Tehran Feels the Pinch

Let's not ease up on the Iran sanctions just as they are beginning to bite.

This weekend's nuclear talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany were noteworthy not for their predictable collapse but for Tehran's demands to lift sanctions as a precondition for restarting negotiations. It was the clearest admission yet that the economic pressure on Iran is beginning to bite.
Some advocates of a "critical dialogue" with the Islamic Republic like to argue that sanctions would be counterproductive, giving Tehran another excuse for belligerence while doing nothing to stop its quest for nuclear weapons. They're right, at least to the extent that economic sanctions alone are unlikely to force Iran's leaders to change course.
But strong sanctions, properly enforced, can also impose steep marginal costs on Tehran. As Iranian journalist Amir Taheri described on these pages yesterday, an October report by Iran's own central bank shows oil revenues, imports and infrastructure projects all down. The regime has been forced to curtail 30-year-old energy and food subsidies. Public protests that forced the regime to shelve previous attempts to cut these handouts could flare again and perhaps revive a weakened, if not yet beaten, opposition Green Movement.
None of this means the threat posed by Iran has declined, and desperate regimes are prone to take desperate gambles. But they're more likely to take those gambles if they sense weakness on the part of their adversaries, as Argentina's generals did in 1982 on the eve of the Falklands invasion. With the Iranians, the West needs to take care not to send its own signal of weakness or ambivalence by easing up on sanctions as a way to lure them back to the table for another round of fruitless negotiations.
Yesterday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested that he understood the stakes, insisting the West "must reinforce the sanctions." Yesterday, too, Stuart Levey, the U.S. Treasury Under Secretary who is largely responsible for the current sanctions regime, announced his resignation after seven years on the job. We're confident Mr. Levey's successor, David Cohen, is up to the challenge, assuming the White House provides the political and diplomatic support he needs.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 11

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

European Parliament resolution on Iran, the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh

European Parliament resolution on Iran, the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh

The European Parliament ,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions on Iran, notably those concerning human rights, and in particular those of 10 February 2010 and 8 September 2010,

-   having regard to the declaration of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navy Pillay on 23 November 2010 who expressed concern about the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh stating that this was part of a much broader crackdown, and that the situation of human rights defenders in Iran was growing more and more difficult; (EPP, S&D, EFD)

-   having regard to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus in 1998, stipulating that states "shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of human rights defenders against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary actions" as a consequence of their legitimate effort to promote human rights, (EPP, ECR,EFD)

–   vu le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, le Pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, la Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant, auxquels l'Iran est partie,(GUE/NGL)

–   vu la résolution de l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies du 21 décembre 2010 sur la situation des droits de l'homme dans la République Islamique d'Iran, (GUE/NGL)

–   having regard to Rule 122 of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh, a prominent Iranian human rights lawyer, was sentenced to 11 years in jail on charges of "acting against national security", "membership of the Centre for the Defenders of Human Rights",not wearing hejab (Islamic dress) during a videotaped message, and "propaganda against the regime"; whereas she was also banned from practicing law and travelling for 20 year after completion of her sentence; (EPP, S&D, ALDE, V/ALE, GUE/NGL, ECR, EFD)

B. whereas Sotoudeh, a mother of two children, was arrested on 4 September 2010, held for long periods in solitary confinement, reportedly tortured, denied contact with her family and lawyer and came close to death after hunger strike to protest her prison conditions and violations of due process; (S&D)

C. whereas Sotoudeh´s husband, Reza Khandan, was summoned by the police on 15 January and detained overnight, released on a third-person guarantee and is under prosecution because of his advocacy on behalf of his wife; (S&D)

D. whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh has been the lawyer of the Dutch national Zahra Bahrami who was arrested after the Ashura protests on 27 December 2009 and has been recently sentenced to death, (EPP, ALDE) 

E. whereas Sotoudeh´s sentence is part of a systematic assault on the human rights lawyers and activists in Iran, which includes the sentencing on 7 January 2011 of Shiva Nazarahari, co-founder of Committee of Human Rights Reporters and a prominent activist, to four years in prison and 74 lashes and the sentencing on 30 October 2010 of a prominent lawyer Mohammad Seifzadeh to nine years in prison and a ten year ban from practicing law; whereas human rights lawyer Mohammad Oliyafar is serving a one-year sentence for his advocacy on behalf of his clients;  whereas other human rights defenders facing imminent prosecution in Iran are Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, Abdolfattah Soltani and Houtan Kian;  (S&D, ECR)

F. Whereas over one year after the Ashura demonstrations in December 2009 still hundreds of Iranian citizens who had been arrested linger in prison and the authorities have continued to make arrests throughout the year, notably at the occasion of Students' Day of 7 December 2010 and whereas according to reports by Amnesty International I over 70 students are still detained (V(/ALE, ALDE,GUE/NGL))

G. Whereas journalists and bloggers equally continue to be targeted, with reportedly over 30 journalists behind bars at the moment and even acclaimed representatives of Iranian culture such as Film director Jafar Panahi are denied the freedom of expression, who in December 2010 was banned from film-making for 20 years as well as sentenced to 6 years of prison (V/ALE, GUE/NGL)

I.  Whereas forced confessions, the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, clandestine detention, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, physical abuse, including sexual violence, and impunity for State agents continue to be widespread in Iran, giving rise to serious doubts as to the fairness and transparency of the judicial process in that country,(S&D)

J. Whereas instead of investigating extrajudicial killings the mourning relatives of the killed might face arrest as in the case of Mahdi Ramazani  who was taken into custody at the grave site of his son in December 2010 and confronted with exorbitant bail conditions he is in no capacity to pay (V/ALE)

K. Considérant que l'Iran s'est engagé à respecter le Pacte sur les droits civils et politiques, auprès de la communauté internationale, (GUE/NGL)

1. Calls on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately and unconditionally release Nasrin Sotoudeh as well as all other prisoners of conscience and considers that the sentence of Nasrin Sotoudeh is of political nature, aimed at taking one of Iran’s leading human rights defenders out of practice (S&D, EPP, ALDE, V/ALE, GUE)

2. Strongly condemns the extraordinarily harsh sentence against Nasrin Sotoudeh and the intimidation of her husband and commends her for her courage and her engagement; (V/ALE, S&D)) 

3. Calls on the Islamic Republic of Iran to adhere to the standards set forth by the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which states that lawyers must be allowed to carry out their work “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and recognizes that lawyers are entitled to freedom of expression, including “the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights"; (S&D, ECR)

4. Deeply deplores the lack of fairness and transparency in the judicial process in Iran and calls on the Iranian authorities to uphold due process in law and practice; appeals to the head of the Iranian Judiciary Ayatollah Sadegh Amoli Larijani to establish an independent commission to examine the prosecution of human rights lawyers and to hold accountable all officials who have participated in illegal procedures; (S&D, EFD)  

5. Calls on the authorities to combat the impunity of human rights violators within the security forces; Re-iterates its demand for an independent investigation into allegations of extrajudicial executions since the disputed June presidential elections and for alleged violators to be brought to justice (V/ALE)

6.  Calls on the Government of Iran to cooperate fully with all international human rights mechanisms, to continue exploring cooperation on human rights and justice reform with the United Nations and to fully implement the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review; (EPP, EFD)

7.  Calls for the re-establishment of a UN mandate for a Special Rapporteur to investigate human rights abuses and encourage accountability for those perpetrating human rights violations in Iran; (S&D)

8. Calls on the Iranian authorities to grant the Red Crescent access to all prisoners and to allow international human rights organisations to monitor the situation in the country; (S&D)

9. Urges the Iranian authorities to reconsider the sentence imposed on Zahra Bahrami, to grant her a fair trial and access to Dutch authorities given her Dutch citizenship according to international standards; (EPP,ALDE, EFD)

10.  Calls on the Commission and Council to devise additional measures in the context of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights in order actively to protect Iranian human rights defenders, and encourages the Member States and local authorities to support initiatives such as the European Shelter City Programme and the International Cities of Refugee; (S&D, V/ALE, ECR)

11.  Calls for the existing list of individuals and organisations subject to the EU travel ban and the freezing of assets to be extended to include Iranian officials who are responsible for violations of human rights, repression and curtailment of freedom in Iran; (S&D, ALDE)

12. Calls on EU Representatives and the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union of Foreign Affairs to re-engage in talks about human rights with the Islamic Republic of Iran (ALDE)

13.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the President of the Iranian Supreme Court and the Government and Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran Democratic Transition Conference

Iran Democratic Transition Conference

Start: Saturday, January 22, 2011
End:   Monday, January 24, 2011

Iran Democratic Transition Conference
January 22-24, 2011, Washington D.C.

January 22-23, 2011
George Washington University
Jack Morton Auditorium, Media and Public Affairs Building
805 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052

January 24, 2011
U.S. Capitol HillCongressional Visitors Auditorium

The Iran Democratic Transition Conference (IDTC) takes a pragmatic approach to exploring the prospects of political change in Iran and to paving the way for the establishment of a secular, pluralistic, democratic government in Iran. A host of expert Iranian panelists, Iran scholars, and U.S. law makers will discuss policy, strategic, and social issues to establish a shared vision of liberty.
Please note: The events on January 22-23 will mostly be in Farsi with no translator, and the events on January 24 will be mostly in English.
Topics: Transition to Democracy: Challenges and Opportunities; New Media: Cyber Revolution and Individualism; New Generation: Demands, Abilities and Political Vision; Secularism: Ideology and Alternatives; Sanctions: "Behavior Change" or "Regime Change"?; Oppositions Leadership: In Exile or from Within?; New Constitution: "Reform" or "Regime Change"; Iran and the World: Mutual Commitments; Remembering Neda, The Face of the Iranian Green Movement, on her Birthday.  

Speakers: U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), U.S. Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), U.S. Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL), U.S. Congressman Ed Royce (R-CA), Mohammad Reza Heydari, Hossein Alizadeh and Abolfazl Islami (Former Islamic Republic of Iran's Diplomats from Norway, Finland and Japan), Amir A. Fakhravar (Research Fellow at Institute of World Politics, award winning writer and jailed dissident), Kenneth Katzman (Specialist in Iran and Middle East Affairs at the U.S. Congressional Research Service), John Lenczowski (President of IWP), Kambiz Hosseini (TV host, VOA-Parazit), Alireza Noorizadeh (Veteran journalist, London), Caspian Makan (Photographer, Neda's fiancé, Canada), Mehdi Saharkhiz (Citizen Journalist, Son of Isa Saharkhiz, former head of the press department at the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Education and jailed dissident), Roozbeh Mir-Ebrahimi (Jailed blogger, Journalist, NY), Potkin Azarmehr (Award winning blogger and Iran expert, London), Behnam Nateghi (Journalist and TV host, VOA-NY), Afshin Ellian (Professor of law and philosophy, Islam, and Middle East scholar, Netherlands), Mashaallah Abbaszadeh (former Iran Election Headquarters chief, Canada), Siamak Shojaei (Iran scholar on Economics and sanctions, NY), Solmaz Sharif (Journalist, NY), Ivan Marovic (Serbian Student Leader, Belgrade), Jane Kokan (Award winning documentary filmmaker, Canada) and many more expert speakers.  

This conference is sponsored by the Institute of World Politics. It is coordinated by Confederation of Iranian Students (CIS), a pro-western independent student movement with chapters in Iran, United States, Canada, England, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Iraq, Turkey and Malaysia.
Seating is limited.  For more information, please contact kbridges@iwp.edu.


http://www.iwp.edu/events/detail/iran-democratic-transition-conference
http://www.irandtc.com/

If the Green Movement were truly a spent force, Tehran would be less preoccupied with its containment.

Iran's Die-Hard Democrats

If the Green Movement were truly a spent force, Tehran would be less preoccupied with its containment.

 

By ILAN BERMAN

Are Iran's democratic stirrings truly a thing of the past? Ever since the so-called Green Movement coalesced in the wake of the country's fraudulent June 2009 presidential vote, Western observers have rushed to write its epitaph.
Over the past year, more than a few Iran watchers have argued that the internal contradictions within Iran's opposition movement doom it to failure and that, as a result, Washington has no alternative but to engage with Iran's ayatollahs. Similarly, some media outlets, in reporting the Green Movement's lackluster showing during Ashura celebrations in mid-December, have suggested that Iran's once-vibrant democracy drive has run out of gas. Still others have concluded that, at least when it comes to mobilization and mass protest, the Green Movement should now be considered largely defunct.
But is it? Unquestionably, the wave of opposition that swept over Iran in the summer of 2009 has receded significantly. Organizationally, Iranian democrats' lack of sustained leadership and the absence of a unifying common vision have served to undermine their long-term cohesion. Practically, these opposition activists gradually have been cowed into passivity by the widespread brutality of the regime's domestic militia, the Basij. Any yet, if the Iranian government's recent machinations are any indication, the powers-that-be in Tehran are far less certain than are Western foreign-policy experts that Iran's democratic impulses have withered on the vine.
To wit, Tehran's chief prosecutor, Abbas Jafari-Dolatabadi, announced plans this month to prosecute Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Kharroubi, the thwarted presidential candidates who went on to become the titular leaders of the Green Movement. "Leaders of the sedition will definitely be prosecuted," Mr. Jafari-Dolatabadi has confirmed, warning that "[t]he accusations against the sedition leaders are more than they think and they will understand when we issue our list of charges."

Associated Press

A protestor, holding police batons, still wants to know where his vote went.

His comments came on the heels of a major speech by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in which Iran's cleric-in-chief condemned the "seditionists" for having "hurt the Islamic Revolution and the people" by "conspiring and giving hope to the enemies." The broadside was seen by many as clerical sanction for a domestic purge. Not surprisingly, Iran's judiciary apparently is now under intense pressure to launch a legal offensive against the leadership of the Green Movement.
As part of that effort, regime authorities have formally forbidden Iranian opposition leaders from traveling abroad. Mousa Qorbani, a member of the Judicial Committee in Iran's legislature, recently told a state-run television program that Messrs. Mousavi and Kharroubi, along with reformist former president Mohamad Khatami, have been deemed "mohareb" (opponents of God) by the Iranian regime, and as a result "are henceforth barred from leaving" the country.
Iranian conservatives are even seeking to rig next year's legislative elections on the premise that pro-reform candidates are "traitors" who want to overthrow the current clerical regime. High-profile hard-liners such as Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati—who heads Tehran's influential constitutional watchdog, the Guardian Council—have called for barring politicians from participating in the March 2012 polls if they advocate even incremental changes to the functioning of the Islamic Republic.
This flurry of renewed anti-opposition activism speaks volumes. If the Green Movement were truly a spent force, Iranian officials would be far less preoccupied with containing and discrediting its remnants. And if Iran's reformist politicians were as marginal as they are commonly portrayed, their political participation would pose no challenge to the legitimacy or the stability of the Islamic Republic.
That Iran's leaders appear to believe otherwise suggests that they understand well what many in the West do not: the Green Movement itself may be on the ropes, but the larger urge for democracy that it represents isn't dead. It is simply hibernating.
Mr. Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C.

Source:  

India Acts to Cut Off Iranian Oil Deliveries -- the U.S. Needs to Act in Solidarity http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/india-act-to-cut-off-iran_b_803441.html

India Acts to Cut Off Iranian Oil Deliveries -- the U.S. Needs to Act in Solidarity

Raymond J. Learsy

Scholar and author, "Over a Barrel: Breaking Oil's Grip on Our Future"

Posted: January 3, 2011 09:14 AM

Bravely, and at risk to its economic development, India's central bank declared over a week ago that the Asia Clearing Union could no longer be used to settle transactions between India and Iran attaining to the India's purchases of Iranian oil and gas supplies, thereby delivering a highly meaningful and symbolic blow to the Iranian regime (please see "The Oil Nabobs Slouching Towards Iran. Time for a Peoples Boycott")
According to a New York Times article, "Move to Curb Transactions for Iranian Oil Leaves Indian Companies Scrambling":

The clearinghouse allowed Indian companies to pay Iranian companies via the two countries' central banks. But it also meant that transactions were less transparent, making payments to companies controlled by groups banned under the sanctions regime more obscure.

According to the article, India's decision to rethink its crude oil purchasing rules is "a sign of the deepening ties between India and the United States."
The article goes on to inform. "Weaning India off Iranian oil is particularly difficult now, as supplies are tight, prices high..." Really??
Firstly, supplies are not tight. There is a glut of oil in the world. Not only is there ample current supply, but Saudi Arabia alone, perhaps even more directly at risk from Iran's nuclear ambitions, has been letting sit idle a production capability of some 4.5 million barrels a day above their current daily production of approximately 8 million barrels a day.
India imports some 350,000 barrels a day from Iran, a quantity that the Saudis could easily supply -- and in a way that it would have zero impact on oil prices, should it be their want to do so. However, should the Saudis' attempt to play this propitious turn of events in a way to spike prices, more in keeping with their standard cartel driven pricing policies, there is another solution available.
The United States has in its Strategic Petroleum Reserve near 750 million barrels of oil -- oil that is meant to be used in crisis and/or consequent national emergency. What contingency at present or on the horizon bears greater gravitas than the prospect of a nuclear-armed mullah led Iran. In consideration of the remarkable courage that the Indian authorities are exhibiting in confronting this danger and in solidarity with India on this potentially existential issue, our government should declare it is ready to supply any shortfall of the 350,000 barrels a day that India cannot cover from other sources at prices reflecting current markets. Were we to supply India from our SPR a total of 350,000 barrels a day (an eventuality that is highly unlikely), it would only be for a relatively short period of time, given the plethora of other oil sources currently available in the global marketplace. However, should the worst come to pass, as far fetched as that would be, we could make available to India that amount for a total of 2,142 days or near on to six years from our current SPR alone.
Our willingness to step into the breach would be a gesture of solidarity on an issue of vital importance to both nations. In addition, our Secretary of State Clinton might well make a detour to Riyadh and remind the Saudi's that India's courageous policy is in their core interest as well. She might even slip in that the United States' naval flotilla in the Persian Gulf, costing American taxpayers some $100 million a day, presumably protecting the Straits of Hormuz permitting ever higher priced Saudi Oil to flow to world markets, but more manifestly protecting the Saudi coastline, and Saudi Arabia itself from Iranian aggression, might, just might find another deployment elsewhere on the globe.


 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/india-act-to-cut-off-iran_b_803441.html

BINLEY: Rebooting our Iran policy for 2011

So what will the No. 1 foreign-policy challenge be for the Obama administration in 2011? The answer perhaps was given by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and the incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, when she said Iran was challenge "number one, number two and number three."
As the WikiLeaks' revelations made clear, the entire Middle East, from Israel to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf countries, is in a state of extreme anxiety over Iran's policies. Those countries' concern is not limited to the regime's determined efforts to acquire nuclear weapons but includes its brutal and systematic violation of human rights, its persistent support for extremist and Islamic fundamentalist groups and its determination to interfere in the affairs of other nations, especially Iraq.
The Obama administration needs to realize that its "dual track" policy toward Iran of diplomatic engagements and sanctions is not only incompatible with the situation, it is directly counterproductive.
The administration's attempts to engage with the Iranian regime have been both fruitless and completely divorced from reality. State Department doves consistently have advocated this failed policy out of a mistaken view that the regime in Tehran is powerful and stable, and they consequently have argued that the only plausible option was to cut a deal with the mullahs' regime and ignore its opponents. Events have proved the doves to be wrong.
The anti-government protests that began in 2009 have consistently highlighted the weakness of their case and proved the opposite to be true. They repeatedly exposed a regime that is fragmented, devoid of a sound political base and fiercely opposed by a generation of young men and women who yearn for freedom and overwhelmingly support the demands of the organized resistance for internal regime change. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ruthless regime has not only failed to stop the unrest, it has exacerbated internal schisms and underlined the regime's weaknesses. The new realities call for a new policy on Iran.
The time has come to adopt internal regime change as the U.S. policy on Iran. That is not a call for U.S. military intervention; it is a call to stand at the side of the Iranian people and their organized resistance to bring about democratic change.
Last week, at an international conference in Paris, dozens of political figures and former high-ranking officials from the United States, Europe and Arab countries, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York City; Frances Townsend, adviser to President George W. Bush on homeland security and counterterrorism; Michael Mukasey, former attorney general; and Tom Ridge, former homeland security secretary, urged the international community to adopt a new approach toward the Iranian regime and the threats it poses.
As a first step, they all called on the American government to remove the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the main opposition movement, from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations.
The PMOI, which supports the overthrow of the Iranian government and the establishment of a democratic secular government, has been on the list since 1997, when the Clinton administration put it there in a bid to secure closer cooperation with Tehran. The results of this approach are clear.
Calling the designation a "disgrace," Mr. Giuliani said the U.S. should act enthusiastically on the side of the PMOI and its objectives.
Ms. Townsend reiterated that "the greatest single step ... the United States government can take to really put pressure on the Iranian regime and enable change is by delisting the PMOI. We should do that because the listing is not warranted by the evidence that is public, nor is [it] justified by anything that is classified."
In July, a U.S. federal appeals court challenged the basis of this designation and ordered the State Department to reconsider its decision. The United Kingdom and European Union removed the PMOI from their lists of proscribed terrorist organizations in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
Removing the terrorist tag would gain considerable support in Congress. A bipartisan group of more than 110 members only recently sponsored a House resolution calling for the delisting of the PMOI.
The blacklisting of the PMOI has not only restricted the main Iranian opposition, it has positively encouraged the mullahs' regime to more vigorously suppress its opponents, especially PMOI supporters, inside Iran. (Ali Saremi, 63, was executed Tuesday after spending 24 years behind bars over his support for the PMOI.) The mullahs' proxies in Iraq exploit the label to justify threats to Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where 3,400 members of the organization live. In July 2009, the camp came under attack by Iraqi forces at the behest of Tehran. Eleven people died, all of them unarmed and designated "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and 500 were wounded. The listing therefore puts the lives of these people at risk.
As Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the Iranian resistance, put it, "The correct solution to the Iranian problem is regime change, a democratic change by the Iranian people and resistance. This is the defining factor in the Iranian equation. Thus, any policy that blocks the resistance ignores the most important factor for change in Iran and protects the regime."
When Iranians need all the resources at their disposal to bring about change, the unjust designation sends the wrong message to the brave Iranians who regularly take to the streets asking, "Obama, Obama, are you with them or with us?"
It is time to answer with a clear message: "We are with you."
Brian Binley is a member of Parliament from the United Kingdom's Conservative Party and a member of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/2/rebooting-our-iran-policy-for-2011/?page=1

Israel preparing for 'large scale war': cable

Israel preparing for 'large scale war': cable

(AFP) – 7 hours ago

OSLO — Israel's army chief told a US Congress delegation in late 2009 he was preparing for a large war in the Middle East, probably against Hamas or Hezbollah, leaked US diplomatic cables showed on Sunday.
"I am preparing the Israeli army for a large scale war, since it is easier to scale down to a smaller operation than to do the opposite," Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi was quoted as saying in a cable from the US embassy in Tel Aviv.
The document, dated November 15, 2009, was quoted Sunday in Norwegian by Oslo-based daily Aftenposten, which said it had obtained WikiLeaks' entire cache of 251,187 leaked US embassy cables.
"The rocket threat against Israel is more serious than ever. That is why Israel is putting such emphasis on rocket defence," Ashkenazi told the US delegation led by Democrat Ike Skelton, the cable showed.
The army chief lamented that Iran has some 300 Shihab rockets that can reach Israel and stressed that the Jewish state would have only between 10 and 12 minutes warning in case of an attack.
However, it was Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon that posed the most acute threat, he cautioned.
According to the quoted cable, Hezbollah is thought to have more than 40,000 rockets, many of which are believed capable of reaching deep into Israel.
US officials meanwhile reportedly estimate the militant group has acquired an arsenal of around 50,000 rockets.
A 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel killed 1,200 Lebanese, many of them civilians, and 160 Israelis, most of them soldiers.
And in his comments made nearly a year after Israel on December 27, 2008 launched the deadly Gaza war, Ashkenazi said "Israel is on a collision course also with Hamas, which rules Gaza."
"Hamas will have the possibility to bombard Tel Aviv, with Israel's highest population concentration," he was quoted as saying.
The Gaza war -- a response to hundreds of rockets fired into the Jewish State -- killed some 1,400 mainly civilian Palestinians and 13 Israelis, 10 of them soldiers. It ended on January 18, 2009.
Israel had been harshly criticised for putting civilians at risk during fighting in the densely populated Gaza Strip.
However, in the cable leaked Sunday Ashkenazi is quoted saying Israel next time will not accept "any restrictions on warfare in populated areas," and insisted the army had never intentionally attacked civilian targets.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hwmDqdrKrkY5csBKn1BzzaL-mgJQ?docId=CNG.68f5e94c91d2e5bac59427d81c150711.671

Killing Iran's Energy Industry

An incremental approach to sanctions can beat back Iran's nuclear aspirations without spooking the oil market.

BY MARK DUBOWITZ

The Reserve Bank of India has opened up a major new front in the global effort to tighten the economic screws on Tehran. Under pressure from the United States, the Indian central bank last week blocked domestic buyers of Iranian oil from making payments through the Asian Clearing Union. But further measures, and time for them to work, will still be needed to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
While oil sales to India can still clear through commercial banks, they will be more transparent, subjecting them to scrutiny under financial sanctions laws enacted by the U.S., the ...


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704735304576057160516780984.html?mod=googlenews_wsj