oil related 271007

OPEC oil output rises in October - Petrologistics

October 23, 2007

LONDON -- OPEC is already raising oil production in response to record-high prices and in advance of its agreement to increase output from November, a consultant who tracks tanker movements said on Tuesday.

OPEC's 10 members subject to output limits, all except Iraq and Angola, are set to pump 27.5 million barrels per day, up from a revised 27.2 million bpd in September, said Conrad Gerber of Petrologistics.

The estimate indicates that OPEC may be relaxing adherence to supply curbs in response to a jump in oil prices, which hit a record high of $90.07 on Friday. The group on Sept. 11 formally agreed to lift production from Nov. 1.

"It's a surprisingly large increase," Gerber told Reuters. "The Saudis are obviously pushing out more crude in advance of the November increase."

Saudi Arabia, OPEC's top producer, is on course to lift supply to 8.95 million bpd from 8.88 million bpd in September, he said.

Overall output from the 12-member Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is set to rise 500,000 bpd to 31.4 million bpd, Petrologistics said, on higher shipments from Iraq and Angola.

Oil prices declined after the Petrologistics estimate was released. U.S. crude was down 18 cents at $85.84 a barrel as of 0821 GMT.

Petrologistics, based in Geneva, assesses OPEC oil output by tracking tanker shipments. OPEC itself does not issue timely estimates of its own production.

Source: Inquirer

Nuclear related 271007

'Syria was preparing for Israeli attack'

Oct. 24, 2007

Syria was preparing for a large-scale Israeli attack some two weeks ago, the Al-Khaleej newspaper, published in the United Arab Emirates, reported Wednesday.

Al-Khaleej quoted "senior sources" in Damascus as saying that Syria had received intelligence that Israel was seriously considering launching an offensive during the Id al-Fitr holiday, which marks the end of Ramadan.

Therefore, the article said, Syria began taking "defensive steps."

The Syrian sources, who were unnamed, told Al-Khaleej that Russia and China, when apprised of Syria's concerns, sent "stern warnings" to both Jerusalem and Washington that an Israeli attack would destroy the balance of the Middle East. According to the report, China and Russia asked the United States to intervene and "rein in" what Syria perceived as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's threats of war.

"Despite Israel's calming messages, sent through mediators, there is still a possibility of a military confrontation," the sources told the UAE paper.

The sources added that Syrian President Bashar Assad had raised the issue during his visit with Turkey's leaders last week, and said that Turkey's deputy military chief had given Assad his word that Turkey would not allow Israel to use its air space to attack Syria.

Meanwhile, US experts said they have identified the Euphrates River nuclear site in Syria that was allegedly bombed by IAF planes last month, as well as satellite imagery of the facility showing buildings under construction, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. According to the report, the facility was similar in design to a North Korean nuclear reactor capable of producing nuclear material for one bomb a year.

Photographs of the area taken before the September 6 raid show an isolated compound which included a boxy structure similar to the type of building used to house a gas-graphite reactor. They also show what could have been a pumping station used to supply cooling water for the reactor, expert David Albright of the US Institute for Science and International Security was quoted as saying by The Washington Post.

The newspaper also reported that International and American experts familiar with the site, who were shown the photos on Tuesday, said there was a strong possibility that they show the remote compound which was allegedly attacked by Israel. Israeli officials and the White House declined to comment.

The facility depicted was located approximately 10 kilometers north of At Tibnah in the Dayr az Zawr region, according to an ISIS report to be released Wednesday. Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, said the size of the structures suggested that Syria might have been building a gas-graphite reactor of about 20 to 25 megawatts of heat, which is similar to the reactor North Korea built at Yongbyon.

Source: Jerusalem Post

Yet Another Photo of Site in Syria, Yet More Questions

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and MARK MAZZETTI

The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.

The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq, which was later found to have no active nuclear program.

A senior American intelligence official said yesterday that American analysts had looked carefully at the site from its early days, but were unsure then whether it posed a nuclear threat.

In the time before the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior advisers sounded many alarms about Baghdad’s reconstituting its nuclear program. But they have never publicly discussed what many analysts say appears to have been a long-running nuclear effort next door.

Yesterday independent analysts, examining the latest satellite image, suggested that work on the site might have begun around 2001, and the senior intelligence official agreed with that analysis. That early date is potentially significant in terms of North Korea’s suspected aid to Syria, suggesting that North Korea could have begun its assistance in the late 1990s.

A dispute has broken out between conservatives and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the administration’s pursuit of diplomacy with North Korea in the face of intelligence that North Korea might have helped Syria design a nuclear reactor.

The new image may give ammunition to those in the administration, including Ms. Rice, who call for diplomacy. If North Korea started its Syrian aid long ago, the officials could argue that the assistance was historical, not current, and that diplomacy should move ahead.

The progress of the site in late 2003 also raises new questions about a disagreement at the time between intelligence analysts and John R. Bolton, then the State Department’s top arms control official.

In the summer of 2003, Mr. Bolton’s testimony on Capitol Hill was delayed after a dispute erupted in part over whether Syria was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. Some intelligence officials said Mr. Bolton overstated the Syrian threat.

“There was disagreement about what Syria was interested in and how much we should be monitoring it,” Mr. Bolton said in an interview yesterday. “There was activity in Syria that I felt was evidence that they were trying to develop a nuclear program.”

Mr. Bolton declined to say whether he had knowledge at the time about the site that the Israelis struck in September.

Spokesmen for the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council declined to comment.

The new image of the desolate Syrian site was released yesterday by GeoEye, in Dulles, Va. Mark Brender, the company’s vice president for communications and marketing, said the picture was taken on Sept. 16, 2003. He added that the image had been collected as part of the company’s agenda of building a large archive of global images.

Earlier this week, federal and private analysts identified the precise location of the Syrian site, and since then rival companies have raced to release images. The site is on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, 90 miles north of the Iraqi border.

Images taken in August, before the Israeli raid, show a tall building about 150 feet wide on each side that analysts suspect might have sheltered a half-built nuclear reactor. Also visible is a pumping station on the Euphrates, which may be significant because reactors need water for cooling.

John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a private group in Alexandria, Va., that analyzes satellite images, said the 2003 picture showed the tall building in the midst of early construction, surrounded by churned earth. He put the groundbreaking in 2001.

“It’s uncommon to see such activity in the middle of nowhere,” he said, adding that it was sufficiently unusual to have worried American intelligence officials. “I’d have put it on my suspect site list and kept watching,” he said.

The senior intelligence official said that American spy satellites and analysts had, in fact, watched the site for years.

“It was noticed, without knowing what it was,” the official said. “You revisit every so often, but it was not a high priority. You see things that raise the flag and you know you have to keep looking. It was a case of watching it evolve.”

Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the New America Foundation in Washington, said it was surprising from the photos how little progress had been made at the site between 2003 and 2007.

But Mr. Lewis said it was ironic that Syria might have been trying to build a nuclear program just as the United States was invading Iraq in the fear that Iraq was developing nuclear arms.

Source: NYT

Israel moves maneuvers away from Syria

By MATTI FRIEDMAN, Associated Press WriterFri Oct 26, 5:47 PM ET

Israel has decided to move an upcoming military exercise off the disputed Golan Heights to avoid further heightening tensions with neighboring Syria, defense officials said.

The border has been jittery since Sept. 6, the date of a mysterious raid by Israeli jets on a target in Syria's north.

Next week's military maneuver was scheduled to be held partially on the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast War.

Israel sent messages reassuring Syria that the exercise signaled no aggressive intentions, the officials said. But this week, the military decided to hold the exercise solely in northern Israel and not on the Golan Heights because of concerns it might unsettle the Syrians, they said.

The officials spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to divulge details of the military's decision to the media.

The exercise is slated to be the largest Israeli military maneuver since Israel's 34-day war with Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer.

Israel's military regularly holds exercises on the strategic heights, but it seems Israel is being especially cautious not to provoke Syria in the aftermath of the Sept. 6 raid, which is still enveloped in secrecy. Israel still has not officially commented on the raid or acknowledged carrying it out.

Syrian President Bashar Assad said the attack targeted an unused military building. But reports following the incident have contradicted that account.

New commercial satellite images show a presumed Syrian nuclear reactor site has been wiped clean since the apparent airstrike.

The alleged nuclear site has been under construction for at least four years, since September 2003, according to newly released archived IKONOS commercial satellite images provided by GeoEye/SIME to the Associated Press Friday. Previously, the earliest available image was from August 2006.

The 2003 images shows the large roofed building — now gone — and construction vehicles.

"It's actually more active construction than in the imagery we've seen so far," said Paul Brannan, a senior research analyst with the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the strike had targeted a partially built nuclear reactor, made with North Korean help, that was years away from completion, citing U.S. and foreign officials. The Washington Post also cited U.S. officials as saying the building had characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor similar to North Korea's facility.

Analysts said the cleanup will hinder a proposed investigation by international nuclear inspectors and suggests Syria is trying to conceal evidence.

"It took down this facility so quickly it looks like they are trying to hide something," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, which analyzed the images.

Albright said Syria may have acted so swiftly because the Israeli attack blew a hole in the roof, which would have exposed the building's contents to spy aircraft and satellites.

Had the building not been razed, inspectors would have been able to tell from its construction whether it was meant to house a North Korean-style nuclear reactor, Albright said. He said the fact that the structure got a roof so early in its construction also suggests that it was a reactor.

Syria has strenuously denied the target was a nuclear reactor.

The border between Israel and Syria has been tense since that incident.

Last month, Israeli fighter jets were scrambled to the northern Golan Heights because of suspicious aerial activity that later turned out to be migrating birds. A few days later, Israel dispatched several fighter jets toward Syria after a Syrian aircraft disappeared from Israeli air force radar screens. The jets returned to their bases minutes later when it became clear the Syrian airplane had crashed.

Source: Yahoo

Reports, Analysis

CSIS issued an excellent analysis of the Syrian issue with Israel. It can be found there. CSIS Report.

Arabic Press - Nuclear related 261007

Syria chief cabinet Mohammed Naji was reported by the media as saying, about the possibility of cooperation between Syria and North Korea in the field of nuclear and missile technologies, that all the allegations were baseless and not proved. He said in a press conference on Thursday that "these rumors, coming from Israel, were spread in order to justify the recent aggression against Syria." He added that both Syria and North Korea denied the existence of any secret nuclear cooperation between them.

Al-Jaafari, the permanent Syrian representative to the U.N.in New York, added that the raid occurred in a region where only one institution can be found, "the Arab Center for Studies of Dry Areas” (ALECSO), an affiliate of the Arab League, who recently denied that they were attacked by Israeli aircraft."

Source: Syria News, Al Watan

Meanwhile, an article quoted in Khaleej Time explains that:

New commercial satellite images show a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site has been wiped clean since it was bombed Sept. 6 by Israeli aircraft. Analysts say Thursday that the cleanup will hinder a proposed investigation by international nuclear inspectors and suggests Syria is trying to conceal evidence.

It took down this facility so quickly it looks like they are trying to hide something,’ said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, which analyzed the images.

An image taken Wednesday by a DigitalGlobe commercial satellite shows tractors or bulldozers and scrape marks on the ground where the building stood in photos taken before the September Israeli attack.

It also shows what appears to be a trench where Syrians might have dug up buried pipelines running from a water pumping station to the suspected reactor building.

Albright said Syria may have acted so swiftly because the Israeli attack blew a hole in the roof, which would have exposed the building’s contents to spy aircraft and satellites.

Had the building not been razed, inspectors would have been able to tell from its construction whether it was meant to house a North Korean-style nuclear reactor, Albright said. He said that the structure got a roof so early in its construction also suggests that it was a reactor.

That’s another bit of support that it was a reactor being built with North Korean help,’ he said. From what we understand, North Korea builds reactors in an old-fashioned way; the roof goes on early.’ More modern reactors leave the roof until last to allow large cranes to lift heavy equipment into place, he said.

The building was under construction for at least a year, based on analysis of earlier commercial images put together by SPOT Image, another commercial imagery company, Albright said.

DigitalGlobe’s satellites captured four images of the site on four recent days _ Aug. 10, 15, 28 and Oct. 24. Company spokesman Chuck Herring would not say whether DigitalGlobe captured those images speculatively or at the request of a customer.

Syria, a member of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, denies it was building a nuclear reactor. It has a single small nuclear research reactor that operates under international safeguards. The alleged new reactor would have operated outside those controls.

Source: Khaleej Times

In Egypt, authorities are investigating the real causes of the death of an Egyptian researcher specialized in the nuclear field. An Egyptian security source revealed that they found the body of an Egyptian nuclear researcher in his apartment in Alexandria, in the area of San Stefano, known as Abdou Shake.

In the Egyptian street, people are saying that this incident is linked to the serial murders of Egyptian scientists like Yahya and Jamal Hamdan Samira, Said Musa and Mr. Bedier.

Abdou Shaker returned this year from the United States after getting a doctorate degree in the field of nuclear energy. An initial investigation indicates a natural death, the death would have occurred as a result of a heart attack as his brother suffers from a variety of health problems.

Source: Al Madina Press

Arabic Press - Nuclear related 251007

Syria’s Permanent Delegate to the United Nations Bashar al-Jaafari denied on Wednesday the existence of any nuclear site in Syria, commenting on the report published by the "Washington Post".

Syria and North Korea denied reports about the existence of any secret nuclear cooperation between them. Syria warned that the accusations of the existence of a Syrian nuclear activity may be a prelude to future aggression against Syria. Jaafari denied that these images are of a nuclear site and said that the "rumors" about the existence of the nuclear reactor were aimed at reducing Israel's violation of Syrian airspace.

Source: Syria News

oil related 251007

Oil: The sovereignty showdown in Iraq

By Jack Miles

The oil game in Iraq may be almost up. On September 29, like a landlord serving notice, the government of Iraq announced that the next annual renewal of the United Nations Security Council mandate for a multinational force in Iraq - the only legal basis for a continuation of the American occupation - will be the last. That was, it seems, the first shoe to fall. The second may be an announcement terminating the little-noticed, but crucial companion Security Council mandate governing the disposition of

Iraq's oil revenues.

By December 31, 2008, according to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, the government of Iraq intends to have replaced the existing mandate for a multinational security force with a conventional bilateral security agreement with the United States - an agreement of the sort that Washington has with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and several other countries in the Middle East.

The Security Council has always paired the annual renewal of its mandate for the multinational force with the renewal of a second mandate for the management of Iraqi oil revenues. This happens through the "Development Fund for Iraq", a kind of escrow account set up by the occupying powers after the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime and recognized in 2003 by UN Security Council Resolution 1483. The oil game will be up if and when Iraq announces that this mandate, too, will be terminated at a date certain in favor of resource-development agreements that - like the envisioned security agreement - match those of other states in the region.

The game will be up because, as Antonia Juhasz pointed out last March in a New York Times op-ed, "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?":

Iraq's neighbors Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ... have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire international oil companies as contractors to provide specific services as needed, for a limited duration, and without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced.

By contrast, the oil legislation now pending in the Iraqi parliament awards foreign oil companies coveted, long-term, 20-35 year contracts of just the sort that neighboring oil producers have rejected for decades. It also places the Iraqi oil industry under the control of an appointed body that would include representatives of international oil companies as full voting members.

The news that the duly elected government of Iraq is exercising its limited sovereignty to set a date for termination of the American occupation radically undercuts all discussion in the US Congress or by American presidential candidates of how soon the US occupation of Iraq may "safely" end. Yet if, by the same route, Iraq were to resume full and independent control over the world's third-largest proven oil reserves - 200 to 300 million barrels of light crude worth as much as $30 trillion at today's prices - a politically incorrect question might break rudely out of the Internet universe and into the mainstream media world, into, that is, the open: Has the Iraq war been an oil war from the outset?

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan evidently thought so, or so he indicated in a single sentence in his recent memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." When asked, Gen John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander who oversaw three and a half years of the American occupation of Iraq, agreed. "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," he said during a roundtable discussion at Stanford University. These confessions validated the suspicions of foreign observers too numerous to count. Veteran security analyst Thomas Powers observed in the New York Review of Books recently:

What it was only feared the Russians might do [by invading Afghanistan in the 1980s] the Americans have actually done - they have planted themselves squarely astride the world's largest pool of oil, in a position potentially to control its movement and to coerce all the governments who depend on that oil. Americans naturally do not suspect their own motives but others do. The reaction of the Russians, the Germans, and the French in the months leading up to the war suggests that none of them wished to give Americans the power which [former National Security Adviser Zbigniew] Brzezinski had feared was the goal of the Soviets.

Apologists for the war point out lamely that the United States imports only a small fraction of its oil from Iraq, but what matters, rather obviously, is not Iraq's current exports but its reserves.

Before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, media mogul Rupert Murdoch said, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil."

In the 21st century's version of the "Great Game" of 19th century imperialism, the Bush administration made a colossal gamble that Iraq could become a kind of West Germany or South Korea on the Persian Gulf - a federal republic with a robust, oil-exporting economy, a rising standard of living, and a set of US bases that would guarantee lasting American domination of the most resource-strategic region on the planet.

The political half of that gamble has already been lost, but the Bush administration has proven adamantly unwilling to accept the loss of the economic half, the oil half, without a desperate fight. Perhaps the five super-bases that the US has been constructing in Iraq for as many as 20,000 troops each, plus the ill-built super-embassy (the largest on the planet) it has been constructing inside Baghdad's Green Zone, will suffice to maintain American control over the oil reserves, even in defiance of international law and the officially stated wishes of the Iraqi people - but perhaps not.

Blackwater and the sovereignty showdown

In any case, a kind of slow-motion showdown may lie not so far ahead; and, during the past weeks, we may have been given a clue as to how it could unfold. Recall that after the gunning down of at least 17 Iraqis in a Baghdad square, Prime Minister Maliki demanded that the State Department dismiss and punish the trigger-happy private security firm, Blackwater USA, which was responsible for the safety of American diplomatic personnel in Iraq. He further demanded that the immunity former occupation head L Paul Bremer III had granted, in 2004, to all such private security firms be revoked. Startled, the Bush administration briefly grounded its diplomatic operations, then defiantly resumed them - with security still provided by Blackwater. Within days, though, Bush found himself face-to-face in New York with Maliki for discussions whose topic National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley revealingly named as "Iraqi sovereignty". Who would blink first?

We're still waiting to see, but in the wake of an Iraqi investigation that ended with a demand for $8 million compensation for each of the 17 murdered Baghdadis, Blackwater is reportedly "on its way out" of security responsibility in Iraq, probably by the six-month deadline that Maliki has demanded. Despite its disgrace, the well-connected private security company continues to win lucrative State Department security contracts. Blackwater expert Jeremy Scahill told Bill Moyers that losing the Iraq gig would only slightly affect Blackwater's bottom line, but could grievously inconvenience US diplomatic operations in Iraq. In forcing such a crisis on the State Department, the Maliki government, whose powerlessness has been an assumption unchallenged from left or right (in or out of Iraq), suddenly looks a good deal stronger.

But oil matters more to Washington than Blackwater does. In September, when the effort to enact US-favored oil legislation - a much-announced "benchmark" of both the White House and Congress - collapsed in Iraq's legislature, the coup de grace seemed to be delivered by a wildcat agreement between the Kurdistan Regional Government and Hunt Oil of Dallas, Texas, headed by Ray L Hunt, a longtime Bush ally and a member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. This agreement, undertaken against the stated wishes of the Baghdad government, provides for the separate development of Kurdistan's oil resources and puts the Kurds in blatant, preemptive violation of the pending legislation. It makes, in fact, such a mockery of that legislation that the prospect of its passage before the Development Fund mandate expires is now vanishingly small.

Endgame for Iraqi oil?

If the mandate expires and the law is not passed, then what? Then others in Iraq may well seek to follow the Kurdish example and cut comparable deals with whomever they wish. The central government, even if it has lost effective control of the Kurdish north and the Sunni west, could well ratify resource-separatism by contracting for the development of the oil resources in the territory generally remaining under its control. Thus, a new, Iran-allied, oil-rich, nine-province Shi'ite Iraq could match Kurdistan's deal with one of its own, perhaps even with ready-and-willing China. Will any combination of American military and diplomatic pressure suffice to stop such an untoward outcome?

Clearly, some in Washington still think so. Shortly before the collapse of the Iraqi oil legislation effort, Bush's Commerce Department began quietly advertising for an Arabic-speaking legal advisor to help it in "providing technical assistance to Iraq to create a legal and tax environment conducive to domestic and foreign investment in Iraq's key economic sectors, starting with the mineral resources sector." (Read: "starting with oil".) As it happens, the job description overlaps heavily with that of the Development Fund for Iraq's existing International Advisory and Monitoring Board, whose responsibility, according to UN Security Council Resolution 1483, has been to see to it "that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas from Iraq ... shall be made consistent with prevailing international marketing best practices". Is the US Commerce Department already planning for the demise of this board? Like the super-embassy and the super-bases, this bit of Commerce Department staffing-up bespeaks the urge to continue an invasive American presence in Iraq, including Iraq's energy sector, long after December 31, 2008.

But if the occupation is shut down legally after that date and if Iraqi control over Iraqi oil reverts - legally, at least - to something close to pre-war status, that Commerce Department expert may find him or herself playing a less-than-major role in Baghdad.

Instead, expect a new role for Iraq's hitherto excluded pool of domestic expertise. The Iraq National Oil Company began operations back in 1961; its legacy includes a skilled workforce of trained oil workers. Notable, in fact, among those opposed to the failed oil legislation is the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions. Its members object to provisions in the legislation that permit the hiring of foreign oil workers rather than Iraqis and - in classic Bush Administration fashion - exclude the union from any participation in contract negotiations. The union federation's protests have attracted a letter of support signed by six Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

Even with Iraqi expertise duly factored in, oil remains a complicated business, and foreign expertise and capital will remain indispensable in Iraq. Still, for the Shi'ite-dominated central government, the most trusted foreign supplier of supplementary expertise, manpower, and even capital would seem to be Iran.

For now, the United States is paying many of the salaries in Baghdad; but Iran's president, predicting an American withdrawal, has lately declared his readiness to "fill the [regional power] gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation". This invitation to regional collaboration will surely strike the less populous, militarily more vulnerable Saudis as disingenuous in the extreme, but Iran may be hard to stop. As former ambassador Peter Galbraith has explained: "Since 2005, Iraq's Shi'ite-led government has concluded numerous economic, political, and military agreements with Iran. The most important would link the two countries' strategic oil reserves by building a pipeline from southern Iraq to Iran, while another commits Iran to providing extensive military assistance to the Iraq government." On October 17, the Maliki regime flexed its supposedly non-existent muscle yet again by awarding $1.1 billion in contracts to Iran and China to build enormous power plants in Baghdad's Shi'ite Sadr City and between the two Shi'ite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.

The prospect that, in the endgame for Iraqi oil, the victor might be Shi'ite Iran (and indirectly China) may help explain recent American calls for the replacement of the devoutly Shi'ite Maliki. Yet, even if American pressure leads to Maliki's ouster, the Iraqi parliament cannot be ousted with him. The prime minister's announcement that the next renewal of the multi-force mandate would be the last came, in fact, in response to a binding resolution in parliament that the next renewal, unlike previous ones, may not be at the request of the prime minister alone, but only with the advice and consent of parliament. Parliament has voted once already, in a non-binding resolution, to require the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Fragile as it is, the government of Iraq enjoys international legal recognition, and the underestimated Maliki is evidently not without resources when it comes to asserting Iraqi sovereignty over American autonomy within Iraq's borders. In "Blackwatergate" he found a remarkable pressure point, declaring that no new law would be passed in Iraq until the Blackwater matter was resolved to his satisfaction. Nor was Maliki necessarily whistling in the dark when he warned his American critics, "We can find friends elsewhere."

The expiration date that Iraq has now set for the operation of a multinational force on its territory coincides almost exactly with the end of the Bush administration. As that date nears, the endgame question may become: How far can the administration go in repudiating its own erstwhile agenda and returning Iraq to its pre-war status - that is, to US-backed Sunni domination of Iraqi domestic politics. That would, of course, result in armed Iraqi hostility to the administration's enemy of enemies in the region, Iran, and a resigned return to collaboration with the Saudi-dominated Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the management of the world oil market, all under a largely offshore US military umbrella.

Will the fallback dream now be the one George W Bush's father entertained after Gulf War I - the creation in Baghdad of a kinder, gentler Saddam Hussein with whom, to use the classic phrase, the US can "do business"?

Time will tell, but not too much time. The eerie silence of the Bush administration about oil grows all the more deafening as the price of crude climbs toward $100 a barrel. Blood for oil may never have been a good deal, but so much blood for no oil at all may seem a far worse one.

Source: Asia Times

sunni shia relations 251007

Rice Says Window for Israeli-Palestinian Peacemaking Must Be Exploited

By David Gollust

24 October 2007

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is warning Arab politics could become more radical unless the current window of opportunity for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking is fully exploited. At a congressional committee hearing, Rice also said the Bush administration remains committed to diplomacy in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.

Secretary Rice defended the administration's effort to convene a Middle East peace conference as early as next month in the face of skeptical questioning from members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Democratic committee chairman Tom Lantos said the plan may be premature, given the political weakness of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and the fact that Palestinian Hamas radicals control Gaza.

Lantos also raised the idea Rice might be driven by concern about her legacy as chief U.S. diplomat in an administration that will otherwise be remembered for the conflict in Iraq.

"How do you answer the skeptics who feel that it is an attempt by the administration to embellish its record, you have about 14 months left in this administration, and you are reaching out for the Israeli-Palestinian issue as one faint hope to leave a positive diplomatic record for this administration, that the timing is inappropriate, that the move to convene the conference is ill-advised," asked Lantos.

Rice countered that the political situation in the region is far different from the last big U.S. push for a settlement at the end of the Clinton administration, and that a major change is the growing degree of Iranian influence in the area with groups like Hamas.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, 24 Oct 2007

Condoleezza Rice testifies on Capitol Hill, 24 Oct 2007

She said the timing of the U.S. effort is propelled by the need to give moderate forces in the Middle East a boost and to deal a blow to extremists:

"Our concern is growing that without a serious political prospect for the Palestinians that gives to moderate leaders a horizon that they can show to their people that indeed there is a two-state solution that is possible, we will lose the window for a two-state solution, that you will see the further radicalization of Palestinian politics, of politics in the region," Rice said.

Rice said the conference, to be held in Annapolis, Maryland near Washington, will occur before the end of the year, but said she has yet to issue invitations to potential participants.

She expressed agreement with committee members that key Arab moderates like Egypt and Saudi Arabia need to participate. She said a Palestinian leader, no matter how politically strong, cannot make the compromises necessary for peace without strong Arab support.

In more than two hours of testimony, Rice also stressed the United States' continued reliance on political means to resolve the Iran nuclear issue, amid recent tough rhetoric from Vice President Dick Cheney, who said flatly earlier this week Iran will not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

In response to questioning from Democratic committee member Sheila Jackson-Lee, who called the Cheney remarks dangerous, Rice said the entire Bush administration including the vice president, believes in pursuing a diplomatic course.

"The key is that the Iranians do have to know that the international community is going to be tough, to prevent an unpalatable decision later on about an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon," she said. "And when we say consequences, we do mean that we also - while the president does not take any options off the table - we do have economic ways that we can go after this, and we are doing precisely that."

Rice said Iranian policies, on the nuclear issue, in Iraq and elsewhere, constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to U.S. security interests worldwide.

At the same time, she said Iran is vulnerable to concerted international pressure.

She said the fact that the latest U.N. Security Council-sanctions resolution against Iran was approved unanimously stunned the Iranian leadership, and touched off an internal policy debate in Tehran that the United States would like to see continue.

Source: VOA News

nuclear related 251007

Experts identify Israeli target as possible nuclear facility

Los Angeles Times-Washington Post/AP
Published: October 24, 2007, 23:44

Washington: Independent experts have pinpointed what they believe to be the Euphrates River site in Syria that was bombed by Israel last month.

Satellite imagery of the area shows buildings under construction roughly similar in design to a North Korean reactor capable of producing nuclear material for one bomb a year, experts say.

Photographs of the site taken before the secret September 6 airstrike depict an isolated compound that includes a tall, boxy structure similar to the type of building used to house a gas-graphite reactor. They also show what could have been a pumping station used to supply cooling water for a reactor, say experts David Albright and Paul Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).

US and international experts and officials familiar with the site, who were shown the photographs on Tuesday, said there was a strong and credible possibility that they depict the remote compound that was attacked. Israeli officials and the White House declined to comment.

If the facility is confirmed as the site of the attack, the photos provide a potential explanation for Israel's middle-of-the-night bombing raid.

The facility is located seven miles north of the desert village of At Tibnah, in the Dayr Al Zawr region, and about 90 miles from the Iraqi border, according to the ISIS report which was to be released yesterday.

Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, said the size of the structures suggested that Syria might have been building a gas-graphite reactor of about 20 to 25 megawatts of heat, similar to the reactor North Korea built at Yongbyon.

"I'm pretty convinced that Syria was trying to build a nuclear reactor," Albright said in an interview. He said the project would represent a significant departure from past policies. ISIS, a nonprofit research group, tracks nuclear weapons and stockpiles around the world.

Israel, which has nuclear weapons of its own, has not said publicly what its warplanes hit or provided justification for the raid. Syria has denied having a nuclear programme. But beginning construction of a nuclear reactor in secret would violate Syria's obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires all signatories to declare their intent when such a decision is made, according to IAEA sources.
The new report leaves many questions unanswered, such as what Syria intended to use the unfinished structures for and the exact role, if any, of North Korea in its construction. Also unclear is why Israel chose to use military force rather than diplomatic pressure against a facility that could not have produced significant nuclear material for years. The new details could fuel debate over whether Israel's attack was warranted.

Syrian official dismisses report

A Syrian foreign ministry official yesterday denied reports that satellite images taken of a site struck by Israeli warplanes last month showed it might have been a nuclear facility, saying they are part of a campaign of accusations targeting Syria.

The renewed denial follows the publication of some news reports that quote experts as saying that satellite imagery taken before the secret September 6 airstrike showed buildings under construction similar in design to a North Korean reactor capable of producing nuclear material.

United Nations diplomats last week told The Associated Press that UN experts have begun analysing satellite imagery of the Syrian site, disclosing what amounts to the first independent look at reports that Damascus was hiding a nuclear facility. It was unclear where the material was obtained or what exactly it showed.

Source: Gulf News


Neighbors view nuclear-powered Iran as a useful political pawn

By Victor Davis Hanson

Article Launched: 10/25/2007 01:37:16 AM PDT

At first glance, it would seem a straightforward thing to stop a relatively weak but volatile Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. It would also seem to be something a concerned world community would be actively working to do.

After all, the Sunni Arab states surrounding Iran don't want a Shiite nuclear power on their borders.

Europe, which isn't all that far from Tehran and lacks a missile-defense shield, certainly doesn't want to be in range of Iran's missiles.

Israel can't tolerate an Iranian theocracy both promising to wipe it off the map and then brazenly obtaining the means to do so.

The Russians and the Chinese, both already concerned about India, Pakistan and North Korea, don't need another rival Asian nuclear power on their borders.

And the United States, already worried about Iranian threats to Israel and involved in daily military battles in Iraq with pro-Iranian agents and terrorists armed with Iranian-imported weapons, doesn't want a nuclear Iran expanding its Persian Gulf influence.

But in truth, most players don't care enough to stop Iran from getting the bomb, or apparently don't think it's worth the effort and cost. Some may even see some advantages to a nuclear Iran.

Hidden advantages

The Arab Gulf monarchies, for example, know that their enormous dollar reserves would likely buy them some reprieve from a nuclear Iran, or at least bring in the U.S.
Advertisement
Navy to offer them deterrence from attack.

Meanwhile, the current tension and ongoing fear of disruption in the Persian Gulf sends billions in windfall oil profits the Gulf states' way.

Leaders of Arab states also have to fear their own populations' reactions to any action taken against Islamic Iran. Despite his religious Shiite background, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is far more popular among Sunni populations in the Gulf than George Bush - and even perhaps more popular than the autocratic Arab thugs and dictators who run most of the Middle East.

The European Union, like the Arab states, believes as a last resort that its economic clout and deft diplomats can always work out some sort of arrangement with Tehran's clerics, who, after all, need customers to buy their high-priced oil.

Unwelcome warning

So most in Europe bristle at French President Nicolas Sarkozy's warnings about an impending war to stop an Iranian bomb. Instead, they feel it's an American problem to organize global containment of Iran.

Israel also has reason to fear a war with Iran. If Israel were to attack Tehran, it could find itself in three instantaneous wars - and be hit with thousands of missiles from the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. That shower would make last year's Hezbollah barrage seem like child's play.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin's foreign policy is nursed on grievances about a lost empire, America as the sole superpower and the independence of cocky former Soviet republics. In the thinking of oil-exporting Russia, anything that causes America to squirm and world oil prices to soar is a win/win situation. That's why Russia supplies Iran with its reactor technology and stirs the nuclear pot.

China, like Russia, is a large nuclear power and doesn't fear all that much Iranian missiles that it thinks are more likely to be pointed westward anyway. True, it would like calm in the Gulf to ensure safe oil supplies, but thinks it still could do business with a nuclear Iran.

And, as in the case of Russia, anything that bothers the United States can't be all that bad for Beijing. While Ahmadinejad ties the U.S. down in the Middle East, China thinks it will have more of a free hand to expand its influence in the Pacific.

Then there's the complacent situation here at home. After Afghanistan and Iraq, most Americans don't feel we're up to a third war. Some point to nuclear Pakistan and believe we could likewise live with Iran having the bomb.

A few on the left even feel that a nuclear Iran would remind us of our own limitations in imposing our will and influence abroad. They belittle the current warnings of George Bush and Dick Cheney about Iran's nuclear program, shrugging that the two used to say similar things about Saddam and his non-existent arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world, represented in the United Nations' General Assembly, feels that a nuclear Iran offers comeuppance to a haughty United States, Israel and Europe without threatening anyone else.

Ahmadinejad may be viewed across the globe as a dangerous religious nut. But to many, he, like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, also represents an anti-capitalist, anti-globalization popular front against America and therefore shouldn't be ostracized.

So who wants a nuclear Iran?

No one and everyone.

Source: Mercury News

oil related 241007

Bandar Abbas to turn into ME largest oil refining region

TEHRAN (PIN) – Bandar Abbas, a port in southern Iran, will turn into the largest oil refining region in the Middle East when investment plan and 20 refining and stockpiling projects are implemented.

Out of the 20 projects, some aim to construct new refineries, develop the existing refineries, and transfer and store products that will help update the industry and lift gasoline output from 16 to 36 percent.

The projects also help the southern port refine one million barrels of crude oil per day.

The great objective is achieved through building five giant refineries and carrying out six projects on development, improvement, and optimization of existing refineries and increase of their capacities.

The construction of a gas condensate refinery is the main project that aims to refine 360 thousand barrels of gas condensates produced in Assaluyeh. Gas condensates are used for production of gasoline, jet fuel, propylene, and other valuable products.

Above all, 35 million liters of gasoline is produced daily through making a 1.5 billion euro investment.

The setup of Hormuz super-heavy crude oil refinery in Bandar Abbas is among the important projects. The project requires a three billion euro investment and helps refine 300 thousand barrels of crude and produce 15 million liters of gasoline a day.

The managing director of Bandar Abbas Oil Refining Co. announced that Bandar Abbas Refinery had produced 9.667 million liters of gasoline per day on average during the first half of the current Iranian calendar year (started March 21, 2007).

Alireza Amin told PIN the refinery’s feedstock during the six-month period stood at 267,700 barrels of crude oil a day.

Source: Tehran Times

sunni shia relations 241007

Putin Won't Toss Away His Relationship with the US to Satisfy Iran and Syria

Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 19/10/07//

NEW YORK - Among the most important items offered by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during this week's Caspian Sea Summit in Tehran was a rescue of the latter from encirclement, a rehabilitation of this strategic friend, and the sending of a picture of the two of them together as a greeting card and a warning to US President George W Bush in Washington.

This portrayal of the Russian-Iranian relationship does not at all reflect the deep hatred toward the US that distinguishes the alliance between Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, who is angry at everything American. Chavez is not Putin, because Putin is a statesman, even if he has dictatorial tendencies. Thus, he does not act randomly or arbitrarily, but makes his calculations regarding Russian-US relations and weighs things precisely, even when he escalates things from Tehran. Politicians who act haphazardly mix anger and hatred, and are dangerous for their countries and for others. The former mayor of New York, who is dreaming of the Republic Party's nomination for president, Rudy Giulani, belongs to the category of haphazard hatred and studied hatred, at the same time. He was proud to expel Palestinian President Yasser Arafat from the Lincoln Center in 1995 during a diplomatic ceremony and symphony performance of Beethoven, and says that it was a blow against al-Qaida. He oozes poison against the Palestinians and Arabs in general, surrounding himself with neoconservative extremists and people known for hatred. Just like Hugo Chavez, Rudy Giulani is not Vladimir Putin.

Another Republican presidential hopeful, Senator John McCain, said that Putin's face reminds one of the KGB, which the latter headed during the Soviet era, and this is true. But Putin does not act haphazardly or based on obsessions, like the Iranian president. He has nostalgia for the Cold War, since it made Russia into a superpower, one of the only two in the world at the time. Russia today is trying to recover some of this prestige and Putin is reviving some old alliances and old rivalries. His big mistake was in trying to revive the Soviet era, even though the components of this structure today mean that he doesn't need it - he can engage in another type of qualitative leadership, which puts Russia on the map. There are many tools for such a task and Putin must consider them, such as reviving the Cold War, with very harmful alliances to the new world and Russia itself.

Of course, Putin can become the leader of the angry of the world and raise the flag of international hatred of the US. It might be said that it would bring great fame to Russia and international popularity to its president. The question that Putin should ask himself is whether he really thinks such a course would suit him and his aspirations for his country. Will it help Russia to lead a wave of anger and hatred? What will he do when the anger rebounds upon him, because of his policies toward Chechnya and Muslim minorities in Russia? What will his alliances reap for him if they leave behind a collapse of democratic opportunities in regions such as the Middle East, accompanied by anger at Russian-Iranian cooperation in the area of regional hegemony?

During this phase, Russia appears to be toning down its interests with cold pragmatism, and leading these interests is Russian-Iranian cooperation in oil in a manner that guarantees Russia superpower status, especially since its strategic relationship with China has oil as a foundation. Russia has no objection to seeing Venezuela join the oil alliance, thanks to Chavez' love of the regime in Iran, and his hatred of the US.

During this phase of history, Putin wants to benefit from the weakness of the world's only superpower today, the US, which is acting unilaterally in this role. Thus, Putin might see that saving the US from the Iraqi predicament is not in his interest; being partners with the US in warning Iran to halt its nuclear aspirations will put Russia in the passenger seat, and not the driver's seat.

In the era of Putin, the Russians want respect, and a lot of it. They want a prominent placed in the international order, not an ordinary one with special status. Putin's Russians want the country to be taken very seriously and not see its stances taken for granted. Putin wants the pleasure of delivering this surprise, and doesn't want to be surprised by others. One of the most important things Putin wants is for the US and Europe to deal with important issues for Russia in a way that suits Moscow, and if not, he is prepared to use the tools available to him to seek revenge, if he cannot use them in bargaining.

Since the UN Security Council is dealing with issues important to Russia, such as Kosovo and Georgia, in a way that doesn't please Putin, the Russian president and his diplomatic team are preparing to show Moscow's ability to use its vote, or abstain, or veto, to block resolutions in order to hinder things or present a suitable response to certain countries on issues that are important to Russia. And this is its right.

In fact, Russia, like the other five permanent Security Council members, is constrained by resolutions that have become attached to it, and become a part of it; Russia cannot act totally freely since it must live up to certain commitments, by virtue of these resolutions. This state is serious, and the Security Council is not a forum for letting off steam. Each state, including the permanent Security Council members, is responsible for international peace and security, which makes them unable to move with complete freedom of maneuver.

The US has paid a high price for taking over and disdaining the Security Council, when it opposed the invasion of Iraq. Britain has decided to climb down, in relative terms, after incurring a high cost from its partnership with the US in paving the way to war against Iraq and waging it. After the two countries fell into the Iraq quagmire in occupying that country, the Security Council has not rushed to extend help or rescue them. Even today, the American predicament in Iraq continues, despite all of the efforts made by the current US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, to turn Iraq into an international predicament, or international salvation effort.

During the Cold War, there was a period of "veto wars" in the Security Council. However, recently, the five permanent members have made intensive efforts to produce consensus. The indications today are that Russia might not be in the mood for consensus; it might be headed in the opposite direction. The rhetoric of the Russian ambassador, Vitali Churkin, has become more strident regarding various issues, accompanied by a hint that there is a link between these matters before the Council, in terms of doing some bargaining.

It would be a considerable error to explain this as a ticket for Iran or Syria to work against Security Council resolutions, with Russian protection deterring punishment for the two states. Syrian President Bashar al-Asad is wagering on a Russian veto to prevent the Security Council from establishing an international court to try those involved in political assassinations in Lebanon, a step that Syria opposes. His wager has been a failure, since it misunderstood Russia and the Security Council.

Russia is no newcomer or irresponsible actor when it comes to international politics. It understands the bases of commitments and the margins of maneuver; therefore, it negotiates seriously and resists forcefully. However, it will either go with consensus or abstain from voting, when pushed into a corner. This is not due to fear, negligence or boredom, but results from the type of issues being raised today. Russia is unable and unready in fact to take positions against the trial of those involved in political assassinations in Lebanon, which the Security Council has deemed terrorist acts, with Russian approval. Moscow is not ready to approve Iran's possession of nuclear weapons, however much Putin defends Iran's right to have nuclear capabilities for peaceful ends, as he did this week.

Putin is buying time for both Iran and Syria, and this in itself is a big service to the two and harms the international efforts at deterring these states. However, Putin cannot be a shield that protects Syria from being held accountable and Syrian officials from being tried, if the international investigation proves their involvement in assassinating the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq al-Hariri, and other assassinations that the investigation has shown are connected to the terrorist assassination of al-Hariri. Putin will not be able to protect Iran from sanctions or a military strike if Tehran refuses to submit to the demand to halt uranium enrichment and fully implement all of the demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency, without stalling.

Despite this, Russia's help in allowing Syria and Iran to buy time helps, in the end, to put these two countries in a predicament. Russia will not fight the US if Washington decides to launch a military strike that does away with the regime's infrastructure in Iran. Russia will not bomb the international court in the Netherlands to prevent turning it into a court to try the regime in Damascus.

The best thing for Moscow is to avoid repeating its advice or stances that it adopted in the countdown to the war against Iraq, when it mis-advised and Saddam Hussein and allowed him, on purpose, shoulder all the responsibilities of misreading and miscalculating, since it didn't have another choice. History will repeat itself with Iran and Syria, if the leadership in Moscow doesn't play a truly constructive role regarding Iran and Syria and give them sound advice to the two regimes, instead of hinting wrongly that it will stand with them until the very end.

Russia also has a moral debt to the Palestinian people since this people wagered for decades on the Soviet Union and then Russia, believing that these entities were fairer to it than the US. Today, Putin must think long about this people under occupation when he sits at the table to decide tactics and strategies. He has the responsibility of not sacrificing the Palestinians just because he sees that his needs and alliances during the miniature Cold War require him to ally with Damascus and the Palestinian factions opposed to the Palestinian Authority. He has another option.

He can exploit the opportunity available in Bush's readiness to push for a Palestinian state, which will give the Russian president the chance for his country to play its natural role as a sponsor of Palestinian-Israeli peace and a father of the new Palestinian state. In this way, Putin will serve the Palestinians and serve Moscow, not by listening to those who want to derail the Palestinian-Israeli peace in the name of seeing all negotiating tracks move together in "global" fashion. Syria has every right to negotiate with Israel to recover the occupied Goaln Heights, whenever it wishes. This is Syria's right, and the Palestinians don't have the right to ask Syria to not negotiate the recovery of the Golan until after a Palestinian state is established or after the conclusion of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

Syria, like any other Arab country invited to the conference in the fall that is aimed at establishing a Palestinian state, can attend the conference to provide full support to the Palestinian side and strengthen its hand in negotiations with Israel. In this way, it would be behaving like a truly credible and responsible Arab state, by considering Palestine the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, it could help in extricating the Palestinians from the Israeli occupation. This would prove that it has halted using Palestine and the sufferings of the Palestinians as a way to wreck and bargain at the expense of the Palestinians, as well as Lebanon.

Russia is being asked to pressure Syria to halt this exploitation; if not, Putin is sending a message from the Soviet Era, namely that anything goes when it comes to this new mini-Cold War between the US and Russia, in areas such as the Middle East and at the expense of Lebanon and Palestine. Russia is being asked to pressure Israel to prove that it is truly concerned with saving the Palestinians from occupation and setting up a Palestinian state, living next to Israel in peace.

If Putin wants to play a positive role in Lebanon, he should task his foreign minister, Sergei Lavarov, with the task of ending the occupation of the Shebaa Farms and removing the Syrian vagueness about the ownership of this region and the justifications that Hizbullah uses to show that armed resistance is necessary to liberate the area from Israeli occupation. Each item has a whiff of deceit, since Syria has not presented documents about the identity of the Shebaa Farms to prove that they are Lebanese, and thus, Moscow has an opportunity to say to Damascus: it's time to come clean about the documents, and not just make claims. Israel has not indicated its readiness to put Shebaa temporarily under UN jurisdiction until its ownership is settled either way. Thus, Moscow has an opportunity to say to Israel: logically, the time has come to rob the Hizbullah of the pretext of resistance, and practically speaking, we need such a withdrawal from Shebaa because we want to play a constructive role in Lebanon, as represented by supporting the building of a state and institutions and disarming Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.

Why is it useful for Russia to play this role? Because the US is unable to play it, because saving Lebanon from chaos is in the interest of stability in this region, and because stability in the region is in Russia's economic interest.

Of course, the Russian leadership might be thinking in Machiavellian terms, seeing that turning Lebanon into a Syrian-Iranian base will benefit Moscow, especially since Israel is a quasi-US base, at the end of the day. Everything is possible in a period of reviving the formula of superpower competition. But there is nothing on the horizon that indicates Russian-Israeli hostility to the degree of the Russian-Iranian-Syrian alliance against Israel. There is a vital relationship between Russia and Israel, and most of it is secret. Therefore, it would be a mistake to read Russian-Syrian relations as strategically positioned against Israel; there is a tactical relationship in a different strategy.

The danger of the Russian positions lies in tactics more than strategy. Putin is too mindful to toss away US-Russian ties in order to satisfy Iran or Syria. He is well-aware that the Caspian Summit's declaration is merely a political stance and that these states will not provide any military assistance for a US strike against Iran; in any case the US might not need their help for strikes that it might be considering. Putin's tactic until now has been Soviet in rhetoric, but his capacities will enable him to make a new start in international relations and an international role for Russia, if he opts for renewal and not nostalgia for the old days of the Soviet Union. I hope he does this, and before it's too late, especially in Palestine and Lebanon.

Source: Al Hayat

GCC security meet urges preparedness

Published: October 23, 2007, 11:36

Kuwait City: The six Arab states in the Gulf need to coordinate on how to deal with looming crisis scenarios so they are not caught unprepared, Kuwait's top national security official said Monday.

Sheik Ahmed Fahed Al Ahmed Al Sabah, who heads Kuwait's National Security Bureau, told his Gulf Cooperation Council peers that they were experiencing a security "bottleneck." He was not more specific.

"There are many challenges in our smaller and larger regions and they come with different scenarios ... which we have to evaluate, study and find the best solutions for so that we prepare ourselves for what the area could face in the future," Sheik Ahmed told senior officials from fellow GCC members Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman.

Kuwait, like the other countries in the Gulf across from Iran, is wearily following the escalating standoff between the West and the Islamic Republic over Tehran's nuclear program.

They fear the consequences of a military confrontation between Tehran and the United States, as well as the effects of any nuclear accidents in Iran.

At the opening of Monday's two-day meeting, Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief, Prince Migren Bin Abdul Aziz, said the members of the loose economic and political alliance have to make serious moves to "defend against and cushion any dangers" that could reach them from the worsening situation in Iraq.

Iraq is torn with sectarian Shiite-Sunni violence, and Turkey, its neighbor to the north, is threatening that if diplomacy fails, it will send troops into the country to fight Kurdish rebels attacking it from there.

Source: Gulf news

‘ME Conference Must Reach a Final Solution’

P.K. Abdul Ghafour, Arab News

JEDDAH, 24 October 2007 — Crown Prince Sultan said yesterday that the coming US-sponsored Middle East peace summit should tackle core issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict and ensure total Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Arab territories.

“The conference should also reach a final solution to the conflict within a timeframe, enabling the Palestinian people to receive their legitimate rights guaranteed by international charters, agreements and resolutions,” the prince said.

In an interview with Kuwait’s Al-Rai Arabic newspaper, on the eve of his visit to the country, Prince Sultan said the Arab side has already reaffirmed its commitment to peace by endorsing the peace proposal made by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah when he was crown prince.

The proposal, known as the Arab Peace Initiative, was relaunched at the Arab League summit in Riyadh earlier this year. “Israel must prove its serious desire for peace by stopping its aggressive practices and oppressive measures against the Palestinians and by complying with UN resolutions,” the prince said.

Asked whether the Palestinians would be able to run their own state in view of the infighting, Sultan said the international community must support the Palestinians in establishing an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital. “I am sure that Palestinians are capable of running their state and manage the affairs of their citizens,” the prince said.

In a wide-ranging interview that also dealt with domestic reforms, the fight against terrorism, privatization and GCC relations, Prince Sultan said Saudi Arabia would not allow any Saudi militant to travel to Iraq to fight alongside resistance groups against the US-led occupation forces. “If some Saudis are found in Iraq, they might have gone through entry points other than those along the borders of the two countries,” the crown prince said. He also said that the contract for building a fence along the Saudi-Iraqi border would be awarded very soon.

Sultan reiterated Saudi Arabia’s determination to flush out terrorists from the country and commended the Saudi security forces for their pre-emptive operations to crush Al-Qaeda militants. He also called for global efforts to eradicate terrorist ideology from people’s minds.

The crown prince said the government would continue its political and economic reforms. “The issuance of the executive bylaw of the Succession Law, the new Judiciary Law and the Court of Grievances Law reflects the king’s determination to develop the state’s institutions and preserve the state’s stability and cultural achievements,” he said.

Sultan said King Abdullah had given top priority to education and the employment of young Saudi men and women. “The government has allocated SR4 billion to establish technical colleges and vocational training institutions for both men and women.” Under the King Abdullah Scholarship Program, he said, more than 35,000 would receive support for pursuing their higher studies within the Kingdom and abroad.

He said the Kingdom was making steady progress in its privatization program, which aims at citizens participating in public institutions and projects. “We are not looking at the speed of the privatization train but at its safe arrival at the station of success.”

Sultan also spoke about Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West and emphasized the need for keeping the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. “We urge all countries in the region to respect all international resolutions that impose controls on nuclear programs,” he said and hoped the standoff would end peacefully.

Source: Gulf News