Sunni Shia relations 220907

Ulterior motives behind Middle East conference

By M. A. Saki

After leaving the Middle East conflict on the back burner for years, President George W. Bush has called for an international Middle East conference to be held in November.

However, there are clearly ulterior motives behind the proposal.

After biding their time for seven years, the neocons realized that they had to do something to extricate themselves from the Iraq quagmire and decided to organize a conference to win Arab states’ support for the Iraqi government, stem the flow of Arab fighters into Iraq, and decrease the allure of the Al-Qaeda network’s recruiting campaign.

Yet, in a bad omen, major Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have expressed reservations about participating in the conference.

“Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have made it clear that they see no point in attending the conference because of its unclear agenda,” a Palestinian Authority official said.

“The kingdom sees no benefit in any peace meeting or conference if it is not comprehensive and if it doesn’t tackle major issues,” Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said on September 12.

“If the conference doesn’t provide these things, then the kingdom’s participation is doubtful,” he added.

The Bush administration does not want to see lasting peace established in the Middle East, otherwise it would have openly embraced the Arab Initiative which calls on Israel to return the territories captured in 1967 in exchange for a comprehensive peace.

The initiative, drafted by Saudi Arabia, has clearly drawn up a road map for peace in the Middle East, and no one who really wants peace can say that the plan is not reasonable.

If U.S. officials were honest enough to acknowledge that Israel’s occupation of Arab lands and brutal suppression of resistance movements in Palestine are root causes of terrorism, they would not have hesitated to push for the implementation of the Arab Initiative.

The land for peace initiative is the most viable proposal to end the troubles in the Middle East, provides an opportunity to sharply curtail terrorism, and may even help efforts to bring stability to Iraq.

After 9/11, the U.S. proposed the greater Middle initiative to promote democracy in the Middle East in order to counter terrorism, but it did not mention that Israeli policy is a root cause of the phenomenon.

If Washington’s peace overtures are sincere, U.S. officials should seriously support the land for peace plan and pressure Israel to accept the initiative, and they should even put it on the agenda of the November meeting.

Source: Teheran times

Nuclear related 220907

Israeli Raid on Syria Fuels Debate on Weapons

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — American concerns about ties between Syria and North Korea have long focused on a partnership involving missiles and missile technology. Even many hawks within the Bush administration have expressed doubts that the Syrians have the money or technical depth to build a serious nuclear program like the one in Iran.

But the Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike inside Syria has reignited debate over whether the Syrians are trying to overcome past obstacles by starting their own small nuclear program, or by trying to buy nuclear components from an outside supplier. It is a particularly difficult question for American spy agencies, which are still smarting from the huge prewar misjudgments made about the status of Iraq’s weapons programs.

American officials are now sorting through what they say are Israel’s private claims that what their jets struck was tied to nuclear weapons development, not merely to missile production. So far, American officials have been extremely cautious about endorsing the Israeli conclusion.

Syria’s efforts to bolster its missile arsenal have been a source of worry for Israel for years, especially given Syria’s track record of arming Hezbollah fighters when they clash with Israeli troops. During the summer of 2006, Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group, fired hundreds of missiles at targets inside Israel from Lebanon, surprising Israeli officials with the sophistication of its arsenal.

And North Korean engineers are long believed to have helped Syria develop a sophisticated class of Scud missiles that have a longer range and are more accurate than earlier versions. According to GlobalSecurity.org, a defense research organization, North Korea has helped Syria develop the Scud-D missile, with a range of about 435 miles.

Whether Syria is actively pursuing a nuclear program has been the subject of fierce debate in Washington for several years. The dispute was at the center of the fight in 2005 over the nomination of John R. Bolton to become ambassador to the United Nations.

At the time, several intelligence officials said they had clashed in 2002 and 2003 with Mr. Bolton, then an under secretary of state, about the extent of Syria’s unconventional weapons programs. According to the officials, Mr. Bolton wanted to include information in a public speech about a Syrian nuclear program that could not be corroborated by intelligence agencies.

In recent interviews, Mr. Bolton has suggested that the Israeli strike may have partly vindicated his view.

Yet that is hard to assess, since whatever information a few senior officials in Washington and Jerusalem possess has been so restricted that two senior Asian diplomats, representing close American allies who are frequently updated on North Korea, said late this week that they had received no useful information from their American counterparts.

On Thursday, President Bush declined three times to shed any light on the Israeli strike, although he did repeat a warning to North Korea.

It is unclear to what extent the secrecy about the Israeli strike has been motivated by American doubts about the intelligence or by an effort to protect sources and classified information. But American officials are now looking at the possibility that the Syrians saw an opportunity to buy some of the basic components of a nuclear program on the cheap, perhaps because North Korea is trying to get elements of its nuclear program out of the country to meet deadlines in a precarious denuclearization agreement with Washington.

American officials are also studying at least two technology trade agreements between Syria and North Korea that were signed over the summer, trying to determine whether the arrangements may be designed for nascent nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

“One has to balance the skepticism that the Syrians can build an indigenous nuclear program with the very sobering assessment that North Korea is the world’s No. 1 proliferator and a country willing to sell whatever it possesses,” said a former senior Bush administration official who once had full access to the intelligence about both countries, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing intelligence assessments.

Though it has long sold its missile technology — to Syria, Iran, Pakistan and other customers — North Korea has never been known to export nuclear technology or material. Last Oct. 9, hours after the North tested its first nuclear device, Mr. Bush went in front of cameras in the White House to issue the North a specific warning that “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or nonstate entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable of the consequences of such action.”

His declaration that day had been urged for years by hard-liners in the administration who believed that the United States had never been explicit enough with North Korea. They saw their opportunity after the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, ignored pressure from China, South Korea, Russia and others and conducted its test.

Even though the Israelis are whispering that there was a nuclear connection to the Sept. 6 attack, so far there has been no hard evidence that the North has ever tried to sell elements of its two nuclear programs. One of those programs, involving plutonium, is quite advanced, enough to produce six to a dozen nuclear weapons. But selling that fuel would be enormously risky, and perhaps easily detectable.

The other program, based on uranium-enrichment equipment believed to have been bought from the network created by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear engineer, is assessed to be in its very early stages, and some doubt the North Koreans ever made much progress on it at all. That program involves the construction of centrifuges to enrich uranium, the path that Iran is taking. But it is complex, expensive and hard to hide, and many experts believe it is beyond Syria’s capabilities or budget.

Syria does have one very small research reactor, which is Chinese built. But it was described in a 2004 Swedish defense research agency report as “the smallest on the world market and incapable of military applications.”

John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org said that, given its neighborhood, Syria might be interested in a nuclear deterrent, but that he was highly skeptical that Damascus could at this point have developed anything that would pose a significant risk to Israel.

“Any country in the region that was not at least learning what it would take to develop a nuclear program is asleep at the switch,” he said. “But the proposition that there is anything sufficiently mature to warrant bombing is difficult to believe.”

Source: NYT

Arabic Press - Nuclear related 220907

Korean media sources said yesterday, Friday, that high-level talks are taking place between officials from Syria and North Korea, a few days after the American reports on nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea, which both countries have been denying.

Korean Central News Agency official said that the talks are being held between Secretary of the Central Committee of the ruling Workers Party of North Korea, Choe Tae Bok, and the head of the Office of Management of the Baath Party in Syria.

The agency added that the two sides discussed "ways to strengthen the relations of friendship and cooperation between the two countries, in addition to examine a number of issues of common interest."

Source: Syria News, Al Rai

Reports, Analysis

Syria's Role in Regional Destabilization: An American View

By David Schenker
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007

• In the aftermath of Israel's air operation over Syria, Dr. Andrew Semmel, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy and Negotiations, warned that Syria might have a number of "secret suppliers" for a covert nuclear program. Syria is reported to have thousands of rockets with ranges of up to 56 miles positioned along Syria's southern border with Israel, while longer-range missiles armed with chemical warheads are believed to be positioned further from the border. At the Sixth Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference in November 2006, John C. Rood, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, specifically cited Syria as being engaged in research and development "for an offensive BW program."

• During his testimony to Congress on September 10, 2007, General David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, presented maps illustrating Syria's pivotal role as the source of foreign fighters entering Iraq. One of his maps showed three arrows that illustrated infiltration routes from Syria into Iraq; they were labeled "Foreign Fighter Flow." A week earlier, in an interview with al-Watan al-Arabi, Petraeus described how Syria allows thousands of these insurgents to arrive at Damascus International Airport and then cross the Iraqi border.

• The UN commission investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri has implicated several members of Syrian President Bashar Assad's inner circle, including his brother, intelligence chief Maher Assad, and brother-in-law and head of military intelligence, Asef Shawkat. The UN investigation and the international tribunal established in March 2007 pose an existential threat to the Assad regime, which has an overriding priority to insulate itself from the consequences of the Hariri murder.

• Syria has sponsored terrorist organizations for decades. The U.S. Department of Defense determined that Syria and Iran were involved in the October 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. military personnel. In 2001, a U.S. grand jury pointed out that Saudi Hizbullah, which had been responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers attack killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel, used Syrian territory for training; indeed, the planners of the attack met at the Sayyeda Zeinab shrine in Damascus.

• During last summer's war, Damascus not only transshipped Iranian weapons to Hizbullah, but also provided its own top-of-the-line, Russian-made military equipment -- the Kornet anti-tank missile -- and its own 220mm anti-personnel rockets. Likewise, in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, Syrian rearmament of Hizbullah continues unabated. On March 24, 2007, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1747 that specifically called on all states to refrain from the procurement of "any arms or related material" from Iran. The resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and thus constitutes binding international law. Nonetheless, Syria persisted in receiving Iranian weaponry and transferring these prohibited materials to Hizbullah.

On September 6, Syria fired anti-aircraft missiles at Israeli jets apparently conducting operations in Syrian airspace. Israel has generally been cautious about provoking Syria. In July 2006, after Syrian-backed Hizbullah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, sparking a war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went to great pains to assure Syrian President Bashar Assad that Israel would not attack.¹ According to Israeli military analysts, Israeli overflights of Syrian airspace are not a new phenomenon: Israel is said to routinely engage in intelligence collection operations in Syrian airspace. Yet only rarely does Israel do something threatening, such as buzzing Assad's summer palace in Latakia in June 2006 after Hamas, whose leadership is based in Damascus, seized Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

In contrast to Israel's generally cautious approach, the rhetoric emanating from Assad's Syria typically alternates between talk of war and peace. The message changes with little notice: in June 2007, a Syrian parliamentarian told Al Jazeera that Syria was "actively preparing for war."² Only a few weeks later, during his July speech to the Syrian parliament, Assad indicated that under the right circumstances he would enter into talks with Israel.³

The Shadow of the UN Investigation

However, Syrian peace negotiation trial balloons have been less than convincing. While Assad's comments generated a lot of attention in Israel and the West, a close look at the timing of these statements suggests these words of moderation most often were proffered at moments of maximum pressure on Syria -- frequently occurring just weeks prior to the release of UN status reports on the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. For Assad, floating the idea of negotiations appears to be a tactic to deflect international pressure.

Objectively, the Syrian regime is under a lot of pressure. The UN is pursuing a comprehensive criminal investigation of the Hariri murder, which deeply angered the Saudi regime -- Hariri was a dual Lebanese-Saudi national and was close with the monarchy. The Investigation Commission's second report, issued in October 2005, implicated several members of Assad's inner circle, including the president's brother, intelligence chief Maher Assad, and brother-in-law and head of military intelligence, Asef Shawkat.⁴ In March 2007, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1757, establishing a criminal court to prosecute the perpetrators of this crime.

The UN investigation and the international tribunal pose an existential threat to the Assad regime. Assad himself reportedly threatened UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon that he would "set the region on fire, from the Caspian to the Mediterranean" if the court was established.⁵ With regime survival in the balance, erratic Syrian decision-making could increase the possibility of Israeli-Syrian conflict.

Syrian Support for Terrorism: Undermining Resolution 1701

Syria has sponsored terrorist organizations for decades. The Long Commission Report of the U.S. Department of Defense determined that Syria and Iran were involved in the October 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. military personnel.⁶ In 2001, a U.S. grand jury indictment from Alexandria, Virginia, pointed out that Saudi Hizbullah, which had been responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers attack killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel, also used Syrian territory for training; indeed, the planners of the attack met at the Sayyeda Zeinab shrine in Damascus.⁷

But the affiliation with Hamas and Hizbullah has deepened since Bashar Assad came to power in 2000. Last summer's unprecedented declaration from Damascus of Hamas responsibility for the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit demonstrates just how far the relationship has come. In terms of operational and material support, however, the evolution of Damascus' relationship with Hizbullah is even more striking.

During last summer's war, it was revealed that Damascus had not only transshipped Iranian weapons to Hizbullah, but had also provided its own top-of-the-line, Russian-made military equipment -- the Kornet anti-tank missile -- and its own 220mm anti-personnel rockets to the Shiite terrorist organization. Both of these were used to great effect during Hizbullah's campaign. Likewise, in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, Syrian rearmament of Hizbullah continues unabated. In June 2007, UN reporting on the implementation of Resolution 1701 cited "disturbing information" about the transport of rocket launchers from Syria to Hizbullah.⁸ UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon characterized the shipment of rockets and mortars to Hizbullah that were seized by the Lebanese Army in the Bekaa Valley, as a "clear violation" of Resolution 1701.

Syrian policy flagrantly ignores UN Security Council resolutions in other ways. On March 24, 2007, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1747 that again called on Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities. Paragraph 5 of the resolution specifically called on all states to refrain from the procurement of "any arms or related material" from Iran. The resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and thus constitutes binding international law. Nonetheless, as noted, Syria persisted in receiving Iranian weaponry and transferring these prohibited materials to Hizbullah.

Assad himself has been effusive in his rhetorical support for regional "resistance," describing the tactic as "the alternative to restoring rights."⁹ The Syrian regime was so taken with Hizbullah's performance during the 2006 war that it established its own organization called the "Popular Organization for the Liberation of the Golan."¹⁰ By the end of July, this organization claimed to have detonated an IED targeting an IDF vehicle in the Israeli Golan.¹¹ In August, the organization issued a communique threatening to kidnap IDF soldiers on the Golan if Israel did not release Syrian prisoners captured 22 years ago.¹² In October, the newly established Syrian newspaper Golan Times reported the more dubious claim that this organization "prevented Israel from using smart bombs" in Lebanon.¹³ The removal of Syrian military checkpoints along the Damascus-Qunietra road in August 2007 may heat up the "resistance" on this long, quiet border.

Less directly affecting Israel but nonetheless significant is the Syrian antipathy for the augmented UNIFIL (UN Interim Force in Lebanon) presence deployed in southern Lebanon by the Security Council after the Hizbullah-Israel war. As Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem told Der Spiegel in July 2006: "If the only purpose is to station troops on Lebanese territory to guarantee peace for Israel, then many Lebanese will see it as an occupation. That sort of arrangement reminds me very much of what happened in 1983 [when suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Marine base in Beirut, killing 241 people]....We don't want that to happen again."¹⁴

As of September 2007, UNIFIL troop contingents in Lebanon had already been attacked twice. The targeting of UNIFIL raises the specter of its withdrawal, which could lead to another round of Israel-Hizbullah fighting.

Syrian WMD Efforts

U.S. security agencies have been disturbed at Syria's involvement in developing weapons of mass destruction. At the Sixth Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference in November 2006, U.S. delegate John C. Rood, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, specifically cited Syria -- along with Iran and North Korea -- as failing to comply with the Biological Weapons Convention.¹⁵ Syria, according to the U.S. delegate, was engaged in research and development "for an offensive BW program."

Syrian chemical weapons have also been a problem. According to an unclassified report to Congress in the latter part of 2003 by the Central Intelligence Agency, Syria held a stockpile of Sarin nerve agent but was trying to develop "more toxic and persistent nerve agents."¹⁶ That same report already stated in 2003, "we are monitoring Syrian nuclear intentions with concern," despite the fact that Syria was a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and opened its declared nuclear research center to the full-scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the aftermath of Israel's air operation over Syria, Dr. Andrew Semmel, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy and Negotiations, warned that Syria might have a number of "secret suppliers" for a covert nuclear program.¹⁷

Preparing for War

Continued support for terrorism and provocative rhetoric provide some insight into the regime's disposition toward Israel. More telling, however, is what has been described by senior IDF officials as an "unprecedented military buildup" in Syria.¹⁸ This buildup has been made possible through the largess of Tehran, which by some reports, in effect, repaid Syria's $15 billion debt to Moscow, thus freeing up Damascus to reengage in military procurement.¹⁹ Iran also appears to be helping Syria pay for the new purchases. According to Israeli Military Intelligence Research Head Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, as of June 2007, Syria was "accelerating military acquisition."²⁰

Topping the list of recent Syrian procurements from Russia are advanced air defense and anti-tank guided weapons systems. Of these armaments, the Pantsyr-SIE short-range gun and missile defense system has received the most attention. The $730 million Pantsyr deal involves the sale of 50 units to Syria (of which 10 will be re-transferred to Iran).²¹ Delivery is slated to start by the end of 2007, although some analysts believe Syria may have already received some of this equipment. Syria is also said to have received an influx of Kornet anti-tank systems, which Hizbullah used to great effect against Israeli armor in 2006.²²

Syria's battlefield preparations seem to be inspired by Hizbullah's self-described "divine victory" over Israel. Not only is the Syrian military accelerating training for its troops, according to IDF sources, the training is focused on "guerilla tactics utilized by Hizbullah," including urban and guerilla warfare training. Of course, Syrian reliance on commando forces armed with anti-tank missiles targeting advancing armor is not a particularly new Syrian tactic, but press reports suggest that Damascus now has more confidence in this tactic, which threatens to lead toward miscalculation.

In the same vein, Israeli military intelligence sources recently noted that Syria is engaged in an accelerated deployment of Katyusha and Scud missiles -- with 500-kilogram warheads.²³ Syria is reported to have thousands of rockets with ranges of up to 56 miles positioned along Syria's southern border with Israel, while other Syrian assets -- longer-range missiles armed with chemical warheads -- are believed to be positioned further from the border. This Syrian shift toward adding short-range tactical missiles and rockets takes a page from the Hizbullah playbook. As Yiftah Shapir from the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University said, "Syria was impressed by Hizbullah's strategic success, with its use of small rockets and Israel's inability to neutralize them."²⁴

Syrian Involvement in the Iraqi Insurgency

During his testimony to Congress on September 10, 2007, General David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, presented maps illustrating Syria's pivotal role as the source of foreign fighters entering Iraq. One of his maps showed three arrows that illustrated infiltration routes from Syria into Iraq; they were labeled "Foreign Fighter Flow." A week earlier, in an interview with al-Watan al-Arabi, Petraeus described how Syria allows thousands of these insurgents to arrive at Damascus International Airport and then cross the Iraqi border. These foreign fighters, he explained, supplied the main manpower pool for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq.

Indeed, over the last month coalition forces have reported how various captured insurgents have revealed Syria's direct role in Iraq. On September 3, a detainee having financial ties with Syrian intelligence was taken into custody.²⁵ In March 2007, U.S. Central Command revealed that a "Saddam Fedayeen leader involved in setting up training camps in Syria for Iraqi and foreign fighters" was arrested in Mosul.²⁶ Earlier, coalition forces imprisoned an insurgent who recruited Iraqi snipers for training in Syria.²⁷ Lately, there has been a reported drop in the number of insurgents crossing over from Syria to Iraq, but it is still premature to attribute this to a change in Syrian policy.²⁸ Thus, Syria not only plays a destabilizing role with respect to Israel, but with respect to Iraq as well.

Conclusion

Syria's recent acquisitions, deployment of tactical assets, and its menacing troop posture in the Golan Heights represent a continued threat to Israel. Days after the reported Israeli overflight incident of September 6, Syrian officials continued to hold out the possibility of a military response. For the time being, however, it appears that the overflight crisis will not escalate. Still, the broader question of Assad's intentions remains.

Speculation abounds as to why Syria is pressing for a spike in tensions with Israel. A few analysts believe Syria is upping the ante in an effort to coerce greater Western diplomatic involvement in peace negotiations. Still others suggest that the Syrian buildup might be a prelude to a Yom Kippur War-type military campaign, with a limited strike against Israel designed to change the status quo on the Golan and provoke Western diplomatic intervention. It is even possible that Damascus is raising tensions to rally Arab public support and mitigate its ongoing diplomatic crisis with Saudi Arabia.

At the end of the day, the real danger for Israel is that both war and peace would likely serve the overriding Syrian priority of insulating the Assad regime from the consequences of being implicated in the Hariri murder. Even if Syria lost a war, Israel would be loathe to dislodge the regime, fearing that Islamists might replace the ruling Alawi clique. The regime would survive and most likely dodge the bullet of UN sanctions on Hariri. In the unlikely event of peace, there is little doubt that in addition to the Golan, the sine qua non for Damascus would be the end of any criminal tribunal in the Hariri case.

Given the pressures on the Assad regime, tensions along the Israeli-Syrian border are sure to continue. As long as Damascus pursues its proxy war, the Israeli government will rightly view developments on the ground in Syria as threatening. While the Syrians no doubt view the September Israeli overflight as a provocation, the government of Israel has taken deliberate public steps to de-escalate tensions. But this might not be enough. If Assad continues to play with fire, a Syrian conflagration with Israel may result.

David Schenker is a senior fellow in Arab politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. From 2002 to 2006, he served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as country director for Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. He is a member of the Board of Advisers of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Notes

1. Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak also issued assurances to Syria in August 2006. See Josh Brannon, "At Golan Maneuvers, Barak Downplays Threat of War," Jerusalem Post, 16 August, 2007.

2. "Syria MP Confirms Preparation for War with Israel," Jerusalem Post, 5 June 2007.

3. A translation of Assad's 18 July 2007 address can be found here.

4. The draft report by the investigation's commissioner, Detlev Mehlis, was edited heavily by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. A copy of the report was posted on the UN Website in MS WORD format, allowing one to "track changes" made by Annan, which expunged all references to the Assad inner circle. Read the report (DOC).

5. "Assad Threatens to Set Region on Fire," Naharnet, 13 May 2007. Read

6. "Report of the DOD Commission on Beirut International Airport Terrorist Act, October 23, 1983," Read the report.

7. "Indictment: Conspiracy to Kill United States Nationals," U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, June 2001, Read the indictment (PDF).

8. "UN's Ban Presses Syria Over Arms Smuggling," Ynet News, 29 June 2007, Read the article.

9. See, for example, this report.

10. See Bahia Mardini, "Jebha moqawama fil Julan al Suri al muhtal," Elaph.com, July 5, 2006. Read the article.

11. Aaron Klein, "Syrian Group Claims It Attacked Israel," World News Daily, July 31, 2006.

12. "Rijal al moqawama fil Julan yuhadidun bikhataf junud Israiliyen limubadiltihim bil usra al Suriyin," Syria News, 30 August 2006.

13. "Al Jebha al Suriya mana't Israil min istikhdam al qanabil azakiya bishakil wasia' fi Lubnan," Golan Times, 20 October 2006. Read the article.

14. "U.S. Position on Cease-Fire 'Totally Unacceptable,'" Interview with Walid Moallem, Der Spiegel, 31 July 2006. Read the article.

15. John C. Rood, "Remarks to the Sixth Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference," 20 November 2006. Read a transcript.

16. Central Intelligence Agency, "Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 July through 31 December 2003," November 2004. Read the report.

17. Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper, "U.S. Official Says Syria May Have Nuclear Ties," New York Times, 15 September 2007. Read this article.

18. Yaakov Katz, "Don't Underestimate Syria's Military," Jerusalem Post, 13 April 2007.

19. Kassem Jafaar, "The Middle East Arms Race Revisited," Transatlantic Institute Issues, No. 20. Read this article.

20. Alon Ben-David, "Israel, Syria Prepare for Conflict as Tension Rises," Jane's Defense Weekly, 13 June 2007.

21. Robin Hughs, "Iran Set to Obtain Pantsyr via Syria," Jane's Defense Weekly, 23 May 2007.

22. Hizbullah received these highly advanced anti-tank weapons from Syria.

23. Herb Keinon and Josh Brannon, "Syria Believes IDF Poised to Strike," Jerusalem Post, 13 August 2007.

24. Yaakov Katz, "Don't Underestimate Syria's Military," Jerusalem Post, 13 April 2007.

25. "Iraqi Army, U.S. Special Forces Dismantle al-Qaeda in Iraq Cell, Detain 46," Multi-National Force-Iraq, 4 September 2007. Read this report.

26. "Three Major Terror Busts in Iraq-Iran, Syria Connections Exposed, Say U.S. Officials." Read this report.

27. "Iraqi Forces, U.S. Special Forces Target Terrorist Operations in Northern Iraq, Detain 8 Suspected Terrorists," Multi-National Force-Iraq, 16 August 2007. Read this report.

28. Karen DeYoung, "Fewer Foreigners Crossing into Iraq from Syria to Fight," Washington Post, 16 September 2007. Read this article.

Source: Washington Institute

Sunni Shia relations 200907

Signs of a Possible Rift in the Iranian Leadership on the Nuclear Issue

By: Y. Mansharof and A. Savyon

As part of Iran's diplomatic efforts to prevent increased sanctions against it in the U.N. Security Council session slated for September 21, 2007, former Iranian Supreme National Security Council secretary Hassan Rohani is planning a trip to meet with European officials, according to reports in the Iranian media.

Rohani was in charge of Iran's nuclear dossier during the era of the previous Iranian president, reformist Mohammad Khatami, and was the chief negotiator with the West; currently, he is the representative of Iranian Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei in the council.

According to the reports, on September 19, 2007 Rohani is to meet with senior German government officials, and to speak to the E.U. Parliament; he is scheduled to meet the following day with E.U. foreign policy chief Javier Solana. [1]

This is not the first time that Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei has circumvented Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and presented more pragmatic stances in an attempt to solve crises which have escalated due to Ahmadinejad's extremist policies. During the 2006-7 Lebanese crisis, Khamenei maintained a direct channel of communication with Saudi King Abdullah via Khamenei's confidant, Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, who was Ahmadinejad's competitor in the 2005 Iranian presidential election.

News of Rohani's upcoming trip to Europe as Khamenei's emissary has sparked harsh criticism in circles close to President Ahmadinejad, which stated that foreign diplomacy paralleling that of the Ahmadinejad government, "and particularly the carrying out of activity that is against regime policy, are like stabbing the officials in charge of this policy in the back." Also, President Ahmadinejad recently issued a warning about reformist Iranian officials who were formerly connected with Iran's nuclear negotiations with the West, conducting talks with elements in the West and giving them confidential information about Iran's nuclear progress - and even called them traitors. [2]

During his stint as chief nuclear negotiator, Rohani instituted a policy which supported talks with the West that would prepare the ground for advancements in Iran's nuclear program. As early as December 2006, he criticized the Ahmadinejad administration's nuclear policy. [3]

The criticism of foreign diplomacy parallel and subversive to that of the Ahmadinejad, which is being leveled by Ahmadinejad's supporters against senior reformist officials, is in effect a challenge to decisions made by Iranian Leader Khamenei and to his policy, which is more pragmatic than that of Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad's Supporters: Parallel Diplomacy - a Stab in the Back

On September 16, 2007, the Iranian website Farda reported that Iranian President Ahmadinejad had criticized Expediency Council Chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is the No. 2 man in the Iranian leadership, as well as Rohani and former president Mohammad Khatami. [4]

On September 17, the Rajanews website, which is affiliated with supporters of Ahmadinejad, published an article titled "Parallel Diplomacy: A Challenge to Official Diplomacy," which stated: "...foreign diplomacy parallel [to that of the Ahmadinejad government], which brings the other side [i.e. the West] to realize that there are internal disagreements within the [Iranian] government, constitutes a stab in the backs of the officials in charge of this policy. In his most recent speech, Ahmadinejad [already] pointed at some suspicious connections of certain internal elements [i.e. reformist officials] with Western figures who are opposed to Iran..." [5]

Another item posted that day by Rajanews, titled "A High-Ranking Official Advises Rohani Not to Go to Europe," stated: "A high-level official in the [Iranian] regime responded to Rohani's request for his opinion on the matter of his trip to Germany, and his talks with some senior European officials, and recommended that Rohani refrain from taking this trip... He stressed, 'Since there is no special need for this trip, it should be avoided... In the event that the trip is made [anyway], you must be sure that they will by no means hear two voices from Iran, and that the position of Iran is the path chosen by the government.'" [6] According to the source, "associates of Rohani reported on the possibility that the trip to Europe would be cancelled following the recommendation of the high-ranking official." [7]

In response, MP and rapporteur for Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee Kazem Jalali denied that there had been any objections to Rohani's trip, pointing out that the trip had been planned at the invitation of the Körber Foundation in Germany, [8] and that Rohani was not bearing any message from Iran. Jalali also denied the item on the Rajanews site that stated that senior regime officials were against Rohani's trip, and noted that "Rohani is Khamenei's representative in the Supreme National Security Council, and thus any trip he makes is approved by Khamenei." [9]

In another article, the Rajanews website challenged Khamenei's decision to send his representative Rohani to talk with senior European officials, stating that even the recent arrest on treason charges of Hossein Mosavyan, who had led the negotiations with the EU-3, has not stopped the circles opposed to Ahmadinejad from acting against Iran's interests:

"Rohani's meeting with Solana is meant to take place at a stage in which Iran has [already] reached an agreement with the IAEA on a framework for resolving the remaining issues; accordingly, Europe's role as a mediator has now been considerably weakened... At this stage, [Rohani's team] is again trying, with a stupefying move, to revive this failed path [of Iran-Europe negotiations]...

"The arrest of Hossein Mosavyan on espionage charges was [caused] by the same parallel and unofficial connections [that he conducted with Western officials]. Thus it seems that the circle to which Mosavyan belongs and which is displeased with Iran's nuclear progress, [remains] unwilling to end its suspicious unofficial diplomacy even after [Mosavyan's] arrest." [10]

Source : MEMRI

Syrian Airspace

Fri. Sep 21, 2007

Only time will tell whether the alleged Israeli air attack on Syria two weeks ago was reckless bravado, a cynical blow to peace or a bold strike that makes the Middle East and all of us a bit safer. From the available evidence, though, the smart money is on bold and safer.

It’s true that nobody knows exactly what happened, other than those who were there. The Israelis aren’t talking. The Syrians aren’t talking sense. Smart pundits all around the world have their own pet theories: that Israel sent in a squadron of warplanes to test Syrian air defenses; that it was scouting out air routes to Iran for a possible attack on Tehran’s nuclear installations; that it was bombing a shipment of Iranian arms bound overland for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Each theory has its fatal flaws, though. Israel has better air routes to Iran, and Iran has better ways of shipping arms to Lebanon.

The theory that’s begun emerging as the favorite is the one coming from official-sounding sources in Washington: that the target was a secret nuclear installation. This wouldn’t be the first time that Washington officials have talked about secret Middle Eastern nuclear installations, and their track record isn’t good. But that doesn’t mean they’re wrong this time.

Syria, of course, flatly denies that there were any nuclear plants in the northern desert where the Israeli jets allegedly struck. Similar denials come from North Korea, which supposedly gave Syria the nuclear gear — in violation of its promises to destroy its nuclear material, not give it away. The Syrians insist the Israeli planes dropped tons of munitions over empty desert before being chased off by Syrian ground defenses. In effect, Syria accuses Israel of attacking its territory in an unprovoked aerial bombardment.

Curiously, though, Syria’s official protests are wildly out of proportion to its accusations. In a formal complaint to the United Nations Security Council, Damascus accused Israel of “violating Syrian airspace.” That’s a strange understatement for a country that believes it was under bombardment.

Curiouser still, the Syrians did not follow up their complaint with a demand for an emergency Security Council meeting to condemn Israel’s actions. They’ve never hesitated to convene the council before, even with far less alleged provocation. This time, it seems, they weren’t in a hurry to have the international community scrutinize the desert sands to see what the Israelis actually hit. The target may or may not have been nuclear, but it whatever it was, Syria wants to hide it from the world.

Even more telling was the reaction from the rest of the Arab world: a giant yawn. The League of Arab States issued a tepid statement protesting Israel’s “unacceptable maneuvers” — as though the raid were an aerial stunt show that drifted too close to the beach. The individual Arab states didn’t even go that far. A few tut-tutting editorials, a column or two in Al Jazeera, and that was it.

The fact is that Syria said it had come under direct Israeli military attack, and nobody cared. No one came to its defense except Iran and North Korea — not the best company for a country that’s desperate to escape pariah status.

Even the Chinese joined the yawn; they canceled a scheduled negotiating session over North Korea’s nuclear project, in apparent protest of Pyongyang’s reputed role in Syria.

Why did the Arab world turn its back on Syria? Because, as we have reported before, the mainstream leaders of the Sunni Arab world — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, the Gulf emirates — are tired of the global conflict raging around them.

It’s bad for business. They’re afraid of Iran, with its delusions of Shi’ite revolution and the popular unrest it stirs up. They want to create a new regional front that isolates Iran, and to do that they want to lower the flames between Israel and the Palestinians. They’re angry with Syria for its support of Palestinian terrorism, for its mischief-making in Lebanon and for its alliance with Iran. If Israel manages to humiliate Syria and reduce its strategic capabilities, that’s fine with the neighbors.

Israel accomplished three important things with its raid on Syria this month. First, it showed the Syrians that it can get to them anytime, anywhere. It showed that its vaunted ability to mount lightning raids far from home is undiminished, notwithstanding its bungled war in Lebanon last year.

More to the point, it showed the Syrians that renewed hostilities are not an alternative to peace talks, because they will gain nothing. It’s no accident that Israel chose this week, on the heels of the raid, to restate its willingness to talk peace with Damascus and express “respect” for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Nor is it coincidence that Syria’s foreign minister ended his condemnation of the Israeli raid with a reiteration of Syria’s desire to make peace with Israel.

Second, Israel reminded the Iranians that it can send its jets anywhere, drop bombs and get home. Third, and most important, it showed Iran and the world that if it does act against a clear and present danger, the Muslim world will not erupt.

The old days of pan-Arab unity and utter Israeli isolation are gone. Iran’s supposed trump card — that an attack on its nuclear facilities will touch off a global tsunami of Muslim rage — turns out to be so much hot air.

By all the available evidence, the world owes Israel a debt of gratitude this month. But statements of thanks are unnecessary. The silence says it all.

Source: Forward

Why We Should Not Arm Saudi Arabia

By Gamaliel Isaac

When one reviews the history of Saudi-American relations, one sees a relationship based not on friendship but on oil for protection and money.

In 1933 when lavish spending King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia signed a concessionary agreement with Standard Oil of California (SOCAL) allowing them to explore Saudi Arabia for oil, he was in dire financial straits and kept demanding more money. After oil was discovered and developed, the Saudis eventually took over the oil fields.

Their opposition to U.S. support of Israel during the 1973 Arab attempt to annihilate her led them, together with OPEC, to impose an oil embargo on the West. The reason the embargo was ended was not friendship to the West but loss of oil revenue.

Perhaps the illusion of a Saudi-American military alliance was created because King Fahd authorized the deployment of U.S. troops there before the Gulf war. This was a decision based on pragmatism, not friendship, because after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraqi combat forces moved toward the Saudi border.

Even though allowing U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia was necessary for the survival of the country, it created widespread hostility among the Saudi population to their government, because it meant contamination of the land of Mecca and Medina with infidels. This hostility is a result of extremist Wahhabi indoctrination, funded by the Saudi government that teaches that the infidel is impure.

The government of Saudi Arabia lives in constant fear of being overthrown by the radicals that its own money creates. King Abdullah expressed this concern in a letter to President in Bush in which he wrote:

“Those governments that don't feel the pulse of their people and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.”

The fear that this will happen is a fear our policy makers should share when thinking about arming Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi government does nothing to stop Saudi extremists from crossing the border into Iraq and attacking American soldiers there. More insidiously, Saudi money spreads anti-American propaganda, creates propaganda institutions out of some of our best universities, think tanks and media, spreads their form of extremist Wahhabi Islam, finances terrorists and influences our government officials. According to ex-CIA agent Bob Baer:

“There’s hardly a living former assistant secretary of state for the Near East; CIA director; White House staffer; or member of Congress who hasn’t ended up on the Saudi payroll in one way or another.... With this kind of money waiting out there, of course Washington’s bureaucrats don’t have the backbone to take on Saudi Arabia.”

An illustration of the extent of influence the Saudis have was the reaction of both the U.S. government and the media to an analysis by Laurent Murawiec in which he said that the Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain and that if the Saudis did not cease to support terror the United States should seize the Saudi oil fields. Mr. Murawiec wrote:

“An experienced observer of the Washington scene confessed his surprise to me: ‘In my career of twenty-five years, I have never seen the propaganda machine get moving so quickly and with so much fury.’”

The response of Secretary of State Colin Powell is indicative of the Saudi influence over the U.S. government. Despite the extensive evidence supporting Mr. Murawiec's statements, Secretary of State Powell called Prince Saud al-Faisal, to tell him that Mr. Murawiec’s briefing did not represent the administration’s vewpoint.

Saudi influence leads to immoral and self destructive U.S. policy. In 1994, after a State Department official had the audacity to say at a press conference that the United States had "serious concerns about human rights" in Saudi Arabia, the Clinton Administration apologized to Riyadh. An investigation by journalist Joel Mobray revealed that several of the perpetrators of 9/11 would not have been able to enter the country without special U.S. immigration favors toward the Saudis.

Arms sales to the Saudis has not bought the loyalty of the Saudi people or for that matter of the Saudi government.

The main argument given by the Bush Administration for arming Saudi Arabia is that we need to strengthen Saudi Arabia vis-a-vis Iran because Iran is on the verge of mass producing nuclear weapons. What is ignored in this argument is that the Saudis pose a nuclear threat as well. Saudi money funded Pakistan's nuclear program. Pakistani nuclear technology helped make Iran the nuclear threat it has become, and Saudis, with Pakistani help, are developing their own nuclear weapons. One shudders to consider what would have happened if the 15 Saudis who struck on September 11th had access to nuclear weapons.

Arming the Saudis with smart bombs isn’t smart and although this policy may bring in more Saudi gifts and donations and the like, it is not in the best interest of the American people.

Source: American thinker

Arabic Press - Nuclear related 190907

Attacking Syria: Focusing on Iran

Chuck Freilich

Posted 09/18/2007

Two weeks ago, Israeli air force jets apparently conducted a secret raid in Syria. Uncharacteristically, Israel has remained totally mum on the issue, a clear indication of the importance it attaches to it. Speculation in the media has been rampant, covering the entire gamut of possible targets, including an attack on a Syrian or Iranian arms shipment to Hizballah and the destruction of a nuclear facility that North Korea is now reported to have supplied to Syria.

We may never know what exactly happened, but a few points are worth emphasizing. The Middle East is increasingly going nuclear. The Iraqi program has been stopped, at least for the foreseeable future and Libya, having learned from the Iraqi precedent, voluntarily agreed to dismantle its program, in exchange for renewed relations with the US. The Iranian program, however, is rapidly reaching the critical turning point. Israel, long been thought to be a nuclear power as well, views an Iranian nuclear capability as a threat to its very existence. The Sunni regimes, including Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, even Jordan and others, are petrified at the very thought that their Shiite neighbor may soon be able to use its nuclear capabilities to further advance its hegemonic aspirations and dictate events in the region. In response, they are now giving increasing attention to possible “civil” nuclear programs of their own. “Civil” nuclear programs, as we know, have a pesky tendency to morph into military ones.

The thought that Syria, an unofficial, but de-facto member in nefarious standing in the “axis of evil”, may have an active nuclear program, far more advanced than heretofore known, is particularly worrisome. Rabidly dictatorial, already armed with a massive arsenal of chemical weapons, Syria has long been a regional spoiler. It is today an ally of Iran’s, with an increasingly close “strategic” military relationship. Together with Iran, Syria arms and gives various other types of support to Hizballah, Hamas, the insurgents in Iraq and other highly “savory” groups. Tensions along the border between Syria and Israel have also grown in recent months, increasing the risk of a military clash.

A multi-nuclear Middle East is a nightmare scenario the likes of which the world has yet to face. While it would not pose the threat of an end to humanity, as in the Cold War, in some ways a nuclear Middle East poses even greater dangers, if only because of the far greater prospects that nukes might actually be used. This would certainly be true in the case of a multi-nuclear Middle East. For the US, moreover, the danger of being drawn into a nuclear crisis would rise exponentially.

Iran is of course the greatest worry. A nuclear Iran would place most of the world's oil -- simply the world economy and western way of life -- under the threat of a regime whose extremist ideology is inspired by an aggressive interpretation of the divine word and an implacable opposition to Western values. Vociferously anti-American, despite attempts at rapprochement, Iran is explicitly committed to the destruction of Israel and developing the capabilities to do so.

The US-led diplomatic effort to bring the Iranian nuclear program to an end appears to be rapidly running its course. After months of talks in the Security Council, the US is now making a major push to convince the other members to join it in a third resolution condemning Iran, one which would, hopefully, impose sanctions with would finally have some true “teeth.” Russia and China remain recalcitrant and even if they ultimately agree to adopt some resolution, it is clear that the sanctions they agree to will be the bare minimum they believe they can accede to, without forcing the US to act independently, outside of the restrictive confines of the Security Council. In any event, it is highly unlikely that they will agree to further steps and to cooperate with the US in imposing the kind of overwhelming sanctions that might just be sufficient to actually get the Iranians, who have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the continuing their nuclear program, to acquiesce.

What this means is that sometime in the near future, quite possibly during the upcoming election year, American policymakers will be faced with the decision of how to truly deal with the Iranian threat. Various options still remain before one has to contemplate direct military action, such as US sanctions against the Revolutionary Guard, a primary political and economic force in Iran, which would have a major effect on Russian and Chinese economic interests and possibly encourage greater cooperation on their part in the Security Council, multilateral Western sanctions against Iran, an oil embargo and even a naval blockade. Given the pace of Iranian nuclear development, however, the time for this is limited.

In 1981 Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak and in so doing did the world a great favor. It may have done so again, at a much earlier stage, in Syria. The time for effective action against Iran is rapidly approaching.

Source: humanevents

Syria, NKorea deny nuclear cooperation

By ALBERT AJI, Associated Press

Syria and North Korea denied Tuesday they are cooperating on a Syrian nuclear program, and they accused U.S. officials of spreading the allegations for political reasons — either to back Israel or to block progress on a deal between Washington and Pyongyang.

A front-page editorial in the government newspaper Tishrin also criticized the United States for failing to condemn a Sept. 6 Israeli air incursion, which it called a violation of international law.

Details of the incursion remain unclear. Israel clamped a news blackout on the raid, while Syria said only that warplanes entered its airspace, came under fire from anti-aircraft defenses and dropped munitions and fuel tanks to lighten their loads while they fled.

U.S. officials have said Israeli warplanes struck a target. A military officer said Israel targeted weapons being shipped to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, but another official's comments raised speculation the Israelis targeted a nuclear installation.

Andrew Semmel, acting U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for nuclear nonproliferation policy, said Syria may have had contacts with "secret suppliers" to obtain nuclear equipment. He did not identify the suppliers, but said that North Koreans were in Syria and that he could not exclude involvement by the network run by the disgraced Pakistan nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.

North Korea strongly denied it secretly helped Syria develop a nuclear program, maintaining the charge was fabricated by U.S. hard-liners to block progress in the North's relations with the United States.

A Syrian Cabinet minister ridiculed the speculation about any cooperation with North Korea.

"All this rubbish is not true. I don't know how their imagination has reached such creativity," Bouthaina Shaaban said.

"Regretfully, the international press is busy justifying an aggression on a sovereign state and the world should be busy condemning it instead of inventing reasons and aims of this aggression," he told Lebanon's Hezbollah TV station Al-Manar.

Syria's nuclear program has long been considered minimal, and the country is known to have only a small research reactor.

In Vienna, Austria, officials for the International Atomic Energy Agency declined comment. But a diplomat associated with the agency said the IAEA "didn't know anything about any nuclear facility in Syria, and if there is something there, we should know."

Syria was the subject of an IAEA investigation in 2004 on suspicions it could have been a customer of the nuclear black market run by the Khan network — the same operation that supplied Iran and Libya for their clandestine atomic projects. The diplomat in Vienna, who insisted on anonymity, said the IAEA found no concrete evidence of such activity.

Israeli incursions into Syrian airspace are uncommon, unlike in neighboring Lebanon where Israeli warplanes have regularly made reconnaissance flights since last year's war with Hezbollah. Such flights were reported late Tuesday over southern Lebanon.

W. Patrick Lang, former head of Mideast intelligence at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, said Israel's incursion over Syria may have been staged to convince the Syrians that its forces are still formidable despite the inconclusive war with Hezbollah. Syria may have tempered its response for fear of escalation, he added.

"The Syrians are really worried because of the hostility of the Bush administration," said Lang. "If things degenerate, they could end up on the receiving end of a strike from Israel, with the go-ahead from the U.S."

The editorial in Tishrin, which reflects Syrian government thinking in a country where the media is tightly controlled, said the U.S. accusations show Washington's pro-Israel bias and have no credibility.

It said Washington was "busy on behalf of Israel circulating claims" that the incursion involved "possible nuclear facilities supplied by (North) Korea."

"The strange thing is that the Americans are talking on behalf of Israel and are providing excuses and concocting new false spins such as talking about presumed Syrian nuclear activity and completely turning a blind eye about the Israeli nuclear danger," the Syrian editorial said.

Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons but has never acknowledged it.

The Syrian newspaper said the accusations "recall those false claims that the Americans and the British circulated about Iraq's nuclear programs."

Tishrin was referring to Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction program, one reasons cited by the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. No such weapons were found.

Israeli President Shimon Peres, meanwhile, sought to calm tensions with Syria.

The nervousness in relations between Syria and ourselves is over," Peres told foreign reporters in Jerusalem. "We are clearly ready to negotiate directly with Syria for peace."

Peres' comment followed similar remarks Monday by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who said he has "a lot of respect for the Syrian leader (President Bashar Assad) and for Syrian behavior."

Olmert said he is prepared for peace negotiations with Syria if the conditions are right. He made the offer of peace talks before, but it was the first time he had mentioned Syria since the reported airstrike. In 2000, Israel-Syria talks neared agreement but broke down over final border and peace arrangements.

Source: Yahoo

Sunni Shia relations 180907

Olmert says open to talks with Syria

18 September 2007

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday he respected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and was prepared to hold peace talks with him, following reports of an Israeli air raid on Syria this month.

Israel has refused to comment on what US officials and diplomatic sources have described in news reports as a raid inside Syria that may have targeted weapons headed for Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon or a suspected nuclear site.

Syria said it could retaliate for the Sept. 6 violation of its territory and has denied reports that Damascus may have received North Korean nuclear aid. North Korea has also denied any such cooperation.

“Like I said in the past, we want to make peace with anyone who is willing to make peace with us,” Olmert told a group of reporters in Jerusalem when asked about Syria.

”We are willing to enter negotiations with Syria with no preconditions,” Olmert said in his first public comments since the incident. “We have much respect for the Syrian leader and the Syrian policy. They have internal problems but this is no reason not to enter into dialogue with them.”

A spokesperson for Olmert played down the comments, saying they were similar to what he has said repeatedly in the past.

“He’s more than willing to enter into negotiations with the Syrians,” an Israeli government official said of Olmert. “We want to meet face to face.”

Before the reported raid, Israel had been passing messages to Syria for months through Turkey and other third parties, seeking assurances peace talks would lead Damascus to sever ties with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas militants, officials have said.

Assad has also set preconditions for any revived peace talks. He told the Syrian parliament in July that Israel must first commit itself to a complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights, captured 40 years ago.

US President George W. Bush has shown little enthusiasm for an Israeli-Syrian peace track, casting doubt on the chances of a breakthrough in the near future.

But Western officials said the Bush administration has not ruled out Syria taking part in an international conference in November on Palestinian statehood. The conference is expected to be held in the Washington area.

Negotiations between Syria and Israel collapsed in 2000 without resolving the fate of the Golan, a plateau occupied by Israel in 1967 during the Six Day War and annexed in 1981 in a move not recognised internationally.

Syria has protested to the United Nations about the air strikes and its UN ambassador said Israel’s motive was to torpedo peace moves.

Source: Khaleej times

Who will be the next president?

09/18/2007 12:27 AM |

By Sami Moubayed

It seems like the big players have placed their bet in Lebanon. The Saudis "prefer" Nassib Lahhoud of the March 14 Coalition, a respected statesman from the Maronite community.

The Americans, who "insist" that nobody should interfere in the elections, "prefer" Boutros Harb, another Maronite candidate from March 14. The Syrians want Michel Aoun, the Christian heavyweight who is allied to Hezbollah.

French are undecided, with an official line saying that they would support whomever is chosen by the people of Lebanon. Some press reports, however, say that they were in favour of bringing Army Commander Michel Suleiman to Ba'abda Palace, for an interim period of two years, to avoid a constitutional vacuum.

That proposal, apparently, was vetoed by the Americans and Saudis because of Suleiman's friendship with both the Syrians and Hezbollah. Suleiman, however, still stands as a possible president-in-waiting, depending on the outcome of events in the upcoming week.

All of these "bets" are preliminary. Anything can change between now and September 25.

According to the Lebanese weekly Al Kifah Al Arabi, if the Americans back out on Lahhoud, their second bet would be Riad Salameh, the compromise candidate who currently serves as Governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon.

Salameh, who is currently not officially standing for the presidential elections, is seen as an independent technocrat with an exceptionally unblemished record, who is acceptable by all parties in the Lebanese conflict.

If the Hezbollah-led opposition vetoes all of March 14's candidates, then Salameh would stand a higher chance at becoming president. His candidacy, however, like that of Michel Suleiman, requires a constitutional amendment.

Article 49 of the Constitution says that a candidate running for office must not be employed by the government. A period of no less than two years in retirement is needed before a civil servant can run for office - something that applies neither to Salameh nor Suleiman.

Legal experts, however, are saying that although this clearly applies to Suleiman, it does not apply to Salameh, who is "contracted" for the post and not actually employed by the Lebanese government.

Several politicians in Lebanon, including March 14 heavyweights such as Samir Gagegea and Walid Junblatt, argue that no constitutional amendments can be made after the constitutional deadline of September 25.

They want to minimise the chances of bringing any figure who is not a member of March 14 to the Ba'abda Palace. After this given date, they argue, parliament loses its legislative powers and becomes strictly, a voting body.

It can no longer amend the constitution. This means if Salameh or Suleiman stand any chance at running for office, this would have to be within the next week.

The Syrians are worried about US plans for Lebanon, especially after US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman said that Lebanon is a strategic partner for the US in the Middle East. They repeatedly claim that they will not tolerate an anti-Syrian president in Lebanon, who allows Lebanon to be used by the US for anti-Syrian activity.

They fear that a president from March 14 would further the anti-Syrian campaign, and work for the disarming of Hezbollah, Syria's main ally in Lebanon. Likewise, a president from March 14, who rules with Fouad Siniora means that all of Syria's allies in Lebanon will be completely marginalised and kept out of government jobs.

The fact that the US Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffery Feltman has prolonged his stay in Lebanon until after the elections, and that his successor Michele Sison has not arrived is worrying for Damascus. This means that the Americans are planning to manipulate the presidential elections through Feltman, an outright supporter of March 14.

On the other hand, the Saudis "prefer" Lahhoud. They do not want to force their candidate on Lebanon, however, fearing that the opposition would refuse to vote or obey him, and resort to creating a parallel government, headed by a pro-Syrian president.

That is why the Saudis supported the Berri Initiative, hoping to win support from Hezbollah for Lahhoud, or any candidate from March 14.

The other March 14 candidate is Boutros Harb. A lawyer by profession, he worked with Nassib Lahhoud in the Qornet Shehwan Gathering, but had previously been a strong ally of the Syrians, who made him Minister of Education in the early 1990s.

One of the two Maronite candidates from March 14 has to step out of the presidential race, so that only one Christian runs in the race, supported by the Hariri bloc. This would take place after all Christian forces within March 14, which include the Lebanese Phalange and the Lebanese Forces, decide on one candidate.

Sources in Lebanon still do not rule out the candidacy of former President Ameen Gemayel, whose record was seriously affected, however, after losing the Metn parliamentary elections earlier this summer, against a political nobody from the Free Patriotic Movement of General Michel Aoun.

Respectable candidates, however, whether it is Lahhoud or Harb, will refuse coming to power with a purely Christian mandate. They will even refuse being voted into office under nothing more than US support and an umbrella from March 14.

They want history to remember them as spokesmen for all of Lebanon. They also don't want Christian history to remember them as having come to power under Sunni patronage, thanks to Sa'ad Al Hariri and the Saudis, or US support. This is a long-standing norm in Lebanon.

During the last proper elections that took place in 1975, between Suleiman Franjiyyieh and Elias Sarkis, each had an impressive mixture of Christians and Muslims among their parliamentary supports.

Franjiyyieh, who won with a one vote difference over Sarkis, had Christian leaders behind him such as Pierre Gemayel and Raymond Edde, as well as Muslim heavyweights like Kamel Al Asaad and Saeb Salam. Sarkis's team had Christians such as Rene Mouawwad, and Muslim "giants" such as Rashid Karameh.

Will history - or can history - repeat itself, given so much polarisation in Lebanese politics, and so many different "preferences" from Washington, Riyad, Paris, and Damascus?

Source: Gulf News

Iran threatens missile attacks on US targets

By David Blair

18/09/2007

A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic's armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country's ballistic missiles.

The Shahab-3 rocket has a range of 1,250 miles, allowing it to strike an array of Western targets across the Middle East.

"Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range," said Gen Mohammed Hassan Koussechi.

"If the United States is saying that they have identified 2,000 targets in Iran, then what is certain is that it is the Americans who are all around Iran and are equally our targets," he told the official IRNA news agency.

Gen Koussechi added: "We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres."

A wide array of possible targets faces Iran across the Gulf. Dubai, filled with Western companies, tourists and expatriates, is only 105 miles away.

Iran's armed forces already occupy Abu Musa, an island claimed by the United Arab Emirates, 40 miles from Dubai.

Other potential targets include the oilfields in Saudi Arabia's Eastern province, the headquarters of America's Central Command in Qatar and the main harbour of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus is also in range.

Tension over Iran's nuclear programme is now building. Teheran continues to defy three UN resolutions by enriching uranium, which could produce the essential material for a nuclear bomb.

Later this month, America will probably seek the Security Council's support for a new resolution imposing more sanctions on Iran.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has toughened France's approach towards Teheran, with Bernard Kouchner, his foreign minister, giving warning at the weekend that the world should "prepare for the worst and the worst is war".

Teheran responded yesterday by accusing Mr Sarkozy of being an American stooge.

Iran is enriching uranium using centrifuges. It aims to install 3,000 at the underground nuclear plant in Natanz.

Once it has succeeded — and the technical barriers are formidable — Iran would need about one year to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reached a new agreement with Iran designed to lay to rest any fears that Teheran is developing a nuclear bomb.

But Western diplomats say the IAEA agreement contains one flaw — it does not specify that Iran must stop enriching uranium. However, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, said that any talk of war was "hype". He added: "People need to bear with us."

• American forces yesterday captured 12 Iraqis who they accuse of smuggling weapons from Iran. The men, who were detained in Baghdad, had prepared and stockpiled an especially lethal variety of roadside bomb, said the US military.

Source: Telegraph