NEWS,04.04.2012.

French anti-terror raids: security and protection, or electioneering?

Nicolas Sarkozy's opponents query the 'spectacle' of the raids and their timing in the wake of Mohamed Merah's killing spreeOnce again, France woke to news of a string of dawn raids against suspected Islamists across the country, from the old industrial heartlands of the north to Marseille on the southern coast. Days earlier, rolling TV-news and breakfast bulletins broadcast dramatic images as elite anti-terrorist squads in black body armour smashed windows and bashed down doors shouting "Police!", emerging with hand-cuffed suspects with their faces covered, on residential streets from Nantes to Toulouse.Less than three weeks before the first round of the presidential election, France is gripped by one of its biggest crackdowns on suspected radical Islamists in recent memory. Amplified by TV coverage, it has been led by an unrelenting Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also battling for re-election. Opposition politicians now openly question whether the timing and TV crews are as much linked to electioneering as anti-terrorist crime prevention.France is still in a state of shock and confusion after Mohamed Merah, a 23-year-old unemployed panelbeater from Toulouse, went on a 10-day killing spree across south-west France, executing three paratroopers and shooting children and a rabbi at the gates of a Jewish school. Following a dramatic 32-hour siege at his flat, Merah died in a hail of police bullets as he leapt from the balcony. But questions remain over how Merah  who claimed inspiration from al-Qaida, was heavily armed, on police intelligence files and had been under surveillance  was not picked up earlier and his attacks prevented. Some commentators warn that the new anti-terrorist crackdown, which included the deportation of a handful of preachers, should not be used as a smokescreen to distract from potential failings in the Merah operation.The right-wing Sarkozy had long ago seen his election strategy compared to that of his friend George W Bush's 2004 fight for re-election in the US: styling himself as the only trustworthy protector of the nation in the face of serious threat. A month ago, the danger was impending financial meltdown. Now, it is closer to Bush's own target: Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism. Sarkozy last week likened the Toulouse killings to France's 9/11. The scale of the attacks maybe different, he said, but the national "traumatism" was the same.The justice system will have the last word on the arrests, which were not directly linked to Merah. Preliminary charges have been filed against 13 alleged members of a banned fundamentalist group. An intelligence chief suggested militants were planning a kidnapping. The 10 arrested on Wednesday were suspected of links to Islamist websites and of threatening violence in online forums.But in an election more than ever determined by TV coverage, Sarkozy's opponents queried the "spectacle" of the raids and their timing in the wake of the Toulouse killings. "I'm not questioning all that's being done. I'm simply saying that we should have perhaps done more before," said François Hollande, the Socialist candidate. The government insists the arrests had nothing to do with the elections, but with the security and protection of France.The "Toulouse effect" on the presidential race has so far been limited. Crucially, it allowed Sarkozy, during a week of national mourning, to regain presidential stature. Before Toulouse, he had been heckled so badly on the campaign trail in the Basque country that he took refuge in a bar. Now, over 70% of French people approve his stance at the time of the Toulouse killings. His poll ratings have lifted giving him a narrow lead in the first-round, but Hollande remains ahead in the final 6 May run-off.Yet the shootings have not changed French voters' chief topics of concern: crippling unemployment and the difficulty making ends meet. Crime and terrorism remain low on their list. Indeed, many French people feel disappointed that the presidential debate isn't addressing their everyday worries, and abstentionism could be high. But the extreme-right Front National's Marine Le Pen has used Toulouse to hammer home her rhetoric on fears about Islam,terrorism, immigration and what she warned were fundamentalists festering on France's notorious suburban high-rise estates (even if the raids were often carried out on smart semi-detached houses). To win the election, Sarkozy knows he must court Le Pen's voters. Politicians and religious leaders, have warned against stigmatising French Muslims a long held fear following Sarkozy's recent Front National-inspired election crusade against halal meat.

 

Anna Chapman never got anywhere near seducing a member of US cabinet

Anna Chapman, the famously sultry Russian operative who was arrested in the US with nine others for espionage in 2010, was apparently "close to seducing a sitting member of President Barack Obama's cabinet."The reports were based on an interview that Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI's assistant director of counterintelligence, gave to the BBC in which he called the confessed spy a "honeytrap", adding: "She got close enough to disturb us."The story went viral.There's only one problem with it, though: it's not true in the slightest."It's a completely bogus story,"a defense department spokesman told. "They made a giant leap."Figliuzzi never mentions Chapman, 30, by name in the BBC video. And while he did say that one of the 10 operatives had gotten "close enough to a sitting US cabinet member" to "disturb" the agency, he wasn't talking about Chapman. Nor was he talking about seduction. The New York Daily News picked up the story under the drooling headline: "Sexy Russian spygal Anna Chapman got too close to President Obama's inner circle, FBI official tells BBC."heir article, which ran Wednesday, is maddeningly confusing.In the fourth paragraph, the Daily News reports: A high-ranking FBI official says Anna Chapman was busted in 2010 spy ring because flame-haired sexpot got too close to sitting President Obama cabinet member.But the sixth paragraph directly contradicts this: Flame-haired sexpot Anna Chapman was quickly fingered as the tight-bodied temptress by the British press  but the needle slowly moved in the direction of dowdy New Jersey housewife Cynthia Murphy, who was also taken down in the spy sting.It's not until the twelfth paragraph that the paper admits: Figliuzzi refused to reveal the cabinet member  or the female spy.But the "honey trap" may have actually been G-man speak for cold, hard cash  and the access it can gain with powerful people.So why headline it otherwise?It was ABC News that actually bothered to pick up a phone to call the FBI. The network reports that the spy Figliuzzi was referring to is, in fact, Cynthia Murphy. And by "getting too close" to an Obama cabinet member, he meant as a financial advisor to a Hillary Clinton fundraiser.The FBI, for its part, released a statement denying that Chapman attempted to seduce a cabinet member. Mr Figliuzzi's comments to BBC were consistent with and confined to the information outlined in the criminal complaint that was filed nearly two years ago. There is no allegation or suggestion in the complaint that Anna Chapman or anyone else associated with this investigation attempted to seduce a US cabinet officialChapman, of course, is a red-headed beauty who has since modeled in lingerie for Maxim and hosted a TV programme in Russia. She was ratings and Internet gold when her story broke in 2010  a femme fatale in the flesh. So it's perhaps somewhat understandable that the Telegraph and the Daily News would leap at the opportunity to splash her come-hither photograph on its pages without actually bothering to fact check their stories.

NEWS,29.02.2012.

North Korea agreed to stop nuclear testing

North Korea agreed today to stop nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and long-range missile launches, and to allow checks by nuclear inspectors, in an apparent policy shift that paves the way for resuming long-stalled disarmament talks. The surprise breakthrough, announced simultaneously by the United States State Department and North Korea's official news agency, makes possible the resumption of six-nation nuclear negotiations with Pyongyang. It followed talks between US and North Korean diplomats in Beijing last week. While analysts cautioned that Pyongyang has backtracked repeatedly on past deals, the moves by North Korea mark a sharp change in course, at least outwardly, by North Korea's reclusive leadership following the death in December of veteran leader Kim Jong-il.The State Department said that in return, the US was ready to go ahead with a proposed 240,000 metric-tonne food aid package requested by North Korea and that more aid could be agreed to based on continued need. Along with halting weapons activities, North Korea said it would allow nuclear inspectors from the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency to visit its Yongbyon nuclear complex to verify the moratorium on uranium enrichment has been enforced."The DPRK, upon request by the US and with a view to maintaining positive atmosphere for the DPRK-US high-level talks, agreed to a moratorium on nuclear tests, long-range missile launches, and uranium enrichment activity at Yongbyon and allow the IAEA to monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment while productive dialogues continue," North Korea's official KCNA news agency said. North Korea is known formally as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)."Today's announcement represents a modest first step in the right direction," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a Congressional panel, noting that Washington continued to have profound concerns over a range of North Korean activities. The IAEA, which withdrew its inspectors from North Korea in 2009, said it was ready to return, calling the moratorium deal "an important step forward.” South Korea and Japan both welcomed the announcement, with the Foreign Ministry in Seoul saying it could form the basis for a broader agreement on North Korea's nuclear program.” It is our assessment that the basis has been set for moving forward on our efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue in a comprehensive and fundamental manner," Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho Buyung-jae said in a statement. .As part of the deal, Washington reaffirmed that it did not have hostile intentions toward North Korea and was prepared to take steps to improve bilateral ties and increase people-to-people exchanges. The US decision to resume food aid was a gesture toward Pyongyang, which has sought international help to cope with chronic food shortages. The United States halted food aid to North Korea in 2009 amid a dispute over transparency and monitoring, compounding problems that have followed a crippling famine in the 1990s that killed an estimated one million people The surprise announcement was a step forward for Washington's campaign to rein in renegade nuclear programs around the world and comes as the Obama administration steps up pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions, which western governments fear are aimed at producing nuclear weapons. Analysts called the deal an important preliminary step and said the return of IAEA inspectors would give the international community an important window into North Korea's nuclear work.” This puts an element of control back on the North Koreans' nuclear development program as well as their existing capabilities that we have not had for almost four years," said Jack Pritchard, a former U.S. negotiator with North Korea who heads the Korea Economic Institute.

But Pritchard said he believed it was unlikely that Pyongyang's young and untested new leader Kim Jong-un was ready to comply with demands that he scrap the entire nuclear program.” How does a 28-year-old give up the only legitimate piece of leverage that he has in dealing with the superpowers to preserve the survivability of his regime? He's not going to do that," Pritchard said. The announcement followed talks between the US and with North Korea last week in Beijing, the first such meeting since Kim Jong-un succeeded his father as leader of the communist state two months ago. Bruce Klingner, a Korea analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the move did not necessarily represent any fundamental changes in Pyongyang, noting that the deal tracked a draft agreement that US diplomats were nearing at the time of Kim Jong-il's death.” This is the first step in a very long road," he said, saying it may simply provide the framework for additional meetings between the United States and North Korea to haggle over an agenda for any broader nuclear talks. North Korea agreed to curtail its nuclear activities under a an aid-for-denuclearization agreement reached in September 2005 by six-party talks bringing together North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.

NEWS,23.01.2012

Iran calls EU oil ban 'psychological warfare'

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton holds a news conference at the end of a European Union foreign ministers meeting in Brussels January 23, 2012 - Source: Reuters
Iran has accused Europeans of waging "psychological warfare" after the EU banned imports of Iranian oil, joining the United States in new sanctions aimed at preventing Tehran from getting nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic, which denies trying to build an atom bomb, scoffed at efforts to choke its oil exports, as Asia lines up to buy what Europe scorns. Some Iranians also renewed threats to stop Arab oil from leaving the Gulf and warned they might strike US targets worldwide if Washington used force to break any Iranian blockade of a strategically vital shipping route. Yet in three decades of confrontation between Tehran and the West, bellicose rhetoric and the undependable armoury of sanctions have become so familiar that the benchmark Brent crude oil price edged only 0.8% higher, and some of that was due to unrelated currency factors.” If any disruption happens regarding the sale of Iranian oil, the Strait of Hormuz will definitely be closed," Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, told Fars news agency a day after US, French and British warships sailed back into the Gulf."If America seeks adventures after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will make the world unsafe for Americans in the shortest possible time," Kossari added, referring to an earlier US pledge to use its fleet to keep the passage open.The United States, which imposed its own sanctions against Iran's oil trade and central bank on December 31, welcomed the EU move, as did Israel which has warned it might attack Iran if sanctions do not deflect Tehran from a course that some analysts argue could potentially give Iran a nuclear bomb next year.US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner: "This new, concerted pressure will sharpen the choice for Iran's leaders and increase their cost of defiance of basic international obligations."

Calls for talks

Germany, France and Britain used the EU sanctions as a cue for a joint call to Tehran to renew long-suspended negotiations on its nuclear programme. Russia, like China a powerful critic of the Western approach, said talks might soon be on the cards.Iran, however, said new sanctions made that less likely. It is a view shared by some in the West who caution that such tactics risk hardening Iranian support for a nuclear programme that also seems to be subject to a covert "war" of sabotage and assassinations widely blamed on Israeli and Western agents. European Union foreign ministers who agreed an anticipated ban on imports of Iranian crude at a meeting in Brussels were so anxious not to penalise the ailing economies of Greece, Italy and others to whom Iran is a major oil supplier that the EU embargo will not take full effect until July 1. And the strategy will be reviewed in May to see if it should go ahead.Curbing Iran's oil exports is a double-edged sword, as Tehran's own response to the embargo clearly showed.Loss of revenue is painful for a clerical establishment that faces an awkward electoral test at a time of galloping inflation which is hurting ordinary people. But since Iran's Western-allied Arab neighbours are struggling to raise their own output to compensate, the curbs on Tehran's exports have driven up oil prices and raised costs for recession-hit Western industries.A member of Iran's influential Assembly of Experts, former intelligence minister Ali Fallahian, said Tehran should respond to the delayed-action EU sanctions by stopping sales to the bloc immediately, denying the Europeans time to arrange alternative supplies and damaging their economies with higher oil prices."The best way is to stop exporting oil ourselves before the end of this six months and before the implementation of the plan," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted him as saying.

"Psychological warfare"

"European Union sanctions on Iranian oil is psychological warfare," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said. "Imposing economic sanctions is illogical and unfair but will not stop our nation from obtaining its rights.” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told the official IRNA news agency that the more sanctions were imposed on Tehran "the more obstacles there will be to solve the issue”. Iran’s oil ministry issued a statement saying the sanctions did not come as a shock. "The oil ministry has from long ago thought about it and has come up with measures to deal with any challenges," it said, according to IRNA.Mehmanparast said: "The European countries and those who are under American pressure, should think about their own interests. Any country that deprives itself from Iran's energy market, will soon see that it has been replaced by others.” China, Iran's biggest customer, has resisted US pressure to cut back its oil imports, as have other Asian economies to varying degrees. India's oil minister said today sanctions were forcing Iran to sell more cheaply and that India planned to take full advantage of that to buy as much as it could.The EU measures include an immediate ban on all new contracts to import, purchase or transport Iranian crude and petroleum products. However, EU countries with existing contracts can honour them up to July 1, and there will be a review of the plans before then.EU officials said they also agreed to freeze the assets of Iran's central bank and ban trade in gold and other precious metals with the bank and state bodies.EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said: "I want the pressure of these sanctions to result in negotiations.” I want to see Iran come back to the table and either pick up all the ideas that we left on the table ... last year ... or to come forward with its own ideas." Iran has said it is willing to hold talks with Western powers, though there have been mixed signals on whether conditions imposed by both sides make new negotiations likely.

IAEA Inspectors visit 

The Islamic Republic insists it is enriching uranium only to produce electricity and for other civilian uses. The start this month of a potentially bomb-proof - and once secret - enrichment plant has deepened scepticism abroad, however.The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed plans for a visit next week by senior inspectors to try and clear up questions raised about the purpose of Iran's nuclear activities. Tehran is banned by international treaty from developing nuclear weaponry."The Agency team is going to Iran in a constructive spirit, and we trust that Iran will work with us in that same spirit," IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said in a statement announcing the December 29-31 visit.Iran, whose 'great power' ambitions face a setback from the difficulties of its Arab ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has powerful defenders in the form of Russia, which has built Iran a reactor, and China. Both permanent UN Security Council members argue that Western sanctions are counter-productive.Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, classifying the EU embargo among "aggravating factors", said Moscow believed there was a good chance that talks between the six global powers and Iran could resume soon and that Russia would try to steer both Iran and the West away from further confrontation. His ministry issued an official statement expressing "regret and alarm": "What is happening here is open pressure and diktat, an attempt to 'punish' Iran for its intractable behaviour.” This is a deeply mistaken approach, as we have told our European partners more than once. Under such pressure Iran will not agree to any concessions or any changes in its policy."But that argument cuts no ice with the US administration, for which Iran - and Israel's stated willingness to consider unilateral military action against it - is a major challenge as President Barack Obama campaigns for re-election against Republican opponents who say he has been too soft on Tehran."We and the EU are looking at ways to increase the pressure on Iran not because we want to go to war, not because we are looking for a military resolution but because we are looking for a resolution that has been a problem for a decade," Ivo Daalder, the US ambassador to NATO said today in London.” We are ready at any time to sit down with them and have a serious conversation about how to resolve this issue through negotiations ... Let's just try to continue to go down this path. The alternatives are much more difficult."

NEWS,19.01.2012.

In signal to Israel, US delays war games

The postponement of a massive joint United States-Israeli military exercise appears to be the culmination of a series of events that has impelled the Barack Obama administration to put more distance between the United States and aggressive Israeli policies toward Iran.
The exercise called "Austere Challenge 12" and originally scheduled for April, was to have been a simulation of a joint US-Israeli effort to identify, track and intercept incoming missiles by integrating sophisticated US radar systems with the Israeli Arrow, Patriot and Iron Dome anti-missile defence systems. United States participation in such an exercise, obviously geared to a scenario involving an Iranian retaliation against an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities, would have made the US out to be a partner of Israel in any war that would follow an Israeli attack on Iran.

Obama and US military leaders apparently decided that the US could not participate in such an exercise so long as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to give the administration any assurance that he would not attack Iran without prior approval from Washington. The official explanation from both Israeli and US officials about the delay was that both sides agreed on it. Both Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Mark Regev, spokesman for Netanyahu, suggested that it was delayed to avoid further exacerbation of tensions in the Gulf. The spokesman for the US European Command, Captain John Ross, and Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told Laura Rozen of Yahoo News on Sunday that the two sides had decided on the postponement to the second half of 2012 without offering any specific reason for it. However, Rozen reported on Monday that "several current and former American officials" had told her on Sunday that the delay had been requested last month by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. One official suggested privately that there was concern that the alleged Barak request could be aimed at keeping Israel's options open for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in the spring. But it would make little sense for Netanyahu and Barak to commit Israel to war with Iran before the shape of the US presidential election campaign had become clear. And Barak would want to have knowledge gained from the joint exercise in tracking and intercepting Iranian missiles with the US military before planning such a strike. Moreover, the Israeli Air Force was still touting the planned manoeuvres as recently as Thursday and, according to Israeli media, was taken by surprise by Sunday's announcement. 

The idea that the Israelis wanted the postponement appears to be a cover story to mask the political blow it represents to the Netanyahu government and to shield Obama from Republican charges that he is not sufficiently supportive of Israel. Nevertheless, the signal sent by the delay to Netanyahu and Barak, reportedly the most aggressive advocates of a strike against Iran in Israel's right-wing government, could hardly be lost on the two leaders.
Obama may have conveyed the decision to Netanyahu during what is said to have been a lengthy telephone discussion between the two leaders on Thursday night. Iran policy was one of the subjects Obama discussed with him, according to the White House press release on the conversation. The decision to postpone the exercise may have been timed to provide a strong signal to Netanyahu in advance of this week's visit to Israel by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. Dempsey reportedly expressed grave concern at a meeting with Obama last autumn about the possibility that Israel intended to carry out a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities without consulting with Washington in advance.
Obama has been quoted as responding that he had "no say" in Israel's policy, much to Dempsey's dismay. The coincidence of the announced delay with Dempsey's mission thus suggests that the new military chief may inform his Israeli counterpart that any US participation in a joint exercise like "Austere Challenge 12" was contingent on Israel ending its implicit threat to launch an attack on Iran at a time of its own choosing.
This apparent rift between the two countries comes in the wake of a series of moves by Israel and its supporters here that appeared aimed at racketing up tensions between the US and Iran.
In November and December, US neo-conservatives aligned with Netanyahu's Likud Party and what is sometimes called the Israel lobby engineered legislation that forced on the Obama administration a unilateral sanctions law aimed at dramatically reducing Iranian crude oil exports and "collapsing" its economy. The administration's reluctant embrace of sanctions against the oil sector and the Iran's central bank led in turn to an Iranian threat to retaliate by closing off the Strait of Hormuz. The risk of a naval incident suddenly exploding into actual military conflict suddenly loomed large. Netanyahu and Barak are widely believed to have hoped to provoke such conflict with a combination of more aggressive sanctions, sabotaging Iranian missile and nuclear facilities, and assassinations against individual scientists associated with the nuclear program. Amid tensions already reaching dangerous heights, Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was assassinated in Tehran in a bombing on January 11. Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor immediately condemned the assassination and vehemently denied any US involvement in that or any other violence inside Iran. It was the first time the US government had chosen to distance itself so dramatically from actions that mainstream media has generally treated as part of a joint US-Israeli policy.United States officials told the Associated Press on Saturday that Israel was considered responsible for the killing, and the London Times published a detailed account of what it said was an Israeli Mossad operation. 

The killing of the nuclear scientist also came in the context of what appears to be an intensification of diplomatic activity that most observers believe is designed to lay the groundwork for another "Iran Six" meeting (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany). It has been widely assumed for the past week or so that here another "Iran Six" meeting would be held with Iran by the end of this month or early next.
While recent published stories about Washington's communicating with Tehran through intermediaries stressed US warnings about its "red lines" in responding to any Iranian move to close the Strait of Hormuz, those same communications may also have conveyed greater diplomatic flexibility on the nuclear issue in the hope of achieving some progress toward an agreement. Mossad is believed to have assassinated at most a handful of Iranian nuclear scientists - not enough to slow down the Iranian program. And the timing of those operations has strongly suggested that the main aim has been to increase tensions with the United States and sabotage any possibility for agreement between Iran and the West on Iran's nuclear program, if not actually provoke retaliation by Iran that could spark a wider conflict.  The assassination of nuclear scientist Majid Shariari and attempted assassination of his colleague, Fereydoon Abbasi on November 29, 2010, for example, came just a few days after Tehran had reportedly agreed to hold a second meeting with the "Iran Six" in Geneva on December 6-7. A major investigative story published on Friday on the website foreignpolicy.com quoted former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials as saying that Mossad operatives had been impersonating CIA personnel for several years in recruiting for and providing support to the Sunni terrorist organization Jundallah, which operated inside Iran. That Israeli policy also suggested a desire to provoke Iranian retaliation against the United States.