Syria Winds up Planning for Campaign of Terror on Golan
July 5, 2007
Israel's Golani troops on maneuver
On June 26, Syria opened the Damascus-Golan road to Quneitra to civilian traffic for the first time since the Six-Day War of 1967. No announcement was made. The dozens of military roadblocks studding the 60 km high road connecting the capital with the Syrian part of Golan for 40 years were removed, except for two – one at the entrance to Qunetra from the Syrian end and one at the town’s exit to Israeli Golan. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources report that this measure went mostly unnoticed, although it made Israeli military intelligence sit up.
Until this week, civilian traffic heading towards Syria’s Golan border with Israel was discouraged by the government in Damascus; a traveler needed eight different pieces of paper and endless waits to get past the military roadblocks. All of a sudden, the powers-that-be in the Syrian capital decided to allow civilians free passage to Golan meaning preparations are complete for the launch of a cross-border campaign of terror in the Israel sector of the territory. Such a campaign could quickly escalate into a full-scale war.
The day the road was opened, Syria celebrated the 33rd anniversary of Quneitra’s liberation, i.e. the signing of the armistice agreement with Israel which delineated the provisional border between the two countries and ended the 1973 Yom Kippur war and ensuing war of attrition. Quneitra, which was captured by Israel in 1967, was ceded to Syria on condition it was kept demilitarized.
The Syrian official publication Tishreen marked the event by writing:
Since the first moment of taking oath as President of the Republic, Bashar Al-Assad made it clear that the Golan always remains in the center until it returns to the homeland, Syria. This is an inevitable day. The return of Golan to Syria is non-negotiable.
Under such circumstances in which the Israelis continue to reject all Arab bids for reaching a just and comprehensive peace settlement, the option of national resistance remains the only open legitimate course for the liberation of the occupied Arab lands and the restoration of usurped rights.
Golan, the biblical Bashan, is a narrow basalt plateau, part of the Sea of Galilee’s catchment basin, which provides 30% of Israel’s water. Israeli jurisdiction was formally extended to Golan in 1981.
In speeches he made in the last three months, Bashar Assad made a point of referring to the mounting pressure of refugees from Golan living in Syria to take “liberation” in their own hands. Official Syrian figures put the number of “Golan Heights refugees” at 410,000, a figure which is grossly exaggerated to highlight their suffering. The real refugee figure from this tiny sliver of 1,070 sq. km. of land is no more than 60-70,000, around half of whom are crowded into the Wafadin camp on the western outskirts of Damascus.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources disclose that a year ago, in June 2006, Syrian military intelligence recruited several hundred Golan refugees for a new framework called the Front for the Liberation of the Golan Heights. They were trained for terror operations, blowing up roads and bridges, attacks on military camps and convoys and hostage-taking. Three months ago, the Front struck for the first time, detonating an explosive device on the border fence as an Israeli patrol passed by.
Israeli and Western military and intelligence interpret the opening of the Damascus-Quneitra highway to civilians as a gambit to give the Front free rein to cross into Israeli Golan for terrorist operations against civilian and military targets, without Syria being held responsible. This gives the Assad government an alibi for claiming it has no control over the traffic traversing the road to the border, the same pretext it has used for years in allowing terrorists, arms and money to infiltrate Iraq and Lebanon.
Israel can be expected to be a lot less tolerant of Syrian attacks on the Golan than the Americans are in Iraq - whatever the name of the “resistance” framework.
Kamis, 05 Juli 2007
George Bush goes wobbly
Daniel Pipes, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 4, 2007
When Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., in June 1957, his 500-word talk effused good will ("Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements") even as the American president embarrassingly bumbled (Muslims in the United States, he declared, have the right to their "own church"). Conspicuously, he included nary a word about policy.
Exactly 50 years later, standing shoeless, George W. Bush rededicated the center last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture ("We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries"), but he knew a mosque from a church - and he had more on the agenda than flattery.
Most arresting, surely, was his statement that "I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace."
This cri de coeur signaled how Bush understands to what extent actions by Muslims will define his legacy.
Should they heed his dream "and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace," then his presidency, however ravaged it may look at the moment, will be vindicated. As with Harry S Truman, historians will acknowledge that he saw further than his contemporaries. Should Muslims, however, be "left behind in the global movement toward prosperity and freedom," historians will likely judge his two terms as harshly as do his fellow Americans today.
OF COURSE, how Muslims fare depends in large part on the future course of radical Islam, which in turn depends in some part on its understanding by the American president. Over the years, Bush has generally shown an increased understanding of this topic. He started with platitudinous, apologetic references to Islam as the "religion of peace," using this phrase as late as 2006.
He early on even lectured Muslims on the true nature of their religion, a preposterous ambition that prompted me in 2001 to dub him "Imam Bush." As his understanding grew, Bush spoke of the caliphate, "Islamic extremism" and "Islamofacism." What euphemistically he called the "war on terror" in 2001, by 2006 he referred to with the hard-hitting "war with Islamic fascists." Things were looking up. Perhaps official Washington did understand, after all.
But such analyses roused Muslim opposition and, as he approaches his political twilight, Bush retreated to safer ground, reverting last week to decayed tropes that tiptoe around any mention of Islam. Instead, he spoke inelegantly of "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East" and of "a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination."
Worse, the speech drum-rolled the appointment of a US special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, tasking this envoy to "listen to and learn from" his Muslim counterparts. But the OIC is a Saudi-sponsored organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations. As Steven Emerson has noted, Bush's dismal initiative stands in "complete ignorance of the rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and anti-American sentiments routinely found in statements by the OIC and its leaders."
Adding to the event's accommodationist tone, some of the president's top female aides, including Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to him in the audience.
In brief, it feels like "déjà vu all over again." As Diana West puts it, "Nearly six years after September 11 - nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming 'Islam is peace' - Mr. Bush has learned nothing."
But we now harbor fewer hopes than in 2001 that he still can learn, absorb, and reflect an understanding of the enemy's Islamist nature.
Concluding that he basically has failed to engage this central issue, we instead must look to his potential successors and look for them to return to Bush's occasional robustness, again taking up those difficult concepts of the caliphate and Islamic extremism. Several Republicans - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and (above all) Fred Thompson - are doing just that. Democratic candidates, unfortunately, prefer to remain almost completely silent on this topic.
Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked Americans, and on the eve of three major attempted terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the president's speech reveals how confused Washington remains.
Daniel Pipes, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 4, 2007
When Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., in June 1957, his 500-word talk effused good will ("Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements") even as the American president embarrassingly bumbled (Muslims in the United States, he declared, have the right to their "own church"). Conspicuously, he included nary a word about policy.
Exactly 50 years later, standing shoeless, George W. Bush rededicated the center last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture ("We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries"), but he knew a mosque from a church - and he had more on the agenda than flattery.
Most arresting, surely, was his statement that "I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace."
This cri de coeur signaled how Bush understands to what extent actions by Muslims will define his legacy.
Should they heed his dream "and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace," then his presidency, however ravaged it may look at the moment, will be vindicated. As with Harry S Truman, historians will acknowledge that he saw further than his contemporaries. Should Muslims, however, be "left behind in the global movement toward prosperity and freedom," historians will likely judge his two terms as harshly as do his fellow Americans today.
OF COURSE, how Muslims fare depends in large part on the future course of radical Islam, which in turn depends in some part on its understanding by the American president. Over the years, Bush has generally shown an increased understanding of this topic. He started with platitudinous, apologetic references to Islam as the "religion of peace," using this phrase as late as 2006.
He early on even lectured Muslims on the true nature of their religion, a preposterous ambition that prompted me in 2001 to dub him "Imam Bush." As his understanding grew, Bush spoke of the caliphate, "Islamic extremism" and "Islamofacism." What euphemistically he called the "war on terror" in 2001, by 2006 he referred to with the hard-hitting "war with Islamic fascists." Things were looking up. Perhaps official Washington did understand, after all.
But such analyses roused Muslim opposition and, as he approaches his political twilight, Bush retreated to safer ground, reverting last week to decayed tropes that tiptoe around any mention of Islam. Instead, he spoke inelegantly of "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East" and of "a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination."
Worse, the speech drum-rolled the appointment of a US special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, tasking this envoy to "listen to and learn from" his Muslim counterparts. But the OIC is a Saudi-sponsored organization promoting the Wahhabi agenda under the trappings of a Muslim-only United Nations. As Steven Emerson has noted, Bush's dismal initiative stands in "complete ignorance of the rampant radicalism, pro-terrorist, and anti-American sentiments routinely found in statements by the OIC and its leaders."
Adding to the event's accommodationist tone, some of the president's top female aides, including Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to him in the audience.
In brief, it feels like "déjà vu all over again." As Diana West puts it, "Nearly six years after September 11 - nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming 'Islam is peace' - Mr. Bush has learned nothing."
But we now harbor fewer hopes than in 2001 that he still can learn, absorb, and reflect an understanding of the enemy's Islamist nature.
Concluding that he basically has failed to engage this central issue, we instead must look to his potential successors and look for them to return to Bush's occasional robustness, again taking up those difficult concepts of the caliphate and Islamic extremism. Several Republicans - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and (above all) Fred Thompson - are doing just that. Democratic candidates, unfortunately, prefer to remain almost completely silent on this topic.
Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked Americans, and on the eve of three major attempted terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the president's speech reveals how confused Washington remains.
Rabu, 04 Juli 2007
Ya'alon: Land for peace concept failed
Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 4, 2007
The concept of land for peace is a proven failure in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and any future withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank will create a 'Hamastan' there too, former Chief of Staff Lt. Gen (Res.) Moshe Ya'alon said Wednesday.
The former military chief said that Hamas's takeover of the Gaza Strip and the creation of "the first Jihadist Arab entity" on Israel's doorstep last month was "the last nail on the coffin" in a string of faulty conceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which have been the earmark of Israeli and Western policy for decades.
"The strengthening of Hamas after the Israeli pullout from Gaza and the Hamas takeover of Gaza necessitate a renewed examination of Israeli and international conceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, to my mind, are no longer relevant," Ya'alon said in an address organized by The Shalem Center, a Jerusalem research institute, on the ramifications of the Hamas takeover of Gaza.
In a succinct address which tore at the most basic premises of Middle East peacemaking, Ya'alon said that the faulty conceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict included the notions that the Palestinians wanted - or were able - to establish an independent state on the 1967 borders, that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the creation of two states on the 1967 borders, that land for peace should be the basis for any peace agreement, that peace would bring security, and that the key to stability in the Middle East was the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He argued that the violent Palestinian rejection of the peace offer put forward to them at Camp David seven years ago, which would have awarded them with a Palestinian state on upwards of 95 percent of the West Bank, and the refusal of both Hamas and the more moderate Fatah to recognize the existence of a Jewish State, negated the very essence of Israeli and international policymaking on the conflict - that the Palestinians want an independent Palestinian State alongside Israel on the 1967 borders.
"We are talking about [a Palestinian Authority which is] a gang authority and not a political authority," he said.
Ya'alon said that stabilization in the region did not hinge on the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as many Western leaders argue, but on the defeat of Islamic Jihadism, led by the Iranian regime.
"Not only will an Israeli concession not reduce the threat- it will increase it," he said.
"Israeli concessions today will impede not only Israel's interests and those of the West but of moderate Arab regimes in the region," he added.
The hawkish former military chief, who is expected to be a future top contender in the political arena, said that Israel must treat the Hamas-run Gaza Strip as an "enemy entity," and should "disengage" from being the provider of water, electricity, and goods to the volatile coastal strip where 1.4 million Palestinians live.
At the same time, he opined Israel should give the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority in the West Bank a chance to establish autonomy, while Israel would be in charge of security in the area.
Ya'alon said that any Israeli military pullout from the West Bank would lead to the creation of a Hamastan there, which he said would threaten both Israel and Jordan.
He added that he opposed the stationing of Jordanian - or any foreign - troops in the West Bank, calling it a fruitless idea which has been ineffective in the past.
Ya'alon's tenure as Israel's top military officer from 2002-2005 was marked by both a successful military crackdown on Palestinian terrorism, and his very overt falling out with then prime minister Ariel Sharon over his opposition to the premier's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
In a separate address, Major General (Res.) Giora Eiland, a former head of the Israel National Security Council said that Israel was missing out on an opportunity following the sudden Hamas takeover of Gaza last month.
Eiland argued that Israel had not used the Hamas conquest of Gaza to pressure the Islamist group to stop Kassam attacks and return Israeli Cpl. Gilad Schalilt now that it was in control of the densely populated coastal strip, and instead was serving the Palestinian interest by releasing Palestinian prisoners, and easing border crossings in the West Bank.
He argued that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders were not interested in reaching a peace agreement since such an accord - even if it were reached - would not be practical given the political realities on the ground, and would only lead to a future escalation of violence.
Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 4, 2007
The concept of land for peace is a proven failure in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and any future withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank will create a 'Hamastan' there too, former Chief of Staff Lt. Gen (Res.) Moshe Ya'alon said Wednesday.
The former military chief said that Hamas's takeover of the Gaza Strip and the creation of "the first Jihadist Arab entity" on Israel's doorstep last month was "the last nail on the coffin" in a string of faulty conceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which have been the earmark of Israeli and Western policy for decades.
"The strengthening of Hamas after the Israeli pullout from Gaza and the Hamas takeover of Gaza necessitate a renewed examination of Israeli and international conceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, to my mind, are no longer relevant," Ya'alon said in an address organized by The Shalem Center, a Jerusalem research institute, on the ramifications of the Hamas takeover of Gaza.
In a succinct address which tore at the most basic premises of Middle East peacemaking, Ya'alon said that the faulty conceptions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict included the notions that the Palestinians wanted - or were able - to establish an independent state on the 1967 borders, that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the creation of two states on the 1967 borders, that land for peace should be the basis for any peace agreement, that peace would bring security, and that the key to stability in the Middle East was the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He argued that the violent Palestinian rejection of the peace offer put forward to them at Camp David seven years ago, which would have awarded them with a Palestinian state on upwards of 95 percent of the West Bank, and the refusal of both Hamas and the more moderate Fatah to recognize the existence of a Jewish State, negated the very essence of Israeli and international policymaking on the conflict - that the Palestinians want an independent Palestinian State alongside Israel on the 1967 borders.
"We are talking about [a Palestinian Authority which is] a gang authority and not a political authority," he said.
Ya'alon said that stabilization in the region did not hinge on the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as many Western leaders argue, but on the defeat of Islamic Jihadism, led by the Iranian regime.
"Not only will an Israeli concession not reduce the threat- it will increase it," he said.
"Israeli concessions today will impede not only Israel's interests and those of the West but of moderate Arab regimes in the region," he added.
The hawkish former military chief, who is expected to be a future top contender in the political arena, said that Israel must treat the Hamas-run Gaza Strip as an "enemy entity," and should "disengage" from being the provider of water, electricity, and goods to the volatile coastal strip where 1.4 million Palestinians live.
At the same time, he opined Israel should give the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority in the West Bank a chance to establish autonomy, while Israel would be in charge of security in the area.
Ya'alon said that any Israeli military pullout from the West Bank would lead to the creation of a Hamastan there, which he said would threaten both Israel and Jordan.
He added that he opposed the stationing of Jordanian - or any foreign - troops in the West Bank, calling it a fruitless idea which has been ineffective in the past.
Ya'alon's tenure as Israel's top military officer from 2002-2005 was marked by both a successful military crackdown on Palestinian terrorism, and his very overt falling out with then prime minister Ariel Sharon over his opposition to the premier's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
In a separate address, Major General (Res.) Giora Eiland, a former head of the Israel National Security Council said that Israel was missing out on an opportunity following the sudden Hamas takeover of Gaza last month.
Eiland argued that Israel had not used the Hamas conquest of Gaza to pressure the Islamist group to stop Kassam attacks and return Israeli Cpl. Gilad Schalilt now that it was in control of the densely populated coastal strip, and instead was serving the Palestinian interest by releasing Palestinian prisoners, and easing border crossings in the West Bank.
He argued that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders were not interested in reaching a peace agreement since such an accord - even if it were reached - would not be practical given the political realities on the ground, and would only lead to a future escalation of violence.
Selasa, 03 Juli 2007
Our World: Olmert's international coalitions
Caroline Glick,
THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 3, 2007
Today Hamas consolidates its power in Gaza and plans its next moves in Judea and Samaria. Fatah - its main competitor - has collapsed.
Fatah was plunged into a state of organizational shock last month after its US-trained militias surrendered control of Gaza to Hamas and its US-benighted commanders fled the area.
Although with sufficient bribes for its angry followers courtesy of Israel and the US, Fatah may be able to temporarily resuscitate itself (at least until its leaders feel secure enough with the size of their Swiss bank accounts to decamp to Borneo), Hamas's consolidation of its control over Gaza has nonetheless sealed Fatah's death warrant.
In the course of its jihadist putsch in Gaza, Hamas took control not only of Fatah's US- and European-financed military arsenal and the CIA and MI-6 intelligence gathering equipment Fatah was lavished with. It also took control of Fatah's intelligence files and the personal files of Fatah leaders. This means that Hamas now has complete documentary evidence of Fatah's corruption; its involvement in terrorism; and its double dealing with the West, with rogue regimes like Iran, and with terror groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida.
THERE CAN be no doubt that under the tutelage of the Iranian and Syrian intelligence directorates, Hamas will use its treasure trove of information in a manner that will block any move by Fatah to renew its support bases in Palestinian society.
Hamas's intelligence windfall will similarly prevent Fatah from significantly resisting Hamas's consolidation of control over Gaza and the expansion of Hamas's rule to Judea and Samaria.
Two examples of Hamas's use of information to date suffice to make this point clear. First there is Israel and the US's favorite Palestinian "straight-shooter" Salam Fayad. Fayad - a former senior official from the terror-linked Arab Bank and the current prime minister of Fatah Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Judea and Samaria government - served willingly as finance minister in Hamas's government before the Gaza takeover.
Claiming that Fayad was a personal friend of hers, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ignored her own government's boycott of the Hamas government to meet with Fayad when he visited Washington in the spring.
Sunday Gaza-based Hamas terrorist and parliamentarian Yahya Musa accused Fayad of corruption. Referring to him as "the head of the thieves," Musa claimed that Fayad is "suspected of embezzling $36 million from the Agricultural Development Company."
Musa also hinted that Fayad has personally overseen the finance of terrorism by stating that he "used to channel public funds to Fatah."
THE SECOND example is Hamas's use of information on Fatah commander Muhammad Dahlan. On June 15, Hamas took control of Dahlan's palatial residence in Gaza. Hamas claimed it found a suitcase filled with gold, forged Pakistani and US passports and the identification card of murdered IDF border guard Nissim Toledano. The last find is particularly revealing.
Since 1994 both the US and Israel ignored mountains of evidence of Dahlan's involvement with terrorism. Both governments have clung to their support for Dahlan despite his close relationships with senior Hamas terrorists like Muhammad Deif and his own forces' direct involvement in the murder of Israelis. The fact that Dahlan had possession of Toledano's ID card shows just how ill-advised this support for Dahlan has been.
Toledano was kidnapped on his way to his border guard base in 1992. His mutilated body was found near the Dead Sea some days later. Toledano's abduction and murder became a pivotal event for all that would follow in the region.
Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. In response, the Rabin government deported 417 Hamas terrorists to Lebanon where they were quickly taken under the wing of Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. In 1994, in the wake of the Oslo peace process with Fatah, Rabin allowed the 417 to return to Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Once back, they immediately fomented a terror onslaught against Israel the likes of which had never been seen before. It was the returnees who organized the first suicide bombing beginning in April 1994.
The fact that Dahlan was in possession of Toledano's ID raises the question of Fatah's involvement in his kidnap and murder and casts a pall over the entire attempt by Israel and the West to make a distinction between Hamas and Fatah terrorists.
There can be no doubt that more information about Fatah leaders (and their business and other connections with Israeli political leaders and others) will follow - as suits the operational interests of Hamas and its Iranian bosses.
In light of this it is clear that Fatah can be of no use to anyone any longer. Indeed, those who work to strengthen Fatah may well be opening themselves to blackmail and public humiliation at a time and place of Hamas's choosing. So not only is Fatah a dead horse, it is a dead horse rigged to a land mine.
YET FOR all that, supporting Fatah and Abbas remains the central goal of Israel's government. This week Israel handed some $120 million over to Abbas and Fayad. Next week it will release 250 Fatah terrorists from prison. Last week Prime Minister Ehud Olmert embraced Abbas at Sharm e-Sheikh after expounding on Abbas's greatness with US President George W. Bush at the White House the week before.
Olmert and his colleagues portray Abbas as a central member of a camp of "moderates" which includes the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Jordanians. All these so-called moderates are supposed to form a coalition with Israel, the US and the EU against the "extremists" in Hamas, Iran, Hizbullah and Syria. Unfortunately the camp of moderates is a fiction. Jordan is so frightened of a jihadist coup that its government statements are barely distinguishable from Muslim Brotherhood press releases.
Over the weekend, at Egypt's invitation, Hamas terror forces deployed along the Gaza border with Egypt. For its part, Saudi Arabia oversaw the formation of the Hamas-Fatah "unity" government last March which subordinated Abbas and Fatah to Khaled Mashaal and Hamas. The Saudis have embraced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In his maiden visit to the Sunni Islamist capital, the genocidal, messianic Shi'ite Ahmadinejad was kissed, and hugged, and held hands with King Abdullah.
For her part, rather than condition any further US support for Fatah on credible steps to fight Hamas and its own terror networks, Rice is redoubling her pressure on Israel. Rice is planning to use $86 million in US-taxpayer funds to have Lt. Gen Keith Dayton train Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria. That's the same Gen. Dayton who trained and armed the Fatah forces in Gaza who cut and run rather than fight Hamas last month and so surrendered their US-supplied weapons to Iran's proxy without a fight.
Additionally, Rice is aggressively pushing her plan to force Israel to negotiate and conclude a treaty with Abbas that would involve an Israeli pledge to surrender Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem to Fatah. This is the same Fatah whose membership is revolting and bolting and the same Abbas who Fatah members are revolting against.
AS FOR the Europeans, newly appointed Quartet envoy Tony Blair is set to begin negotiating with Hamas in his planned visit to Gaza next week.
While like Rice, Blair has repeatedly claimed that the absence of a Palestinian state is the cause of all the troubles in the Muslim world today, a week ago a Blair adviser went a step further. According to media reports, the official advised the Israeli government that as far as Blair is concerned, Israel is responsible for the global jihad because of its refusal to surrender to Palestinian terrorism.
The only reasonable explanation of the Olmert government's behavior in regards to the Palestinians is that the government hopes that by appeasing the US and the rest of the gang on the Palestinian issue, Israel will receive their cooperation in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, here too, all evidence points to the conclusion that Israel has not received anything on the Iran front from any of the relevant actors in exchange for its willingness to let Hamas take over Gaza and continue to finance and arm Fatah terrorists.
Over the weekend Saudi Arabia's Deputy Foreign Minister met with Iran's ambassador to the Kingdom and reasserted Saudi Arabian support for Iran's pursuit of "peaceful nuclear technologies." The Saudis and the Iranians also agreed on the need for Islamic solidarity against the "enemies of Islam."
As for the Egyptians, not only are they, like the Saudis now openly moving to get nuclear capabilities of their own, the Egyptians are responsible for enabling Hamas to take control of Gaza. In spite of repeated Israeli entreaties, Egypt has never lifted a finger to prevent the flow of arms and terror personnel across its border. To the contrary, it facilitated Gaza's transformation into a jihadist hub. Since last summer's war, Egypt has moved towards reestablishing full diplomatic relations with the Iranians.
Today both the US and the Europeans are poised to set aside the option of escalating sanctions against Iran for its refusal to end its uranium enrichment activities. Over the weekend, their representatives to the International Atomic Energy Agency debated a plan to take a break from escalating sanctions if Iran agrees to stop expanding its uranium enrichment. That is, the US is presently considering a plan that would allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium without facing effective international sanctions as a result.
The tragedy of this situation is that a coalition could be brought together that would be capable of meeting both the Palestinian and Iranian threats to Israeli and global security. Friends of Israel in Congress, the Bush Administration and the US policy community would be happy to work with Israel to counteract Rice's failed policies.
Unfortunately, Israeli leaders capable of appreciating and acting on this fact are nowhere to be found in the Olmert government.
Caroline Glick,
THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 3, 2007
Today Hamas consolidates its power in Gaza and plans its next moves in Judea and Samaria. Fatah - its main competitor - has collapsed.
Fatah was plunged into a state of organizational shock last month after its US-trained militias surrendered control of Gaza to Hamas and its US-benighted commanders fled the area.
Although with sufficient bribes for its angry followers courtesy of Israel and the US, Fatah may be able to temporarily resuscitate itself (at least until its leaders feel secure enough with the size of their Swiss bank accounts to decamp to Borneo), Hamas's consolidation of its control over Gaza has nonetheless sealed Fatah's death warrant.
In the course of its jihadist putsch in Gaza, Hamas took control not only of Fatah's US- and European-financed military arsenal and the CIA and MI-6 intelligence gathering equipment Fatah was lavished with. It also took control of Fatah's intelligence files and the personal files of Fatah leaders. This means that Hamas now has complete documentary evidence of Fatah's corruption; its involvement in terrorism; and its double dealing with the West, with rogue regimes like Iran, and with terror groups like Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida.
THERE CAN be no doubt that under the tutelage of the Iranian and Syrian intelligence directorates, Hamas will use its treasure trove of information in a manner that will block any move by Fatah to renew its support bases in Palestinian society.
Hamas's intelligence windfall will similarly prevent Fatah from significantly resisting Hamas's consolidation of control over Gaza and the expansion of Hamas's rule to Judea and Samaria.
Two examples of Hamas's use of information to date suffice to make this point clear. First there is Israel and the US's favorite Palestinian "straight-shooter" Salam Fayad. Fayad - a former senior official from the terror-linked Arab Bank and the current prime minister of Fatah Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Judea and Samaria government - served willingly as finance minister in Hamas's government before the Gaza takeover.
Claiming that Fayad was a personal friend of hers, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ignored her own government's boycott of the Hamas government to meet with Fayad when he visited Washington in the spring.
Sunday Gaza-based Hamas terrorist and parliamentarian Yahya Musa accused Fayad of corruption. Referring to him as "the head of the thieves," Musa claimed that Fayad is "suspected of embezzling $36 million from the Agricultural Development Company."
Musa also hinted that Fayad has personally overseen the finance of terrorism by stating that he "used to channel public funds to Fatah."
THE SECOND example is Hamas's use of information on Fatah commander Muhammad Dahlan. On June 15, Hamas took control of Dahlan's palatial residence in Gaza. Hamas claimed it found a suitcase filled with gold, forged Pakistani and US passports and the identification card of murdered IDF border guard Nissim Toledano. The last find is particularly revealing.
Since 1994 both the US and Israel ignored mountains of evidence of Dahlan's involvement with terrorism. Both governments have clung to their support for Dahlan despite his close relationships with senior Hamas terrorists like Muhammad Deif and his own forces' direct involvement in the murder of Israelis. The fact that Dahlan had possession of Toledano's ID card shows just how ill-advised this support for Dahlan has been.
Toledano was kidnapped on his way to his border guard base in 1992. His mutilated body was found near the Dead Sea some days later. Toledano's abduction and murder became a pivotal event for all that would follow in the region.
Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. In response, the Rabin government deported 417 Hamas terrorists to Lebanon where they were quickly taken under the wing of Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. In 1994, in the wake of the Oslo peace process with Fatah, Rabin allowed the 417 to return to Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Once back, they immediately fomented a terror onslaught against Israel the likes of which had never been seen before. It was the returnees who organized the first suicide bombing beginning in April 1994.
The fact that Dahlan was in possession of Toledano's ID raises the question of Fatah's involvement in his kidnap and murder and casts a pall over the entire attempt by Israel and the West to make a distinction between Hamas and Fatah terrorists.
There can be no doubt that more information about Fatah leaders (and their business and other connections with Israeli political leaders and others) will follow - as suits the operational interests of Hamas and its Iranian bosses.
In light of this it is clear that Fatah can be of no use to anyone any longer. Indeed, those who work to strengthen Fatah may well be opening themselves to blackmail and public humiliation at a time and place of Hamas's choosing. So not only is Fatah a dead horse, it is a dead horse rigged to a land mine.
YET FOR all that, supporting Fatah and Abbas remains the central goal of Israel's government. This week Israel handed some $120 million over to Abbas and Fayad. Next week it will release 250 Fatah terrorists from prison. Last week Prime Minister Ehud Olmert embraced Abbas at Sharm e-Sheikh after expounding on Abbas's greatness with US President George W. Bush at the White House the week before.
Olmert and his colleagues portray Abbas as a central member of a camp of "moderates" which includes the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Jordanians. All these so-called moderates are supposed to form a coalition with Israel, the US and the EU against the "extremists" in Hamas, Iran, Hizbullah and Syria. Unfortunately the camp of moderates is a fiction. Jordan is so frightened of a jihadist coup that its government statements are barely distinguishable from Muslim Brotherhood press releases.
Over the weekend, at Egypt's invitation, Hamas terror forces deployed along the Gaza border with Egypt. For its part, Saudi Arabia oversaw the formation of the Hamas-Fatah "unity" government last March which subordinated Abbas and Fatah to Khaled Mashaal and Hamas. The Saudis have embraced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In his maiden visit to the Sunni Islamist capital, the genocidal, messianic Shi'ite Ahmadinejad was kissed, and hugged, and held hands with King Abdullah.
For her part, rather than condition any further US support for Fatah on credible steps to fight Hamas and its own terror networks, Rice is redoubling her pressure on Israel. Rice is planning to use $86 million in US-taxpayer funds to have Lt. Gen Keith Dayton train Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria. That's the same Gen. Dayton who trained and armed the Fatah forces in Gaza who cut and run rather than fight Hamas last month and so surrendered their US-supplied weapons to Iran's proxy without a fight.
Additionally, Rice is aggressively pushing her plan to force Israel to negotiate and conclude a treaty with Abbas that would involve an Israeli pledge to surrender Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem to Fatah. This is the same Fatah whose membership is revolting and bolting and the same Abbas who Fatah members are revolting against.
AS FOR the Europeans, newly appointed Quartet envoy Tony Blair is set to begin negotiating with Hamas in his planned visit to Gaza next week.
While like Rice, Blair has repeatedly claimed that the absence of a Palestinian state is the cause of all the troubles in the Muslim world today, a week ago a Blair adviser went a step further. According to media reports, the official advised the Israeli government that as far as Blair is concerned, Israel is responsible for the global jihad because of its refusal to surrender to Palestinian terrorism.
The only reasonable explanation of the Olmert government's behavior in regards to the Palestinians is that the government hopes that by appeasing the US and the rest of the gang on the Palestinian issue, Israel will receive their cooperation in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, here too, all evidence points to the conclusion that Israel has not received anything on the Iran front from any of the relevant actors in exchange for its willingness to let Hamas take over Gaza and continue to finance and arm Fatah terrorists.
Over the weekend Saudi Arabia's Deputy Foreign Minister met with Iran's ambassador to the Kingdom and reasserted Saudi Arabian support for Iran's pursuit of "peaceful nuclear technologies." The Saudis and the Iranians also agreed on the need for Islamic solidarity against the "enemies of Islam."
As for the Egyptians, not only are they, like the Saudis now openly moving to get nuclear capabilities of their own, the Egyptians are responsible for enabling Hamas to take control of Gaza. In spite of repeated Israeli entreaties, Egypt has never lifted a finger to prevent the flow of arms and terror personnel across its border. To the contrary, it facilitated Gaza's transformation into a jihadist hub. Since last summer's war, Egypt has moved towards reestablishing full diplomatic relations with the Iranians.
Today both the US and the Europeans are poised to set aside the option of escalating sanctions against Iran for its refusal to end its uranium enrichment activities. Over the weekend, their representatives to the International Atomic Energy Agency debated a plan to take a break from escalating sanctions if Iran agrees to stop expanding its uranium enrichment. That is, the US is presently considering a plan that would allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium without facing effective international sanctions as a result.
The tragedy of this situation is that a coalition could be brought together that would be capable of meeting both the Palestinian and Iranian threats to Israeli and global security. Friends of Israel in Congress, the Bush Administration and the US policy community would be happy to work with Israel to counteract Rice's failed policies.
Unfortunately, Israeli leaders capable of appreciating and acting on this fact are nowhere to be found in the Olmert government.
Educating the public continues: It is Ideology,not Disenfranchised Individuals We had better learn this quickly, we had better have the courage to act upon the facts before it is too late
Please read the following report first appearing on Debka.com
UK medical terror plot investigation extends to Australia. The eighth person arrested in the Glasgow-London terrorist episode is a 27-year old Indian hospital doctor detained in Brisbane.
He worked as a registrar at Gold Coast Hospital in Southport, eastern Queensland. Haneef was picked up at Brisbane airport for questioning by the Australian police on information from the UK. He had a one-way ticket to India or Pakistan. Australian police are questioning a second doctor.
Both were recruited in Liverpool, England, where one of the eight suspects was earlier detained. Six doctors or medical personnel are in custody in connection with the plot.
Two of the foreign doctors in custody in the UK were identified as Dr. Bilal Abdullah from Iraq and Jordanian-Palestinian Dr. Mohammed Asha. The first five people arrested are of Middle East origin. Two additional suspects detained Monday are also foreigners.
Dr Abdullah and another suspect were employed at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, near Glasgow. The second man in the flaming jeep which crashed into the airport terminal is in the hospital in critical condition under armed guard. Three controlled explosions in connection with the Glasgow airport attack were carried out on suspect cars - two in the hospital parking lot, a third outside a Glasgow mosque. None contained explosives.
Dr. Asha, who is employed at the N. Staffordshire University hospital’s neurology dept, was arrested with his wife driving on the MI6 highway.
He qualified as a doctor in Jordan in 2004 and worked at the hospital from Oct. 2005.
Britain remains on the highest security level of “critical” after two terrorists smashed a blazing jeep into the Scottish arrivals terminal Saturday, the day after two bomb cars were disabled in central London. This level indicates further attacks are expected.
In his first response, the new British prime minister Gordon Brown accused “people associated with al Qaeda” of the three attacks. Scotland Yard says they were “totally coordinated.” DEBKAfile cites international counter-terror experts as noting that none of them caused loss of life, only major disruptions and confusion. Neither were explosives found in the purported bomb cars, only combustible materials. (Read earlier DEBKAfile Special Analysis below.) All this, together with the emerging medical conspiracy, is far from typical of al Qaeda and raises many questions. Some sources suspect the two failed bombings were a diversion from a broader terrorist campaign organized by al Qaeda in the UK or other countries.
Please read the following report first appearing on Debka.com
UK medical terror plot investigation extends to Australia. The eighth person arrested in the Glasgow-London terrorist episode is a 27-year old Indian hospital doctor detained in Brisbane.
He worked as a registrar at Gold Coast Hospital in Southport, eastern Queensland. Haneef was picked up at Brisbane airport for questioning by the Australian police on information from the UK. He had a one-way ticket to India or Pakistan. Australian police are questioning a second doctor.
Both were recruited in Liverpool, England, where one of the eight suspects was earlier detained. Six doctors or medical personnel are in custody in connection with the plot.
Two of the foreign doctors in custody in the UK were identified as Dr. Bilal Abdullah from Iraq and Jordanian-Palestinian Dr. Mohammed Asha. The first five people arrested are of Middle East origin. Two additional suspects detained Monday are also foreigners.
Dr Abdullah and another suspect were employed at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, near Glasgow. The second man in the flaming jeep which crashed into the airport terminal is in the hospital in critical condition under armed guard. Three controlled explosions in connection with the Glasgow airport attack were carried out on suspect cars - two in the hospital parking lot, a third outside a Glasgow mosque. None contained explosives.
Dr. Asha, who is employed at the N. Staffordshire University hospital’s neurology dept, was arrested with his wife driving on the MI6 highway.
He qualified as a doctor in Jordan in 2004 and worked at the hospital from Oct. 2005.
Britain remains on the highest security level of “critical” after two terrorists smashed a blazing jeep into the Scottish arrivals terminal Saturday, the day after two bomb cars were disabled in central London. This level indicates further attacks are expected.
In his first response, the new British prime minister Gordon Brown accused “people associated with al Qaeda” of the three attacks. Scotland Yard says they were “totally coordinated.” DEBKAfile cites international counter-terror experts as noting that none of them caused loss of life, only major disruptions and confusion. Neither were explosives found in the purported bomb cars, only combustible materials. (Read earlier DEBKAfile Special Analysis below.) All this, together with the emerging medical conspiracy, is far from typical of al Qaeda and raises many questions. Some sources suspect the two failed bombings were a diversion from a broader terrorist campaign organized by al Qaeda in the UK or other countries.
Senin, 02 Juli 2007
So much for the 'disaffected youth' storyline
Clarice Feldman
Two of the five people arrested in connection with the attack on Glasgow airport and the attempted London bombings are doctors, legal immigrants to the UK. Quote:
One of the doctors, the man arrested on the M6, was said to be a Jordanian-born doctor at the North Staffordshire Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent. He lived with his wife and baby in a rented house in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, where forensic officers were carrying out a detailed search last night. The doctor is suspected of having played a key role in the planning of the terror strikes. One of the two men overpowered as they attacked Glasgow Airport has 90 per cent burns and is too badly injured to be interviewed, but the second was being questioned last night. Police believe they are all part of a previously unknown Al Qaeda-linked cell made up of people of Middle Eastern origin. The doctor involved in the Glasgow attack is an Iraqi who is thought to have been granted asylum in the UK while a third suspect comes from Lebanon.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/so_much_for_the_disaffected_yo.html at July 02, 2007 - 08:09:54 AM EDT
Clarice Feldman
Two of the five people arrested in connection with the attack on Glasgow airport and the attempted London bombings are doctors, legal immigrants to the UK. Quote:
One of the doctors, the man arrested on the M6, was said to be a Jordanian-born doctor at the North Staffordshire Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent. He lived with his wife and baby in a rented house in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, where forensic officers were carrying out a detailed search last night. The doctor is suspected of having played a key role in the planning of the terror strikes. One of the two men overpowered as they attacked Glasgow Airport has 90 per cent burns and is too badly injured to be interviewed, but the second was being questioned last night. Police believe they are all part of a previously unknown Al Qaeda-linked cell made up of people of Middle Eastern origin. The doctor involved in the Glasgow attack is an Iraqi who is thought to have been granted asylum in the UK while a third suspect comes from Lebanon.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/so_much_for_the_disaffected_yo.html at July 02, 2007 - 08:09:54 AM EDT
Minggu, 01 Juli 2007
Iran's Gas Riots
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 29, 2007
This week’s gasoline riots in Tehran were entirely predictable. They are also the clearest measure we have seen in recent times of the remarkable fragility of Iran’s Islamic regime.
Predictable, because they have been debated publicly in Iran for weeks and delayed several times, for fear of adverse public reaction.
A measure of the regime’s fragility because large numbers of Iranians have braved repeated threats to protest gas rationing and price hikes in one of the world’s largest petroleum exporting countries
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in August 2005 on promises that he would put more of Iran’s oil revenue on the tables of ordinary Iranians.
During the election campaign two years ago, he toured Iranian cities and towns, promising a new high school here, a municipal swimming pool there, a new factory, a new gymnasium, rural development, whatever.
Until now, he has been unable to deliver on those promises, squandering Iran’s windfall oil profits on public subsidies to such un-Iranian groups as Hezbollah and Hamas. People know this, and they resent it. And that is what ultimately led to this week’s gas riots, with petrol stations set ablaze in Tehran and in cities across Iran.
So far, the economic vulnerability of the regime has not translated into regime-threatening political vulnerability; but just wait, says one prominent Iranian businessman encountered in London, who sees similarities in what is happening in Iran today with the final years of the former shah.
During the late 1970s, he reminded me, the Iranian economy, flush with cash from high oil prices, was beset by high inflation, just as it is now. The shah’s answer was to find a few businessmen who had raised prices and throw them in jail, he said.
In April, the Research Center of the Iranian Majlis ( the rough equivalent of our Congressional Research Service) announced that inflation had risen by a stunning 22.4% for the calendar year that ended on March 21, and projected 24% inflation for the current year.
That is an unbelievably bad performance of what is supposed to be a populist government, especially when coupled to double-digit unemployment and the growing scarcity of foreign investment as the U.S.-led sanctions begin to bite.
Just as the former shah, the current regime is also seeking scapegoats: the United States and Israel (surprise, surprise). To make their case more convincing, they have singled out an Iranian businessman who fled the country on February 21, who was recaptured by Iranian intelligence agents three weeks later in a brazen extraterritorial operation in Oman.
Shahram Jazayeri was a cause celebre in Iran by the time he was dragged out of a small tourist hotel in Khasab, an Omani port in the Strait of Hormuz on March 14. Before fleeing Iran, he was sentenced to fourteen years on corruption charges,
Jazayeri made it known at the time that he had documents implementing family members of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in business deals described by the court as corrupt. “That connection to the House of the Leader – the very summit of the state - made him radioactive,” Iranian analyst Shahriar Ahy told me.
Jazayeri’s family, whom I contacted in Canada not long after he was recaptured and tortured in Evin prison in Tehran, insisted that he had been framed and that his extensive network of businesses was legally sanctioned by the Iranian authorities. They insisted that he still hoped the courts would exonerate him. Fat chance.
Ayatollah Khomeini, the figurehead who spearheaded the shah’s overthrow, liked to say that the revolution wasn’t about the price of watermelons. It was his way of saying that the Iranian people would endure all kinds of economic hardship, if they identified with the regime.
But this week’s gasoline riots show that Iranians do care about the price of watermelons – at least, when they can see just how rich their country ought to be (because of high oil prices), and how little of that wealth is trickling down to them.
Consider this, the Iranian businessman in London told me.
When Iranians travel to Dubai, they are humiliated. They fly out of Mehrebad airport in Tehran, which was constructed some 45 years ago, and land in a modern, state-of-the-art fantasy-world in Dubai. To make the insult even more grating, unlike their native land, Dubai has no oil. No oil, and yet they are so rich!
The only reason Dubai is prosperous and Iran remains mired in poverty comes down to effective leadership – and the lack of it. And Iranians can see this every time they travel to the UAE.
Working quietly behind the scenes, the Bush administration has won agreement from bankers in Dubai to stop clearing Iranian government financial transactions. Because Dubai has become the economic lifeline connecting Iran to the outside world, this has been a major blow to the regime.
Just last week, sources in London told me, the British government agreed to a U.S. request to put pressure on the HSBC bank to stop clearing Iranian government financial transactions as well. Since HSBC handles approximately 50% of Tehran’s remaining international business, this is an additional heavy blow.
And the economic pressures are about to expand. While in London this week, I learned of a British government proposal, now being discussed as a draft United Nations Security Council Resolution, that would ban Iranian government-owned ships and aircraft from international travel.
According to Lloyd’s List of London, the proposed UNSC resolution, as currently drafted by Britain, would prohibit Iranian ships not only from landing at foreign ports but from transiting international waters. That is an extremely far-reaching sanction that would cut off an estimated 40% of Iran’s daily oil exports, at least in the short run.
The British measure “would effectively strip Iran of the right of innocent passage, enshrined in the United Nationals Law of the Sea Convention,” Lloyd’s List wrote on June 27
The most immediate target of these latest sanctions would be the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC), which operates a fleet of around thirty Very Large Crude Carriers.
Iran could eventually contract with other shipping companies to lift their oil, but they would then have to compete with other exporters in the Persian Gulf and most likely would have to offer significant price incentives to get their oil on board.
All of this points to one simple fact, as far as U.S. policy toward Iran goes: financial sanctions have proven to be a far more effective tool than political pressures or political inducements, as fashioned by the State Department.
This regime in Tehran has never ceased a single act of bad behavior because the West has offered it a bribe. On the contrary: the greater the bribes, the more bad behavior we have seen.
Over the past six moths, as UN sanctions have slowly begun to bite, the State Department continued to hold out hope that the economic “pain” could be ended, if only the regime would suspend its uranium enrichment program.
Until now, the regime has said no. To show their resolve, Iran’s leaders chose instead to impose gasoline rationing, to spread the coast of sanctions across the population.
For the first time, the law of unintended consequences is working in the West’s favor. The popular reaction to the gas rationing has shown the regime’s vulnerability.
Now we need to take the next step and provide serious aid and political support to the pro-democracy forces inside Iran as they step forward to confront the regime.
The alternative to doing so will be war.
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 29, 2007
This week’s gasoline riots in Tehran were entirely predictable. They are also the clearest measure we have seen in recent times of the remarkable fragility of Iran’s Islamic regime.
Predictable, because they have been debated publicly in Iran for weeks and delayed several times, for fear of adverse public reaction.
A measure of the regime’s fragility because large numbers of Iranians have braved repeated threats to protest gas rationing and price hikes in one of the world’s largest petroleum exporting countries
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in August 2005 on promises that he would put more of Iran’s oil revenue on the tables of ordinary Iranians.
During the election campaign two years ago, he toured Iranian cities and towns, promising a new high school here, a municipal swimming pool there, a new factory, a new gymnasium, rural development, whatever.
Until now, he has been unable to deliver on those promises, squandering Iran’s windfall oil profits on public subsidies to such un-Iranian groups as Hezbollah and Hamas. People know this, and they resent it. And that is what ultimately led to this week’s gas riots, with petrol stations set ablaze in Tehran and in cities across Iran.
So far, the economic vulnerability of the regime has not translated into regime-threatening political vulnerability; but just wait, says one prominent Iranian businessman encountered in London, who sees similarities in what is happening in Iran today with the final years of the former shah.
During the late 1970s, he reminded me, the Iranian economy, flush with cash from high oil prices, was beset by high inflation, just as it is now. The shah’s answer was to find a few businessmen who had raised prices and throw them in jail, he said.
In April, the Research Center of the Iranian Majlis ( the rough equivalent of our Congressional Research Service) announced that inflation had risen by a stunning 22.4% for the calendar year that ended on March 21, and projected 24% inflation for the current year.
That is an unbelievably bad performance of what is supposed to be a populist government, especially when coupled to double-digit unemployment and the growing scarcity of foreign investment as the U.S.-led sanctions begin to bite.
Just as the former shah, the current regime is also seeking scapegoats: the United States and Israel (surprise, surprise). To make their case more convincing, they have singled out an Iranian businessman who fled the country on February 21, who was recaptured by Iranian intelligence agents three weeks later in a brazen extraterritorial operation in Oman.
Shahram Jazayeri was a cause celebre in Iran by the time he was dragged out of a small tourist hotel in Khasab, an Omani port in the Strait of Hormuz on March 14. Before fleeing Iran, he was sentenced to fourteen years on corruption charges,
Jazayeri made it known at the time that he had documents implementing family members of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in business deals described by the court as corrupt. “That connection to the House of the Leader – the very summit of the state - made him radioactive,” Iranian analyst Shahriar Ahy told me.
Jazayeri’s family, whom I contacted in Canada not long after he was recaptured and tortured in Evin prison in Tehran, insisted that he had been framed and that his extensive network of businesses was legally sanctioned by the Iranian authorities. They insisted that he still hoped the courts would exonerate him. Fat chance.
Ayatollah Khomeini, the figurehead who spearheaded the shah’s overthrow, liked to say that the revolution wasn’t about the price of watermelons. It was his way of saying that the Iranian people would endure all kinds of economic hardship, if they identified with the regime.
But this week’s gasoline riots show that Iranians do care about the price of watermelons – at least, when they can see just how rich their country ought to be (because of high oil prices), and how little of that wealth is trickling down to them.
Consider this, the Iranian businessman in London told me.
When Iranians travel to Dubai, they are humiliated. They fly out of Mehrebad airport in Tehran, which was constructed some 45 years ago, and land in a modern, state-of-the-art fantasy-world in Dubai. To make the insult even more grating, unlike their native land, Dubai has no oil. No oil, and yet they are so rich!
The only reason Dubai is prosperous and Iran remains mired in poverty comes down to effective leadership – and the lack of it. And Iranians can see this every time they travel to the UAE.
Working quietly behind the scenes, the Bush administration has won agreement from bankers in Dubai to stop clearing Iranian government financial transactions. Because Dubai has become the economic lifeline connecting Iran to the outside world, this has been a major blow to the regime.
Just last week, sources in London told me, the British government agreed to a U.S. request to put pressure on the HSBC bank to stop clearing Iranian government financial transactions as well. Since HSBC handles approximately 50% of Tehran’s remaining international business, this is an additional heavy blow.
And the economic pressures are about to expand. While in London this week, I learned of a British government proposal, now being discussed as a draft United Nations Security Council Resolution, that would ban Iranian government-owned ships and aircraft from international travel.
According to Lloyd’s List of London, the proposed UNSC resolution, as currently drafted by Britain, would prohibit Iranian ships not only from landing at foreign ports but from transiting international waters. That is an extremely far-reaching sanction that would cut off an estimated 40% of Iran’s daily oil exports, at least in the short run.
The British measure “would effectively strip Iran of the right of innocent passage, enshrined in the United Nationals Law of the Sea Convention,” Lloyd’s List wrote on June 27
The most immediate target of these latest sanctions would be the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC), which operates a fleet of around thirty
Iran could eventually contract with other shipping companies to lift their oil, but they would then have to compete with other exporters in the Persian Gulf and most likely would have to offer significant price incentives to get their oil on board.
All of this points to one simple fact, as far as U.S. policy toward Iran goes: financial sanctions have proven to be a far more effective tool than political pressures or political inducements, as fashioned by the State Department.
This regime in Tehran has never ceased a single act of bad behavior because the West has offered it a bribe. On the contrary: the greater the bribes, the more bad behavior we have seen.
Over the past six moths, as UN sanctions have slowly begun to bite, the State Department continued to hold out hope that the economic “pain” could be ended, if only the regime would suspend its uranium enrichment program.
Until now, the regime has said no. To show their resolve, Iran’s leaders chose instead to impose gasoline rationing, to spread the coast of sanctions across the population.
For the first time, the law of unintended consequences is working in the West’s favor. The popular reaction to the gas rationing has shown the regime’s vulnerability.
Now we need to take the next step and provide serious aid and political support to the pro-democracy forces inside Iran as they step forward to confront the regime.
The alternative to doing so will be war.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)