Asia Times: Diplomacy to seal Iran's fate

Diplomacy to seal Iran's fateBy Victor Kotsev Asia Times 01 03 2012

While the rhetoric between Iran and its enemies has reached new heights - with Iran's defense minister reportedly threatening the use of "hidden capabilities which are kept for rainy days" in response to a foreign attack - the diplomatic front is also busier than ever. A great deal of expectation is placed on the meeting between United States President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next Monday, just as a great deal of attention is focused on Israel's preparations to strike the Iranian nuclear program.

Yet while Israel is one of the noisiest participants in the stand-off, it is by far not the only important player to watch. From a long rostrum of powers with heavy stakes (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and China immediately come to mind), Russia seems to be driving a particularly hard bargain with the US and its allies. Though notmuch is known about these secret negotiations, what seems apparent is that the fates of Iran and Syria are intricately linked.

To be sure, the exchange of high-ranking American and Israeli officials has grown into a "parade" over the last month, to borrow the description of the Jerusalem Post. According to reports in the Israeli press, some kind of a grand bargain on Iran is shaping up between the two allies, to be concluded - ideally - during the visit of Netanyahu and the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, to Washington in about a week. (The influential Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, is currently there; the formal occasion for the upcoming visit of Peres and Netanyahu is the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.)

Despite last week's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to which Iran's uranium enrichment has expanded significantly, [1] and despite the urgency which Israeli officials have sounded, there is increased talk about postponing the strike against the Islamic Republic until after the American elections in November. To be more precise, there are increased indications of massive American pressure on Israel to desist from attacking for now. "For the Americans, the upcoming summit reportedly has only one main aim: Receiving a Netanyahu pledge that Israel will not be striking Iran in the near future," writes the Israeli news site Ynet. [2]

The Israelis bring their own demands: according to the same article, "Netanyahu wants the statement to include an American declaration that Washington will further tighten the sanctions against Tehran." Yet it is doubtful that this would be enough for the Israeli prime minister to forego the military option he has built up at enormous expense over the last years, and which he professes to believe may soon be the only way left to ensure his country's survival.

According to a recent report in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz:

The Netanyahu-Obama meeting … will be definitive. If the US president wants to prevent a disaster, he must give Netanyahu iron-clad guarantees that the United States will stop Iran in any way necessary and at any price, after the 2012 elections. If Obama doesn't do this, he will obligate Netanyahu to act before the 2012 elections. [3]

 Moreover, a former Israeli official told Newsweek that "Obama's refusal to provide that assurance has helped shape Israel's posture: a refusal to promise restraint, or even to give the United States advance notice."

The article offers a fascinating account of how Israeli officials were imposed an informational "blackout" on their American counterparts from June through October last year, which, in retrospect, may have motivated the intense traffic that we see at present. It also recounts the visit of the head of Israel's Mossad spy agency in Washington last month:

According to an American official who was involved, Tamir Pardo wanted to take the pulse of the Obama administration and determine what the consequences would be if Israel bombed Iranian nuclear sites over American objections. Pardo raised many questions, according to this source: "What is our posture on Iran? Are we ready to bomb? Would we [do so later]? What does it mean if [Israel] does it anyway?" As it is, Israel has stopped sharing a significant amount of information with Washington regarding its own military preparations. [4]

There are countless theories about what an Israeli attack on Iran would look like, most including some combination of conventional air strikes with in-flight refueling, drone strikes, electronic warfare, and other methods, some bordering on science fiction. Medium range ballistic missiles (Jericho II) carrying specially designed high explosives, sea-borne (perhaps submarine-borne) cruise missiles, and special ground forces have all been suggested as possibilities; even large tungsten "rods from god" [5] mounted on the Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles Israel is believed to possess are not out of question.

There are two main schools of thought with respect to what a strike would aim to accomplish. According to an NBC report:

Israel would not try to take out every Iranian nuclear facility but instead would target certain facilities it considers critical, hoping to set the program back. US officials believe an attack could put the program back two to four years, Israelis estimate more like three to five. One official said the Israelis are prepared to "do the same in two to four years" if the Iranian program recovers. [6]

Others, however, argue that Israel would choose to attack not only a larger number of additional nuclear objects, but also most of Iran's medium range ballistic missiles which can be used to strike back. (This would still leave Iran's capability to block the Strait of Hormuz intact, as well as the ability to attack US bases in the Persian Gulf.)

Assuming that Israel is set on attacking, a lot of the specifics would depend on what the Americans are saying behind closed doors, which is far from certain. One argument goes that Obama would rather Israel attacked without his explicit knowledge, and as minimally as possible, so that he could deny involvement and try to deescalate the crisis following a limited Israeli strike.

However, in this scenario it would be ultimately up to Iran to decide whether or not the US was involved (and whether or not to hit back), and it is unlikely that many in the American administration would be comfortable with trusting the Iranians. The opposite argument seems to fit better the current events: that the American president is eager to know every Israeli move, in order to prevent an attack.

The international community - countries as diverse as Russia, Japan and the European powers - ostensibly backs the American pressure on Israel. The main reason for this is illustrated in the NBC report cited above:

The price would spike immediately, going from around $100 a barrel now to "between $200 and pick-a-number," said one oil trader. How quickly it would revert to lower levels would depend on how quickly the situation stabilized and how and where Iran would respond. An attack on Saudi Arabia, for instance, would place the price target at close to that "pick-a-number" scenario, the trader said.

Even a $25 a barrel increase would have serious consequences for the recoveries in the US, European and East Asian economies, particularly Japan. "It would be a game changer," for the US economy and the political season, said a US official.

One way Obama might persuade Israel to hold off from attacking Iran without committing to strike himself could be to "lead from behind" in Syria. (This would imply a Libya-style overt or covert intervention, spearheaded by "allied" forces.) The argument would be that taking out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would weaken greatly the Iranian deterrent against Israel; we could think of it as a kind of carrot offered to Netanyahu to wait and to hope that the Syrian threat to start a war with Israel if cornered is just a bluff.

It might take some time to depose Assad, but there are already unconfirmed reports of Turkish and Qatari special forces on the ground.

While Syria deserves a separate analysis, it is important to note that, according to recent statements by a wide variety of officials, the fate of the two countries is linked beyond the obvious (they are close allies and Iran is reportedly helping Assad repress his domestic opponents). Take, for example, the following quote which Ha'aretz attributes to US National Security Advisor Tom Donilon: "America will not allow Iran to act aggressively and ruthlessly exploit the Arab Spring, ‘which is proposing ideological alternatives to Iran's Islamic Revolution,' suggested Donilon." [7]

This statement would ring less odd, and suggestive, if, practically at the same time, Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood lawmakers weren't predicting that the Arab Spring would spread to Iran. [8] Add to this the cryptic comments by yet another American official, Anthony Blinken, that American policy vis-a-vis Iran is targeted at "buying time and continuing to move this problem into the future, and if you can do that - strange things can happen in the interim." [9]

Russian analysts, on the other hand, have long maintained that the Arab Spring was a "color revolution", a tool either invented or adapted by the West to advance its interests. Not that Russia's hands - or motives - are clean. In Syria, Russia is concerned mainly with its naval base in Tartus, its weapons sales, and its influence in the Arab world. The Syrian rebels have reportedly offered to be flexible on the first issue. As concerns the second, a source close to the Russian analyst community suggested that once it has completed the deals, the Kremlin may be eager to demonstrate the capabilities of its arms. (Among other things, this could boost sales to other countries.)
With respect to Iran, Russia seems to balancing between two different fears. On the one hand, the same source suggested, the Russians are afraid that if the United States accomplishes regime change in Tehran, the American missile defense shield would arrive at Russia's doorstep from that direction. On the other hand, the current Iranian regime armed with nuclear missiles is far from the ideal neighbor, either (separated from Russia by the Caspian Sea).

Moreover, if Iran’s regime suffers a limited defeat, but is left standing, it will likely be desperate for more Russian weapons.

Thus, while the Kremlin is officially a key ally of both Syria and Iran, crucial to supporting both regimes diplomatically and with military technology, in reality it is ready to play both sides at once, if it isn't doing that already. It may be more amenable to some scenarios than to others - for example, it might, under some conditions, accept point strikes in Iran, or a regime change in Syria that does not threaten its interests.

While neither the Russians nor any other player is likely to have its full agenda in the Middle East fulfilled, the bargaining that is undoubtedly raging in secret will seal the fate of the region, at least for the near future.

Notes:1. Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran, IAEA, February 24, 2012.
2. Netanyahu wants silence on Iran, Ynet, February 25, 2012.
3. If Israel strikes Iran, it'll be because Obama didn't stop it, Ha'aretz, February 23, 2012.
4. Obama's Dangerous Game With Iran, Newsweek, February 13, 2012.
5. The Rods from God, The Weekly Standard, June 8, 2005.
6. Panetta report fuels concerns that Israel will attack Iran, NBC News, February 2, 2012.
7. Barak will have to pass an attack on Iran through a reluctant U.S., Ha'aretz, February 26, 2012.
8. Muslim Brotherhood lawmaker: Arab Spring headed to Iran, Ha'aretz, February 28, 2012.
9. U.S. policy aimed at 'buying time' with Iran, says senior official, Ha'aretz, February 28, 2012.
Courtesy:The Asia Times

US warns Iran against closing oil route

"If sanctions are adopted against Iranian oil, not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz."

Mohammad Reza Rahimi, Iran's vice-president
=================================
Tensions rise in standoff that has the potential to prompt military reprisals and push up global oil prices.

Last Modified: 29 Dec 2011 09:02

Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher reports on the rising tensions between the US and Iran in the Gulf over sanctions

The US has strongly warned Iran against closing a vital Gulf  waterway, after Iran threatened to choke off traffic through the Strait of Hormuz if the US imposes sanctions targeting the country's crude exports.

The increasingly heated exchange raises new tensions in a standoff that has the potential to prompt military reprisals and push up oil prices to levels harmful to an already fragile global economy.

The Strait of Hormuz is a 6.4km wide channel between Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Gulf through which more than one-third of the world's tanker-borne oil, or about 15 million barrels of oil, pass daily.

"This is not just an important issue for security and  stability in the region, but is an economic lifeline for countries in the Gulf, to include Iran,'' George Little, Pentagon press secretary, said on Wednesday.

"Interference with the transit or passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz will not be tolerated,"

Earlier, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, Iran's vice-president, was quoted as saying: "If sanctions are adopted against Iranian oil, not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz."

Iran's navy chief said on Wednesday that it would be 'very easy' for his country's forces to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, "Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway," Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV, as the country was in the midst of a 10-day military drill near the strategic waterway.

'No desire for violence' It was the second such warning by Iran in two days, reflecting Iran's concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could hit the country's biggest source of revenue, oil.

"We have no desire for hostilities or violence ... but the West doesn't want to go back on its plan to impose sanctions," Sayyari said.

"The enemies will only drop their plots when we put them back in their place."

"We have no desire for hostilities or violence ... but the West doesn't want to go back on its plan to impose sanctions"
- Admiral Habibollah Sayyari

The threat underlined Iran's readiness to target the narrow stretch of water along its Gulf coast if it is attacked or economically strangled by Western sanctions.

A spokesperson for the US Navy's Fifth Fleet responded to the threat by warning Iran that any disruption of traffic flowing though the Strait of Hormuz "will not be tolerated".

"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated,'' Rebecca Rebarich said.

She said the US navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

The US maintains a navy presence in the Gulf in large part to ensure that passage remains free.

Iran rejected in September US calls for a military hotline between the capitals to defuse any "miscalculations" that could occur between their military forces in the Gulf.

War games

Iranian ships and aircraft dropped mines in the sea on Tuesday as part of the drill, according to a navy spokesman.Although Iranian war games occur periodically, the timing of these is seen as a show of strength as the US and Europe prepare to impose further sanctions on Iran's oil and financial sectors.

The last round of sanctions, announced in November, triggered a pro-government protest in front of the British embassy in Tehran during which Basij militia members overran the mission and ransacked it.
Britain closed the embassy as a result and ordered Iran's mission in Britain shut as well.

An Iranian legislator's comments last week that the navy exercises would block the Strait of hormuz briefly sent oil prices soaring before that was denied by the government.

While the foreign ministry said such drastic action was "not on the agenda", it reiterated Iran's threat of "reactions" if the current tensions with the West spilled over into open confrontation.

Iran's customers

EU ministers said on December 1 that a decision on further sanctions would be taken no later than their January meeting but left open the idea of an embargo on Iranian oil.

Countries in the 27-member EU receive 450,000 barrels per day of Iranian oil, about 18 per cent of the country's exports, much of which go to China and India.

China, the biggest buyer of Iranian crude, has said against "emotionally charged actions" that might aggravate tension in the nuclear standoff with Iran.

Russia, for its part, has cautioned against "cranking up a spiral of tension", saying this would undermine the chances of Iran co-operating with efforts to ensure it does not build atom bombs.

Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq - together with nearly all the liquefied natural gas from lead exporter Qatar - must pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

ஈரானின் பிடியில் ஒபாமாவின் நாசகார ஆளில்லா தானியங்கி (Drone) விமானம்!

The Great cyber-attack

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-09/iran-claims-tv-broadcast-shows-us-drone/3722464


A US drone captured by Iran is now the property of the Islamic republic,

Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said Tuesday, dismissing a request by US President Barack Obama for its return.

"The American espionage drone is now Iran's property, and our country will decide what steps to take regarding it," Vahidi was quoted as saying by ISNA news agency.

"Instead of apologising to the Iranian nation, it (the United States) is brazenly asking for the drone back," Vahidi also said, according to another news agency, Mehr.

Iran "will not back down from defending the nation or its interests," Vahidi declared.

Obama on Monday acknowledged that Iran was holding the reconnaissance drone -- a bat-winged RQ-170 Sentinel -- by saying: "We've asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond."

Iran last week displayed on state television what it said was the drone. A lawmaker said the Islamic republic was unlocking the aircraft's software and was going to reverse-engineer the drone.

The foreign ministry in Tehran was similarly dismissive of Obama's request.

"It seems he (Obama) has forgotten that Iran's airspace was violated, spying operations were undertaken, international laws were violated and that Iran's internal affairs were interfered with," ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said told his regular media briefing, according to Fars news agency.

"Instead of an official apology and admitting to this violation, they are making this request," he said.

Iranian officials have said a Revolutionary Guards cyber-warfare unit had hacked the aircraft's controls and brought it down.

US officials have admitted anonymously that the drone was on a CIA spying mission over the Islamic republic when it was captured.

The head of Iran's parliamentary national security committee, Parviz Sorouri, said on Monday that Iran was in the "final stages" of decoding the drone's software and "our next action will be to reverse-engineer the aircraft."

Valihi added that Iran was "highly capable" of making drones and had already built some capable of reconnaissance and attack, according to ISNA.

Obama, who gave the first official US confirmation that the drone was in Iran's hands, shed no light on the plane's mission or why it failed to return to its base in Afghanistan.

"With respect to the drone inside of Iran, I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters that are classified," he said.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had expressed doubt that Iran would agree to give back the drone.

"Given Iran's behavior to date, we do not expect them to comply," Clinton told reporters at a Monday press conference with British Foreign Secretary William Hague, with whom she discussed Iran.

Although the drone incident has handed Iran a propaganda coup, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta voiced scepticism that Tehran would gain much of a technological advantage from the aircraft.

"It's a little difficult to know just frankly how much they're going to be able to get from having obtained those parts," Panetta told reporters aboard a US military aircraft.

"I don't know the conditions of those parts. I don't know what state they're in."

Asked if Iran may have forced the plane down in a cyber-attack, Panetta said: "I don't know."

Iran military shoots down U.S. drone: state TV

TEHRAN | Sun Dec 4, 2011 9:53am EST
(Reuters) - Iran's military said on Sunday it had shot down a U.S. reconnaissance drone aircraft in eastern Iran, a military source told state television.

"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted the unnamed source as saying.

"The spy drone, which has been downed with little damage, was seized by the Iranian armed forces."

Iran shot down the drone at a time when it is trying to contain foreign reaction to the storming of the British embassy in Tehran on Tuesday, shortly after London announced that it would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank in connection with Iran's controversial nuclear enrichment program.

Britain evacuated its diplomatic staff from Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in London in retaliation, and several other EU members recalled their ambassadors from Tehran.

The attack dragged Iran's relations with Europe to a long-time low.

Washington and EU countries have been discussing measures to restrict Iran's oil exports since the United Nations nuclear watchdog issued a report in November with what it said was evidence that Tehran had worked on designing an atom bomb.

Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

(Created by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Tim Pearce)

Britain expels Iranian diplomats and closes Tehran embassy

Britain expels Iranian diplomats and closes Tehran embassy


William Hague says diplomats must leave UK within 48 hours, saying storming of British embassy in Iran had backing of regime

Julian Borger and Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 November 2011 14.54 GMT

The foreign secretary tells MPs he has ordered the expulsion of Iranian diplomats from the UK . The foreign secretary, William Hague, has ordered the expulsion of Iranian diplomats from the UK and announced that the UK is closing its embassy in Tehran, saying that the storming of the mission on Tuesday had the backing of the regime.

Hague said Iranian diplomats would have to leave Britain within 48 hours, and that all British embassy staff in Tehran had now left Iran.

He said that the move would not mean the severance of all ties, as the two countries could continue to have a dialogue at international meetings, as the US has done since the seizure and closure of its embassy in 1979, but the move marks a new low in relations, which have been growing increasingly strained.

The foreign secretary said it was not possible to maintain an embassy in the current circumstances, adding that the estimated 200 protesters who invaded the embassy and the British diplomatic compound yesterday were "student basij militia". The basiji operate as a youth wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, one of the most powerful institutions in the country.

Hague said it would be "fanciful" to think that the embassy invasion could have taken place without "without some degree of regime consent".

He added: "If any country makes it impossible for us to operate on their soil they cannot expect to have a functioning embassy here."

Iranian diplomats in London refused to comment on the announcement.

Foreign Office sources said the foreign secretary had made his statement minutes after he received confirmation that the 26 British embassy staff had taken off from Tehran, heading for Britain.

The announcement had been delayed until then for fear "there would be some nutso backlash against our people", the source said.

The fleeing diplomats left the Iranian capital with whatever possessions they could salvage from their homes after the British residential compound in northern Tehran had been completely ransacked, an official said.

"The residential accommodation had been comprehensively trashed. The mob had gone through houses and apartments, wrecking them, nicking things. It was like a gang of feral street kids had been given license to do as much damage as possible," he said.

The crowd had also set fire to the first floor of the embassy, the official said, causing extensive damage. The only staff left at the embassy and the residential compound will be local security staff, who will be asked to prevent the buildings becoming "a playground for local youths".

In the next few days a decision will be made on which country's embassy could act as a UK interests section. In previous low points in UK-Iran relations the Swedes have played that role, but no decision has yet been made.

Hague will now go to Brussels for an EU foreign ministers' meeting looking for support, and for other capitals to call in resident ambassadors to complain.

The message, as one official put it, would be: "If you let your thugs destroy our embassy and assault or scare our staff, you cannot expect to maintain normal civilised relations with the rest of the world."

Earlier on Wednesday, Norway temporarily closed its embassy in Tehran, citing security concerns, and Sweden summoned Iran's ambassador to Stockholm to its foreign ministry. "Iran has a duty to protect diplomatic premises, and authorities there should have intervened immediately," said a Swedish foreign ministry spokesman.

The Scandinavian countries' reactions follow outspoken condemnation of the attack from the US and France. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said: "The United States condemns this attack in the strongest possible terms. It is an affront not only to the British people but also the international community," she said.

In Iran the attack on the embassy has prompted mixed reactions even among the supporters of the regime. The Iranian foreign ministry last night expressed regret over the "unacceptable behaviour by [a] few demonstrators" and promised an investigation.

But Ali Larijani, the country's powerful parliamentary speaker, told MPs on Wednesday that the attack was the result of "several decades of domination-seeking behaviour of Britain".

Larijani also criticised the UN security council for condemning Tuesday's incident.

"The hasty move in the security council in condemning the students' action was done to cover up previous crimes of Britain and the United States," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Larijani as saying during an open session at Iran's parliament.

In contrast , the Iranian foreign ministry said it was committed to protecting diplomatic personnel and said a thorough investigation would be launched.

In Tehran the episode has been seen as the latest episode in an extraordinary power struggle between the conservatives in parliament and the judiciary on one side, and the government of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the other.

Pro-Ahmadinejad supporters have interpreted the recent events as an attempt to hamper the government's efforts to reduce tensions with the international community and undermine the government's foreign policy.

Iranian state agencies, meanwhile, tried to depict Tuesday's events as an spontaneous protest by "university students" and attempted to distance the establishment from the attack.