Powered by WebAds

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Video: How Iran is helping Syria

Would you believe that Iran is sending Revolutionary Guard members and ammunition to Syria on commercial flights?

Let's go to the videotape.



What could go wrong?

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Is the US a 98-pound weakling?

Those of us who grew up in the 1960's remember ads like the one above from comic books. On Tuesday, Iran is acting like the bully, kicking sand in the United States' face with a demand that the USS John Stennis not return to its Persian Gulf base. And unfortunately, the current occupant of the White House is the 98-pound weakling.
Iran's army chief told the United States that a US aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises should not return to the Gulf, the state news agency reported on Tuesday.

"Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy’s carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Ataollah Salehi told IRNA.

"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.

Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned.
JPost adds:
Also on Tuesday, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Vadim Koval told the Interfax news source that Russia doesn't believe Iran has long-range missiles. According to Koval, Iran does not possess the necessary technology to create these weapons in the near future and has so far only tested short and medium range missiles.

The statement came after Iranian state TV's website quoted on Monday a senior navy commander saying that the Islamic Republic test fired two long-range missiles during a 10-day naval exercise in the Gulf. Iran said that it is was using the test display its resolve to counter any attack by enemies such as Israel or the United States.

"We have test fired a long-range shore-to-sea missile called Qader (capable), which managed to successfully destroy predetermined targets in the Gulf," deputy Navy Commander Mahmoud Mousavi told the official news agency IRNA. Later Monday, Mousavi added that "our Nour surface-to-surface long range missile was also successfully launched."
Yeah right.

The real question is why the Stennis got out of the way of those exercises in the first place. Who gave that order? Obviously, the coward who sits in the White House.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

I'll believe it when I see it

New US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is threatening a unilateral American response to the supply of weapons by Iran to Islamic terrorists in Iraq.
Fourteen US military personnel were killed in Iraq in June, the highest monthly toll in three years.

...

"We are very concerned about Iran and the weapons they are providing to extremists here in Iraq. And we're seeing the results of that," Panetta said. "In June we lost a hell of a lot of Americans as a result of those attacks. And we cannot just simply stand back and allow this to continue to happen ..."

Panetta, on his first trip to Iraq as defense secretary, said Washington's first effort would be to press the Iraqi government and military to go after Shi'ite groups responsible for the attacks.

"Secondly, to do what we have to do unilaterally, to be able to go after those threats as well, and we're doing that," he said.

"And thirdly, to bring pressure on Iran to not engage in this kind of behavior. Because, very frankly, they need to know that our first responsibility is to protect those that are defending our country. And that is something we are going to do."
Does Panetta realize what administration he now serves? Obama's response to an attack on American diplomatic personnel in Damascus was to order the Marines to hold their fire and then to threaten a lawsuit. Does Panetta really believe that Obama will approve any military action against Iran or its proxies? What could go wrong?

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Iran influencing elections in Egypt, putting down revolt in Syria

Military Intelligence Chief Aviv Kochavi briefed the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday, and told the panel that Iran's tentacles extend throughout the Middle East.
“Iraq is attempting to influence the political process in Egypt through efforts to connect with the Muslim Brotherhood,” Kochavi said.

Kochavi also said that the Muslim Brotherhood is pressing for elections in Egypt to take place as soon as possible, because it is "the only group that's ready for elections."

"The international community is trying to delay the vote so more moderate groups can be better organized," he explained.

In the meantime, the Egyptian army is losing control of the Sinai, according to Kochavi.

The IDF intelligence chief also reported that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear explosive within two years.

"Iran recovered from the last wave of sanctions, even though the international consensus surprised them," Kochavi said.

He also emphasized Iranian influence throughout the region, including Turkey.

"We see closer relations between Iran and Turkey, which are focused mostly on trade, but also include military matters," he said.

“Iran is taking advantage of the upheaval in the Middle East to deepen their infiltration into states and organizations in the region,” he added, saying that the Islamic Republic is working in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq and Gaza.

"As Iran continues to work on its nuclear project, it works to transfer weapons and instill radical Islamic ideologies throughout the Middle East," Kochavi explained.

In addition "the potential for a cyber-attack is growing, and will eventually be a greater threat than Iran's other weapons."

Kochavi also said that Iran was active in planning the “Nakba” and “Naksa” day demonstrations and border crossings from Lebanon.

“Iran is making efforts to ensure that such events will continue,” he explained, "but they were disappointed that [the border crossings] were not more successful."

"Iran and Hezbollah are actively helping the Syrian regime in oppressing protesters," Kochavi said. "They are transferring means for dispersing demonstrations, knowledge and technical aid."

"They are motivated to help due to their deep fear of the demonstrations' implications, especially losing their partnership with the Syrians and a trickling of protests into their territory," he explained.
What could go wrong? Read the whole thing.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, March 07, 2011

How Iran uses the Arabs

A fascinating article in Sunday's New York Times by Iranian Karim Sadjapour provides some insight into how Iran uses Arab Muslims in its war against Israel.
Until now, Iran’s interests have been served by the Arab status quo: frustrated populations ruled over by emasculated regimes incapable of checking Israel, and easily dismissed as American co-dependents. A conversation I once had with a senior Iranian diplomat is instructive.

He complained, justifiably, about Washington’s excessive focus on military power to solve political problems. I posed a simple hypothetical: What if, instead of having spent several billion dollars financing Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad over the past three decades, Iran had spent that money educating tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites to become doctors, professors and lawyers? Wouldn’t those communities now be much better off and in a much stronger position to assert their rights vis-à-vis Israel?

“What good would that have done for Iran?” he responded candidly. (He himself had a doctorate from a British university.) “Do you think if we sent them abroad to study they would return to southern Lebanon and Gaza to fight Israel? Of course not; they would have remained doctors, lawyers and professors.”

Iran, in essence, understands that it can inspire and champion the region’s downtrodden and dispossessed, but not the upwardly mobile. Its strategy to dominate the Middle East hinges less on building nuclear weapons than on the twin pillars of oil and alienation.
The longer I live here and the more I read, the more convinced I am that it is Islam that is responsible for Israel's dispute with the Arabs.

Imagine the unlikely outcome that all of the current 'revolutions' in Arab countries were to be democratic and without an Islamist component. Imagine, if you would, that the Arabs will vote just like most people in the West vote: Am I better off economically than I was two or four or five or six years ago? Does anyone really doubt that we would reach an agreement with such reasonable democrats within some period of time?

Of course, what I'm discussing is a fantasy world. In the real world, most Arabs are loyal Muslims and they are required by their religion to attempt to subjugate, convert or murder Jews - and Christians for that matter. It is for that reason that a 'peace agreement' between Israel and its Arab neighbors is unlikely to be attained or sustained. In the real world, Iran and other 'true believers' will continue to fight to the last Lebanese, Gazan, Egyptian and Syrian - and Iranian for that matter - to destroy Israel (God forbid).

Read the whole thing.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

How Iran is striving for regional dominance

One of the things we can see from the Wikileaks document dump is how Iran is striving for regional dominance - and how the US is ignoring that effort.
The method depicted and discussed is familiar: Local Islamist proxies are located, organized and exploited (the creation of “mini-Hizbullahs” in Saudi King Abdullah’s memorable words used in one of the cables), and influence is accumulated through the combination of ground-level brute force and Machiavellian maneuver.

The documents reveal that this Iranian effort is uppermost on the minds of the rulers of the Arab states that Iran is targeting. They suggest that the stronger Arab states are organizing political and intelligence warfare of their own to combat the Iranian effort. They also strongly indicate the absence of a corresponding sense of urgency among US administration officials.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in a meeting with Sen. John Kerry, says that “Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism is well-known, but I cannot say it publicly. It would create a dangerous situation.”

His intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, in a meeting with Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, is more explicit regarding Egyptian efforts to counter Iranian subversion.

Suleiman noted that Iran is “very active” in Egypt and that it is granting $25 million per month to Hamas.

Suleiman asserts that Iran has tried to transfer payments to the Kassam Brigades in Gaza, which Egypt has prevented.

He also notes Egypt’s apprehending of what he describes as a large “Hizbullah cell” on its soil (the 49-man cell apprehended by the Egyptian authorities in April 2009), and reports Iranian efforts to recruit among Sinai Beduin.

Suleiman tells Mullen that Egypt has begun a “confrontation with Hizbullah and Iran.” He mentions that his service has begun to recruit agents in Syria and Iraq, and says that Egypt has sent a clear message to Iran that if it continues to interfere in Egypt, Egypt will interfere with Iran. Iran, Suleiman concludes, must “pay the price” for its actions and not be allowed to interfere in regional affairs.

Saudi officials quoted sound no less concerned than the Egyptians, but their remarks are notably less robust and more anxious.
And the American reaction?
In the discussion, Brennan responds by noting that the US is reviewing its Iran policy, and observing that the US and Saudi Arabia have a “lot of work to do in the Middle East together.” He then seeks to change the subject.

...

So the leaked cables provide added and deepened color to an already existing picture of regional cold war. They do not require the altering of any of the main contours of that picture.

Iran is attempting a hostile takeover of the local system.

Regional states are concerned by this and are trying to organize in order to frustrate it. The US administration, meanwhile, appears to be failing to acknowledge this overarching reality in private conversation with its allies, just as it refuses to speak its name in public statements.
When the history of this era is written - if it is ever written - the role that the Obama administration's foreign policy is playing in the collapse of the world order is bound to be subjected to public scrutiny. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.

What could go wrong?

Labels: , , ,

Google