http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-27/will-israel-blow-something-and-falsely-blame-it-iran
Submitted by George Washington on 09/27/2012 19:26 -0400
http://www.debka.com/article/22392/Netanyahu-draws-Israel%E2%80%99s-red-line-for-Iran-amid-secret-discussion-with-US-on-a-spring-attack
http://www.infowars.com/press-tv-journalist-killed-by-sniper-was-investigating-turkey-sending-al-qaeda-terrorists-into-syria/
In his speech today to the UN General Assembly, Mursi made it clear he opposes any foreign military intervention in Syria’s ongoing civil war, and instead urged the two sides to come together and negotiate a settlement.
The Emir even quoted a "similar precedent" for an invasion, when "Arab forces intervened in Lebanon" in the 1970s. By the way, during a great deal of the 1970s the Emir himself was engaged in more mundane interventions, such as letting his hair down alongside other Gulf royals in select Club Med destinations, as this photo attests (he's the guy on the left).
So is the Emir now preaching an Arab version of the R2P ("responsibility to protect") doctrine advanced by The Three Graces of Humanitarian Intervention (Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power)?
This is certainly bound to go down well in Washington - not to mention Ankara and even Paris, considering French president Francois Hollande has just called for UN protection of "liberated zones" in Syria.
As for the Emir's Lebanon precedent, that's not exactly uplifting, to say the least. The so-called Arab Deterrent Force of 20,000 soldiers that entered Lebanon to try to contain the civil war overstayed its welcome by no less than seven years, turned into a Syrian military occupation of northern Lebanon, left officially in 1982 and still the civil war kept raging.
Imagine a similar scenario in Syria - on steroids.
A 'pretty influential guy'
As for the Emir's humanitarian - not to mention democratic - ardor, it's enlightening to check out what US President Barack Obama thinks about it. Obama - who defines the Emir as a "pretty influential guy" - seems to imply that even though "he himself is not reforming significantly" and "there's no big move towards democracy in Qatar", just because the emirate's per capita income is humongous, a move towards democracy is not so pressing.
So let's assume the Emir is not exactly interested in turning Syria into Scandinavia. That opens the way to an inevitable motive - connected to, what else, Pipelineistan.
Vijay Prashad, author of the recent Arab Spring, Libya Winter, is currently writing a series on the Syria Contact Group for Asia Times Online. He got a phone call from an energy expert urging him to investigate "the Qatari ambition to run its pipelines into Europe." According to this source, "the proposed route would have run through Iraq and Turkey. The former transit country is posing to be a problem. So much easier to go north (Qatar has already promised Jordan free gas)." Even before Prashad concludes his investigation, it's clear what Qatar is aiming at; to kill the US$10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, a deal that was clinched even as the Syria uprising was already underway. [2]
Here we see Qatar in direct competition with both Iran (as a producer) and Syria (as a destination), and to a lesser extent, Iraq (as a transit country). It's useful to remember that Tehran and Baghdad are adamantly against regime change in Damascus.
The gas will come from the same geographical/geological base - South Pars, the largest gas field in the world, shared by Iran and Qatar. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline - if it's ever built - would solidify a predominantly Shi'ite axis through an economic, steel umbilical cord.
Qatar, on the other hand, would rather build its pipeline in a non-"Shi'ite crescent" way, with Jordan as a destination; exports would leave from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Gulf of Suez and then to the Mediterranean. That would be the ideal plan B as negotiations with Baghdad become increasingly complicated (plus the fact the route across Iraq and Turkey is much longer).
Washington - and arguably European customers - would be more than pleased with a crucial Pipelineistan gambit bypassing the Islamic Gas Pipeline.
And of course, if there's regime change in Syria - helped by the Qatari-proposed invasion - things get much easier in Pipelineistan terms. A more than probable Muslim Brotherhood (MB) post-Assad regime would more than welcome a Qatari pipeline. And that would make an extension to Turkey much easier.
Ankara and Washington would win. Ankara because Turkey's strategic aim is to become the top energy crossroads from the Middle East/Central Asia to Europe (and the Islamic Gas Pipeline bypasses it). Washington because its whole energy strategy in Southwest Asia since the Clinton administration has been to bypass, isolate and hurt Iran by all means necessary. [3] That wobbly Hashemite throne
All this points to Jordan as an essential pawn in Qatar's audacious geopolitical/energy power play. Jordan has been invited to be part of the GCC - even though it's not exactly in the Persian Gulf (who cares? It's a monarchy).
One of the pillars of Qatar's foreign policy is unrestricted support for the MB - no matter the latitude. The MB has already conquered the presidency in Egypt. It is strong in Libya. It may become the dominant power if there's regime change in Syria. That brings us to Qatar's help to the MB in Jordan.
At the moment, Jordan's Hashemite monarchy is wobbly - and that's a transcendental understatement.
There's a steady influx of Syrian refugees. Compound it with the Palestinian refugees that came in waves during the crucial phases of the Arab-Israeli war, in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Then add a solid contingent of Salafi-jihadis fighting Damascus. Only a few days ago one Abu Usseid was arrested. His uncle was none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the infamous former head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, killed in 2006. Usseid was about to cross the desert from Jordan to Syria.
Amman has been mired in protests since January 2011 - even before the spread of the Arab Spring. King Abdullah, also known as King Playstation, and photogenic Washington/Hollywood darling Queen Rania, have not been spared.
The MB in Jordan is not the only player in the protest wave; unions and social movements are also active. Most protesters are Jordanians - who historically have been in control of all levels of state bureaucracy. But then neo-liberalism reduced them to road kill; Jordan went through a savage privatization drive during the 1990s. The impoverished kingdom now depends on the IMF and extra handouts from the US, the GCC and even the EU.
The authenticity of the claim is unclear, as there have not been any news reports mentioning Zamel in the past, even though the reports today claimed he is the commander of the FSA’s troops in southern Syria.
Will Israel Blow Up Something and Falsely Blame It On Iran?
According to U.S. officials, Israel is training and supporting Iranian terrorists who are trying to topple the Iranian government. Those Israeli-funded terrorists have faked documents to falsely indicate that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. 1
Israel has admitted to previous use of false flag attacks to justify war against Middle Eastern nations.
For example, Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).
Numerous high-level government officials have warned that a false flag may be launched against Iran to start a war: 2
- Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (whohelped to create Al Qaeda to fight the soviets in Afghanistan) told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.
- Daniel Ellsberg – the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower – said “if there is another terror attack, “I believe the president will get what he wants”, which includes war with Iran
- Robert David Steele – a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer – says that elements within the U.S. government are trying to carry out a false flag operation and blame it on Iran
- Former high-level CIA officer Michael Scheuer – who was the head of the CIA unit tasked with capturing Bin Laden – says that Israel or Saudi Arabia could be setting up Iran as a way to foment war 3
- Ron Paul has warned of a “Gulf of Tonkin type incident” in Iran
- Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says many ideas have been proposed for provoking a war, including building boats that look like Iranian boats, and then putting Navy Seals on them to “start a shoot-up”
- The highly influential Brookings Institution wrote a report in 2009 called “Which Path to Persia?” which states (pages 84-85):
It would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
- A former member of the British Parliament stated that “there is a very real danger” that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran
- A number of very high-level former intelligence officers – including several that personally briefed presidents every day on matters of national security – stated that better communications between the U.S. and Iran were needed to “reduce the danger of … covert, false-flag attack”
One of America’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – writes today:
Many critics have argued that there is a concerted effort to push the United States into a war with Iran by supporters of Israel. Patrick Clawson, director of research for the highly influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, seemed intent to prove those rumors true this week in comments as a luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout.” Clawson casually discusses how to create a false flag operation to push the U.S. into war to overcome any reluctance by the public. We have been discussing how many leaders like Senator Joe Liebermanhad begun to use the same rhetoric that led to the last two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the suggest timing of an attack has been tied to the presidential election.In his remarks, Clawson helpfully lists a series of historical events used to push the country into war like the Gulf of Tonkin incident that gave us the Vietnam War. Clawson expressed his frustration in acknowledging that it is “[v]ery hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran.” However, there is hope. Clawson explains that the “traditional way” to get the country into a war is through false flags or manufactured incidents where Americans are killed. Thus, he observes, “we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians, we could get nastier about it. So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.”The fact that one of the leading analysis for the WINEP would feel comfortable in making such comments is itself quite chilling. It indicates that such discussions have become sufficiently regular that it has creeped into public discussion. It is a measure of the secret pressure building to push this country into a third major war despite our crippling economic conditions and losses in military personnel. The assumption in Washington is that neither Romney nor Obama could oppose such a war. Even if Obama does not publicly support Israel, the assumption is that political allies of Israel in Washington can guarantee that we would offer extensive military loans and intelligence. Even if there is a delay in such military loans and support, the assumption is that Israel can go to war with the understanding that the United States will cover a significant portion of the costs. Moreover, in his remarkably candid remarks, Clawson shows how the U.S. can easily be forced into direct combat by pushing Iran to simply kill some Americans or sink a few of our ships. Then members would be clamoring for revenge. Notably, the Israelis have been ratcheting up the war rhetoric in pushing Iran, which predictably has now reserved the right to engage in a preemptive strike not just against Israeli but U.S. interests. We would then, again, find ourselves in a war without any public debate or collective decision.While Clawson adds a passing caveat that he is not advocating such an approach, his remarks are clearly designed to show how the group can get the United States into a war for Israel if only we can get Iran to kill some of our citizens or soldiers. Those people are of course expendable props in Clawson’s realpolitik.By the way, Clawson has been enlisted to give his insightful analysis at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. He is also a member of the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies. The World Bank connection is particularly interesting given the history with Paul Wolfowitz who pushed the U.S. into two disastrous wars in the Bush Administration and was rewarded with being made the head of the World Bank.
It is the callous disconnect that is most chilling in these remarks. Thousands of U.S. soldiers have died or have been crippled for life in these wars that have left the country near bankruptcy (and increasingly hostile “allies” in Afghanistan and Iraq). Those casualties and costs, however, appear immaterial in the discussion of supporting Israel in a war against Iran.
http://www.debka.com/article/22392/Netanyahu-draws-Israel%E2%80%99s-red-line-for-Iran-amid-secret-discussion-with-US-on-a-spring-attack
Netanyahu draws Israel’s red line for Iran amid secret discussion with US on a spring attack
DEBKAfile Special Report September 27, 2012, 9:20 PM (GMT+02:00)
Netanyahu's red line shown to the UN
Addressing the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept. 27 Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu graphically depicted Israel’s red line for Iran. He held up a simple diagram showing that Iran had covered 70 percent of the distance to a nuclear bomb and must be stopped before it reached the critical stage next spring or early summer.
He stressed that it is getting late, very late to stop a nuclear Iran.
The best way, he said, is to lay down a clear red line on the most vulnerable element of its nuclear program: uranium enrichment. “I believe that if faced with a clear and credible red line, Iran will back down and may even disband its nuclear program,” he said. Red lines prevent wars, don’t start them and in fact deterred Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel and the US are in discussion over this issue, said Netanyahu. “I’m sure we can forge a way forward together.
He went on to accuse Iran of spreading terrorist networks in two dozen countries and turning Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds. Hoping a nuclear-armed Iran will bring stability is like hoping a nuclear al Qaeda will bring peace, the prime minister remarked.
DEBKAfile quotes some Washington sources as disclosing that the White House and Israel emissaries have come to an understanding that Israel will hold back from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November, while a special team led set up by President Barack Obama completes a new paper setting out the end game for Iran.
He put the team to work after concluding that negotiations with Iran had exhausted their usefulness and placed at its head Gary Samore, top presidential adviser on nuclear proliferation.
Netanyahu’s citing of late spring, early summer 2013, as the critical point on Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb appears to confirm that he has agreed to delay military action against Iran in negotiations with the White House. Our sources report that the prime minister was represented in those talks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and National Security Adviser Yakov Amidror.
According to another view, which is current in Washington’s intelligence community, Israel was finally persuaded by fresh intelligence presented by the Obama administration which showed that Israeli estimates were overly pessimistic in judging the timeline for Iran’s nuclear facilities to be buried in “immunity zones.” That time line extended to spring 2013, leaving Israel five to six months up to April-May for ordering a military operation against those sites.However, we have learned, Israeli intelligence circles dispute their American colleagues’ estimate as “interesting” but inaccurate. Netanyahu in his speech confirmed that Washington and Jerusalem were constantly exchanging views and evaluations on the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
He also made the point that while intelligence services, American and Israeli alike, had remarkable aptitudes, their estimates on Iran were not foolproof.He stressed that it is getting late, very late to stop a nuclear Iran.
The best way, he said, is to lay down a clear red line on the most vulnerable element of its nuclear program: uranium enrichment. “I believe that if faced with a clear and credible red line, Iran will back down and may even disband its nuclear program,” he said. Red lines prevent wars, don’t start them and in fact deterred Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel and the US are in discussion over this issue, said Netanyahu. “I’m sure we can forge a way forward together.
He went on to accuse Iran of spreading terrorist networks in two dozen countries and turning Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds. Hoping a nuclear-armed Iran will bring stability is like hoping a nuclear al Qaeda will bring peace, the prime minister remarked.
DEBKAfile quotes some Washington sources as disclosing that the White House and Israel emissaries have come to an understanding that Israel will hold back from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites before the US election in November, while a special team led set up by President Barack Obama completes a new paper setting out the end game for Iran.
He put the team to work after concluding that negotiations with Iran had exhausted their usefulness and placed at its head Gary Samore, top presidential adviser on nuclear proliferation.
Netanyahu’s citing of late spring, early summer 2013, as the critical point on Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb appears to confirm that he has agreed to delay military action against Iran in negotiations with the White House. Our sources report that the prime minister was represented in those talks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and National Security Adviser Yakov Amidror.
According to another view, which is current in Washington’s intelligence community, Israel was finally persuaded by fresh intelligence presented by the Obama administration which showed that Israeli estimates were overly pessimistic in judging the timeline for Iran’s nuclear facilities to be buried in “immunity zones.” That time line extended to spring 2013, leaving Israel five to six months up to April-May for ordering a military operation against those sites.However, we have learned, Israeli intelligence circles dispute their American colleagues’ estimate as “interesting” but inaccurate. Netanyahu in his speech confirmed that Washington and Jerusalem were constantly exchanging views and evaluations on the state of Iran’s nuclear program.
and.....
http://news.yahoo.com/eu-considers-sanctions-against-iranian-banks-energy-sector-155327231.html
EU considers sanctions against Iranian banks, energy sector
By Justyna Pawlak | Reuters – Wed, Sep 26, 2012- Enlarge Photo
Reuters/Reuters - French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius speaks with journalists upon his arrival at Beirut international airport August 16, 2012. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European governments are considering a new round of sanctions against Iranover its nuclear programme that could be implemented in October and substantially curtail trade with the Islamic Republic and hit its banking industry, diplomats say.
The push comes at a time when tensions between Iran and Israel are rising, threatening to engulf the Middle East in a new war, and diplomatic efforts to resolve the decade-long dispute over Iran's nuclear work have foundered.
In response, governments in Europe and the United States are making a new push to persuade Tehranto scale back the enrichment of uranium, believed to be part of Tehran's programme to build a nuclear bomb. Iran denies any military intentions and says it seeks to increase energy supplies with nuclear power.
Foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain asked their EU counterparts to agree on new measures by their next policy meeting on October 15, in a joint letter sent in recent days.
"We must let Iran know that we have not exhausted our options," Laurent Fabius, Guido Westerwelle and William Hague wrote in the letter, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.
The three ministers listed energy, finance, trade and transportation as the sectors to target.
European diplomats said several proposals for specific measures have circulated in Brussels in recent days, including moves to close loopholes in sanctions against the Iranian central bank agreed this year. No decisions have yet been taken.
More commercial banks could also be added to the lists of companies targeted by EU asset freezes, several diplomats said, without identifying any institutions. Sanctions imposed by Washington target roughly a dozen more banks than EU measures, which could be expanded to add these.
A number of shipping companies are also being considered as new sanction targets, diplomats said.
It was not clear if the European Union would target Iran's state-owned National Iranian Oil Company, one of the world's largest oil exporters, which the U.S. government officially linked to Tehran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Monday.
STEP BY STEP
European governments have already taken major steps to put pressure on Iran, such as an oil embargo, to get it to comply with international demands that it abandon enrichment of uranium, believed to be part of programme to build nuclear weapons.
But experts say the current sanctions leave plenty of leeway for Iranian firms to operate in Europe, partly because European sanctions tend to pick specific targets rather than impose sweeping bans.
Transactions with the Iranian central bank, which settles most trade payments, are allowed if they are linked to legitimate trade, for example.
Targeting specific companies accused of financing Tehran's nuclear proliferation activities also means that firms can evade sanctions by spinning off new ones.
Britain is pushing for a ban on trade with Iran in any energy-related sector, which could help close such loopholes.
"The Iranians spin out new companies and the Europeans play catch-up. It would be more effective to have a blanket ban," said Mark Dubowitz, head of the non-profit Foundation for Defense of Democracies in the United States, which pushes for tough sanctions on Iran.
Diplomats said talks between the EU's 27 members are at a preliminary stage, meaning new proposals are expected. But discussions will likely be heated, with many capitals concerned about the impact of any new sanctions on economies battered by a three-year debt crisis.
"The debate should intensify in the coming week," one EU diplomat said. "There are various suggestions and nothing has been agreed."
and......
Press TV Journalist Killed By Sniper Was Investigating Turkey Sending Al-Qaeda Terrorists Into Syria
Killing of Journalist Maya Naser in Damascus possibly tied to his investigation into Turkey War Crimes
Wednesday morning the renown journalist Maya Naser was shot dead by a sniper while he was reporting from the scene of two bomb blasts in central Damascus. Maya Naser was working for PRESS TV and Al–Alam in Damascus. The PRESS TV station chief Hussein Mortada was wounded in the event but is recovering from his injuries. Journalists are frequently targeted by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the variety of radical Islamist terrorist organizations which have been attracted to Syria since the onset of the attempted subversion in March 2011. The timing of the assassination indicates that Maya Naser may have been targeted because he came dangerously close to revealing serious war crimes of the Turkish government.
Since early 2011 more than 20 journalists have been killed in Syria. In some incidents journalists have been captured, tortured and executed. In at least one incident a journalist has been shot dead by FSA troops in an attempt to scapegoat the Syrian military. Bombs exploded in buildings of Syrian Radio and TV.
The targeting of journalists coincides with concerted efforts to deprive Syrian media from reporting on the crisis from a Syrian perspective. On the initiative of the Arab League, and in violation of international law, both Nilesat and Arabsat stopped carrying Syrian Radio and TV signals over their satellite services in June. Meanwhile, western and and western allied Arab news services continue misrepresenting facts about the crisis in Syria.
In several well documented cases, Al Jazeera employees were directly involved in provoking or organizing the violence which was than broadcasted to defame the Syrian military and government. BBC re-used a photo with victims of the war on Iraq, claiming them to be victims of Syrian military forces. CNN´s Awra Damon filed numerous false reports. Her work is documented in an exposé by Scot Creighton. (1)
Western and western allied media coverage seems to underline the NATO doctrine that absolute image control is part of every modern warfare operation. Combine this with the fact that a US Special Forces training circular from 2010 admits that the USA for the foreseeable future will predominantly be involved in irregular war (2), and NATO´s perception of the subversion in Libya in 2011 as teachable moment and model for future interventions (3) it would not be exactly alarmist to state that Syrian journalists are being systematically targeted to secure absolute image control.
Knowing what Maya Naser has been investigating during the last days of his life gives a clear indication of which images the FSA and the Turkish government want to control.
During the last days, leading up to the assassination of Maya Naser and the wounding of the Al-Alam and PRESS TV station chief in Damascus, Hussein Mortada, Maya was investigating a case which had the potential to lead to the impeachment of the Erdogan led government of Turkey and indictments for serious war crimes and human rights violations.
Earlier this month the Workers´Party – Turkey filed criminal charges for the Turkish governments support of the Free Syrian Army and related terrorist groups. Only days before his assassination, Maya Naser entered into an ad hoc investigative alliance into the alleged war crimes and human rights violation of the Turkish government with leading members of the Workers´Party Turkey, international lawyer Christopher Black, and the author of this article.
Maya Naser could not only confirm many of the Workers´Party´s allegations against the Turkish government, he could provide the evidence.
In an correspondences to the Foreign Affairs Secretary of the Workers´Party, HarunÇakan, international lawyer Christopher Black, and the author of this article, Maya Naser confirmed that thousands of insurgents have been infiltrated into Syria via Turkey over the last few weeks. He also confirmed that some of the SAM-7 missiles which recently had been shipped from Libya, via Turkey had begun appearing in the hands of insurgents in Syria.
According to Maya Naser´s information, the bulk of these insurgents came from other Arab countries as well as Afghanistan. Turkish insurgents who had been captured or killed in Syria usually held supervisory and command positions and seemed better trained than the average insurgent. The Workers´Party – Turkey accuses the Turkish government for using the Apaydin refugee camp in Hatay to house, train and supervise FSA insurgents. (4)
Maya Naser could not only corroborate these allegations. His detailed information about the identity of some of the killed and captured insurgents could potentially result in the impeachment of the Erdogan led Turkish government.
Almost one month ago, Maya Naser wrote, ”while I was covering the military operations in Aleppo, we saw the ID documents of 13 Turkish insurgents. When checking their identities we discovered that one of the fighters was the brother of the 2003 HSBC bomber from Istanbul”.” Such information”, Maya Naser wrote, ”led us to believe that the Turkish government is sending those convicted or under suspicion of being Al-Qaeda members to fight as insurgents in Syria”.
In subsequent, personal conversations between Maya Naser and the author of the article, he reiterated that there is further evidence that corroborates the suspicion that the government of Turkey is sending prisoners who have received a death sentence and those who serve life time sentences to Syria as an opportunity to be released from prison and as a chance to clear their record.
International lawyer Christopher Black responded to Maya Naser´s information, stating that if his information was correct, then the Turkish government is committing a war crime under the Rome Statute, which forbids forced service of non-combatants in war.
According to Christopher Black it would be possible to file a complaint with the ICC against Turkey and NATO if corroborating evidence could be produced, stating that if Turkey is involved in these crimes, then its partners are equally guilty.
Two days later Maya Naser was shot by a sniper when he and his cameraman rushed to the scene of a double bomb attack in Damascus. Whether the timing of the assassination is coincidental or not it is certain that the death of Maya Naser may delay an investigation. It will not stop it.
My condolences to the family, loved ones and colleagues of Maya Naser, and wishes for a speedy recovery of Al-Alam and PRESS TV station chief Hussein Mortada.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/09/26/egypts-mursi-opposes-invasion-of-syria/
Egypt’s Mursi Opposes Invasion of Syria
Urges Both Sides to Come Together for Negotiated Settlement
by Jason Ditz, September 26, 2012
Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi may have been a very public critic of the Assad regime in Syria, condemning them during his speech at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), but that doesn’t mean he’s on the bandwagon for a NATO or GCC invasion of the nation.
In his speech today to the UN General Assembly, Mursi made it clear he opposes any foreign military intervention in Syria’s ongoing civil war, and instead urged the two sides to come together and negotiate a settlement.
“Egypt is committed to pursue the sincere efforts it has been exerting to put an end to the catastrophe in Syria within an Arab, regional and international framework,” he insisted.
Mursi was trying to put together a collection of Middle Eastern nations with influence to pressure both Assad and the rebels to return to the negotiating table, but so far doesn’t seem to have gone very far.
The UN’s new Special Envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi has also been trying to restart negotiations, but neither rebels nor regime seem to be in a talking mood lately, instead both sides are promising military victory.
and.......
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NI28Ak03.html
Why Qatar wants to invade Syria
By Pepe Escobar
Make no mistake; the Emir of Qatar is on a roll.
What an entrance at the UN General Assembly in New York; Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani called for an Arab coalition of the willing-style invasion of Syria, no less. [1]
In the words of the Emir, "It is better for the Arab countries themselves to interfere out of their national, humanitarian, political and military duties, and to do what is necessary to stop the bloodshed in Syria." He stressed Arab countries had a "military duty" to invade.
What he means by "Arab countries" is the petromonarchies of the Gulf Counter-Revolution Club (GCC), previously known as Gulf Cooperation Council - with implicit help from Turkey, with whichthe GCC has a wide-ranging strategic agreement. Every shisha house in the Middle East knows that Doha, Riyadh and Ankara have been weaponizing/financing/providing logistical help to the various strands of the armed Syrian opposition engaged in regime change.
By Pepe Escobar
Make no mistake; the Emir of Qatar is on a roll.
What an entrance at the UN General Assembly in New York; Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani called for an Arab coalition of the willing-style invasion of Syria, no less. [1]
In the words of the Emir, "It is better for the Arab countries themselves to interfere out of their national, humanitarian, political and military duties, and to do what is necessary to stop the bloodshed in Syria." He stressed Arab countries had a "military duty" to invade.
What he means by "Arab countries" is the petromonarchies of the Gulf Counter-Revolution Club (GCC), previously known as Gulf Cooperation Council - with implicit help from Turkey, with whichthe GCC has a wide-ranging strategic agreement. Every shisha house in the Middle East knows that Doha, Riyadh and Ankara have been weaponizing/financing/providing logistical help to the various strands of the armed Syrian opposition engaged in regime change.
The Emir even quoted a "similar precedent" for an invasion, when "Arab forces intervened in Lebanon" in the 1970s. By the way, during a great deal of the 1970s the Emir himself was engaged in more mundane interventions, such as letting his hair down alongside other Gulf royals in select Club Med destinations, as this photo attests (he's the guy on the left).
So is the Emir now preaching an Arab version of the R2P ("responsibility to protect") doctrine advanced by The Three Graces of Humanitarian Intervention (Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power)? This is certainly bound to go down well in Washington - not to mention Ankara and even Paris, considering French president Francois Hollande has just called for UN protection of "liberated zones" in Syria.
As for the Emir's Lebanon precedent, that's not exactly uplifting, to say the least. The so-called Arab Deterrent Force of 20,000 soldiers that entered Lebanon to try to contain the civil war overstayed its welcome by no less than seven years, turned into a Syrian military occupation of northern Lebanon, left officially in 1982 and still the civil war kept raging.
Imagine a similar scenario in Syria - on steroids.
A 'pretty influential guy'
As for the Emir's humanitarian - not to mention democratic - ardor, it's enlightening to check out what US President Barack Obama thinks about it. Obama - who defines the Emir as a "pretty influential guy" - seems to imply that even though "he himself is not reforming significantly" and "there's no big move towards democracy in Qatar", just because the emirate's per capita income is humongous, a move towards democracy is not so pressing.
So let's assume the Emir is not exactly interested in turning Syria into Scandinavia. That opens the way to an inevitable motive - connected to, what else, Pipelineistan.
Vijay Prashad, author of the recent Arab Spring, Libya Winter, is currently writing a series on the Syria Contact Group for Asia Times Online. He got a phone call from an energy expert urging him to investigate "the Qatari ambition to run its pipelines into Europe." According to this source, "the proposed route would have run through Iraq and Turkey. The former transit country is posing to be a problem. So much easier to go north (Qatar has already promised Jordan free gas)." Even before Prashad concludes his investigation, it's clear what Qatar is aiming at; to kill the US$10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, a deal that was clinched even as the Syria uprising was already underway. [2]
Here we see Qatar in direct competition with both Iran (as a producer) and Syria (as a destination), and to a lesser extent, Iraq (as a transit country). It's useful to remember that Tehran and Baghdad are adamantly against regime change in Damascus.
The gas will come from the same geographical/geological base - South Pars, the largest gas field in the world, shared by Iran and Qatar. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline - if it's ever built - would solidify a predominantly Shi'ite axis through an economic, steel umbilical cord.
Qatar, on the other hand, would rather build its pipeline in a non-"Shi'ite crescent" way, with Jordan as a destination; exports would leave from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Gulf of Suez and then to the Mediterranean. That would be the ideal plan B as negotiations with Baghdad become increasingly complicated (plus the fact the route across Iraq and Turkey is much longer).
Washington - and arguably European customers - would be more than pleased with a crucial Pipelineistan gambit bypassing the Islamic Gas Pipeline.
And of course, if there's regime change in Syria - helped by the Qatari-proposed invasion - things get much easier in Pipelineistan terms. A more than probable Muslim Brotherhood (MB) post-Assad regime would more than welcome a Qatari pipeline. And that would make an extension to Turkey much easier.
Ankara and Washington would win. Ankara because Turkey's strategic aim is to become the top energy crossroads from the Middle East/Central Asia to Europe (and the Islamic Gas Pipeline bypasses it). Washington because its whole energy strategy in Southwest Asia since the Clinton administration has been to bypass, isolate and hurt Iran by all means necessary. [3] That wobbly Hashemite throne
All this points to Jordan as an essential pawn in Qatar's audacious geopolitical/energy power play. Jordan has been invited to be part of the GCC - even though it's not exactly in the Persian Gulf (who cares? It's a monarchy).
One of the pillars of Qatar's foreign policy is unrestricted support for the MB - no matter the latitude. The MB has already conquered the presidency in Egypt. It is strong in Libya. It may become the dominant power if there's regime change in Syria. That brings us to Qatar's help to the MB in Jordan.
At the moment, Jordan's Hashemite monarchy is wobbly - and that's a transcendental understatement.
There's a steady influx of Syrian refugees. Compound it with the Palestinian refugees that came in waves during the crucial phases of the Arab-Israeli war, in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Then add a solid contingent of Salafi-jihadis fighting Damascus. Only a few days ago one Abu Usseid was arrested. His uncle was none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the infamous former head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, killed in 2006. Usseid was about to cross the desert from Jordan to Syria.
Amman has been mired in protests since January 2011 - even before the spread of the Arab Spring. King Abdullah, also known as King Playstation, and photogenic Washington/Hollywood darling Queen Rania, have not been spared.
The MB in Jordan is not the only player in the protest wave; unions and social movements are also active. Most protesters are Jordanians - who historically have been in control of all levels of state bureaucracy. But then neo-liberalism reduced them to road kill; Jordan went through a savage privatization drive during the 1990s. The impoverished kingdom now depends on the IMF and extra handouts from the US, the GCC and even the EU.
Parliament is a joke - dominated by tribal affiliation and devotion to the monarchy. Reforms are not even cosmetic. A prime minister was changed in April and most people didn't even noticed it. In an Arab world classic, the regime fights demands for change by increasing repression.
Into this quagmire steps Qatar. Doha wants King Playstation to embrace Hamas. It was Qatar that promoted the meeting in January between the King and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal - who had been expelled from Jordan in 1999. That left indigenous Jordanians wondering whether the kingdom would be swamped by yet another wave of Palestinian refugees.
Arab media - most of it controlled by the House of Saud - has been drowning in stories and editorials predicting that after the MB ascends to power in Damascus, Amman will be next. Qatar, though, is binding its time. The MB wants Jordan to become a constitutional monarchy; then they will take over politically after an electoral reform that King Abdullah has been fighting against for years.
Now the MB can even count on the support of Bedouin tribes, whose traditional allegiance to the Hashemite throne has never been wobblier. The regime has ignored protests at its own peril. The MB has called for a mass demonstration against the King on October 10. The Hashemite throne is going down, sooner rather than later.
It's unclear how Obama would react - apart from praying that nothing substantial happens before November 6. As for the Emir of Qatar, he has all the time in the world. So many regimes to fall - and become Muslim Brothers; so many pipelines to build.
Notes:
1. Qatar's emir calls for Arab-led intervention in Syria, The National, Sep 26, 2012.
2. Syria's Pipelineistan war, Al Jazeera, Aug 6, 2012.
3. Qatar: Rich and Dangerous, Oilprice.com, Sep 17, 2012.
Into this quagmire steps Qatar. Doha wants King Playstation to embrace Hamas. It was Qatar that promoted the meeting in January between the King and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal - who had been expelled from Jordan in 1999. That left indigenous Jordanians wondering whether the kingdom would be swamped by yet another wave of Palestinian refugees.
Arab media - most of it controlled by the House of Saud - has been drowning in stories and editorials predicting that after the MB ascends to power in Damascus, Amman will be next. Qatar, though, is binding its time. The MB wants Jordan to become a constitutional monarchy; then they will take over politically after an electoral reform that King Abdullah has been fighting against for years.
Now the MB can even count on the support of Bedouin tribes, whose traditional allegiance to the Hashemite throne has never been wobblier. The regime has ignored protests at its own peril. The MB has called for a mass demonstration against the King on October 10. The Hashemite throne is going down, sooner rather than later.
It's unclear how Obama would react - apart from praying that nothing substantial happens before November 6. As for the Emir of Qatar, he has all the time in the world. So many regimes to fall - and become Muslim Brothers; so many pipelines to build.
Notes:
1. Qatar's emir calls for Arab-led intervention in Syria, The National, Sep 26, 2012.
2. Syria's Pipelineistan war, Al Jazeera, Aug 6, 2012.
3. Qatar: Rich and Dangerous, Oilprice.com, Sep 17, 2012.
Report: Syrian ‘Rebel Commander’ Defects Back to Military
No Information About Supposed Commander of Southern Troops
by Jason Ditz, September 26, 2012
Captain Khaled Abdel Rahman al-Zamel, putatively a top leader of the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA), has publicly defected today, announcing at a conference that he is planning to rejoin the Syrian military from which he defected in the first place.
The authenticity of the claim is unclear, as there have not been any news reports mentioning Zamel in the past, even though the reports today claimed he is the commander of the FSA’s troops in southern Syria.
One of the reports also named him as both Khaled al-Zamel and Abu al-Walid, which is odd because Syria’s FSA defectors don’t generally use pseudonyms, since they make their defections more public by using their real names.
If true the defection of an FSA commander back to the Syrian military would be significant, but since he was heretofore unknown and only brought a handful of other troops back with him, the claim that he was a significant player in the rebellion is hard to imagine.
and.....
- Rebel General: West 'Indirectly Responsible' for Syria Deaths - September 26th, 2012
- Putin Urges Unity Against Violent Regime Changes - September 26th, 2012
- US Assumes Pakistan Gives 'Tacit Consent' for Drone Strikes - September 26th, 2012
- Egypt's Mursi Opposes Invasion of Syria - September 26th, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment