Iran

He would change Iran, but don’t hold out hope

Meir Javedanfar — Fri, 17 May 2013 19:30:28 +0100

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s decision to register as a candidate for the June 14 presidential elections in Iran has created much excitement.

But it is not worth holding out much hope that he gets elected.

First and foremost, Mr Rafsanjani has to convince the all-powerful Guardian Council to allow him to stand. This will not be an easy task. The 12-member council is made up entirely of people who are close to supreme leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei and the politically powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC).

Over the years, both Khamenei and the IRGC have had a rocky relationship with Mr Rafsanjani. If they decide to let him run by getting the Guardian Council to qualify him as a candidate, most likely it would be because of recommendations by the regime’s various intelligence agencies stating that disqualifying Mr Rafsanjani could create disturbances before the elections. On May 23, the Guardian Council will announce its final decision on who is qualified to run. Mr Rafsanjani’s chances stand at 50 per cent — at best.

Even if he does get over that hurdle, the chances of him being picked as president by Khamenei are 10 per cent.
The next elections in Iran are not going to be democratic. Like in 2009, they are going to be decided by the supreme leader, in consultation with other unelected groups such as the IRGC and the mainly conservative wing of Iranian politics.

All of these important centres of power are strongly against Mr Rafsanjani. A major reason for their opposition are the policies that he would want to apply as president.

Mr Rafsanjani is well known for wanting improved relations with the West. Many hardliners suspect that he would want to reach a compromise over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Recently he even went as far as saying that Iran was not at war with Israel. This was an unwelcome departure from Khamenei’s anti-Israel statements.

Worse, Mr Rafsanjani would want market liberalisation. This would mean that the IRGC would lose its growing economic clout. These days, the Revolutionary Guard maintains the revolution more thanks to lucrative insider business deals than through its revolutionary ideals. And they are not about to let Mr Rafsanjani take their business empire away from them.

Meanwhile, Khamenei is unlikely to want to pick such a divisive personality among his allies. If you are a betting person, do not bet on a Rafsanjani
victory.

EU faces ‘great risk’ if it fails to curb Hizbollah

Marcus Dysch — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:15:28 +0100

Iran’s provision of money, military equipment and training to Hizbollah and terror groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, is of “serious concern”, Middle East Minister Alistair Burt has told Parliament.

He said the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ involvement in terror attacks in Thailand, India, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kenya was increasingly worrying.

Mr Burt said the government was eager to see a “robust response” from the European Union to the suicide bombing carried out by Hizbollah in Bulgaria last July which killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver.

Europe faces a “great risk” in failing to respond to that attack, he said, and should not fear instability in Lebanon if the EU was to proscribe Hizbollah’s military wing as a terrorist organisation.

Mr Burt was speaking in a Commons debate on Hizbollah brought by Labour Friends of Israel vice-chair Michael McCann last Thursday.

Mr McCann called on the government to take “decisive action” and praised Israel’s air strike on a Syrian missile depot and chemical weapons sites.

He said that while a “full ban on Hizbollah may be difficult to achieve, Britain must send a powerful message that we do not tolerate Hizbollah’s and Iran’s terrorism, and that we will work hard to curtail terrorist fundraising and recruitment across Europe”.

A delegation of British Jewish community representatives met Helga Schmid, deputy head of the EU’s external action service last month to push for a Europe-wide ban on Hizbollah.

Their visit followed Prime Minister David Cameron’s request for the community to help him persuade the EU to outlaw the group.

There’s delusion and 'delusion' when it comes to Iran

Con Coughlin — Fri, 10 May 2013 09:58:00 +0100

Ever since Iran's insistence on developing nuclear technology triggered the worlds biggest security nightmare, there have been a number of naive souls who have sought to contend that, on the contrary, we really have nothing to fear.

They argue that any suggestion that the Islamic Republic is working on a clandestine nuclear programme that could be used to fulfil the ayatollahs' oft-stated desire to destroy Israel, is nothing more than anti-Iranian rhetoric whipped up by Western powers that are determined to cut Iran down size.

The latest ingénues - a polite description - to peddle this ludicrous fiction are the journalist Peter Oborne and his fellow author David Morrison in their new book A Dangerous Delusion. Mr Oborne is one of Britain's finest political polemicists and I suspect his unhappy descent into the world of international fantasy has much to do with his association with Mr Morrison, a left-wing activist who takes a perverse interest in twisting the facts to suit his disagreeable political agenda.

Mr Morrison stands accused of suggesting that he believes the death toll figures at Srebrenica during the Bosnian civil war in 1995, which have been physically verified by UN war crimes investigators, were deliberately exaggerated by the West to demonise the Serbs. His attempts to clarify his position on this issue have lacked conviction. And his dubious grasp of historical fact was again laid bare during a recent podcast I did with him for the Telegraph website when he made the preposterous claim that the current Iranian leadership are not Holocaust deniers.

Given the authors' alarming ignorance about the rudimentary principles that underpin the current Iranian regime, it is a wonder that their warped interpretation of the facts ever made it into print. Certainly, the book's title more aptly applies to the specious arguments advanced by the authors themselves than the way the West has attempted to handle the Iranian crisis during the past decade.

But when there is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the facts, it is vital that peddlers of untruths are brought to book, lest their ridiculous claims somehow acquire credence. For example, take the authors' fanciful suggestion in the opening chapter that, since Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, it has been scrupulous in complying with its international obligations.

Setting aside the fact that Iran signed the treaty when the Shah was still in power, and long before the ayatollahs seized control, the authors appear to have paid no heed to more than a decade of alarming reports published by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog, which have detailed a number of grave violations. These include enriching uranium to a level far in excess of that required for peaceful nuclear programmes, and failing to declare the existence of key facilities, such as the underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

Add to this evidence that Iran has conducted research on missile delivery systems that can only be used in atom bombs, and you see why the West has concerns about the direction of Iran's nuclear programme.

In the most authoritative intelligence assessment yet made public, the CIA has concluded that Iran had an active nuclear weapons programme until 2003, which was frozen after the invasion of neighbouring Iraq. All the evidence suggests Iran is now very close to resuming this programme, assuming it has not already done so.

These are just a few of the facts the authors of this incompetent attempt to rewrite history have deliberately chosen to ignore. We should all do the same by treating their conclusions with the contempt they deserve.

Iranian presidential candidates reflect discontent with Ahmadinejad stance

Anshel Pfeffer — Fri, 03 May 2013 11:15:56 +0100

The Iranian presidential elections are just under six weeks away and although the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is barred from running for a third term, his record is being attacked by a number of candidates. What is even more surprising is that they are attacking him on his policy towards Israel and the Jewish people.

One candidate, Tehran mayor Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, criticised Mr Ahmadinejad for offending the Jewish people by denying the Holocaust. He said: “Defending the goals of the Palestinians is part of the principles of our foreign policy. Denying the Holocaust is not part of our foreign policy.”

In an interview with a local news agency last week, Mr Ghalibaf said: “We were never against Judaism; it’s a religion. What we opposed was Zionism.” He said that the Iranian leadership since the 1979 Islamic revolution had been against Israel, not the Jews: “With the wisdom of ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei, no one could accuse us of being antisemitic. Suddenly, however, without consideration for the results and implications, the issue of the Holocaust was raised. How did this benefit the revolution or the Palestinians? It became an excuse for our biggest enemies, the Zionists, and affected the goals of the Palestinians.”

Another candidate, former speaker of the parliament Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, also criticised Ahmadinejad, saying, “we have not benefited by the denial of the Holocaust”. However, he did not go as far as Mr Ghalibaf — he added that the Holocaust was a matter for historians and that he could not rule on the issue.

Former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a rival of the current leadership who is rumoured to be planning a new bid for the post, said this week that Iran should “repair its foreign policy” and that “we are not at war with Israel”. Although balanced by saying that “if the Arab countries are at war with them, we’ll help them”, the statement was notably different from the usual rhetoric.

How significant is this? There are two reasons to assume that the more moderate noises coming from Tehran do not signal a change in Iranian policy.

First, the chances of either Mr Ghalibaf or Mr Rafsanjani becoming president are rather slim. The Tehran mayor is not a leading candidate and, while Mr Rafsanjani has both the name-recognition and the resources to run a winning campaign, he will almost certainly be blocked from running by the conservative camp loyal to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Ultimately, none of these candidates is opposed to Iran’s twin policies of nuclear development and the spread of its influence throughout the Middle East using radical Shia groups such as Hizbollah.

Furthermore, even if a relatively moderate president were to be elected, he would have little real influence on foreign policy: this area is the near-exclusive preserve of the Supreme Leader, who exercises his will through his own hand-picked representatives and the Revolutionary Guards.

But the new tone being heard in the presidential elections is indicative of one significant development. They express a wider feeling among the public that Ahmadinejad’s belligerence has caused the country severe damage.

'Drone designed by Iranians,' said Israel

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 02 May 2013 14:30:53 +0100

Hizbollah has repeatedly denied any connection to a drone which was shot down west of Haifa last Thursday evening.

According to the IDF, Israeli radars monitored the unmanned aerial vehicle as it flew out of Lebanese territory and over the Mediterranean.

As the drone turned east towards the Israeli coast, Israel Air Force F-16 fighter jets were scrambled and, after visual confirmation that the aircraft was unmanned, the order was given to shoot it down over the sea.

Israeli officials said that the drone was almost certainly of Iranian design and probably belonged to a special reconnaissance unit operated by Hizbollah under the guidance of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards.

Israeli officials said this week that they are almost certain that Hizbollah intended to use footage shot from the drone as a propaganda coup.

Hizbollah have denied the drone was theirs but Israeli analysts believe that, had it succeeded in entering Israeli airspace, the terrorist movement would have been more than happy to take credit for the operation.

Zionist Federation calls for Iranian Revolutionary Guard proscription

Marcus Dysch — Thu, 02 May 2013 09:50:15 +0100

The Zionist Federation has urged the British government and European Union to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation.

In a campaign launched this week, the ZF claimed the IRG was responsible for arms transfers to terrorist groups, had worked with al-Qaeda, backed Syrian President Bashar Assad, and had masterminded attacks against British citizens abroad.

ZF chairman Paul Charney said: “The EU and the UK must take practical steps to deal with international terrorism. By proscribing the IRG, they would be showing a commitment to fighting terrorism and protecting the security of EU citizens.”

A ZF petition calling for greater action had reached 50 signatures within the first 24 hours of being set up.

The IRG is an elite military unit charged with upholding the country's Islamic rule. It reports directly to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

Elements of the IRG are already designated under proliferation sanctions by the United Nations and EU, and are also listed as part of the EU sanctions against Syria. The IRG’s Quds Force paramilitary arm is subject to a global asset freeze and travel ban.

Five of its leading members, including commander Major General Qasem Soleimani, have been proscribed in Britain and across Europe for involvement in terrorist activities. But the IRG is not proscribed as an organisation in Britain or designated as a terrorist group by the EU.

A spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Baroness Ashton said “concrete measures” had already been taken, but did not comment further on the ZF campaign or prospect of full proscription.

Israel's warning over Syria chemical weapons

Zoe Winograd — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:06:28 +0100

Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister , Zeev Elkin , has asked world leaders to “take control " of Syria's stocks of chemical weapons.

Mr Elkin told Israeli Army Radio on Friday that if the international community failed to act over Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons , it would send a signal to Iran that it could continue to develop its own nuclear weapons with impunity.

He pointed out that US President Barack Obama had defined use of chemical weapons as a "red line" that must not be crossed.

"There is a question here, when a red line is set can we stick by it?" he added. "If the Iranians will see that the red lines laid by the international community are flexible, then they will continue to progress [with their nuclear program me]."

Mr Elkin also raised concerns that Syria's chemical weapons could fall into the hands of the rebels fighting the goverment, or other forces potentially hostile to western interests. "The ease with which Mr Assad used chemical weapons shows that apparently it could easily pass it the hands of the other side."

Mr Elkin’s comments followed a briefing made by the Israeli Military Intelligence on Tuesday warning the Institute for National Security Studies about Syria’s use of sarin gas.

Israeli 'red lines' being crossed in Syria and Iran

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:34:37 +0100

Israeli intelligence officials say the moment is fast approaching when the country’s so-called “red line” triggers for military action in both Syria and Iran will have been crossed.

President Bashar al-Assad is already believed to have crossed the line in Syria by using chemical weapons.

And there is now a widely shared view within Israeli intelligence that Iran will have the option of a nuclear capability by the end of the year.

Analysts made clear at this week’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) conference at Tel Aviv University that Israel potentially faces two large-scale wars within months.

Amos Yadlin, the former commander of Israeli Military Intelligence, said of Iran: “We are headed toward a collision course by the end of this year.”

Mr Yadlin explained that by the summer it may be almost impossible for Israel to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons: “We have about two months to sleep soundly, until the Iranian elections. After that, I believe the Iranians will have to make a difficult decision.”

Meanwhile, Brigadier-General Itai Brun, commander of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Research Directorate, was unequivocal that “the Syrian regime has made use of chemical weapons”.

This has always been seen as a “red line” issue which would prompt Israeli military action.

According to Brig Gen Brun, photographic evidence indicates that Assad has “used deadly chemical substances in a number of cases against the rebels, most likely sarin gas.”

Israeli intelligence estimates that Syria has around 1,000 tons of chemical weapons. The main concern is that these and other advanced weapons could fall into the hands of Hizbollah and other jihadist movements.

US President Barack Obama warned the Syrians last August that using chemical weapons would be crossing “a red line”. Any verifiable use could force the Americans to abandon their policy of not intervening on the ground in Syria.

The US has been reticent in confirming the reports and Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that he had “talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning. I think it is fair for me to say that he was not in a position to confirm that... I don’t know yet whatthe facts are.”

Despite his public scepticism, Mr Kerry has asked Nato to prepare a plan to counter the Syrian chemical weapons network.

Israel has been warning its allies in recent weeks to exercise extreme caution in helping arm the Syrian rebels as many have been infiltrated by elements with ties to Al Qaeda and the weapons could be used against Israel.

Mr Netanyahu emphasised this in his meeting in London last week with David Cameron.

An Israeli official involved in the talks said: “Syria is rapidly becoming a black-hole that can suck us in and keep us busy for years to come”

The warnings came while US Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, was ending his 3-day visit to Israel. Secretary Hagel announced an agreement to supply new weapons systems to Israel as part of a move to bolster the armed forces of Middle East nations facing Iran.

Mr Hagel’s visit was in a large part intended to allay any concerns Israel has over his personal commitment to its security. His appointment two months ago took place after an intense Senate battle in which pro-Israeli senators tried to block the confirmation of President Barack Obama’s who had in the past criticised Israel and its lobby in Washington and had also voiced opposition to an American strike on Iran’s nuclear programme.

In an attempt to win Israel’s trust, his office announced a major arms deal with Israel in advance of his visit and his statements throughout the stay in Israel were carefully tailored to reassure Israeli concerns.

“This is a difficult and dangerous time,” he said to the press before his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “This is a time when friends and allies must remain close, closer than ever.”

Mr Hagel’s meetings with Israel’s political and military leaders focused mainly on the Iranian threat and the situation in civil war-torn Syria.

Mr Netanyahu said that Israel and the United States were facing together the “arming of terrorist groups by Iran with sophisticated weapons, and equally, Iran’s attempt to arm itself with nuclear weapons.”

In a previous statement, Mr Hagel had said that “Israel is a sovereign nation; every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself” and that the decision whether to attack Iran “has to be made by Israel.” But while the tone in public was conciliatory, in his meeting, Mr Hagel, as had other senior American officials on previous visits to Israel, sought to assure that Israel would not attack Iran without coordinating its moves with the administration.

While a great deal of attention was focused during the Hagel visit on the proposed arms deal - its main components, do not dramatically change the strategic balance between Israel and Iran. The promised supply of aerial tankers will not take place for at least two years and though the tankers will expand Israel’s capability to launch wide-scale long-range airborne operations, this capability already exists due to the tankers Israel already has. In addition, the Americans will supply the V-22 vertical take-off and landing transport aircraft which will improve the Israeli Air Force’s special operations and search and rescue capabilities. But so far, the Obama administration is not supplying Israel with new bunker-busting bombs which would be useful in attacking Iran’s underground nuclear installations.

Israeli officials acknowledged that while they were grateful for the new arms deal, it was not aimed at helping Israel carry out a future strike on Iran, rather reinsuring Israel that American continues to support it and will deal with the Iranian threat itself if all other diplomatic channels and sanctions fail. In addition, the U.S. is also planning major arms deals with its Persian Gulf allies Saudi Arabia (further stops on Hagel’s itinerary) and the deal with Israel was in part designed to minimize any possible opposition to those deals from Israel’s supporters in Washington.

US Senate pledges military backing for Israel over Iran

Zoe Winograd — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:01:24 +0100

The US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee has passed a resolution to support Israel if a conflict with Iran arises.

Resolution 65, sponsored by Senator Robert Menendez and Senator Lindsey Graham, was voted on by the Senate on Tuesday.

According to the US congressional website, the resolution states: "If the government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defence against Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, the United States government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorise the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence."

Meanwhile, the Times of Israel has reported that Iran has tripled its nuclear weapon programme in the last three months.

US policy on Iran is not working

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:00:22 +0100

The failure this week of G5+1 negotiations with Iran in Almaty, Kazakhstan, raises the question of the viability of Western efforts to stop the Islamic Republic from getting a nuclear bomb.

On paper, the Western policy seems logical: negotiations with Iran coupled with hard sanctions and possible further sanctions. Given the tremendous imbalance in economic, military and political power between the two sides, this policy should be working.

But, it isn’t—and the question is why. First, it ignores the importance of nuclear weapons for an embattled Iranian regime with elections in June, the likely loss of its main Arab ally — Syria — in the next year and a shrinking economy. Obtaining nuclear weapons would make Iran the ninth member of the exclusive nuclear club, promote nationalist chauvinism, improve its status as a leader of the neutralist bloc, deter any American or Israeli attack and may allow it to dominate the Middle East.

Second, Iran, with $80 billion in hard currency reserves, the help of Russia and China — foreign countries profiteering by helping it to evade sanctions — and strong Shiite support in the Middle East, can, in all likelihood, survive the economic isolation.

Finally, Iran sees America as a declining power hampered at home by a broken Congress and a failing economy. It sees a US winding up its involvement in Middle East wars, abstaining from intervention in Syria and focusing on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Iran sees America showing weakness at this stage — the US dropped its demand for Iran to close down Fordow — before the game even gets interesting.

In fact, Iran believes the game is nearly over and it has won. Yet, all is not without hope. In 1987, the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to “drink from the poison chalice” and end the war with Iraq. And in 2003, when American troops occupied Baghdad, it slowed down its nuclear programme.

This does not necessarily mean an attack. Putting on more major naval exercises in the Persian Gulf — as the US has done — might well do the trick. Increasing economic pressure by seeking a total embargo of Iranian oil exports could provoke popular unrest. A no-fly zone over Syria and sending weapons to the secularists in Syria might also drive home the point.

All have the same goal: to show Iran the game is not over, that the West has overwhelming military and economic capabilities and the willingness to use them. At that point, as in earlier crises, Iran might well decide to postpone its nuclear ambitions.

If not, there are always other possible courses of action. Only time will tell how far Obama is willing to go to stop Iran — or whether he accepts it as a nuclear power in the next year or two.