Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Details of Canadian Security Intelligence Service probe on foreign influence being withheld

Grace Batchoun | Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East | August 10, 2010

Montreal – The Harper government is still withholding the details of Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) investigations that prompted CSIS Director Richard Fadden to comment on foreign influence on Canadian politicians. The media have been focusing on China as one source of inappropriate influence. However, Fadden indicated that at least five countries, including China and Middle East nations were involved. He did not specify which Middle Eastern countries. The government’s secrecy may indicate that Israel – to which the Harper government has given resolute uncritical support – is among the Middle Eastern countries that CSIS investigations reveal are unduly influencing Canada’s politicians.

In his comments, Fadden talked about foreign influence exercised through university and social clubs. He noted “You pay [for] their trips and … when an event is occurring that is of particular interest to country ‘X,’ you call up and you ask the person to take a particular view,” Fadden said. Currently, Hillel Clubs operate on most Canadian campuses, and their mandates explicitly include “Israel advocacy” and promoting Jewish students’ identification with Israel. Opportunities for all-expenses-paid two-week trips to Israel are also made available to students. A similar process occurs with federal MPs and provincial legislators. The Canada-Israel Committee has been subsidizing trips to Israel for MPs and provincial legislators for decades.

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East is concerned about the influence that Israel and the Canada-Israel Committee exercise on federal politicians through travel subsidies and possibly other means. “We urge the government to disclose now which countries CSIS found exercising undue influence, and the means by which they do so,” says CJPME President Thomas Woodley. As pointed out by veteran CBC journalist Brian Stewart, trips subsidized by foreign governments are “carefully planned, often by the host nation’s intelligence arm.” CJPME believes that Canadian policy should be moulded by respect for international law, and is concerned that Canadian Middle East policy could be skewed through the type of influence Fadden described.

According to the federal ethics commissioner, the Canada-Israel Committee paid over $160,000 for various one-week trips by 14 MPs to Israel in 2009 alone. The Canada-Israel Committee subsidized a July 2010 trip by seven MPs: Conservative MPs John Duncan, Jeff Watson, Edward Fast and Brent Rathgeber, Liberal MPs Scott Simms and Anthony Rota and NDP MP Glenn Thibeault. No other Middle East nation has hosted so many MPs on such frequent and expensive trips.

August 10, 2010 Posted by | Corruption, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

The Myth of the US Military Aid to Lebanon

By Yusuf Fernandez | Al-Manar – TV | August 10, 2010
US weaponry laid entire Lebanese communities to waste in 2006 – Photo credit Amelia Opalinska

On August 4, US State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley said that Lebanese armed forces firing on Israeli troops near the Israel-Lebanon border the previous day, which killed two Lebanese soldiers and one Lebanese journalist as well as one Israeli officer and seriously wounded another, was “totally unjustified and unwarranted.” Shortly before, Israeli Ambassador in Washington, Michel Oren, held talks with US senior officials to demand a harsh US response.

Some US congressmen warned Lebanon that the US could reassess its aid to the Lebanese Army. “To start shooting as they did -one person killed, one seriously injured– is a very serious move by the Lebanese army,” Florida Representative Ron Klein, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Jerusalem Post.“It certainly is going to come up in our conversations in the Congress about the continued support of the Lebanese Army,” he said. Klein ignored the three Lebanese victims and the Israeli actions that provoked the incident.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main organization of the Zionist lobby, reportedly circulated a memorandum claiming that the Lebanese Army was cooperating with Hezbollah, and stating that unless this stops, “Washington must reevaluate its relationship with the Beirut government and the Lebanese Armed Forces – the recipient of significant American military aid.” A State Department representative declined to respond to a Jerusalem Post question about whether the incident could affect American aid to Lebanon.

According the Israeli daily Haaretz, in the past five years, the Lebanese Army has been the second largest recipient of US military assistance per capita after Israel. A State Department press release from late 2008 noted that between 2006 and 2008, the Lebanese Army received 10 million rounds of ammunition, Humvees, spare parts for attack helicopters, vehicles for its Internal Security Forces “and the same frontline weapons that US military troops are currently using, including assault rifles, automatic grenade launchers, advanced sniper systems, anti-tank weapons and the most modern urban warfare bunker weapons.”

Since 2006, the US has provided Lebanon some 500 million dollars in military assistance. Last year, the US approved 100 million dollars in assistance to the Lebanese military. The Obama administration has requested the same levels for 2011, with small increases for anti-terror and military training programs.

However, the border incident of August 3 highlighted the fact that the US Administration does not consider that its military aid should be used to protect Lebanon against its only real enemy: Israel. “We have no indication that US equipment played any role in this incident earlier this week,” Crowley said. “In any US-origin equipment that has been provided to Lebanon, we have very strong end-use monitoring to make sure it is used appropriately.”

“Used appropriately” means that US aid must only be used against other Lebanese parties, especially the Resistance. According to Lebanon’s As-Safir newspaper, in written testimony to Congress, Obama´s nominee to head the US Central Command, General James Matthis, claimed that the relationship between US Central Command and the Lebanese Army is focused on building the latter´s capabilities “to preserve internal stability”. US Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow, who has recently visited Beirut and the South of Lebanon, said that continued US aid and training to the Lebanese Army would allow it to “prevent militias and other nongovernmental organizations” from “undermining the government”.

One State Department spokesperson made the quid pro quo clearer: if the Lebanese Army hopes for equipment, even spare parts, it will have to first focus on “using its military to keep Hezbollah in check and to control southern Lebanon and Palestinian refugee camps in order to prevent them from being used as bases to attack Israel”. This point was underscored by US officials interviewed by International Crisis Group who “implied” that “the Lebanese must be trained and equipped to meet Hezbollah´s, not Israel´s, challenge.” Therefore, US military aid for Lebanon seeks to protect Israel, the real enemy of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Army should become a mercenary force to implement US and Israeli schemes in Lebanon and the Middle East. Significantly, the US has not given the Lebanese Army anti-aircraft, anti-tank or anti-ship missiles that could be used against Israel.

The second goal of US aid, according to the US Central Command, is to “protect borders”, which means to prevent the Resistance from receiving weapons from abroad in order to protect the country against the Israeli enemy. However, the Jerusalem Post complained, “the Lebanese Army has taken no actions to seal off that border from weapons transfers to Hezbollah” and has done “nothing while Syria and Iran have been arming Hezbollah´s army with tens of thousands of missiles.”

At a White House meeting in December 2009, President Barack Obama asked Lebanese President Michel Sleiman to stop the flow of weapons being allegedly sent to the south of Lebanon “that potentially serve as a threat to Israel”. He warned that a failure to do so could lead to another invasion by Israel. Vice President Joe Biden went further, telling Sleiman that Israel could invade Lebanon and go all the way to Beirut to destroy Hezbollah´s weapons if the government failed to rein in the organization.

Of course, massive US military aid to Israel, which includes all kind of weapons, including the most advanced ones in the US arsenal, is something normal and nobody has the right to question it. However, when Syria, Iran or Lebanon acquire any kind of weapons adequate to protect their countries against US or Israeli attacks or threats this becomes a universal scandal.

The US aid is not supposed be used to protect Lebanon from Israeli spies either. Recently, Los Angeles Times complained that the US-supported Lebanese Internal Security Forces had used US signals equipment to help Hezbollah “ferret out Israeli agents.” According to the Times, “a strengthening Lebanese government is helping Hezbollah bust alleged spy cells, sometimes using tools and tradecraft acquired from Western nations eager to build up Lebanon´s security forces as a counterweight to the Shiite group.” Once again, Hezbollah was the target, not Israel.

In this way, US and Israeli outrage is easy to understand. The Lebanese have not used US weapons to crush Hezbollah but to defend Lebanon and this is an unbearable reality for Israelis and pro-Zionist circles in Washington. For Washington and Tel Aviv, the truth is simple: the Lebanese Army is not supposed to protect Lebanon from Israeli violations of the Lebanese sovereignty and, thus, it shot at whom did not have to.

More and more Lebanese are now questioning the value of US aid that can only used in an internal conflict. Agriculture Minister Hussein al-Hajj Hasan has called for preventing the US from controlling the army through its ill-intentioned support, the National News Agency said. He claims that American military and security assistance does not benefit Lebanon.

SUPPORT FOR ISRAELI WARS ON LEBANON

Lebanese people also remember that the US role has gone much beyond trying to turn the Lebanese Army into an internally oppressive security force. Washington has been an accessory to all Israeli attacks and aggressions against Lebanon. For example, a great portion of the American equipment stored in Israel was used for combat in the 2006 July war in Lebanon. Moreover, the US sent Israel all kinds of weapons and ammunition during the conflict.

Moreover, Washington politically supported the Israeli assault and blocked all efforts for an immediate halt to a war that killed more than 1,300 Lebanese, wounded more than 4,000 and drove 900,000 from their homes. A third of the Lebanese dead were children under the age of 12.

This US stance outraged the Lebanese population. “We did not use to be against the Americans, but now we are. They are against us,” said Fatima Haider, a Lebanese who lived in the district of Ein el-Mreiseh in Beirut, to Reuters at that time. Her home was destroyed by US-made Israeli bombs. “It is clear America´s support for Israel during the 34 days of bombing will not be forgotten,” said Fawaz Gerges, a professor at Sarah Lawrence College in New York, to ABC News.

As the Lebanese newspaper Daily Star said: “American complicity in these (Israeli) plans is clear: the Lebanese middle class has witnessed the carnage and destruction of their country with US approval, and the killing of innocent women and children with advanced American weaponry that mutilated their bodies into pieces.” Even naïve Lebanese that had believed for a moment that the US Administration could have a sincere interest in promoting democracy in its country got indignant about American support for the Israeli aggression.

August 10, 2010 Posted by | Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

NY Times full-page ad demonstrates who is pushing for war against Iran

Also, the organizers say they’re actuated by fears of climate change, but why the Netanyahu quote and the emphasis on missiles?

And the NYTimes is still on message, Global Warming, Peak Oil and the War on Terror all seem to merge to support Zionism:

Letters to the International Herald Tribune – How to Fight Climate Change – NYTimes.com
The only way to effectively address climate change is for our leaders to make it an issue of national security: Emphasize the link between consumption of fossil fuels, especially foreign oil, and the rise of international terrorism. Once that link is clearly established, people will be willing to make an effort: The home-front will contribute to fighting against terrorism, which threatens every one of us. People will understand that there is no way to put a value on the lives of any of the nearly 3,000 people who perished in the Sept. 11 attacks, and that any effort is worth making to prevent recurrence of such a tragedy.

Update:

The Israel Lobby’s War on America’s Middle East Oil Dependence

By Maidhc Ó Cathail | The Passionate Attachment | October 26, 2012

See also:

US Jewish leaders push Obama to act on Iran

Jerusalem Post, September 10, 2009

August 9, 2010 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

US, EU states fail to isolate Iran

Press TV – August 9, 2010

As the US and its European allies are trying to increase unilateral sanctions against Iran, other major states show bold resistance to the punitive measures.

“China, Russia, India and Turkey move into the lucrative void left by US and EU sanctions that aim to halt Iran’s nuclear program,” the Los Angeles Times wrote on Sunday.

On June 9, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions against Iran’s military and financial sectors over allegations that Tehran is following a military nuclear program.

In recent weeks, the US, the European Union, Australia, and Canada have added unilateral measures to the UNSC sanctions, targeting the energy rich country’s oil and gas industry. But China, Russia, India and Turkey rejected the unilateral US and EU sanctions aimed at Iran’s energy sector.

The countries “are making it very clear they are not going to go along with the new American and European efforts to ratchet up pressure on Iran,” Ben Rhode, an analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, told the Times. China’s move to expand its business Iran “has been amazing,” said a senior European official on condition of anonymity, the American newspaper said.

Iran’s Deputy Oil Minister Hossein Noqrehkar Shirazi announced last week that China is investing 40 billion dollars in Iran’s oil and gas industry.

The unilateral sanctions also gave China and Russia an opportunity to sell more gasoline to Iran.

“These countries have long-term interests in the region,” Bloomberg quoted Gary Sick, a member of the US National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, as saying on Monday. China wants “to maintain relations with Iran for the sake of maintaining some access to the oil,” Sick said.

“Looking at the political situation, I’m not sure if Europe and the US were 100 percent sure about the possible responses from places like Russia and China,” said Alexander Poegl, an analyst at JBC Energy in Vienna. “Iran will find partners supplying them gasoline,” he added.

Last week China defended its economic ties with Iran after a senior US official called on Beijing to adopt the UN sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program.

“China’s trade with Iran is a normal business exchange, which will not harm the interests of other countries and the international community,” China Daily quoted Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu as saying on Thursday.

“Sanctions will not hinder us in our joint cooperation,” Sergei Shmatko, Russia’s energy minister, said last month in Moscow after signing an agreement for a long-term energy partnership with his Iranian counterpart.

August 9, 2010 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

WIKILEAKS: AN INDO-ZIONIST CONSPIRACY?

By Brigadier Asif Haroon Raja | Pakalert* | August 5, 2010

The period of WikiLeaks revelations covers five years of George W. Bush from January 2004 till December 2008 and one year of Barack Obama from January to December 2009. Looking back in rear-view mirror, one sees that significant changes started to occur in American policy in Afghanistan after December 2009 and talk of reconciliation and negotiations with the Taliban gained currency. Pakistan also began to figure prominently and there was a noticeable change of attitude among US officials. Karzai too started leaning towards Pakistan. A sudden change of direction of wind was not to the liking of India, the Northern Alliance and the  Jewish lobby in USA since it ran counter to their designs against Pakistan.

This change occurred at a time when anti-Pakistan themes drafted by India had reached a maturing stage and had taken the shape of a proper charge sheet. The situation had ripened to put Pakistan on the mat. The USA and western countries drift towards Pakistan took the juice out of the regular supply of source reports furnished by RAW-RAAM agents who whetted the appetite of US military with concocted stories about the Pakistani Army and ISI. Fearing that what had been collated and disseminated may become outdated and get washed away in the humdrum of the final phase which was favorably inclined towards Pakistan, it was considered expedient to leak the classified information. Other than putting Pakistan and its premier institutions in the firing line, it was intended by master planners RAW and Mossad to tarnish the image of US military as well.

Soon after the publication of secret documents by WikiLeaks, an Afghanistan spokesman promptly gave his observations to the press asserting that the documents would help raise awareness on the sanctuaries Pakistan provides for militant groups. He gave this statement under the misplaced impression that the documents would surely help in indicting Pakistan on charges of terrorism. He didn’t realize that all those who were collectively digging a hole for Pakistan would themselves fall into it.

It may be noted that among the over 92,000 secret documents compiled in five years, there is not a single line written about India. The documents are silent about role of RAW, RAAM and Mossad in destabilizing Pakistan. Nobody in the USA or the entire western world has noticed these glaring oddities as to how come the role of three principal players is missing from the radar screen and US documents are blank. Have RAW agents in huge numbers present in every nook and corner of Afghanistan and moving up and down the Pakistan-Afghan border been grazing grass all these years? It indicates that not only did  Indian, Northern Alliance intelligence and Israeli officials have a hand in providing anti-Pakistan information but the trio had also provided copies of documents to WikiLeaks. These hands had a definite role in coloring the perceptions of US leaders against Pakistan. It also proves that the US has unjustly treated Israel and India as holy cows and Pakistan a suspect.

It is also a strange coincidence that the clock of leaked documents remained silent from the end of 2001 till December 2003 and suddenly started ticking from January 2004 onwards. The timing somehow coincided with the signing of the Indo-Pakistan peace treaty. It is a clear cut indication that Indian leaders inked the treaty with ill-motives and soon after gave a green signal to RAW to trigger covert operations against Pakistan using Afghan soil.

I had penned my thoughts on WikiLeaks in Wikileaks-US’s Afghan war diary 2004-2009

I seek answers to some queries related to the leaks.

  • Theft of 92,000 documents including videos and audios from safe vaults was not a day’s work. It must have taken the thief a considerable length of time to steal the desired documents. He must have been moving in and out of the store room umpteen times to lift folders containing incriminating documents about the conduct of the Afghan war. He could not have possibly done so singly but in connivance with some of the persons deputed to act as custodians of top secret documents. Does it imply that the sole super power and its premier institutions have no foolproof system of safety and security of classified documents or they are too careless and irresponsible?
  • There must have been a time lapse between the documents whisked away and their publication by WikiLeaks. Taking into account the fact that revealed documents cover the period up to December 2009 and not up to June 2010, one cannot rule out the possibility that after the theft during 2009 and January 2010, it took Julian Assange five months to be able to get it published through WikiLeaks. It is strange that none among the huge security apparatus learned about the theft until it was disclosed by WikiLeaks. If so, it implies there is no system in existence to carryout spot inspections by duty officers/security officers of files/folders locked up in vaults.
  • In any military unit/HQ of the armed forces, even loss of one classified document creates a massive stir and the concerned unit doesn’t rest till the missing document is traced and culprit punished.  Rationally, a red alert should have been sounded in the USA and all resources geared up to find out all possible details about this embarrassing scandal expeditiously. Oddly, all US officials are in a complacent mood and have adopted a laid-back approach, giving an impression to outsiders that the wardens were part of the crime and leak was intentional to corner Pakistan; or else the Pentagon wants to cover up its officials who were in league with Assange or Bradley Manning.
  • A government which is incapable of safeguarding its top secret documents having a bearing on security and reputation of the nation and its military, will it be able to safeguard its thousands of nuclear warheads and other deadly war munitions?
  • After such a gigantic theft of classified documents having grave ramifications for the US Military’s future conduct in Afghanistan, why has the sole super power not initiated actions to get hold of the thief, the network, insiders and the ones who masterminded the theft?
  • Julian or Bradley could not have possibly procured voluminous documents on a basis of friendship. Afghan National Security might have provided copies of Pakistan specific 180 reports free of cost. For the rest, they must have bribed the handlers of documents so heavily that they agreed to take such a huge risk. If so, who funded Julian/Bradley?
  • While lot of hue and cry has been made over 180 anti-Pakistan source reports, western media, think tanks and analysts are quiet about 91,820 reports, videos and audios portraying inhuman barbarities of American and coalition forces against people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are the champions of democracy and human rights tight lipped and why are US officials downplaying this security lapse as if nothing significant has happened?
  • Why have these documents came to light at a critical time when occupation forces in Afghanistan are in dire strait; war on terror has become highly unpopular; demand to end the war is surging; Taliban are carrying out daily attacks and inflicting deaths/ injuries to ISAF troops? July has been the worst month in which 66 ISAF fatalities took place. What is the hidden motive?
  • Is it that the real motive is to put the entire blame of US defeat in Afghanistan at the doorsteps of Pakistan? If so, what next?
  • Notwithstanding sinister designs of adversaries of Pakistan, 70% of revealed documents are uncorroborated and unverified, while the remaining 30% are also debatable and one-sided as claimed by US officials. However, 5-10% of the reports are based on hard facts, which cover in minute details the atrocities of US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the still to be revealed 15,000 documents are also exposed which are more harmful for USA?

While it is a reality that no US think tank, newspaper or official has ever written a single sentence on an Indo-US-Israeli-Afghanistan nexus and their designs against Pakistan, Wikileaks has lifted the curtain. Although under US pressure the head of this website has attempted to minimize the damage by telling an Indian news reporter that all reports less the ones pertaining to Pakistan were unreliable, it cannot be denied that the US military has suffered the most from this disclosure. What is most worrisome for the US military operating in Afghanistan is the exposure of names of their Afghan informers and some within the Taliban ranks working as double agents. Their fate is sealed since the Taliban would never spare them. This factor will further shrink US battle intelligence capability, thereby compounding their problems during ongoing testing times.

Thanks to a few upright people in the USA and western countries as well as whistle blowing independent websites, the world is now getting more educated about the deepening mess in Afghanistan. Sooner or later, pieces would start falling in the right places and the real picture would emerge, which had been kept hidden all these years.

There have been occasional reports of use of excessive force by the ISAF in Afghanistan, about torture tales in Gitmo, Bagram Base and Abu Gharib jails, but none could imagine the scale and gruesome nature of atrocities against Afghans as disclosed by WikiLeaks. 150 bombing incidents on civilians killing mostly women and children had never been reported. There could be many more incidents purposely not recorded by the ones maintaining logs. Wedding ceremonies, funerals, children school buses and passenger buses have not been spared by trigger happy Yankees. Jets, gunship helicopters and drones have caused maximum casualties. Logs have also indicated the use of Blackwater to capture or kill marked Taliban. Hands of American civil and military leaders are dripping in the blood of innocent Iraqis and Afghans. Wikileaks has provided incriminating material for their trials for committing war crimes.

There were strong reasons for the sacked Gen McChrystal to restrain his swashbuckling cowboys from firing indiscriminately and causing large scale civilian fatalities. Hawks in then Obama Administration had constantly pushed him for quicker results without caring for human destruction. Irked by their haughty behavior, he decided to call it a day. Is there some connection between WikiLeaks-Rolling Stone-McChrystal? Moreover, is there a connection between the Times Square incident, the visit of three rasping top US leaders to Islamabad in July, the WikiLeaks revelations, Cameron’s derogatory remarks and Karzai’s diatribe?

WikiLeaks has inadvertently provided a golden opportunity to Pakistan to expose the hidden designs, subversive activities and black deeds of occupation forces in Afghanistan and to blunt their smear campaign. The world is now eagerly looking toward whistle blowing websites like WikiLeaks to throw light on following ambiguities:

  1. Other than the declared objectives of the USA, what was the hidden motivation to occupy Afghanistan?
  2. What was the purpose behind setting up a huge intelligence centre at Jabal-al Siraj near Kabul comprising six intelligence agencies?
  3. How did Osama bin Laden and the whole lot of Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders’ in Tora Bora slip out in December 2001, which subsequently became the key cause of US intractable troubles in Afghanistan?
  4. Is Osama dead or alive and if alive where is he located?
  5. How did the defeated, ousted fugitive Taliban manage to regroup so speedily and start hitting back at occupation forces from 2003 onwards?
  6. Details of harrowing atrocities committed by Northern Alliance warlords against captured Taliban and Pakistani prisoners after the fall of Taliban regime in December 2001.
  7. Details of $3 billion spent by CIA to win the loyalties of corrupt and ruthless Afghan warlords to help form a government in Kabul under puppet Hamid Karzai.
  8. Details of profits earned from illegal drug trade in Afghanistan and who all shared the profit to run covert operations against Pakistan and Iran.
  9. Particulars of tens of Pakistan specific training camps and intelligence setups of RAW and Mossad in Afghanistan and their methods of indoctrination of suicide bombers.
  10. Idea behind Af-Pak policy and why did it fail to kick off.
  11. How come 16,000 foreign troops coupled with 9,000 Afghan troops backed by jets, helicopters and artillery failed to overpower a few hundred ill-equipped Taliban in Marjah in February-March which has jeopardised the US offensive drive in southern and eastern Afghanistan?

The writer is a retired Brigadier who after retirement remained Honorary Colonel of the Battalion he commanded for eight years and also served as Director Education & Training KRL

* Additional editing for western English by Aletho News

August 7, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Weekly Standard Falsely Claims Iran Is Starting Proxy War With Israel

Ali Gharib | August 6th, 2010

It’s nothing unusual for the flagship neocon rag, the Weekly Standard, to try to start wars in the Middle East. But Gabriel Schoenfeld’s post today on the magazine’s blog was irresponsible even by the Standard’s… well, standards.

Schoenfeld, a fellow at the neocon Hudson Institute, fabricates the details of incidents at the southern and northern edges of Israel in order to connect the attacks to the Islamic Republic.

In his post, ominously titled “Are the Winds of War Blowing?,” Schoenfeld wonders aloud, “Are the ayatollahs preparing preemptive action of their own, taking the battle to the borders of the Zionist enemy?”

Just how are the Iranians attacking the borders of Israel? Through their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, of course. As evidence of this menacing military campaign, Schoenfeld cites three encounters over the past week:

On July 30, after a prolonged interval without such attacks, Hamas lobbed a Grad rocket into a residential area in the Israeli city of Ashkelon.

On August 2, another Grad was fired from the Sinai Peninsula toward the Israeli resort city of Eilat; it landed in the neighboring Jordanian city of Aqaba, where it killed a taxi driver and wounded five people.

On August 3, Hezbollah initiated a gun battle against Israeli soldiers operating within Israel next to its border fence, killing an Israeli officer.

No links are provided for the first two incidents, so let me clarify a few things: A rocket from Gaza did indeed land in Ashkelon last week, but Hamas did not launch or “lob” it. Even Haaretz reported that:

The Israeli military believes that Hamas was not responsible for the [rocket] attack and that the Islamist organization which controls the Gaza Strip is not interested in escalating tensions in the area, Army Radio reported.

In the second incident, of the rocket apparently fired from the Sinai, Haaretz reports that, “No group has yet taken responsibility for the attack.” Egypt, for its part, only blamed “Palestinian factions,” initially denying that the rockets had come from the Sinai at all, and failing to specify a group. (Hamas is an offshoot of the Egyptian-founded Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned in Egypt, so presumably the authorities would have little problem blaming the group if they suspected their involvement.)

For the third incident, Schoenfeld does provide a link. But if he bothered to read through the BBC article he chose, he would see that the clash on Israel’s northern border was with the Lebanese Army, not the Shia militia, Hezbollah, as Schoenfeld breathlessly states by claiming “Hezbollah initiated a gun battle against Israeli soldiers.”

Yes, both Hezbollah and Hamas are supported by the Islamic Republic as part of a far-reaching PR campaign by Iran to increase its regional clout (which is only aided by the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict). But this does not, by default, mean that Iran is behind every clash in the region.

While the origins of the first two attacks remain in the dark, Schoenfeld is ready to proclaim Hamas the culprits with zero evidence. On the third score, he simply doesn’t know what’s going on or fabricates the events to blame another Iranian proxy.

All this winds up with him, perhaps in a case of projection, suggesting that Iran is starting a war with Israel, no doubt aiming to rile up U.S.-based support for taking Israel’s side in said war.

And this from a guy who wrote a piece last month for the Wall Street Journal titled “Avoiding Another Intelligence Failure on Iran.”

Before making his fact-free claims, however, Schoenfeld writes, “As Iran makes its way into the endgame of its nuclear-bomb making program, it may be growing more worried about the prospect of a preemptive Israeli strike.” Leaving aside his evidence-free assertions about the advancement of Iran’s nuclear program, Schoenfeld does cite here the more likely scenario, with Israel cast as the aggressor.

August 6, 2010 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Attacking Iran: US options

By GWYNNE DYER | ARAB NEWS | August 5, 2010

When Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking American officer, was asked recently on NBC’s Meet The Press show whether the United States has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied simply: “We do.”

General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, for example, the United States maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada — and the Canadian military made plans to pre-empt the invasion. But what the planning process will have revealed, in this case, is that there is no way for the United States to win a nonnuclear war with Iran.

The US could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centers (i.e. cities) and killing five to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. On this we have the word of Richard Clarke, counterterrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.

In the early 1990s, Clarke revealed in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton administration had seriously considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.

“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States,” he said. The Pentagon’s planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran several times in the past 15 years, and they just can’t make it come out as a US victory.

It’s not the fear of Iranian nuclear weapons that makes the US Joint Chiefs of Staff so reluctant to get involved in a war with Iran. Those weapons don’t exist, and the whole justification for the war would be to make sure that they never do.

The problem is that there’s nothing the US can do to Iran, short of nuking the place, that would really force Tehran to kneel and beg for mercy.

It can bomb Iran’s nuclear sites and military installations to its heart’s content, but everything it destroys can be rebuilt in a few years. And there is no way that the United States could actually invade Iran.

There are some 80 million people in Iran, and although many of them don’t like the present regime they are almost all fervent patriots who would resist a foreign invasion. Iran is a mountainous country, and very big: Four times the size of Iraq. The Iranian Army currently numbers about 450,000 men, slightly smaller than the US Army — but unlike the US Army, it does not have its troops scattered across literally dozens of countries.

If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran’s south coast, senior American generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land war, the only lever the United States would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs — but if they aren’t nuclear, then they aren’t very persuasive. Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on the United States.

Just stopping Iran’s own oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for around seven percent of internationally traded oil. But it could also block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, and the Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.

The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 200-km. (140-mile) range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just meters above the sea’s surface, and it has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 percent.

Iran’s mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf, and these missiles have easily concealed mobile launchers. They would sink tankers with ease, and in a few days insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region’s oil exports completely.

Meanwhile Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air missiles to the Taleban in Afghanistan, and that would soon shut down the US military effort there. (It was the arrival of US-supplied Stinger missiles in Afghanistan in the late 1980s that drove Russian helicopters from the sky and ultimately doomed the whole Soviet intervention there.)

Iranian ballistic missiles would strike US bases on the southern side of the Gulf, and Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel. The United States would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the world’s industries and transport ground to a halt.

The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States, and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region.

That was the outcome of every war-game the Pentagon played, and Mike Mullen knows it. So there is a plan for an attack on Iran, but he would probably rather resign than put it into action. It is all bluff. It always was.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist.

August 5, 2010 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Daniel Pipes: Netanyahu Should Threaten To Nuke Iran

By Matt Duss | ThinkProgress | July 25,  2010

Pipes: To Get Obama To Act, Netanyahu Should Threaten To Nuke Iran  by Barrybar.

In a recent interview with the right-wing Christian Zionist Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, neoconservative pundit Daniel Pipes shared his view that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should threaten to use nuclear weapons against Iran as a means of “applying pressure” on the United States.

“I think it’s realistic for the Israelis to attack and do real damage,” Pipes said. “Now, what constitutes success, I’m not exactly sure. There are many, many questions” :

PIPES: If I were [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, I would say to [U.S. President Barack] Obama, “Why don’t you take out the Iranian nukes? Or else we will. And we will not do it by trying to fly planes across Turkey and Syria or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. We will do it from submarine-based, tactical nuclear weapons. You don’t want that; we don’t want that; but that’s the way we can do this job for sure. You do it your way so we don’t have to escalate to that.” That would be a way of applying pressure. There are so many details which I’m not privy to. But that would be my kind of approach if I were the Israelis.

Neoconservatives have long desired a war with Iran, even though U.S. officials like Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have stated that such a war would have disastrous consequences for U.S. troops and interests in the region.

Ignoring these views, the neocons have recently begun to openly exhort Israel to attack Iran as a means of spurring American action. Pipes’ suggestion that Israel should threaten to nuke Iran represents a significant escalation in their rhetoric.

Photo credit – Flikr

August 3, 2010 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel-Lebanon border clash kills five

Press TV – August 3, 2010

At least three Lebanese soldiers and one senior Israeli army officer have been killed after the two sides exchanged fire along their border. Several other Lebanese and Israeli soldiers were also injured in the fighting on Tuesday, according to Lebanese media.

The violence broke out after Israeli troops entered Lebanon’s territory, officials in Beirut said. Israel has reportedly used phosphorus bombs in the attack.

An unnamed source reported that Israeli warplanes fired two rockets on the hills of Adissyeh.

A Lebanese journalist from al-Akhbar newspaper was also killed in the fighting, a Press TV correspondent reported.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry claimed in a statement it held the Lebanese government responsible for the “serious incident,” warning of possible consequences if the violence continued.

Meanwhile, Lebanon’s President Michel Sleiman emphasized that any violation ot the Lebanese territory by the Tel Aviv regime is a breach of the UN Resolution 1701, which ended Israel’s war on Lebanon in 2006.

Prime Minister Saad Hariri also condemned the violation of Lebanese sovereignty.

“The United Nations and the international community bear their responsibilities and pressure Israel to stop its aggression,” a statement from Hariri’s office said.

Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri also issued a statement, calling on the government to urgently file a complaint to the UN Security Council over the violation.

August 3, 2010 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Obama’s top Iran official resigns

Press TV – August 1, 2010

Head of the US State Department’s Iran desk, John Limbert, has resigned from his post due to disillusionment with the Obama administration’s “outreach” to Tehran.

US President Barack Obama assigned the retired diplomat, who was one of the 52 Americans held captive in Tehran following the 1979 Revolution, to the Iran desk nine months ago.

“The Obama administration has been in office now for over a year and a half and I think everyone thought we would be in a better place with Iran,” Limbert told NPR on Saturday — one day after stepping down.

He added that few current US officials understand the Iranian culture and speak the language, describing three decades of hostility as “ghosts” impeding diplomatic dialogue.

Obama named Philo L. Dibble as Limbert’s successor. Analysts have viewed the change as a shift in Washington’s Iran policy.

The resignation comes amid a standoff over Iran’s nuclear program over accusations that Tehran is pursuing a military nuclear program.

Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has the right to peaceful nuclear technology.

In line with measures adopted by the US, the European Union, Canada and Australia on Monday imposed unilateral sanctions against Iran’s energy industry.

The new sanctions come one month after the UN Security Council approved a US-drafted sanctions resolution targeting the country’s financial and military sectors.

Recent reports, however, suggest the US and Israel are preparing for an attack on the Islamic Republic.

The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told NBC on Sunday that the US military is prepared to attack Iran and stop it from building “weapons.” Mullen, however, expressed concern about the possible repercussions of such a strike.

On Friday, a Jerusalem-based open intelligence source website reported that Israel is currently simulating attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The military drills dubbed “Blue Sky 2010,” are underway in Romania.

August 1, 2010 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

The Real Reasons Why the US and India Demonize Pakistan’s ISI

By Shahid R. Siddiqi | Axis of Logic | July 31, 2010

Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency, or ISI as it is popularly known, is seen as their nemesis by those who have tried to undermine the security interests of the country one way or the other. It is no wonder then that in past few years the Americans unleashed a strong ISI-bashing campaign, with India following suit.

The Americans made no bones about their dislike for this agency, blaming it for working against their interests in Afghanistan. The Indians also see an ISI agent behind every rock in Kashmir and in Afghanistan where they are trying to dig their heels. They do not hesitate to pin on ISI the blame for the freedom struggle in Kashmir or for acts of terrorism by Indian extremists. Until recently the Karzai government dominated by the anti-Pakistan Northern Alliance also remained hostile to ISI.

Not too long ago, under intense American pressure the weak Zardari government made an unsuccessful attempt at neutralizing and subduing this agency in disregarding the existing sensitive regional security environment, by moving it out of the army’s control and placing it under the controversial and embattled Zardari loyalist interior minister – Rehman Malik. This did not succeed for a simple reason. The role of the ISI as the eyes and ears of the Pakistan’s military – the bedrock of country’s security, is critical particularly at a time when the country faces multiple threats to its security.

Washington’s darling in the Afghan-Soviet war

Ironically, this is the same ISI that was Washington’s darling during the 1980s when it was the master minding the jihad against invading Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The role that the ISI then played was congruent with American interests. The defeat of the Soviet Union would have meant realization of an American dream – avenging the humiliation of Vietnam. They held the ISI in high esteem for its competence and professionalism and gladly funneled arms and funds to the Afghan mujahedeen through it. The ISI strategized the resistance and organized and trained the mujahedeen fighters, working in close collaboration with the CIA and the mujahedeen leaders, forcing the Soviets to retreat.

But as soon as the Americans had negotiated a quid pro quo – Russian withdrawal from South America in exchange for safe Soviet exit from Afghanistan, they disappeared in the middle of the night leaving Afghanistan in a quandary. The political turmoil that followed created chaos and instability owing to the failure of mujahedeen leadership, presenting as a result a security nightmare for Pakistan.

Taliban-US-Pakistan relations and the Indian Threat

In this chaos a group of young Afghan religious students, many of them former fighters from the resistance, calling themselves Taliban (in Pushto language Taliban means students), swept through the country with popular support to establish their rule. Interested in keeping their presence alive, the Americans maintained contacts and supported them, ignoring their orthodox beliefs, their harsh rule and even the presence of Al Qaeda in their midst. This continued until it was time for the Americans to overthrow their government in order to serve the changing American interests.

While the Taliban government was in control, Pakistan too maintained friendly relations with them in the interest of keeping its western border secure, extending whatever support it could. The ISI played a role through the contacts it had developed during war against the Soviets.

In the wake of 9/11 things began to change. Having invaded Afghanistan in the name of war on terror, branding Taliban as brutes and their resistance as terrorism, the Americans wanted the Pakistani army and the ISI to join the war.

This posed a serious security concern for Pakistan. It could destabilize the Pak-Afghan border and strain relations with the Pashtun tribes on both sides of the Durand Line, the British drawn boundary that cut through the Pashtun region to divide British India and Afghanistan and which Pakistan had inherited. The fact that Pakistan’s border region, called Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) is autonomous where the writ of the Pakistan Government does not prevail made matters more complex.

Pakistan’s military doctrine is based primarily on meeting the main threat from India on its eastern border while maintaining a peaceful border with Afghanistan in the west. A direct conflict with the Taliban would have forced Pakistan to divert its military assets from the eastern to the western front, thus thinning out its defenses against India. This was the last thing Pakistan wanted to do because of its unfavorable ratio of 1:4 against India in terms of conventional forces. Understandably, President Musharraf was unwilling to do America’s bidding.

U.S. projection of its military failures onto Pakistan

There always is a problem with powers that begin to act in imperialistic fashion. Their vision of the world becomes colored. They tend to believe that pursuit of their imperialist designs takes precedence over the national interests of those who cannot stand up to them, even if that means compromising their own national and security interests. America had also been behaving as one such imperial power and treated its smaller allies more like colonies. President Musharraf was threatened that in case of noncompliance with America’s wishes, “Pakistan would be bombed into the stone-age”. Musharraf was coerced into conceding to American demands.

Despite the state-of-the-art surveillance equipment and military hardware, the US and NATO forces failed to stop the Taliban fighters from moving back and forth into the unmarked Pak-Afghan border that passes through a treacherous mountainous region to regroup and strike on the invading foreign troops. The American commanders reacted by demanding that the Pakistan army engage these fighters and seal the border. Those with even the slightest knowledge of the area would know that the Americans were asking for the moon. This was physically impossible.

The Pakistan army’s operations failed. In the process it earned a severe backlash from the local tribes who resented army’s action against their kinsmen from across the border who sought refuge in their area, as it violated the old tribal custom of providing sanctuary to any one who asked for it, even if it was an enemy. The Pakistan army paid a heavy price. More soldiers died in this action than the combined number of casualties that the US and NATO troops have suffered in Afghanistan so far.

President Musharraf under advice of his army commanders and the intelligence community called off the action and resorted to persuasion instead. Through jirgas (assembly of tribal elders) an effort was made for the tribesmen to voluntarily stop the influx of Taliban fighters. It didn’t succeed either. This was not to the liking of the American commanders. They blamed the ISI for working against their interests.

Washington accuses the ISI of complicity with insurgents

Washington and the American media have frequently alleged that elements within ISI were maintaining contacts with the Taliban and attributed the failure of American troops in combating the Taliban to these contacts. Such allegations were also found to be part of the raw, unverified and even fabricated field reports ‘leaked’ in Afghanistan recently and splashed in the western media. The Americans have in the past also described the ISI to be out of control and demanded that the Pakistan government purge the agency of Taliban sympathizers.

This is ridiculous.

First, the ISI is a military organization operating under strict organizational control and discipline where officers are rotated in the normal course. It functions according to a defined mandate, unlike armed forces in some other countries and unlike the CIA which is known to be an invisible government on its own. Above all, Pakistan and its military are committed to weeding out religious extremism as a matter of state policy.

Second, if the American troops are so incapable of overcoming a rag tag army of Taliban and if the complicity of the ISI with the Taliban can be instrumental in changing the course of the American war, then it is a sad day for America as a super power and the strength of NATO forces becomes questionable.

Third, in the world of intelligence, contacts are kept even with the enemy and at all times. CIA keeps contacts within Russia and other hostile countries. Israel, the great American ‘ally’, spies on America itself. It is common for all intelligence agencies to do this in the security interests of their countries. Why then should America expect an exception to be made in case of ISI? Why should contacts that the ISI developed with the mujahedeen and the Taliban earlier, and which if it does still maintain, become a source of such great concern for the American administration?

Demanding that the ISI subordinate Pakistan security to U.S. interests.

It is strange that America expects the ISI to serve the American agenda instead of Pakistan’s interests first. One cannot forget that the Americans have a long history of abandonment of friends and allies and when they repeat this in Afghanistan citing their own national interest, despite their promises to the contrary, why should Pakistan be expected to be caught with pants down? Why should Pakistan’s military and intelligence agency be expected to abdicate their duty and not do what is necessary to ensure Pakistan’s security in the long term?

It has often been argued that America expects Pakistan to be actively engaged in the Afghan war in return for the military assistance it provides. The answer is quite simple. The American establishment is doing all that needs to be done in support of its own war and not for the love of Pakistan. The war is theirs, not Pakistan’s. Pakistan should do and is doing what is necessary and feasible, without jeopardizing its own security.

As for the assistance, the bulk of the $10 billion that America gave in the past and was branded as “aid” was in fact the reimbursement of expenses that Pakistan had already incurred in supporting the war effort. The rest was to meet Pakistan’s needs for operations in the border areas and for fighting terrorism that arose out of the war. The Americans still owe $35 billion to reimburse the losses Pakistan has incurred due to this war. As for the F16s that Pakistan is getting from the US, it pays for them, despite strict restrictions over their usage.

The Indian-Israeli attempt to destabilize Pakistan

While Americans had their issues with ISI, the Indians and Israelis began having their own. The agency exposed the growing Indian and Israeli confluence in Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan. This happened right under the nose of the Americans and obviously not without their knowledge and consent. India having deployed its troops in the name of infra-structure development in league with Karzai government and with American funding and having established seven consulates along the sparsely populated Pak-Afghan border was engaged in heavily bribing the influential but ignorant and susceptible tribal leaders to spread disaffection among the local tribesmen against Pakistan.

Evidence was also unearthed by the ISI about how the Indians bought the loyalties of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a grouping of Pakistani tribesmen from FATA and Uzbek fighters from previous wars who settled in the region. The TTP were influenced by the same orthodox religious beliefs as the Taliban in Afghanistan and were active in propagating them in their own areas. They were recruited to launch terror activities in the urban centers of Pakistan, including the capital Islamabad, and were funded, trained and equipped in Afghanistan jointly by the Indian, Israeli and Afghan intelligence agencies. A group from amongst them managed to gain control of Swat area adjoining FATA through coercion of the local population, which was later cleared by the Pakistan army after a major surgical intervention.

The ISI also laid bare strong physical evidence of Indian involvement in supporting insurgency in Balochistan by way of funding, training and equipping misguided and disgruntled Baloch elements grouped under various names including the Balochistan Liberation Army that was led by the fugitive grandson of the notable Bugti tribal chief – Akbar Bugti. His comings and goings in the Indian consulate at Kandahar and the Indian intelligence HQ in Delhi were photographed and his communications intercepted. Numerous training camps in the wilderness of Balochistan were detected where Indian trainers imparted training in guerilla warfare and the use of sophisticated weapons, which otherwise could not be available to the Baloch tribesmen. The flow of massive funds from Afghan border areas to the insurgents was detected that was traced back to the Indian consulates.

Summary and conclusion

The objective of the TTP, and behind the scenes that of the Indians and the Israelis, was to make the world believe that Pakistan was under threat of capitulating to terrorist and insurgent elements who were about to take control of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. Their goal: to denuclearize Pakistan through foreign intervention.

These efforts have not succeeded. Undoubtedly, the army and the ISI played a crucial role in foiling the plots of subversion in Balochistan and the Pashtun region and exposing the foreign hands involved, including those of CIA, RAW, Mossad, RAMA and MI6. Terrorism may not yet be eliminated but Pakistan faces no existential threat.

It should be no surprise to the Americans, Indians and the Israelis they find in ISI an adversary to reckon with. It is also not surprising that the ISI is in their perception, a rogue organization, for it has stood between them and Pakistan’s national security interests. Their frustration and ire, therefore, is understandable.

August 1, 2010 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Larijani: Iran proud of backing Hezbollah

Press TV – July 30, 2010

Iranian Parliament (Majlis) Speaker Ali Larijani says Iran takes pride in Lebanon’s Islamic resistance movement for its steadfast Islamic stance.

Speaking in Iran’s northern Mazandaran Province on Thursday, Larijani praised Hezbollah for its resistance against oppression and said, “Hezbollah nurtures the original ideas of Islamic Jihad,” IRNA reported.

The Iranian official further slammed the West for charging Iran with “its support of terrorism” and said, “The real terrorists are those who provide the Zionist regime with military equipment to bomb the people” in the region.

Larijani also made a reference to the Western-brokered sanctions on Iran over its nuclear energy program and said the Islamic Republic has always emphasized negotiations but will not bow down under pressure from the bullying powers.

“They speak of the Iranian threat against the Zionist regime… but never elicit public opinion on the Zionist regime’s atomic warheads and other missiles,” he noted.

The UN Security Council passed a US-sponsored anti-Iran resolution on June 9 that imposes restrictions on the country’s economy and energy sectors.

The move was to pressure the Islamic Republic to resume nuclear talks.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently said that Tehran would return to talks only if certain conditions are met.

The Iranian chief executive pointed out that the Western countries should announce their stance on Israeli “bombs” and say whether they abide by the regulations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

July 30, 2010 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment