Home » Levitt Letter » Levitt Letter Extra News

By Anne Gearan AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON – Additional U.S. sanctions on Iran are more significant for their timing than their immediate effect on Iran’s economy, coming as the United States and its allies are arguing that Israel should hold off on any military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities to allow more time for sanctions to work.

The U.S. ordered tough new penalties Monday to give U.S. banks additional powers to freeze assets linked to the Iranian government and close loopholes that officials say Iran has used to move money despite earlier restrictions imposed by the U.S. and Europe.

Like previous economic penalties, these are intended to persuade Iran to back off what the West contends is a drive to build a nuclear bomb. Israel increasingly is concerned that sanctions will never be enough to make Iran drop what has become a national priority for a clerical regime that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map.

The faster and more effectively the sanctions can be seen to work, the better the case to shelve any plan by Israel to bomb Iran, a pre-emptory move that could ignite a new Mideast war. Taking this initial step against the Iranian Central Bank, the first time the U.S. has directly gone after that major institution, is one way the Obama administration can show momentum now.

Israeli officials have been open about their worry that Iran could be on the brink of a bomb by this summer and that this spring offers the last window of opportunity to destroy bomb-related facilities [before they go deep underground]. Many Israeli officials believe that sanctions only give Iran time to move its nuclear program underground, out of reach of Israeli military strikes.

Israel considers Iran to be its most dangerous enemy and has vowed to prevent it from going nuclear.

Israel’s hawkish foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was in Washington this week and will meet with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday. He refused questions following a meeting on Capitol Hill on Monday, and an Israeli official in Jerusalem said the country’s prime minister has told Cabinet members not to be so outspoken about the possibility of attacking Iran.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a closed meeting.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself often has commented about keeping all options on the table in dealing with Iran.

The new, stricter sanctions, authorized in legislation that President Barack Obama signed in December, will be enforced under an order he signed only now.

The U.S. and Europe want to deprive Iran of the oil income it needs to run its government and pay for the nuclear program. But many experts believe Iran will be able to find other buyers outside Europe.

The European Union announced last month it would ban the import of Iranian crude oil starting in July. The U.S. doesn’t buy Iranian oil, but last month it placed sanctions on Iran’s banks to make it harder for the nation to sell crude. The U.S., however, has delayed implementing those sanctions for at least six months because it is worried about sending oil prices higher at a time when the world economy is struggling. Iran exports about 3 percent of the world’s oil.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denied that Monday’s unexpected announcement of new banking sanctions was a sign of heightened worry about an Israeli attack.

“There has been a steady increase in our sanctions activity and this is part of that escalation,” he said.

Carney said U.S. sanctions on Iran already are squeezing Iran’s economy and have exacerbated tensions within the Iranian leadership.

“There is no question that the impact of the isolation on Iran and the economic sanctions on Iran have caused added turmoil within Iran,” he said.

Iran is the world’s third-largest exporter of crude oil, giving its leaders financial resources and leverage to withstand outside pressure. Last year, Iran generated $100 billion in revenue from oil, up from $20 billion a decade ago, according to IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm.

If Iranian oil is prevented from getting to market, other suppliers could make up the difference. The U.S. has been pressuring other Middle East and African nations to step up production for sale to Europe. Saudi Arabia has said it could increase production to make up for any lost Iranian crude.

Iran’s disputed nuclear program became a global concern more than five years ago, when the extent of the country’s research and uranium enrichment began to be known. Since then, a web of international economic and other sanctions have failed to stop Iran’s progress toward a point when it could build one or more nuclear devices.

U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran is indeed close to that ability but has not yet decided to go ahead. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and denounces sanctions as aggression.

The White House previously had said it would take months to evaluate the likely effect on the fragile global economy before taking the next large steps, including new penalties on the Central Bank.

Now, U.S. institutions are required to seize any Iranian state assets they come across, rather than rejecting the transaction involved.

The value of Iranian assets affected by the new order was not clear. Iran does almost no direct business with the United States after three decades of enmity, but its money moves through the world financial system and its oil is sold in dollars.

Leon Neal / AFP / Getty Images

Associated Press
www.TheDailyBeast.com

Protesters were so angry over Syria’s latest and most brutal crackdown on dissent—more than 200 people were killed in Homs over the weekend—and the failure of the United Nations to pass a resolution calling on President Bashir al-Assad to step down, that they attacked seven Syrian embassies all around the world Saturday. The embassy in Cairo was set on fire, and mobs trashed the diplomatic offices in London and Canberra, Australia. Similar scenes played out in Athens, Berlin, Kuwait, and Libya. Russia and China’s veto of the U.N. resolution has been called shameful, and the Syrian opposition said it amounts to providing the Assad regime a “license to kill.”

Lebanon’s Maronites, threatened by Sunni power, will be the bellwether of the Mideast’s Christians. Could they face the same fate as the region’s Jews?

By Lee Smith www.TabletMag.com

A statue of Saint John Maron, the first Patriarch of the Maronite community, north of Beirut, Lebanon. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)

Being Christian in the Middle East has never been easy, but the wave of uprisings that has swept the region over the past year has made the situation for the region’s Christian minority almost unbearable. Violence against Egypt’s Coptic Christians—particularly church burnings, which have become routine—has gotten the most attention. But for the best bellwether of where things are headed, look to Lebanon’s Christians.

Lebanon’s Maronite community has long been the region’s Christian citadel. “It used to be that when Christians around the region looked at the situation in Lebanon, it cheered them,” Elie Fawaz, a Lebanese political analyst, told me this week in Beirut. “They saw that here the Christians were equal to their Muslim counterparts. They were citizens and had the same rights as Muslims.” The citadel is now tottering. If Lebanon once served as a beacon for the region’s other Christians, the dimming of this light is making Christians in unstable countries like Iraq, Syria, the Palestinian territories, and Egypt even more vulnerable.

Lebanon’s Christian community comprises up to a third of the country’s total population. It is made up largely of Maronites but also includes Greek Orthodox and a number of other sects, like Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Roman Catholic. Christians were likely never a majority in Lebanon, and yet, says Fawaz, a Greek Orthodox, “the Christians didn’t act like a minority. They pushed their vision for an independent and sovereign Lebanese state.”

Historically, Lebanese Christians have provided some of the region’s most influential intellectual leaders, like Charles Malik, who helped write the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Michel Chiha, one of the authors of Lebanon’s 1926 Constitution. In the wake of Lebanon’s independence in 1943, the Christian vision was to build a sovereign state that would bring political and cultural modernity to the country and, eventually, to the broader Middle East.

That project stalled for a number of reasons. First, there was the relative demographic decline of the Christians in the post-independence period, due to the accelerated birth rates of Sunnis and Shiites. The French authorities that oversaw Lebanon during the mandate period created a power-sharing agreement that allotted Christians 50 percent of the parliament—the other 50 percent was split between Shia and Sunnis—and this struck Lebanon’s growing Muslim population as unfair. Most significantly, in addition to these domestic problems, the Christians were unable to protect Lebanon from the region’s furies, which culminated in the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990) that pitted a number of different domestic players, as well as regional and international actors, against one another.

One of the main causes of that 15-year conflagration was the support of Lebanese Sunnis for the Palestinian cause, which attached these Sunnis to a larger Arab regional identity with a shared goal of eradicating Israel. The Sunni community’s political, diplomatic, and financial support of the Palestinians set them squarely against the Maronites, who resisted turning Lebanon into a forward operating base for the P.L.O. They sought to preserve their vision of a Lebanon free from the region’s destructive political currents and to avoid the Israeli reprisals they rightly feared.

What’s instructive is that the Christians fought in the war. “In 1975, mothers sent their kids to fight the Palestinians,” says Fawaz. “They had a vision for Lebanon.”

That changed when political calculation and greed shifted Christians’ focus from their war against the P.L.O. and Yasser Arafat’s allies to each other. The Christians split into different factions that faced off during the civil war. Two decades after the end of the war, the Christians are still plagued by this fissure, and they are still represented by the same political leaders who took them to war against one another more than 20 years ago. The result, says Fawaz, “is that today the Christians have no vision. They are definitely a numerical minority and acting like one—reactive and fearful.”

The Christian community here is suffering from a number of symptoms of minority psychosis. Consider that the head of the Maronite church has spoken out in defense of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Patriarch Beshara Butros Rai called Assad “open-minded” in a September interview. “I am hoping Assad will be given more chances to implement the reforms he already launched,” Rai added. An unfortunately all-too-typical Christian fear and hatred of Sunnis has convinced many Lebanese Christians—as well as Syrian ones—that only Damascus’ Alawite minority regime can protect the region’s Christians from Sunni Islamists.

Obviously, a regime that has slaughtered protesters for almost a year hardly embodies the sort of values promoted in the gospel, or warrants the faith of a cleric. But more to the point: This is the same Syrian regime that waged an open-ended campaign of terror against Lebanon’s Christians starting in 2005. Christian politicians and journalists were assassinated; bombs detonated in Christian regions of the country. And the official head of Lebanon’s Christian community is now appealing to Assad for protection?

The Maronites had always distinguished themselves as among the region’s most stubbornly independent of confessional sects. But fear, resentment, and short-sighted political calculation have led them today to seek protection and patronage from the Middle East’s most dangerous and retrograde elements: Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah. Recently, Fawaz explains, senior church officials came out in favor of the arms of Hezbollah’s Islamic resistance. “The Maronite church,” Fawaz says, “has taken a position defending the party that stands accused of killing the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafiq Hariri.” Fear has compelled the Christians to abandon logic as well as moral scruple.

In the aftermath of the February 2005 assassination of Hariri, Damascus withdrew its troops from Lebanon after almost 30 years. That represented a golden opportunity for the country’s Christians. “They’d been resisting Syrian hegemony in order to regain a free and independent Lebanon,” Fawaz says. “With Syria out, the Christians had what they always said they wanted: Sunni leadership that had a Lebanon-first policy.” Some Christian parties did ally themselves with the largest Sunni party, led by the late Hariri’s son Saad. But the majority, under the leadership of Michel Aoun, the former head of the Lebanese army, partnered with Hezbollah instead.

In other words, today’s Christians seem less motivated by their vision of an independent Lebanon than by their hatred of the Sunnis. It’s true that Lebanese Christians, like other minority groups here, including the Shiites, suffered terrible persecution at the hands of the Sunnis, who for centuries treated them as second-class citizens (at best). But Lebanon’s current Sunni leaders are not Ottomans, never mind jihadists. Like the Christians themselves, the Sunni leadership here promotes liberal values and a liberalized economy.

By openly siding against the Sunnis and allying with Hezbollah—and by extension Iran—the Christians have let identity politics and ideology, rather than interests and values, drive policy. The Sunnis are the regional majority, and no matter what sort of revolutionary project Iran has in store for the Middle East, the Sunnis aren’t going anywhere.

The question for the Christians is how to respond to the upheavals that have reshaped the region over the last year. Lebanon’s Christian population has the power to set the agenda for the rest of their regional co-religionists. Either they can identify and work with those Sunnis who share their same vision for Lebanon and the rest of the region, or they can let ancient wounds dictate a strategy of resentment that will ensure their demise.

Those inclined to discount the possibility of a Christian-free Middle East would do well to remember that Jews, in the recent past, had a significant place in the Ottoman Empire and Iran. Were it not for the birth of a sovereign Jewish state that took in Jewish refugees thrown out by countries that turned against them, this regional minority might well have disappeared half a century ago. Without an Israel of their own, if the Christians don’t get it right their era in the Middle East may be coming to an end.

By Elizabeth Samson www.TheJewishWeek.com (New York)

In a stunning about-face, and after decades of violence justified by excuses of being under occupation, this week Hamas has admitted that Gaza is not occupied by Israel. And yet, the United Nations, which has long been reluctant to acknowledge Gaza’s change in status, is still silent on the issue.

In response to a statement by Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal that Hamas will hold mass demonstrations against Israel inside Gaza to parallel those organized by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar declared such a protest to be irrelevant. Al-Zahar stated that while the West Bank is “still under occupation” and that all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, should be used in that territory, “popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip.” “Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?,” al-Zahar asked. “When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”

The international law of occupation requires that a hostile army have “effective control” over a territory in an area where its authority can be exercised, and to the exclusion of the territory’s established government. As foreign minister speaking on behalf of the Hamas government, al-Zahar is giving public credence to what has been a fact since September 2005 – that Israel is no longer in Gaza and that the Israeli government does not displace Hamas’s authority. The assertion that Gaza is no longer occupied is strongly supported by international law derived from the Geneva Conventions and legal precedent. For Hamas to state otherwise would undermine its own power and would be a profound display of the weakness of its government.

For decades, the notion that Israel is an occupier has been the rallying cry of the Palestinian people, seemingly an almost greater raison d’etre for them than an actual pursuit of self-determination, as evidenced by the consistent rejection of every peace offer presented to the Palestinians and the unyielding rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. While renouncing the language of occupation with respect to Gaza may be perceived as a concession to Israel, al-Zahar is actually demonstrating the strength of his government and boldness in the face of detractors in Gaza who are desperate for an excuse to continue to fight Israel.

There has been no official Israeli military or civilian presence in Gaza since September 12, 2005, when the last Israeli soldier left the territory and the government declared its specific intent to no longer occupy Gaza and withdrew all of its military and civilian installations. However, UN Watch, an NGO that monitors the actions of the United Nations, has brought further attention to the fact that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has refused to declare Gaza to be anything other than occupied. As recently as September 22, roughly six years since the Israeli disengagement, the U.N. authorized a mission to visit the “occupied Palestinian territory, specifically the Gaza Strip.” In addition, an official U.N. fact sheet on the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” includes the map of Gaza.

While it is not legally necessary for the U.N. to acknowledge the absence of occupation in Gaza – application of the Geneva Conventions and legal precedent have satisfied those requirements – it is politically important for there to be a recognized change in status so that Israel will no longer be held to the more stringent legal requirements of an occupier and to lend greater legitimacy to Israel’s acts of self-defense. Gaza should have the intermediate status of a “sui generis” territory – unique, of its own kind or class – under the control of its own governing authority for the period between the end of occupation and until the finalization of permanent status negotiations. And, considering that the law, the facts, and the leadership of Hamas all indicate that Gaza is not occupied, there is no legitimate reason to continue to deem Gaza to be under occupation, a legally and factually inaccurate status.

The purpose of the United Nations is “to bring about by peaceful means … adjustment or settlement of … situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” However, continually declaring that Gaza is still occupied territory and not allowing for an intermediate status may only encourage violence because the Palestinian people in Gaza will feel that their voices are not being heard. Furthermore, by denying a change of status the U.N. is doing the people of Gaza a great disservice — it is denying their autonomy as they struggle to prove their worthiness as a nation among nations.

In light of the groundbreaking proclamation by Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar, Secretary Ban should abandon the outdated and inaccurate rhetoric of occupation employed by the U.N. for so long. The United Nations should now seize the opportunity to have the words and actions of the organization reflect its stated determination “to promote social progress” and extend “better standards of life in larger freedom” to the Palestinian people of Gaza.

By Dore Gold www.IsraelHayom.com

The Saudi-owned Arabic daily Asharq Alawsat published an analysis by a Jordanian commentator last week that asked an important question: How has Bashar Assad continued to stay in power for nearly a year since the revolt against his regime began, while the Tunisian and Egyptian leaders were overthrown in just a few weeks? True, Moammar Gadhafi fell from power because of external intervention, but his regime collapsed in a relatively short period of time. According to the Asharq Alawsat article, the difference between these cases and the revolt against the Syrian regime is the Syrian Army, whose officer class has a large contingent of Alawis belonging to the same religious minority as the Assad family. It makes sense that these officers understand they are fighting not only for Assad’s political survival, but for the Alawis’ very future in Syria.

Who are the Alawis and why might they be at risk if Assad falls? The Alawis are a relatively small minority in Syria, making up at most 12 percent of the population. In comparison, Sunni Muslims are roughly 75% of the Syrian population. Their faith provides a special role for the fourth caliph of Islam, Ali, and because of their name Alawis – or followers of Ali – are often thought to constitute a legitimate branch of Islam. But aside from their use of the Koran, Alawis rely on their own holy book that is not recognized by other Muslims. Their religious faith is based on revering a trinity of three individuals as divine manifestations: Muhammad, Ali, and a third individual named, Salman al-Farisi, a Persian Christian who became a Muslim and knew Muhammad in Medina. Their actual religious rituals are kept secret. They do not build mosques. Yet, in the 1970s, Lebanese Shiite leader Imam Musa Sadr issued a proclamation that the Alawis were legitimate Muslims.

Unlike Imam Musa Sadr, Sunni religious clerics have viewed the Alawis over the centuries as heretics who are not part of the Islamic world. They were not even defined as “people of the book,” like Jews and Christians under the Ottoman Empire. They sought to isolate themselves in the Nusayriya mountains in western Syria, above the city of Latakia. When Ottoman rule over Syria was replaced with French rule, the Alawis had an opportunity to improve their standing. They backed the French mandatory authorities and as a result were recruited into the Syrian military in disproportional numbers along with other minorities, like the Druze and the Ismailis. After Syria’s independence, the Alawis were attracted to the military because it provided them with a vehicle for upward social mobility to escape poverty. The Alawi officers launched massive recruitment drives of fellow Alawis, whom they could trust. In the meantime, the Alawis were attracted to the secular orientation of the Ba’ath party in Syria, which first came to power in 1963, since in a secular state, religious sectarianism would be expected to matter far less. Between the Syrian Army and the Ba’ath party, the Alawis had a firm grip over Syria, despite their small numbers.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East during the recent insurrections undoubtedly must influence Alawi calculations to defeat the revolt against Assad at all costs. Over the last 30 years, Saudi Arabia has been promoting Wahhabi Islam in the Sunni Muslim world, by many times employing Muslim Brotherhood networks. The Salafi movements that have arisen as a result of these efforts take an even more hostile view of the Alawis than traditional Sunni Islam. The Saudis’ Wahhabi religious leaders have seen their role as one of cleansing Islam from any traces of polytheism, like saint worship, by giving them nearly divine status. Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti in the 1990s used to call the Alawi-dominated Ba’ath party “Hizb al-Shaitan,” meaning “party of the devil.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is less visible in the Syrian opposition today compared with its role in insurrections in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is stronger outside of Syria than inside. This might be explained, in part, by their having been decimated in February 1982 by Hafez al-Assad, in the city of al-Hamma, where the Syrian Army massacred more than 20,000 civilians. Whatever the reason for the lower profile of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Bashar Assad’s Alawi officers have to assume that should they be defeated–leading the Sunni majority to take over Syria–a bloodbath would ensue against the Alawis.

Despite the war of the Assads against the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamists have managed to penetrate Syria over the last decade, who could magnify traditional antipathy to the Alawis. Because Syria served as a rear base for Sunni volunteers entering Iraq to fight the U.S., many extremist religious groups took root in the Syrian countryside. For example, back in 2007, the Syrian army already had to use helicopter gunships against al-Qaeda affiliates that were attacking its units, like Jund al-Sham.

In recent months, Alawis were reminded of how Sunni clerics from Islamist circles view them. Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Global Muslim Brotherhood, called the Assad government “a heretical regime.” Sheik Adnan al-Arour, a Syrian Sunni religious leader, appeared on a Saudi television network in June and addressed his words specifically to the Alawis who were opposing the Syrian uprising: “I swear by God we will mince them in grinders and feed their flesh to the dogs.”

Given the prevalence of these sentiments, the revolt in Syria has all the trappings of an existential war for the Alawi minority, which explains, but hardly justifies, the reprehensible policies their army has adopted. Moreover, the ultimate consequences of the Syrian civil war have not been lost on the Israel Defense Forces. They also could explain why Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz told the Knesset Foreign and Defense Committee this week that Israel must prepare for a wave of Alawi refugees who might seek refuge in Israel as the conflict continues in Syria.

By Suzan Fraser Associated Press

A Russian ship, allegedly carrying tons of weapons, made a dash for Syria after Cypriot officials allowed it to leave their waters, Turkish officials said Thursday.

The ship had made an unscheduled stop in Cyprus Tuesday, technically violating an EU embargo on arms shipments to Syria, which has killed thousands in a crackdown on dissent.

Cypriot officials — told by the ship’s owners it was heading for Syria and Turkey — only allowed the ship to leave Wednesday after the owners said it had changed its destination for Turkey only.

But Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Selcuk Unal — citing information from the Turkish navy — said the ship had docked Thursday at the Syrian port of Tartus, which Russian warships use as a resupply stop.

The St. Vincent and Grenadines-flagged ship, Chariot, had apparently turned off its tracking device and the information could not be independently verified.

The vessel, owned by St. Petersburg-based Westberg Ltd, had initially dropped anchor off the southern Cypriot port of Limassol due to high seas, drawing the attention of local officials who boarded to examine its cargo.

They could not open and inspect four containers in the hold because of “the confined space” they were stored in, the Cypriot Foreign Ministry said Wednesday, but officials nevertheless determined they were holding a “dangerous cargo.”

Cyprus state radio said the vessel was carrying “tens of tons of munitions” while Russian state news agency RIA Novosti quoted a Westberg spokesman as saying that the Chariot was ferrying cargo owned by Russia’s state arms trader Rosoboronexport.

The spokesman said the cargo was listed as “dangerous” in the ship’s manifest, but no further details were available.

No one answered phones Thursday evening at the company which owns the ship.

Turkey, which has become Syrian leader Bashar Assad’s strongest critic, has imposed a trade and arms embargo on its southern neighbor.

www.thejerUSAlemconnection.us
and www.Debka.com

Thousands of US troops began descending on Israel this week. Senior US military sources told DEBKAfile Friday, Jan. 6 that many would be staying up to the end of the year as part of the US-IDF deployment in readiness for a military engagement with Iran and its possible escalation into a regional conflict. They will be joined by a US aircraft carrier. The warplanes on its decks will fly missions with Israeli Air Force jets. The 9,000 US servicemen gathering in Israel in the coming weeks are mostly airmen, missile interceptor teams, marines, seamen, technicians and intelligence officers.

The incoming American soldiers are officially categorized as participants in Austere Challenge 12, the biggest joint US-Israeli war game ever held.

The maneuver was originally designated Juniper Stallion 2012. However, the altered name plus the comment heard from the exercise’s commander, US Third Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Gorenc, during his visit two weeks ago, that the coming event is more a “deployment” than an “exercise,” confirmed that Washington has expanded its mission. The joint force will now be in place ready for a decision to attack Iran’s nuclear installations or any war emergency.

Our sources disclose that it was decided at the last minute in Washington and Jerusalem to announce the forthcoming Austere Challenge 12 on Thursday night, Jan. 5, ahead of the bulletin released by Tehran about another Iranian naval exercise at the Strait of Hormuz to take place in February, although its 10-day drill in the same arena only ended Monday, Jan. 2.

The early release was decided in consultations among US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the two army chiefs, US Gen. Martin Dempsey and Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz.

British Defense Minister Phillip Hammond, on a visit to Washington, was brought into the discussion.

The handout circulated to US correspondents from Hammond’s talks in the US capital affirmed that Britain stands ready to strike Iran if the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

However, that phrase was omitted from the British minister’s remarks at a news conference, following a last-minute request from Panetta, signifying the Obama administration’s interest of keeping a low profile on plans for attacking Iran.

Tehran too is walking a taut tightrope. It is staging military’s maneuvers every few days to assuring the Iranian people that its leaders are fully prepared to defend the country against an American or Israeli strike on its national nuclear program. By this stratagem, Iran’s ground, sea and air forces are maintained constantly at top war readiness to thwart any surprise attack.

The joint US-Israeli drill will test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems against incoming missiles and rockets, according to the official communiqué.

DEBKAfile’s military sources add that they will also practice intercepting missiles and rockets coming in from Syria, Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

It will not be the first time a US aircraft carrier docks in Israel for joint operations with the Israeli Air Force. On June 9, 2010, the USS Truman dropped anchor opposite Israel to test a joint deployment against Iran and its allies. The carrier and its air and naval strike force then staged joint firing practices with the Israeli Air Force over the Negev in the South.

Washington and Jerusalem are doing their utmost to present a perfectly synchronized military front against Iran: American officers are stationed at IDF command centers and Israeli officers posted at the US European Command-EUCOM.

By Reza Khalili www.pjmedia.com
January 9, 2012

The war of words between Iran and the United States escalated dangerously Sunday over the Islamic regime’s determination to develop nuclear weapons.

The Iranian leadership officially ordered its military commanders to close the Strait of Hormuz should Western sanctions be implemented on Iranian oil. Iran also announced it would be conducting ground war games, which would complement their recent naval war games intended to show they have the capacity to shut down the Strait.

About 35 percent of the world’s seaborne oil supply moves through the Strait of Hormuz — closing the strait would damage economies worldwide and cause gasoline prices to soar.

The United States responded that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated that such a development was a “red line” for the United States. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that the United States has the ability to reopen the strait should Iran close it:

We made very clear that the United States will not tolerate the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz. … That’s another red line for us and that we will respond to them.

Britain has chosen to send its most sophisticated warship, the HMS Daring, to the Persian Gulf. The destroyer is fitted with new technology that gives it the ability to shoot down any missile in the Iranian armory.

Hadi Mohammadi, political deputy of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, made the announcement regarding the escalation. He told Iranian newspaper Khorasan that the Guards have received orders from the highest authority in the Islamic regime to close the Strait of Hormuz:

“Iran cannot remain indifferent to the actions by the West and their threats in implementing sanctions on Iran’s oil. … The Strait of Hormuz is within the strategic space of the Islamic Republic, and the leadership is determined to not allow a drop of oil to pass through if our oil exports are affected.”

In reference to the recent naval war games held by the Iranian navy in the strait and the Persian Gulf, and the upcoming war games to be held in the same waterways by the Revolutionary Guards, Mohammadi emphasized:

“[Iran has] shown and will show the enemy that without a doubt, our forces are capable of closing this strategic waterway to the world.”

Mohammadi added that this new doctrine is based on the orders of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to Iran’s armed forces. He continued:

“We will respond to threats with threats but also that we will not always wait for the threats by the enemy to respond.”

He also claimed that more foreign spy drones have been captured by the Iranian armed forces, but he refused to give details. He claimed details would be provided by the appropriate officials at the military’s General Headquarters.

Also on Sunday, Brigadier General Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan announced that the Iranian army will soon stage a major drill to display its might and capabilities. He added that the latest achievements of the army will also be unveiled.

Ayatollah Khamenei, who months ago ordered the Revolutionary Guards to begin preparations to arm their missiles with nuclear warheads, has recently ordered the Guards and the Iranian army to prepare for war. Khamenei has asked that the nuclear enrichment process be expedited.

Kayhan newspaper, the mouthpiece of the supreme leader, published an editorial Sunday declaring that the enrichment process at the underground facility of Fordow near the city of Qom will begin shortly, and that the centrifuges have been assembled and tests completed. Kayhan claimed victory in announcing that Iran is now enriching uranium at two sites, Natanz and Fordow, and claimed that this is Iran’s response to its enemy, the West.

Western intelligence learned about the secret Fordow enrichment facility, which is deep underground, in September 2009. Fordow is under Guards’ supervision and contains more advanced centrifuges. The officials of the Islamic regime believe that the site cannot be attacked and destroyed easily, and have decided to transfer much of the 20 percent enriched uranium stockpile to this site, where the enrichment process will continue.

By the time uranium is enriched to 20 percent, nine-tenths of the effort to reach weapons-grade enrichment has been achieved.

*****
Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award winning book, A Time to Betray. He teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

by James Hibberd insidetv.EW.com

A TLC reality show offering a positive portrayal of Muslim life has come under protest and at least one advertiser has pulled its support.

Hardware store giant Lowe’s has yanked ads from the series after the Florida Family Association encouraged members to email the program’s advertisers.

“The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish,” the group said about the show, a docu-soap chronicling everyday Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan that debuted last month. “Clearly this program is attempting to manipulate Americans into ignoring the threat of jihad and to influence them to believe that being concerned about the jihad threat would somehow victimize these nice people in this show.”

The organization posted a letter allegedly from a Lowe’s representative agreeing to pull its ads: “While we continue to advertise on various cable networks, including TLC, there are certain programs that do not meet Lowe’s advertising guidelines, including the show you brought to our attention. Lowe’s will no longer be advertising on that program.”

Lowe’s then acknowledged and defended its decision on Twitter: “We did not pull our ads based solely on the complaints or emails of any one group. It is never our intent to alienate anyone. Lowe’s values diversity of thought in everyone, including our employees and prospective customers.”

Florida Family Association also suggested Home Depot and Sweet’n Low have been scared off, but emails posted from the companies say they only bought one ad each in the first place. All told, the organization claims its email campaign has convinced 65 companies to stop advertising with the show.

Now the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has weighed in and is calling on its membership to support the show — and to contact Lowe’s. “Sadly corporations, such as Lowe’s, have succumbed to the idiocracy of such garbage campaigns, which are orchestrated by groups and organizations which lack credibility, legitimacy, and are founded on the basic notions of bigotry and racism reminiscent of a shameful era in this country’s history,” said the organization in a statement.

A TLC spokesperson wouldn’t discuss the protest, but told EW: “We stand behind the show All American Muslim and we’re happy the show has strong advertising support.”

*************
For background information, see the November 12 post “Network TV show portraying THIS as ‘all-American’ …”

Agence France Presse (AFP)

Iran has banned a popular computer game, “Battlefield 3″, depicting US armour and aircraft launching an assault on Tehran, an Iranian IT magazine reported.

“All computer stores are prohibited from selling this illegal game,” an unnamed deputy with the security and intelligence division of Iran’s police said in a statement carried by the Asr-e Ertebat weekly.

A Tehran-based IT union warned all shops to abide by the ban.

“Battlefield 3″, made by US videogame company Electronic Arts (EA), is based on a fictional near-future in which players take on the role of US Marines tackling shoot-em-up missions in Paris, New York and Tehran.

The game — EA’s top-selling title — can be played as a solo campaign or as a group mission with up to 24 players online.

A "Battlefield 3" sign is seen in Cologne, Germany in August 2011. Iran has banned a popular computer game, "Battlefield 3", depicting US armour and aircraft launching an assault on Tehran, an Iranian IT magazine reported.

The Iran scenario sees US forces fighting hostile militia near the Iraq-Iran border then moving on to Tehran under a looming nuclear threat.

Intense gunfights are depicted in various military, industrial and urban locations in the capital, including Tehran’s historic Grand Bazaar.

According to EA, five million copies of “Battlefield 3″ were sold within a week of it hitting the market on October 25. The game is available on DVD-ROM and as for download from the Internet.

EA has no resellers in Iran. But pirated copies of all major videogames and computer software are widely available.

It is the first time an official ban on the game was reported. But some computer store owners said they had declined to stock “Battlefield 3″ since its release, anticipating the crackdown on it.

“I do not have any copy of the game,” said Hamid, a shop owner who requested his last name not be used.

Iranian police overseeing public places “raided (some shops) and arrested owners for selling the game secretly” even before the ban became public, he said.

AFP was unable to confirm the claim.

The Fars news agency said the game had prompted an online protest by a group of “Iranian youths.”

“We understand that the story of a videogame is hypothetical … (but) we believe the game is purposely released at a time when the US is pushing the international community into fearing Iran,” the group said in an online petition, with more than 5,000 signatories so far.