Obama could stop Iranian weapons purchases... but he won't
Under the atrocious nuclear agreement with Iran, President Hussein Obama has the legal authority to stop Iran from purchasing all those Russian weapons. But, reports Adam Kredo, he won't.
“We’re aware of ongoing discussions between Russia and Iran regarding
possible purchases of military equipment,” a State Department official
who was not authorized to speak on record told the Free Beacon
in response to inquiries. “If we have concerns about specific
transactions, we’ll express those concerns through the appropriate
channels, whether bilaterally with Russia or at the U.N. if any
specific transaction violates any U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
However, critics of the administration’s outreach to Iran expressed
skepticism. They maintain that the White House is turning a blind eye to
Iranian violations of the nuclear accord in order to preserve
diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic.
“The U.N. resolution to endorse the flawed Iran nuclear deal actually
gives the United States and other members of the Security Council the
power to review and legally block arms sales by Russia or other actors
to Iran,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), a critic of the nuclear accord,
told the Free Beacon. “But as Russia and Iran further escalate
their use of indiscriminate military force in the Middle East, the
administration appears wholly unwilling to use this power.”
According to the terms of the U.N. resolution governing the nuclear
agreement, the U.S. and other Security Council members are provided with
the power to approve “in advance on a case-by-case basis” most
conventional arms sales to Iran.
The statute specifically applies to the “supply, sale, or transfer”
to Iran of many conventional arms, including “battle tanks, armored
combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft,
attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or missile systems,” according
to the resolution.
Iran is reportedly seeking to purchase from Russia a new cadre of advanced Russian-made warplanes and other arms.
The provision requires the Security Council to individually approve
the sale of these weapons for the next five years. Any member of the
council has the right to veto a measure, meaning that the United States
“could effectively block such a sale,” according to Michael Singh, a
former White House national security official who worked on the Iran
portfolio.
“It appears that the Obama administration has the authority to block
any sale of fighter aircraft to Iran,” said Singh, managing director of
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “In pressing for the
approval of the nuclear deal by Congress, the administration discussed
these arms restrictions (and related missile restrictions) as de facto
bans, there will certainly be an expectation that they would use that
authority.”
...
“Critics of the deal insisted that the Obama administration would be too
intimidated to ever use those mechanisms because then Iran would walk
away from the deal,” the source said. “This arms sale suggests the
critics were right and that the deal supporters bamboozled Congress.”
After Kredo's piece was published, the Obama administration tried to sound a more forceful note.
Update 4:10 p.m.: Following publication, officials
familiar with the situation said they expect the administration to be
more forceful in raising concerns about these sales, particularly the
transfer of advanced war jets.
Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said that he insisted
during the negotiations that Iran be able to purchase and ship military
hardware at any time and from any place, according to the comments made
on state-controlled television.
Araghchi vowed “to buy weapons from wherever possible, and [said that
Iran] is to provide weapons to whomever and whenever it considers
appropriate,” according to a translation of his comments made by the
Open Source Center.
...
“When they [the P5+1] said that they were not going to lift weapons
and missiles sanctions, or at least not immediately, we explicitly told
them that there could be no agreement because we will not sacrifice our
national security for anything,” Araghchi was quoted as saying during
the interview with an Iranian television network.
“With regards to our national security, our defense systems, and our
missiles systems, we are not even willing to negotiate, let alone
compromise,” Araghchi claimed he told the global powers in the
negotiating room.
Araghchi went on to insist that “if you want to have an agreement in
which sanctions imposed on us for weapons and missiles will continue,
then we will not agree.”
He continued: “Whenever we consider it necessary for our own
security, [or] to help our allies in the region we will provide weapons.
… We don’t feel shy. We will provide weapons to whomever and whenever
we consider appropriate. And we will buy weapons from wherever we can.”
This demand “was made clear to the other party,” according to the Open Source Center’s analysis.
...
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes,
expressed concern that less than a week after the deal was announced,
Iran is already challenging U.S. claims about what the agreement does.
...
“This nuclear accord will not bring peace; rather, it has simply opened
the floodgates to murder and mayhem on a scale the region hasn’t seen in
decades,” Rubin said. “The Iranians are basically saying they will
provide rocket-propelled grenades and explosively-formed projectiles
anytime, anywhere. Only when they say anytime, anywhere, they actually
mean it.”
So which version of the 'agreement' will be presented to Congress? The US one that the Iranians have disavowed, the UN one that the Iranians have disavowed, or the Iranian one that is a moving target?
Ansarullah sources revealed to the FNA that after
they drove all the 40 Saudi embassy guards out of the embassy and
captured the compound, it found a large cache of Israeli-made weapons
and ammunition.
The Yemeni forces also disclosed that they have discovered documents
showing that the US intends to establish a military base on Saudi
Arabia’s Myon Island near Bab al-Mandeb Strait to protect their own
interests and ensure the security of Israel.
The Riyadh government has also asked Tel Aviv for
state-of-the-art weapons to supply the terrorist groups in Yemen and
forces loyal to fugitive President Mansour Hadi.
In April, senior Yemeni officials disclosed that the Riyadh government has used Israeli-made weapons in its airstrikes on Yemen.
"The Saudis are using Israeli weapons in their raids on Yemen," Yemeni Army Commander Taher Rasoul Zadami told FNA.
The reports said Ansarullah took control of the
Saudi embassy in Sana'a in reaction to the Saudis' continued attacks on
residential areas and hospitals alongside army positions in Yemen.
How convenient.... If only it were true... there would be a much bigger story: There are very few weapons that Israel may sell without American approval (because of the military relations between the two countries - recall this). I guess Iran is afraid of that hot potato.
Speaking to official state media in Russia, Putin said that any such
deals between Israel and Ukraine would be “counterproductive” and would
“only cause a new round of hostility.”
“The death toll would
rise, but the result would not change,” Putin was quoted as telling
Rossiya, the official state-run television channel.
...
“It’s a choice for the Israeli leadership to make, they can do what they see necessary,” Putin said.
Something tells me that Putin doesn't really want a direct confrontation with Israel. He just wants money from Iran. Perhaps we should offer to buy the S-300 instead?
On Monday, Russia's Presidential Spokesman Dmitry
Peskov said that supplies of the Russian S-300 air defense missile
systems to Iran may begin any moment in line with the relevant decree
signed by the Russian president,
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree
on Monday to lift the ban on the delivery of S-300 air defense missile
systems to Iran.
"The decree stipulates… no delays," Peskov told
journalists adding that the second provision of the decree states that
"it comes into force on the day it was signed."
...
In January, Tehran and Moscow signed an agreement
to broaden their defensive cooperation and also resolve the problem with
the delivery of Russia's S300 missile defense systems to Iran.
The agreement was signed by General Dehqan and his
visiting Russian counterpart General Sergei Shoigu in a meeting in
Tehran in January.
The Iranian and Russian defense ministers agreed
to resolve the existing problems which have prevented the delivery of
Russia's advanced air defense systems to Iran in recent years.
The two sides also agreed to broaden their defense cooperation and joint campaign against terrorism and extremism.
In 2007, Iran signed a contract worth $800mln to buy five Russian S300 missile defense systems.
But the deal was scrapped in 2010 by the
then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who was unilaterally expanding
on sanctions against Iran imposed by the UN Security Council.
Iran filed a $4bln lawsuit against Russia in the international arbitration court in Geneva, which is currently pending review.
But Amir Rappaport reports that Israel is not taking this lying down. Israeli defense officials have told him that Israel may sell advanced weapons systems to Georgia and Ukraine in response to the Russian move.
To understand the relationship between the transactions between Israel,
Ukraine and Georgia and the recent Russian move, we should go back to
the background of things: Russia was planning to sell Iran the advanced
S300 missiles defense system at the end of the last decade.
The weapon system is considered to have strategic
capabilities. Although the Russians have not offered the Iranians the
most advanced version of the system they possess, it is still an
anti-aircraft system that can hit aircraft even at ranges of 150 km – a
huge challenge for every Air Force, including the Israeli Air Force.
The deal between Russia and Iran was canceled in 2010,
under the pressure of Israel and against the background of global
sanctions imposed on the Iranian regime. In a silent understanding,
Israel has refrained from selling advanced weapons systems to Ukraine
and Georgia, that are both considered enemies of Russia. Regarding
Georgia, the supply of Israeli arms was completely stopped after their
war with the Russians at the end of the last decade (and after Israeli
weapons brought down several Russian helicopters). Regarding Ukraine,
several transactions were on the agenda recently, including the sale of
advanced unmanned aircraft amounting tens of thousands of dollars. These
transactions were frozen based on a demand of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, in view of the "delicate" relationship between Israel and
Russia. Now, it is quite possible that the approval for exporting Israel
arms to Ukraine will be granted.
Rappaport also reports that the S-300 systems being sold to Iran are not the most advanced of such systems (but would still complicate an Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities), and that contrary to other reports, delivery will take at least three years.
Still, I would view any prospect of delivery of the S-300 to Iran as reason for the advancement of an Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Belgian under arrest for selling weapons to Paris Kosher market terrorist
A Belgian man is under arrest for selling weapons to Amedy Coulibaly (pictured), the terrorist who murdered four Jews in a Paris Kosher supermarket on Friday.
Belgian media reported that a man had handed
himself in to police in the southern city of Charleroi on Tuesday,
saying he had been in touch with Amedy Coulibaly, the militant who took
hostages in a Jewish supermarket in the French capital and was later
killed by security forces.
According
to the reports, the man said that he swindled Coulibaly in a car sale,
but police later found evidence that the two were negotiating about the
sale of ammunition for a 7.62 mm caliber firearm.
Bullets
of this caliber are needed for the Tokarev pistol that Coulibaly used
in his attack on the supermarket in Paris, where he killed four
hostages, and possibly in the shooting and injuring of a jogger two days
earlier.
"The man is being held by
the judge in Charleroi on suspicion of arms dealing," a spokesman for
Belgium's federal prosecution said. "Further investigations will have to
show whether there is a link with the events in Paris," he added.
According to this report in the Belgian Le Soir (link in French), the alleged arms dealer, Un Carolo, turned himself in because he was afraid that Coulibaly's Islamist friends would come after him for the swindle. This is from the Google translation:
Having
learned since then acquaintances of his "victim" with the Islamic state
and the jihadist circles, the Carolo, frightened, preferred to share
them with law enforcement.
The investigators conducted a home visit to the suspect and would have
found evidence confirming the words of the person concerned. They would also have found documents on negotiations on armaments. He was a little matter of particular current rating, which is the Tokarev pistol held by Amédy Coulibaly during his attack.
South Fork Industries of Dalton Gardens, Idaho, took traditional
bullets and coated them in pork-infused paint to make them “haram,” or
unclean, under Islamic law. The company’s website labels the “Jihawg
Ammo” bullets as “Peace Through Pork” and a “peaceful and natural
deterrent to radical Islam.”
“With Jihawg Ammo, you don’t just kill an Islamist terrorist, you
also send him to hell. That should give would-be martyrs something to
think about before they launch an attack. If it ever becomes necessary
to defend yourself and those around you our ammo works on two levels,”
the company said in a press release earlier this month.
The pink and black box bills the bullets as “Freedom’s first choice
in defensive ammunition,” and says, “There’s Pig in the Paint.” There’s a
related line of gear that feature slogans like “Put Some Ham in
MoHAMed” and a target poster that says “Give Em a Spankin with some
Bacon.”
When US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel comes to the Middle East next week, one of his goals will be to finalize an arms deal with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that's intended to help those countries respond to a nuclear Iran.
A weeklong visit to the region by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
will culminate a year of secret negotiations on a deal that
Congressional officials said will be second only to the $29.5 billion
sale of F-15 aircraft to Saudi Arabia announced in 2010. But the
delicate balancing act that was necessary in weighing the differing
interests of each nation made it among the most complex ever negotiated.
While one goal was to ensure that Israel continues to field the most
capable armed forces in the region to deter Iran and counter a range of
threats, it was equally important to improve the capabilities of two
important Arab military partners. Another challenge, senior
administration officials said, was coming up with a package that could
help Israel deal with various security challenges — but devised so it
would not be viewed as an American endorsement of accelerated planning
by Israel to strike alone at Tehran’s suspected nuclear facilities.
The objective, one senior administration official said, was “not just to
boost Israel’s capabilities, but also to boost the capabilities of our
Persian Gulf partners so they, too, would be able to address the Iranian
threat — and also provide a greater network of coordinated assets
around the region to handle a range of contingencies.”
Those other security risks, officials said, include the roiling civil
war in Syria — a country with chemical weapons that could be used by the
Assad government or seized by rebels — and militant violence in the
Sinai Peninsula.
Under the agreement, each country would be allowed to purchase advanced
armaments from American contractors. In the case of Israel, there is
also substantial American financial assistance, topping $3 billion in
military aid this fiscal year.
Israel would buy new missiles designed to take out an adversary’s
air-defense radars, as well as advanced radars for its own warplanes,
new refueling tanker planes and — in the first sale to any foreign
military — the V-22 Osprey troop transport aircraft.
The United Arab Emirates would buy 26 F-16 warplanes, a package that
could reach $5 billion alone, along with precision missiles that could
be launched from those jets at distant ground targets. Saudi Arabia
would buy the same class of advanced missile.
The expectation is that the arms sale, which was outlined to Congress on
Thursday, will encounter little opposition from lawmakers, especially
from members representing the many districts where defense contractors
are concerned about the impact of cutbacks in the Pentagon’s own weapons
budget. But Congressional officials said members were seeking
assurances that the package was in keeping with American policy to
guarantee Israel’s “qualitative military edge” while not recklessly
emboldening Israeli hawks.
...
Israel also would receive antiradiation missiles. Launched from a
warplane, they can home in on an adversary’s air-defense radar signals
and destroy those sites. New, advanced radars for Israel’s military jets
also would be in the package.
Two issues: First, I'm kind of surprised there's nothing here about Israel getting bunker busting capabilities. And second, the US is selling all this equipment to the Saudis, but the Saudis have never actually fought on their own behalf (remember Gulf War I?).
"As we prove out that technology, and show that it's not only affordable but effective, we think there will be additional global market opportunities for that capability," Dennis Muilenburg, chief executive of Boeing's defense, space and security arm, told Reuters.
Boeing thinks that potential markets may include India, Singapore and South Korea, a company official said in a followup telephone conversation.
The United States and Israel have been jointly developing Arrow since 1988. Boeing's counterpart on the project is state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries.
Arrow 3, the system's highest-altitude component, which operates outside the atmosphere, is expected to be deployed by 2014, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.
The capabilities to be demonstrated in the coming test include searching further and higher for missiles of the type being designed and tested by Iran. No intercept of a simulated enemy design is scheduled in the upcoming test.
I suspect that the Israeli government is going to balk. Do we really want this kind of technology to fall into enemy hands? Didn't we learn our lesson with Turkey?
Some 193 participating countries unanimously voted in favor of Iran during the 4th day of the meeting underway in the United Nations headquarters to draft a bill on regulating arms trade in the world.
The month-long expert meeting is to examine ways of confronting unregulated trade of arms and ammunition.
During the opening ceremony, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticized some countries for reckless export of arms and urged all world governments to cooperate with his organization in compiling rules for arms trades.
The Amnesty International Secretary General Salil Shetty too described the global arms trade as a deadly activity, noting that arms trade is a major factor contributing to lengthy crises and bloody clashes in Libya.
He urged all international bodies to severely deal with the issue.
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.
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.
Turkey has abandoned its former Syrian ally, Bashar al-Assad, in disgust over his slaughter of Syrian civilians. Or has Turkey abandoned Assad? Turkey may still have some sympathies for Assad after all (Hat Tip: Joshua I). And while they supply Syria with weapons, they are supplying weapons to the Hezbullah terror organization as well.
According to the report, three Turkish companies are selling equipment to a Syrian government research institute that makes vehicle armor and ammunition for the police and the army.
At the heart of the operation is the Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) in Syria, currently subject to US and EU sanctions.
“Some of the weapons produced by SSRC are supplied to the Syrian military, while others end up in the hands of the Hezbollah terrorist organization in Lebanon,” the newspaper's source noted.
Claims that the Turkish Government Scientific and Technological Research Council, TÜBITAK, is assisting SSRC with research have also been raised, but TÜBITAK refused comment.
...
SSRC has been subject to US economic sanctions since 2005 for co-operating with Iran and North Korea and for providing arms to Hezbollah. It is also listed under the EU's sanctions "black list" imposed in December last year.
According to The Times' intelligence source, the SSRC disguises its procurement of weapons-related material by making false declarations to export authorities and using brokers and cover companies in different countries.
The Turks are playing both sides of the game, and those who are capable of stopping them - the US and the Russians - aren't willing to act to do so.
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.
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.
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?
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 callsbyvariousexperts 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."
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.
A competition to sell the Israel Air Force’s new advanced combat trainers is heating up as a Korean defense delegation plans to arrive in Israel next month to sign an agreement paving the way for increased cooperation and potentially $5 billion in sales for Israeli companies.
The agreement is part of a South Korean effort to persuade Israel to select Korean Aerospace Industries’ (KAI’s) T-50 advanced trainer as the replacement for the IAF’s aging fleet of A-4 Skyhawks, which are currently used to train cadets in their advanced pilot training.
Competing against the T-50 is Italy’s Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master.
KAI alone has offered Israel over $1b. in industrial cooperation if its aircraft is chosen.
The remaining deals are expected from the Korean government.
One of the keys here is that the Italians have become financially unstable, while South Korea is a lot like Israel in that it's under constant threat from a heavily armed neighbor and it's become an economic powerhouse despite that threat.
Michael Rubin argues that the United States ought to be treating Turkey - and particularly when it comes to arms sales - like Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
The question for American policymakers now is how to balance Turkey’s appetite for weaponry against the increasing likelihood Turkey will use such weapons for offense rather than defense. When it comes to arms sales to Arab countries, the United States guarantees how to balance their legitimate defense needs (against Iran, for example), with Israel’s need to maintain a qualitative military edge. While Turkey is a member of NATO, not every NATO member is entitled to an unlimited arsenal. It may be time for the Congress and the Pentagon to consider Turkey in the same category as Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
Actually, I'd put them in the same category as Syria and Iran - and Egypt is heading that way too.
I have mentioned before that Israel has become South Korea's largest arms supplier. On Tuesday, it was announced that Seoul has purchased 67 Spike NLOS rockets which it plans to deploy to defend itself against North Korea (Hat Tip: Daily Alert).
South Korea will deploy 67 Spike NLOS rockets on Baengnyeong and Yeonpyeong islands in the Yellow Sea as early as late this year, a South Korean government arms procurement official said. Four South Koreans were killed on Yeonpyeong when the North shelled it last November.
The official, who declined to be identified, citing policy, said the deal was made in July after the Israeli weapon received the best performance review from South Korean military officials. Another South Korean arms procurement official confirmed the information.
Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems says the rockets can fly up to 15 miles (25 kilometers) and hit hidden targets. South Korea has been struggling to find ways to take out North Korea’s hidden coastal artillery should it attack again.
South Korea’s efforts to boost weapons systems on the front-line islands follow intense criticism that defense officials failed to respond strongly and quickly enough after the North’s attack last year.
South Korea currently has self-propelled guns, vulcan cannons, multi-rocket launchers, radars and other advanced weapons deployed on the islands, as well as thousands of marines. In June, Seoul set up a separate defense command in charge of troops on the islands.
It's not likely South Korea will give the Air Force a place to train, but at least sales to South Korea could replace some of our lost sales to Turkey. And we likely don't have to worry about South Korea going Islamist.
In the Middle East, my enemy's enemy is my friend. North Korea, which has sold nuclear technology to both Syria and Iran, has made itself into an enemy of Israel. And so it is fitting that Israel has become the largest arms supplier to South Korea.
During 2010-2011, ministry of Defense of the Republic of Korea [South Korea] awarded a contract worth US$ 280 million to Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd, for developing and supplying the EL/M 2032 Multimode Fire Control Radar system for the ROK's FA/TA-50 training jet. The radar was chosen by the customer for its advanced system compared to other competitors. The second contract is for advance air defense system to ROK. The radar enhances a fighter jet's air-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-sea capabilities, enabling long-range target detection and high-resolution mapping, among other features. The TA/FA-50 aircraft is being developed in the ROK by Korean Aerospace Industries [KAI], and will become operational with the radar system, which is co-produced with the Korean company LIG Nex1.
Now South Korea is willing to expand the defense cooperation with Israel and Kwon Oh-bong, the vice commissioner of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration [DAPA], South Korea hinted that his country is planning to turn Israel into its main arms supplier, following recent border incidents with its northern communist neighbour.
Kwon Oh-bong, who recently visited Israel, met senior Defense Ministry officials. In his visit to Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, the South Korean official expressed an interest in the Irom Dome rocket interception system, which was activated successfully in southern Israel recently.
"The security situation and threats faced by Israel and South Korea are very similar," says Kwon. "We are constantly boosting our readiness against North Korea, and we're exposed to the types of incidents and local provocations Israel is familiar with too.
"We too are under a major threat of artillery, missiles and rockets, and we were briefed on Rafael's air defense system. It's a very interesting weapons system and we'll consider it."
Two months ago, the Korean embassy in Israel honored Jewish War veterans who fought in the Korean War. I've had that page open for two months. My Dad fought in the Korean War (he was part of the US Army signal corps from 1951-53), and I would love to see him recognized.
But the bigger question is whether Israel's cooperation with South Korea can go beyond military sales. For example, how will South Korea vote on the question of the unilateral declaration of 'Palestinian' statehood next month and will South Korea participate in the Durban III conference? As far as I am aware, both of the answers to those questions are currently wrong answers. Let us hope that they can be changed. Israel and South Korea certainly do have a lot in common,
I have mentioned before Mitchell Bard's conclusion that Israel no longer bothers to oppose American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, because it's not a winnable battle. In light of that, what appears to be growing Congressional opposition to the proposed $60 billion arms sale to 'our friends the Saudis' is a refreshing surprise.
California Democrat Howard Berman and Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are seeking support from other members of the U.S. House of Representatives for a letter outlining concerns and questions to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The letter stops short of opposing the sale, which would be the largest in U.S. history if all purchases are made. The package includes Boeing Co. F-15 fighter jets, attack helicopters and satellite-guided bombs. It also contains helicopters made by United Technologies Corp. and advanced radar from Raytheon Co.
The lawmakers raise “the potential repercussions for our friends and for our own forces in the region in the event of political change in Saudi Arabia,” according to the draft letter obtained by Bloomberg News yesterday. Ros-Lehtinen is expected to replace Berman as committee chairman in January, when Republicans take control of the House.
“We have serious concerns about the nature of Saudi involvement in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, particularly since the Saudis have failed to take steps toward normalization of relations with Israel or to augment their financial support to the Palestinian Authority,” according to the letter.
...
On Iran, Ros-Lehtinen and Berman ask what Saudi Arabia has done beyond expressing anxiety at Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The lawmakers cite potential Saudi “leverage in the international oil market to diminish Iran’s oil revenue” and actions to stem financing for terrorism or reduce the spread of nuclear-weapons technology.
...
The letter questions how thoroughly the State Department and the Pentagon have considered the effect of the sale on U.S. policies in the region, including the goal of ensuring that Israel maintains a “qualitative military edge” over its neighbors.
The two lawmakers cite a report by the Government Accountability Office, which concluded that the Departments of State and Defense “did not consistently document how arms transfers to gulf countries advanced U.S. foreign policy and national security goals.”
Defense Department officials discussed the proposed sale with Israeli officials as the package was being developed, according to both sides. Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, has said that while his country isn’t “thrilled” by the proposal, it hasn’t requested such actions as congressional hearings or assurances.
Congress has until November 20 to object to the sale. I can think of some more reasons why Congress should object. Please send this post to your Representative or Senator.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
