Author Archives: jimmy
01/27/12
01/26/12
Assad’s fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery
If Syria’s regime falls, the U.S. will be in a better position to answer one of the lingering questions from the long Iraq War: Did Baghdad ship weapons of mass destruction components to Syria before the 2003 American-led invasion?
An opposition leader tells The Washington Times that a new, secular democracy in Syria would allow outside inspectors to survey and ensure destruction of what is believed to be one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the Middle East.
Western and Israeli intelligence suspect that Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria also owns weaponized nerve agents.
Spy satellites tracked a large number of truck convoys moving from Iraq to Syria in the weeks before the 2003 invasion, raising suspicions that some carried weapons of mass destruction.
The invading Americans never found stocks of such weapons in Iraq, despite two years of searching by the Iraq Survey Group.
The result spurred the political left to attack President Bush with slogans such as “Bush lied, troops died,” but nonpartisan national security figures said there was evidence that material may have been moved to Syria. There was just no way to get inside the Iranian-supported dictatorship to take a look.
Zuhdi Jasser, a Syrian-American physician who co-founded the group Save Syria Now, is working to bring an elected secular government to Damascus. He said the Assad regime, which has used brutal repression to remain in power, can fall within a year if the popular uprising comes to the capital.
“As far as making sure there is a public transparent disposal of [weapons of mass destruction], I believe so,” Dr. Jasser told The Times.
He said an emerging group, the Syrian Democratic Coalition, is preparing a pledge by pro-democracy members.
“Many of us are banking on the fact they will not protect any arsenals there and allow a transparent change so they can be welcomed into the world community and not simply exchange one fascist government for another,” he said.
Disposing of Syria’s chemical weapons “has to be part of the transition,” he said.
Research groups say the Assad regime maintains large stocks of chemical weapons, including mustard gas.
“Over the past three decades, Syria has acquired an arsenal of chemical weapons (CW) and surface-to-surface missiles, reportedly has conducted research and development in biological weapons (BW), and may be interested in a nuclear weapons capability,” said a 2003 report by the Congressional Research Service.
Iraq at one point did possess large stocks of chemical weapons and used them on Iran and the Iraqi Kurdish population.
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, U.N. inspectors destroyed huge caches. But U.S. intelligence agencies always believed that Saddam Hussein clung to some materials because of his regime’s efforts to evade and confuse U.N. inspectors.
Suspicions lingered during the administration of President Clinton, who ordered five days of airstrikes on Iraq in 1998 to destroy what he said were remaining stockpiles that could fall into the hands of terrorists. Mr. Bush offered a similar rationale for war in 2003.
“Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” Mr. Clinton told the American people.
Among those who suspect a Syrian connection is retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., who is now the most senior U.S. intelligence officer.
He told The Times in 2003 that U.S. satellites documented waves of truck traffic out of Iraq and into Syria.
“I think personally that those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to some extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence,” said Gen. Clapper, who then headed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and now is director of national intelligence. “I’ll call it an educated hunch.
“I think probably in the few months running up prior to the onset of combat that … there was probably an intensive effort to disperse into private homes, move documentation and materials out of the country,” he said. “I think there are any number of things that they would have done.”
On the activity on the Syrian border, Gen. Clapper said: “There is no question that there was a lot of traffic, increase in traffic up to the immediate onset of combat and certainly during Iraqi Freedom. … The obvious conclusion one draws is the sudden upturn, uptick in traffic which may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq and, unquestionably I’m sure, material as well.”
Such suspicion also found its way inside the Iraq Survey Group, the joint Pentagon-CIA organization formed to hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Charles Duelfer, who headed the Iraq Survey Group, filed a final addendum in 2005 to his exhaustive report. He said his investigators found “sufficiently credible” evidence that material for weapons of mass destruction was shifted from Iraq to Syria.
“[The Iraq Survey Group] was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that [weapons of mass destruction were] evacuated to Syria before the war,” he said.
“Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” Mr. Duelfer said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible … collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and [the Iraq Survey Group] received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that [weapons of mass destruction were] involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”
He said all senior Iraqis then in custody denied knowledge of any weapons of mass destruction moving into Syria.
“Nevertheless,” the inspector said, “given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, [Iraq Survey Group] analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.”
Libya’s new transitional government has set a precedent for allowing Western arms inspectors into the country.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based at The Hague, is an independent group that monitors compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention.
It filed its most recent report on Libya on Friday, saying all of Libya’s newly declared quantities of sulfur mustard and related chemicals are stored at the Ruwagha depot in southwestern Libya and are to be destroyed by April.
The same scenario could play out in a post-Assad Syria, along with detective work to determine, once and for all, whether any weapons components came from Iraq in 2003.
Michael Luhan, a spokesman for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, told The Times that inspectors could enter Syria “only if the new regime joins the Chemical Weapons Convention, thereby making Syria an OPCW member state and legally subject to our verification measures.”
01/25/12
* ‘No peace talks unless J’lem agrees to Palestine borders’ The Palestinian Authority will not restart direct peace negotiations with Israel unless Jerusalem recognizes the borders of a Palestinian state.
01/24/12
01/23/12
01/21/12
01/20/12
Day after Iran tests the bomb
Iran will become an atomic weapons state because it already has the raw materials, technology, the ambition, and no single or group of nations is willing to do what is necessary to deny that outcome.
Atomic weapons in the hands of the radical Islamic Republic of Iran has been “unacceptable” to both the Bush and Obama Administrations and most of our allies, especially Israel which considers the proposition an existential threat.
Our “unacceptable” policy translated into half measures – weak sanctions, covert action, and military threats – to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. But only two alternatives will stop Iran’s atomic weapons program: a popular uprising that installs a government which abandons atomic arms and foreign invasion. Neither alternative is likely which is why it is time to prepare for the day after Iran tests the bomb.
Before considering the “day after” it is helpful to appreciate Tehran’s bizarre motivation for atomic weapons, its hurried-up nuclear arms program, and why our half measures will inevitably fail.
First, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ruled by clerics and devout Shi’ites who hate the West and is driven by an apocalyptic branch of Islam that believes its duty is to begin world war that brings the return of their Mahdi (messiah) – an Imam so powerful he will bring the world under Islamic rule. An atomic bomb is Iran’s war trigger.
Second, the regime is making rapid progress acquiring an atomic weapons capability. Last fall the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), announced evidence of Iran’s accelerating atomic weapons program. The agency’s report states Iran created computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on triggering a fissile reaction and completed advanced research on a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be delivered by a medium-range missile.
Last week the IAEA confirmed Iran’s nuclear material enrichment program took a dangerous turn. The regime shifted its 20% uranium enrichment activities to the underground site at Fordow near the holy city of Qom, which offers protection against air strikes. By the end of this year Iran is expected to have more than enough 20% enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb which could quickly be turned into weapons-grade material (90%) in a month or less.
Finally, the West’s efforts to deny Tehran atomic weapons are doomed. Tehran’s opponents have been attempting for years to use a combination of diplomacy, sanctions, and covert action to persuade the mullahs to abandon the bomb. And now there is talk of limited military action which will also fail.
Years of increasingly tough economic sanctions failed to persuade Iran to abandon its atomic weapons program. Now the Obama administration is hosting the strongest sanctions yet which target the Central Bank of Iran, the main conduit of oil revenues. Those sanctions also target companies like China-based Zhuhai Zhenrong Co., the largest supplier of refined petroleum products to Iran.
But these sanctions which enjoy international support are doomed because Russia and China refuse to fully cooperate. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of imposing sanctions “which go far beyond the boundaries of achieving nonproliferation objectives.” China, a major consumer of Iranian oil, threw cold water on the tougher sanctions as well.
A Chinese ministry of commerce spokesman said China will not heed the U.S.’s request to sanction Iran because it “will do serious damage to China’s domestic economy.” Iran is China’s third-biggest source of oil, supplying more than 5% of total needs.
Covert operations are part of the West’s failing campaign to persuade Iran to abandon atomic arms as well. An American diplomatic cable disclosed by WikiLeaks listed “covert measure” as one of the pillars of Israel’s approach to Iran.
Iran alleges foreign covert operatives are responsible for assassinating five Iranian nuclear scientists, planting the Stuxnet computer worm to destroy enrichment centrifuges, and sabotaging a missile-testing site, near the nuclear facility at Isfahan. But such covert activities are not enough to stop Iran’s atomic program because it includes hundreds of people across many widely scattered facilities.
Military options are gaining attention especially now that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in mid-December that Iran can assemble a bomb within or year or even less. But those options are ultimately doomed as well.
Three military options are likely under consideration: target Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities; target the weapons facilities and regime assets; and launch a 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq-like operation. We should immediately disabuse ourselves of the third option because the U.S. has no appetite for another land war in the Mideast.
A limited strike option to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities could have unintended consequences and only stall, not end, the Iranian nuclear drive. After all, America’s bombing effectiveness, the best in the world, is rapidly deteriorating because Iran is burying its atomic facilities out of reach for even our biggest conventional bombs like Boeing’s 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator.
The second option would also target regime assets such as command centers to reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate. The goal would be to trigger an uprising that would topple the regime, an unlikely outcome.
But both options will earn quick retaliation. The mullahs will close the Strait of Hormuz through which 35% of the world’s seaborne oil passes daily, launch ballistic missiles at allied strategic facilities, conduct preplanned covert actions, and unleash its terrorist proxies like Hezbollah.
Therefore, because sanctions, covert action, and limited military options are likely to fail we must prepare for the inevitable atomic Iran.
So what should we do? Last week, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an Israeli think-tank that enjoys a particularly close relationship with the top echelons in Israel, conducted a simulation exercise to consider the “day after” scenario. It concludes that an Iranian nuclear test would radically shift the whole power balance of the Middle East. The INSS outlined what might occur the “day after.”
The US would try to restrain Israel from military retaliation by proposing a formal defense pact, according to the INSS report. Then Russia would propose a defense pact with the U.S. to arrest regional nuclear proliferation in part to try specifically to prevent the Saudis from developing their own atomic arsenal. Meanwhile, the newly minted atomic Iran will demand new borders with Iraq and sovereignty over Bahrain.
But in an interesting twist, even though the simulation showed that Iran will not forgo nuclear weapons, Tehran “will attempt to use them to reach an agreement with the major powers that will improve its position.” That conclusion parallels an emerging perspective shared by some Israeli elite.
Last year, Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad (Israel’s intelligence organization), objected to an Israeli strike on Iran because it would engulf the region in war. Then last month he added that a nuclear Iran “did not necessarily threaten Israel.”
Two things are becoming obvious regarding Iran’s atomic quest. The U.S. has neither the will nor the international support to topple the regime and an Arab Spring-like Iranian revolution doesn’t appear likely either. What does appear likely is the grudging acceptance of an atomic armed Tehran, and a radically changed Middle East.