A habitual liar cannot be believed even when telling the truth.
There is a famous fable by ancient Greek storyteller Aesop about a shepherd boy who habitually lied for fun. While looking after a flock of sheep near a village, every now and then he would cry "Wolf! Wolf!" to bring the villagers rushing, just to laugh at them and their naivety. One day the wolf did actually attack his flock, and the shepherd boy cried "Wolf!! Wolf!"- this time for real.
But by then, the villagers had wisened up and ignored his cries. With no one coming to help, the boy could do nothing to stop the wolf feasting on his flock. Aesop concludes: "There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth."
Thinking of this fable today, one cannot help but wonder: Did Iran attack the Japanese tanker Kokuka Courageous with limpet mines - as the United States claims it did on June 13? Does the video the US army produced indeed prove the accusation?
The US, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom say it does, Iran says it does not, and others have expressed doubts. So, who is telling the truth? Iran or the US and its allies? And why does it matter?
The urgency of these questions is now a matter of war and peace, of life or death. After that accusation, the potential military confrontation between the US and Iran has increased exponentially. On June 20, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that it had shot down a US RQ-4A Global Hawk surveillance drone that it said had violated its airspace. US Central Command confirmed the drone was shot down by Iranian surface-to-air missiles but denied that it had violated Iranian airspace.
President Donald Trump called the downing of the drone a "big mistake", and then ordered a military attack on Iran only to reportedly change his mind and cancel it. There would have been approximately 150 Iranian casualties, Trump said, and that would have been "disproportionate".
As the US and Iran inch ever closer to a military confrontation, the question the world faces at large is who to trust, what to believe, where to place our critical judgement?
An average of 12 lies a day
As of June 10, by Washington Post's estimates, "President Trump has made 10,796 false or misleading claims over 869 days." That is probably a dictionary definition of a congenital liar. The newspaper further states: "The president crossed the 10,000 thresholds on April 26, and he has been averaging about 16 fishy claims a day since then. From the start of his presidency, he has averaged about 12 such claims a day."
In this context, it would be a mistake to judge the particulars of politics with the proverbial "Sunday School" sense of morality that is farthest removed from the abiding concerns of those who habitually lie. States, particularly the most powerful states, lie and these lies are for the best interests of the ruling elites in charge of those states.
From Vietnam to Iraq, the US has systematically and consistently lied to advance its own warmongering objectives. But the US is not the only state that lies habitually.
Right now, the interests of the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel all coalesce around targeting Iran and dismantling its share of regional power. Each one of these forces has its own internal reasons to wish Iran harm.
They, therefore, manufacture lies, exaggerate facts, take a smidgeon of truth and weave a long tale around it, all to turn Iran into a demon, the way they did with Iraq and Afghanistan in the past.
The US media is complicit in this charade. The Washington Post and the New York Times have stopped counting the lies Trump tells when it comes to the war with Iran.
The first casualty of war they say is the truth. That means all wars begin with a lie. Is the explosion of this Japanese tanker in the Gulf of Oman the lie that will result in yet another calamitous war in the region?
Today the fragile being of more than 80 million people is at the mercy of that piece of news for which John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have been gunning most of their political careers.
THE REGIME OF DECEPTION
The regime of deception now code-named "post-truth" or "alternative facts" is predicated on what the French philosopher Guy Debord called "the society of the spectacle", where an image has assumed a reality of its own and it no longer matters what it actually means.
We see a ship burning and we read the story that the US imperial narrative ascribes to it and its media regurgitates. What actually caused that fire and what proof there is for the claim are all entirely irrelevant questions.
Three sources tell us Iran did it: the US, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. They all might be what we think them to be - habitual liars - but they might still be telling the truth that Iran did actually blow a hole in that ship. The problem is, as wise Aesop points out, "there is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth."
Let us take them one at a time. The US launched a massive military attack against Iraq and wreaked havoc in the region, all based on a blatant lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - a lie that the Bush administration staged and the New York Times consistently collaborated. Under the current administration that habitual tendency of states to lie has been exacerbated by a man who has a very casual relationship with the truth.
What about the UK? They also say the Iranians did it. They may very well be telling the truth. But we know for a fact that the British have a long colonial proclivity to tell lies to suit their interests. One such sustained course of lies was directed against democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh during the CIA-MI6 military coup of 1953 staged against him. The BBC was integral in spreading fake news at the time.
Well, that is the past, you might say, today the UK is certainly the paragon of truth and justice. Indeed it might be, except that it recently chose to turn its back on the truth: "The UK refuses to back UN inquiry into Saudi 'war crimes' amid fears it will damage trade Britain's Middle East and North Africa minister Alistair Burt argued that the Saudi-led coalition itself should investigate any atrocities it committed in its conflict against rebel forces in Yemen."
Can we really trust a treacherous regime that has an equally causal relationship with truth and can turn a blind eye to facts when it suits its purposes?
What about Saudi Arabia, which too has claimed Iranians did it. Certainly, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) could be a trustworthy source - except, he and his backers have repeatedly lied to the public in the face of facts about the tragic fate of slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The same Saudi prince - a favourite of New York Times columnists and President Trump's Zionist son-in-law - is chiefly responsible for a genocide in Yemen in which "85,000 children have died from starvation".
None of this is to exempt Iran from being part and parcel of the selfsame scene and engaging in its own game of lies. Despite the death toll in Syria surpassing half a million, it has continued to fabricate a story about supporting a "legitimate government", while Bashar al-Assad has continued in a sustained course of murderous mayhem. Indeed, the Iranian authorities may very well have planted that mine in the Japanese tanker.
The issue we face is not the guilt or innocence of any party involved, but, instead, the complete collapse of any moral authority standing on the side of truth.
Nietzsche famously said: "Truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour."
In the Gulf of Oman, the truth has dived into the lowest depths of the sea in search of new, more convincing, metaphors.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
Hamid Dabashi
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Secret of the Seven Sisters
On August 28, 1928, in the Scottish highlands, began the secret story of oil.
Three men had an appointment at Achnacarry Castle - a Dutchman, an American and an Englishman.
The Dutchman was Henry Deterding, a man nicknamed the Napoleon of Oil, having exploited a find in Sumatra. He joined forces with a rich ship owner and painted Shell salesman and together the two men founded Royal Dutch Shell.
The American was Walter C. Teagle and he represents the Standard Oil Company, founded by John D. Rockefeller at the age of 31 - the future Exxon. Oil wells, transport, refining and distribution of oil - everything is controlled by Standard oil.
The Englishman, Sir John Cadman, was the director of the Anglo-Persian oil Company, soon to become BP. On the initiative of a young Winston Churchill, the British government had taken a stake in BP and the Royal Navy switched its fuel from coal to oil. With fuel-hungry ships, planes and tanks, oil became "the blood of every battle".
The new automobile industry was developing fast, and the Ford T was selling by the million. The world was thirsty for oil, and companies were waging a merciless contest but the competition was making the market unstable.
That August night, the three men decided to stop fighting and to start sharing out the world's oil. Their vision was that production zones, transport costs, sales prices - everything would be agreed and shared. And so began a great cartel, whose purpose was to dominate the world, by controlling its oil.
Four others soon joined them, and they came to be known as the Seven Sisters - the biggest oil companies in the world.
EPISODE 1: DESERT STORMS
In the first episode, we travel across the Middle East, through both time and space.
Since that notorious meeting at Achnacarry Castle on August 28, 1928, they have never ceased to plot, to plan and to scheme.
Throughout the region's modern history, since the discovery of oil, the Seven Sisters have sought to control the balance of power.
They have supported monarchies in Iran and Saudi Arabia, opposed the creation of OPEC, profiting from the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the ultimate destruction of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
The Seven Sisters were always present, and almost always came out on top.
EPISODE 2: THE BLACK EL DORADO
At the end of the 1960s, the Seven Sisters, the major oil companies, controlled 85 percent of the world's oil reserves. Today, they control just 10 percent.
New hunting grounds are therefore required, and the Sisters have turned their gaze towards Africa. With peak oil, wars in the Middle East, and the rise in crude prices, Africa is the oil companies' new battleground.
But the real story, the secret story of oil, begins far from Africa.
In their bid to dominate Africa, the Sisters installed a king in Libya, a dictator in Gabon, fought the nationalisation of oil resources in Algeria, and through corruption, war and assassinations, brought Nigeria to its knees.
Oil may be flowing into the holds of huge tankers, but in Lagos, petrol shortages are chronic.
The country's four refineries are obsolete and the continent's main oil exporter is forced to import refined petrol - a paradox that reaps fortunes for a handful of oil companies.
Encouraged by the companies, corruption has become a system of government - some $50bn are estimated to have 'disappeared' out of the $350bn received since independence.
But new players have now joined the great oil game.
China, with its growing appetite for energy, has found new friends in Sudan, and the Chinese builders have moved in. Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir is proud of his co-operation with China - a dam on the Nile, roads, and stadiums.
In order to export 500,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields in the South - China financed and built the Heglig pipeline connected to Port Sudan - now South Sudan's precious oil is shipped through North Sudan to Chinese ports.
In a bid to secure oil supplies out of Libya, the US, the UK and the Seven Sisters made peace with the once shunned Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, until he was killed during the Libyan uprising of 2011, but the flow of Libyan oil remains uninterrupted.
In need of funds for rebuilding, Libya is now back to pumping more than a million barrels of oil per day. And the Sisters are happy to oblige.
EPISODE 3: THE DANCING BEAR
In the Caucasus, the US and Russia are vying for control of the region. The great oil game is in full swing. Whoever controls the Caucasus and its roads, controls the transport of oil from the Caspian Sea.
Tbilisi, Erevan and Baku - the three capitals of the Caucasus. The oil from Baku in Azerbaijan is a strategic priority
for all the major companies.
From the fortunes of the Nobel family to the Russian revolution, to World War II, oil from the Caucasus and the Caspian has played a central role. Lenin fixated on conquering the Azeri capital Baku for its oil, as did Stalin and Hitler.
On his birthday in 1941, Adolf Hitler received a chocolate and cream birthday cake, representing a map. He chose the slice with Baku on it.
On June 22nd 1941, the armies of the Third Reich invaded Russia. The crucial battle of Stalingrad was the key to the road to the Caucasus and Baku’s oil, and would decide the outcome of the war.
Stalin told his troops: "Fighting for one’s oil is fighting for one’s freedom."
After World War II, President Nikita Krushchev would build the Soviet empire and its Red Army with revenues from the USSR’s new-found oil reserves.
Decades later, oil would bring that empire to its knees, when Saudi Arabia and the US would conspire to open up the oil taps, flood the markets, and bring the price of oil down to $13 per barrel. Russian oligarchs would take up the oil mantle, only to be put in their place by their president, Vladimir Putin, who knows that oil is power.
The US and Putin‘s Russia would prop up despots, and exploit regional conflicts to maintain a grip on the oil fields of the Caucusus and the Caspian.
But they would not have counted on the rise of a new, strong and hungry China, with an almost limitless appetite for oil and energy. Today, the US, Russia and China contest the control of the former USSR’s fossil fuel reserves, and the supply routes. A three-handed match, with the world as spectators, between three ferocious beasts – The American eagle, the Russian bear, and the Chinese dragon.
EPISODE 4: A TIME FOR LIES
Peak oil – the point in time at which the highest rate of oil extraction has been reached, and after which world production will start decline. Many geologists and the International Energy Agency say the world's crude oil output reached its peak in 2006.
But while there may be less oil coming out of the ground, the demand for it is definitely on the rise.
The final episode of this series explores what happens when oil becomes more and more inaccessible, while at the same time, new powers like China and India try to fulfill their growing energy needs.
And countries like Iran, while suffering international sanctions, have welcomed these new oil buyers, who put business ahead of lectures on human rights and nuclear ambitions.
At the same time, oil-producing countries have had enough with the Seven Sisters controlling their oil assets. Nationalisation of oil reserves around the world has ushered in a new generation of oil companies all vying for a slice of the oil pie.
These are the new Seven Sisters:
Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco, the largest and most sophisticated oil company in the world; Russia's Gazprom, a company that Russia's President Vladimir Putin wrested away from the oligarchs; The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which, along with its subsidiary, Petrochina, is the world's secnd largest company in terms of market value; The National Iranian Oil Company, which has a monopoly on exploration, extraction, transportation and exportation of crude oil in Iran – OPEC's second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia; Venezuela's PDVSA, a company the late president Hugo Chavez dismantled and rebuilt into his country's economic engine and part of his diplomatic arsenal; Brazil's Petrobras, a leader in deep water oil production, that pumps out 2 million barrels of crude oil a day; and Malaysia's Petronas - Asia's most profitable company in 2012.
Mainly state-owned, the new Seven Sisters control a third of the world's oil and gas production, and more than a third of the world's reserves. The old Seven Sisters, by comparison, produce a tenth of the world's oil, and control only three percent of the reserves.
The balance has shifted.
Source: Al Jazeera
Three men had an appointment at Achnacarry Castle - a Dutchman, an American and an Englishman.
The Dutchman was Henry Deterding, a man nicknamed the Napoleon of Oil, having exploited a find in Sumatra. He joined forces with a rich ship owner and painted Shell salesman and together the two men founded Royal Dutch Shell.
The American was Walter C. Teagle and he represents the Standard Oil Company, founded by John D. Rockefeller at the age of 31 - the future Exxon. Oil wells, transport, refining and distribution of oil - everything is controlled by Standard oil.
The Englishman, Sir John Cadman, was the director of the Anglo-Persian oil Company, soon to become BP. On the initiative of a young Winston Churchill, the British government had taken a stake in BP and the Royal Navy switched its fuel from coal to oil. With fuel-hungry ships, planes and tanks, oil became "the blood of every battle".
The new automobile industry was developing fast, and the Ford T was selling by the million. The world was thirsty for oil, and companies were waging a merciless contest but the competition was making the market unstable.
That August night, the three men decided to stop fighting and to start sharing out the world's oil. Their vision was that production zones, transport costs, sales prices - everything would be agreed and shared. And so began a great cartel, whose purpose was to dominate the world, by controlling its oil.
Four others soon joined them, and they came to be known as the Seven Sisters - the biggest oil companies in the world.
EPISODE 1: DESERT STORMS
In the first episode, we travel across the Middle East, through both time and space.
We waged the Iran-Iraq war and I say we waged it, because one country had to be used to destroy the other.
- Xavier Houzel, an oil trader
Since that notorious meeting at Achnacarry Castle on August 28, 1928, they have never ceased to plot, to plan and to scheme.
Throughout the region's modern history, since the discovery of oil, the Seven Sisters have sought to control the balance of power.
They have supported monarchies in Iran and Saudi Arabia, opposed the creation of OPEC, profiting from the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the ultimate destruction of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
The Seven Sisters were always present, and almost always came out on top.
EPISODE 2: THE BLACK EL DORADO
At the end of the 1960s, the Seven Sisters, the major oil companies, controlled 85 percent of the world's oil reserves. Today, they control just 10 percent.
New hunting grounds are therefore required, and the Sisters have turned their gaze towards Africa. With peak oil, wars in the Middle East, and the rise in crude prices, Africa is the oil companies' new battleground.
Everybody thought there could be oil in Sudan but nobody knew anything. It was revealed through exploration by the American company Chevron, towards the end of the 70s. And that was the beginning of the second civil war, which went on until 2002. It lasted for 19 years and cost a million and a half lives and the oil business was at the heart of it.
- Gerard Prunier, a historian
But the real story, the secret story of oil, begins far from Africa.
In their bid to dominate Africa, the Sisters installed a king in Libya, a dictator in Gabon, fought the nationalisation of oil resources in Algeria, and through corruption, war and assassinations, brought Nigeria to its knees.
Oil may be flowing into the holds of huge tankers, but in Lagos, petrol shortages are chronic.
The country's four refineries are obsolete and the continent's main oil exporter is forced to import refined petrol - a paradox that reaps fortunes for a handful of oil companies.
Encouraged by the companies, corruption has become a system of government - some $50bn are estimated to have 'disappeared' out of the $350bn received since independence.
But new players have now joined the great oil game.
China, with its growing appetite for energy, has found new friends in Sudan, and the Chinese builders have moved in. Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir is proud of his co-operation with China - a dam on the Nile, roads, and stadiums.
In order to export 500,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields in the South - China financed and built the Heglig pipeline connected to Port Sudan - now South Sudan's precious oil is shipped through North Sudan to Chinese ports.
In a bid to secure oil supplies out of Libya, the US, the UK and the Seven Sisters made peace with the once shunned Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, until he was killed during the Libyan uprising of 2011, but the flow of Libyan oil remains uninterrupted.
In need of funds for rebuilding, Libya is now back to pumping more than a million barrels of oil per day. And the Sisters are happy to oblige.
EPISODE 3: THE DANCING BEAR
In the Caucasus, the US and Russia are vying for control of the region. The great oil game is in full swing. Whoever controls the Caucasus and its roads, controls the transport of oil from the Caspian Sea.
Tbilisi, Erevan and Baku - the three capitals of the Caucasus. The oil from Baku in Azerbaijan is a strategic priority
for all the major companies.
From the fortunes of the Nobel family to the Russian revolution, to World War II, oil from the Caucasus and the Caspian has played a central role. Lenin fixated on conquering the Azeri capital Baku for its oil, as did Stalin and Hitler.
On his birthday in 1941, Adolf Hitler received a chocolate and cream birthday cake, representing a map. He chose the slice with Baku on it.
On June 22nd 1941, the armies of the Third Reich invaded Russia. The crucial battle of Stalingrad was the key to the road to the Caucasus and Baku’s oil, and would decide the outcome of the war.
Stalin told his troops: "Fighting for one’s oil is fighting for one’s freedom."
After World War II, President Nikita Krushchev would build the Soviet empire and its Red Army with revenues from the USSR’s new-found oil reserves.
Decades later, oil would bring that empire to its knees, when Saudi Arabia and the US would conspire to open up the oil taps, flood the markets, and bring the price of oil down to $13 per barrel. Russian oligarchs would take up the oil mantle, only to be put in their place by their president, Vladimir Putin, who knows that oil is power.
The US and Putin‘s Russia would prop up despots, and exploit regional conflicts to maintain a grip on the oil fields of the Caucusus and the Caspian.
But they would not have counted on the rise of a new, strong and hungry China, with an almost limitless appetite for oil and energy. Today, the US, Russia and China contest the control of the former USSR’s fossil fuel reserves, and the supply routes. A three-handed match, with the world as spectators, between three ferocious beasts – The American eagle, the Russian bear, and the Chinese dragon.
EPISODE 4: A TIME FOR LIES
Peak oil – the point in time at which the highest rate of oil extraction has been reached, and after which world production will start decline. Many geologists and the International Energy Agency say the world's crude oil output reached its peak in 2006.
But while there may be less oil coming out of the ground, the demand for it is definitely on the rise.
The final episode of this series explores what happens when oil becomes more and more inaccessible, while at the same time, new powers like China and India try to fulfill their growing energy needs.
And countries like Iran, while suffering international sanctions, have welcomed these new oil buyers, who put business ahead of lectures on human rights and nuclear ambitions.
At the same time, oil-producing countries have had enough with the Seven Sisters controlling their oil assets. Nationalisation of oil reserves around the world has ushered in a new generation of oil companies all vying for a slice of the oil pie.
These are the new Seven Sisters:
Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco, the largest and most sophisticated oil company in the world; Russia's Gazprom, a company that Russia's President Vladimir Putin wrested away from the oligarchs; The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which, along with its subsidiary, Petrochina, is the world's secnd largest company in terms of market value; The National Iranian Oil Company, which has a monopoly on exploration, extraction, transportation and exportation of crude oil in Iran – OPEC's second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia; Venezuela's PDVSA, a company the late president Hugo Chavez dismantled and rebuilt into his country's economic engine and part of his diplomatic arsenal; Brazil's Petrobras, a leader in deep water oil production, that pumps out 2 million barrels of crude oil a day; and Malaysia's Petronas - Asia's most profitable company in 2012.
Mainly state-owned, the new Seven Sisters control a third of the world's oil and gas production, and more than a third of the world's reserves. The old Seven Sisters, by comparison, produce a tenth of the world's oil, and control only three percent of the reserves.
The balance has shifted.
Source: Al Jazeera
Monday, September 17, 2012
Iran confirms military stationed in Syria
Iran has confirmed for the first time that forces from its revolutionary guards corps are in Syria helping Assad's government crush the rebellion. It warned it would get involved militarily if its Arab ally came under attack.
In a clear public signal of Tehran's continuing support for President Bashar al-Assad, the commander of the Islamic republic's elite military formation said that "a number" of members of the IRGC's Qods force were in Syria, though General Mohammad Ali Jafari gave no further details and claimed this did not constitute "a military presence".
It was a surprisingly candid response to persistent claims by western countries, the Syrian opposition and Israel that Iran is actively helping the regime fight its enemies in the 18th month of a bloody war.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the veteran Algerian diplomat who replaced Kofi Annan as UN envoy to Syria earlier this month, met Assad in Damascus on Saturday but warned afterwards that any progress would be slow and halting given the yawning gap between government and opposition.
"The crisis is dangerous and getting worse and it is a threat to the Syrian people, the region and the world," said Brahimi.
Reports from Syria on Sunday described government forces fighting rebels amid shelling and sniper fire in Damascus and Aleppo, as well as in Homs and Deir ez-Zor. The Local Coordination Committees, an activist network, reported 103 dead.
Enmeshed in rivalries
Opposition activists reported 115 people killed on Saturday. According to the UN some 20 000 people have been killed. Opposition sources say the figure is closer to 30 000.
Jafari's admission underlines the way in which the Syrian uprising has become enmeshed in regional and international rivalries.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are arming Syrian rebel groups, while the US, Britain and France have called for Assad to go but are offering only limited and non-lethal backing to the armed opposition.
Russia and China have repeatedly blocked action against Syria at the UN.
The Qods force includes elements of special forces, intelligence-gathering and aid, and answers to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It has been accused of planning attacks inside Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Jafari said the IRGC was providing "intellectual and advisory help" to Syria.
British officials say the IRGC has provided riot control equipment and technical advice on how to crush dissent, for example on how to flood areas with security forces.
Intelligence-gathering
Iran is also providing support to improve the Syrian regime's intelligence-gathering capabilities and help to monitor protesters' use of the internet and mobile phone network, including text messaging.
Iran is said to have been dismayed at the heavy-handed way its long-standing Arab ally responded when the unrest began in March 2011, contrasting it with its relatively more sophisticated response to protests that followed its own disputed presidential election in 2009.
"If Syria came under military attack, Iran would also give military support but it ... totally depends on the circumstances," AFP reported Jafari as saying at rare press conference in Tehran.
The general also said the Strait of Hormuz, the channel at the mouth of the Gulf through which a third of the world's traded oil passes, would be a legitimate target for Iran should it be attacked.
"If war occurs in the region and the Islamic republic is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz as well as the energy [market] will face difficulties.
"The US has many vulnerabilities around Iran, and its bases are within the range of the guards' missiles. We have other capabilities as well, particularly when it comes to the support of Muslims for the Islamic republic," he said.
Tolerated
In Damascus, Brahimi also met Syrian opposition figures who are still tolerated by the regime.
"We told Mr Brahimi ... of our support for his efforts to resolve the crisis by ending the violence and killings, providing medical care and releasing political prisoners," said Hassan Abdel Azim, spokesperson for the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.
But the head of the Free Syrian Army's military council in Aleppo, Colonel Abdel Jabar al-Oqaidi, predicted that the envoy's mission would fail, like Annan's, because he had nothing to offer people who were fighting for their freedom, al-Arabiya TV reported.
Syria's state news agency Sana quoted Assad as telling Brahimi that the success of his mission hinged on "pressuring countries which finance and train the terrorists, and which traffic weapons to Syria, to stop these actions".
In Istanbul, Tariq al-Hashimi, the fugitive Iraqi vice-president, said in interview that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was failing to stop ammunitions and armaments reaching Syrian government forces.
"My country is unfortunately becoming an Iranian corridor to support the autocratic regime of Bashar al-Assad," he said. "There is no doubt about that."
Source: Mail & Guardian
In a clear public signal of Tehran's continuing support for President Bashar al-Assad, the commander of the Islamic republic's elite military formation said that "a number" of members of the IRGC's Qods force were in Syria, though General Mohammad Ali Jafari gave no further details and claimed this did not constitute "a military presence".
It was a surprisingly candid response to persistent claims by western countries, the Syrian opposition and Israel that Iran is actively helping the regime fight its enemies in the 18th month of a bloody war.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the veteran Algerian diplomat who replaced Kofi Annan as UN envoy to Syria earlier this month, met Assad in Damascus on Saturday but warned afterwards that any progress would be slow and halting given the yawning gap between government and opposition.
"The crisis is dangerous and getting worse and it is a threat to the Syrian people, the region and the world," said Brahimi.
Reports from Syria on Sunday described government forces fighting rebels amid shelling and sniper fire in Damascus and Aleppo, as well as in Homs and Deir ez-Zor. The Local Coordination Committees, an activist network, reported 103 dead.
Enmeshed in rivalries
Opposition activists reported 115 people killed on Saturday. According to the UN some 20 000 people have been killed. Opposition sources say the figure is closer to 30 000.
Jafari's admission underlines the way in which the Syrian uprising has become enmeshed in regional and international rivalries.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are arming Syrian rebel groups, while the US, Britain and France have called for Assad to go but are offering only limited and non-lethal backing to the armed opposition.
Russia and China have repeatedly blocked action against Syria at the UN.
The Qods force includes elements of special forces, intelligence-gathering and aid, and answers to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It has been accused of planning attacks inside Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Jafari said the IRGC was providing "intellectual and advisory help" to Syria.
British officials say the IRGC has provided riot control equipment and technical advice on how to crush dissent, for example on how to flood areas with security forces.
Intelligence-gathering
Iran is also providing support to improve the Syrian regime's intelligence-gathering capabilities and help to monitor protesters' use of the internet and mobile phone network, including text messaging.
Iran is said to have been dismayed at the heavy-handed way its long-standing Arab ally responded when the unrest began in March 2011, contrasting it with its relatively more sophisticated response to protests that followed its own disputed presidential election in 2009.
"If Syria came under military attack, Iran would also give military support but it ... totally depends on the circumstances," AFP reported Jafari as saying at rare press conference in Tehran.
The general also said the Strait of Hormuz, the channel at the mouth of the Gulf through which a third of the world's traded oil passes, would be a legitimate target for Iran should it be attacked.
"If war occurs in the region and the Islamic republic is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz as well as the energy [market] will face difficulties.
"The US has many vulnerabilities around Iran, and its bases are within the range of the guards' missiles. We have other capabilities as well, particularly when it comes to the support of Muslims for the Islamic republic," he said.
Tolerated
In Damascus, Brahimi also met Syrian opposition figures who are still tolerated by the regime.
"We told Mr Brahimi ... of our support for his efforts to resolve the crisis by ending the violence and killings, providing medical care and releasing political prisoners," said Hassan Abdel Azim, spokesperson for the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.
But the head of the Free Syrian Army's military council in Aleppo, Colonel Abdel Jabar al-Oqaidi, predicted that the envoy's mission would fail, like Annan's, because he had nothing to offer people who were fighting for their freedom, al-Arabiya TV reported.
Syria's state news agency Sana quoted Assad as telling Brahimi that the success of his mission hinged on "pressuring countries which finance and train the terrorists, and which traffic weapons to Syria, to stop these actions".
In Istanbul, Tariq al-Hashimi, the fugitive Iraqi vice-president, said in interview that the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was failing to stop ammunitions and armaments reaching Syrian government forces.
"My country is unfortunately becoming an Iranian corridor to support the autocratic regime of Bashar al-Assad," he said. "There is no doubt about that."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Mursi wants Egypt at centre of Arab affairs, urges end to Syrian government
Egypt's president on Wednesday promised to put Cairo back at the heart of Arab affairs and made an impassioned appeal to Arab states to work to end the bloodshed in Syria, saying the time had come to change the Syrian government. By Yasmine Saleh and Ayman Samir.
Mohamed Mursi, making his first presidential address to the Arab League in Cairo, told Arab foreign ministers that Egypt and its people would "return to occupy their natural place at the heart of the Arab nation". Mursi, elected in June after last year's popular uprising forced Hosni Mubarak from power after three decades, said the time had come in Syria for "change and not wasting time speaking of reform. This time has passed now. Now it is time for change".
"The Syrian regime must take into account the lessons of recent and ancient history," he said in the speech in which he also talked of the revolt in Egypt.
Mursi also said a quartet of states - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Egypt - would meet to discuss the Syrian crisis.
"The quartet which Egypt has called for will meet now," he said, without giving details.
An Egyptian delegate said the president's comments meant the four states were talking about what action could be taken but the formal formation of the quartet was still under discussion. He said no date had been set for its representatives to meet.
Tehran has backed Syria's government but the three other states want President Bashar al-Assad to stand down.
Analysts said the group was unlikely to agree on how to handle the crisis but said the initiative was a sign of how determined the newly elected president was to put Egypt back at the centre of regional politics.
FRESH APPEAL
As Mursi was leaving the podium, the Islamist president briefly returned to the microphone to say: "Syria, Syria, this is the arena to do something", pointing to the ministers below him, and then again saying "Syria" before stepping away.
It was the second such appeal for action in a week by Mursi. At the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Iran on Aug. 30, Mursi referred to Tehran's ally as an "oppressive regime" and said it was an "ethical duty" to back rebels.
More than 20,000 people have been killed in Syria since initially peaceful protests against Assad erupted in March 2011. Tens of thousands more have fled across its borders to neighbouring states to escape the violence. Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations-Arab League mediator on Syria, arrived in Cairo on Wednesday to join the talks with Arab ministers. Brahimi, who is expected to visit Cairo on Sunday, has described his bid to broker peace as "nearly impossible" but Kidwa told reporters at Cairo airport that "we have not lost hope" despite the difficulties facing the mission.
According to a draft of the resolutions obtained by Reuters and approved on Wednesday, ministers called on the Arab League chief and its special committee on Syria to follow up with the U.N. secretary-general to outline a "new vision" for Brahimi.
The draft also called for Nilesat and Arabsat, two regionally owned satellite firms, to stop broadcasts of Syrian state and private channels. Broadcasts of the three Syrian channels on Nilesat stopped before the draft was approved, with a Nilesat source citing unspecified contract violations.
Abdelbasset Sida, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) opposition alliance, told Reuters he was disappointed by the resolutions, saying Arabs should work more closely with Europeans opposed to Assad's rule and put more presure on Syria's ally Russia.
He said Arabs should back "using all means including force against the Syrian regime to reach that end". DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Mohamed Mursi, making his first presidential address to the Arab League in Cairo, told Arab foreign ministers that Egypt and its people would "return to occupy their natural place at the heart of the Arab nation". Mursi, elected in June after last year's popular uprising forced Hosni Mubarak from power after three decades, said the time had come in Syria for "change and not wasting time speaking of reform. This time has passed now. Now it is time for change".
"The Syrian regime must take into account the lessons of recent and ancient history," he said in the speech in which he also talked of the revolt in Egypt.
Mursi also said a quartet of states - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Egypt - would meet to discuss the Syrian crisis.
"The quartet which Egypt has called for will meet now," he said, without giving details.
An Egyptian delegate said the president's comments meant the four states were talking about what action could be taken but the formal formation of the quartet was still under discussion. He said no date had been set for its representatives to meet.
Tehran has backed Syria's government but the three other states want President Bashar al-Assad to stand down.
Analysts said the group was unlikely to agree on how to handle the crisis but said the initiative was a sign of how determined the newly elected president was to put Egypt back at the centre of regional politics.
FRESH APPEAL
As Mursi was leaving the podium, the Islamist president briefly returned to the microphone to say: "Syria, Syria, this is the arena to do something", pointing to the ministers below him, and then again saying "Syria" before stepping away.
It was the second such appeal for action in a week by Mursi. At the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Iran on Aug. 30, Mursi referred to Tehran's ally as an "oppressive regime" and said it was an "ethical duty" to back rebels.
More than 20,000 people have been killed in Syria since initially peaceful protests against Assad erupted in March 2011. Tens of thousands more have fled across its borders to neighbouring states to escape the violence. Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations-Arab League mediator on Syria, arrived in Cairo on Wednesday to join the talks with Arab ministers. Brahimi, who is expected to visit Cairo on Sunday, has described his bid to broker peace as "nearly impossible" but Kidwa told reporters at Cairo airport that "we have not lost hope" despite the difficulties facing the mission.
According to a draft of the resolutions obtained by Reuters and approved on Wednesday, ministers called on the Arab League chief and its special committee on Syria to follow up with the U.N. secretary-general to outline a "new vision" for Brahimi.
The draft also called for Nilesat and Arabsat, two regionally owned satellite firms, to stop broadcasts of Syrian state and private channels. Broadcasts of the three Syrian channels on Nilesat stopped before the draft was approved, with a Nilesat source citing unspecified contract violations.
Abdelbasset Sida, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) opposition alliance, told Reuters he was disappointed by the resolutions, saying Arabs should work more closely with Europeans opposed to Assad's rule and put more presure on Syria's ally Russia.
He said Arabs should back "using all means including force against the Syrian regime to reach that end". DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Romney and Afghanistan
The Washington Post notes that “Mitt Romney became the first Republican since 1952 to accept his party’s nomination without mentioning war.” According to the Post, “neither Romney nor his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, had anything to say about terrorism or war while on their party’s biggest stage.”
It’s true that Romney didn’t specifically mention Afghanistan (or Iraq) in his speech at the Republican National Convention, but he did discuss several national security issues. Romney said that Obama’s “trillion dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk.”
And he strongly criticized Obama for dealing poorly with the Iranian nuclear threat, which he said makes “every American less secure today.” Most memorable, Romney said of Obama: “In his first TV interview as President, he said we should talk to Iran. We’re still talking, and Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning.”
Perhaps not coincidentally, the Washington Post article and similar press coverage folds neatly into an attack from the Obama campaign, which used a web video to say that “at a time when 84,000 American men and women are fighting for their country in Afghanistan,” Romney’s acceptance speech included “not a single mention of how, or when, to bring them home safely.”
Whatever the significance of Afghanistan going unmentioned in Romney and Ryan’s acceptance speeches, it is not a topic Romney has avoided on the campaign trail. As Romney spokesman Ryan Williams pointed out: “The day before his convention speech, Governor Romney traveled to the American Legion national convention – an invitation the President declined – because Gov. Romney views any opportunity to stand with those who have served as a privilege. In contrast, President Obama has failed in his duty as Commander in Chief to win the home front. Unlike any wartime president in memory, he has failed to consistently and forthrightly speak about the war in Afghanistan to the American people. The Obama campaign’s attack on Governor Romney today is another attempt to politicize the war in Afghanistan, a war in which President Obama has dangerously based his decisions on political calculations, endangering our mission.”
The American Legion gave Romney a very warm reception at its convention in Indianapolis, and some members grumbled openly about President Obama expecting them to settle for a videotaped message while Romney attended in person. “I have to take into consideration that at least [Romney] bothered to come and talk to 10,000 veterans when Obama didn’t have the time,” the Indianapolis Star quotes one Legion member saying.
The Star reports Romney received a standing ovation from the assembled veterans. They were particularly pleased that Romney spoke about increasing employment opportunities for returning veterans, blocking budget cuts to the military, reforming the VA, and opposing Obama’s plans to increase premiums for the Tricare program for veterans’ health care. Obama’s good friends at the AFL-CIO sent a squad of activists to protest outside the American Legion event.
And the Romney people are correct to note that Obama isn’t exactly rushing to the microphones to talk about Afghanistan these days, either. He’s had very little to say about the rising tide of “green on blue” attacks, in which Afghan troops suddenly turn their guns on the American soldiers who had been training them. When Obama does address the subject, he offers nothing but the kind of vague platitudes his campaign is needling Romney over.
For example, he told an August 21 press conference he was “deeply concerned about this, from top to bottom” and, after noting that the transition of security responsibilities to Afghan forces means “our troops are in much closer contact with Afghan troops on an ongoing basis,” Obama helpfully explained that “part of what we’ve got to do is make sure that this model works, but it doesn’t make our guys more vulnerable.”
That sounds great, but green-on-blue attacks have risen 10 percent in the past two years. Three more NATO soldiers were just gunned down last week. The model does not appear to be working. Does that sound like something President Obama should be boasting about at his convention? How about the ongoing investigation of dangerous national security leaks, which appear to have emanated from the White House for political purposes?
Mitt Romney has consistently made two strong criticisms of Obama’s Afghanistan policy: he thinks it was a mistake to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal far in advance, and let the enemy know about it; and he thinks Obama’s haste to get a withdrawal under way has left our troops, and the unsteady government they fought to secure, exposed to unacceptable risks. Obama and his media allies expose their own deep insecurity about the President’s record in the War on Terror, and Obama’s nearly hysterical insistence that the death of Osama bin Laden insulates him from all foreign policy criticism, by piling on Romney because he didn’t throw a few lines about Afghanistan into his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. This is a topic more properly addressed in debate between the two candidates, and there is every reason to believe it will be.
Source: Human Events
It’s true that Romney didn’t specifically mention Afghanistan (or Iraq) in his speech at the Republican National Convention, but he did discuss several national security issues. Romney said that Obama’s “trillion dollar cuts to our military will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk.”
And he strongly criticized Obama for dealing poorly with the Iranian nuclear threat, which he said makes “every American less secure today.” Most memorable, Romney said of Obama: “In his first TV interview as President, he said we should talk to Iran. We’re still talking, and Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning.”
Perhaps not coincidentally, the Washington Post article and similar press coverage folds neatly into an attack from the Obama campaign, which used a web video to say that “at a time when 84,000 American men and women are fighting for their country in Afghanistan,” Romney’s acceptance speech included “not a single mention of how, or when, to bring them home safely.”
Whatever the significance of Afghanistan going unmentioned in Romney and Ryan’s acceptance speeches, it is not a topic Romney has avoided on the campaign trail. As Romney spokesman Ryan Williams pointed out: “The day before his convention speech, Governor Romney traveled to the American Legion national convention – an invitation the President declined – because Gov. Romney views any opportunity to stand with those who have served as a privilege. In contrast, President Obama has failed in his duty as Commander in Chief to win the home front. Unlike any wartime president in memory, he has failed to consistently and forthrightly speak about the war in Afghanistan to the American people. The Obama campaign’s attack on Governor Romney today is another attempt to politicize the war in Afghanistan, a war in which President Obama has dangerously based his decisions on political calculations, endangering our mission.”
The American Legion gave Romney a very warm reception at its convention in Indianapolis, and some members grumbled openly about President Obama expecting them to settle for a videotaped message while Romney attended in person. “I have to take into consideration that at least [Romney] bothered to come and talk to 10,000 veterans when Obama didn’t have the time,” the Indianapolis Star quotes one Legion member saying.
The Star reports Romney received a standing ovation from the assembled veterans. They were particularly pleased that Romney spoke about increasing employment opportunities for returning veterans, blocking budget cuts to the military, reforming the VA, and opposing Obama’s plans to increase premiums for the Tricare program for veterans’ health care. Obama’s good friends at the AFL-CIO sent a squad of activists to protest outside the American Legion event.
And the Romney people are correct to note that Obama isn’t exactly rushing to the microphones to talk about Afghanistan these days, either. He’s had very little to say about the rising tide of “green on blue” attacks, in which Afghan troops suddenly turn their guns on the American soldiers who had been training them. When Obama does address the subject, he offers nothing but the kind of vague platitudes his campaign is needling Romney over.
For example, he told an August 21 press conference he was “deeply concerned about this, from top to bottom” and, after noting that the transition of security responsibilities to Afghan forces means “our troops are in much closer contact with Afghan troops on an ongoing basis,” Obama helpfully explained that “part of what we’ve got to do is make sure that this model works, but it doesn’t make our guys more vulnerable.”
That sounds great, but green-on-blue attacks have risen 10 percent in the past two years. Three more NATO soldiers were just gunned down last week. The model does not appear to be working. Does that sound like something President Obama should be boasting about at his convention? How about the ongoing investigation of dangerous national security leaks, which appear to have emanated from the White House for political purposes?
Mitt Romney has consistently made two strong criticisms of Obama’s Afghanistan policy: he thinks it was a mistake to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal far in advance, and let the enemy know about it; and he thinks Obama’s haste to get a withdrawal under way has left our troops, and the unsteady government they fought to secure, exposed to unacceptable risks. Obama and his media allies expose their own deep insecurity about the President’s record in the War on Terror, and Obama’s nearly hysterical insistence that the death of Osama bin Laden insulates him from all foreign policy criticism, by piling on Romney because he didn’t throw a few lines about Afghanistan into his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. This is a topic more properly addressed in debate between the two candidates, and there is every reason to believe it will be.
Source: Human Events
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Analysis: Syria - three wars for the price of one
If you think the war in Syria is hard to follow, that’s because there’s
actually three of them—at least. Distinct but interconnected, the
competing web of allegiances and motivations puts al-Qaeda on the same
side as the USA and makes a solution impossible. By SIMON ALLISON.
Many people, like this reporter, find the Syrian war confusing sometimes. It throws up all kind of strange and unnatural contradictions, like America appearing to be on the same side as al-Qaeda-linked jihadists and Al-Jazeera turning into a typical, propaganda-spouting state media house. No doubt policy-makers also find it difficult to understand. It’s been nearly two years and there’s still no sensible international policy on Syria, just a steady stream of ad-hoc condemnations and hamstrung mediations.
There’s a simple reason for all this confusion and complexity: it’s a very, very complicated situation. Even worse, there’s not just one war being fought in Syria, but at least three and possibly even more.
War number one is the one we’re all familiar with (especially if we’ve been watching too much Al-Jazeera). This is your typical Arab Spring narrative, pitting a downtrodden civilian population against the brutal regime that has repressed its people for so long. It’s a simple tale of good-versus-evil, of democracy taking on dictatorship, of the people sticking it to the man. We’ve seen variations of the theme in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, all of which ended with the people hurling off the yoke of dictatorship and replacing it with a new, enlightened, freely-elected government (oh, wait; it hasn’t quite ended like that in any of these countries, but let’s not spoil a good story with the facts).
Elements of this story are true in Syria. Certainly, the regime was brutal and autocratic, happy to stifle political freedoms and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a very few, mostly of the Alawite ethnic minority. In fact, the Syrian security forces had such a world-class reputation for torture that they were, on occasion, prevailed upon by American intelligence to practise their craft on detainees as part America’s extraordinary rendition program.
There was popular dissent, too. Not much of it initially, but it grew in size and voice in the wake of the uprisings in other Arab countries. Whether or not the anti-Assad movement was really a majority will be argued over endlessly in years to come, but it is important to recognise that just as there was a large anti-Assad sentiment, so there was a significant chunk of the population that was happy with the status quo; autocracies are stable and peaceful, after all, unlike revolutions and civil wars.
War number two is not really about Syria at all. Instead, it’s about Middle Eastern and global geopolitics, and it’s very messy. In one corner is the Syrian Alawite regime and Iran, who are natural allies. The Alawites are a sect of Shi’a Islam, while Iran is an explicitly Shi’a state (as opposed to Sunni Islam, the other main branch of the religion). Russia finds itself in this camp too, desperate to protect its vital naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus—its only reliable warm water port. So too does China, which sees no reason to put its excellent trading relationship with Syria in jeopardy.
Ranged against this formidable combination is a regional alliance of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of which would love to see Bashar al-Assad replaced with a more compliant Sunni leader. All have designs on regional leadership, and in Syria they find common cause. Turkey was one of the first countries to express support for the Syrian rebels, while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have helped to fund and arm them. Qatar has also been accused – with some justification – of using its hugely influential satellite TV channel, Al-Jazeera (specifically the Arabic version) to influence public opinion by portraying a one-sided version of events.
Lurking behind this regional triumvirate is the United States and the Western world, their foreign policy distorted, as usual, by their Iranian paranoia. Robert Fisk, doyen of Middle East correspondents, summed up their approach in the Independent: “This is an attempt to crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its infernal nuclear plans—if they exist—and has nothing to do with human rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies.”
Syria, in other words, is a proxy war; a relatively safe place (for everyone else, not for Syria) to fight the battles that can’t yet be fought in the open.
But it doesn’t end there. There’s a third war happening. This one pits the nominally Shi’a (though relatively secular) Syrian state against the global Sunni jihadist movement (known to Americans as “terrorists”). A flood of reports recently have explained how fighters from all over the Arab world, many of them battle-hardened in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, have come to the support of the Syrian rebels.
This from Ed Husain in the National Review is typical: “Our collective excitement at the possibility that the Assad regime will be destroyed, and the Iranian ayatollahs weakened in the process, is blurring our vision and preventing us from seeing the rise of al-Qaeda in Syria. In March of this year, jihadis mounted seven attacks against Assad. By June, they had led 66 “operations”, and over half of these were on Syria’s capital, Damascus. The Syrian opposition is benefiting hugely from the terrorist organization’s determination, discipline, combat experience, religious fervour, and ability to strike the Assad regime where it hurts most.”
The War on Terror has reached Syria and somehow, America and al-Qaeda find themselves fighting on the same side. No wonder no one seems to know what’s really going on.
Nor does anyone know how to stop it. With all these tangled conflicts and competing interests and motivations, figuring out a solution seems like an impossible task. Which, so far, is exactly what it’s proven to be. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Many people, like this reporter, find the Syrian war confusing sometimes. It throws up all kind of strange and unnatural contradictions, like America appearing to be on the same side as al-Qaeda-linked jihadists and Al-Jazeera turning into a typical, propaganda-spouting state media house. No doubt policy-makers also find it difficult to understand. It’s been nearly two years and there’s still no sensible international policy on Syria, just a steady stream of ad-hoc condemnations and hamstrung mediations.
There’s a simple reason for all this confusion and complexity: it’s a very, very complicated situation. Even worse, there’s not just one war being fought in Syria, but at least three and possibly even more.
War number one is the one we’re all familiar with (especially if we’ve been watching too much Al-Jazeera). This is your typical Arab Spring narrative, pitting a downtrodden civilian population against the brutal regime that has repressed its people for so long. It’s a simple tale of good-versus-evil, of democracy taking on dictatorship, of the people sticking it to the man. We’ve seen variations of the theme in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, all of which ended with the people hurling off the yoke of dictatorship and replacing it with a new, enlightened, freely-elected government (oh, wait; it hasn’t quite ended like that in any of these countries, but let’s not spoil a good story with the facts).
Elements of this story are true in Syria. Certainly, the regime was brutal and autocratic, happy to stifle political freedoms and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a very few, mostly of the Alawite ethnic minority. In fact, the Syrian security forces had such a world-class reputation for torture that they were, on occasion, prevailed upon by American intelligence to practise their craft on detainees as part America’s extraordinary rendition program.
There was popular dissent, too. Not much of it initially, but it grew in size and voice in the wake of the uprisings in other Arab countries. Whether or not the anti-Assad movement was really a majority will be argued over endlessly in years to come, but it is important to recognise that just as there was a large anti-Assad sentiment, so there was a significant chunk of the population that was happy with the status quo; autocracies are stable and peaceful, after all, unlike revolutions and civil wars.
War number two is not really about Syria at all. Instead, it’s about Middle Eastern and global geopolitics, and it’s very messy. In one corner is the Syrian Alawite regime and Iran, who are natural allies. The Alawites are a sect of Shi’a Islam, while Iran is an explicitly Shi’a state (as opposed to Sunni Islam, the other main branch of the religion). Russia finds itself in this camp too, desperate to protect its vital naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus—its only reliable warm water port. So too does China, which sees no reason to put its excellent trading relationship with Syria in jeopardy.
Ranged against this formidable combination is a regional alliance of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of which would love to see Bashar al-Assad replaced with a more compliant Sunni leader. All have designs on regional leadership, and in Syria they find common cause. Turkey was one of the first countries to express support for the Syrian rebels, while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have helped to fund and arm them. Qatar has also been accused – with some justification – of using its hugely influential satellite TV channel, Al-Jazeera (specifically the Arabic version) to influence public opinion by portraying a one-sided version of events.
Lurking behind this regional triumvirate is the United States and the Western world, their foreign policy distorted, as usual, by their Iranian paranoia. Robert Fisk, doyen of Middle East correspondents, summed up their approach in the Independent: “This is an attempt to crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its infernal nuclear plans—if they exist—and has nothing to do with human rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies.”
Syria, in other words, is a proxy war; a relatively safe place (for everyone else, not for Syria) to fight the battles that can’t yet be fought in the open.
But it doesn’t end there. There’s a third war happening. This one pits the nominally Shi’a (though relatively secular) Syrian state against the global Sunni jihadist movement (known to Americans as “terrorists”). A flood of reports recently have explained how fighters from all over the Arab world, many of them battle-hardened in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, have come to the support of the Syrian rebels.
This from Ed Husain in the National Review is typical: “Our collective excitement at the possibility that the Assad regime will be destroyed, and the Iranian ayatollahs weakened in the process, is blurring our vision and preventing us from seeing the rise of al-Qaeda in Syria. In March of this year, jihadis mounted seven attacks against Assad. By June, they had led 66 “operations”, and over half of these were on Syria’s capital, Damascus. The Syrian opposition is benefiting hugely from the terrorist organization’s determination, discipline, combat experience, religious fervour, and ability to strike the Assad regime where it hurts most.”
The War on Terror has reached Syria and somehow, America and al-Qaeda find themselves fighting on the same side. No wonder no one seems to know what’s really going on.
Nor does anyone know how to stop it. With all these tangled conflicts and competing interests and motivations, figuring out a solution seems like an impossible task. Which, so far, is exactly what it’s proven to be. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Obama threatens to invade Syria
Yesterday US and NATO officials discussed plans for a US military invasion of Syria to bring down Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, after US President Barack Obama announced that the US was contemplating a direct attack on Syria at a press conference Monday night.
A delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Beth Jones discussed US military plans with Turkey. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Defense Department and US intelligence officials met their Turkish counterparts “to share operational pictures, to talk about the effectiveness of what we’re doing now, and about what more we can do.”
Senior US officials said that contingency plans for US intervention in Syria include scenarios requiring tens of thousands of American troops.
At a press conference at the White House Monday, Obama declared: “I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.”
Obama said that he would order “military engagement” if chemical or biological weapons are moved or used in Syria. He said that Syria’s alleged stockpile of chemical weapons “concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”
Obama added that the US “have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that’s a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons.”
The cynicism with which Obama is seeking to justify the next US imperialist aggression in the Middle East is staggering. The main groups in Syria who could seize chemical weapons from Syrian government stockpiles are Al Qaeda forces promoted by the US and its allies as shock troops against Assad. (See also: “Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda”)
Having armed Al Qaeda-linked groups and sent them into Syria to carry out bombings and assassinations, the US and its allies now plan to justify their invasion of Syria by citing the need to protect the world’s population from Al Qaeda’s terrorist atrocities!
The Obama administration advances its arguments today with total disregard for the fact that they clash with the lies used until now to justify its support for Sunni anti-Assad “rebels.”
For months it maintained the pretense that it would not directly attack Syria, and that the Syrian regime’s statements that it was fighting US-backed terrorists were “propaganda.” Now, the White House is admitting that terrorist groups play a major role in the anti-Assad forces, and citing this as a pretext for war.
By proceeding in this fashion, the Obama administration demonstrates its complete contempt for the American electorate, which voted him into office in 2008 in large part based on hopes he would stop the US military aggressions against countries in the Middle East. Today, as during the 2003 invasion of Syria’s neighbor, Iraq, Washington is preparing to invade a country based on cynical lies about weapons of mass destruction.
A US invasion of Syria would be a crime of historic proportions, like the war in Iraq—a country whose population is only slightly larger than Syria’s. This war led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis and thousands of US and allied soldiers. Iraq became a battleground for US occupation forces, as well as Sunni and Shiite death squads that carried out sectarian bombings and massacres.
A US invasion would threaten similar carnage inside Syria, which is already being torn apart by sectarian fighting in which Washington is working with right-wing regimes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to back Sunni Islamist forces against Syria’s Alawite regime. However, the far greater tensions in a region already destabilized by a decade of US and Israeli wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Libya now threaten to spread the violence over the entire Middle East.
Sectarian bloodshed provoked by the intensifying US intervention in the region is already spilling over into Syria’s neighbors. On Tuesday four people were killed and more than 60 wounded in firefights between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Alawites in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. Tensions in Lebanon have been growing for months, with Western-backed forces seeking to provoke the Lebanese government which is led by the Shiite organization Hizbollah, a close ally of Syria and Iran.
A US war against Syria would be the next step in an ongoing campaign by US imperialism to deepen its hegemony over the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
The Syrian regime responded to US threats with warnings and proposals for negotiations. Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil described Obama’s statements about chemical weapons as a pretext for Western intervention in Syria. “The West is looking for an excuse for direct intervention. If this excuse does not work, it will look for another excuse.” He warned that an attack on Syria would turn the conflict into a regional war, saying: “Those who are contemplating this evidently want to see the crisis expand beyond Syria’s borders.”
Jamil announced that the Syrian regime is willing to talk with the opposition to work out a transition, however. He even declared that Assad’s presidency is negotiable, stating: “We are ready to discuss Assad’s resignation—but not as precondition.”
Obama’s war threats against Syria are also deepening tensions with Russia and China, who have already vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions backed by the US and its Western and Arab allies aiming to give a pseudo-legal fig leaf for US aggression against Syria.
Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov spoke at a meeting in Moscow with China’s State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who also met Russian President Vladimir Putin and his top security adviser, Nikolai Patrushev, on Monday. Lavrov said that both Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter, and not to allow their violation.”
Lavrov said that only the Security Council has the authority to approve the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing “democracy by bombs.” Russian officials have reportedly stated that they hope to avoid a repetition of the attack on Libya last year. Moscow abstained from the Security Council vote on Libya, and a resolution was passed which was subsequently used by NATO to justify its bombing of the country.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
A delegation led by Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Beth Jones discussed US military plans with Turkey. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that Defense Department and US intelligence officials met their Turkish counterparts “to share operational pictures, to talk about the effectiveness of what we’re doing now, and about what more we can do.”
Senior US officials said that contingency plans for US intervention in Syria include scenarios requiring tens of thousands of American troops.
At a press conference at the White House Monday, Obama declared: “I have indicated repeatedly that President al-Assad has lost legitimacy, that he needs to step down. So far, he hasn’t gotten the message, and instead has double downed in violence on his own people. The international community has sent a clear message that rather than drag his country into civil war he should move in the direction of a political transition. But at this point, the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant.”
Obama said that he would order “military engagement” if chemical or biological weapons are moved or used in Syria. He said that Syria’s alleged stockpile of chemical weapons “concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”
Obama added that the US “have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that’s a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons.”
The cynicism with which Obama is seeking to justify the next US imperialist aggression in the Middle East is staggering. The main groups in Syria who could seize chemical weapons from Syrian government stockpiles are Al Qaeda forces promoted by the US and its allies as shock troops against Assad. (See also: “Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda”)
Having armed Al Qaeda-linked groups and sent them into Syria to carry out bombings and assassinations, the US and its allies now plan to justify their invasion of Syria by citing the need to protect the world’s population from Al Qaeda’s terrorist atrocities!
The Obama administration advances its arguments today with total disregard for the fact that they clash with the lies used until now to justify its support for Sunni anti-Assad “rebels.”
For months it maintained the pretense that it would not directly attack Syria, and that the Syrian regime’s statements that it was fighting US-backed terrorists were “propaganda.” Now, the White House is admitting that terrorist groups play a major role in the anti-Assad forces, and citing this as a pretext for war.
By proceeding in this fashion, the Obama administration demonstrates its complete contempt for the American electorate, which voted him into office in 2008 in large part based on hopes he would stop the US military aggressions against countries in the Middle East. Today, as during the 2003 invasion of Syria’s neighbor, Iraq, Washington is preparing to invade a country based on cynical lies about weapons of mass destruction.
A US invasion of Syria would be a crime of historic proportions, like the war in Iraq—a country whose population is only slightly larger than Syria’s. This war led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis and thousands of US and allied soldiers. Iraq became a battleground for US occupation forces, as well as Sunni and Shiite death squads that carried out sectarian bombings and massacres.
A US invasion would threaten similar carnage inside Syria, which is already being torn apart by sectarian fighting in which Washington is working with right-wing regimes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to back Sunni Islamist forces against Syria’s Alawite regime. However, the far greater tensions in a region already destabilized by a decade of US and Israeli wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Libya now threaten to spread the violence over the entire Middle East.
Sectarian bloodshed provoked by the intensifying US intervention in the region is already spilling over into Syria’s neighbors. On Tuesday four people were killed and more than 60 wounded in firefights between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Alawites in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli. Tensions in Lebanon have been growing for months, with Western-backed forces seeking to provoke the Lebanese government which is led by the Shiite organization Hizbollah, a close ally of Syria and Iran.
A US war against Syria would be the next step in an ongoing campaign by US imperialism to deepen its hegemony over the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
The Syrian regime responded to US threats with warnings and proposals for negotiations. Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil described Obama’s statements about chemical weapons as a pretext for Western intervention in Syria. “The West is looking for an excuse for direct intervention. If this excuse does not work, it will look for another excuse.” He warned that an attack on Syria would turn the conflict into a regional war, saying: “Those who are contemplating this evidently want to see the crisis expand beyond Syria’s borders.”
Jamil announced that the Syrian regime is willing to talk with the opposition to work out a transition, however. He even declared that Assad’s presidency is negotiable, stating: “We are ready to discuss Assad’s resignation—but not as precondition.”
Obama’s war threats against Syria are also deepening tensions with Russia and China, who have already vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions backed by the US and its Western and Arab allies aiming to give a pseudo-legal fig leaf for US aggression against Syria.
Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov spoke at a meeting in Moscow with China’s State Councilor Dai Bingguo, who also met Russian President Vladimir Putin and his top security adviser, Nikolai Patrushev, on Monday. Lavrov said that both Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on “the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter, and not to allow their violation.”
Lavrov said that only the Security Council has the authority to approve the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing “democracy by bombs.” Russian officials have reportedly stated that they hope to avoid a repetition of the attack on Libya last year. Moscow abstained from the Security Council vote on Libya, and a resolution was passed which was subsequently used by NATO to justify its bombing of the country.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Friday, August 10, 2012
Washington’s proxy in Syria: Al Qaeda
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday issued a warning against anyone “attempting to exploit the misery of the Syrian people, either by sending in proxies or sending in terrorist fighters.” She insisted that such actions would “not be tolerated.”
Neither she nor the State Department cared to spell out precisely which countries or organizations were being warned. Hidden behind Clinton’s hypocritical statement is the reality that US imperialism and its allies are themselves relying on, bankrolling and arming just such “proxies” and “terrorist fighters” to pursue their war for regime-change in Syria.
Chief among these forces is Washington’s supposed arch enemy, the Islamist terrorist organization Al Qaeda.
The growing acknowledgment within official circles that Al Qaeda is playing a decisive role in Syria’s civil war exposes both the real nature of the US-backed bid to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the fraud of Washington’s “war on terror.”
Having for months dismissed as “propaganda” the Syrian government’s statements that it is battling Al Qaeda terrorists, the corporate media and sources close to the US government are now not only acknowledging the role of this organization in the Syrian events, but celebrating it.
The major US news networks all carried reports on Monday and Tuesday highlighting Al Qaeda’s presence inside Syria. These follow a report in the New York Times late last month that Al Qaeda is operating in the heart of the so-called Syrian “revolution” through three groups: the Al Nusra Front for the People of the Levant, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades and Al Baraa ibn Malik Martyrdom Brigade.
The frankest admission of the significance of Al Qaeda’s role came Monday in an article posted on the web site of the Council on Foreign Relations by Ed Husain, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies and one of the council’s chief analysts on Islamist political movements in the Middle East.
Husain wrote: “The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective… Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”
Husain predicts that “Al-Qaeda could become the most effective fighting force in Syria if defections from the FSA” to its ranks continue growing and “the ranks of foreign fighters continue to swell.” Recent media reports have made clear that Islamist fighters from as far away as Chechnya are being funneled into Syria across the Turkish border, along with many more from Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and elsewhere.
The US reaction? “Thus far, Washington seems reluctant to weigh heavily into this issue,” writes Husain. “The unspoken position of policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran’s position in the region—and then deal with Al-Qaeda later.”
Such statements are not made lightly and are based upon intimate knowledge of American policy. The Council on Foreign Relations has the closest ties to the State Department of any Washington think tank. Sitting on its board of directors are two former secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright.
What is involved here are political realities that serve to blow up the pretexts for both the war in Syria and the “global war on terrorism” that has served as the touchstone for US policy, both foreign and domestic, for over a decade.
Washington is not waging a crusade for democracy and human rights in Syria. It is involved in a dirty war in which carnage is being unleashed against the Syrian population as a means of toppling a regime that has historic ties to Tehran. This, in turn, is meant to pave the way for a wider war aimed at eliminating Iran as a rival for regional hegemony in the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
That Iran itself recognizes these aims was spelled out Tuesday by Iranian envoy Saeed Jalili, who traveled to Damascus. “What is happening in Syria is not an internal Syrian issue but a conflict between the axis of resistance and its enemies in the region and the world,” he said.
The New York Times as much as admitted the accuracy of this assessment, acknowledging that it is not “surprising that Tehran should view the internal conflict in Syria as part of a wider international war--with Iran as the ultimate target.” It continued: “To understand the roots of Iranian paranoia, just look at the map. Iran has been steadily encircled by a network of US military bases in the decades since the Iranian revolution of 1979.”
As for Al Qaeda, after being used as a bogeyman to justify two wars of aggression and a sweeping and continuing assault on democratic rights within the US itself, it now emerges as the indispensable shock troops in Washington’s war for regime-change in Syria.
This alliance is virtually a direct repetition of the relations established by the CIA and Washington when Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden in the early 1980s. Then it funneled Islamist mujahideen fighters across the Pakistani border into Afghanistan in a war against a Soviet-backed regime that was orchestrated by the CIA and funded with billions of US dollars.
Now the CIA is playing a similar role in Syria, overseeing a huge logistical operation on the Turkish border. Can anyone believe that armed Chechen jihadis are marching across Georgia and Turkey into Syria without the active collaboration of US intelligence?
All of the rhetoric about a global war against Islamist terrorism notwithstanding, the reality is that US imperialism has utilized such forces over the course of decades. Saudi Arabia, which provides these forces with both financial and ideological backing, is Washington’s key Arab ally. Throughout the Cold War, the US government promoted the virulently anti-communist forces of political Islam in the Middle East as well as Asia as a means of destabilizing and toppling nationalist and secular regimes and countering the development of socialist movements.
The response of the US media and the political apparatus as a whole to revelations about Al Qaeda’s role in Syria goes beyond cynicism. It expresses deep-going political disorientation. In Orwellian style, the media reports that yesterday’s mortal enemy has turned into today’s ally without skipping a beat and without seeing the need for explanation. Not a single leading politician has seen fit even to publicly question this transformation.
The lineup of US imperialism and Al Qaeda in Syria exposes even more glaringly the reactionary role played by pseudo-left groups like the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in supporting the imperialist-led drive for regime-change and even casting it as a “revolution.”
Do they all really believe that the American people won’t notice, after having been dragged into two protracted wars, costing the lives of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, as well as trillions of dollars, all in the name of the struggle against Al Qaeda? If so, they are deeply mistaken. These revelations will have an explosive effect in laying bare and discrediting the entire US ruling establishment.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Neither she nor the State Department cared to spell out precisely which countries or organizations were being warned. Hidden behind Clinton’s hypocritical statement is the reality that US imperialism and its allies are themselves relying on, bankrolling and arming just such “proxies” and “terrorist fighters” to pursue their war for regime-change in Syria.
Chief among these forces is Washington’s supposed arch enemy, the Islamist terrorist organization Al Qaeda.
The growing acknowledgment within official circles that Al Qaeda is playing a decisive role in Syria’s civil war exposes both the real nature of the US-backed bid to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the fraud of Washington’s “war on terror.”
Having for months dismissed as “propaganda” the Syrian government’s statements that it is battling Al Qaeda terrorists, the corporate media and sources close to the US government are now not only acknowledging the role of this organization in the Syrian events, but celebrating it.
The major US news networks all carried reports on Monday and Tuesday highlighting Al Qaeda’s presence inside Syria. These follow a report in the New York Times late last month that Al Qaeda is operating in the heart of the so-called Syrian “revolution” through three groups: the Al Nusra Front for the People of the Levant, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades and Al Baraa ibn Malik Martyrdom Brigade.
The frankest admission of the significance of Al Qaeda’s role came Monday in an article posted on the web site of the Council on Foreign Relations by Ed Husain, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies and one of the council’s chief analysts on Islamist political movements in the Middle East.
Husain wrote: “The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective… Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.”
Husain predicts that “Al-Qaeda could become the most effective fighting force in Syria if defections from the FSA” to its ranks continue growing and “the ranks of foreign fighters continue to swell.” Recent media reports have made clear that Islamist fighters from as far away as Chechnya are being funneled into Syria across the Turkish border, along with many more from Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and elsewhere.
The US reaction? “Thus far, Washington seems reluctant to weigh heavily into this issue,” writes Husain. “The unspoken position of policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran’s position in the region—and then deal with Al-Qaeda later.”
Such statements are not made lightly and are based upon intimate knowledge of American policy. The Council on Foreign Relations has the closest ties to the State Department of any Washington think tank. Sitting on its board of directors are two former secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright.
What is involved here are political realities that serve to blow up the pretexts for both the war in Syria and the “global war on terrorism” that has served as the touchstone for US policy, both foreign and domestic, for over a decade.
Washington is not waging a crusade for democracy and human rights in Syria. It is involved in a dirty war in which carnage is being unleashed against the Syrian population as a means of toppling a regime that has historic ties to Tehran. This, in turn, is meant to pave the way for a wider war aimed at eliminating Iran as a rival for regional hegemony in the energy-rich and geo-strategically vital regions of the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
That Iran itself recognizes these aims was spelled out Tuesday by Iranian envoy Saeed Jalili, who traveled to Damascus. “What is happening in Syria is not an internal Syrian issue but a conflict between the axis of resistance and its enemies in the region and the world,” he said.
The New York Times as much as admitted the accuracy of this assessment, acknowledging that it is not “surprising that Tehran should view the internal conflict in Syria as part of a wider international war--with Iran as the ultimate target.” It continued: “To understand the roots of Iranian paranoia, just look at the map. Iran has been steadily encircled by a network of US military bases in the decades since the Iranian revolution of 1979.”
As for Al Qaeda, after being used as a bogeyman to justify two wars of aggression and a sweeping and continuing assault on democratic rights within the US itself, it now emerges as the indispensable shock troops in Washington’s war for regime-change in Syria.
This alliance is virtually a direct repetition of the relations established by the CIA and Washington when Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden in the early 1980s. Then it funneled Islamist mujahideen fighters across the Pakistani border into Afghanistan in a war against a Soviet-backed regime that was orchestrated by the CIA and funded with billions of US dollars.
Now the CIA is playing a similar role in Syria, overseeing a huge logistical operation on the Turkish border. Can anyone believe that armed Chechen jihadis are marching across Georgia and Turkey into Syria without the active collaboration of US intelligence?
All of the rhetoric about a global war against Islamist terrorism notwithstanding, the reality is that US imperialism has utilized such forces over the course of decades. Saudi Arabia, which provides these forces with both financial and ideological backing, is Washington’s key Arab ally. Throughout the Cold War, the US government promoted the virulently anti-communist forces of political Islam in the Middle East as well as Asia as a means of destabilizing and toppling nationalist and secular regimes and countering the development of socialist movements.
The response of the US media and the political apparatus as a whole to revelations about Al Qaeda’s role in Syria goes beyond cynicism. It expresses deep-going political disorientation. In Orwellian style, the media reports that yesterday’s mortal enemy has turned into today’s ally without skipping a beat and without seeing the need for explanation. Not a single leading politician has seen fit even to publicly question this transformation.
The lineup of US imperialism and Al Qaeda in Syria exposes even more glaringly the reactionary role played by pseudo-left groups like the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in supporting the imperialist-led drive for regime-change and even casting it as a “revolution.”
Do they all really believe that the American people won’t notice, after having been dragged into two protracted wars, costing the lives of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, as well as trillions of dollars, all in the name of the struggle against Al Qaeda? If so, they are deeply mistaken. These revelations will have an explosive effect in laying bare and discrediting the entire US ruling establishment.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Monday, June 25, 2012
It's Time to Engage Iran, Russia on Syria
The battle for Syria is best understood as the epicenter and early stages of a regional sectarian conflict, rather than the last days of President Bashar al-Assad.
The civil war in Syria should give pause to those who are fixated on a timeline for Assad's fall. The Syrian president has taken some hits in the past week but has settled in for a no-holds-barred fight to hold onto power. Absent a substantial military intervention by the US or others, the military balance remains with Assad, including in Aleppo, where anti-regime militias have made a major push to seize control. The security officials named to replace those killed last week are familiar hard liners and Assad loyalists. Assad's forces appear to have beaten back the rebels in Damascus. Syrian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jihad Makdissi acknowledged Syria's possession of chemical weapons this week, described by experts as "probably the largest and most advanced" program in the Arab world, adding that that they will not be used "unless Syria is exposed to external aggression." This threat earned a rebuke from Russia but signaled that Assad has no plans to abdicate.
Another reason reports of Assad's demise may be premature is because of the regional power struggle that is playing out in Syria. The US has until now subcontracted the armed insurgency to the patronage of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Many in the Gulf Cooperation Council states consider Syria a sectarian battlefield to check Iranian and Shiite power and influence. Assad is an Alawite, a sect of Shiism, as well as a key ally of Iran. Alawites represents approximately 12%, or 2.6 million, of Syria's 22 million people. The so-called Shia arc of Iranian influence also includes Lebanon, which is dominated by Hezbollah, and Iraq. Iran is not likely to give up the fight with the stakes so high. Assad also has a backer in Russia, which is unwilling for now to cede its influence in Syria. Moscow may believe that the worse things get, the more its influence grows, as only it holds the key to negotiations with the Syrian government.
The implications of Syria for Iraq cannot be understated. The New York Times reports today (July 25) that "The presence of jihadists in Syria has accelerated in recent days, in part because of a convergence with the sectarian tensions across the country's long border in Iraq." Iraq, which endured a brutal sectarian civil war after Saddam Hussein was deposed by US forces in 2003, has suffered a resurgence of terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda-linked Sunni extremists with both ideological and operational ties to a growing jihadist presence in Syria. The civil war in Syria also has consequences for Lebanon, which has already seen violence at its borders, as well as Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
The Obama Administration should be mindful of steps that might accentuate, rather than resolve, the Syrian civil war and its regional consequences. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday, July 24, that "we have to work closely with the opposition because more and more territory is being taken, and it will eventually result in a safe haven inside Syria, which will then provide a base for further actions by the opposition."
The introduction of safe havens would open a new chapter in the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, safe havens would provide a base for humanitarian and refugee assistance, as well as for opposition activities. But there is a catch. Safe havens can also prolong rather than end the violence, creating a de facto partition and potentially increasing the prospects of the division or collapse of the state. A safe haven can also be a catalyst for mission creep, an enticement for further military intervention by the US and others, and facilitate an increase in the presence of foreign fighters, including terrorists.
If the US seeks to prevent Syria's collapse, reduce the prospects for further bloodshed and facilitate as stable a transition as possible, then Washington needs to open an urgent new diplomatic front with Russia and Iran, the two countries which retain the most leverage with Assad.
Only Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has the clout with Assad to initiate a conversation about a transition. The US is frustrated that Russia has thwarted initiatives at the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Syria. The sanctions effort at the Security Council, it should be said, has mostly been a waste of American diplomatic energy and capital because of Russia's position and because of the likely ineffectiveness of these sanctions on Assad, who is preoccupied with crushing the insurgency.
Iran has offered to be part of international discussions on Syria, but this has so far been nixed by the United States. Washington may, like its Gulf allies, see Iran as on defense because of the pressure of international sanctions and the conflict in Syria, and therefore want to keep Iran on the defense. While Iran may be down, it is far from out, especially in Syria and given the stalled nuclear negotiations. Better to have Iran engaged in Syria through diplomacy than via subterfuge and proxies, such as Hezbollah.
The US has no easy options or answers in Syria. It begins with do no harm. As Syria's civil war is inseparable from the broader regional conflict, the US must have its own strategy that assures that Syria does not deteriorate and go the way of 2003 Iraq, and in the process take Iraq of 2012 and others along with it.
Source: IISS
The civil war in Syria should give pause to those who are fixated on a timeline for Assad's fall. The Syrian president has taken some hits in the past week but has settled in for a no-holds-barred fight to hold onto power. Absent a substantial military intervention by the US or others, the military balance remains with Assad, including in Aleppo, where anti-regime militias have made a major push to seize control. The security officials named to replace those killed last week are familiar hard liners and Assad loyalists. Assad's forces appear to have beaten back the rebels in Damascus. Syrian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Jihad Makdissi acknowledged Syria's possession of chemical weapons this week, described by experts as "probably the largest and most advanced" program in the Arab world, adding that that they will not be used "unless Syria is exposed to external aggression." This threat earned a rebuke from Russia but signaled that Assad has no plans to abdicate.
Another reason reports of Assad's demise may be premature is because of the regional power struggle that is playing out in Syria. The US has until now subcontracted the armed insurgency to the patronage of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Many in the Gulf Cooperation Council states consider Syria a sectarian battlefield to check Iranian and Shiite power and influence. Assad is an Alawite, a sect of Shiism, as well as a key ally of Iran. Alawites represents approximately 12%, or 2.6 million, of Syria's 22 million people. The so-called Shia arc of Iranian influence also includes Lebanon, which is dominated by Hezbollah, and Iraq. Iran is not likely to give up the fight with the stakes so high. Assad also has a backer in Russia, which is unwilling for now to cede its influence in Syria. Moscow may believe that the worse things get, the more its influence grows, as only it holds the key to negotiations with the Syrian government.
The implications of Syria for Iraq cannot be understated. The New York Times reports today (July 25) that "The presence of jihadists in Syria has accelerated in recent days, in part because of a convergence with the sectarian tensions across the country's long border in Iraq." Iraq, which endured a brutal sectarian civil war after Saddam Hussein was deposed by US forces in 2003, has suffered a resurgence of terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda-linked Sunni extremists with both ideological and operational ties to a growing jihadist presence in Syria. The civil war in Syria also has consequences for Lebanon, which has already seen violence at its borders, as well as Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
The Obama Administration should be mindful of steps that might accentuate, rather than resolve, the Syrian civil war and its regional consequences. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday, July 24, that "we have to work closely with the opposition because more and more territory is being taken, and it will eventually result in a safe haven inside Syria, which will then provide a base for further actions by the opposition."
The introduction of safe havens would open a new chapter in the Syrian conflict. On the one hand, safe havens would provide a base for humanitarian and refugee assistance, as well as for opposition activities. But there is a catch. Safe havens can also prolong rather than end the violence, creating a de facto partition and potentially increasing the prospects of the division or collapse of the state. A safe haven can also be a catalyst for mission creep, an enticement for further military intervention by the US and others, and facilitate an increase in the presence of foreign fighters, including terrorists.
If the US seeks to prevent Syria's collapse, reduce the prospects for further bloodshed and facilitate as stable a transition as possible, then Washington needs to open an urgent new diplomatic front with Russia and Iran, the two countries which retain the most leverage with Assad.
Only Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has the clout with Assad to initiate a conversation about a transition. The US is frustrated that Russia has thwarted initiatives at the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Syria. The sanctions effort at the Security Council, it should be said, has mostly been a waste of American diplomatic energy and capital because of Russia's position and because of the likely ineffectiveness of these sanctions on Assad, who is preoccupied with crushing the insurgency.
Iran has offered to be part of international discussions on Syria, but this has so far been nixed by the United States. Washington may, like its Gulf allies, see Iran as on defense because of the pressure of international sanctions and the conflict in Syria, and therefore want to keep Iran on the defense. While Iran may be down, it is far from out, especially in Syria and given the stalled nuclear negotiations. Better to have Iran engaged in Syria through diplomacy than via subterfuge and proxies, such as Hezbollah.
The US has no easy options or answers in Syria. It begins with do no harm. As Syria's civil war is inseparable from the broader regional conflict, the US must have its own strategy that assures that Syria does not deteriorate and go the way of 2003 Iraq, and in the process take Iraq of 2012 and others along with it.
Source: IISS
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Iran 'puts the screws' on MTN
MTN is facing a storm over claims that it helped the Iranian government to spy on local subscribers and assisted the regime in its brutal crackdown on protesters in 2009 and 2010. In court papers lodged in the United States last week, rival mobile operator Turkcell alleged that MTN told its Iranian military-linked partners it would allow the defence ministry to eavesdrop on subscribers. Sources close to MTN's Iranian business have also described an Orwellian environment in the company's Tehran headquarters, where it allegedly gave military intelligence officials "open" access to subscribers’ details. The sources claimed:
Iran's mobile operators were harshly criticised for their alleged role in quelling protests that followed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed victory in the 2009 elections. Activists who claimed to have been tortured after being arrested said that intelligence officials had their cellphone data.
'Human rights violations'
This week, the Democratic Alliance asked the South African Human Rights Commission to investigate whether MTN "may be directly or indirectly responsible for human rights violations in Iran". DA MP David Maynier said there was no evidence that MTN Irancell was involved directly or indirectly, but he cited media reports that the company bought equipment to monitor calls, filter and block SMSes, and establish the location of users. MTN flatly denied the claims this week, saying: "On human rights, the group takes direction from and adheres to the policies of both the South African government and the United Nations. South Africa has human rights enshrined as fundamental principles within its Constitution.
"Given South Africa's own recent history and our struggle against apartheid, the centrality of civil rights is at the core of our culture as a company and as individuals."
The company said the equipment it used in Iran was not intended to monitor dissidents "nor is there any evidence that the Iranian government has used the data collected to identify and locate citizens or dissidents". MTN is a 49% shareholder in Irancell. Fifty-one percent is held by an Iranian state-linked consortium, which is dominated by a subsidiary owned by the defence ministry known as Sairan, or Iran Electronics Industries. Sairan is subject to US and European Union sanctions that target proliferators of "weapons of mass destruction". It also holds a share in consortium Arya Hamrah, which owns and runs MTN Irancell's data centre that houses the company’s servers and hardware.
Military intelligence
The sources familiar with MTN's Iranian operations said that, because of these ownership structures, Irancell readily gave information about subscribers to intelligence officials. One of the sources said: "MTN's data centre in Iran is effectively run by the military and military intelligence. None of the intelligence organisations needs to go through normal procedures to access subscriber data and track individuals." Describing the climate at MTN's headquarters, a senior official said it was dominated by the presence of Iran's military intelligence officials and the "morality police".
"There was a tea lady who just stood at the printer all day. Her job was to watch us."
The woman, understood to be a member of the "morality police", would scold female staff whose clothing was considered too revealing and signalled her displeasure over "inappropriate" behaviour. Communicating by email, the source said: "The people on the second floor are from military intelligence and the Basij and some clerics. They oversee the intelligence and moral activities of the employees of Irancell. All emails, telephone conversations and SMSes of employees are monitored on an ongoing basis. This is then exposed to MTN against the threat that they will kick out MTN when they need concessions from it."
The staffer described how men from the second floor would accompany Dezfouli to collect data on individuals and political dissidents: "On several occasions someone from the second floor and [Dezfouli] would come to the managed services group and say 'give us all the details for this number', and they would have to." The staffer said subscription and location data and call and SMS histories were handed over. The company's data warehouse is outsourced to a South African company, PBT. According to the source: "PBT simply provides a data warehousing function. In other words, they extract data and provide data-mining functions for product development, market segmentation, etcetera. MTN owns the data, so they don't really have a choice."
Tracking activities
PBT spokesman Nitesh Vallabh said: "We only transform the data into aggregated information as requested by [MTN] for management information to manage the business." MTN used the information to help it profile and market to its customer base; it was not supposed to be used to identify and track the activities of individuals, the source said. But this did happen.
"In 2009 and 2010, it would happen four to five times in a month. It spiked whenever there were rallies or government protests. But it didn't happen every month."
In one case, the staffer said, he recognised a number as belonging to a friend, an active member of Iran's opposition Green Party.
"We were friends and talked maybe every two weeks. Then one day a request came for his number and [they] gave them his data. I tried to call him that night and I could not reach him. Four months later I still couldn’t reach him on the number or Skype."
In another case, the staffer said, he was talking to an acquaintance in South Africa in their home language when a voice broke in to say: "English, English, English!" He was using an Irancell SIM at the time, "but whether this was a national or an MTN function, I don’t know."
Shortly before going to print, MTN Human Resources Head Paul Norman submitted the following written response to questions over allegations that it assisted the Iranian regime in monitoring the communications and movements of political activists:
"MTN's role in Iran is mostly as a technical partner. It is a non-controlling shareholder. Fewer than 30 MTN expats (not all South African) are employed in Irancell, out of around 2000. Whatever equipment MTN has acquired for Irancell was for normal business reasons. This is the same software we utilize at other MTN operations. To suggest that we acquired such equipment with the active purpose of enhancing the Iranian government’s capacity to monitor its citizens outside the law is simply outrageous. We have never cut off Skype and we do not own the international gateway. Some of the equipment listed was purchased to develop our 'homezone' offerings, which allow reduced rates within specific regional areas and thus expands the offering to more people.
"The data warehousing software was acquired to predict, churn and to see when airtime is running out and suggest new products and services to customers. This is standard software that is used by telcos, financial services and other companies around the world to improve the service that customers receive. It has nothing to do with interception, nor is there any evidence that the Iranian government has used the data collected to identify and locate citizens or dissidents.
"It is important to note that when MTN entered Iran, there were only around four million subscribers in total. Today there are almost 35 million subscribers, of whom more than 60% are below 25 years old. These are young people who use the network to communicate with each other, Skype, access Google and tweet each other. MTN works hard, with international legal advisors, to ensure that it is sanctions compliant. MTN's views on human rights are clear. We are a South African company, founded in the year of our first democratic elections under a new constitution.
Civic and human rights are vital to the company, and as the individuals that work at MTN. MTN has a social and ethics committee of the board to look as such issues. One of our core values is respect human rights and privacy rights of people in all the markets in which we operate. We oppose abuse of such rights by any party, including governments, and we communicate our procedures extensively internally. We expect all our business partners to abide by our code of ethics
"Mobile telecoms has been a force for political and economic liberation in the emerging world over the last 10 years. MTN is proud of the part it played in contributing to this. But we accept the ethical complexities around telecoms in this new environment, and the potential for their manipulation for unethical means.
These are new areas of ethics and political debate. These issues also impact other telecom operators and Internet providers across emerging markets. MTN is keen to work with international bodies to construct clearer international standards."
*Got a tip-off for us about this story? Email amabhungane@mg.co.za
Source: Mail & Guardian
- Because MTN Irancell and its data centre were part-owned by the Iranian military, subscriber data was shared "on a collegial basis" with the intelligence sector;
- A shadowy "second floor" in MTN's building was populated by military intelligence officials, the volunteer militia known as the Basij ("morality police") and clerics;
- During the 2009 and 2010 Green movement protests, men from the second floor, accompanied by Irancell chief executive Alireza Dezfouli, allegedly approached data warehouse staff regularly to demand detailed records for individuals;
- In one case, they demanded the number of a known Green Party activist, who could not be reached after his information had been given to military intelligence; and
- Third parties listened in to staff calls over Irancell SIMs and would intervene and demand that the staff speak in English and not in other South African languages.
Iran's mobile operators were harshly criticised for their alleged role in quelling protests that followed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed victory in the 2009 elections. Activists who claimed to have been tortured after being arrested said that intelligence officials had their cellphone data.
'Human rights violations'
This week, the Democratic Alliance asked the South African Human Rights Commission to investigate whether MTN "may be directly or indirectly responsible for human rights violations in Iran". DA MP David Maynier said there was no evidence that MTN Irancell was involved directly or indirectly, but he cited media reports that the company bought equipment to monitor calls, filter and block SMSes, and establish the location of users. MTN flatly denied the claims this week, saying: "On human rights, the group takes direction from and adheres to the policies of both the South African government and the United Nations. South Africa has human rights enshrined as fundamental principles within its Constitution.
"Given South Africa's own recent history and our struggle against apartheid, the centrality of civil rights is at the core of our culture as a company and as individuals."
The company said the equipment it used in Iran was not intended to monitor dissidents "nor is there any evidence that the Iranian government has used the data collected to identify and locate citizens or dissidents". MTN is a 49% shareholder in Irancell. Fifty-one percent is held by an Iranian state-linked consortium, which is dominated by a subsidiary owned by the defence ministry known as Sairan, or Iran Electronics Industries. Sairan is subject to US and European Union sanctions that target proliferators of "weapons of mass destruction". It also holds a share in consortium Arya Hamrah, which owns and runs MTN Irancell's data centre that houses the company’s servers and hardware.
Military intelligence
The sources familiar with MTN's Iranian operations said that, because of these ownership structures, Irancell readily gave information about subscribers to intelligence officials. One of the sources said: "MTN's data centre in Iran is effectively run by the military and military intelligence. None of the intelligence organisations needs to go through normal procedures to access subscriber data and track individuals." Describing the climate at MTN's headquarters, a senior official said it was dominated by the presence of Iran's military intelligence officials and the "morality police".
"There was a tea lady who just stood at the printer all day. Her job was to watch us."
The woman, understood to be a member of the "morality police", would scold female staff whose clothing was considered too revealing and signalled her displeasure over "inappropriate" behaviour. Communicating by email, the source said: "The people on the second floor are from military intelligence and the Basij and some clerics. They oversee the intelligence and moral activities of the employees of Irancell. All emails, telephone conversations and SMSes of employees are monitored on an ongoing basis. This is then exposed to MTN against the threat that they will kick out MTN when they need concessions from it."
The staffer described how men from the second floor would accompany Dezfouli to collect data on individuals and political dissidents: "On several occasions someone from the second floor and [Dezfouli] would come to the managed services group and say 'give us all the details for this number', and they would have to." The staffer said subscription and location data and call and SMS histories were handed over. The company's data warehouse is outsourced to a South African company, PBT. According to the source: "PBT simply provides a data warehousing function. In other words, they extract data and provide data-mining functions for product development, market segmentation, etcetera. MTN owns the data, so they don't really have a choice."
Tracking activities
PBT spokesman Nitesh Vallabh said: "We only transform the data into aggregated information as requested by [MTN] for management information to manage the business." MTN used the information to help it profile and market to its customer base; it was not supposed to be used to identify and track the activities of individuals, the source said. But this did happen.
"In 2009 and 2010, it would happen four to five times in a month. It spiked whenever there were rallies or government protests. But it didn't happen every month."
In one case, the staffer said, he recognised a number as belonging to a friend, an active member of Iran's opposition Green Party.
"We were friends and talked maybe every two weeks. Then one day a request came for his number and [they] gave them his data. I tried to call him that night and I could not reach him. Four months later I still couldn’t reach him on the number or Skype."
In another case, the staffer said, he was talking to an acquaintance in South Africa in their home language when a voice broke in to say: "English, English, English!" He was using an Irancell SIM at the time, "but whether this was a national or an MTN function, I don’t know."
Shortly before going to print, MTN Human Resources Head Paul Norman submitted the following written response to questions over allegations that it assisted the Iranian regime in monitoring the communications and movements of political activists:
"MTN's role in Iran is mostly as a technical partner. It is a non-controlling shareholder. Fewer than 30 MTN expats (not all South African) are employed in Irancell, out of around 2000. Whatever equipment MTN has acquired for Irancell was for normal business reasons. This is the same software we utilize at other MTN operations. To suggest that we acquired such equipment with the active purpose of enhancing the Iranian government’s capacity to monitor its citizens outside the law is simply outrageous. We have never cut off Skype and we do not own the international gateway. Some of the equipment listed was purchased to develop our 'homezone' offerings, which allow reduced rates within specific regional areas and thus expands the offering to more people.
"The data warehousing software was acquired to predict, churn and to see when airtime is running out and suggest new products and services to customers. This is standard software that is used by telcos, financial services and other companies around the world to improve the service that customers receive. It has nothing to do with interception, nor is there any evidence that the Iranian government has used the data collected to identify and locate citizens or dissidents.
"It is important to note that when MTN entered Iran, there were only around four million subscribers in total. Today there are almost 35 million subscribers, of whom more than 60% are below 25 years old. These are young people who use the network to communicate with each other, Skype, access Google and tweet each other. MTN works hard, with international legal advisors, to ensure that it is sanctions compliant. MTN's views on human rights are clear. We are a South African company, founded in the year of our first democratic elections under a new constitution.
Civic and human rights are vital to the company, and as the individuals that work at MTN. MTN has a social and ethics committee of the board to look as such issues. One of our core values is respect human rights and privacy rights of people in all the markets in which we operate. We oppose abuse of such rights by any party, including governments, and we communicate our procedures extensively internally. We expect all our business partners to abide by our code of ethics
"Mobile telecoms has been a force for political and economic liberation in the emerging world over the last 10 years. MTN is proud of the part it played in contributing to this. But we accept the ethical complexities around telecoms in this new environment, and the potential for their manipulation for unethical means.
These are new areas of ethics and political debate. These issues also impact other telecom operators and Internet providers across emerging markets. MTN is keen to work with international bodies to construct clearer international standards."
*Got a tip-off for us about this story? Email amabhungane@mg.co.za
Source: Mail & Guardian
Friday, March 30, 2012
MTN's cash, weapons and ties in Iran
Cellphone giant MTN was so desperate to win a mobile operating licence in the "virgin" territory of Iran that it allegedly put together a package of bribes, trading opportunities in sophisticated weaponry, capital investment and diplomatic influence that the Islamic Republic could not resist. That is the claim of rival firm Turkcell, which was pushed out of the deal when MTN arrived on the scene. It backs up the allegation with a raft of what appears to be internal MTN documents, leaked from the heart of the company's Iran operation.
The allegations are set out in a $4-billion (R32-billion) lawsuit launched in the US District Court of Columbia in Washington DC this week. The scheme, allegedly known in MTN as "Project Snooker", was allegedly driven from the top by then-chief executive Phuthuma Nhleko, with the assistance of Irene Charnley (then commercial director), and Sifiso Dabengwa (then chief operating officer). It included alleged bribes to South Africa's ambassador to Iran, Yusuf "Jo-Jo" Saloojee, and Iran's deputy foreign minister, Javid Ghorbanoghli; the involvement of former defence minister Mosiuoa Lekota in the procurement of highly sensitive weapons systems from parastatal Denel; and access for Iranian officials to South Africa's top nuclear envoy, Abdul Minty. The memos attached to the court papers apparently set out how Ghorbanoghli, dubbed "Long John", was allegedly paid $400 000 to politically undermine Turkcell's position while Saloojee, codenamed "Short John'', was allegedly paid $200 000 to help MTN deliver pro-Iran votes from South Africa at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) amid controversy over Iran's nuclear plans.
The Irancell cellphone network was projected to be worth $31.6-billion in revenues over 15 years for a licence fee of $380-million. The licence holder and the Iranian state-owned telecommunications company were to enjoy exclusive use of the market for two years before a third competing licence would be awarded. Turkcell won the bid on February 18 2004 and MTN came second. But Turkcell claims that MTN, through "unprecedented corrupt acts", blocked it from entering the agreements, clearing the regulatory environment and completing post-award obligations. To secure the 49% stake in Irancell, MTN effectively also allegedly carried all the costs for its 51% partner through "sham loans", Turkcell says.
It is alleged in the papers that MTN paid the €300-million licence fee, capitalisation costs and share transfer tax of Iran's state-owned defence company, Sairan (also known as Iran Electronic Industries or IEI) and Bonyad (one of the five Iranian quasi-independent charitable foundations that is integral to Iran's defence establishment) in exchange for their assistance within the ministry of defence and the "Supreme Leader".
What follows is a summary of Turkcell's claims in its court application and the supporting documentation that allegedly emanates from within MTN. It has not yet been tested in court, nor has MTN commented on the authenticity of the documents. A few weeks after Turkcell was made the preferred bidder, Charnley met with Ghorbanoghli (Long John) in Tehran where the minister told her that MTN's only chance to oust Turkcell was to win political influence in Iran and use South Africa's influence to favour the Iranian government at the UN Security Council. And so began "Project Snooker" -- the plan on how best to use Iranian and South African government officials to allegedly gain political influence. MTN reached out to a former deputy minister for the Iranian ministry of information and communications technology and to Mohammed Mokhber, the deputy president of a major charitable foundation known as Bonyad Mostazafan, controlled by the supreme leader of Iran.
The Bonyad foundation is controlled by the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military complex formed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is believed to control about one-third of the Iranian economy. It is known for engaging in Iran's shadow foreign policy. MTN was then introduced to Ebrahim Mahmoudzadeh, a former Iranian deputy minister of defence and then-president of Iran Electronic Industries, who reported directly to the Iranian minister of defence. As one of Turkcell's local minority partners in the Irancell consortium, Mokhber and Mahmoudzadeh told MTN executives they would be willing to work with the South African company and dump Turkcell if MTN could obtain certain defence equipment, support its nuclear programme and pay for the licence and other benefits. For example, MTN was urged to facilitate the purchase of certain military equipment from South Africa for Iran's state-owned defence company, Sairan, which was previously blocked by South Africa's national conventional arms control committee. For more than a year, MTN executives regularly visited Mahmoudzadeh and the ministry of foreign affairs to reinforce its political influence.
In about April 2004, the Iranians tested MTN's ability to deliver on defence products and nuclear votes. Sairan requested that MTN arrange a meeting with Denel, South Africa's largest manufacturer of defence equipment, as well as then-defence minister Mosiuoa Lekota. MTN was told Iran was building its defence force and it wanted to purchase military radios, encryption technologies and pilot display computer chips manufactured in the Western Cape, which South Africa refused to sell them previously. MTN made a commitment that it could procure this equipment as well as facilitate installation of eavesdropping technologies on MTN devices were they to be awarded the 49% stake in Irancell.
The MTN board of directors, including Cyril Ramaphosa, Nhleko, Dabengwa and Charnley, received regular reports on the status of Turkcell's licence and MTN's strategies. Enter Saloojee, "aka Small John", who was appointed South Africa's ambassador to Iran on May 23 2004. Before he left for Tehran, MTN briefed him about the licence situation and about its desire to win the licence from Turkcell. "Small John" started working closely with "Long John" and convinced the Iranian government that MTN had enough political clout to help Iran on its nuclear and defence equipment needs. Charnley was key to that mix because of her political connections in South Africa, particularly with Lekota -- she worked closely with him in the United Democratic Front during the 1980s. Ramaphosa also enjoyed a close relationship with Lekota because of their ties in the ANC.
It is well known in political circles that Charnley and Nhleko were closely aligned with former president Thabo Mbeki. Charnley is friends with Mbeki's wife, Zanele, who assisted the former MTN executive with funds to help start Smile Communications, a telecoms company. "Small John" was also allegedly close to Mbeki, with whom he had shared a house at some point during the struggle. In about June 2004, Saloojee invited Charnley and Nhleko to his house for dinner and that's where the discussion of the bribes for both "Small John" and "Long John" took place. Saloojee explained that he was hoping to purchase a house in South Africa for $200 000. On April 26 2007, MTN made a direct payment into a trust account for Saloojee, which was received by his property attorneys, Gildenhuys Lessing Malatji Inc. The property transaction was closed on September 26 2007.
MTN had also made a promise to Ghorbanoghli to reimburse him for his assistance and Saloojee had helped the Iranian with personal favours, such as arranging for his children to be educated in South Africa. It was at a dinner in May 2005 that Charnley offered Ghorbanoghli a $400 000 bribe through a "sham" consultancy agency agreement to reward his efforts to politically undermine and destroy Turkcell's position as the licence holder and to deliver the licence to MTN instead. The "sham" consultancy payment was authorised by Nhleko on behalf of MTN in a memo dated December 11 2006.
Charnley was sent a confidential memo in which Ghorbanoghli says he has arranged for a friend in Dubai to receive the funds on his behalf through a company called Aristo Oil International Services. In an invoice from Aristo it described the scope of the responsibilities as "introduce MTN-Iran to key role-players, arrange meetings and generally provide support and assistance during the negotiations and conclusion of the necessary agreements that will provide for MTN's entry into the Iranian mobile market". Ghorbanoghli delivered on that. On September 17 2005 MTN's executive team flew to Iran and finalised agreements with the IEDC and payment structures. A day later MTN issued a notice to its board members regarding "Project Snooker" and its decision to officially take up the GSM licence in Iran.
On September 21 2005, two months before being awarded the licence, Nhleko delivered a confidential memorandum to Dabengwa, Charnley and MTN's former chief financial officer, Robert Nisbet, which was copied to the Chris Kilowan and Paul Norman setting out in detail the ground rules for "Project Snooker" and how MTN would deliver on the defence and nuclear support promises.
Weapons: The promised Denel collaboration, which clearly came off
In August 2004, MTN accompanied Lekota on a trip to Iran, which the cellphone company organised and paid for, where they struck an "arms- for-licence" deal with the Iranian ministry of defence to deliver "The Fish". Nhleko and Charnley were present at the meeting where they signed a confidential memorandum of understanding, promising that South Africa would deliver "heaven, earth, and fish", meaning the elicit arms and technology in exchange for the licence.
"The Fish" was a code for the name for a combination of military co-operation and big-ticket defence equipment, including Rooivalk helicopters, frequency-hopping encrypted military radios, sniper rifles, G5 howitzers, cannons, armoured landmine-proof personnel carriers, radar technology, pilot "heads-up" display technology and other defence articles that included US systems and components. Iran didn't have access to this equipment legitimately because of US and international sanctions against it at the time. To reassure the Iranian authorities, MTN paid for Iran's nuclear negotiator to meet with then-president Mbeki at his Cape Town residence, a meeting which was apparently facilitated by Charnley, Ramaphosa and Saloojee through their political connections.
On November 16 2004, Charnley sent a letter via fax on behalf of MTN, copied to Saloojee, facilitating a meeting between Denel and the Iran Helicopter Support and Renewal Co. The letter indicated that Charnley had met with then-Denel chief executive Victor Moche to provide helicopter technology from Denel to produce helicopters with US Apache technology in Iran. Denel's former head for North Africa and the Middle East, Donald Romfolo, confirmed they had been in talks with Iran's defence ministry and state arms company, Sairan, in 2004. But he said the national conventional arms control committee barred the company from trading in Iran "because of the US sanctions". He denied any knowledge of Charnley and said he knew of no talks with MTN or pressure applied by the company.
Lekota, now president of Cope, flatly denied on Thursday that MTN had paid for any visit by him to Iran. "This is absolutely fallacious. Defence was never bankrupt when I was there." However, he confirmed one or more visits "in my official capacity" to Iran, and he confirmed that "in one of those visits it coincided with the MTN people also travelling there -- they did form part of the South African delegation going there". "I had meetings with the relevant minister and I think even the head of state … but at no stage did I have any meetings with the cellphone company MTN, I was never in any meeting. I had no obligation or, in fact, no power to negotiate anything on behalf of MTN. I think MTN negotiated their business with their counterparts quite independent of their mission. I could not have made any promises to the Iranian government on defence co-operation without going through Cabinet."
Later, confronted with a specific allegation that he had met his Iranian counterpart in the presence of MTN officials, he conceded that "when official business had been done … we might have been entertained, and that the businesspeople that may have been part of this visit may have been part of that". "I deny that there was any negotiations around MTN's business interests by the ministry of defence led by myself." Lekota denied that he would have promised any weapons outside of the arms control committee's approvals that would have to follow. "I never made any commitments of the nature you are suggesting." In the end, and once Iran had handed the licence to MTN, it seems whatever promises about defence materiel may have been made, came to naught.
In March 2007, a year and half after MTN was awarded the licence, MTN began facing even greater pressure from its Iranian partners to deliver on some of its defence and nuclear-related promises. MTN's representative in Iran, Chris Kilowan, sent a memo to Nhleko from the Iranians calling on the company to deliver on its defence promises. "[MTN's chief executive Nhleko] should attempt as a matter of urgency to contact the president of South Africa and impress upon him that the failure to resolve the defence matters to the satisfaction of Iran will have severe negative repercussions for MTN," read the memo attached as an exhibit. The "highly confidential" memo recounts Saloojee's description of visits to South Africa by top Iranian officials on behalf of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Khamenei dispatched Ali Larijani, then the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, to remind Mbeki "that certain defence-related promises were made by the South African minister of defence in 2004 in exchange for which MTN was allowed to replace Turkcell in the Irancell consortium". The same memo reports that Manouchehr Mottaki, then Iran's foreign minister, was sent by Ahmadinejad to "get a direct answer" from Mbeki about South Africa's alleged promises to sell arms to Iran. Kilowan wrote in the memo: "Mottaki reiterated their understanding that MTN was allowed to replace Turkcell in exchange for defense co-operation."
On the UN Security Council vote, the memo said: "It is now a matter of public record what happened to the vote on Saturday … that South Africa also voted in favour of the sanctions." The memo also relates Saloojee's concerns. "The Iranians did not expect the voting to go otherwise, although they were hopeful that South Africa would at least abstain. As it is, South Africa is now seen as having made a U-turn on the matter and we will have to closely monitor the reaction of the Iranians to the fact." MTN also found itself being threatened in late 2007 by "Long John" for not delivering on its promises. Mbeki's spokesperson, Mukoni Ratshitanga, told the M&G: "Former president Thabo Mbeki does not believe that he should oblige attempts to drag his name into this matter and will therefore not comment."
The Votes: International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations
Throughout 2004 and 2005, at the same time that MTN was lobbying hard to displace Turkcell, Iran came under intense pressure over its nuclear enrichment programme. The international community had repeatedly voted against the state before the International Atomic Energy Authority and the UN Security Council, calling on it to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, as Turkcell detailed, from 2004 to 2008, South Africa largely joined the votes against Iran except for a brief hiatus at the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006, which coincided with the November 2005 license award. "MTN learned that the Iranians understood South Africa to play a critical role in being able to lead the 'non-aligned' nations on nuclear votes in international bodies," Turkcell stated. And so, Turkcell claims, the cellphone giant orchestrated an "informal" meeting between Mbeki and Iran's nuclear chief, Hassan Rowhani, at a dinner at Mbeki's Cape Town residence. "MTN paid for adviser Rowhani to stay at a hotel in Cape Town, sponsored the large dinner party, and covered all travel logistics," Turkcell claims. "Consistent with MTN's promises, the president assured adviser Rowhani that the South African government would support Iran at the [International Atomic Energy Authority]." But Mbeki, through his spokesperson, refused to comment on this account.
That September, when the International Atomic Energy Authority board found Iran not to be complying with its non-proliferation treaty obligations, South Africa abstained. Come November 20, Turkcell detailed, MTN expected it was to be awarded the licence. Instead, the Iranians are said to have delivered the message that should South Africa vote against Iran at a crucial November 24 vote before the IAEA, it would "cause trouble".
The decision the IAEA has to make was on whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for breaching the NPT. This appears to have sent the company's mavericks into a bit of a spin. It is alleged they approached Saloojee, who approached South African ambassador to the IAEA Abdul Minty. Other frantic calls were made, and as it happened, South Africa abstained from the vote. Three days later the Iranians issued the GSM license to MTN.
The M&G was unable to reach Minty on Thursday, but when he was approached on the matter in February, he strenuously denied having been influenced: "At no point did [MTN] approach me to influence me in any direction." According to him, South Africa's policy on Iran at the IAEA had been "very consistent". After being awarded the 49% stake, MTN made good on its promises to its 51% shareholder, carrying all its costs. MTN agreed to pay the IEDC's $88-million capital share of MTN Irancell as well as their share of the $300-million licence fee.
The Iranian partners were clear that they were not willing to pay any "interest" on, or put up security for, a "loan". Charnley presented the proposed arrangement to MTN. Rob Nisbett, the chief financial officer, was apparently shocked at the proposal and refused to permit the deal on "improper and unsecured terms". He insisted that a formal loan agreement be negotiated and entered into with the parties. He also threatened to resign if this was not done.
On November 15 2005 MTN Group directed its subsidiary, MTN International (Mauritius) Ltd, to enter into sham "loan" agreements with the IEDC. Nisbett still voiced concern about this arrangement and informed the executive team that the "loans" put MTN at huge risk. Nhleko issued Nisbett with a formal written warning for opposing the financial terms and was instructed to authorise the transaction. Documents show MTN made the "loans" through a series of complex "round trip" agreements by shifting the funds around between the IEDC, MTN-Irancell, and MTN Group, which it then recorded on its books as loans. By the time the loans were due, MTN-Irancell was highly profitable -- $118-million profit in 2007, $234-million in 2008, $516-million in 2009, $583-million in 2010 and at least $503-million projected for 2011.
Charnley did not respond to numerous messages left on her cellphone and with an assistant in her office. An automatic message at Saloojee's office -- the South African embassy in Oman where he is ambassador -- said staff did not work on Thursdays, and emails were not answered. Spokespeople for Nhleko and Ramaphosa said they would pass on the M&G's respective messages, but neither responded in time for print deadline.
Department of International Affairs and Cooperation spokesperson Clayson Monyela could not be reached, but last month he denied that any company had influence over South Africa's foreign policy. Calls to Iran's embassy in South Africa were placed on hold, after which no calls were answered.
MTN and its legal advisers were locked in all-day meetings yesterday, filing its JSE news service (Sens) announcement only at 5.30pm in response to the explosive claims made by Turkcell in a lawsuit filed in the Washington Federal Court at 2am South African time.
Africa's largest cellphone operator said the claim had still not been served, but that it would oppose it. The company reiterated that there was "no legal merit" to Turkcell's claim and no basis for such a claim to be brought before a United States court. It also noted the South African government's denial of the allegations that MTN exercised influence over it. In advance of Turkcell filing its claim, MTN announced the formation of an independent committee, under the chairmanship of internationally renowned jurist Lord Hoffmann, to investigate Turkcell's allegations. The Hoffmann committee has already begun its investigations and will report its findings to the MTN board, with any recommendations on actions to be taken as a result of its findings, including their publication. "The Hoffmann committee has invited Turkcell to participate in its investigation, but Turkcell has to date not done so," MTN said in the statement. "The invitation remains open to Turkcell to participate in the Hoffmann committee's investigation."
Turkcell has been threatening to take MTN to the US courts for corruption since February 2, but held out for a settlement from MTN first before it filed. MTN has been calling its bluff by refusing to settle out of court, claiming extortion. Turkcell has argued that MTN has many business interests in the US and that the cellphone company has violated the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law that gives US courts jurisdiction in some instances to consider claims by foreigners for illegal conduct that occurred in another country. The law is usually cited in human rights and torture cases.
Meanwhile, Turkcell was yesterday dealing with its own set of issues relating to infighting among its board and shareholders. Reuters reported that the board met to discuss its structure and independent board members. Having founded Turkcell in 1994, Mehmet Emin Karamehmet is locked in a boardroom struggle with the other main shareholders in Turkcell: Altimo and Nordic telecommunications group TeliaSonera.
Turkcell's board has seven members. The three main shareholders -- Cukurova, Altimo and TeliaSonera -- each has two seats. Chairperson Colin Williams is the designated independent board member. Altimo and TeliaSonera want him replaced because they say he sides with Cukurova, Reuters reports. TeliaSonera has a 37% stake in Turkcell, whereas Altimo has a 13.2% stake it bought from Karamehmet in 2005. However, Cukurova's 13.8% stake carries controlling rights because of Turkcell's structure.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The allegations are set out in a $4-billion (R32-billion) lawsuit launched in the US District Court of Columbia in Washington DC this week. The scheme, allegedly known in MTN as "Project Snooker", was allegedly driven from the top by then-chief executive Phuthuma Nhleko, with the assistance of Irene Charnley (then commercial director), and Sifiso Dabengwa (then chief operating officer). It included alleged bribes to South Africa's ambassador to Iran, Yusuf "Jo-Jo" Saloojee, and Iran's deputy foreign minister, Javid Ghorbanoghli; the involvement of former defence minister Mosiuoa Lekota in the procurement of highly sensitive weapons systems from parastatal Denel; and access for Iranian officials to South Africa's top nuclear envoy, Abdul Minty. The memos attached to the court papers apparently set out how Ghorbanoghli, dubbed "Long John", was allegedly paid $400 000 to politically undermine Turkcell's position while Saloojee, codenamed "Short John'', was allegedly paid $200 000 to help MTN deliver pro-Iran votes from South Africa at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) amid controversy over Iran's nuclear plans.
The Irancell cellphone network was projected to be worth $31.6-billion in revenues over 15 years for a licence fee of $380-million. The licence holder and the Iranian state-owned telecommunications company were to enjoy exclusive use of the market for two years before a third competing licence would be awarded. Turkcell won the bid on February 18 2004 and MTN came second. But Turkcell claims that MTN, through "unprecedented corrupt acts", blocked it from entering the agreements, clearing the regulatory environment and completing post-award obligations. To secure the 49% stake in Irancell, MTN effectively also allegedly carried all the costs for its 51% partner through "sham loans", Turkcell says.
It is alleged in the papers that MTN paid the €300-million licence fee, capitalisation costs and share transfer tax of Iran's state-owned defence company, Sairan (also known as Iran Electronic Industries or IEI) and Bonyad (one of the five Iranian quasi-independent charitable foundations that is integral to Iran's defence establishment) in exchange for their assistance within the ministry of defence and the "Supreme Leader".
What follows is a summary of Turkcell's claims in its court application and the supporting documentation that allegedly emanates from within MTN. It has not yet been tested in court, nor has MTN commented on the authenticity of the documents. A few weeks after Turkcell was made the preferred bidder, Charnley met with Ghorbanoghli (Long John) in Tehran where the minister told her that MTN's only chance to oust Turkcell was to win political influence in Iran and use South Africa's influence to favour the Iranian government at the UN Security Council. And so began "Project Snooker" -- the plan on how best to use Iranian and South African government officials to allegedly gain political influence. MTN reached out to a former deputy minister for the Iranian ministry of information and communications technology and to Mohammed Mokhber, the deputy president of a major charitable foundation known as Bonyad Mostazafan, controlled by the supreme leader of Iran.
The Bonyad foundation is controlled by the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, the military complex formed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is believed to control about one-third of the Iranian economy. It is known for engaging in Iran's shadow foreign policy. MTN was then introduced to Ebrahim Mahmoudzadeh, a former Iranian deputy minister of defence and then-president of Iran Electronic Industries, who reported directly to the Iranian minister of defence. As one of Turkcell's local minority partners in the Irancell consortium, Mokhber and Mahmoudzadeh told MTN executives they would be willing to work with the South African company and dump Turkcell if MTN could obtain certain defence equipment, support its nuclear programme and pay for the licence and other benefits. For example, MTN was urged to facilitate the purchase of certain military equipment from South Africa for Iran's state-owned defence company, Sairan, which was previously blocked by South Africa's national conventional arms control committee. For more than a year, MTN executives regularly visited Mahmoudzadeh and the ministry of foreign affairs to reinforce its political influence.
In about April 2004, the Iranians tested MTN's ability to deliver on defence products and nuclear votes. Sairan requested that MTN arrange a meeting with Denel, South Africa's largest manufacturer of defence equipment, as well as then-defence minister Mosiuoa Lekota. MTN was told Iran was building its defence force and it wanted to purchase military radios, encryption technologies and pilot display computer chips manufactured in the Western Cape, which South Africa refused to sell them previously. MTN made a commitment that it could procure this equipment as well as facilitate installation of eavesdropping technologies on MTN devices were they to be awarded the 49% stake in Irancell.
The MTN board of directors, including Cyril Ramaphosa, Nhleko, Dabengwa and Charnley, received regular reports on the status of Turkcell's licence and MTN's strategies. Enter Saloojee, "aka Small John", who was appointed South Africa's ambassador to Iran on May 23 2004. Before he left for Tehran, MTN briefed him about the licence situation and about its desire to win the licence from Turkcell. "Small John" started working closely with "Long John" and convinced the Iranian government that MTN had enough political clout to help Iran on its nuclear and defence equipment needs. Charnley was key to that mix because of her political connections in South Africa, particularly with Lekota -- she worked closely with him in the United Democratic Front during the 1980s. Ramaphosa also enjoyed a close relationship with Lekota because of their ties in the ANC.
It is well known in political circles that Charnley and Nhleko were closely aligned with former president Thabo Mbeki. Charnley is friends with Mbeki's wife, Zanele, who assisted the former MTN executive with funds to help start Smile Communications, a telecoms company. "Small John" was also allegedly close to Mbeki, with whom he had shared a house at some point during the struggle. In about June 2004, Saloojee invited Charnley and Nhleko to his house for dinner and that's where the discussion of the bribes for both "Small John" and "Long John" took place. Saloojee explained that he was hoping to purchase a house in South Africa for $200 000. On April 26 2007, MTN made a direct payment into a trust account for Saloojee, which was received by his property attorneys, Gildenhuys Lessing Malatji Inc. The property transaction was closed on September 26 2007.
MTN had also made a promise to Ghorbanoghli to reimburse him for his assistance and Saloojee had helped the Iranian with personal favours, such as arranging for his children to be educated in South Africa. It was at a dinner in May 2005 that Charnley offered Ghorbanoghli a $400 000 bribe through a "sham" consultancy agency agreement to reward his efforts to politically undermine and destroy Turkcell's position as the licence holder and to deliver the licence to MTN instead. The "sham" consultancy payment was authorised by Nhleko on behalf of MTN in a memo dated December 11 2006.
Charnley was sent a confidential memo in which Ghorbanoghli says he has arranged for a friend in Dubai to receive the funds on his behalf through a company called Aristo Oil International Services. In an invoice from Aristo it described the scope of the responsibilities as "introduce MTN-Iran to key role-players, arrange meetings and generally provide support and assistance during the negotiations and conclusion of the necessary agreements that will provide for MTN's entry into the Iranian mobile market". Ghorbanoghli delivered on that. On September 17 2005 MTN's executive team flew to Iran and finalised agreements with the IEDC and payment structures. A day later MTN issued a notice to its board members regarding "Project Snooker" and its decision to officially take up the GSM licence in Iran.
On September 21 2005, two months before being awarded the licence, Nhleko delivered a confidential memorandum to Dabengwa, Charnley and MTN's former chief financial officer, Robert Nisbet, which was copied to the Chris Kilowan and Paul Norman setting out in detail the ground rules for "Project Snooker" and how MTN would deliver on the defence and nuclear support promises.
Weapons: The promised Denel collaboration, which clearly came off
In August 2004, MTN accompanied Lekota on a trip to Iran, which the cellphone company organised and paid for, where they struck an "arms- for-licence" deal with the Iranian ministry of defence to deliver "The Fish". Nhleko and Charnley were present at the meeting where they signed a confidential memorandum of understanding, promising that South Africa would deliver "heaven, earth, and fish", meaning the elicit arms and technology in exchange for the licence.
"The Fish" was a code for the name for a combination of military co-operation and big-ticket defence equipment, including Rooivalk helicopters, frequency-hopping encrypted military radios, sniper rifles, G5 howitzers, cannons, armoured landmine-proof personnel carriers, radar technology, pilot "heads-up" display technology and other defence articles that included US systems and components. Iran didn't have access to this equipment legitimately because of US and international sanctions against it at the time. To reassure the Iranian authorities, MTN paid for Iran's nuclear negotiator to meet with then-president Mbeki at his Cape Town residence, a meeting which was apparently facilitated by Charnley, Ramaphosa and Saloojee through their political connections.
On November 16 2004, Charnley sent a letter via fax on behalf of MTN, copied to Saloojee, facilitating a meeting between Denel and the Iran Helicopter Support and Renewal Co. The letter indicated that Charnley had met with then-Denel chief executive Victor Moche to provide helicopter technology from Denel to produce helicopters with US Apache technology in Iran. Denel's former head for North Africa and the Middle East, Donald Romfolo, confirmed they had been in talks with Iran's defence ministry and state arms company, Sairan, in 2004. But he said the national conventional arms control committee barred the company from trading in Iran "because of the US sanctions". He denied any knowledge of Charnley and said he knew of no talks with MTN or pressure applied by the company.
Lekota, now president of Cope, flatly denied on Thursday that MTN had paid for any visit by him to Iran. "This is absolutely fallacious. Defence was never bankrupt when I was there." However, he confirmed one or more visits "in my official capacity" to Iran, and he confirmed that "in one of those visits it coincided with the MTN people also travelling there -- they did form part of the South African delegation going there". "I had meetings with the relevant minister and I think even the head of state … but at no stage did I have any meetings with the cellphone company MTN, I was never in any meeting. I had no obligation or, in fact, no power to negotiate anything on behalf of MTN. I think MTN negotiated their business with their counterparts quite independent of their mission. I could not have made any promises to the Iranian government on defence co-operation without going through Cabinet."
Later, confronted with a specific allegation that he had met his Iranian counterpart in the presence of MTN officials, he conceded that "when official business had been done … we might have been entertained, and that the businesspeople that may have been part of this visit may have been part of that". "I deny that there was any negotiations around MTN's business interests by the ministry of defence led by myself." Lekota denied that he would have promised any weapons outside of the arms control committee's approvals that would have to follow. "I never made any commitments of the nature you are suggesting." In the end, and once Iran had handed the licence to MTN, it seems whatever promises about defence materiel may have been made, came to naught.
In March 2007, a year and half after MTN was awarded the licence, MTN began facing even greater pressure from its Iranian partners to deliver on some of its defence and nuclear-related promises. MTN's representative in Iran, Chris Kilowan, sent a memo to Nhleko from the Iranians calling on the company to deliver on its defence promises. "[MTN's chief executive Nhleko] should attempt as a matter of urgency to contact the president of South Africa and impress upon him that the failure to resolve the defence matters to the satisfaction of Iran will have severe negative repercussions for MTN," read the memo attached as an exhibit. The "highly confidential" memo recounts Saloojee's description of visits to South Africa by top Iranian officials on behalf of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Khamenei dispatched Ali Larijani, then the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, to remind Mbeki "that certain defence-related promises were made by the South African minister of defence in 2004 in exchange for which MTN was allowed to replace Turkcell in the Irancell consortium". The same memo reports that Manouchehr Mottaki, then Iran's foreign minister, was sent by Ahmadinejad to "get a direct answer" from Mbeki about South Africa's alleged promises to sell arms to Iran. Kilowan wrote in the memo: "Mottaki reiterated their understanding that MTN was allowed to replace Turkcell in exchange for defense co-operation."
On the UN Security Council vote, the memo said: "It is now a matter of public record what happened to the vote on Saturday … that South Africa also voted in favour of the sanctions." The memo also relates Saloojee's concerns. "The Iranians did not expect the voting to go otherwise, although they were hopeful that South Africa would at least abstain. As it is, South Africa is now seen as having made a U-turn on the matter and we will have to closely monitor the reaction of the Iranians to the fact." MTN also found itself being threatened in late 2007 by "Long John" for not delivering on its promises. Mbeki's spokesperson, Mukoni Ratshitanga, told the M&G: "Former president Thabo Mbeki does not believe that he should oblige attempts to drag his name into this matter and will therefore not comment."
The Votes: International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations
Throughout 2004 and 2005, at the same time that MTN was lobbying hard to displace Turkcell, Iran came under intense pressure over its nuclear enrichment programme. The international community had repeatedly voted against the state before the International Atomic Energy Authority and the UN Security Council, calling on it to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, as Turkcell detailed, from 2004 to 2008, South Africa largely joined the votes against Iran except for a brief hiatus at the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006, which coincided with the November 2005 license award. "MTN learned that the Iranians understood South Africa to play a critical role in being able to lead the 'non-aligned' nations on nuclear votes in international bodies," Turkcell stated. And so, Turkcell claims, the cellphone giant orchestrated an "informal" meeting between Mbeki and Iran's nuclear chief, Hassan Rowhani, at a dinner at Mbeki's Cape Town residence. "MTN paid for adviser Rowhani to stay at a hotel in Cape Town, sponsored the large dinner party, and covered all travel logistics," Turkcell claims. "Consistent with MTN's promises, the president assured adviser Rowhani that the South African government would support Iran at the [International Atomic Energy Authority]." But Mbeki, through his spokesperson, refused to comment on this account.
That September, when the International Atomic Energy Authority board found Iran not to be complying with its non-proliferation treaty obligations, South Africa abstained. Come November 20, Turkcell detailed, MTN expected it was to be awarded the licence. Instead, the Iranians are said to have delivered the message that should South Africa vote against Iran at a crucial November 24 vote before the IAEA, it would "cause trouble".
The decision the IAEA has to make was on whether to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for breaching the NPT. This appears to have sent the company's mavericks into a bit of a spin. It is alleged they approached Saloojee, who approached South African ambassador to the IAEA Abdul Minty. Other frantic calls were made, and as it happened, South Africa abstained from the vote. Three days later the Iranians issued the GSM license to MTN.
The M&G was unable to reach Minty on Thursday, but when he was approached on the matter in February, he strenuously denied having been influenced: "At no point did [MTN] approach me to influence me in any direction." According to him, South Africa's policy on Iran at the IAEA had been "very consistent". After being awarded the 49% stake, MTN made good on its promises to its 51% shareholder, carrying all its costs. MTN agreed to pay the IEDC's $88-million capital share of MTN Irancell as well as their share of the $300-million licence fee.
The Iranian partners were clear that they were not willing to pay any "interest" on, or put up security for, a "loan". Charnley presented the proposed arrangement to MTN. Rob Nisbett, the chief financial officer, was apparently shocked at the proposal and refused to permit the deal on "improper and unsecured terms". He insisted that a formal loan agreement be negotiated and entered into with the parties. He also threatened to resign if this was not done.
On November 15 2005 MTN Group directed its subsidiary, MTN International (Mauritius) Ltd, to enter into sham "loan" agreements with the IEDC. Nisbett still voiced concern about this arrangement and informed the executive team that the "loans" put MTN at huge risk. Nhleko issued Nisbett with a formal written warning for opposing the financial terms and was instructed to authorise the transaction. Documents show MTN made the "loans" through a series of complex "round trip" agreements by shifting the funds around between the IEDC, MTN-Irancell, and MTN Group, which it then recorded on its books as loans. By the time the loans were due, MTN-Irancell was highly profitable -- $118-million profit in 2007, $234-million in 2008, $516-million in 2009, $583-million in 2010 and at least $503-million projected for 2011.
Charnley did not respond to numerous messages left on her cellphone and with an assistant in her office. An automatic message at Saloojee's office -- the South African embassy in Oman where he is ambassador -- said staff did not work on Thursdays, and emails were not answered. Spokespeople for Nhleko and Ramaphosa said they would pass on the M&G's respective messages, but neither responded in time for print deadline.
Department of International Affairs and Cooperation spokesperson Clayson Monyela could not be reached, but last month he denied that any company had influence over South Africa's foreign policy. Calls to Iran's embassy in South Africa were placed on hold, after which no calls were answered.
MTN and its legal advisers were locked in all-day meetings yesterday, filing its JSE news service (Sens) announcement only at 5.30pm in response to the explosive claims made by Turkcell in a lawsuit filed in the Washington Federal Court at 2am South African time.
Africa's largest cellphone operator said the claim had still not been served, but that it would oppose it. The company reiterated that there was "no legal merit" to Turkcell's claim and no basis for such a claim to be brought before a United States court. It also noted the South African government's denial of the allegations that MTN exercised influence over it. In advance of Turkcell filing its claim, MTN announced the formation of an independent committee, under the chairmanship of internationally renowned jurist Lord Hoffmann, to investigate Turkcell's allegations. The Hoffmann committee has already begun its investigations and will report its findings to the MTN board, with any recommendations on actions to be taken as a result of its findings, including their publication. "The Hoffmann committee has invited Turkcell to participate in its investigation, but Turkcell has to date not done so," MTN said in the statement. "The invitation remains open to Turkcell to participate in the Hoffmann committee's investigation."
Turkcell has been threatening to take MTN to the US courts for corruption since February 2, but held out for a settlement from MTN first before it filed. MTN has been calling its bluff by refusing to settle out of court, claiming extortion. Turkcell has argued that MTN has many business interests in the US and that the cellphone company has violated the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law that gives US courts jurisdiction in some instances to consider claims by foreigners for illegal conduct that occurred in another country. The law is usually cited in human rights and torture cases.
Meanwhile, Turkcell was yesterday dealing with its own set of issues relating to infighting among its board and shareholders. Reuters reported that the board met to discuss its structure and independent board members. Having founded Turkcell in 1994, Mehmet Emin Karamehmet is locked in a boardroom struggle with the other main shareholders in Turkcell: Altimo and Nordic telecommunications group TeliaSonera.
Turkcell's board has seven members. The three main shareholders -- Cukurova, Altimo and TeliaSonera -- each has two seats. Chairperson Colin Williams is the designated independent board member. Altimo and TeliaSonera want him replaced because they say he sides with Cukurova, Reuters reports. TeliaSonera has a 37% stake in Turkcell, whereas Altimo has a 13.2% stake it bought from Karamehmet in 2005. However, Cukurova's 13.8% stake carries controlling rights because of Turkcell's structure.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Madonsela to investigate Motlanthe ‘bribe’ claim
PUBLIC Protector Thuli Madonsela will conduct a preliminary probe into a bribe scandal that may involve Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe ’s partner, Gugu Mtshali, the protector’s office said on Tuesday. "Following a request by the deputy president, the public protector has decided to conduct a preliminary investigation into the above allegations with a view to establishing whether anyone in the Presidency or the Department of Trade and Industry might have participated in unlawful conduct involving the use of state resources or power," it said.
The protector would be able to determine whether "there are merits in the allegations that state resources and authority were employed to improperly enrich or advantage anyone for unlawful purposes". According to a report in the Sunday Times, Ms Mtshali was implicated in soliciting a R104m "bribe" to obtain government support for a South African company trying to clinch a R2bn sanctions-busting deal with Iran. Had it gone ahead, the deal would have put South Africa in violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution of 2010 prohibiting member states from supplying military-related products to Iran.
In light of the seriousness of the allegations, Mr Motlanthe took the unprecedented step of asking Ms Madonsela to investigate. The public protector’s credibility has been enhanced by high-profile investigations that led to the dismissal of two ministers last year. Ms Mtshali, former De Beers executive Raisaka Masebelanga and others allegedly met representatives of a company called 360 Aviation to solicit the bribe. The deal allegedly involved supplying US-made Bell helicopters and spare parts to the National Iranian Oil Company via South Africa. The US prohibits the sale of military equipment to Iran. The MD of 360 Aviation, Barry Oberholzer, was quoted as saying: "We believe we were being asked for a bribe … in exchange for government support." The outcome of the preliminary investigation is expected by April 15.
Last week, it emerged that the National Conventional Arms Control Committee had launched its own investigation into the Iran arms sale. Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe, in his role as control committee head, was briefing the joint standing committee on defence when he fielded a question from David Maynier, Democratic Alliance defence spokesman, about reports that a local company was involved in the sanctions busting. Vanessa du Toit, a director at the conventional arms inspectorate, replying to the question, said an investigation of the Sunday Times allegations had already begun. She said there were 38 cases on the go involving infringements of the arms-control laws.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The protector would be able to determine whether "there are merits in the allegations that state resources and authority were employed to improperly enrich or advantage anyone for unlawful purposes". According to a report in the Sunday Times, Ms Mtshali was implicated in soliciting a R104m "bribe" to obtain government support for a South African company trying to clinch a R2bn sanctions-busting deal with Iran. Had it gone ahead, the deal would have put South Africa in violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution of 2010 prohibiting member states from supplying military-related products to Iran.
In light of the seriousness of the allegations, Mr Motlanthe took the unprecedented step of asking Ms Madonsela to investigate. The public protector’s credibility has been enhanced by high-profile investigations that led to the dismissal of two ministers last year. Ms Mtshali, former De Beers executive Raisaka Masebelanga and others allegedly met representatives of a company called 360 Aviation to solicit the bribe. The deal allegedly involved supplying US-made Bell helicopters and spare parts to the National Iranian Oil Company via South Africa. The US prohibits the sale of military equipment to Iran. The MD of 360 Aviation, Barry Oberholzer, was quoted as saying: "We believe we were being asked for a bribe … in exchange for government support." The outcome of the preliminary investigation is expected by April 15.
Last week, it emerged that the National Conventional Arms Control Committee had launched its own investigation into the Iran arms sale. Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe, in his role as control committee head, was briefing the joint standing committee on defence when he fielded a question from David Maynier, Democratic Alliance defence spokesman, about reports that a local company was involved in the sanctions busting. Vanessa du Toit, a director at the conventional arms inspectorate, replying to the question, said an investigation of the Sunday Times allegations had already begun. She said there were 38 cases on the go involving infringements of the arms-control laws.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tension rising in Middle East: Could Israel attack Iran and why?
On August 21 the Bushehr nuclear power plant was officially launched. This marked a new stage in Iran's disputed nuclear programme. In the days preceding this event, former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, was quoted around the world as saying: "Israel has days to strike Bushehr" and further "diplomatically" hinted, “If Israel was right to destroy the Osiraq reactor [Iraqi nuclear reactor bombed by Israel in 1981], is it right to allow this one to continue? You can’t have it both ways.”
Shortly after American/Israeli Jeffry Goldberg – one of the most influential journalists on matters of Israel – wrote an article in The Atlantic called "The Point of No Return". In his article he also highlights the unavailability of an Israeli strike against Iran.
Amidst the so called Middle-East "peace negotiations" – a pathetic and hopeless attempt to divide the Palestinian territories between different rulers and their stooges – tension is rising in the Middle East. We are living in a period of great instability on a global level. In the Middle East this is especially reflected in the inability of US imperialism to be able to control the situation.
Out of this crisis Iran is presently emerging as a more powerful player in the Middle East. At the same time Israel is feeling pressure both strategically in the region but also to an increasing degree from its masses who have started to become numb to the hysterical military propaganda. Contradictions are building up in the Middle East and sooner or later they will have to be solved in one way or another. One thing is clear, the turbulence and instability seen hitherto is nothing compared with what is being prepared for the future.
Destruction of "equilibrium" in the Middle East
In 2003 US president George Bush started the war in Iraq. A hopelessly short-sighted adventure, that was supposed to put an end to “terrorism”, “restore democracy” and consolidate and manifest the domination of US imperialism in the region and globally. Instead, what the war in Iraq managed was to further destabilise the whole region bringing with it nothing but further misery for the downtrodden masses. The US army immediately revealed itself to be nothing but an occupation force, swiftly alienating the mass of the population. At the same time the offensive displayed the limits of US imperialism.
The War in Iraq could never have been won. Simply to maintain a most fragile “stability” the Americans needed the help of Iran and Syria who have considerable influence in the country. At the same time the once powerful Iraqi military apparatus, the only counterweight to the Iranian army, has been completely shattered.
With the dismantling of Saddam’s army, a vacuum was opened not only within Iraq itself but in the whole of the Middle East. In 2006 the 1.5m-strong armed forces of Iran were described, by General John Abizaid, chief of the US Central Command, to be "the most powerful military force in the region, except for the United States of America, [and Israel]". This situation poses a serious imbalance of forces in the Middle East, an imbalance that is acquiring a logic of its own.
But now Iraq itself is beyond its control. Huge sectarian rifts have opened up and are widening. The withdrawal of US combat forces in August has further increased this instability, but the US did not have any other options. The presence of US forces in Iraq was draining the US treasury of more than 2 billion dollars a week. In a crisis situation with millions losing their jobs in the US, this drain enormously increased the general alienation of US workers and youth to the war. There was no way any government could endure such an immense drain of resources for so long, neither from a political nor an economic point of view. (However, although “combat forces” have been withdrawn, some 50,000 US troops still remain in Iraq and are planned to stay until the end of 2011 to “advise” Iraqi forces and “protect” US interests.)
But to withdraw fully the US needs the cooperation of Iran (and Syria) who control important militia forces in Iraq and who through these could cause great chaos and instability. On top of this Iran has also displayed several times how it could even use regular Iranian ground forces to intervene in Iraq. Last December Iranian troops temporarily occupied well No 4 at the al Fakkah oil field, about 320km south-east of Baghdad. Although the troops withdrew shortly after the occupation – they only withdrew from the well, but remain on official Iraqi soil to this day – they met no resistance either from US or Iraqi troops. Also in the north there have been several incidents of Iranian troops moving into Iraqi soil ("in chase of terrorists") without Iraqi officials being able to seriously challenge their actions, because through its involvement in Iraqi politics and with its control over important sectarian armed forces Iran could create further chaos and instability. Herein lies the dilemma of the US.
Apart from its influence in Iraq, other factors are also acting as an insurance policy against an attack for Iran. Firstly Iran through the Qods forces of the IRGC controls many groups internationally that could put pressure on the US and its allies through terrorist actions and open warfare. The most important are the Hezbollah forces in Lebanon who control vast areas of that small but strategically important country. They have the capability of striking inside Israel, a close ally of the US and also hitherto a (if not the) dominant force in the Middle East.
Last but not least Iran has a large influence in the Persian Gulf and could, potentially, temporarily block the strait of Hormuz where more than 40% of the world’s crude oil has to pass in order to reach the world markets. Such an action, even for a short period, would have a very negative effect on the world economy that is already in a fragile state. Stratfor – the US-based strategic intelligence institute – claims that even in a best case scenario it would take at least one month to remove such a block. Besides bringing the world economy to its knees, such a block would also be a big threat against all the Gulf states, many of whom have already been severely hurt by the world economic crisis, and who all depend heavily on oil sales.
Before the US invaded Iraq the Iraqi army was acting as a counterweight to Iran and a guarantee against the threats that Iran posed, but now with the disintegration of Iraqi society the counterweight is hard to see.
The nuclear programme
It is in this context that Iran's nuclear programme acquires even more significance. For years Iran have been finalising the first phases of its nuclear facilities. Despite Ahmadinejad’s denials of the fact, it is clear to all that Iran's nuclear programme is not solely for civilian use. It would be probable and wise for the regime not to choose to completely finish this process, but to leave the project at an almost finished stage like in Japan and thus using all the strategic benefits and concessions of nuclear armament without paying the high price of protecting the bomb from hostile elements.
The history of nuclear weapons has shown that, besides allowing their owners to force concessions out of their neighbours, they also drastically complicate an attack on the nations who own them. As well as reducing the chance of other countries meddling and trying to dictate their internal affairs. The fact that the US has not yet been able to challenge the weak and rotten state apparatus in South Korea is partly a proof of this.
Of course, all the US cries against a nuclear Iran are purely hysterical and hypocritical in nature. For years Israel has used the strategic advantages of nuclear weapons to bully many Middle Eastern countries without any complaints from the US. Until now Israel has had the only nuclear arsenal in the region, but if Iran were to change the nuclear balance of forces the whole situation in the Middle East would further tilt to Iran's favour. It would weaken Israeli imperialism and strengthen Iran's position.
In this sense the opening of the Bushehr nuclear reactor on 21 August was a big provocation to Israel (and indirectly to all the countries of the Middle East and the US who is further threatened to lose influence and domination over these.)
Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and a former CIA man with considerable diplomatic experience, recently put it like this:
“Israel now faces the biggest-ever challenge to its monopoly on the bomb in the Middle East from Iran. For Israel, Tehran is a dangerous opponent, close and threatening. There is a virtually unanimous consensus in Israel that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. From left to right, Israelis see an existential threat to their very survival. Current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Forum in Jerusalem in 2007 that Iran is a “crazy,” even suicidal, state that will be prepared to sacrifice millions of its own citizens in a nuclear exchange with Israel.
“Though other Israeli leaders are more cautious, even they are strongly determined to keep Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons. Ephraim Sneh, former deputy defense minister and a much-decorated retired general in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), notes that ‘the most salient strategic threat to Israel’s existence is Iran.’ They fear Israel’s strategic room for maneuver in the region would be constrained by an Iranian nuclear deterrent. The success of Hezbollah and Hamas in the last few years has only added to Israeli concern. (The National Interest - August 24, 2010)
The Iranian dilemma
It is clear that as far as the general balance of power goes in the Middle East Iran has emerged strengthened. But the Iranian regime is not in full control of this process. The regime is actually forced to be more aggressive in foreign politics as it attempts to regain a social base by diverting the attention of the masses towards an external enemy and thus uniting the many factions within the state.The provocations of Messrs Ahmadinejad and others also flow from a strong necessity.
From Lebanon Hezbollah is always poking at Israel. In early August Lt-Col Harariof of the Israeli army was killed during a small episode of gun-fighting on the border between Lebanon and Israel.
The question of Iran is explosive. At the same time in recent years the Ahmadinejad regime has increasingly tried to spread influence in the Middle East and the African continent. Last year, former parliament speaker Ali Akbar Nateq Nori said, that Bahrain was Iran’s 14th province. A statement that displays the ambitions and also the influence of the regime in regard to Bahrain, one of the leading financial centres of the Middle East.
Last year Mr Ahmadinejad visited mainly Christian Kenya, being joyously welcomed in the port of Mombasa, on the Muslim-inhabited coast. He struck a deal to export 4million tonnes of crude oil to Kenya a year, to open direct flights between Tehran and Nairobi, the two capitals, and to grant scholarships for study in Iran. Wherever Iran has embassies it also sets up cultural centres. Iran has also been trying to use its oil to get into Uganda. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, has also been courted, along with sub-Saharan Africa’s diplomatic and economic giant, South Africa. South Africa has been one of Iran’s doughtiest supporters at the UN, abstaining on a resolution to condemn Iran’s human rights violations and arguing against further embargoes and sanctions over Iran’s nuclear plans.
Of course the amount of “aid” that Iran gives Africa – and the amount of influence it consequently has – is still small compared with the sums Americans and Europeans give out, let alone China. But the important fact lies in the constant attacks against the political and economic influence of other countries, including Israel – especially in an economic situation where the markets all over the world have shrunk and where room for economic manoeuvrability is narrowing.
As a side note we should remember that, as a result of Iran’s African activity, Israel has been trying to push its way back into the continent. In September Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, made Israel’s first high level mission to Africa for decades, visiting Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda. Countering Iran’s influence was plainly one reason behind the trip.
On top of this there are of course the constant verbal and demagogic attacks of Ahmadinejad against Israel. These acts are indeed seen as a threat by the monstrous military state apparatus of Israeli that has based its legitimacy increasingly on its ability to crush the smallest obstacles with brute military force.
But the question is also as to whether the Ahmadinejad regime has any other choice. The revolutionary situation that opened up last year between the elections and Ashura has destabilised the regime which is now increasingly splitting. Although the splits between the reformists and hardliners are still present, the most important splits at present are opening up within the camp of the hardliners.
There is not one day that goes by without new splits and contradictions surfacing within this faction. The monstrous bureaucratic machine is devouring itself from within with factional infighting and corridor "back-stabbing". There is only one thing that these factions within the faction can agree upon, and that is the need for unity, as any serious crack in the higher echelons may give more room for the mass struggle to develop. But in the current situation a lasting unity within the regime is not possible. At the same time no faction or layer is strong enough to consolidate its power. Centrifugal forces are ripping the whole fabric of the apparatus apart. In this context Ahmadinejad’s demagogic (and hypocritical) so called anti-imperialism is a powerful tool, used to divert the attention of the masses, creating/preserving a social base and pushing for unity within his own ranks. Especially in a situation where war is on the agenda it could become an even more powerful tool.
This situation is also the source of a massive drain of support from key layers that used to back the regime but who are now beginning to move into opposition. This is perfectly exemplified with the latest strike in the Bazaar and the continuing defections of diplomats.
At the same time there are the economic factors pushing the regime. The Iranian economy is under enormous pressure. Although trustworthy figures are almost impossible to find, it is clear to everyone that the Iranian economy is in a deep crisis. The claims by the administration, that Iran has miraculously become self-sufficient in any major industry, should at best be seen as a joke.
Iran is not close to being self-sufficient. According to Professor at Northeastern University, U.S, Kamran Dadkhah, Iran needs investments worth $46.5 billion to build new refineries and increase production of oil products. So far, Iran has invested $8.2 billion in this sector within the fourth development programme. Over $6.3 billion is required to maintain and expand existing production. Over $2.1 billion has been invested. Of course Dadkhah could be exaggerating in order to serve other interests, but his estimates are still more accurate than the claims that Iran does not need to import gasoline.
The present character of the world economic crisis more than anything reveals how interconnected all economies are and how deep the international division of labour has developed within capitalism. The tax hikes and attacks on state subsidised basic consumer goods in the last years are signs of this contraction in the economy.
The regime is increasingly running out of options. It has to go on the offensive, either against its own people or beyond its borders. The crisis and the sanctions are having a big impact on the Iranian economy and Iran is forced to turn outwards in search of markets and supplies where possible. And even when it finds these, in China for instance, it will have to pay more for the same commodities and services.
The regime does not have a united line or a plan for the situation. There are some parts of the regime that pull towards accommodation with US imperialism while others argue that they should search for new markets. This conflict is not just between the “reformist” and the “hardline” factions, but also within both these factions. This was clearly displayed a month ago when the administration tried to open up negotiations with the US and Khamenei attacked them saying there would be no negotiations.
The Israeli dilemma
At the same time tensions are also rising within Israel. For years the question of growing poverty and misery has been leading to internal tensions. The Israeli elite have used the question of Palestine as a big diversion and to some extent this has worked. But the result has been that, 1) the state and military apparatus have placed their legitimacy on the might of their military and 2) sections of the masses are becoming numb to the constant warmongering.
Israel was created, supposedly, to provide a safe haven for Jews. The ideology of the state is Zionism, which attempts to bind together all Jews living in Israel across class lines. The state has justified its existence on the grounds that it is the sole protector of the people of Israel. On this basis the regime has demanded loyalty and has been able to suppress internal criticism. In this respect Iran’s nuclear programme is a great provocation, especially after the humiliating defeat in Lebanon in 2006 and the failure to destroy Hamas with the massive military campaign in Gaza in 2008.
In 2009 Israel had military expenditure to the tune of $14.3 billion. That is 7% of GDP - a ratio that is even higher than that of the US and fifth globally. On top of this massive drain of resources the country has been in an almost constant state of war mobilisation and two monstrous wars have been waged with no victory, leaving only a massive trail of blood behind it.
Especially the lack of any real victory is playing a big role. It is no secret to anyone that Hamas and Hezbollah have not come out of these wars weakened, on the contrary. In fact, increasingly, Israel is forced to lift the economic blockade on Gaza in order to offset the activities that go on through the smuggling tunnels between Gaza and Egypt.
Also the constant provocations of Ahmadinejad are playing a very undermining role – especially for the powerful military establishment. The Israeli masses have started to become tired of this caste that cannot succeed in any of its own aims and aspirations, let alone help the masses succeed in theirs. Although this process is still at an embryonic state it is nonetheless significant and, most importantly, it is narrowing the room for the regime to manoeuvre. The class divide is widening and class struggle will take a sharper character in the future.
In a March poll, published in The Times, Israelis were asked to name the "most urgent problem" facing Israel. Just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with the Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty.
According to the OECD, poverty in Israel is more widespread than in any other OECD country. Almost one in five people in Israel live in poverty – i.e. in a household with income less than half of the national average. A number of factors are behind this, but one of the most important is that many people in Israel don’t have jobs: about 40% of people of working age have no jobs, compared to about 33% in OECD countries. 23% of all elderly are currently living below the poverty line and according to Haaretz, at the end of 2008, in Jerusalem, 48 percent of Jewish and 74 percent of non-Jewish children where defined as poor.
Also, according to a special report on healthcare spending published by the Central Bureau of Statistics, the burden of family spending on healthcare has increased sharply in the last 10 years, while government investment pulled back. From 2000 to 2009, a family's average outlay on healthcare shot up from NIS 339 a month to NIS 633.
These figures are even more striking – especially in the eyes of dissatisfied Israelis – when they are compared to economic growth which is now at 4.1% (almost at the 4.7% level of the pre-crisis period).
The pressures flowing from this polarisation of society are also increasingly being reflected as tensions at the top. Although still small, serious divisions are taking shape within the ruling circles of Israel, within Mossad, the Knesset and even within the government.
Avigdor Lieberman (Minister of Foreign Affairs) and his populist and right-wing nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party are heavily openly promoting an aggressive non-conciliatory policy towards Palestine – that is, to use brute force to beat the people of Palestine into submission – and Ehud Barak (Minister of Defence) from the Labour Party, reflecting the interests of the US, is supporting the opposite policy of "dialogue" – that is, to strike a deal with Fatah and maybe even Hamas to beat the people of Palestine into submission for them. This conflict has been the source of some trouble for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has had to balance to a certain degree between the two parties. Splits and divisions like these have a tendency to undermine the legitimacy and authority of a government.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
But it is not only the Israeli regime that is facing new trouble. George Friedman from Stratfor writes the following:
“The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting. They might continue. They certainly have the military capacity to try.
“In a real sense, the Iranians would not have to execute such a military operation in order to gain the benefits. The simple imbalance of forces would compel the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf to seek a political accommodation with the Iranians. Strategic domination of the Persian Gulf does not necessarily require military occupation — as the Americans have abundantly demonstrated over the past 40 years. It merely requires the ability to carry out those operations."
Although Stratfor has a tendency to overestimate pure military capacity, i.e. amount of arms, men etc., as opposed to internal economic, social and political contradictions, there are certainly many truths in the above lines.
The position of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries has become more precarious since the fall of Saddam. Subsequently an unheard of arms race has started in the Gulf. Military expenditure is rising exponentially. Of the top 12 countries in the world using the largest percentages of their GDP on military spending, 8 are in the Middle East (and most of those around the Gulf).
In the last few weeks the US has initiated an arms deal worth $60 billion. This is the largest US arms deal ever. The Israeli government, which has often sought to block arms transactions with Arab states in the past (and just recently objected to a new Russian sale of cruise missiles to Syria), has yet to utter a peep of protest.
The situation is the same in the Gulf countries where US arms sales have escalated.US defence sales to the Gulf region more than doubled, from $US19 billion in 2001-04 to $US40 billion in 2005-08. There is no reason to think that this process has weakened since 2008.
The pressure on all these states is mounting, both economically and socially. Since the beginning of the economic crisis these countries have been in a very weak situation spilling over into the beginnings of political crisis. The room for concessions to external players is very little. In August for instance there was an, albeit small, demonstration of 200 against unemployment in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – a very significant development in this country, considering the lack of genuine democratic rights, and also a reflection of the rising unemployment, that is estimated to be around 20% of the native population.
Could there be an attack against Iran?
From all the above we can see that tensions are rising across the Middle East. The balance of power is shifting in Iran’s direction, but the other regimes in the region cannot simply accept this growing strength of Iran. It is clear that the contradictions must be solved at some point; it is in this context that a layer within the US and Israeli elite is contemplating an attack. Again George Friedman from Stratfor writes:
“...an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine....(...)[there are] three counters [to an attack against Iran]. One [is] Hezbollah, which is the least potent of the three from the American perspective. The other two are Iraq and Hormuz. If the Iraqis were able to form a government that boxed in pro-Iranian factions in a manner similar to how Hezbollah is being tentatively contained, then the second Iranian counter would be weakened. That would ‘just’ leave the major issue — Hormuz.
“The problem with Hormuz is that the United States cannot tolerate any risk there. The only way to control that risk is to destroy Iranian naval capability before airstrikes on nuclear targets take place. Since many of the Iranian mine layers would be small boats, this would mean an extensive air campaign and special operations forces raids against Iranian ports designed to destroy anything that could lay mines, along with any and all potential mine-storage facilities, anti-ship missile emplacements, submarines and aircraft. Put simply, any piece of infrastructure within a few miles of any port would need to be eliminated. The risk to Hormuz cannot be eliminated after the attack on nuclear sites. It must be eliminated before an attack on the nuclear sites. And the damage must be overwhelming. (...)
“This opening gambit would necessarily attack Iran’s command-and-control, air-defense and offensive air capabilities as well as maritime capabilities. This would sequence with an attack on the nuclear capabilities and could be extended into a prolonged air campaign targeting Iran’s ground forces.
“Far from the less-than-rewarding task of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, going after Iran would be the kind of war the United States excels at fighting. No conventional land invasion, no boots-on-the-ground occupation, just a very thorough bombing campaign."
Added to all the above is the fact that US and Israeli interests do not always overlap.
At present the Obama administration would like to avoid war with Iran, as it needs the Iranian regime on board to help maintain some semblance of stability in Iraq. However, when the chips are down it is Israel that is the most reliable ally of US imperialism in the region and therefore the US could be forced to engage in a mission backing the Israeli generals or, at the very least, tacitly allow Israel to act. Especially if the Israelis chose to attack, leaving the Hormuz strait vulnerable, the US could be forced to support the attack so as to clear the threat to the strait. The point is that the Zionist regime follows its own interests that are based on the situation in Israel and not always on what Washington dictates. For the Israeli regime it is a matter of protecting the legitimacy and strategic position of the regime, while for the US administration it is a matter of protecting US interests, especially in Iraq, by attempting to stabilize the region as a whole, which means lowering the level of armed conflict.
Apart from these revealing considerations there have also been reports of Saudi Arabia having conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities. But no matter how and by whom such an attack would be carried out, it should be noted that this is not a new method in the Middle East. In 1981 Israel made a surprise air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction in Osirak. Also in 2007 Israel conducted an airstrike on an allegedly secret nuclear installation in Syria.
But an attack is not the only topic on the agenda for US imperialism. The strategists of capital are actually split when it comes to the question as to how to approach Iran. One camp argues that an attack is inevitable, and that preparations should be made immediately. The other camp argues that Iran's new position should be accepted, but that it should be held in check by massively arming Israel (even with the US strengthening Israel’s nuclear arsenal) and the Gulf nations.
The truth is that both camps are right and wrong at the same time. The tensions between the rulers of the Middle East are rising to an unheard of level. At some point one of the players will have to make a move that could spin off into some kind of military confrontation. Especially the trigger-happy Israeli military establishment could be pressured to act – an act that would bring with it catastrophic consequences for the world economy and even more for the masses of the Middle East.
But from this the Iranian regime would probably even recuperate militarily quite fast. In this sense it is not even clear that an attack would be successful from the point of view of any party, but could still happen since none of the regimes can afford to show weakness or back down.
At the same time it is clear that the balance of power has shifted and that Iran - in any state - will play a more prominent role in the future of the Middle East. But to think that such a future is going to be stable, or just more stable than now is utopian. The present massive arms race in the region speaks for itself.
Effects of an attack on the revolutionary process in Iran
Although the mass movement in Iran has presently receded, the regime is still fragile. It has lost huge layers of support. This is in fact the main reason for its constant splitting. An attack from the US or Israel would be seen by the masses as an act to beat the country into submission to US and Israeli imperialism – thus it would cut through the developments that started last year. In this sense the regime would utilise the situation to regain control of the country and maybe even settle some scores.
But this development would only be temporary. Wars tend to bring to the fore all the contradictions that have built up in society. Iran would be no exception. After an initial period of withdrawal the mass movement would come to the fore once more and the deterioration of the regime would increase once more.
In the 1980s Khomeini used the war against Iraq to streamline the regime and to consolidate its power by physically destroying all opposition, but the situation is very different today. Besides the fact that the character of a hypothetical war today would be different in all manners, there is another factor. In the 1980s mass opposition was fragmented and the mass movement was on the ebb. Today the core who led the mass movement, with all its flaws, weaknesses and disorganisation, is the only undivided force in the country and, contrary to the regime, they have not received any decisive blows.
Besides this, the regime is hopelessly tangled up in a thousand wrangling cliques and factions, with a chronic and unsolvable deadlock that is presently dragging down the whole apparatus and that is not going to go away.
A consolidation of reaction in Iran would only become real after a long historical process with a series of decisive defeats for the masses. The regime could try to use a war to inflict such a defeat, but it is far from certain that it would succeed in the present conditions. Lenin explained that war – after an initial period with disorientation of the masses and the spread of patriotism etc, – at a later stage could become a powerful impulse for revolutionary explosions. Such development would not be unlikely in Iran.
The future only brings more instability
The fact is that American, Israeli, Saudi and Iranian strategists – as well as the many do-gooders – can think from here until eternity of a solution to bring “peace and stability” to the Middle East, but none of their “solutions” will do anything but add to and deepen the already existing instability. As long as the laws of capitalism govern the Middle East, no lasting peace can be reached.
For the rulers of the region this may even be tolerable. Maybe their faces, titles and headwear might change from time to time, but in general they will continue with their luxurious lifestyles as parasites leeching off the masses. But for the masses the situation will only become worse, as they will have to pay for the adventures of their rulers - if they accept at all that this is their destiny!
Unfortunately for the elite there is no evidence that this is the case. Already now most the regimes are hanging by a thread. For years the rulers have used questions of nationality and religion to confuse the masses and keep them in check, but the situation is changing. The fault lines are increasingly transcending national and religious lines and mass movements are taking shape everywhere acquiring a clearer class character.
Of course there is the movement in Iran, that has only temporarily receded, but it is clear that it will resurface on a higher level sooner or later. But also in other countries the class struggle is becoming sharper. In Turkey we saw the impressive struggle of the Tekel factory workers that managed to put immense pressure on the government. In Saudi Arabia as we also noted earlier there is growing discontent – with significant cracks in a hitherto very polished surface. In the West Bank the PFLP have bowed to immense pressure from below and have had to withdraw from the executive of the ruling PLO because of their deals with US and Israeli imperialism. And even in Israel, at some stage, we will see mass opposition to the regime that is exhausting its options to buy social peace with the pretext of "national security."
The most important situation, besides Iran, is developing in Egypt, one of the key countries in the region from the point of view of the class struggle. In the absence of genuine national mass organisations, Mohammad Elbaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and now outsider in the corridors of the Egyptian power struggle, is striving to become a focal point in opposition to the Mubarak regime and gain some kind of momentum, promoting a boycott of the parliamentary elections on a democratic programme aimed at the workers and poor. With all probability he has started something that he will not be able to control in the future.
All these developments will deepen and seriously affect each other in the next period. If Israel or the US attacks Iran it would correctly be seen by the masses as yet another imperialist attempt to beat the Middle East into submission. This would only further enrage the masses that are fed up with US imperialism and their stooges. It would be a further impulse for the masses to cease being used as pawns in the Middle East and enter the game as players. Once this happens no one will be able to resist and all the pathetic manoeuvres and corridor deals of the rotten regimes will be swept away.
The masses of the Middle East have shown time and time again that they are willing to rise and sacrifice everything to break loose from the shackles of capitalism and its never ending horrors. The only solutions to their miseries are to be found in a socialist society where the resources of the region are controlled by the workers and poor. Until that day comes, peace will only be a superficial and volatile concept.
The main problem is not the strength of capitalism, nor the willingness to struggle and sacrifice of the workers and poor. The main problem is the lack of a mass revolutionary leadership, based on the ideas of Marxism. A leadership that is rooted not in the narrow circles of the "left", but that is firmly tied to the mass of workers and poor in all neighbourhoods from Tehran to Cairo and that takes its starting point from the realities that exist on the ground.
The forces of revolutionary Marxism are still too weak to play this role, but there has never been a better time for building our forces than now. All the contradictions of the system are becoming obvious to all with the masses in a state of turmoil. But in order to reap during the revolutionary events of the future we must sow now. We must build a strong nucleus that is able to intervene in the mass movements of the future and give them direction. If we succeed – and we most certainly will – there will be plenty of opportunities to win over the masses and provide that leadership that is required if we are to sweep away the rotten regimes in the region and with them the whole rotten system of capitalism. This would then be replaced with a Socialist Federation of the Middle East where the resources of the region would be used by its peoples to develop society to unprecedented levels and out of the dead end of capitalist wars and savagery.
Source: In defence of Marxism: the website of the International Marxist Tendency
Written by Hamid Alizadeh Wednesday, 01 December 2010
Shortly after American/Israeli Jeffry Goldberg – one of the most influential journalists on matters of Israel – wrote an article in The Atlantic called "The Point of No Return". In his article he also highlights the unavailability of an Israeli strike against Iran.
Amidst the so called Middle-East "peace negotiations" – a pathetic and hopeless attempt to divide the Palestinian territories between different rulers and their stooges – tension is rising in the Middle East. We are living in a period of great instability on a global level. In the Middle East this is especially reflected in the inability of US imperialism to be able to control the situation.
Out of this crisis Iran is presently emerging as a more powerful player in the Middle East. At the same time Israel is feeling pressure both strategically in the region but also to an increasing degree from its masses who have started to become numb to the hysterical military propaganda. Contradictions are building up in the Middle East and sooner or later they will have to be solved in one way or another. One thing is clear, the turbulence and instability seen hitherto is nothing compared with what is being prepared for the future.
Destruction of "equilibrium" in the Middle East
In 2003 US president George Bush started the war in Iraq. A hopelessly short-sighted adventure, that was supposed to put an end to “terrorism”, “restore democracy” and consolidate and manifest the domination of US imperialism in the region and globally. Instead, what the war in Iraq managed was to further destabilise the whole region bringing with it nothing but further misery for the downtrodden masses. The US army immediately revealed itself to be nothing but an occupation force, swiftly alienating the mass of the population. At the same time the offensive displayed the limits of US imperialism.
The War in Iraq could never have been won. Simply to maintain a most fragile “stability” the Americans needed the help of Iran and Syria who have considerable influence in the country. At the same time the once powerful Iraqi military apparatus, the only counterweight to the Iranian army, has been completely shattered.
With the dismantling of Saddam’s army, a vacuum was opened not only within Iraq itself but in the whole of the Middle East. In 2006 the 1.5m-strong armed forces of Iran were described, by General John Abizaid, chief of the US Central Command, to be "the most powerful military force in the region, except for the United States of America, [and Israel]". This situation poses a serious imbalance of forces in the Middle East, an imbalance that is acquiring a logic of its own.
But now Iraq itself is beyond its control. Huge sectarian rifts have opened up and are widening. The withdrawal of US combat forces in August has further increased this instability, but the US did not have any other options. The presence of US forces in Iraq was draining the US treasury of more than 2 billion dollars a week. In a crisis situation with millions losing their jobs in the US, this drain enormously increased the general alienation of US workers and youth to the war. There was no way any government could endure such an immense drain of resources for so long, neither from a political nor an economic point of view. (However, although “combat forces” have been withdrawn, some 50,000 US troops still remain in Iraq and are planned to stay until the end of 2011 to “advise” Iraqi forces and “protect” US interests.)
But to withdraw fully the US needs the cooperation of Iran (and Syria) who control important militia forces in Iraq and who through these could cause great chaos and instability. On top of this Iran has also displayed several times how it could even use regular Iranian ground forces to intervene in Iraq. Last December Iranian troops temporarily occupied well No 4 at the al Fakkah oil field, about 320km south-east of Baghdad. Although the troops withdrew shortly after the occupation – they only withdrew from the well, but remain on official Iraqi soil to this day – they met no resistance either from US or Iraqi troops. Also in the north there have been several incidents of Iranian troops moving into Iraqi soil ("in chase of terrorists") without Iraqi officials being able to seriously challenge their actions, because through its involvement in Iraqi politics and with its control over important sectarian armed forces Iran could create further chaos and instability. Herein lies the dilemma of the US.
Apart from its influence in Iraq, other factors are also acting as an insurance policy against an attack for Iran. Firstly Iran through the Qods forces of the IRGC controls many groups internationally that could put pressure on the US and its allies through terrorist actions and open warfare. The most important are the Hezbollah forces in Lebanon who control vast areas of that small but strategically important country. They have the capability of striking inside Israel, a close ally of the US and also hitherto a (if not the) dominant force in the Middle East.
Last but not least Iran has a large influence in the Persian Gulf and could, potentially, temporarily block the strait of Hormuz where more than 40% of the world’s crude oil has to pass in order to reach the world markets. Such an action, even for a short period, would have a very negative effect on the world economy that is already in a fragile state. Stratfor – the US-based strategic intelligence institute – claims that even in a best case scenario it would take at least one month to remove such a block. Besides bringing the world economy to its knees, such a block would also be a big threat against all the Gulf states, many of whom have already been severely hurt by the world economic crisis, and who all depend heavily on oil sales.
Before the US invaded Iraq the Iraqi army was acting as a counterweight to Iran and a guarantee against the threats that Iran posed, but now with the disintegration of Iraqi society the counterweight is hard to see.
The nuclear programme
It is in this context that Iran's nuclear programme acquires even more significance. For years Iran have been finalising the first phases of its nuclear facilities. Despite Ahmadinejad’s denials of the fact, it is clear to all that Iran's nuclear programme is not solely for civilian use. It would be probable and wise for the regime not to choose to completely finish this process, but to leave the project at an almost finished stage like in Japan and thus using all the strategic benefits and concessions of nuclear armament without paying the high price of protecting the bomb from hostile elements.
The history of nuclear weapons has shown that, besides allowing their owners to force concessions out of their neighbours, they also drastically complicate an attack on the nations who own them. As well as reducing the chance of other countries meddling and trying to dictate their internal affairs. The fact that the US has not yet been able to challenge the weak and rotten state apparatus in South Korea is partly a proof of this.
Of course, all the US cries against a nuclear Iran are purely hysterical and hypocritical in nature. For years Israel has used the strategic advantages of nuclear weapons to bully many Middle Eastern countries without any complaints from the US. Until now Israel has had the only nuclear arsenal in the region, but if Iran were to change the nuclear balance of forces the whole situation in the Middle East would further tilt to Iran's favour. It would weaken Israeli imperialism and strengthen Iran's position.
In this sense the opening of the Bushehr nuclear reactor on 21 August was a big provocation to Israel (and indirectly to all the countries of the Middle East and the US who is further threatened to lose influence and domination over these.)
Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and a former CIA man with considerable diplomatic experience, recently put it like this:
“Israel now faces the biggest-ever challenge to its monopoly on the bomb in the Middle East from Iran. For Israel, Tehran is a dangerous opponent, close and threatening. There is a virtually unanimous consensus in Israel that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. From left to right, Israelis see an existential threat to their very survival. Current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Forum in Jerusalem in 2007 that Iran is a “crazy,” even suicidal, state that will be prepared to sacrifice millions of its own citizens in a nuclear exchange with Israel.
“Though other Israeli leaders are more cautious, even they are strongly determined to keep Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons. Ephraim Sneh, former deputy defense minister and a much-decorated retired general in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), notes that ‘the most salient strategic threat to Israel’s existence is Iran.’ They fear Israel’s strategic room for maneuver in the region would be constrained by an Iranian nuclear deterrent. The success of Hezbollah and Hamas in the last few years has only added to Israeli concern. (The National Interest - August 24, 2010)
The Iranian dilemma
It is clear that as far as the general balance of power goes in the Middle East Iran has emerged strengthened. But the Iranian regime is not in full control of this process. The regime is actually forced to be more aggressive in foreign politics as it attempts to regain a social base by diverting the attention of the masses towards an external enemy and thus uniting the many factions within the state.The provocations of Messrs Ahmadinejad and others also flow from a strong necessity.
From Lebanon Hezbollah is always poking at Israel. In early August Lt-Col Harariof of the Israeli army was killed during a small episode of gun-fighting on the border between Lebanon and Israel.
The question of Iran is explosive. At the same time in recent years the Ahmadinejad regime has increasingly tried to spread influence in the Middle East and the African continent. Last year, former parliament speaker Ali Akbar Nateq Nori said, that Bahrain was Iran’s 14th province. A statement that displays the ambitions and also the influence of the regime in regard to Bahrain, one of the leading financial centres of the Middle East.
Last year Mr Ahmadinejad visited mainly Christian Kenya, being joyously welcomed in the port of Mombasa, on the Muslim-inhabited coast. He struck a deal to export 4million tonnes of crude oil to Kenya a year, to open direct flights between Tehran and Nairobi, the two capitals, and to grant scholarships for study in Iran. Wherever Iran has embassies it also sets up cultural centres. Iran has also been trying to use its oil to get into Uganda. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, has also been courted, along with sub-Saharan Africa’s diplomatic and economic giant, South Africa. South Africa has been one of Iran’s doughtiest supporters at the UN, abstaining on a resolution to condemn Iran’s human rights violations and arguing against further embargoes and sanctions over Iran’s nuclear plans.
Of course the amount of “aid” that Iran gives Africa – and the amount of influence it consequently has – is still small compared with the sums Americans and Europeans give out, let alone China. But the important fact lies in the constant attacks against the political and economic influence of other countries, including Israel – especially in an economic situation where the markets all over the world have shrunk and where room for economic manoeuvrability is narrowing.
As a side note we should remember that, as a result of Iran’s African activity, Israel has been trying to push its way back into the continent. In September Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, made Israel’s first high level mission to Africa for decades, visiting Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda. Countering Iran’s influence was plainly one reason behind the trip.
On top of this there are of course the constant verbal and demagogic attacks of Ahmadinejad against Israel. These acts are indeed seen as a threat by the monstrous military state apparatus of Israeli that has based its legitimacy increasingly on its ability to crush the smallest obstacles with brute military force.
But the question is also as to whether the Ahmadinejad regime has any other choice. The revolutionary situation that opened up last year between the elections and Ashura has destabilised the regime which is now increasingly splitting. Although the splits between the reformists and hardliners are still present, the most important splits at present are opening up within the camp of the hardliners.
There is not one day that goes by without new splits and contradictions surfacing within this faction. The monstrous bureaucratic machine is devouring itself from within with factional infighting and corridor "back-stabbing". There is only one thing that these factions within the faction can agree upon, and that is the need for unity, as any serious crack in the higher echelons may give more room for the mass struggle to develop. But in the current situation a lasting unity within the regime is not possible. At the same time no faction or layer is strong enough to consolidate its power. Centrifugal forces are ripping the whole fabric of the apparatus apart. In this context Ahmadinejad’s demagogic (and hypocritical) so called anti-imperialism is a powerful tool, used to divert the attention of the masses, creating/preserving a social base and pushing for unity within his own ranks. Especially in a situation where war is on the agenda it could become an even more powerful tool.
This situation is also the source of a massive drain of support from key layers that used to back the regime but who are now beginning to move into opposition. This is perfectly exemplified with the latest strike in the Bazaar and the continuing defections of diplomats.
At the same time there are the economic factors pushing the regime. The Iranian economy is under enormous pressure. Although trustworthy figures are almost impossible to find, it is clear to everyone that the Iranian economy is in a deep crisis. The claims by the administration, that Iran has miraculously become self-sufficient in any major industry, should at best be seen as a joke.
Iran is not close to being self-sufficient. According to Professor at Northeastern University, U.S, Kamran Dadkhah, Iran needs investments worth $46.5 billion to build new refineries and increase production of oil products. So far, Iran has invested $8.2 billion in this sector within the fourth development programme. Over $6.3 billion is required to maintain and expand existing production. Over $2.1 billion has been invested. Of course Dadkhah could be exaggerating in order to serve other interests, but his estimates are still more accurate than the claims that Iran does not need to import gasoline.
The present character of the world economic crisis more than anything reveals how interconnected all economies are and how deep the international division of labour has developed within capitalism. The tax hikes and attacks on state subsidised basic consumer goods in the last years are signs of this contraction in the economy.
The regime is increasingly running out of options. It has to go on the offensive, either against its own people or beyond its borders. The crisis and the sanctions are having a big impact on the Iranian economy and Iran is forced to turn outwards in search of markets and supplies where possible. And even when it finds these, in China for instance, it will have to pay more for the same commodities and services.
The regime does not have a united line or a plan for the situation. There are some parts of the regime that pull towards accommodation with US imperialism while others argue that they should search for new markets. This conflict is not just between the “reformist” and the “hardline” factions, but also within both these factions. This was clearly displayed a month ago when the administration tried to open up negotiations with the US and Khamenei attacked them saying there would be no negotiations.
The Israeli dilemma
At the same time tensions are also rising within Israel. For years the question of growing poverty and misery has been leading to internal tensions. The Israeli elite have used the question of Palestine as a big diversion and to some extent this has worked. But the result has been that, 1) the state and military apparatus have placed their legitimacy on the might of their military and 2) sections of the masses are becoming numb to the constant warmongering.
Israel was created, supposedly, to provide a safe haven for Jews. The ideology of the state is Zionism, which attempts to bind together all Jews living in Israel across class lines. The state has justified its existence on the grounds that it is the sole protector of the people of Israel. On this basis the regime has demanded loyalty and has been able to suppress internal criticism. In this respect Iran’s nuclear programme is a great provocation, especially after the humiliating defeat in Lebanon in 2006 and the failure to destroy Hamas with the massive military campaign in Gaza in 2008.
In 2009 Israel had military expenditure to the tune of $14.3 billion. That is 7% of GDP - a ratio that is even higher than that of the US and fifth globally. On top of this massive drain of resources the country has been in an almost constant state of war mobilisation and two monstrous wars have been waged with no victory, leaving only a massive trail of blood behind it.
Especially the lack of any real victory is playing a big role. It is no secret to anyone that Hamas and Hezbollah have not come out of these wars weakened, on the contrary. In fact, increasingly, Israel is forced to lift the economic blockade on Gaza in order to offset the activities that go on through the smuggling tunnels between Gaza and Egypt.
Also the constant provocations of Ahmadinejad are playing a very undermining role – especially for the powerful military establishment. The Israeli masses have started to become tired of this caste that cannot succeed in any of its own aims and aspirations, let alone help the masses succeed in theirs. Although this process is still at an embryonic state it is nonetheless significant and, most importantly, it is narrowing the room for the regime to manoeuvre. The class divide is widening and class struggle will take a sharper character in the future.
In a March poll, published in The Times, Israelis were asked to name the "most urgent problem" facing Israel. Just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with the Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty.
According to the OECD, poverty in Israel is more widespread than in any other OECD country. Almost one in five people in Israel live in poverty – i.e. in a household with income less than half of the national average. A number of factors are behind this, but one of the most important is that many people in Israel don’t have jobs: about 40% of people of working age have no jobs, compared to about 33% in OECD countries. 23% of all elderly are currently living below the poverty line and according to Haaretz, at the end of 2008, in Jerusalem, 48 percent of Jewish and 74 percent of non-Jewish children where defined as poor.
Also, according to a special report on healthcare spending published by the Central Bureau of Statistics, the burden of family spending on healthcare has increased sharply in the last 10 years, while government investment pulled back. From 2000 to 2009, a family's average outlay on healthcare shot up from NIS 339 a month to NIS 633.
These figures are even more striking – especially in the eyes of dissatisfied Israelis – when they are compared to economic growth which is now at 4.1% (almost at the 4.7% level of the pre-crisis period).
The pressures flowing from this polarisation of society are also increasingly being reflected as tensions at the top. Although still small, serious divisions are taking shape within the ruling circles of Israel, within Mossad, the Knesset and even within the government.
Avigdor Lieberman (Minister of Foreign Affairs) and his populist and right-wing nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party are heavily openly promoting an aggressive non-conciliatory policy towards Palestine – that is, to use brute force to beat the people of Palestine into submission – and Ehud Barak (Minister of Defence) from the Labour Party, reflecting the interests of the US, is supporting the opposite policy of "dialogue" – that is, to strike a deal with Fatah and maybe even Hamas to beat the people of Palestine into submission for them. This conflict has been the source of some trouble for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has had to balance to a certain degree between the two parties. Splits and divisions like these have a tendency to undermine the legitimacy and authority of a government.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
But it is not only the Israeli regime that is facing new trouble. George Friedman from Stratfor writes the following:
“The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting. They might continue. They certainly have the military capacity to try.
“In a real sense, the Iranians would not have to execute such a military operation in order to gain the benefits. The simple imbalance of forces would compel the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf to seek a political accommodation with the Iranians. Strategic domination of the Persian Gulf does not necessarily require military occupation — as the Americans have abundantly demonstrated over the past 40 years. It merely requires the ability to carry out those operations."
Although Stratfor has a tendency to overestimate pure military capacity, i.e. amount of arms, men etc., as opposed to internal economic, social and political contradictions, there are certainly many truths in the above lines.
The position of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries has become more precarious since the fall of Saddam. Subsequently an unheard of arms race has started in the Gulf. Military expenditure is rising exponentially. Of the top 12 countries in the world using the largest percentages of their GDP on military spending, 8 are in the Middle East (and most of those around the Gulf).
In the last few weeks the US has initiated an arms deal worth $60 billion. This is the largest US arms deal ever. The Israeli government, which has often sought to block arms transactions with Arab states in the past (and just recently objected to a new Russian sale of cruise missiles to Syria), has yet to utter a peep of protest.
The situation is the same in the Gulf countries where US arms sales have escalated.US defence sales to the Gulf region more than doubled, from $US19 billion in 2001-04 to $US40 billion in 2005-08. There is no reason to think that this process has weakened since 2008.
The pressure on all these states is mounting, both economically and socially. Since the beginning of the economic crisis these countries have been in a very weak situation spilling over into the beginnings of political crisis. The room for concessions to external players is very little. In August for instance there was an, albeit small, demonstration of 200 against unemployment in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – a very significant development in this country, considering the lack of genuine democratic rights, and also a reflection of the rising unemployment, that is estimated to be around 20% of the native population.
Could there be an attack against Iran?
From all the above we can see that tensions are rising across the Middle East. The balance of power is shifting in Iran’s direction, but the other regimes in the region cannot simply accept this growing strength of Iran. It is clear that the contradictions must be solved at some point; it is in this context that a layer within the US and Israeli elite is contemplating an attack. Again George Friedman from Stratfor writes:
“...an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine....(...)[there are] three counters [to an attack against Iran]. One [is] Hezbollah, which is the least potent of the three from the American perspective. The other two are Iraq and Hormuz. If the Iraqis were able to form a government that boxed in pro-Iranian factions in a manner similar to how Hezbollah is being tentatively contained, then the second Iranian counter would be weakened. That would ‘just’ leave the major issue — Hormuz.
“The problem with Hormuz is that the United States cannot tolerate any risk there. The only way to control that risk is to destroy Iranian naval capability before airstrikes on nuclear targets take place. Since many of the Iranian mine layers would be small boats, this would mean an extensive air campaign and special operations forces raids against Iranian ports designed to destroy anything that could lay mines, along with any and all potential mine-storage facilities, anti-ship missile emplacements, submarines and aircraft. Put simply, any piece of infrastructure within a few miles of any port would need to be eliminated. The risk to Hormuz cannot be eliminated after the attack on nuclear sites. It must be eliminated before an attack on the nuclear sites. And the damage must be overwhelming. (...)
“This opening gambit would necessarily attack Iran’s command-and-control, air-defense and offensive air capabilities as well as maritime capabilities. This would sequence with an attack on the nuclear capabilities and could be extended into a prolonged air campaign targeting Iran’s ground forces.
“Far from the less-than-rewarding task of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, going after Iran would be the kind of war the United States excels at fighting. No conventional land invasion, no boots-on-the-ground occupation, just a very thorough bombing campaign."
Added to all the above is the fact that US and Israeli interests do not always overlap.
At present the Obama administration would like to avoid war with Iran, as it needs the Iranian regime on board to help maintain some semblance of stability in Iraq. However, when the chips are down it is Israel that is the most reliable ally of US imperialism in the region and therefore the US could be forced to engage in a mission backing the Israeli generals or, at the very least, tacitly allow Israel to act. Especially if the Israelis chose to attack, leaving the Hormuz strait vulnerable, the US could be forced to support the attack so as to clear the threat to the strait. The point is that the Zionist regime follows its own interests that are based on the situation in Israel and not always on what Washington dictates. For the Israeli regime it is a matter of protecting the legitimacy and strategic position of the regime, while for the US administration it is a matter of protecting US interests, especially in Iraq, by attempting to stabilize the region as a whole, which means lowering the level of armed conflict.
Apart from these revealing considerations there have also been reports of Saudi Arabia having conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities. But no matter how and by whom such an attack would be carried out, it should be noted that this is not a new method in the Middle East. In 1981 Israel made a surprise air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction in Osirak. Also in 2007 Israel conducted an airstrike on an allegedly secret nuclear installation in Syria.
But an attack is not the only topic on the agenda for US imperialism. The strategists of capital are actually split when it comes to the question as to how to approach Iran. One camp argues that an attack is inevitable, and that preparations should be made immediately. The other camp argues that Iran's new position should be accepted, but that it should be held in check by massively arming Israel (even with the US strengthening Israel’s nuclear arsenal) and the Gulf nations.
The truth is that both camps are right and wrong at the same time. The tensions between the rulers of the Middle East are rising to an unheard of level. At some point one of the players will have to make a move that could spin off into some kind of military confrontation. Especially the trigger-happy Israeli military establishment could be pressured to act – an act that would bring with it catastrophic consequences for the world economy and even more for the masses of the Middle East.
But from this the Iranian regime would probably even recuperate militarily quite fast. In this sense it is not even clear that an attack would be successful from the point of view of any party, but could still happen since none of the regimes can afford to show weakness or back down.
At the same time it is clear that the balance of power has shifted and that Iran - in any state - will play a more prominent role in the future of the Middle East. But to think that such a future is going to be stable, or just more stable than now is utopian. The present massive arms race in the region speaks for itself.
Effects of an attack on the revolutionary process in Iran
Although the mass movement in Iran has presently receded, the regime is still fragile. It has lost huge layers of support. This is in fact the main reason for its constant splitting. An attack from the US or Israel would be seen by the masses as an act to beat the country into submission to US and Israeli imperialism – thus it would cut through the developments that started last year. In this sense the regime would utilise the situation to regain control of the country and maybe even settle some scores.
But this development would only be temporary. Wars tend to bring to the fore all the contradictions that have built up in society. Iran would be no exception. After an initial period of withdrawal the mass movement would come to the fore once more and the deterioration of the regime would increase once more.
In the 1980s Khomeini used the war against Iraq to streamline the regime and to consolidate its power by physically destroying all opposition, but the situation is very different today. Besides the fact that the character of a hypothetical war today would be different in all manners, there is another factor. In the 1980s mass opposition was fragmented and the mass movement was on the ebb. Today the core who led the mass movement, with all its flaws, weaknesses and disorganisation, is the only undivided force in the country and, contrary to the regime, they have not received any decisive blows.
Besides this, the regime is hopelessly tangled up in a thousand wrangling cliques and factions, with a chronic and unsolvable deadlock that is presently dragging down the whole apparatus and that is not going to go away.
A consolidation of reaction in Iran would only become real after a long historical process with a series of decisive defeats for the masses. The regime could try to use a war to inflict such a defeat, but it is far from certain that it would succeed in the present conditions. Lenin explained that war – after an initial period with disorientation of the masses and the spread of patriotism etc, – at a later stage could become a powerful impulse for revolutionary explosions. Such development would not be unlikely in Iran.
The future only brings more instability
The fact is that American, Israeli, Saudi and Iranian strategists – as well as the many do-gooders – can think from here until eternity of a solution to bring “peace and stability” to the Middle East, but none of their “solutions” will do anything but add to and deepen the already existing instability. As long as the laws of capitalism govern the Middle East, no lasting peace can be reached.
For the rulers of the region this may even be tolerable. Maybe their faces, titles and headwear might change from time to time, but in general they will continue with their luxurious lifestyles as parasites leeching off the masses. But for the masses the situation will only become worse, as they will have to pay for the adventures of their rulers - if they accept at all that this is their destiny!
Unfortunately for the elite there is no evidence that this is the case. Already now most the regimes are hanging by a thread. For years the rulers have used questions of nationality and religion to confuse the masses and keep them in check, but the situation is changing. The fault lines are increasingly transcending national and religious lines and mass movements are taking shape everywhere acquiring a clearer class character.
Of course there is the movement in Iran, that has only temporarily receded, but it is clear that it will resurface on a higher level sooner or later. But also in other countries the class struggle is becoming sharper. In Turkey we saw the impressive struggle of the Tekel factory workers that managed to put immense pressure on the government. In Saudi Arabia as we also noted earlier there is growing discontent – with significant cracks in a hitherto very polished surface. In the West Bank the PFLP have bowed to immense pressure from below and have had to withdraw from the executive of the ruling PLO because of their deals with US and Israeli imperialism. And even in Israel, at some stage, we will see mass opposition to the regime that is exhausting its options to buy social peace with the pretext of "national security."
The most important situation, besides Iran, is developing in Egypt, one of the key countries in the region from the point of view of the class struggle. In the absence of genuine national mass organisations, Mohammad Elbaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and now outsider in the corridors of the Egyptian power struggle, is striving to become a focal point in opposition to the Mubarak regime and gain some kind of momentum, promoting a boycott of the parliamentary elections on a democratic programme aimed at the workers and poor. With all probability he has started something that he will not be able to control in the future.
All these developments will deepen and seriously affect each other in the next period. If Israel or the US attacks Iran it would correctly be seen by the masses as yet another imperialist attempt to beat the Middle East into submission. This would only further enrage the masses that are fed up with US imperialism and their stooges. It would be a further impulse for the masses to cease being used as pawns in the Middle East and enter the game as players. Once this happens no one will be able to resist and all the pathetic manoeuvres and corridor deals of the rotten regimes will be swept away.
The masses of the Middle East have shown time and time again that they are willing to rise and sacrifice everything to break loose from the shackles of capitalism and its never ending horrors. The only solutions to their miseries are to be found in a socialist society where the resources of the region are controlled by the workers and poor. Until that day comes, peace will only be a superficial and volatile concept.
The main problem is not the strength of capitalism, nor the willingness to struggle and sacrifice of the workers and poor. The main problem is the lack of a mass revolutionary leadership, based on the ideas of Marxism. A leadership that is rooted not in the narrow circles of the "left", but that is firmly tied to the mass of workers and poor in all neighbourhoods from Tehran to Cairo and that takes its starting point from the realities that exist on the ground.
The forces of revolutionary Marxism are still too weak to play this role, but there has never been a better time for building our forces than now. All the contradictions of the system are becoming obvious to all with the masses in a state of turmoil. But in order to reap during the revolutionary events of the future we must sow now. We must build a strong nucleus that is able to intervene in the mass movements of the future and give them direction. If we succeed – and we most certainly will – there will be plenty of opportunities to win over the masses and provide that leadership that is required if we are to sweep away the rotten regimes in the region and with them the whole rotten system of capitalism. This would then be replaced with a Socialist Federation of the Middle East where the resources of the region would be used by its peoples to develop society to unprecedented levels and out of the dead end of capitalist wars and savagery.
Source: In defence of Marxism: the website of the International Marxist Tendency
Written by Hamid Alizadeh Wednesday, 01 December 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)