanted to regain Sinai, but Cairo would not go to war unless Moscow supplied it with fighter-bombers to neutralize the Israeli Air Force and scud missiles to be used against Israeli cities.
As long as the fighter-bombers had not arrived, Israel believed Sadat would never attack because he did not have the weapons for war. The Israelis also believed that if Egypt did not attack, then Syria also would not. Both the Americans and Israelis believed the expulsion of the Soviet advisors would greatly weaken the Egyptian army.
Sadat also made sure that a constant stream of false information was given to Israeli intelligence. For example, Egypt made it public that it did not have trained or qualified soldiers to work with the new weapons that came from Russia. It also sent messages to Israel that it had a major problem with spare parts for its tanks and airplanes. In May and August 1973, he threatened to go to war. The Israelis mobilized to fight and Sadat did nothing.
Each mobilization cost Israel about US$10 million. Because he always threatened to go to war against Israel and never did anything, nobody believed him in 1973. That is exactly what Sadat wanted and he, along with Syrian president Hafez al-Assad, managed to catch the Israelis off guard on October 6, 1973.
That is why the Syrians should worry about the Israeli operations that started on April 6. It might be costly to mobilize in defense, but a lack of response and believing the assurances of Peres would certainly be more costly for the region as a whole, not only for Syria. There are no assurances in war; and no promises kept in the Arab world. The Israelis said one thing and did the opposite in September 2007. They can - and might - do it again in April 2008.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
© 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd.
Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD10Ak03.html
While watching General Petraeus' testimony before Congress yesterday, it became increasingly clear to me that United States' foreign, military and fiscal policies are in complete disarray.
Those of you familiar with my outspoken views on peak oil and the weak U.S. dollar will not be surprised at such a statement. However, before you conclude this article will bore you to death and switch to another, my angle of attack may peak your interest and make you some money.
As I am sure George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld did, for a moment pretend the world is a giant Monopoly game. The U.S. has major opponents (China, Russia, etc.) of both an economic and military nature. We used to have friends (France, Germany, etc.) but it was decided by Rumsfeld that these were the countries of "old Europe" and so they were marginalized. Regardless, it was clear to the U.S. "brain trust", being oil men, that the world ran on oil and whoever had access to the cheapest and largest supplies would "win" the game.
True enough, I suppose, but what strategic moves shall we make on the world Monopoly board. Well, let's see .... where do the largest most easily accessible high quality oil reserves lie...hmm....oh, wow, Iraq! Ok, well, we can't wait for our turn to roll the dice and hope we "land" on Iraq, else we risk not passing "Go" and collecting our $200. So, let's whip up a "WMD strategy" so we can go directly there and, instead of buying a hotel, just steal the oil. Wait, no WMDs found? That makes us look bad....hmm...well, not to worry, we really wanted to topple Hussein and install democracy. Whatever, the PR strategy worked, and the American people in their post 9/11 furor to attack someone (anyone...), took the bait hook line and sinker.
Years later, it is clear that Iraq is this generation's Vietnam. Same old story, but with a twist: oil. Vietnam wasn't about oil - it was all about the military industrial complex taking money from taxpayers and disbursing it to the military and its contractors. That part of the Iraq story is the same, except the powers that be have gotten better at stealing taxpayer monies with the advent of "out-sourcing" every minor task and wasting billions of dollars in the process. That is, I suppose, to be expected in a country run by lobbyists. But what about the oil? Has U.S. policy in Iraq been good or bad for the U.S. in terms of more oil supply at better prices? After all, that was the strategic objective of the Monopoly strategy.
Obviously, in terms of the price of oil, U.S. policy in Iraq has been a complete disaster. When Bush started "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March of 2003, oil was approximately $30/barrel. Today it closed at $107 and change. An increase of over 300% in 5 years. That can't be good for the world's largest user and importer of oil. Our economy is proof of that.
Perhaps the Iraq invasion was a foreign policy success? Nope, I don't think so. In a recent worldwide poll, it was the United States that was most frequently sited by the world community as being the biggest "terrorist threat". Interesting. As a result, most of our old allies have run for the hills. More problematic, the Russians and the Chinese knew exactly what the U.S. was after in Iraq. That's when Putin decided to play energy "hardball", and boy is he winning at that game. Russia is now the world's biggest oil producer and they have Europe by the short hairs when it comes to natural gas. Meanwhile, China is using its huge foreign currency reserves to buy up oil and other natural resources all over the planet. America is bogged down in Iraq and has its hands full just trying to keep the oil pipelines from being blown up every night.
Fiscally, one only has to look at the 45% drop in the value of the U.S. dollar since Bush took office to get a picture of what is happening. The precipitous drop in the dollar is accompanied by rising energy prices and thus rising inflation - a double whammy to the American middle class. That can't be good for a consumer oriented economy.
So what should the U.S. do? We can't very well just leave Iraq and let it descend into chaos (although many might argue it already IS chaotic). My answer is this: the U.S. should just come clean and tell the world we went to Iraq to steal the oil. Even Alan Greenspan admitted as much in his recent book, and every thinking person knows it's the truth anyway. So let's just say it! "Iraq has the largest untapped, easily accessible, highest quality crude oil in the world and we attacked them to obtain it." Period, end of statement.
Now, before you all say "Hey, Fitzman, have you completely lost your marbles?" I say, as Seinfeld once said, "Una momento por favor!". I speak to you in Spanish because I will soon explain to you how our policies have affected U.S. treatment in countries like Venezuela and Brazil. Yes my friends, we would be much better off telling the world, hey, we invaded Iraq because Sadam Hussein was incapable of increasing his country's oil supply, and the world needs it, and needs it now. However, instead of telling the world we were planning on keeping all the oil ourselves, and letting only U.S. oil companies drill for it, the U.S. is going to let ALL the countries of the world and all multinational oil companies participate in Iraqi oil exploitation. Oh, and by the way, the PEOPLE of Iraq will also benefit handsomely from the royalties due from the production of oil from their ground. Guarantee this wealth, document it, and start delivering it to the people of Iraq. That will stop the fighting. THIS is the way to solve the Iraqi problem. Besides, the way the oil market works, the entire world is sharing in Iraq's production today as it truly is (for the most part) a global market.
But the U.S. has not followed my suggestion. The result is the world oil market is running scared. Not just on peak oil fundamentals (which it very well should be anxious about...), but on geo-political risks. The Russians, Chinese, and OPEC wonder what surprises the next U.S. roll on the Monopoly board will lead to. When will they say "ENOUGH!"? After we attack Iran? I mean, can you blame Venezuela's Chavez for acting the way he does? Can anyone really blame Iran for wanting to obtain a nuclear weapon as they watch on TV every night what has happened to the neighbor Iraq because of U.S. shock and awe "policy".
I remember the response of a Brazilian man I saw on TV when asked what he thought about Petrobras' (PBR) recent huge offshore oil discovery: "I wish they'd quit finding oil....it's just a matter of time before the Americans will invade us!" After I quit laughing, I realized the guy was truly petrofied (pun intended) at the thought!
So, the results of our disastrous "oil policy" is that Exxon (XOM) and Conoco Philips (COP) have been kicked out of Venezuela and are in arbitration. That can't be good for American oil interests. Russia has found ways to reduce British Petroleum's (BP) reserves in the region, and that can't be good for American interests (remember, BP is a major player in the U.S. after their takeovers of U.S. companies Amoco and Atlantic Richfield). Also, has anyone noticed recently how foreign oil majors like StatOil (STO), Total (TOT) and Eni SPA (E) have been getting more and more business from Russia, Venezuela, and other oil rich regions at the expense of the American oil majors? This is proof that Bush's policies have been a total failure in the one area where he and his buddy Dick Cheney were supposed to be experts: OIL.
My friends, I believe honesty to be the best policy and it's time the U.S. came clean on Iraq so we can settle the mess and get the hell out of there before it completely bankrupts us financially (it already has morally and spiritually). This brilliant (if I do say so myself) foreign policy move, combined with my energy policy to address peak oil (see my previous article on the subject), is the only rational way forward. Think of the benefits: it would be good for all the world's energy companies; it would reduce the price of oil by reducing the baked-in risk premiums; it would be good for the world economy while reducing the U.S.'s huge oil centric trade deficit; it would restore some of America's lost prestige on the world stage; it would perhaps even strengthen the poor U.S. currency; and it would surely allow the U.S. to use its treasures at home instead of in Iraq where the resources are blown up just about as quickly as they can be built.
But seldom is the Fitzman's recommendations followed by the American government or covered by the U.S. media. In the meantime, you Seeking Alpha investors can benefit from my musings by loading up foreign oil companies like STO, TOT, and E. For you ETF fans: buy PowerShares DB Oil Fund (DBO) or IPath ETN Crude Oil (OIL). Over the long term, these investments should shine even if U.S. policy makers were to take the steps I have put forth in this article. Even more so if they do not.
Disclosures: The author is long STO. He does not own TOT, E, DBO, or OIL except as they may be owned by various energy related mutual funds in which