sunni shia relations 091107

King Urges Iran to Avoid Escalating Nuke Tension

BERLIN, 9 November 2007 — Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah yesterday called on Iran to avoid escalating its standoff with the West over its nuclear program and called for a solution that would allow Tehran to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

“It is our strong desire that the Middle East should be free from weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. The world fears that Iran’s nuclear program would lead to it developing nuclear weapons,” King Abdullah said in an interview with German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine.

“Iran has announced its nuclear program is intended for peaceful use. If this is the case, then we don’t see any justification for an escalation, confrontation and challenge, which only makes issues more complicated,” he said.

Elaborating on the recent proposal of Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal to create a consortium for all users of enriched uranium in the Middle East, King Abdullah said the offer envisaged “setting up a center in accordance with safety and environmental standards under International Atomic Energy Agency’s supervision.”

King Abdullah, who is currently on a European tour, arrived in Germany on a state visit on Wednesday.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a meeting offered her country’s full support to King Abdullah in his efforts to resolve global conflicts. The king also attended a banquet hosted by President Horst Koehler.

On the second day of his official visit yesterday, King Abdullah discussed various international issues with Merkel. The king conferred on Merkel the King Abdul Aziz Sash that is conferred on prime ministers and crown princes of friendly countries

Earlier, the king visited Berlin’s famed Brandenburg Gate which stood for decades on the eastern side of the Berlin Wall that divided the city. The king also opened a two-day art exhibition organized by the Saudi Foreign Ministry in Berlin.

King Abdullah met with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Steinmeier signed with his Saudi counterpart, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, a declaration of intent to hold regular foreign policy consultations. Saudi Finance Minister Ibrahim Al-Assaf signed an agreement to avoid double taxation with German Deputy Finance Minister Axel Nawrath.

The king also met with Norbert Lammert, president of Bundestag.

The king’s visit is part of a European tour that has already taken him to Britain, where he discussed terrorism and the Middle East peace process with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and the Vatican where he met Pope Benedict XVI.

In his interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine, King Abdullah expressed the views of the Saudi government on wide ranging regional and international topics such as Saudi-German relations, the US-brokered Middle East peace conference and the situation in Iraq and Lebanon.

The king said the German people had every right to be proud of their country’s ancient history and civilization, which has been a tower of intellectual achievements. “It is illogical to slight the image of Germany and its history or to blame its people for the mistakes of a dark era in its history, the first victims of which were the German people besides the whole world. I think Germany managed to overcome this historical era to come back as a great country with its political, economic, cultural and intellectual achievements,” King Abdullah said.

On Turkish threats to launch attacks on Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq, King Abdullah said that the Kingdom condemned all forms and categories of terrorism. The king added that he hoped Turkey and Iraq would jointly strive to settle the issues peacefully.

Answering a question on the integration of Sunnis in the political life of Iraq, King Abdullah said that only a total national reconciliation of all groups, regardless of their political, religious and ethnic backgrounds, would lead to the stability, reconstruction, territorial integrity and independence of Iraq. “We have the impression that this goal has not yet been achieved on the domestic front,” the king said. He added that Iraq’s neighboring countries should help it achieve peace and avoid interfering in Iraq’s internal matters by stoking sectarian sentiments.

To a question on the chances of success of the proposed Annapolis conference sponsored by President George Bush to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, King Abdullah said everything depended on whether it would find a solution to ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state. “We hope that the conference would deal with core issues in a comprehensive manner with a predetermined time schedule. Then its success could be guaranteed,” he said.

The king hoped that Syria would play a constructive role in the peaceful resolution of Palestinian and Lebanese issues.

On the role played by Saudi Arabia in settling various issues in the region and international conflicts, the king said he did not consider it a burden for him to strive to resolve issues that threaten the security of the region or the world.

The king said that the Saudi government had succeeded in countering the threat of terror in the Kingdom. “But we will never stop until the evil has been uprooted completely with the will of God,” the king affirmed.

He said that the Kingdom would continue introducing reforms in all walks of life with the goal of achieving greater progress and welfare for the people.

The king said that with a rich civilization, a deep-rooted culture and vast human and material potential, Arabs could contribute to international progress in the 21st century.

King Abdullah starts his official tour of Turkey today. Top level visits between the two countries since King Faisal’s visit to Istanbul in 1966 have helped in strengthening mutual relations in areas of politics, economics and culture.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia play important roles in the Middle East as both share strategic, economic and religious interests in the region.

Both countries share views on countering terrorism and of making the Middle East free from all types of weapons of mass destruction.

More than 250, 000 Turks come to Saudi Arabia annually to perform Haj and Umrah. Saudi Arabia is also home to 100,000 Turkish nationals, working in different fields.

As many as 50,000 Saudi tourists visit Turkey annually. The volume of trade between the two countries is $3.3 billion, up from $300 million 24 years ago, according to the Turkish ambassador.

Source: Arab News

The following article seems really relevant to me:

In an editorial on November 8, 2007, Jamal Ahmad Khashogji, editor-in-chief of the liberal Saudi daily Al-Watan, reveals the diplomatic sparring that took place at the Istanbul Conference between Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Khashogji wrote that for all Iran's talk about Islamic unity, Iran is in fact contributing to sectarian division.

The following are excerpts from the editorial:

Iran's Islamic Revolution Speaks in the Name of the Entire [Islamic Nation], But Gives Aid and Forms Alliances on a Sectarian Basis

"At the recent Istanbul conference that was - once again - dedicated to the repercussions of the situation in Iraq, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki delivered his speech in the presence of the foreign ministers of the countries of the region; the U.S. secretary of state,… representatives of the states that are permanent members of the [U.N.] Security Council,… and the U.N. secretary-general...

"[Saudi] Foreign Minister [Prince Saud Al-Faisal] began to take notes, paying attention to every last sentence of his Iranian counterpart's speech. His attention was caught by a list boastfully distributed by Mottaki, disclosing Iranian aid to Iraq.

"When his turn came to speak, Prince Saud Al-Faisal… said that he would not be reading his prepared speech, which he [nonetheless] handed out to his counterparts. Then he gave an improvised speech, less than five minutes long, calling everyone's attention to [the fact] that the Iranian foreign minister had [just] reviewed the aid given by his country to Iraq - schools, clinics, power stations, and so forth.

"'But where?' asked Prince Saud. In answer, he said that according to the Iranian [foreign] minister's statements, all these projects were in Basra, Najaf, and Karbala, and those [that had aided] Baghdad had gone to the majority-Shi'ite Sadr City. Prince Saud asked why this was. And I ask this as well.

"Why does the 'Islamic Revolution in Iran' limit itself to one sect? It speaks in the name of the entire [Islamic] nation whenever it wants to, but when it provides aid and forms alliances, it does so on a strictly sectarian basis, solely with its Shi'ite brothers.

"This is an issue that has become palpable and worrying. You see it in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Pakistan. Were it not for the wisdom of Saudi Arabia, a door would have opened to sectarian polarization - which is a battle and a contest that none of us need.

"Prince Saud Al-Faisal addressed his statements to Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki, saying that the [Saudi] kingdom gives aid to all Iraqis, distributing it evenly among all sects. He added, with full confidence: 'We are ready to build clinics and schools in Shi'ite areas. Are you ready to direct your aid to the Sunnis of Iraq?'

"How can we preserve Iraq's unity if Iran supports only the Shi'ites? What if the [Saudi] kingdom let itself fall into the trap of this divisive logic, and limited its support and relations to only Sunnis? Had the [Saudi] kingdom accepted this division, it would have implicitly accepted the division of Iraq - which it is determined to reject, and which it will continue to reject, whatever the conditions and the challenges may be.

"Iraq's unity should be a matter of principle for all, as it is for the [Saudi] kingdom."

The Time Has Come For Iran to Talk Less About Islamic Unity, And Do More For It

"Perhaps the time has come for us to tell the Iranians that they should talk less about 'Islamic and Muslim unity' and do more for it - and along with it, [more] for the unity of Iraq as well.

"The challenge issued by Minister [Saud Al-Faisal] in Istanbul is good for the Iranians and even better for the Iraqis. [The Iranians] should focus on giving aid, building clinics, and repairing roads, infrastructure, and schools in the Sunni areas, in exchange for the [Saudi] kingdom's continuing its support to all of Iraq, and even focusing its aid in the Shi'ite areas.

"This is a good initiative. Let the brothers in Tehran hasten to [adopt] it. Then we can do more for Iraqi and Muslim unity, and talk less, hold fewer conferences, and give fewer speeches.

Source: MEMRI

nuclear related 091107

A twin nuclear crisis in 2008?

By Michalis Firillas

Iran's nuclear program, and its president's vitriol, are certainly cause for concern, but they may have served to draw our attention away from a much more immediate danger - in Pakistan. In fact, there are four main reasons why the events unfolding in Pakistan should trouble us greatly, notwithstanding the greater distance separating the two countries, and the fact that the hatred for Israel emanating from there receives much less attention in the Israeli media.

The most basic and obvious problem is that since May 1998, when it carried out a series of underground tests, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been a confirmed member of the nuclear club. Its means of delivery may still be limited, but it has a program to develop intermediate-range missiles of North Korean design. The most conservative estimates suggest that Pakistan has managed to produce 600-900 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (enough for at least 30-60 weapons). If that is not worrying enough, Pakistan also has a plutonium-based nuclear weapons program, perhaps intended for backup. But the most disconcerting aspect of all of this is neither the number of assembled weapons, nor the technological know-how: It is the sheer amount of fissile material available at different sites, including nuclear plants, which is also easier to steal, smuggle and use in radiological-type bombs.

Pakistan's current political instability may be part and parcel of the ongoing tug-of-war between the military and civilians for the country's soul, but it could also be the preamble to a civil war. What General Pervez Musharraf did in Pakistan last weekend has been done there by military strongmen before. Moreover, neither under civilian nor military rule has Pakistan managed to achieve long periods of domestic stability and economic growth. But there are three elements that, unlike previous periods of turmoil, seem to be reaching a peak today, and may be creating conditions that take the current unrest to a more extreme dimension.

Advertisement

First, with the official incorporation of Islam into the mechanisms of the state, under General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, the growing power of the religion assumed an increasingly vocal political role in the country. Second, the influx of funds and ideology - in great part from Saudi Arabia - has led to a significant radicalization and growing independence of Islamic movements in Pakistan. Third, the Taliban, and their affiliates in the porous, ethnically segmented border areas, seem to have come home to roost.

When Musharraf declared a state of emergency on television, he quoted from an 1864 letter by Abraham Lincoln, in which the latter justified his unconstitutional actions in the United States on the grounds that he was trying to save the union. Perhaps Musharraf was drawing a parallel to conditions in Pakistan, which he was implying were similar to a civil war. That comparison is not so far-fetched: Since the July siege of the Red Mosque in the capital, at least 800 people have died in Pakistan either in terrorist attacks or in fighting between security forces and Taliban. In its September/October Terrorism Index, the magazine Foreign Policy surveyed 100 U.S.-based experts who selected Pakistan as the country or region "most likely to become the next Al-Qaida stronghold."

But even if we accept the argument posed by some, that the army, not radical Islamists, is to blame in Pakistan and that elections and democratization are the solution to Musharraf's failed rule, there is still the problem of the Islamic Bomb. This was so dubbed by then prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1974, in response to India's nuclear tests. As in Iran, Pakistan's nuclear program enjoys broad public support at home. In this regard, the terminology has both symbolic and practical value. Indeed, both the army and civilian leaders used the Islamic card as a tool for nation-building and for unifying a multiethnic, polyglot and culturally diverse mixture of populations. As such, an Islamic Bomb means, alternately, a bomb to defend Pakistan from India, and also a Sunni bomb potentially available to the ummah.

Which brings us to the most worrisome threat of all: proliferation. What do we know? We know that successive Pakistani leaders, both civilian and military, lied about their intentions to develop nuclear weapons. We also know that the Pakistanis have actively proliferated nuclear technology and materials and that the notorious "father of the bomb," Dr. A.Q. Khan, was not only the mastermind of a lucrative ring of proliferators, but also its fall guy. To this we should mention the strategic ties established beginning in the early 1980s between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which include missile and other technology sharing.

If Pakistan is in turmoil, starved for funds, with power devolving into the hands of various groups, including rogue elements in its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) with known ties to Islamic extremists, nuclear proliferation is likely. This could come in the form of off-the-shelf weapons being sold to countries like Saudi Arabia, forced to turn nuclear by an Iranian bomb, or with terrorists interested in acquiring small quantities of fissile material for "dirty bombs" - whose potential targets are many. Indeed, according to the Foreign Policy survey, three-quarters of the experts pointed to Pakistan as the country "most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists in the next three to five years." In spite of calls for elections, these may prove to be too little too late to stem chaos in Pakistan - which could include the loss of parts of the country to radical armed groups. For Israel and the West, this means preparing to face two nuclear crises in 2008.

Source: Haaretz

Arabic Press - nuclear related 091107

In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak received yesterday Mr. Yevgeny Primakov Special Envoy of the President of the Federal Republic of Russia, he said that Egypt had the right to launch nuclear project for peaceful purposes.

He said, in press statements, that “I convey a message to President Mubarak from Russian President Putin, and expressed my country's willingness to participate in the program”, thus we can see this as a Russia now playing a balanced role in the Middle East, in the interests of the Arab peoples.

Source: Ahram

oil related 081107

Saudi Arabia urges oil safeguards

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia

A top Saudi official urged fellow Gulf Arab countries on Wednesday to develop their armed forces to provide security to the region and safeguard oil resources.

"Because of the threats we face, we have to work hard to develop our armed forces to make them capable of providing regional stability and safety for the energy resources," the Saudi Press Agency quoted the country's deputy defense minister, Prince Abdel Rahman bin Abdel Aziz, as telling a meeting of defense ministers of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council.

The Saudi official did not name the source of the threats, but it appeared he was hinting at Iran when he talked about the importance of developing defense capabilities.

"This side, which you well know should be looked at within the strategic neighborhood, the change of the origin of threats, the emergence of the terrorism danger and the rise of effective regional powers in the area," he told the one-day meeting.

The GCC secretary-general, Abdel Rahman al-Attiyah, also spoke about "dangers and challenges" facing the region that "call on us to be more vigilant and exert joint efforts and coordination of the capabilities of the Council's countries," according to SPA.

The GCC countries -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman are wearily following the escalating standoff between the West and Iran 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.

The U.S. accuses Tehran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons -- a claim Iran denies, saying its program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity.

Source: Business Week

The Empty Threat Of $100 Oil

Paul Maidment, 11.07.07, 9:18 PM ET

It doesn't much matter to the world economy if a barrel of crude oil sells for $101 or for $99, but there is shock value to the headline of $100 oil.

It doesn't even matter overly much if that barrel is selling for $80 rather than $100. The rule of thumb is that every 10% rise in the price of oil cuts global economic growth by a third of a percentage point over the following year. So if oil is at $100 a barrel in 2008 rather than $80, the projected global GDP growth rate of 5.2% would be cut to 4.4%. A hit to growth, yes, but not a plunge into recession.

Even in the 1970s, it took a quadrupling of oil prices (from $3 a barrel to $12) to do that. Adjust for inflation and that would be $50 oil in today's prices. Yet we stand now at the threshold of oil twice as expensive.

After an eight-year bull run in commodity prices, the world has simply gotten used to living with expensive oil.

And oil hasn't risen as much to some as it has for Americans. The recent fall of the dollar is in itself one of the reasons that oil is selling today for what it does: The dollar price of oil may have risen 30% since August, but it is up only 21% in euro terms.

It is not only the value of the dollar that has changed. In the past 35 years, technology and the shifting patterns of global industrialization have helped the world and its largest oil consumer, the U.S., wring more economic growth from each barrel of oil consumed.

Part of that is conservation and the development of more energy-efficient technologies. Part is the structural change in developed economies from being driven by manufacturing to being driven by services and information technology (though don't ever underestimate how much power a data center can chew up). Those countries no longer have as many energy-guzzling factories and mills.

Much rich-country manufacturing has relocated to developing economies like China. It is China's voracious appetite for energy to power its fast-growing economy that is the swing factor for oil prices. The International Energy Agency forecast Wednesday that China would surpass the U.S. as the world’s largest consumer of energy within three years.

Despite this change, the overall supply-demand balance hasn't changed from when oil was trading at $75 a barrel. Every dollar in the price above that is the result of fear. So finely balanced is supply and demand that oil traders react nervously whenever there is a political threat to supply being disrupted, pushing up prices. These days, there is a perennial threat to supply, be it from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela or a host of other oil-producing countries.

The question is if and when the resilience of the developed world to high oil prices will crumble, and especially that of U.S. consumers, who are providing the market of last resort that is sustaining global economic growth. When oil prices doubled between 2003 and 2005, cutting U.S. consumers purchasing power by 1% of GDP, the expected downturn never materialized -- though pessimists will point out that consumers then took equity out of their homes to sustain their spending power, a luxury many won't be able to enjoy this time.

But the optimists have counters. Refiners in the U.S, and Europe have held down the prices of gas and other refined products, at the cost of taking a hit to their margins, as the quarterly earnings results from Exxon Mobil and Chevron bear witness. And at this point, Americans are spending 6% of their disposable income on energy. There is some headroom there given the 8% peak for that statistic in the 1980s.

OPEC, whose members are getting rich off the rise in oil prices ($650 billion from oil sales in 2006, compared with $110 billion in 1998), could help, too, by announcing another production increase at the cartel’s next meeting, in Riyadh, Nov. 17-18.

Or the fear could just subside.

Source: Forbes

Oil fuels Iran’s confidence on nuclear ambitions

Bronwen Maddox: World Briefing

Iran is giving not an inch in the stand-off over its nuclear ambitions. Two reports next week are likely to accuse it of breaking international agreements, but with oil at $98 a barrel boosting its confidence, it is not showing any inclination to yield.

Yesterday President Ahmadinejad implied that Iran had 3,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. This is the most controversial work, because it can produce weapons grade material as well as low grade fuel for reactors.

His phrasing was imprecise on the crucial point of whether this tricky technology is actually working. “We have now reached 3,000 machines,” he said, describing the enrichment project at the Natanz underground site.

He has used the 3,000 figure before, and it meant less than it might seem. In April, the first time that Iran claimed to have 3,000 centrifuges, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations watchdog, said that only 328 were up and running. At the end of the summer it said that nearly 2,000 were probably running but it was unsure that the efficiency was all that Iran claimed.

Its next report, expected next week, will give its new reckoning. A separate report, by Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, on his own negotiatons with the Iranian nuclear team is due at about the same time.

It is not surprising that Iran has run into these technical problems. Mastering enrichment - specifically, getting a chain of centrifuges to spin extremely fast and feed increasingly enriched uranium gas through to each other - is the biggest hurdle between any country and nuclear self-sufficiency. It has given a cushion of comfort to those trying to stop Iran achieving this. But it is only a matter of time before Iran does.

The point of Ahmadinejad’s noisy claims about its capability, it seems, is to force other countries to accept enrichment as a fact in any talks. So far, Britain, the US, France and Germany have insisted that any enrichment, even in a so-called pilot scheme, is unacceptable.

The next fortnight will show if this demanding goal is sustainable. A tough report from the IAEA, listing Iran’s failures to comply with international obligations to be open about its work, plus a caustic account from Solana, will test whether China and Russia will back new sanctions, and whether Iran might then give way.

In the five years since Iran’s 20-year hidden programme came to light, there have been endless rounds of IAEA reports, threats and unsatisfactory Iranian responses. It rises to a peak of tension, ebbs and then starts again.

But this round matters more. It will show whether getting rid of Iranian enrichment capability can still be a goal of the West’s diplomatic efforts, or whether it is a lost cause. If that is the case, talks (if they continue) will switch to trying to set the terms for intrusive inspections by the IAEA, to give some comfort that Iran is not diverting enriched uranium to bombs. But that is a very different discussion and, for the West, would mark the failure of round one.

Source: Times Online

sunni shia relations 081107

Gulf states 'are ready for impact'

By Mariam Al Hakeem, Correspondent

Published: November 07, 2007, 23:33

Riyadh: Gulf states are ready to face any possible military strike against Iran, said Prince Abdul Rahman Bin Abdul Aziz, Saudi Deputy Defence Minister.

"All GCC states are preparing themselves on a continual basis regardless of anything that happens," Prince Abdul Rahman told reporters following a meeting of foreign and defence ministers and chiefs of security bodies of GCC states.

Asked by Gulf News whether his reference to the use of excessive threat referred to the United States, Prince Abdul Rahman said he was not referring to a particular threat.

Source: Gulf News

Arms Racing:

Middle East nations rush to shore up sophisticated weapons stocks

By Peter Brookes

Instability in Iraq, sectarian violence, Islamic extremism, ethnic rivalries, the rise of Iran and questions about America’s long-term commitment to the region are making for a Middle East more unsettled than at any time in recent memory.

So it shouldn’t come as a shock that a Middle East arms race — both conventional and nuclear — may be in the offing as states hustle to get weapons that ensure their security bets are well hedged against current and future threats.

Taking a look at the political-military landscape around the Middle East, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, there’s no shortage of well-founded reasons for strategic insomnia in regional capitals.

Topping the list of problems is the cocky, ascendant Islamic Republic of Iran. In the eyes of many, Tehran’s regional policies are more troubling than at any time since the 1979 Iranian revolution and the fall of the Shah.

Although none of the region’s Muslim states like the fact that Israel has long had an undeclared nuclear weapons program, the likelihood that Iran’s ayatollahs will become atomic seems all but inevitable. Iran is also supporting elements of the insurgencies in Iraq (Shiite militias) and Afghanistan (the Taliban). As if that weren’t enough, Tehran is propping up fundamentalist Hezbollah in Lebanon and radical Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Navy is conducting aggressive maneuvers in the Persian Gulf amid threats by Tehran to attack oil facilities — and close the strategic Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic.

Syria is giving its neighbors heartburn, as well. Its close ties with predominantly Persian Iran make none of the region’s Arab states very happy; nor does Damascus’ blind eye to the hordes of Jihadists, who transit Syria to destabilize Iraq. The Israeli raid into Syria in September against a “military target” has everyone chattering — and jittery. The possibility of Syrian-North Korean cooperation on anything beyond ballistic missiles, such as a nuclear program, is utterly unnerving.

Moreover, last summer saw no shortage of rumors of an impending Syrian-Israeli war, or even another Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. The militant Lebanese Shiite group spent the past year re-arming, courtesy of Iranian and Syrian sponsors.

No one in the Middle East, with the possible exception of Iran and Syria, takes comfort in the sectarian and ethnic vio¬lence in Iraq, either — or at the idea that Iraq will spin apart into its Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish components.

The rise of militant Islam is another cause of dyspepsia in the region’s capitals. Lebanon fought for several months this year against an al-Qaida-inspired (possibly al-Qaida-associated) group, Fatah al Islam that was holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp.

In a summer stunner, Hamas forcefully expelled its political rival, secular Fatah, from the Gaza Strip, creating concern not only for the Middle East peace process, but also that Gaza might become an operating base for even more regional militancy. It goes without saying that no state is sanguine about the possibility of a yet-to-be identified Taliban-like resistance movement or homegrown al-Qaida-style wannabes popping up in their midst.

ARMS BUYERS AND SELLERS

Not surprisingly, as the winds of war swirl across the region, Middle Eastern states are taking steps to shore up their security. As a result, there’s no shortage of arms buyers and sellers.

Last summer, the U.S. announced $20 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and neighboring Persian Gulf states: Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Although the sales are still controversial on Capitol Hill — surprisingly, in some cases, more so than in Israel — the deal reportedly includes Joint Direct Attack Munitions, electronic warfare gear, UAVs, fighter upgrades, missile defense systems and new naval vessels. Another $13 billion in weapons was proposed for Egypt over 10 years. And Israel, ever mindful of maintaining its qualitative military edge, could get as much as $30 billion worth of new U.S. arms and equipment over the same period.

Russia, no shrinking violet when it comes to arms sales, is also increasingly active in the Middle East. Russia is now the world’s second biggest arms seller to the developing world — including supplying the lion’s share of Iran’s conventional arms.

In fact, Russia agreed to sell Iran $700 million worth of surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems (likely the TOR M-1) last year, which would come in handy in defending Iran’s nuclear-related sites against air attack. Moscow also plans to upgrade Tehran’s Su-24 and MiG-29 aircraft (some famously flown to Iran during the 1991 Persian Gulf War by fleeing Iraqi pilots), and T-72 main battle tanks. Iran is rumored to be interested in S-300 SAMs, Su-30 fighters and Il-78 airborne tankers, too.

Russia has also forgiven most — maybe all — of Syria’s Cold War arms debt, allowing Syrian generals to shop till they drop. Although information is murky, Damascus may be into Moscow for $1 billion in air defense systems, possibly the Pantsyr-S1E.

Moscow is playing in Washington’s sandbox, too, reaching an agreement with the UAE in September for air defense systems and armored personnel carriers, as well as the launching of the DubaiSat-1 satellite.

The British are in the arms games, as well. Notwithstanding allegations of corruption in an earlier Tornado jet deal, Saudi Arabia (now the developing world’s third-largest arms buyer) has agreed to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, worth almost $9 billion.

Asians are also increasingly involved in the Middle East arms bazaar. China will have a world-class defense industry in the next 10 to 15 years, and is increasingly interested in getting its foot in the arms market door. Beijing already provides Tehran with a number of systems, including the highly-capable C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles. (Hezbollah, or the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, used this missile against an Israeli destroyer during the 2006 war.)

In addition, in the late 1980s, China secretly sold Saudi Arabia the nuclear-capable, medium-range DF-3 (CSS-2) ballistic missile. Some analysts believe Beijing is involved in upgrading these 20-year-old missiles for deterring Iran.

North Korea hawks its favorite export, ballistic missiles, in the Middle East, too. Pyongyang has sold its medium-range No Dong technology to the Iranians for their Shahab missile, as well as short-range Scud missiles to the Syrians.

PEDDLING ARMS OR INFLUENCE?

Some insist the avalanche of prospective weapons deals is part of a Bush administration plan to contain Iran — plus emphasize America’s long-term commitment to regional security, especially with rough sledding in — and calls for withdrawal from — Iraq.

According to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the arms sales aim to “bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.” The Bush administration may also be trying to encourage Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to assist Iraq, which many Sunni Arab nations see as dominated by the Shiites, symbolized by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Indeed, the Saudis have snubbed Maliki since he took office, refusing to meet him. Riyadh apparently sees him as a pawn of Tehran — and as not having done enough to protect Iraq’s Sunni population. Saudi Arabia still doesn’t have an embassy in Baghdad.

Washington may also be trying to ply the likes of Riyadh and Cairo with arms sales to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, rein in Hamas, loosen Damascus’ embrace of Tehran and ensure continued access to regional energy supplies. Some gulf nations are eager to have a powerful backer in the face of Iran’s growing strength; those that host U.S. forces or bases (40,000 ashore; 20,000 afloat) want the capability to protect themselves from retribution should the Iran matter go “hot.”

Russia wants to increase its clout in the Middle East, through arms sales — or otherwise. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had a significant amount of clout in the region based on its anti-Israel and anti-American stance. Today, Russian nostalgia for the good old days, as well as its desire to develop markets for its competitive but declining arms industries, guide Kremlin policy — not to mention developing sway with Gulf states for the formation of a natural gas OPEC.

Moscow is also interested in balancing U.S. power (Russian President Putin visited the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia this year) and discouraging anyone (e.g., Saudi Arabia or Iran) from causing mischief among Russia’s restive Muslim population.

British interests generally align themselves with American goals, and China, now the world’s second-largest energy consumer, is keen on access to energy supplies, including investing $100 billion in the Iranian energy sector over the next 25 years.

The situation is, without question, troubling, but it gets worse.

NUKES ’R’ ALL OF US

Iran is obviously involved in a nuclear program that includes uranium enrichment and the development of the complete nuclear fuel cycle. Many believe it reeks of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, despite Tehran’s protestations to the contrary. Although good estimates are hard to come by as a result of a lack of transparency in the Iranian program, estimates of an Iranian nuclear breakout range from three years on one end to a decade or more at the other. Worse yet, Iranian nuclear denial and deception games are inspiring others in the region to get into the atomic act, as well, spurring not only a conventional arms race, but potentially a nuclear one.

Just since last year, as suspicions about Iran have grown to a near fever pitch, several states, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, told the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency they’re launching “peaceful” nuclear programs.

Beyond Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Jordan and Yemen have openly talked of pursuing nuclear power in recent months. And there’s no guarantee the list won’t grow even longer, either. This is no small undertaking. Building a nuclear program takes six to 10 years and considerable expense ($1 bil¬lion-plus per reactor). But eyeing Iran’s breakneck pace, regional states may well think they don’t have a moment to waste.

In addition, considering the likely militarization of Iran’s program, there’s good reason to expect possible clandestine nuclear weapons research and development programs among the region’s newest nuclear aspirants.

There’s little doubt that these states’ decisions to start nuclear programs — or restart long-mothballed programs — were guided and tempered at least in part by their plummeting faith in anyone’s ability, especially the U.N.’s, to rein in Iran’s runaway nuclear program.

One can’t ignore motivation that derives from Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal, either. In fact, calls for a Middle East nuclear-weapons-free zone have been revived, aimed at Israel — and now, of course, Iran.

The question is: In a decade or so, if these programs do go forward, will we see a map of the Middle East dotted with new peaceful nuclear-power reactors — or dotted with new nuclear-weapons states? Or both?

In many respects, security problems in the Middle East only seem to be growing, fueled by ideology, ethnic and sectarian divisions, as well as traditional issues of geopolitics, nationalism, sovereignty and hegemony.

Although Iran’s rise is a significant destabilizing factor, it’s not the only one. In fact, according to Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, “the Iran element is one factor, but it’s not the overriding factor why we’re doing [the arms sales].”

It is also likely that the Bush administration wants to make an unambiguous investment in regional friends and allies and U.S. strategic interests in the region, while balancing the big power political push of Russia and China for influence, too.

Is a Middle East arms race inevitable? Not necessarily. But in the end, a lot will depend on the unfolding of difficult-to-predict events, especially surrounding Iran — meaning Washington had best be prepared for a wide range of troubling possibilities.

Source: Armed Force Journal

nuclear related 081107

Persian Gulf States `Complete Civil Nuclear Program Study'

Wednesday November 7th, 2007 / 22h19

The six pro-Western Persian Gulf states have completed a feasibility study on a proposed civil nuclear program, the bloc's secretary general said on Wednesday at a meeting of Gulf defense ministers.

Abdel Rahman al-Attiyah said that the study, which was put together with the assistance of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, had been handed to him on Monday and would be submitted to a meeting of Gulf foreign ministers next week.

Leaders of the six oil-rich monarchies that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council ordered the study at their last summit in Riyadh in December and are to review progress at their next gathering in Doha, Qatar next month.

Attiyah called on GCC member states - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - to be prepared for any military action by the U.S. against Iran because of the Islamic republic's own nuclear program.

"The dangers and challenges facing our region require us to be vigilant and prepared," he told reporters.

On Tuesday, Saudi Arabia's deputy defense minister said the armed forces of the six GCC states were well prepared for any eventuality.

"This subject is under constant study between defense ministers as the countries of the Gulf have to be always ready for any emergency," Abdul Rahman bin Abdul Aziz said in response to a reporter's question about the possibility of conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

In the face of Iran's contested nuclear drive, a string of Arab states have announced their own plans to develop atomic energy. Among them are Algeria, Jordan, Libya and Yemen, as well as the six GCC states.

Source: AFP

Arabic Press - nuclear related 081107

Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdullah Aldredri denied Syria's ability to produce nuclear energy. He said that "nuclear power is expensive and for the infrastructure needed, material, technical and human resources are not available in Syria."

Aldredri said that "nuclear energy issue is not raised at all in Syria, but the focus is on natural gas, oil refining and renewable energies."

The International Atomic Energy Agency recently announced that it had no information about the existence of "undeclared nuclear reactor in Syria."

In Egypt, Prime Minister Dr. Ahmed Nazif said that Egypt is capable of implementing its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, with their experience and scientific potential. This came during the inauguration of the Press Center on the World Games in Arab City Hall conference.

Dr. Hassan Younis, Minister of Electricity and Energy, completed a draft of the new law related to nuclear radiation, to include benefit from the peaceful uses of atomic energy, and noted that the bill Egypt will undertake will fulfilled its obligations towards all international treaties and conventions, regional and bilateral in various areas of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, which was ratified with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The minister said that the strategic decision of President Mubarak to call for the creation of nuclear plants to generate electricity had coincided with a technical and economic feasibility study conducted by the electricity and energy sector. Only three parallel studies are under way to select more than one location for a number of stations for the production of electricity.

Source: Syria News, Ahram

oil related 071107

Iraqi Kurds sign seven new oil contracts

by Jay Deshmukh 39 minutes ago

Iraq's Kurdish region has defiantly signed seven new foreign oil deals in a move sure to anger Baghdad, which opposes the unilateral sell-off of crude blocks in the absence of a national oil law.

The autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) said in a statement posted on its website Wednesday that two production sharing contracts have been signed with OMV Petroleum Exploration, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Europe's OMV Aktiengesellschaft.

The deals relate to the Mala Omar and Shorish blocks in the province of Arbil, the statement said.

Separately, the Akre-Bijeel block in the Dohuk province has been awarded to Kalegran Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Plc and Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ltd, a subsidiary of Britain's Gulf Keystone.

The Shaikan block, also in Dohuk, has been awarded to Gulf Keystone, Texas Keystone and Kalegran.

The Rovi and Sarta blocks were granted to India's Reliance Energy Ltd, it said, without specifying where the blocks are located.

Another block in Dohuk province has been awarded to a Western company, the statement said without giving any further details.

It added that four strategic blocks in Sulaimaniyah and Arbil provinces were granted to the Kurdistan Exploration and Production Company, a government-owned firm.

The regional administration said that 85 percent of the returns from the foreign deals would be for Iraq and the rest would go to the contractor.

The KRG's minister for natural resources Ashti Hawrami said with the signing of the latest contracts, 20 international oil companies are now working in the region.

"A further 24 blocks in the region are the subject of intense interest from international companies. There will be more announcements soon," he added.

The latest contracts bring to 15 the number of deals finalised by the regional government since it passed its own oil law in August.

The statement said the KRG has also inked a deal with a state company to set up an integrated oil refinery that can handle 50,000 barrels of crude a day, from the Khurmala oil field.

Hawrami said all these contracts will help the KRG achieve its goal of producing a million barrels of oil a day.

"This new level of exploration and production activity in the Kurdistan Region will also galvanise investment interest for the rest of Iraq once a transparent, investor-friendly and unambiguously constitutional oil and gas law for Iraq is in place," he added.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government has urged the KRG not to sign any deals until the new national oil law is passed in parliament.

Oil minister Hussein Shahristani has previously said that all oil contracts signed before the passing of the oil law would be considered "illegal".

In September, the Kurdish government signed a contract with Texas-based Hunt Oil Company, the first major contract awarded by any Iraqi authority to a foreign company since UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990.

Shahristani had termed that contract "illegal", incurring the wrath of the Kurds who demanded his resignation.

The Iraqi hydrocarbons law is stalled before parliament due to bitter differences between warring political factions over the sharing of lucrative revenues from the crude, the third-largest proven reserves in the world.

The bill opens up the long state-dominated oil and gas sector to foreign investment and assures that receipts will be shared equally between Iraq's 18 provinces, a measure Washington regards as key to unite the rival communities.

Iraq's former elite Sunni Arab community fears it could be robbed of the oil wealth as the country's crude reserves are concentrated in the Kurdish north and Shiite south.

The Kurds say they have agreed to a revenue sharing deal with the Iraqi government under which only 17 percent of revenues from oil operations in their region will be retained by them, the rest being transferred to Baghdad.

Source: Yahoo

Oil Prices: It Gets Worse

By Vivienne Walt/PARIS

Oil prices hit a record high of $97 a barrel on Tuesday, but the next generation of consumers could look back on that price with envy. The dire predictions of a key report on international oil supplies released Wednesday suggest that oil prices could move irreversibly over the $100 a barrel threshold in the not too distant future, as the global economy faces a serious energy shortage.

This gloomy assessment comes from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based organization representing the 26 rich, gas-guzzling member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The agency is not known for alarmist warnings, and its World Energy Outlook is typically viewed by policy wonks as a solid indicator of global energy supplies. In a marked change from its traditionally bland, measured tones, the IEA's 2007 report says governments need to make urgent, bold decisions on energy policy, or risk massive environmental and energy-supply crises within two decades — crises and shortages that could spark serious global conflicts.

"I am sorry to say this, but we are headed toward really bad days," IEA chief economist Fatih Birol told TIME this week. "Lots of targets have been set but very little has been done. There is a lot of talk and no action." .

The reason for the IEA's alarm is its expectation that economic development will raise global energy demands by about 50% in a generation, from today's 85 million barrels a day to about 116 million barrels a day in 2030. Nearly half that increase in demand will come from just two countries — China and India, which are electrifying hundreds of cities and putting millions of new cars on their roads, most driven by people who once walked, or rode bicycles and buses. By 2030, those two countries will be responsible for two-thirds of the world's carbon gas emissions, which are the primary human activity causing global warming .

India and China have argued against enforcing strict emission controls in their countries, on the grounds that these could hinder their economic growth and prompt a global economic slowdown. But the new IEA report says working with China and India on alternative energy sources and curbing emissions is a matter of global urgency.

The bad news is not only environmental. As the world scrambles to boost energy supplies over the next two decades, an ever-greater percentage of its supplies of oil and gas will come from a dwindling number of countries, largely arrayed around the Persian Gulf, as the massive North Sea and Gulf of Mexico deposits are finally exhausted. That will leave the industrialized countries far more dependent on the volatile Middle East in 2030 than they are today, and the likes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran will dictate terms to companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, which increasingly operate as contractors to state-run oil companies in many producer nations.

"Most of the oil companies are going to be in an identity crisis, and need to redefine their business strategies," Birol says. The soul-searching may have already begun, as oil executives begin sounding the alarm about the supply crunch that lies ahead. Last week, Christophe de Margerie, CEO of the French oil giant Total, told the Financial Times that even the target of 100 million barrels a day is an optimistic one for an industry that currently produces 85 million — far short of the 116 million barrels a day the IEA projects will be needed by 2030 to fuel the global economy.

And in a sharp departure from the usually reassuring comments offered by Big Oil executives, De Margerie said companies and governments now realize that they have overestimated the amount of oil that could be extracted from places difficult to reach and costly to explore. "It is not my view, it is the industry view," he said. In other words, the message is that the current sky-high oil prices may not be a temporary burden on the world economy.

Forecasting prices, however, has become an increasingly inexact science for analysts, as prices in recent months have galloped ahead of their worst predictions. Says Oswald Clint, a London-based analyst for Sanford Bernstein: "A year ago, our predictions for November 2007 were about $50 to $62 dollars a barrel" — at least $35 short of Tuesday's price. The oil-research firm predicts that expanded production will bring oil prices back to $70 a barrel by 2010. But to Birol, that sounds optimistic.

"If you want to lower prices you have to slow down oil demand growth in China and India, use cars more efficiently, use biofuels, and also convince producing countries to pump more oil," says Birol. But he is uncertain any of that will happen. "I don't see the political will." Then again, nothing fuels political will like a soaring price at the gas pump.

Source: Time