| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 06/16/2006 2:45:55 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
New thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650751/posts |
Posted on 04/01/2006 5:00:12 PM PST by DAVEY CROCKETT
ttempted Kidnapping in Lakeside
Published: 6/9/2006 11:44:33 PM
Official from the San Diego County Sheriff say two male suspect attempted to kidnap a pair of 8 year old girls on their way home from school.
The two suspects were driving a white truck when the driver slowed down and the passanger leaned in and grabbed the two girls, pulling them
continued........
http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1228A9CE-C3BB-4B5F-A976-FFDBB8232BDD
Marijuana Field Found
Published: 6/11/2006 1:30:38 AM
A telephone tip led a drug eradication team to Palomar Mountain Saturday, where they found 13,000 alleged marijuana plants in various stages of growth, a sheriff's lieutenant said.
The tip was received at 9:30 a.m., Lt. James Bolwerk said.
The caller said it looked like 50 or so plants, the lieutenant said.
The eradication team from the regional Narcotics Task Force was surprised to find thousands of plants, Bolwerk said.
continued..........
http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=FDB2ACAD-45EF-4E6E-87B4-72A386467D39
June 15, 2006 PM Anti-Terrorism News
US publish picture of new al-Qaeda leader in Iraq
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2227490,00.html
Pentagon 9/11 memorial started
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19486888-23109,00.html
Five killed in Iraq, seven corpses found in Baghdad
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2006/June/focusoniraq_June109.xml§ion=focusoniraq
10 Iraqis pulled from bus, gunned down
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_shooting;_ylt=AhaL1EoqzIz1KCue7evg2_qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-
US forces arrest Karbala provincial council chair for 'terrorism'
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2006/June/focusoniraq_June108.xml§ion=focusoniraq
Gunmen Kill 4 at Mosque in Northern Iraq
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-06-15-voa8.cfm
Update - Iraq - Papers show 'gloomy' state of insurgency
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_terror_blueprint_4;_ylt=AsA.GpbYEouVxE9zXwhD56FX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Spinning Zarqawi - "(A)t least three high-level al Qaeda associates
have testified to Saddam's warm welcome for Zarqawi and his associates"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/334dhoqq.asp
Israel, Egypt, Jordan on alert for al-Qaida attack - Fears of terrorist
retaliation high after Zarqawi killed in Iraq
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50655
Lebanon: Israeli plane killed Jihad men in May
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355504750&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
(NY) Flushing man held in Qaeda terrorist plot
http://www.timesledger.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16795712&BRD=2676&PAG=461&dept_id=542415&rfi=6
(UK) Man remanded on terrorism charges
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-15T185501Z_01_L15926605_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml&src=rss
(UK) Cash find in East London terror raid house (UK) - Police raid on
London house looking for a chemical bomb found tens of thousands of
pounds inside a locked suitcase.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2227046,00.html
Iranian consulate in Basra attacked
http://www.dawn.com/2006/06/15/top16.htm
Iran would 'use nuclear defense' if threatened
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355504526&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Iran's Khamenei implicitly rejects nuclear suspension
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060615/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_060615122225
"40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western
values and
democracy"
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=30780&name=Centre+for+extremist+studies+established
Saudi newspaper falsely claims 'Danish Editor burnt alive' - newspaper
published Mohammed cartoons
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/june-2006/15/index12.php
Britain to imprison Taylor if convicted
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20060615-015056-6524r.htm
Border Bribery - Arrested Customs and Border Protection Agent had
$18,000 worth of Iraqi dinar at his house
http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3F6F9736-3119-4BEE-B4E4-25A16E37E63B
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?fr=yalerts-keyword&c=&p=%22Iran%22&ei=utf-8
US says Iran offer more carrot than stick
AFP via Yahoo! News Thu, 15 Jun 2006 4:02 PM PDT
The White House indicated that the proposal meant to end the crisis over Iran's nuclear programs was heavy on incentives to freeze sensitive nuclear activities, not possible punishments for refusing.
Senate endorses Bush approach to Iran
Reuters via Yahoo! News Thu, 15 Jun 2006 4:41 PM PDT
The U.S. Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly endorsed President George W. Bush's offer to negotiate with Iran on the nuclear issue and turned back a move that could have repudiated the diplomatic initiative.
Iran sends mixed signals on response
AP via Yahoo! News Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:54 PM PDT
Iran sent mixed signals Thursday on how it will respond to the world's incentives to give up uranium enrichment, with its supreme leader vowing his country would never back down, while the president and chief envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Tehran was prepared to negotiate.
Iran sends mixed messages on nuclear plans
AP via Yahoo! News Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:11 AM PDT
Iran sent mixed messages Thursday about its nuclear agenda: The ruling cleric vowed not to give up the atomic program — calling it more important than oil revenues — but the president said Tehran is ready to negotiate on resolving the standoff.
Powers coax Iran on incentives at atom watchdog meet
Reuters via Yahoo! News Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:24 AM PDT
World powers urged Iran on Thursday to take up a new offer of incentives to halt its nuclear fuel program, and the West soft-pedaled previous threats of possible sanctions brushed aside by Tehran.
Iran Appeals to International Leaders for Support
Washington Post Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:21 AM PDT
SHANGHAI, June 15 -- Overshadowing a regional summit, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested Thursday that China, Russia and neighboring Central Asian nations should help Iran resist growing pressure from the United States and Europe to limit its nuclear development program.
US, Europe urge Iran to heed nuclear call
AFP via Yahoo! News Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:14 AM PDT
World powers were united at the UN atomic agency in urging Iran to suspend uranium enrichment to show it does not seek atomic weapons, with the United States warning of Security Council action if Tehran fails to comply, diplomats said.
Written plan to wean Iran from nuclear ambitions omits penalties
International Herald Tribune Thu, 15 Jun 2006 2:46 PM PDT
The decision to focus on the benefits for Iran and to leave no paper trail about possible penalties reflected an international strategy of treating Iran as a responsible negotiating partner.
Senate backs president's Iran policies
AP via Yahoo! News Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:56 AM PDT
The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's diplomatic approach to the problem of Iran's nuclear program after rejecting a proposal that would have increased sanctions against the Tehran government and those helping it.
[a post for study and research]
New Delhi to okay UN N-treaty today
AMITAV RANJAN
Posted online: Friday, June 16, 2006 at 0000 hrs IST
NEW DELHI, JUNE 15
New Delhi plans to approve tomorrow the signing of a UN treaty that prevents nuclear terrorism and demonstrate to the international community that it is a responsible nuclear power committed to global security.
A proposal for signing and ratifying the Russian-sponsored ‘International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism’ comes up before the Cabinet so that India can join the band of 105 nations that have already given their assent.
The convention, that has been opened for signing since last September, tightens the nuclear export control regime. It would come into force 30 days after 22 nuclear capable countries submit the instruments of ratification.
The treaty focuses on prevention and makes possession of radioactive material or nuclear device with a view to cause death or serious injury or damage to property or nuclear installations a crime.
It also provides a legal basis for global cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and extradition of persons accused of such acts, thereby preventing transfer, export or proliferation of energy, equipment and material into wrong hands, specially terrorists and non-state actors.
This is the 13th convention against terrorism but the first international legal instrument to be adopted by the UN General Assembly since 9/11. It is open for ratification until December 31.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/6553.html
[a post to study and research]
Christians’ gangrape complaint caught in conversion row
Milind Ghatwai
Posted online: Friday, June 16, 2006 at 0000 hrs IST
BHOPAL, JUNE 15
The alleged gangrape of two Christian women in Nadia village in Khargone district has set off a chain reaction of allegations and counter-allegations here. A day after the rape complaint was lodged, an FIR has been has lodged against them and their husbands, charging them with forcibly converting locals.
The women, in their complaint, alleged that they were raped on the night of May 28. The complaint was filed on May 31. A case under Section 3(4) of the Freedom of Religion Act, 1968, was registered against five people, including the two women and their husbands, with the Bhagwanpura police on June 1.
Following the complaint and other reports of attacks on the Christian community in the state, the Prime Minister sent a two-member team of the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) to Madhya Pradesh. Governor Balram Jakhar had also sought a report from the state government on the alleged gangrape.
The NCM has noted with concern the ‘‘counter-FIR’’ filed against the rape victims. NCM member Harcharan Singh Josh told The Indian Express on Thursday that he has sought a detailed action taken report in both cases where complainants were charged with conversion. ‘‘It seems the administration has done it to counter the main FIRs,’’ Josh said.
Further, the superintendent of police and the district magistrate have, in their reports, given a clean chit to the alleged rapists, instead arguing that the gangrape complaint came after the women’s husbands were confronted by villagers for forcibly converting tribals. Describing as ‘‘eyewash’’ the administration’s action, Josh says, ‘‘How could a handful of poor tribals forcibly convert others when they had little to offer?’’
The SP’s and DM’s reports, accessed by The Indian Express, say that on May 29, around 100 villagers had gone to the victims’ houses to warn their husbands against conversion. The villagers later submitted a memorandum. ‘‘Before the conversion charges could be investigated, the women lodged rape complaints,’’ the district magistrate said in his report. ‘‘Prima facie, it doesn’t appear that the victims were prevented by anyone from filing complaints on May 28 and May 29,’’ the report said.
District magistrate SK Pal said when an SDM sought to probe the incident, the victims avoided meeting them. ‘‘The reluctance to discuss the matter with officials raises doubts about the incident,’’ he said.
The offence under anti-conversion law was registered after the charges in the villagers’ memorandum were probed, SP RL Borna said. Further action, he said, would be taken after getting the results of the DNA tests.
Church vandalised ahead of NCM visit
BHOPAL: A day before the NCM team visits Jabalpur to investigate the alleged attacks on the Christian community, a church was vandalised by activists of the Hindu Dharma Sena on Thursday. They alleged that poor tribals from Mandla and Dindori districts were converting for money. In Bhopal, Bajrang Dal district convenor Devendra Ravat met the NCM and alleged that the police had not taken 26 cases of conversion to court. Ravat alleged that orphans and poor children from Jhabua were being offered Rs 2,000 to convert to Christianity. — ENS
http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/6560.html
Trial of NYT researcher opens in China
By Lindsay Beck Thu Jun 15, 10:59 PM ET
BEIJING (Reuters) - The trial of Zhao Yan, a New York Times researcher China accuses of fraud and leaking state secrets, opened on Friday, in a case critics say is in violation of Chinese and international law.
ADVERTISEMENT
Lawyers for Zhao, 44, said he would plead not guilty, but expressed little hope he would be cleared of the charges for which he faces more than 10 years in prison.
"Because these kinds of cases are very special, the court seldom accepts the opinions of the defense," said Guan Anping, one of his two lawyers.
The trial comes after Zhao has spent nearly two years in detention and follows a start-stop process of charges being laid, dropped and then revived again, highlighting the vagaries of China's justice system.
China dropped the charges against Zhao in March, weeks before President
Hu Jintao visited the United States, raising hopes for his release.
Continued.......
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060616/ts_nm/rights_china_dc
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650317/posts
45,000 from terror-linked nations freed, students face 'illegal' life
Rocky Mountain News ^ | June 15, 2006 | Laura Frank and Burt Hubbard,
Posted on 06/15/2006 9:00:56 PM PDT by seastay
Immigration agents released half the people they detained who were here illegally from countries that sponsor or support terrorists, a federal study found.
Since 2001, 45,000 people from those countries have been released back into society, a Department of Homeland Security inspector general found in a report released last month. Some of those released had committed crimes.
The situation poses "significant risks" because ICE is releasing some people whose backgrounds are unknown, the report said.
Figures for Colorado were not available. When the Rocky Mountain News researched foreign-born inmates with immigration holds who were in Colorado prisons in May last year, more than 30 were from countries believed to support terrorism.
The federal study also found that as many as one in 10 immigrants who committed crimes in the U.S. are released, largely because of a lack of space and funds.
That falls in line with the findings of the News' yearlong investigation, which determined that at least 10 percent of the foreign-born prison inmates whose records were reviewed had a prior criminal record. Yet there was no record that immigration officials had tried to remove them before they committed the crimes that landed them in prison.
Officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Denver said they do not know exactly how many times they have released immigrants who had committed offenses beyond their immigration violations. ICE does not keep those figures.
The inspector general's staff was able to reach its figures only by starting with the total number of immigrants caught by ICE, and subtracting those who were deported or given some other known outcome, such as release on bond. Some could have been removed without a court order, but ICE doesn't track that. The same is true of Colorado prison inmates. ICE officials declined to review their records to see whether any had been administratively removed.
The number of immigrants, including those from terrorism-linked countries, who are caught and released has shot up since 2001, the report said.
Immigration officials say shrinking resources are to blame. Nationally, ICE had a smaller budget and less detention space in 2005 than in 2004 or 2003, even as resources for border security have grown.
"The reality is we're in quicksand," said Victor Cerda, the former national head of ICE's detention and removal program. "You've got to narrow the field in terms of targets."
The targets are many.
The U.S. has an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, almost 600,000 fugitives who were ordered deported but disappeared and 65,000 undocumented students graduating each year from U.S. high schools and becoming deportable adults. ICE agents also are responsible for catching untold numbers of human smugglers and makers of fake IDs.
"It's a question of priorities," said Kris Kobach, who was chief immigration adviser to former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. "The question is where to target ICE resources. Clearly the resources to find and remove 12 million aliens aren't there."
The Denver ICE region - which covers Colorado, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming - already is struggling to do its job. Detainees sometimes must sleep on mattresses on the floor at the overcrowded Aurora detention facility. Rural sheriffs say ICE agents can't always pick up illegal immigrants they arrest.
To boost the immigration system, President Bush last month asked for nearly $2 billion in emergency funds, most of which would go to the border. The national budget for ICE, at roughly $3.9 billion, is less than the country spends on cotton-farming subsidies or enforcing marijuana laws.
"Two billion dollars is being touted as a large investment; it's not," Cerda said. "By the time that trickles down to Denver, you're going to get a scrap or two."
June 16, 2006
Seaport Security Increasing, But Concerns Remain
Jim Kouri, CPP
With the all of controversey over the management of key US seaports by a company owned by the United Arab Emirites, Americans are now more aware of the vulnerabilties we face at these critical facilities.
More than four years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, concerns remain over the security of US seaports and waterways. Seaports and waterways are vulnerable given their size, easy accessibility by water and land, large numbers of potential targets, and close proximity to urban areas.
Seaports are also a critical link in the international supply chain, which has its own potential vulnerabilities that terrorists could exploit to transport a weapon of mass destruction into the United States. Federal agencies such as the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection and others, such as state and local law enforcement officials, as well as owners and operators of facilities and vessels have taken actions to try to mitigate these vulnerabilities and enhance maritime security.
Federal agencies and local officials have taken many actions to secure seaports. For example, federal agencies have stepped up vessel monitoring, cargo and container inspection, and security patrol activities. Port officials in the private sector and in state and local government have taken such actions as conducting security assessments of infrastructure and vessels and implementing security plans. These actions provide three types of protections: identifying and reducing vulnerabilities of seaports, securing the cargo moving through seaports, and developing an informed view of maritime activities through intelligence, information-sharing, and new technologies to identify and respond to threats.
Due in large part to the urgency with which these actions were implemented, challenges have been encountered in implementing them. While some challenges may be resolved with time, others are more difficult to resolve and could hinder the actions' effectiveness. The main challenges Government Accounting Office has identified include failure to develop necessary planning components to carry out the programs; difficulty in coordinating the activities of federal agencies and port stakeholders to implement programs; and difficulty in maintaining the financial support to continue implementation of security enhancements.
As intensified homeland security efforts continue, assessing their contribution to security and their sustainability over time will become more important. Assessing the progress made in securing seaports is difficult, as these efforts lack clear goals defining what they are to achieve and measures that track progress toward these goals.
As Congress and the nation consider how much security is enough, more attention will likely be needed to define these goals and measures. Doing so is important because no amount of money can totally protect seaports from attack by a determined enemy. These realities suggest that the future focus in applying resources and efforts needs to incorporate an approach to assess critical infrastructure, determine what is most at risk, and apply measures designed to make cost effective use of resources and funding.
Sources: US Department of Homeland Security, Government Accounting Office, National Security Institute, National Association of Chiefs of Police
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org). He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/jcpp_20060616.html
[a post for study and research]
June 16, 2006 - 2:43
Washington sniper reportedly gives details of four new shootings
WASHINGTON (AP) - One of the two men convicted in a string of sniper attacks in the Washington area in 2002 told authorities that he and his co-conspiratorwere responsible for four other shootings that had not been publicly linked to them, according to a published report.
The Washington Post, citing a source familiar with the case, said in a story in Friday's editions that Lee Boyd Malvo told authorities about the shootings - two of them fatal - occurred before the three-week spree in October 2002 in which 13 people were shot, 10 fatally, in the Washington area.
The Post said a second source confirmed that investigators have received information implicating Malvo and John Allen Muhammad in the four other shootings. The sources would not speak for attribution because of the sensitivity of the information, The Post reported.
Law enforcement officials interviewed Malvo extensively to prepare for his testimony at Muhammad's trial last month in Maryland.
The two most recently linked homicide victims were a man shot in Los Angeles in February or March 2002 and a man shot in the head from a distance May 27, 2002, in Denton, Texas, a Dallas suburb. The two survivors are a 76-year-old Tucson man shot May 18, 2002, at a golf course in Clearwater, Florida. and a 54-year-old Louisiana man shot during a robbery on Aug. 1, 2002, after leaving a shopping mall in a suburb of Baton Rouge, The Post reported.
Malvo's lawyers, William Brennan and Timothy Sullivan, would not comment on the information Malvo gave to law enforcers in recent months. "We are fully aware of the universe of Mr. Malvo's potential criminal problems," they said in a statement to The Post on Thursday. "We have received several inquiries from other jurisdictions concerning possible investigations."
Neither Brennan nor State's Attorney Douglas Gansler of Maryland's Montgomery County, where last month's trial was held, returned calls for comment from The Associated Press late Thursday.
Malvo told investigators that the California victim was shot at close range in Los Angeles during a robbery, The Post report, citing the first source. The victim's identity, the date of the shooting and other details could not be determined.
Malvo also gave general information about the victims, locations and dates in the other cases, the source told The Post.
Besides the Washington area shootings, Muhammad and Malvo are linked to earlier shootings in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and Washington state. They are also suspects in the March 2002 shooting of golfer Jerry Taylor on a Tucson, Arizona, golf course.
Copyright by Rogers Media Inc.
May not be reprinted or republished without permission.
This story can be found at:
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=w061608A
[a post for study and research]
June 16, 2006 - 2:42
U.S. military says key terror leader captured in raid in Karbala
BAGHDAD (AP) - A key terror leader linked to the deaths of at least six coalition soldiers was captured in Karbala, the U.S. military said Friday, a day after the local council issued strong protests over the arrests of three members.
The military said Iraqi soldiers, assisted by coalition advisers, conducted an early morning ground assault raid on Thursday in the Shiite holy city, 80 kilometres south of Baghdad, and captured "a high-ranking terrorist network commander without firing a shot."
The suspect was identified by the military as Sheik Aqeel.
"Aqeel commands a Karbala terrorist network and is wanted for assassinating Iraqi citizens and planning and ordering attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces," the military said in a statement.
The military also accused him of providing financial support to other militants, along with roadside bombs it said were linked to the deaths of at least six coalition soldiers last year and the deaths of a coalition soldier and an interpreter on June 8.
Aqeel also was linked to a 2005 attack on the al-Mukhayim Iraqi police station and the killing of Iraqi intelligence officers in Karbala, the statement said.
The security forces also captured another terrorist during the raid and seized a substantial weapons cache, the military said, adding that no Iraqi or coalition forces were killed or wounded during the operation.
The 40-member local council in Karbala suspended its operations and demanded an apology Thursday after police said U.S. forces with air cover raided the house of the council leader Aqil al-Zudeidi, a member of the Shiite Fadila Party, and arrested him at about 6. a.m.
Two other council members Ahmed al-Hassani, a supporter of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and Gasid Karim, an independent, were arrested in the same area, police said.
Hundreds of demonstrators also took to the streets to demand the men's release.
Copyright by Rogers Media Inc.
May not be reprinted or republished without permission.
This story can be found at:
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=w061606A
[a post to study and research]
Qaeda names Zarqawi successor in Iraq
CAIRO: Al-Qaeda in Iraq yesterday named a successor to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and said he would continue in the slain leader's path, moving quickly to show it can keep up its campaign of attacks against Shiites and US and Iraqi forces. The new leader, identified by the nom de guerre Abu Hamza Al-Muhajer in a statement posted on the Web, appeared to be a foreign Arab like his predecessor. But otherwise he is an unknown. The name has not appeared in previous Al-Qaeda in Iraq propaganda or on US lists of terrorists who have rewards on their heads, suggesting he is a lower-level figure or a more prominent member who has taken a new pseudonym.
The unknown name and lack of detail on him in the statement appeared to reflect a new emphasis on secrecy by the group. US forces have launched a series of raids against Al-Qaeda in Iraq based on intelligence found in the safe house where Zarqawi was killed Wednesday in an air strike. The group may fear infiltration or that Zarqawi's very public stance led to his downfall. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq's council has agreed on Sheikh Abu Hamza Al-Muhajer to be the successor of Abu Musab Zarqawi in the leadership of the organisation," the group said. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently confirmed. It was posted on an Islamist militant Web forum where Al-Qaeda in Iraq often posts messages.
It said Muhajer was "a beloved brother with jihadi (holy war) experience and a strong footing in knowledge." "We ask Almighty God to strengthen him that he may accomplish what Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, God have mercy on his soul, began," it said. That could mean he will continue the strategy that the Jordanian-born Zarqawi followed: a brutal campaign of attacks targeting Shiite civilians, aimed at sparking a Sunni-Shiite civil war. The attacks sparked tensions between Zarqawi, most of whose fighters are believed to be non-Iraqis, and some homegrown Iraqi insurgents who felt the bloodshed hurt the image of their resistance against US forces. They wanted to focus attacks on American and Iraqi troops.
Iraqi insurgents loyal to ousted leader Saddam Hussein made a rare public acknowledgement of disputes with Zarqawi in a condolence letter posted earlier yesterday on the same website. "Although there were many matters we differed with him on and him with us, but what united us was something greater," said the statement by the Fedayeen Saddam. It said the group had "the honour" of fighting alongside Zarqawi and that "our determination is only increased for waging jihad." Zarqawi's death raised speculation the group might turn to an Iraqi leader to smooth over the differences and better build networks within the country.
Zarqawi's deputy was an Iraqi with the nom de guerre Abu Abdul-Rahman Al-Iraqi, who appears to be still alive. The US military told AP yesterday that he was not a man identified as "Abdul-Rahman" who was killed alongside Zarqawi. The name Muhajer, Arabic for "immigrant," suggested the new leader was not Iraqi. The name is often used by foreign Arab militants, referring to the "muhajereen," Islam's early converts who fled persecution in Makkah to join Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Madinah. Rohan Gunaratna, a terror expert at Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, said the choice of a non-Iraqi means the group is "likely to continue the foreign operations." Zarqawi had sought to expand his campaign beyond Iraq's borders, most notably masterminding a November triple suicide bombing against hotels in Amman, Jordan, that killed 60 people.
He had urged Sunnis across the Arab world to stand up against Shiites, who he branded "enemies of Islam." He also had links to Al-Qaeda's branch in Saudi Arabia, which in a statement Monday thanked him for helping its fight against the kingdom's rulers - though much of the group's leadership has been killed or captured in a Saudi crackdown. "We will not forget his favours to jihad and the mujahedeen in the Prophet's peninsula," the group said, without elaborating. The US military had predicted a militant named Abu Ayyub Al-Masri would be named Al-Qaeda in Iraq's leader. Al-Masri, an Egyptian associate of Zarqawi, has a $50,000 reward on his head.
Militants usually adopt a pseudonym made up of a nickname called a "kunya" in Arabic _ "Abu", meaning "father of," plus a name that sometimes refers to an actual child of the militant. The second part of the pseudonym is usually an adjective denoting the militant's nationality. Zarqawi, for example, was born Ahmad Fadhil Nazzal Al-Khalayleh, but took a pseudonym from Zarqa, his hometown in Jordan. He had a child named Musab, so took the kunya of "Abu Musab."
The secrecy surrounding the new leader could hurt its ability to carry out attacks, said Egyptian analyst Diaa Rashwan. Zarqawi garnered a cult of personality around himself as a holy warrior, helping draw militants from other countries to carry out suicide bombings. "Zarqawi's charisma was very important factor for many to join his organization," Rashwan said. "All Zarqawi had was car bombs and people ready to blow themselves up." "My feeling is that they are going to have establish a persona for him," Evan Kohlmann, a New York-based terror consultant and founder of globalterroralert.com, said. "They're going to have to introduce this fellow to the world." -- AP
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.asp?dismode=article&artid=79728574
Thursday, June 15, 2006 - Kuwait Times News (www.kuwaittimes.net)
Sheikh to adopt surviving girl
Close Window | Print Screen Click here to print this article
ABU DHABI: A member of the ruling family in oil-rich Abu Dhabi said yesterday he wants to adopt a 10-year-old Palestinian girl who lost her entire family in a Gaza beach bombardment. Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, who is deputy premier of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) federation, has proposed in a telephone conversation with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas to adopt Huda Ghalya, the official WAM news agency said. Her parents and three siblings were killed while picnicking on the beachfront by what was believed to be Israeli shelling. Images of Huda, wailing near the body of her deceased father, were broadcast around the world in the aftermath of last week's attack. "Sheikh Hamdan proposed to bring Huda to the UAE to live with his family and President Abbas thanked him for this humanitarian gesture," WAM said without indicating if the offer had been accepted. The families of sheikhs typically consist of up to four wives and many children. Abbas received the girl in his Gaza office on Saturday and said he considered her like his own child. The Israeli army said yesterday that old Israeli ordnance left on the beach may been the cause, a day after it had absolved itself of blame.
Five hanged in Iran
TEHRAN: Five Iranian men convicted of kidnapping and rape have been hanged in the southern cities of Kerman and Zahedan, the ISNA news agency reported yesterday. Three men sentenced to die for six cases of kidnapping, robbery and rape were hanged on Tuesday morning in Kerman, a local judiciary official was quoted as saying. Two other men, who were only identified as Said A. et Nasser Ch., were hanged in the southeastern city of Zahedan for armed kidnapping and "creating a climate of terror in society", ISNA reported. The executions bring to at least 61 the number of people executed in Iran so far in 2006, according to an AFP tally based on press reports and witnesses. Capital offences in the Islamic republic include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, serious drug trafficking, repeated sodomy, adultery or prostitution, and treason and espionage.
Arab League 'disturbed'
CAIRO: Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa expressed his concern yesterday over the flare-up in violence between rival Palestinian factions, and called for unity. "The Arab League is disturbed by the continued violence between the Palestinian factions," a statement quoted Mussa as telling Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and prime minister Ismail Haniya in phone conversations. The past week has seen unprecedented factional fighting between supporters of Haniya's Islamist movement Hamas and Abbas's Fatah in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, which has resulted in deadly clashes and seen government buildings torched. "These skirmishes will deal a serious blow to the Palestinian position and to the rights and hope of the Palestinian people," Mussa said, warning that such incidents "could only lead to chaos in the Palestinian street". In new fighting yesterday, a Hamas militant was killed and a commander of the Palestinian preventive security service controlled by Fatah was wounded in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip. Abbas and Haniya were expected to meet later yesterday in an effort to ease tensions between the two sides.
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/regional.asp?dismode=article&artid=206048967
Daily Afghan Report
http://www.azadiradio.org/en/dailyreport/2006/06/14.ASP
[ 14 Jun 2006 ]
AFGHAN OPIUM FARMER KILLED IN CLASH WITH POLICE
An opium farmer has been killed in a clash between armed farmers and counternarcotics police in Badakhshan Province, Kabul-based Tolu Television reported on June 13. Badakhshan Governor Monshi Abdul Majid told Tolu that counternarcotics authorities sent from the capital "failed to observe local traditions, which unfortunately led to the clash." No one has been arrested in the case, Abdul Majid added. Poppy eradication has been temporarily halted in the Jorm district, where the incident occurred. AT
OFFICIALS IN SOUTHERN AFGHANISTAN ASK U.A.E. TO SEND TROOPS
Residents of Kandahar Province have asked the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) to send troops to their province to bring security and change the perception of Afghans regarding Arabs, Pajhwak Afghan News reported on June 13. The proposal was made during a meeting of the Kandahar Provincial Council in which an official from U.A.E., Sheikh Hamad al-Shamisi, participated. The meeting was also attended by Kandahar Governor Asadullah Khaled and other senior provincial officials. The tribal elders reportedly asked that the U.A.E. resume work on the Omar Mosque, which they began constructing during the Taliban regime. Ne'amatullah Khan, the deputy head of the Provincial Council, told Al-Shamisi that since many Afghans believe that most Arab states were cooperating with Al-Qaeda, by sending troops to Kandahar the U.A.E. will not only help improve the security situation but also help change popular attitudes. The U.A.E. was one of just three countries that officially recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the other two. AT
AFGHAN LEADER TALKS ABOUT CHINA TIES
Prior to his planned departure to participate as a guest in the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that Afghanistan and China are "very good neighbors" and he hopes for stronger trade relations between them, Xinhua reported on June 13. Karzai said relations with China hold "immense importance" for his country, adding to Xinhua that while China ranks third -- after Japan and Pakistan -- in exports to Afghanistan, Chinese imports from Afghanistan amounted to a meager $900,000 in 2005-06. Karzai said he hopes that his country can export more to China. "Afghanistan belongs to the region where the SCO also lies. Afghanistan has no other ways, and can't be outside the region," Karzai said. The SCO was transformed from the Shanghai Five in 2001, ostensibly to respond to the threat posed by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Members are China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, which joined in 2001. The group has accepted India, Iran, Mongolia, and Pakistan as observers, and Afghanistan as a guest country. AT
PAKISTANI ARMY OFFICER ARRESTED IN AFGHANISTAN
A lieutenant in the Pakistan Army has been arrested in Afghanistan's Kandahar Province after he crossed the border to purchase a vehicle, the Islamabad-based daily "The Nation" reported on June 13. The officer, identified as Asif, has been detained by Afghan authorities for interrogation. He allegedly crossed into Afghanistan "a few days ago" with friends to purchase a vehicle at Wash on the Afghan side of the border, where new vehicles are on sale. According to the report, Pakistan arrested five Afghan nationals in May, including a sitting member of parliament, who still remain in custody. The five were not identified in the report. The report did not draw any direct connection between the two cases. AT
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2006 RFE/RL, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
webmaster@rferl.org
NATIONAL 06.16.2006 Friday - ISTANBUL 14:25
Military Equipment on Ship was for Iraq
By Cihan News Agency, Kocaeli
Published: Friday, June 16, 2006
zaman.com
It has been revealed that the military equipment on the British Flagged ship Scan Bothnia, which was seized at Derince Port in Kocaeli, was on its way to Iraq.
The British flagged Scan Bothnia came to Derince Port in order to dispatch some transformers to be shipped to Jordan on June 10 and Coast Guard and Izmit Customs officials conducted an investigation on the ship. What they found was surprising: Six armed military vehicles and heavy machine guns to be installed on these vehicles. The investigation of Turkish Coast Inspectors revealed that the equipment belonged to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense.
The ship carrying the vehicles was fined according to the 240th article of the customs law and Turkey demanded the legal punishment procedure to be launched for the people responsible.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&hn=34033
NATIONAL 06.16.2006 Friday - ISTANBUL 14:29
Multi-Purpose Military Vehicle Discovered on Board Transport Ship
By Anadolu News Agency (aa), Kocaeli
Published: Monday, June 12, 2006
zaman.com
Multi-purpose armored military vehicles, heavy artillery, ammunition and spare parts were seized in a transport ship searched in the Kocaeli town of Derince.
General Directorate of Coast Security in Izmit and coast guard teams carried out a search of British flagged “Scan Bothnia” following a tip off.
Six multi-purpose armored military vehicles, 12.7 millimeter heavy artillery weapons and 20 boxes labeled spare parts were found in a container on board a transport ship destined for the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The ship was ordered to anchor, and so far nobody has been arrested.
The Kocaeli Governorship will make a decision in line with Ankara.
An officer from the shipping agency and the ship’s captain were present while customs teams searched five containers; seizing two of them.
The ship officers misinformed authorities about the dangerous goods being transported by the ship, declaring them to the authorities as general cargo.
Customs authorities say the ships using the straits must inform the Sea Traffic Control Directorate about combustible, flammable, pollutants, firearms and war materials on board according to the SPI certificate, however, the British transporter, “Scan Bothnia” did not declare any of its dangerous cargo.
Kocaeli Governor Erdal Ata said they continued the search off the vessel and informed the center in Ankara of their findings.
Ata said the ship in Derince port was not permitted to leave the port, and added: “Some military ammunition was found undeclared on the ship against the rules of sea transportation. According to international agreements, permission must be sought for the transportation of arms through the Turkish straits. We informed the authorities. We so far we have not arrested any one.”
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&hn=33914
[COMMENTARY]
A Patron for Latin America? Not so Fast
by
Consuelo Cruz
At first there were two, Cuba and Venezuela. Then, they were joined by Bolivia. These are now the three member countries of the trade pact known as ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas). Venezuela is the original force behind it. The pact’s potential commercial benefits are still unclear, but the political aim is already obvious: to pose a counterweight, an alternative really, to the United States in the region. This will require, to start with, attracting new members to ALBA. That goal alone is extremely ambitious.
It’s déjà vu all over again. Venezuelan political leaders like to build elaborate projects atop petroleum price spikes. It never ends well. In fact, it never ends. Serious political, economic, and social reform can always be truncated or postponed because, as fortune has it, whenever the country is about to hit rock bottom, the price of petroleum begins to rise. Not too long ago two major traditional political parties controlled and distributed Venezuela’s petro-revenues. Today, it is the democratically elected caudillo Hugo Chávez holding the public purse.
Chávez is a populist leader. Populists typically seek to foment mass allegiance and to create national unity by handing out resources to clients and targeting a clear-cut enemy. With the purse more than full again, Chávez seems intent on expanding populism to the regional level. But the problem with populism writ regional is that it seeks to mobilize sovereign nations as opposed to domestic groups. And this is where Chávez’ plan may go awry. These are electioneering times for Latin Americans. Elections have been carried out in the last three years in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, and Costa Rica; and they are about to reach their final rounds in Peru, Colombia, Mexico, and Nicaragua. In the former cluster, all the winning presidential candidates belong to the left. In the latter group, leftists were favored to win in every instance except Colombia until literally a few days ago, when Chávez’ attempt to harness this “leftward trend” began to have unintended effects.
The caudillo appeared at first to attain excellent results. He forged close relations with Fidel Castro in Cuba, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and politicians on the left from Mexico to Argentina. But lately, as the competition intensifies in the countries whose elections are still ahead, Chávez leans forward rather than stepping back. He attacks candidates he opposes and flatters those he favors. In so doing, he makes political enemies at the highest levels of political society while offending the nationalist sensibilities of the average voter. (He threatened to break diplomatic relations with Peru if the candidate he opposes wins).
Governing incumbents are not too happy with Chávez, either. He infuriated the current president of Mexico by referring to him as the Americans’ “puppy” -- an insult that any Mexican instinctively perceives as a dagger to the heart. Chávez is particularly unforgiving of leaders who sign comprehensive trade agreements with the United States, even though the superpower remains Venezuela’s largest trading partner. Alejandro Toledo, the outgoing president of Peru, signed such an agreement, as did President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. Toledo and Chávez are now avowed enemies. Uribe is a slightly different story. Like Chávez, Uribe is extremely popular at home. Uribe, in fact, is expected to succeed in his upcoming bid for reelection. But Uribe’s mission is delicate in the extreme: continue to pacify the country, provide physical security to its citizens, and maintain a sound working relationship with Washington. The last thing Uribe needs is a restriction on the policy options available to him in the conduct of external affairs. Yet this is what Chávez’ rhetoric entails. At the same time, Uribe must exercise restraint, since Venezuela is a major trading partner. In an oblique public statement, Uribe reminded Chávez that not all countries are blessed with rich deposits of valuable resources.
Still, if Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador proceed to implement their bilateral agreements with the United States, Chávez threatens to withdraw Venezuela from the Andean Community (CAN). Its members are Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. Will this unabashed application of external pressure work?
Most Latin American countries are not inclined to submit, or to play the role of client to Venezuela’s patron. Nicaragua -- small, poor, and polarized -- may be one in a handful of exceptions. Bolivia, endowed with important gas deposits that Venezuela can help better exploit, is another. Then there’s Cuba, which for decades was a client state of the Soviet Union, and now has much more to gain than to lose from accepting Chávez’ largesse. And what about Peru? Much has been made of the admiration that the Peruvian candidate Ollanta Humala professes for Chávez. But if Humala prevails at the polls, and this is not given, he will not defer to Chávez. Humala, like Chávez, is a military officer, used to receiving and giving commands. But also like Chávez, he has his own nationalist credentials to defend, especially as a native of Peru, which, like Mexico, once stood at the apex of power (both were centers of pre-Columbian civilizations; and both were viceroyalties of Spain).
Venezuela can make no such claims to bygone glories. What Venezuela has, instead, is an abundance of petroleum and Simón Bolivar’s old dream of creating a South American federation. In the early decades of the 19th century, Bolivar liberated from Spanish rule the territories that are today Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela. He then tried desperately to hold them together, going so far as to arrogate dictatorial powers onto himself. Ultimately, Bolivar failed, and sank into despair. Each country had its own political elites and ambitions.
Some things have changed since then, some remain the same. Bolivar ardently believed in free trade -- he was a liberal. Today, after almost two decades of neo-liberal reform, the economically marginalized sectors in countries like Bolivia and Peru are voting populist. Bolivar also lived in a time when elites dreaded the very indigenous and mixed-race masses that today respond to politicians’ ethnic-based appeals. But now, as then, the countries differ from one another. So do their leftist leaders. What most of the countries do want is to expand rather than limit their degrees of freedom as they respond to a rapidly changing international environment. In Chile, politicians across the spectrum converge on the notion that more trade is better. Chile, in fact, is a serial signer of bilateral trade agreements. In this regard, the new administration of socialist Michelle Bachelet is no different. Bachelet and her ministers seem determined to ignore anti-Chilean remarks made by the Peruvian candidate Humala. They also seem determined to set aside the historical animosities that have made normal diplomatic relations with Peru and Bolivia difficult, at times even impossible. Chile’s steady focus is trade and prosperity.
Argentina’s left-wing president Nestor Kirchner is similarly focused, as indicated, among other things, by the continued dramatic expansion in trade between China and Argentina.
Like Brazil and Chile, Argentina even aspires to build innovation-based economic sectors. Argentina is also a full member of MERCOSUR (South American Common Market), together with Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay. Uruguay, however, has been unhappy for some time with the bloc’s senior members (Brazil and Argentina) and with the junior but weighty Venezuela. Add to this Uruguay’s bitter dispute with Argentina over planned paper mills, and the result is Uruguay’s open flirtation with the Chilean model, which would allow it to pursue bilateral negotiations with the United States and the European Union.
In the face of all this, what should the United States do? It should learn from Chávez’ mistakes as well as its own: stay out of the bickering and strife, and concentrate on promoting trade that is free and fair.
Consuelo Cruz, Associate Professor of Political Science Tufts University
11.06.2006
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&alt=&hn=33890
'Attack on Iran Strengthens its Regime'
by
Ali Cimen
Iran, which has been undergoing turbulent relations with the West since Ahmedinecad was chosen as president, has now become the main item of the agendas of the world’s super powers due to its highly suspect nuclear program. Though Iranian officials constantly give assurances that they only hope to benefit from nuclear energy, the US, Israel and others share the fear that Iran might misuse the rods, part of the process of producing nuclear energy, and use them to build nuclear weapons in the future. The famous question of recent days: Will America attack Iran? That is the main theme of the brain storming centers of leading countries in the power game. We asked the very same question to Iranian born scholars and experts who live in the west. A leading international relations expert and strategist, Mr. Meir Javedanfar, who studied in England and currently lives London and Tel Aviv as the president of Meepas, and is extremely well-known for his insightful analysis on the Middle East, and Prof. Mehdi Noorbaksh, an assistant professor at the Center for International Studies at the University of St. Thomas. His areas of specialization are Comparative Politics and International Relations with an emphasis on Globalization, Oil and Energy, Conflict and Conflict Resolution, and Middle Eastern Politics. Along with them, Professor R. K. Ramazani, the Edward Stettinius Chair who also served as the chairman of the Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, commented briefly in response to our questions. Ramazani, who has penned ten books on the Middle East, in addition contributed numerous chapters and journal articles, and has been a consultant to the White House, the Department of State, the Defense Department and the Treasury Department, in addition to many private foundations and companies.
What do you think the Iranian presidency is trying to do with these tension-escalating-statements coming one after another?
Javedanfar: I believe that President Ahmadinejad’s statements are not made due to sheer ignorance. They are well planned and well timed to meet the following goals: 1. One of the main reasons is internal. Ahmadinejad recently suffered internal defeats in the Majlis; where three of his candidates for the position of oil minister were rejected one after another in front of him. Although his fourth candidate has recently been accepted, after the rejection of his second candidate, Ahmadinejad found the defeat so painful that he got up on the Majlis podium and angrily declared “This has never been done to another President of the Islamic Republic. No other president has ever been subject to such negative propaganda and treatment.” Such statements are hardly made by a president who feels confident about his position. Therefore in a bid to stamp his authority, Ahmadinejad has decided to pick on the easiest victim, Israel, with whom Iran has no economic or political relations. The fact that the Islamic Republic’s leader Ayatollah Khamenei came out to support him after he attacked Israel is testament that this method works favorably for Ahmadinejad. Now that he has the backing of the ultimate source of power in Iran, Ahmadinejad intends to use it to implement his policy with more authority and confidence. This also means that every time Ahmadinejad has internal problems; he will attack Israel again, using it as a tool. This is forecast to happen again in the next month, as Ahmadinejad’s budget, which has been presented to the Majlis, is expected to be rejected by Majlis members due to its unsuitability. This will be a major defeat for him which will leave him looking weak. This will prompt him to create another foreign crisis. 2. The second major reason behind Ahmadinejad’s attacks against Israel is related to the nuclear talks between Iran and the EU-3 countries (Germany, UK and France). Since his election, Ahmadinejad has taken an uncompromising stance in the nuclear talks with the EU. His unwillingness to change Iran’s nuclear position was confirmed again during the same, “The Holocaust is a myth” speech, when he declared that he will not “cede one inch of Iran’s nuclear rights to foreign powers”. In other words, Iran will continue to insist on carrying out conversion and enrichment of uranium on its soil. The EU can’t and won’t continue to go to the negotiation table to be told the same thing by Tehran. Therefore, in the face of Ahmadinejad’s unwillingness to compromise, it is very possible that there will be a breakdown in the talks with the EU, and we can see this today as Iran finds itself on the verge of being referred to the UN Security Council. Ahmadinejad realizes this, and in a bid to prepare the ground to shift blame when talks breakdown, Ahmadinejad is pushing the Europeans, especially Germany to defend Israel, and what better subject than the Holocaust, which Germany is still incredibly sensitive about. And as a result, when the talks breakdown, Ahmadinejad will be in a position to blame the Europeans and their defense of the “Zionist entity” and the “Holocaust myth” as the main cause for the collapse of the negotiations. 3. Ahmadinejad is a man who likes to play to his audience. The “Holocaust is a myth” speech coincided with the visit of HAMAS leader Khaled Mashaal to Tehran. The verbal assault was Ahmadinejad’s way of showing his commitment to HAMAS and its rejectionist stance. Unfortunately for Israel, such support from the president of a powerful Middle East country is likely to add to HAMAS’s motivations for not renewing its ceasefire.
Noorbaksh: Ahmadinejad’s confrontational foreign policy emanates from two sources. First, the new president is naïve and does not have a deep understanding of international politics. Second, he comes from a background shaped mostly by his involvement in the war against Iraq in the 1980s. He saw in that war injustice, insecurity and defeat and blames the United States for support of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. He is offended by Washington’s siding with Baghdad in the war and its indifference to the plight of thousands in Iran and Iraq who were exposed to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction including chemical warheads during the war. The war mentality has been carried out by him and his group of friends who are currently accompanying him in government. Ahmadinejad’s remarks against Israel are aimed at competing with al-Qaeda in the Middle East for the support from radical orientations in the region. This support, if achieved, can help the new president stabilize his power position among the hard-line conservatives within the country. Al-Zarqawi, and his strategy of killing the Shiite in Iraq, has become a new impetus for this president to galvanize support in the Arab Middle East around anti-American slogans for the sake of controlling Muslim radical rhetoric and movements.
Taking into consideration the US position and its restraints in Iraq, do you see an American military operation against Iran possible? Can it handle this on its own or with the support of the EU and Israel? What role could Turkey play in such an operation?
Javedanfar: US action against Iran is certainly a possibility, although one that is not recommendable. The US has the military might, in the air, land and sea to do this alone. The US has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Qatar which is only 500 kilometers away from the Bushehr nuclear sites. It must also be added that the runways of the US airbase in Qatar have just been extended for B-52 landings. This should ring some serious alarm bells for Iran’s military planners. Therefore, logistically, the US can carryout a sustained military operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Turkey would certainly be able to play a part in the operations. The US airbase in Incirlik would be able to provide support to the attacking forces. Intelligence bases on Turkish bases on Iran’s borders would also assist the US. As for Israel, in my opinion Israel’s first choice will be to stay well away from an attack, if it can, both militarily and politically. Iran is not Iraq. Iran, with allies such as HAMAS, Islamic jihad and Hezbollah sitting on Israel’s borders, Israel would prefer not to provoke them. Iran is also equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which can reach Israel, and cause serious damage.
Also logistically speaking, Israel does not have sufficient aerial capability for a sustained aerial attack against Iran’s bases. However what will help the US enormously is political support from the EU and Turkey in the case of such an attack. Bush’s unilateral action in Iraq has left the US politically isolated in the region. To attack another Middle Eastern country again, the US will need a broader consensus this time. Ultimately if the talks fail, the EU may discreetly give the green light to Washington. However, I believe that it will be unlikely for Turkey to do that. Prime Minister Erdogan rejected a $30 billion loan from the US for assistance to topple Saddam, who was literally a “dead man walking.” Therefore it will even be more unlikely that he will support actions against Turkey’s much more powerful neighbor Iran, who not only has a stronger army, but also is a major energy supplier (gas) to the Turkish economy.
Noorbaksh: Attacking Iran’s nuclear sites is definitely counterproductive. The West must deal with the issue of fuel cycle rights and uranium enrichment in Iran with the utmost prudence. These issues are bigger than simply Ahmadinejad’s government. Most Iranians think that it is the legal right of Iran as a signatory of the NPT to develop scientific projects in this area, regardless of how critical they are of the current government. Any contemplation of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities will have dire consequences for Iran, the reform movement inside this country, and the whole region. Any attack by Israel would also be considered an attack by the United States, because both nations are security partners in the Middle East. Overall, the nations of this region do not separate between Israel and the United States when it comes to political, security and military issues in this part of the world. The “carrot and stick” strategy and serious negotiations with Iran through a third party, such as the Russians and Chinese, provide a very useful approach. Extreme measures against Iran would further destabilize the Middle East region and would have the potential to disrupt the flow of oil from different parts of the Persian Gulf area at this critical juncture in the history of energy supply. There are conservative hard-line members of parliament in Iran who have suggested confrontation with the United States in the Strait of Hormuz.
If we put the military option aside, what could be the best strategy that should be followed against Iran? Do you think an economic embargo works?
Javedanfar: The best strategy would be to offer better economic incentives to Iran. The EU’s economic promises to Iran turned out to be not very substantial, as many of the items requested by Iran contained US technology, which due to the embargo, the EU was not able to supply. I don’t believe that sanctions will work. Iran has just had a bumper financial year; it earned $40 from oil alone. Iran also has porous borders, which means that smuggling from places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Shiite areas of Iraq are very possible. Sanctions against Iran will also hurt western economies, as they rely heavily on Iranian oil (Iran is OPEC’s second biggest oil producer). Putting economic factors aside, culturally speaking, any sanctions against Iran will make the Iranian people more determined to support the nuclear program. History has shown time and time again that despite internal political differences, in times of foreign hostility, Iranian people unite. This was shown during the British embargo on Iran during the rule of Mosadeq in the 1950s. The economic sanctions imposed by the British and the US did not break the Iranian people, despite all expectations of the West. The only way the West managed to change the situation was by financing a coup against Mosadeq. Economic sanctions against Iran will be a mistake, by punishing the Iranian people; the West will also become their victimizer. If punishments are needed, the best form of sanctions would be one which targets the business interests of the leadership. It is well known that Ayatollah Rafsanjani deals with conglomerates such as Daewoo, Hyundai, Statoil of Norway, Airbus and numerous other investments stretching all the way to Canada. Other sections of the regime, such as the Revolutionary Guards (Pasdaran) have huge business interests in the Emirates. If those are targeted by sanctions, they will have a much better chance of convincing the regime, as the leadership will pay from its own pocket, and not from the pocket of Iran’s innocent citizens.
Noorbaksh: The best sanction on Iran is the sanction on Iranian oil exports. The Iranian non-oil export revenue is close to eight billion dollars a year. This amount is very small compared to the revenue of the oil export from the country. The Iranian economy is absolutely dependent on oil revenue. Without oil money, the Iranian government’s ventures will be hard hit. The middle class and intelligentsia are the engines of change and opposition to the government in Iran today. Punishing this group, as poorly-devised sanctions will inevitably do, is not in the interest of change and democratization in the country. Cutting off Iranian oil from the global market is also not a wise thing to do. Both the industrial and developing nations need 2.5 million barrels of oil, five percent of the world’s needs, which is exported from Iran daily. One million of this amount may be compensated, but the intense global oil market will suffer the consequences of this shortfall. There is doubt that Saudi Arabia would pick up this one million barrel deficit, because the royal family might not want to jeopardize its relations with Iran especially after siding with the rest of the world in opposition to Iran’s nuclear program. Standard & Poor’s sees dire consequences if sanctions are imposed on the Iranian oil exports; sending prices, near record level, and even higher. Consequently, that will badly damage global economic growth.
Israel is believed to have at least 200 nuclear weapons or capacity to be able to produce this amount, and has not yet signed the NPT. Israeli statesmen, too, sometimes use the same threatening jargon as Iranians. But we see the international pressure focused only on Iran that tries hard to persuade the world that its nuclear agenda is bound only to energy production and nothing more. Could you view this approach as a double standard as seen by the majority of Muslim World?
Javedanfar: Israel, unlike Ahmadinejad has never called for the total elimination of Arab countries. Nor has Israel called Muslim history a “myth” and a lie, something which Dr Ahmadinejad did to Jewish people in his remarks denying the Holocaust. Meanwhile many Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Persian Gulf Countries, back the claim that Iran’s nuclear program may not be as innocent as it should be. This is why many Arab countries are not providing Iran with their full support. However, one can certainly understand why Arab and Muslim countries view Israel’s supposed nuclear capability as a double standard, as Israel is not even a signatory of the NPT. This is certainly understandable and has logic to it. I believe the best way to solve such perceptions of double standards is to free the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction. We also need to convince countries not to call for the elimination of others; as such threats are one of the biggest motivators for the possession of doomsday weapons. We need to create motivations to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, not to acquire them.
America’s probable military operation will aim only at eliminating the nuclear capacity of Iran or might there be different expectations in the minds of war strategiests?
Javedanfar: I strongly believe that in the case of an attack, US planners would focus on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear installations and possibly an attack against some of Iran’s missiles and aerial bases in order to neutralize Iran’s capability to respond. Any other attack would be counter productive and a waste of US resources. I do not see the US attacking political sites such as the homes of politicians, as it is a well known fact that many of Iran’s top politicians are very well protected.
There are some comments that America wants to play (is playing) the ethnical group card in Iran as it did in Iraq. Do you agree with this view? If so, could Kurds have an important role in Iran, too?
Javedanfar: It is very possible that the US is manipulating Iran’s ethnic minorities, especially Iranian Arabs in the Khuzestan region of Iran. The US can use its influence and infrastructure in Iraq to lend political and military support to them. The Kurds will also be a candidate for this task as the US forces in Iraq, and their close relations with Barzani especially (not Talabani as he has excellent relations with Iran) may allow them to support Kurdish independence aspirations in Iran. The Kurds could have an important role to play, as there are a number of Kurdish movements with established resources in Iran. I the long run, however, any Kurdish or Arab aspirations and plans for independence in Iran may be futile, as the Iranian government and people (in Iran and abroad including myself in Israel) are united against any plans for the division of Iran. In short I believe any foreign plans to split Iran will be one of the biggest mistakes the west could make, as it would incur the wrath of millions of Iran’s citizens. The West needs Iran’s citizens on its side, not against it.
Some are afraid that America’s probable operation against Iran could be the trigger of World War III. Do you agree?
Javedanfar: I do not believe that a US attack against Iran would lead to WW III. For that to happen we need to see many countries becoming involved in the conflict. Even if Iran is attacked, I do not see great number of countries becoming involved in attacking the West. Iran may have the support of numerous groups, such as Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad; however, it does not have the support of countries that would be prepared to go to war on its behalf.
‘US operation can not destroy the Iranian regime’
Professor R. K. Ramazani:
From the Iranian perspective, Ahmadinejad is trying to resist Western pressures with his statements. A US or Israeli military strike is not likely to succeed, nor would the EU go along with an invasion. Turkey should act the same prudent way it behaved in the case of the American invasion of Iraq. When it comes to what should be done; the best strategy for the US would be to bite the bullet, recognize the Iranian regime and talk to it respectfully and directly. And right now even, some Americans see the Bush administration's approach to the nuclear issue as hypocritical. Strategy planners might hope that military action would also destroy the regime, but that is a pipe dream because it would only strengthen nationwide support for the regime. Kurds could have an important role in Iran, too? I really don't think so, but any Kurdish uprising would surely be crushed. Some may be afraid of World War III, but I don't agree because the cost of a world war would outweigh the benefits.
07.03.2006
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=interviews&alt=&hn=30599
[INTERVIEW]
Prof. Coolsaet: The US President who Uses Nuclear Weapons Against Iran will be Impeached
by
Selcuk Gultasli
Brussels (ZAMAN)- Profesor Rik Coolsaet, professor of international relations at Ghent University, Belgium, and director of the Security and Global Governance Department at the Royal Institute for International Relations, Brussels argues that the US president who uses nuclear weapons without being attacked will be impeached. Expert on international terrorism, Prof. Coolsaet says there is no way US will use nuclear weapons against Iran and if it happens, America will lose its world supremacy. Professor Coolsaet talked to ZAMAN in Brussels. Here are the excerpts:
Do you think war on Iran is imminent?
I don’t think there is, on the short term, a possibility of military showdown. The only ones who want a military operation is Americans and Israelis, however Americans are not willing to start a military operation as they are already involved in big military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ground forces are stretched to the limits, even a limited air strike against nuclear facilities is; a- not easy to do technically, a number of installations are underneath and they are not quite easy to wipe out, b- Americans recognize that they do not have sufficient information on the extent of the nuclear infrastructure. Basically that is a lesson learned from Iraq i.e. the scarcity of intelligence. There are still many questions unanswered concerning nuclear infrastructure, c- the most important element is the realization in Washington that whatever shape the military strike will take, be it a limited one or an all-out one, the political fall-out of such an operation will be high both for Iran and, in particular, for the U.S. If there would be a military strike, which would not ultimately mean a defeat and won’t stop the nuclear program. It will only stop it for several years, but reinforce the Iranian nationalism behind Ahmedinajad and give the argument that they need a program just for this reason i.e. not to be attacked again. They also realize that even a limited air strike will harden the resolve on the Iranian side to go with the nuclear program.
Israelis were successful in destroying the Iraqi Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and end the Iraqi dream of going nuclear.
The big difference is that it was one installation in Iraq and it was on surface. With the Iranian one the nuclear program is very widespread in a large landscape and part of it is built underground. This will hinder Americans to be a 100 percent sure -like Israelis were in 1981- that the nuclear program is completely destroyed. It is impossible to repeat what Israelis did basically because of what Iranians did, i.e. they built it on a large area of land.
What should be done to diffuse the tension?
People realize that it is not something easy, there is ‘no easy way out’, there is no silver bullet. The success of a military solution is not guaranteed and its fall-out cannot be assessed properly. The best thing that can be done right now is to heed Kofi Annan and El Baradei’s recommendations to heat down the rhetoric. First of all, what can be done is underlining the fact that we are not facing an imminent threat. There is no danger of waking up tomorrow and seeing Iran turned into a nuclear power. The predictions are ranging between 3 years minimum, 15 years maximum. So there is no urgency, no need to rush. The first thing to be done should be to lower the rhetoric. Secondly and most importantly you have to “de-westernize” the Iranian nuclear issue. By what I mean, the pressure has come from US and the EU so far, it is portrayed by Ahmedinajad yet another attempt by West to rein in another Muslim country. You have to give others the front line. In the first place the international organizations namely UN and its watchdog IAEA. They should take the floor and talk on behalf of the international community, not only the West. These organizations should make it clear that it is not the West vs. Iran but the world vs. nuclear adventures of a member country of the international community. This is the key issue, you have to put all possible pressure of the international community and secondly remind Iran its international obligations when she assumed signing the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), the promise not to join the club of nuclear weapons-wielding club.
Do you see any room for Islamic countries to contribute to the resolution of the conflict?
In my view, bilateral or multilateral contacts could be beneficial if done following Annan’s line but not unilateral attempts. For example, neighbors of Iran, even the non-Muslim ones, with the blessing of El Baradei, could send a delegation to Iran. Another one, I can imagine that IOC can gather with the request of some of its member states in collaboration with Annan and El Baradei. The fatwa, which was issued by Ayatollah Khamanei in August 2005, aimed at banning of using the nuclear weapons, this, is an excellent fatwa. One can also focus on the internal debate in Iran on Khamanei’s fatwa on the nuclear weapons.
Turkey tried it on the eve of Iraq with her neighbors but now US ambassador in Ankara is bluntly opposing Turkey’s endeavors to talk to Iran.
Let me reckon this point. US has no legitimacy whatsoever in this regard to prevent other countries to do things that they are doing. Who would prevent Turkey to do the things that others do in its best national interest.
Do you see a similarity between Hans Blix of Iraqi war and El Baradei of Iranian crisis?
No but I see the point. The two situations are too different to be compared. In the first case, Americans were clearly acting outside the international law and international organizations. So whatever Turkey was doing on the eve of the Iraqi war, US had an ideological approach and did not heed anything. But now there is an institutional willingness on the American side, which was clearly absent during the Iraqi war. Turkey, for example can feel nervous about having a nuclear neighbor like Iran. Iraq and Saudi Arabia can have the same feeling. So the neighboring countries have the same feeling of insecurity, if it is true Iran would go nuclear, these countries have all the right on earth to feel threatened.
Muslims, in general, are not convinced about the argument about Iran when it is an open secret that Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East and developed its nuclear program and arsenal with Western help.
I think the point is not between Islam and the West but rather; being from a weak part of the earth, you should ask why the weak countries can not do whatever they want as the strong, powerful countries do. Though his Arab neighbors may not view Ahmedinajad very positively, nevertheless he is giving the message of the weak people rising against the strong and the powerful. That is his appeal. That is why you have to “de- westernize” the issue. You have to put international institutions on the agenda that speak for the whole community. So why Iran should not do what she is doing right now, because; a- she signed the NPT treaty and promised not to produce nuclear weapons, this is the legalistic approach and it is weak, b- it is dangerous for everyone including Iran.
Is signing the NPT alone sufficient to argue that Iran should not be producing nukes?
From a legal point of view, it is simple as that. India, Pakistan and Israel have the same situation. They did not sign the NPT; they have no obligation not to produce nuclear weapons so they have not acted against their obligations. The difficulty will be if Iran decides to leave NPT as North Korea has done. You can get out of the treaty; all you need to do is to give a warning some six months before. That is exactly what the US has done unilaterally with the ABM (anti-ballistic missile treaty) in 2002. It could happen that Iran can say “I go nuclear” and it is not that difficult.
While Pakistan faced embargoes, Israel was almost welcome by the West as a nuclear power.
The West is being seen as acting with double standards. Perception is sometimes more important than the fact itself. Israel started the nuclear weaponry program much earlier, in the 1960s and that time there was not pressure like today on nuclear weapons and Israel had a better image in Europe. India and Pakistan had this bad reaction because they tried to develop in the 80s when this stigma turned negative. I understand the perception. Western countries should not monopolize the issue that is why I insist that UN and its watchdog in Vienna should be in charge.
Why does not the international community insist on the inspection of Israeli nuclear facilities?
That is one of the criticisms in the US right now, about its stance vis-à-vis India. There are some countries, which are inspected, and some are not, that is why I understand the perception of double standards. So there is right now pending agreement with India in the US Congress. There are some members who say that ‘if you ratify this agreement then you will give Iran the necessary incentive to go nuclear’. This is a huge discussion, it is not clear if Bush will win.
Seymour Hersh argues that there are talks of nuclear strike against Iran.
A nuclear strike is impossible. It could have been mentioned as one of the options. I cannot imagine the US administration would use it, they will lose all the moral authority, it will be the end of American supremacy and there will be a huge reaction even within the US. That is unacceptable for American public. When this issue popped up in the Oval Office, I am sure the reaction was “are you mad or out of your mind?” I think an American president who use nuclear weapons, without being attacked, will be impeached.
Can Israel hit Iran alone?
I do not think they are capable of doing it. They do not have the means and the information to do it. Even the strongest military unit cannot do it alone. I do not think that the Americans would help Israel with that.
Cannot Iranians be telling the truth that they have the program just for energy purposes?
It could be technically possible. But why they did hide it for almost 20 years if it was only for civilian purposes, why they do not reply a number of questions of AIEA, why they do not allow inspectors even though they signed the protocol.
21.04.2006
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=interviews&alt=&hn=32290
Power and Interest News Report (PINR)
http://www.pinr.com
content@pinr.com
+1 (312) 242-1874
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.