Israel close to finalizing rail alternative to Suez Canal
As an alternative to the violence-plauged Suez Canal, Israel is on the verge of finalizing a
rail route (Hat Tip:
Ricky G).
Israel is close to finalising the route of a rail alternative to the Suez Canal as instability in Egypt has added to the urgency of a project to connect the Mediterranean with the Red Sea.
Last month 40 people were killed in protests in the three big Egyptian cities lining the canal, and some shipping groups had to suspend work for several days. President Morsi has warned of a “collapse of the State” if protests continue. Fees for using the canal are Egypt’s only reliable source of foreign currency, bringing in about $5 billion (£3.22 billion) of revenue a year.
Israeli officials have publicly denied suggestions that the plan threatens Egypt’s monopoly of one of the world’s most important trade routes. But privately they admitted that they were being asked to plan for the “day after” a closure of the canal.
“There are a number of scenarios that we need to prepare for, including the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt being challenged, or groups attempting to seize control of Suez in one of the ongoing protests there,” one senior Israeli official involved in the project said. “Israel, and the rest of the world, can’t sit around and wait for the day to come where we can’t transport goods between Asia and Europe. We have to create other channels.”
The project, funded by the Chinese Government, would include the construction of a port on the Red Sea coast near the Israeli city of Eilat, and a double-track railway line capable of carrying heavy cargo to the Israeli port of Ashdod on the Mediterranean coast.
Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, has declared it a “national priority” as it would transform Israel into a major player in global shipping. Building on the project, expected to take a decade, could begin this year.
Shipping companies said that Egypt’s military has maintained a strong presence around the canal to ensure that trade is not affected by the protests.
However, Gil Miller, managing director in Israel for the shipping group Maersk Line, said that while neither Maersk nor its big competitors wanted to find an alternative to Suez, recent events had forced them to consider “contingency plans”.
“The few days of disruptions ... were concerning, but manageable. We have, however, prepared other options for our company that can be activated in a short time and we are looking at the route being built in Israel,” Mr Miller said.
Israeli media have estimated that construction of the rail line alone would cost $2 billion, and the enlargement of the ports near Eilat and Ashdod could cost billions more.
An Israeli diplomat said that there was a great deal of interest in the project in China and India, as well as other countries in the region that he could not name due to “sensitivity”.
This week Israel’s Government heard final plans for the route through Israel, which environmentalists claim would cause irreparable damage and be a source of pollution. Israeli officials said that they would hear objections to the route before approving the plans.
Eran Feitelson, a transport expert at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote in Haaretz newspaper: “For Egypt, the Suez Canal is an essential artery for economic survival; we are trying to create a threat to this artery.”
So is their problem environmental impact (we're talking about a rail line, not a highway!) or is their problem the financial impact on Egypt (in which case the answer is that we are not required to let Egypt maintain a stranglehold on us, and if we are able to make money while escaping it, all the better).
Labels: Ashdod, Ashdod port, Egypt, Egyptian economy, Egyptian-Israeli border, Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Eilat, Suez Canal
Egypt rejected US demand to fire on Iranian ship transporting arms to Syria
The Chief Operating Officer of the Suez Canal, who assumed his position on August 12, has told al-Arabiya that he
rejected a demand by the United States to fire upon an Iranian ship carrying arms to Syria (Hat Tip:
MFS - The Other News).
Egyptian Naval Forces recently rejected a U.S. demand to fire on an Iranian vessel loaded with arms and heading to Syria, the chairman of the Suez Canal Authority has told Al Arabiya.
Vice Admiral Mohab Mamish, also former commander of the Egyptian Navy, ruled out the possibility of any military operations in the Suez Canal, to guarantee the security of the international waterway.
“My main goal since I was appointed chairman of the Suez Canal Authority on August 12 is to secure all ships passing through the waterway,” he said in a Saturday interview. “The Suez Canal is a narrow waterway and it is impossible for military actions to take place there.”
Aren't you glad we got rid of Mubarak?
Labels: Egypt, Iran, Suez Canal, Syria
Report: Iran offered Egyptian 50 million pounds to attack Israeli ship in Suez
And you thought they were running out of money due to sanctions....
Two Egyptians were arrested after offering another Egyptian 50 million Egyptian pounds to carry out an attack on an Israeli ship passing through the Suez Canal.
The money came from Iran.
Iran plotted to carry out a terror attack on an Israeli ship as it passed through Egypt's Suez Canal, a report in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram said Friday.
According to the report, two Egyptian terror operatives confessed to receiving instructions and funds from Iranian handlers ahead of the planned attack.
The two suspects have been named as Suleiman Razak and Ahmed Salama, Channel 2 said, citing the Egyptian report.
The suspects allegedly planned to recruit a third member to their cell, and were supposed to received 50 million Egyptian pounds to carry out the plan.
YNet has
a slightly different version of the story:
Egyptian authorities have two suspects in custody – Saliman Rizek abdel Razek and Salame Ahmed Salame.
The two deny any involvement, but according to the report authorities have evidence linking them, via the offer of a 50 million Egyptian pounds payment, to a third suspect – Muhammad Zakri – who they allegedly tried to hire to execute the attack.
Case details quoted by the paper say that Zakri was told he would be "paid by the Shiites," who ordered the attack on the backdrop of their hatred for Israel and their ties with Iran.
YNet implies that
these were the Israeli ships involved in the incident.
Iran's priorities remain destroying Israel despite the supposed effect of sanctions. What could go wrong?
Labels: Iran, Islamic terrorism, Suez Canal
Two Israeli warships cross Suez Canal
Egypt's al-Ahram is reporting that two Israeli warships
crossed the Suez Canal on Tuesday.
Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram reported Tuesday that two Israeli warships crossed Egypt's Suez Canal. According to reports, the two vessels and a French ship left Port Said in the north. The destination of the ships is unclear. The IDF has yet to comment on the report.
The two warships, INS Lahav and INS Yafo arrived at Port Said accompanied by a French vessel "Imidisi", where they joined a fleet.
The Suez sailing supervisor, Ahmed el-Manhali, said that the crossing took 14 hours, and that the ships were accompanied by a Suez authority tow ship for security purposes.
Hmmm.
Labels: Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli warships, Suez Canal
Iranian warships cross Suez Canal
Those two Iranian warships crossed the Suez Canal on Tuesday morning. Israel looked on and
wringed its hands in frustration.
The two ships - the Khark which has 250 crew members and can carry three helicopters and the Alvand which is armed with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles – entered the Suez Canal early Tuesday morning and arrived in the Mediterranean Sea by the evening.
Israeli defense officials said that the ships did not pose a threat to the Israeli Navy which would be watching them from a distance and would not engage them. The Iranian ships will pass Israel at a distance as they make their way towards Syria where they are expected to dock for several months.
“This is a major provocation,” a senior defense official said. “We will keep an eye on the ships.”
The ships sailed through the canal en route to Syria in what Israeli officials say is a provocation by the Iranian regime. It's the first time Iranian military vessels have sailed into the Mediterranean since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The ships reportedly paid about $300,000 in fees for the passage
What could go wrong?
Labels: Iranian warships, Suez Canal, Syria
Iranian warships to cross Suez Canal Tuesday morning?
Israel Radio reported Monday evening that those two Iranian warships had moved their Suez Canal departure up from Wednesday morning to Tuesday morning. But the ships are apparently playing a
cat and mouse game with both the US and Israel, and it remains to be seen whether they will actually depart Tuesday morning.
On Monday, the Haaretz report indicated that Canal officials said “the [two Iranian naval] ships, a frigate and a supply vessel, are close to the southern entrance of the canal.”
A little later, Israel’s freewheeling DebkaFile website reported here that five U.S. warships have been deployed “in recent days”, some at the southern entrance to the Suez Canal, and others along the length of the waterway.
In fact, a U.S. fleet has reportedly been gathered near Ismailiya since early February, as large-scale popular protests against Husni Mubarak and his regime continued in cities throughout Egypt.
According to DebkaFile, an American aircraft carrier escorted by a missile cruiser and a fast supply ship on Thursday “headed south through the canal. By Friday morning, they were through and taking up position opposite the Kharg cruiser and Alvand missile destroyer … A battle of nerves is therefore underway.”
While DebkaFile has repeated its earlier report that “the Kharg was carrying long-range surface missiles for Hizballah”, part of the Haaretz report was much less alarmist, and said that the two Iranian ships “are not thought to be carrying arms shipments for Syria or Hezbollah, as was another Latakia-bound cargo ship stopped by the Israel Navy in November 2009, which turned out to be carrying hundreds of tons of weapons destined for Hezbollah warehouses.”
However, the same Haaretz report also stated that “Although the British-built Alvand is the Iranian navy’s flagship and is armed with Chinese-made missiles, Israeli military officials were confident yesterday that in the event of a confrontation the Israel Navy could sink it without advance preparation. ‘If the navy were to make a positive identification, it could be sunk almost immediately’, one senior official said last night. ‘We’re not even dealing with it, because [the Iranians] are only creating a provocation. From the military and marine perspective, the moment the ships enter the Mediterranean, they’re entering a trap’.”
The DebkaFile report said, in a similar tone, that the position of the U.S. warships “raised the possibility that the moment they venture to sail into the Suez Canal, the two Iranian warships will be boxed in… and called upon the allow their cargoes to be inspected as permitted by the last round of UN sanctions against Iran in the case of suspicious war freights.”
Whether it happens before, during or after their passage through the Suez Canal, the Iranian warships can expect to be hailed, intercepted, and inspected.
Hmmm.
Labels: Iranian warships, Israel Navy, Suez Canal, US Navy
At the Suez Canal, a sign from God?
If there's a connection between these two events, no one in a position of authority has said so explicitly. But the passage of those two Iranian warships through the Suez Canal has been delayed to Wednesday. And around 3:00 am on Monday (recall that ships start moving through the Canal at 6:00 am), an
earthquake measuring 5.9 on the Richter scale hit the entrance to the Suez Canal.
The National Institute for Astronomical and Geophysical Research reported that tremors from the 3 a.m. quake lasted for 27 minutes, but caused no damage.
The ships had originally been expected to enter the Suez today (Monday), but Egyptian officials announced the delay this morning, without explanation.
Iran inexplicably announced Sunday morning that two of its warships had crossed the Suez, a report that was thoroughly denied by Egyptian authorities. Iranian media did not mention the ships on Monday, and the false report may have been for local consumption.
No Iranian ship has been allowed to pass through the Suez Canal since Iran's 1979 overthrow of the Shah and Egypt's signing of a peace treaty with Israel the same year.
Egypt’s agreeing to allow Iranian ships to pass through the Suez is seen by many analysts as a signal that the new regime in Egypt is leaning towards ties with Iran, but Suez Canal officials have pointed out that an international convention requires it allow passage to all ships.Egypt has reportedly agreed to allow the Iranian boats to pass through the canal en route to Syria. The Obama administration is concerned about “what’s the cargo on board, where is it going, to whom, for what benefit," U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters. Iran has said that the ships are headed for Syria for training, Crowley commented, as laughter was heard in the audience: “My initial response to that would be that we’re highly skeptical of that claim.”
I'm glad that Crowley is finding humor in this situation. What could go wrong?
Labels: earthquake, Iranian warships, Suez Canal
Suez Canal Authority: Iranian warships to pass through Canal on Monday
Israel Radio has just reported (1:00 am Sunday) that the Suez Canal Authority announced this evening that
those two Iranian warships will pass through the Canal on Monday.
Israel and the United States have both announced that they will monitor the ships.
It has been reported previously that the ships are headed for
Syria.
Here's a report from
Reuters from a few moments ago:
Two Iranian naval ships will sail through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean on Monday, a Suez Canal official said, in what will be the first passage of Iranian naval ships through the canal since 1979.
...
The official said the vessels would arrive at the southern mouth of the canal in the Red Sea's Gulf of Suez on Sunday. They would enter the canal in the northern convoy on Monday morning and complete the journey to the Mediterranean by evening.
An Egyptian army source said on Friday that the military, which has been running Egypt since President Hosni Mubarak was toppled from power on February 11, had approved Iran's request to send the ships through the canal.
The decision had posed an early diplomatic headache for Egypt's interim government. Cairo is an ally of the United States and has a peace treaty with Israel but its relations with Iran have been strained since the 1979 revolution.
Egypt's Western allies are watching for hints of any shift in policy toward its Middle East neighbors.
Ships pass through at 6:00 am every day. So be prepared for 6:00 am Monday.
UPDATE 1:39 AMMore
here.
UPDATE 2:00 AMIsrael Radio's 2:00 am news reports that the Egyptians first 'verified' that the ships were not carrying weapons or nuclear or biological warfare material. I can imagine how.
Labels: Iranian warships, Suez Canal, Syria
Iranian warships don't pass through are in the Northern Red Sea waiting to pass through Suez
Those
two Iranian warships that were supposed to
pass through the Suez Canal on Wednesday night never made it. There are several different versions of the story, which basically fall into two categories. Either the
Egyptians denied them passage or the Iranians
decided not to come. One version even suggests that the ships are
still in Jeddah, in which case the question is why anyone thought that they were in range of the canal in the first place. During the day on Thursday, the Iranians took the trouble to
deny reports that they had withdrawn their application for passage.
But late Thursday night, Israel Radio is reporting that Iranian sources claim that the ships are in the Northern Red Sea
waiting to pass through the canal. And while Egyptian sources are not confirming that report, they are saying that they have
received an application for the ships to pass through (which they had not received earlier) and that the application had been referred to Egypt's defense ministry. Generally, if countries are not at war with Egypt, according to the Egyptian sources, their ships are allowed to pass through the canal. The statement notes that Egypt says it is not at war with Iran.
So much for those UN sanctions.
But what's perhaps most astounding about this story is the
clueless manner in which the Obama administration has reacted.
Following on the theme that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization and that U.S. intelligence gets its breaking information from CNN, we have this remarkable statement in the State Department briefing by Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley:
"I believe there are two Iranian warships or, I mean, I don't know what kind of ships they are. There are two ships in the Red Sea. What their intention is, what their destination is, I don’t – I can’t say. Look, there are reports that there are a couple of ships in the Red Sea. What they do, where they go, we’ll follow this with some curiosity."
Curiosity indeed! Here's what appeared on my blog four days before this press briefing:
...
"Not only is this a strategic alarm bell for the United States and Israel but also for the Saudis themselves. Bereft now of their last significant Arab ally and feeling unable to depend on the United States, the Saudis are facing their worst strategic situation since the 1950s at a time when Iran is spreading its influence and racing toward nuclear weapons."
Read the whole thing.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Iranian warships, Saudi Arabia, Suez Canal, Syria
Iran pushes the envelope
As I reported in an earlier post, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Wednesday - and Defense Minister Ehud Barak later confirmed - that two Iranian warships were scheduled to
pass through the Suez Canal on Wednesday night on their way to Syria.
Haaretz reports that the United States is monitoring the two ships - which were in the Red Sea last night - but that the Egyptian company that operates the canal
denies that the ships were going to pass through.
The Egyptian company which controls the canal has denied the claim. Ahmed el-Manakhli, head of the canal operations room, said warships must get permission 48 hours before crossing, and so far, "we have not been notified."
J.E. Dyer talks about the
ships' mission, and why they have caused such an uproar.
The ships themselves are hardly impressive: one frigate with old anti-ship missiles and one barely armed replenishment ship. From that perspective, the reactions of global markets might seem excessive. These ships can’t fight a war. But the reactions are actually quite rational. The big shift here is in political perceptions of power. The important facts are that revolutionary, terror-sponsoring Iran — under U.S., EU, and UN sanctions — feels free to conduct this deployment, and Syria feels free to cooperate in it. Egypt’s interim rulers apparently saw no reason to block the Suez transit, in spite of the Egyptians’ very recent concern over Iranian-backed terrorists and insurgents operating on their territory. Saudi Arabia, for its part, considered it prudent to host the Iranian warships last week — in spite of the Saudis’ own conviction that Iran has been aiding rebel groups that threaten Saudi territory.
The cooperation from the Arab nations should not be misread, however. The Arabs have no desire to see Iran in a position of regional hegemony. The threat of that prospect will raise the stakes for the governmental turmoil in the Arab world. The view is likely to gain momentum that Arabs need to organize as much to counter Iran as to address their own domestic issues. That factor — so inimical to the unforced development of political liberalism — was never going to be dismissible; the Iranian warship deployment makes it inevitable.
In information-speak, Iran is “inside our OODA-loop” right now: acting faster than we have prepared to react. Complacent assumptions about inertia in the status quo will not be borne out. Iran’s proximate strategic objective is consolidating the rule of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Former prime minister Saad Hariri declared his opposition to the Hezbollah-backed government in a speech on Monday; Hassan Nasrallah is promising that Hezbollah fighters will occupy Galilee; Ehud Barak warned on Wednesday that Israel might have to enter Lebanon again to counter Hezbollah. With the battle lines being drawn, Iran’s posture is hardening: the Islamic revolutionary regime is “all in.”
Although Israel will take action to stop this if it feels endangered, I see this as a challenge to the United States. The Saudis loathe the Iranians, but they allowed these ships to call at a Saudi port because they are afraid that no one will respond to Iran's aggression. Given the upheaval in Egypt, it's not clear where they stand, but even an Islamist government in Sunni Egypt may not have much in common with Iran other than hatred for Israel. Both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are getting out of the strong horse's way. On the other hand, the Syrians and Hezbullah are laughing all the way to the bank.
Will the United States respond to put a stop to Iran's aggression to its allies in this region? Or will it stand aside and allow Iran to dominate the region? What could go wrong?
Labels: Iranian warships, strong horse, Suez Canal
Breaking: Iranian warships to pass through Suez Canal tonight
Israel Radio has just reported (6:00 pm Wednesday) that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has condemned the news that two Iranian warships will pass through the Suez Canal on Wednesday night on their way to Syria.
In June 2010,
American and Israeli warships crossed the canal heading toward Iran.
In February 2010,
Israeli warships crossed the canal.
In July 2009, an
Israeli submarine crossed the canal.
I guess more than the regime has changed in Egypt.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Egyptian regime change, Iranian warships, Israeli warships, Suez Canal
Iranian warships port in Saudi Arabia
In an unprecedented move, two
Iranian warships called in the Saudi port of Jeddah last week.
Iranian peace and friendship flotilla have reached Jeddah port to continues navigation activities, ISNA reported.
"Islamic Republic of Iran's navy flotilla arrived in Jeddah port on Sunday to continue mighty presence in high seas with the aim of fostering amicable relations and sending message of peace and friendship to regional countries," said Iranian naval force commander Habibollah Sayyari.
The flotilla involve Islamic Republic of Iran's Khark warship and Alvand destroyer.
He also expressed hope the country can send message of peace and friendship to regional countries through dispatch of Iranian flotilla to strategic Red Sea, Gulf of Aden as well as friend and Muslim countries' ports including Jeddah port in Saudi Arabia.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran's navy is determined to continue presence in high seas to protect interest of the country and spread message of peace and security in sensitive northern Indian Ocean," he added.
J.E. Dyer
comments:
The two-ship Iranian task force, consisting of two British-built vessels, Vosper Mark V-class frigate Alvand and supply ship Kharg, left Iran on 26 January, according to Iranian news sources. The next day, a senior naval officer announced that the task force, deployed as the 12th Naval Group, “would enter the Red Sea and the Mediterranean waters.” The prospect of a Mediterranean deployment is as unprecedented as the Saudi port visit. There is no guarantee it will actually happen, but the timing is interesting.
While the Mubarak regime was in power, there was little possibility of Egypt permitting an Iranian naval task force to transit the Suez Canal. I’m not convinced any Egyptian authority will agree to such a transit before the country’s political future is sorted out – I certainly don’t think the Iranians know their warships are approaching a Canal that will be opened to them by a specific, expected change in political conditions. But what I do perceive is a bold move by Iran.
The current regime engages in a lot of bluster, but putting warships in the Red Sea port of America’s long-time partner Saudi Arabia is genuine action. For no navy on earth – not even ours – is a naval deployment undertaken easily or lightly. This is a big deal for them. It’s also a big deal for Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been alarmed about revolutionary Iran’s activities for a long time; the chill between the two nations has meant precisely that things like naval port visits don’t happen. The Saudis wouldn’t have accepted this visit if they didn’t perceive their US-backed position as vulnerable and exposed.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Egyptian regime change, Iranian warships, Jeddah port, Suez Canal
Did Israel approve?
Here are a couple of interesting tweets from Sultan al-Qassemi, who is a writer for the Emirati newspaper, the National. They are
here and
here.
I wonder whether the Mubarak government sought Israeli approval before sending troops to the Suez Peninsula as is required under the Camp David treaty. Either they did, or Israel has chosen not to object. Either way, I have heard nothing about a request for Israeli approval here in Israel.
By the way, the same is true regarding
Sharm el-Sheikh, where the Egyptian military has also entered.
Labels: Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Politics, Suez Canal, World Politics
