Gohmert: Obama outed active Israeli spy mission in Iran
In a Thursday night speech, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) reported that President Hussein Obama has
outed an active Israeli spy mission in Iran (Hat Tip:
Jack W via
Gateway Pundit).
United States Congressman Louie Gohmert revealed Thursday that the
Obama administration had “outed” an active Israeli spy mission in Iran.
Israel, he said, had infiltrated Israeli spies into mainland Iran via
cargo boats.
He dropped the bombshell in a speech at EMET’s 9th annual “Rays of Light in the Darkness” gala dinner.
Rep. Gohmert, who is one Israel’s fiercest and truest friends on Capitol Hill, stated: “We are on the brink of disaster.”
He listed a stream of virulently anti-Israel actions taken by
President Obama which included the “outing” of the Israeli spy mission,
and the Obama Administration’s disclosing of possible use of Azerbaijani airspace by Israel.
Rep. Gohmert did not elaborate on whether Obama’s disclosure of
Israeli covert operations had resulted in the capture or death of any of
Israel’s Iranian spies.
I inserted the two links in the middle of the article, but the Azerbaijan story
might not be true. In the meantime, if the accusations came from Gohmert, I would believe them.
Labels: Azerbaijan, Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Louie Gohmert
Israel plans to destroy Iran's missiles on the ground?
Take this with a grain of salt, because the source is the Sunday Times of London's
not always reliable Uzi Mahnaimi. This time Mahnaimi is claiming that Israel has stationed (or will station) Eitan/Heron drones in Azerbaijan. The drones will be used to
destroy Iranian missiles on the ground as soon as their engines are fired using data from the x-band radar stationed in Israel under United States control (Hat Tip:
Director Blue).
According to the report Sunday, an
American-made X-band radar system deployed at the Nevatim airbase in the
Negev “can detect an Iranian missile on its launchpad 1,000 miles to
the northeast,” giving Israel up to 13 minutes of warning.
The report quoted an Israeli military source
as saying “We’ll try to ‘kill’ them at the booster stage — the moment
their engines are ignited.”
Reportedly, such a preemptive strike would be
carried out with American Hellfire missiles, delivered by Eitan drones —
also known as Herons — based in Azerbaijan.
“If that happens, and it isn’t as easy as it
sounds, then the remaining missiles will be finished off by our Air
Defense Command,” a “well-informed Israeli source” was quoted as saying.
Let's assume for a minute that this story is true. Why would anyone tell Mahnaimi - and only Mahnaimi - about it?
The Eitan is certainly capable of doing this sort of thing, but if Israel has actually gotten Azerbaijan to allow us to use their bases (and this
has come up before), why would anyone leak that fact to Mahnaimi?
Sorry folks, but this one reminds me of
Perrytales. It sounds cool, but there's really nothing behind it.
Labels: Azerbaijan, Eitan unmanned aerial system, Heron TP unmanned aerial system, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, x-band radar
Iran and Hezbullah targeted diplomats in 7 countries over 13 months... and Jews
The Washington Post has connected the dots between attempts on the lives of diplomats - American and Middle Eastern, including Israelis - in seven countries over 13 months. According to the report,
Iran and Hezbullah are behind all of them (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
The threat, many details of which were never made public, appeared to recede after Azerbaijani authorities rounded up nearly two dozen people in waves of arrests early this year. Precisely who ordered the hits, and why, was never conclusively determined. But U.S. and Middle Eastern officials now see the attempts as part of a broader campaign by Iran-linked operatives to kill foreign diplomats in at least seven countries over a span of 13 months. The targets have included two Saudi officials, a half-dozen Israelis and — in the Azerbaijan case — several Americans, the officials say.
In recent weeks, investigators working in four countries have amassed new evidence tying the disparate assassination attempts to one another and linking all of them to either Iran-backed Hezbollah militants or operatives based inside Iran, according to U.S. and Middle Eastern security officials. An official report last month summarizing the evidence cited phone records, forensic tests, coordinated travel arrangements and even cellphone SIM cards purchased in Iran and used by several of the would-be assailants, said two officials who have seen the six-page document.
Strikingly, the officials noted, the attempts halted abruptly in early spring, at a time when Iran began to shift its tone after weeks of bellicose anti-Western rhetoric and threats to shut down vital shipping lanes. In March, Iranian officials formally accepted a proposal to resume negotiations with six world powers on proposals to curb its nuclear program.
“There appears to have been a deliberate attempt to calm things down ahead of the talks,” said a Western diplomat briefed on the assassination plots, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence. “What happens if the talks fail — that’s anyone’s guess.”
...
The most recent threat came to light after a foreign spy agency intercepted electronic messages that appeared to describe plans to move weapons and explosives from Iran into Azerbaijan. Some of the messages were traced to an Azerbaijani national named Balagardash Dashdev, a man with an extensive criminal background and, according to a Middle East investigator involved in the case, deep ties to a network of intelligence operatives and militant groups based inside Iran.
Working from inside Iran, officials said, Dashdev in late October began coordinating the shipment of explosives, weapons and cash to Azerbaijani contacts, including relatives and former criminal associates. As U.S. and Middle Eastern intelligence deepened their surveillance, they began to discern what the Middle Eastern investigator described as a “jumble of overlapping plans,” some specifically aimed at Azerbaijan’s small Jewish community and others targeting diplomats and foreign-owned businesses in Baku, the country’s sprawling capital on the Caspian Sea.
During the late fall and early winter, the weapons were smuggled into the country along with at least 10 Iranian nationals recruited to help carry out the plot, U.S. and Middle Eastern officials said.
The Azerbaijani participants had been paid a cash advance and were beginning to conduct surveillance on a list of targets — including a Jewish elementary school, a U.S.-owned fast-food restaurant, an oil company office and “other objects in Baku,” according to a brief statement issued by the Azerbaijani government after a series of raids in which about two dozen alleged accomplices were arrested between January and early March.
The Obama administration acknowledged in March that the U.S. Embassy may have been among the intended targets. But in the months since then, the suspects under questioning revealed extensive details about the “other objects in Baku” that had been on the target list, confirming that the would-be assassins intended to go beyond attacks on buildings.
“They were going after individuals,” said the former State Department official who worked closely with the embassy in Baku. “They had names [of employees]. And they were interested in family members, too.”
The alleged plot leader, Dashdev, would tell investigators that the planned attacks were intended as revenge for the deaths of the Iranian nuclear scientists, attacks that Iran has publicly linked to Israel and the United States. Iran vehemently denied involvement in any assassination plot inside Azerbaijan, and the Iranian Embassy in Baku suggested in a statement that the plot was fiction.
As you might suspect, the attempts to murder Israeli diplomats in
New Delhi and
Bangkok are part of this story.
Read the whole thing.
The Obama administration is attempting to tiptoe between the raindrops on this one. They are trying not to accuse the Iranians. But the truth should be told. Iran is behind much of the terrorism in the world. And it's time for the West to do something about it.
Labels: Azerbaijan, Hezbullah, India, Iran, Islamic terrorism, Thailand
Darn, Perrytales was such a good idea
While I had my doubts about
Mark Perry's piece in Foreign Policy last week, in my heart of hearts, I was hoping it was true. I hoped (and against all evidence to the contrary continue to hope) that Israel has arranged to refuel its jets on the ground in Azerbaijan rather than doing a complicated midair refueling maneuver as part of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. But, alas, Arab affairs expert Ehud Yaari says thats
it's all a pipe dream.
The truth is that Perry’s piece did not deserve the attention. The veteran anti-Israel warrior has simply taken advantage of the negligent naivety of Foreign Policy’s editors in order to plant one more of his cloak-and-dagger patchwork stories aimed at undermining the state he intensely detests.
...
No one seems to have raised the real questions before rushing to publish or quote the Perry-tale:
Elementary, Mr. Perry: How would the Israeli Air Force reach those airbases in Azerbaijan? Are the Israelis going to get a permit from Mr. Erdogan to fly over Turkey on their way to hit Iran? Does it make any sense? Or, alternatively, does Perry want us to believe that the Israelis will choose to bypass Turkey on their secret mission via the longer route over Greece and Bulgaria, thus becoming fully exposed to Russian radar in the Black Sea? Take a look at the map, Mr. Perry — there is no other way for the Israelis to get to Azerbaijan!
By now, the editors of Foreign Policy may regret, too, that they did not bother to open their atlas.
And if the argument is that the Israeli pilots will only be allowed to land in Azerbaijan after a strike on the Iranian nuclear installations, then another important issue emerges: How can Azerbaijan possibly afford to cooperate in an attack on Iran when it depends on Iran entirely for maintaining control over that significant part of this country, the Nakhichevan region, an exclave and autonomous republic of Azerbaijan that is totally separated from the main Azeri territory by its arch-enemy, Armenia? Did Perry and the editors who handled his copy give any consideration to the question of what President Ilham Aliev would hope to achieve in embarking upon such a risky adventure?
Besides, Iranian missiles can quite easily knock out those airbases as well as the huge Azeri BP oil terminal near Baku, which is the lifeline of the country’s economy. Teheran leaders are on record stating that they will retaliate forcefully against any state that will provide bases for an attack against it.
/sigh
Labels: Azerbaijan, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Mark Perry
White House claims they're not Perry's source, says they want to find 'real leakers'
The Obama White House denies being the
source for the Foreign Policy article by former Arafat aide Mark Perry that claims that
Israel has purchased airbases in Azerbaijan for an attack on Iran.
The sources said that the White House had "no interest" in leaks of this kind, adding that the administration would "gladly prosecute" the people behind it – if they knew who they were.
Israel, as well as pro-Israel elements in the United States, blamed the White House for the leak, but according to the official, the US is "crawling with thousands of intelligence and former intelligence officials," and the White House has no way of stopping them from offering information to the media as anonymous sources.
The official stressed that it was wrong to claim that there was a concentrated media effort within the administration against Israel.
Jerusalem and Washington, he added, are making "tremendous efforts" on Iran and are working more closely than ever. "Leaks on strategic matters are never good," he said.
Yeah, the White House wants to find the 'real leakers.' Just like
OJ wants to find the 'real killer.' I don't buy it. Do you?
Labels: Azerbaijan, Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Mark Perry
'The Israelis have bought an airfield and it's called Azerbaijan'?
Foreign Policy is reporting 'exclusively' that Israel has reached a deal with Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran,
allowing Israel to use Azerbaijani airfields as a staging area to attack Iran. Before I discuss the story, I urge you to take it with a grain of salt for reasons that I will explain.
In 2009, the deputy chief of mission of the U.S. embassy in Baku, Donald Lu, sent a cable to the State Department's headquarters in Foggy Bottom titled "Azerbaijan's discreet symbiosis with Israel." The memo, later released by WikiLeaks, quotes Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev as describing his country's relationship with the Jewish state as an iceberg: "nine-tenths of it is below the surface."
...
[F]our senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran's northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. "The Israelis have bought an airfield," a senior administration official told me in early February, "and the airfield is called Azerbaijan."
Senior U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly concerned that Israel's military expansion into Azerbaijan complicates U.S. efforts to dampen Israeli-Iranian tensions, according to the sources. Military planners, I was told, must now plan not only for a war scenario that includes the Persian Gulf -- but one that could include the Caucasus. The burgeoning Israel-Azerbaijan relationship has also become a flashpoint in both countries' relationship with Turkey, a regional heavyweight that fears the economic and political fallout of a war with Iran. Turkey's most senior government officials have raised their concerns with their U.S. counterparts, as well as with the Azeris, the sources said.
The Israeli embassy in Washington, the Israel Defense Forces, and the Mossad, Israel's national intelligence agency, were all contacted for comment on this story but did not respond.
The Azeri embassy to the United States also did not respond to requests for information regarding Azerbaijan's security agreements with Israel. During a recent visit to Tehran, however, Azerbaijan's defense minister publicly ruled out the use of Azerbaijan for a strike on Iran. "The Republic of Azerbaijan, like always in the past, will never permit any country to take advantage of its land, or air, against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which we consider our brother and friend country," he said.
But even if his government makes good on that promise, it could still provide Israel with essential support. A U.S. military intelligence officer noted that Azeri defense minister did not explicitly bar Israeli bombers from landing in the country after a strike. Nor did he rule out the basing of Israeli search-and-rescue units in the country. Proffering such landing rights -- and mounting search and rescue operations closer to Iran -- would make an Israeli attack on Iran easier.
"We're watching what Iran does closely," one of the U.S. sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed. "But we're now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we're not happy about it."
The article goes on to discuss Israel's huge arms deal with Azerbaijan - announced in February - and increased tensions between Iran and Azerbaijan, most of which are not related to Iran's nuclear weapons program and its threats to wipe out Israel.
Why would Israel want access to Azerbaijani airfields? As noted above, Azerbaijan has made a commitment that it will not allow Israeli jets to take off and attack Iran from its territory. But being able to continue north to Azerbaijan rather than returning to Israel would be a huge asset for the IDF. It would obviate the need for Israel to refuel its planes in midair, and would ensure that all of them could return to base safely - assuming of course that they can take out the Iranian air defenses. Not needing all that fuel also means the IAF jets could carry more weapons and would have a better chance of success. The article even names a specific base that might be used.
"The problem is the F-15s," Gardiner said, "who would go in as fighters to protect the F-16 bombers and stay over the target." In the likely event that Iran scrambled its fighters to intercept the Israeli jets, he continued, the F-15s would be used to engage them. "Those F-15s would burn up fuel over the target, and would need to land."
Could they land in Azerbaijan? "Well, it would have to be low profile, because of political sensitivities, so that means it would have to be outside of Baku and it would have to be highly developed." Azerbaijan has such a place: the Sitalcay airstrip, which is located just over 40 miles northwest of Baku and 340 miles from the Iranian border. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Sitalcay's two tarmacs and the adjacent facilities were used by a squadron of Soviet Sukhoi SU-25 jets -- perfect for Israeli fighters and bombers. "Well then," Gardiner said, after the site was described to him, "that would be the place."
Is this plausible? Sure it is. I've run similar stories involving speculation about Azerbaijan and
other countries (Georgia, India and Cyprus) being involved in an Israeli attack on Iran. And I've even reported that Israel
stores planes in Azerbaijan (which doesn't quite fit with this story, but is close).
But I'm skeptical. It's probably a fantasy. You see, the author is Mark Perry. Mark Perry is a former aide to Yasser Arafat. Some of you may remember him as the guy who quoted General David Petraeus - the current director of the CIA - as saying that Israel was endangering US troops due to its 'settlement policies.' Petraeus flat out
denied saying that. In January, Perry claimed that the Mossad had
operatives pose as CIA agents to recruit Iranians to assassinate their country's nuclear scientists. This guy has AGENDA written all over him. Anything written by him about Israel is suspect. Anything.
Here are two examples of misleading (and that's being kind) things in Perry's article. Perry writes that Israel's troubles with Turkey began with the Mavi Marmara incident in May 2010.
The deepening Azeri-Israeli relationship has also escalated Israel's dispute with Turkey, which began when Israeli commandos boarded a Turkish ship destined for Gaza in May 2010, killing nine Turkish citizens. When Turkey demanded an apology, Israel not only refused, it abruptly canceled a $150 million contract to develop and manufacture drones with the Turkish military -- then entered negotiations with Azerbaijan to jointly manufacture 60 Israeli drones of varying types. The $1.6 billion arms agreement between Israel and Azerbaijan also left Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "sputtering in rage," according to a retired U.S. diplomat.
But Israel's dispute with Turkey started way before that. It burst into the open at Davos in January 2009 when Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan stormed out of a panel discussion with Israeli President Shimon Peres, and it started a year before that. Why would Perry mislead about that?
More blatantly, he has this to say about an Israeli helicopter exercise in Romania in 2010:
This officer pointed to a July 2010 joint Israeli-Romanian exercise that tested Israeli air capabilities in mountainous areas -- like those the Israeli Air Force would face during a bombing mission against Iranian nuclear facilities that the Iranians have buried deep into mountainsides. U.S. military officers watched the exercises closely, not least because they objected to the large number of Israeli fighters operating from airbases of a NATO-member country, but also because 100 Israeli fighters overflew Greece as a part of a simulation of an attack on Iran. The Israelis eventually curtailed their Romanian military activities when the United States expressed discomfort with practicing the bombing of Iran from a NATO country, according to this senior military intelligence officer.
The reasons that exercise was curtailed had nothing to do with the US - unless Perry is claiming that the US shot down an
Israeli helicopter that crashed during the exercise.
Read the whole thing. Skeptically.
Labels: Azerbaijan, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Mark Perry
Iran demands an explanation
Iran summoned the Azerbaijani ambassador to the Islamic Republic on Tuesday, asking him to explain reports (which are true) that
Azerbaijan entered into an arms deal with Israel on Monday that is worth $1.5 billion.
According to the report of Foreign Ministry website on Tuesday, following news concerning arms deal between Azerbaijan Republic and the Zionist regime worth around one and half billion dollars, Javanshir Akhundov was invited by the deputy FM Seyed Abbas Araqchi to the ministry and Iran asked for official explanation about the news.
The ambassador said that purchased equipment from the Zionist regime are solely to free occupied territory of Azerbaijan Republic and that the government will not allow these arms be used against another country, especially Islamic Republic of Iran.
He repeated his country's intention to develop relations with Iran and called for exchanging views to remove any kind of misunderstanding.
Considering declared policy by the Zionist regime on growing penetration in bordering countries with Iran and using these states' territories against it, the Iran’s senior diplomat warned against any kind of use of Azerbaijan Republic territory by the Zionist regime for terrorist acts against Iran.
Heh.
Times of Israel adds:
The ambassador did not elaborate, but the “occupied territory” to which he was referring may be the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to Azerbaijan and the international community, the enclave is part of Azerbaijan. Since the end of the Azeri-Armenian war in 1994, however, the majority Armenian region has exerted de facto independence with Armenian military support.
Under the terms of the Israel Aerospace Industries deal, announced earlier this week, the Caucasus nation will receive planes, drones and an advanced missile defense system. The shipment of aerial drones will be accompanied by a large team of security and technology consultants, according to Maariv, which cited an Intelligence Online report.
I wonder which of Iran's other immediate neighbors are working on arms deals with us.
Labels: arms sales, Azerbaijan, Iran
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Monday, February 27.
1) Brotherhood aids SCAF
This is something I've written about before. It's nice to see someone else mention it explicitly. An analysis in MEMRI is titled, Crisis between Egypt, U.S. Deepens over American Funding to Civil Society Organizations – Part II: The Islamists Join the Government/SCAF Campaign against the U.S.:
In February 2012, the anti-U.S. campaign was joined by Egypt's Islamists. Though they had previously made it a point to avoid any direct dispute with the U.S., as Egypt's conflict with the latter intensified they could no longer remain on the fence. Senior officials in the Muslim Brotherhood's (MB) Freedom and Justice party, for example, warned that any cuts in U.S. aid would be met with a review of Egypt's peace agreement with Israel, as U.S. aid was a condition of the agreement. Dr. Rashad Bayoumi, deputy to MB General Guide Muhammad Badi', claimed that U.S. Ambassador to Cairo Anne Patterson was striving to incite fitna (civil strife) in Egypt, just as she had committed crimes in Pakistan. He added that Egypt had no need for U.S. aid, which he described as tainted and as an impediment to a free Egypt.
Likewise, Egypt's Salafi circles could no longer remain neutral on the issue. Salafi Sheikh Muhammad Hassan, formerly close to Mubarak and currently to the SCAF, launched an initiative to raise donations for the purpose of helping support Egypt's economy so that it would not have to rely on U.S. aid. The initiative won avid support among the Egyptian public; Egyptian businesses, both large and small; Egyptian businessmen and workers, who contributed portions of their salary; Egyptian banks, which paid their taxes early; and even prisoners.[8] The initiative was even taken up by the sheikh of Al-Azhar.[9]
Barry Rubin, for a while, has been writing that the Islamists, despite Western claims otherwise, has been working with the military to stifle dissent. The Muslim Brotherhood's support of the military crackdown on NGO's is the latest (and perhaps most blatant) example of this alliance.
2) Iran isolated
Last year it wasn't unusual to read news (or opinion) articles that stated that Israel's problems with Turkey and its diplomatic troubles in the UN were due to Netanyahu's "hard line" and that Israel was "isolated" because of it.
Israel has now agreed to an arms deal with Azerbaijan.
Israeli defense officials on Sunday confirmed $1.6 billion in deals to sell drones as well as anti-aircraft and missile defense systems to Azerbaijan, bringing sophisticated Israeli technology to the doorstep of archenemy Iran.
The sales by state-run Israel Aerospace Industries come at a delicate time. Israel has been laboring hard to form diplomatic alliances in a region that seems to be growing increasingly hostile to the Jewish state.
Recently Soner Cagaptay observed that Turkey (despite its Islamist leanings) and Iran have become increasingly alienated. In Next up: Turkey vs. Iran, he writes:
Then came the Arab Spring. The uprising in Syria put Ankara and Tehran at polar opposite ends of the regional and political spectrum. Given its democratic traditions, Turkey supported the revolution and sided with the protesters; authoritarian Iran continued its support for the Assad regime and backed his brutal crackdown on civilians.
The Syrian uprising has become a zero-sum game: Either Bashar al-Assad will win, or the demonstrators will triumph. Likewise, it has become a proxy war between Tehran and Ankara, in which there will be only one winner.
Hence, all is fair game now between Ankara and Tehran. Encouraged by Iran, Assad ignored Turkish advice to reform. Turkey is now supporting, hosting, and reportedly arming the Syrian opposition. Iran's response has been to strike at Turkey by once again supporting the P.K.K., which has launched dozens of deadly attacks, killing more than 150 Turks since the summer of 2011.
Hamas, too, has officially left its headquarters in Syria:
In recent months, Hamas has increasingly drifted away from longtime patrons Iran and Syria, in part because of Syrian President Bashar Assad's bloody campaign against regime opponents. At the same time, Hamas has moved closer to its parent movement, the pan-Arab Muslim Brotherhood, which scored political gains from the uprisings of the Arab Spring and has tried to position itself as open-minded to widen its voter appeal.
So will we start reading articles explaining that Iran's extremism has led to unprecedented diplomatic isolation?
3) Well what then were the Libyan rebels?
In an analysis, Syria, Iran and the Obama Doctrine, David E. Sanger of the New York Times writes:
In Syria, where the death toll is already above 6,000 by most estimates, there is no equivalent NATO operation; so far, a limited intervention to spur a coup or create a “safe zone” for Syrian civilians near the Turkish border is all still talk. So at first glance, providing arms looks like the next-best option. But the worry is that what started as a protest movement has morphed into what Steven Heydemann, a Syria expert at the United States Institute of Peace, described as “a dangerous and uncoordinated array of armed opposition fighters.” While there is an entity called the Free Syrian Army — not to be confused with the civilian Syrian National Council — it is less an army than bands of free-form militias. Some are tribal; some are linked by regional or ethnic bonds; there is no real command structure.
But wasn't that also the case with the Libyan rebels? Was there a real command structure there? As Sanger had observed earlier, the United States only got involved Libya, when NATO did. This sounds like an excuse for inaction, despite the calls by various experts for the creation of no fly zones and/or safe havens.
At the end of the article Sanger writes:
“This is all about guiding the Israelis to a choice that is most likely to delay the Iranian project without prompting the blowback of an airstrike,” one senior member of Mr. Obama’s team said after a delegation led by Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, returned from Israel last weekend. The administration argues, publicly and privately, that a mix of sanctions and covert action will be more effective. Which takes us to the Obama doctrine. When it comes to the use of force, it seems to boil down to this: Mr. Obama is willing to use unilateral force when America’s direct national interests are threatened — the bin Laden raid is the most vivid example. But when the threat is more diffuse, more a matter of preserving global order, his record shows that he insists on United Nations resolutions and the participation of many allies.
This explains why the Israelis are straining so hard to make the case that in a few years Iran could have a missile capability that could reach the United States — they want to fit Iran into that first category. And it explains Mr. Obama’s hesitance to enter a civil war in Syria, where the daily scenes are horrific but American interests are indirect, at best.
Note how Sanger portrays the Israeli case that Iran may soon threaten the United States directly as "straining."
Here's Reuters (h/t Daily Alert)
Israel believes that within 2-3 years Iran will have intercontinental missiles able to hit the United States. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz’s assessment, in an interview with CNBC, was in line with an unclassified U.S. Defense Department report in 2010 that estimated Iran may be able to build a U.S.-range missile by 2015.
The Israeli argument is consistent with an "unclassified U.S. Defense Department report." Hardly sounds like the Israelis are straining, but in agreement with an American assessment.
In both these cases it seems like the New York Times reporter is dignifying the administration's inaction by calling it a doctrine.
Labels: arms sales, Azerbaijan, Egyptian democracy, Hamas, Iran, Middle East Media Sampler, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising, Turkey
'Ground zero for intelligence work'
There's what purports to be an interview with a Mossad agent in Sunday's
Times of London. Unfortunately, the Times is so deeply behind a paywall these days that you can't find the article in the
Times - nor in the
Australian, which reprints many
Times articles. I found out about the interview
here, and found the full text
here.
A few hours south of Baku is the border with Iran, which Shimon calls “the grey zone” for intelligence operatives. “There is a great deal of information there from people who regularly and freely travel across the borders. It is unregulated — almost. Except for the Iranians who are watching us watch them,” he said.
Dr Orujlu said that thousands of Iranian Revolutionary Guard members were operating in Azerbaijan. He estimated that there were fewer agents from Israel’s Mossad agency, but that they operated in a “more effective” way. “The Iranians act in the open, they want everyone to know that they are here. The Israelis are more subtle, like the Americans. But in the end everyone knows they are here too.”
In his previous work in counter-intelligence, Dr Orujlu tried to keep tabs on who was in the country and what they were working on. “But there are so many of them and we are a small country. They play above us,” he said.
Zazdusht Aleizada, who met The Times in the newspaper offices he runs, said the spy networks were an “open secret” in Baku. “We all know that they are here. The only secret is how much money they paid the Azerbaijani Government in bribes.”
...
“There is a natural relationship between Azerbaijan and Iran. Azerbaijan is a gateway to Iran,” said Kamil Salimov, a law professor at Baku University with former ties to the Government. About 16 per cent of Iranians are native Azeris, many of whom live in the northern part of Iran and enjoy visa-free travel between the two countries.
But tensions between the two countries have recently been on the rise, with the state-run Azerbaijani news service increasingly reporting the mistreatment of Azeris in Iran.
“There is anger over perceived Iranian arrogance, and the fact that Iran continues to support and grow ties with Armenia, with which Azerbaijan has a territorial dispute,” said Mehman Aliyev, director of the independent news agency Turan.
Israel has capitalised on such discontent and an open market in Azerbaijan, forging business and military links over the past two decades. Israel buys 30 per cent of its oil from Azerbaijan, and recently awarded a lucrative gas-drilling contract off the coast of southern Israel to an Azerbaijani company. Israel has also recently set up a factory outside Baku, which makes approximately one third of the parts for its drones. The unmanned aerial vehicles, which are used to gather intelligence, are also being sold to Azerbaijan amid speculation that a base is being constructed for a permanent mission over Iran.
“The Azerbaijani military force is already completed in sync with the Israeli and American systems,” Dr Orujlu said. “Largely because the Americans have been using Azerbaijan for medevacs from Afghanistan for years.” Shimon confirmed that the Israeli and Azerbaijani militaries were “well acquainted” with one another.
But for residents of Azerbaijan who maintain ties to Iran, the newfound closeness with Israel is a subject of distress.
Hmmm.
Read the whole thing. I have to say that given what a small country we are, I am constantly impressed with how we supposedly have spy networks around the world.
Labels: Azerbaijan, Iranian nuclear threat, Mossad
Now Erdogan wants an apology from... Armenia?
If the World is willing to tolerate the lies and innuendo of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan regarding Israel, will they also tolerate it regarding Armenia? Erdogan, whose country committed genocide against the Armenians 90-100 years ago, murdering a million and a half of them in the process, is now demanding that Armenia
apologize to Turkey!
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said in Baku that Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan should apologize for calling on school children to occupy eastern Turkey.
Speaking at a joint news conference with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Erdoğan said Sarksyan's remarks did not befit a statesman and called them a “historical mistake” that should be corrected.
When asked by a student at a literature contest ceremony if Armenians will be able to get back their “western territories” along with Mt. Ararat, Sarksyan said, "This is the task of your generation.”
Armenians attach great historical and cultural importance to Mt. Ararat on the eastern border of modern-day Turkey, around where Armenians are believed to have first adopted Christianity as an official religion in 301 A.D.
Sarksyan said his generation had fulfilled its task by “getting back” Karabakh, a part of what he called “our motherland.” Nagorno-Karabakh is an Azerbaijani territory which is currently under Armenian occupation.
Leaders of both countries have met dozens of times to find a settlement to the decades-long conflict but have failed to secure a peace agreement. Armenia currently occupies 20 percent of Azerbaijan's territories, including seven adjacent provinces populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis.
...
Erdoğan said Sarksyan's behavior is a provocation and an attempt to fill youth with hatred, which he said will lead Armenia's youth into “darkness.” “There cannot be such diplomacy. Sarksyan has made a very serious mistake … he must apologize,” Erdoğan added.
...
Aliyev also deplored Sarksyan's remarks and said Armenians should wake up “from a dream into real life.” He said Nagorno-Karabakh is an Azerbaijani territory and that Sarksyan's words that they will occupy, what he called, “historical Turkish lands” only show their occupation mentality, adding that it seems as if Armenia thinks they have already settled the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. “Azerbaijan will get back their territories, either through peace or military means,” Aliyev said.
In Yerevan, Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharyan rejected interpreting Sarksyan’s words as if he meant to encourage students to occupy eastern Turkey, stating that his words were taken out of context.
“I believe, Turks failed to read the full text, interpreting the president’s words out of context. Serzh Sarksyan’s statement is serious and reasonable. The only reason Turkey refuses see sense behind it is because the country doesn’t need it,” Kocharyan said, Armenian news portal panarmenian.net reported late on Wednesday.
JPost adds:
Erdogan’s demand for an Armenian apology comes just a few days after he threatened Israel with a “Plan B” – a further downgrading of ties – if it did not apologize for last year’s Mavi Marmara incident.
“What we see here is a pattern developing,” one Israeli diplomatic source said of Erdogan’s most recent demand for an apology. “Who is going to ask Erdogan to apologize for Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus?”
So will
Obama take Turkey's side against Armenia too?
Labels: Armenia, Armenian genocide, Azerbaijan, Barack Hussein Obama, Ilham Aliyev, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Serzh Sarksyan, Turkey
Sanctions? What sanctions?
Despite the international sanctions against the Iranian regime, Iran has entered into a
blockbuster gas deal with neighboring Azerbaijan (Hat Tip:
Is Iran's Fist Still Clenched?).
Azerbaijan on Wednesday agreed a five-year deal to supply gas to neighbouring Iran, officials at the ex-Soviet republic's State Oil Company said.
The agreement stipulates annual supply of at least one billion cubic metres.
"At the beginning of every year, the parties will agree the volumes of gas to be supplied during the year ahead but it will be a minimum of one billion cubic metres," said the president of Azerbaijan's State Oil Company, Rovnag Abdullayev.
Abdullayev said that supplies would start in February.
"The signing of the gas contract is a new and great step," the Iranian Oil Minister and current head of OPEC, Masoud Mir-Kazemi, who is visiting Baku, told the Trend news agency.
Iran holds the world's second largest natural gas reserves after Russia but lack of foreign investment in its massive fields, energy inefficiency and colossal domestic demand means it still needs to import gas.
But don't worry: A European Union envoy was due in Baku - Azerbaijan's capital - at the end of last week... to secure their own supply.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Azerbaijan, Iran, Iran sanctions regime, natural gas
