Panetta called the demonstrations “convulsions” related to the political tumult in a region that had cast off dictators for democracy. The protests, Panetta argued, were as unreflective of popular Middle Eastern opinion as “a Ku Klux Klan demonstration” in the United States.

‘A Whole New Era’
17 September, 2012 – Foreign Policy

FP Interview with Leon Paneta

In his Pentagon office last Friday evening, a smiling but tired-looking Leon Panetta drank a Sprite on ice and sat for an extensive interview with Foreign Policy, in which the defense secretary spoke publicly for the first time about last week’s remarkable, unexpected protests across the Middle East. Even as wall-to-wall media coverage showed angry young men scaling U.S. embassy walls, setting cars and buildings aflame, and hoisting al Qaeda’s black flag, Panetta called the demonstrations “convulsions” related to the political tumult in a region that had cast off dictators for democracy. The protests, Panetta argued, were as unreflective of popular Middle Eastern opinion as “a Ku Klux Klan demonstration” in the United States.

But the prospects for more unrest are widespread, Panetta acknowledged, saying the military was positioning forces to respond to as many as 18 sites of concern — far more than the two embassies in Libya and Yemen that 100 Marines have so far been hurriedly deployed to protect. Just a year ago, Panetta hailed the impending “strategic defeat” of al Qaeda; in the interview, he clarified to say he was talking about “the al Qaeda that attacked the United States of America on 9/11,” while its affiliate groups are in fact now growing in Yemen, Somalia, and across North Africa.

In a normal week, the top national security news would have been the public row between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Obama administration officials over whether to set “red lines” that would trigger military strikes to halt Iran’s nuclear program. But Panetta dismissed Netanyahu’s heated rhetoric, repeated on this weekend’s U.S. talk shows, about the need for such “red lines” in the effort to pressure Iran: “The fact is, look, presidents of the United States, prime ministers of Israel or any other country — leaders of these countries don’t have, you know, a bunch of little red lines that determine their decisions.”

On Afghanistan, where another deadly insider attack struck Helmand’s Camp Bastion on Friday, Panetta acknowledged that some of the toughest fighting is yet to come in the East, before security in the final sections of the country is handed over to Afghans by the end of 2014. As for whether the White House will leave a robust enough post-surge force for two more years of fighting, Panetta said, “My view is that the president of the United States will rely a great deal on the recommendations of General Allen as to what he needs to accomplish the mission.”

The next day, Panetta departed for Japan and China, where he said he expected to present himself as a mediator in the dispute that has once again heated up over islands that both nations claim. Interestingly, Panetta said that he had had a good intelligence relationship with China when he was CIA director, which gives him hope that he can continue to thaw relations between the Pentagon and the People’s Liberation Army. When asked if that meant that China was not America’s top geopolitical foe, Panetta coyly replied, “I’m not going to get into the Romney game.” …more THE INTERVIEW

Bahrain denies people “basic rights”: rights groups
18 September, 2012 – Al Akhbar

Bahrain has failed to fulfill promises of reform since last year’s brutal crackdown on the kingdom’s pro-democracy protests, denying even the basic rights to most of its people, the International Federation for Human Rights said Tuesday.

“Despite the King’s promises, the reforms remain widely insufficient,” the Paris-based FIDH, a group of human rights organizations, said in its latest report, “Silencing Dissent: A Policy of Systematic Repression.”

The report is based on more than a year of investigations into government behaviors and policies in the aftermath of the mass demonstrations that rocked the kingdom’s capital Manama in February 2011 which were later crushed by security forces.

King Hamad promised change in line with the recommendations of an independent commission of inquiry into his government’s bloody crackdown, but has been repeatedly accused by international rights groups of failing to fulfill the most significant reforms.

“While certain efforts have been made by Bahraini authorities to address many of the (the commission’s) recommendations, the report concludes that the government continues to deny a majority of Bahraini’s fundamental rights on a daily basis,” said FIDH President Souhayr Belhassen.

She further accused authorities of using “governmental structures to attack or control the population rather than protect it, creating an atmosphere of mistrust and fear among the population.”

The report said that about 80 people have been killed since the protests first broke out on February 14, 2011. At least 34 of them have died since the commission of inquiry released its findings last November.

To date, dozens of Bahraini rights activists and medics who treated injured protester remain in prison, some facing life sentences for their participation in protests against the hard line monarchy.

FIDH further called on the Bahraini authorities to release all current rights prisoners and “to support the establishment of an international monitoring mechanism to be set-up… to monitor the implementation of the recommendations” of the independent commission of inquiry.

Other international human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have also condemned the kingdom for its brutal crackdown and ruthless imprisonment of dissidents. …more

New BCHR Report: No Progress, No Peace
18 September, 2012 – Bahrina Center for Human Rights

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights is committed to documenting the ongoing human rights violations, and to provide a clear record of the violent and repressive conditions that characterize life for many of the people in Bahrain. This report is the third published by the BCHR in the wake of the initial BICI report, and covers the period from June 18th to September 16th, 2012.

The findings of this report are a clear indication that the authorities in Bahrain due to the lack of international consequences have no incentive to stop the human rights violations. Broader and more decisive international influence must be leverged against the regime if meaningful change is to be realized for the people of Bahrain. …source

See full BCHR Report HERE

No to War with Iran
By Adil E. Shamoo – 18 September, 2012 – FPIF

Israel and the United States have waged a campaign of cyberwarfare and covert operations against Iran for the past several years. If Iran had taken similar actions toward Israel or the United States, we would have considered it a declaration of open war.

Iran is working hard to develop nuclear capability—if not an actual weapon—despite its repeated denials. After all, Iran is surrounded by the U.S. military might, and its primary regional rival—Israel—has possessed a sizable nuclear arsenal for decades. Nuclear proliferation is never desirable, but for Iran it could fit with a perfectly rational strategic calculus.

Recent U.S. and Israeli wars in the region drive this point home emphatically. In fact, these conflicts—variously pitting the strongest military in the world and the strongest in the Middle East against a host of weaker rivals—cannot rightly be called wars. They are massacres. The kill ratio of the powerful versus the weak fluctuates from 10 to 1 to over one 100 to 1. Take the most glaring example, the 2008-2009 Israeli invasion of Gaza. Gazans suffered 1,500 deaths and 5,000 wounded compared to just 12 Israeli deaths.

Elsewhere, Americans were coerced into war with Iraq by the myth of a mushroom cloud and the farcical notion of eliminating terrorists in Afghanistan. These manufactured reasons for war increased anti-American hatred and strengthened the terrorists’ reach.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has changed the conversation in the past year or so from U.N. sanctions against Iran to war with Iran. He wants a deadline for Iran’s noncompliance in stopping any uranium enrichment for any purpose—a violation of Iran’s rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which permits peaceful enrichment. If the election-season statements of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are any indication, Netanyahu has succeeded in changing the U.S. conversation on Iran as well to put military action on the front burner.

Netanyahu is still not satisfied and wants military action now, not eventually. Netanyahu surrogate Danny Danon, Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, is using the recent senseless killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya and the demonstrations in Cairo against a film insulting the prophet Muhammad as another reason why we should attack Iran. This is what my Jewish friends call chutzpah.

Given the threats to regional peace posed by U.S.-Israeli dominance in the Middle East, some scholars have even suggested that a stronger Iran could preserve stability in the region by counterbalancing the aggressive Washington-Tel Aviv axis. …more

Bahrain, UAE probe suspicious shipments headed to Iran
18 Septemebr, 2012 – By Louis Charbonneau – Reuters

UNITED NATIONS: Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have confiscated a number of items Iran may have sought for its nuclear program, a development that diplomats said showed how enforcement of U.N . sanctions against Tehran is steadily improving.

One of the items heading to Iran but confiscated by Bahrain was carbon fiber, the diplomats told Reuters, a dual-use material U.N. experts have said would be crucial if Iran was to develop more advanced nuclear enrichment centrifuge technology.

Bahrain’s and UAE’s confidential reports to the U.N. Security Council’s Iran sanctions committee are politically significant, envoys said on condition of anonymity, since they highlight how more and more states are enforcing the sanctions and making it increasingly difficult for Tehran to flout them.

“The fact that these two countries are now taking steps to enforce the sanctions and reporting those steps to the U.N. is remarkable by itself,” a senior Security Council diplomat told Reuters. “It shows that the U.N. sanctions regime can work. UAE has been one of Iran’s enablers. Iran’s becoming more isolated.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Tehran was close to being able to build a nuclear bomb, and U.S. President Barack Obama is under pressure ahead of November’s election from political opponents who argue that sanctions are not doing enough to stop Iran building a bomb.

The emirate Dubai has long been one of Iran’s main transit hubs because of its busy port and position as a key financial center. Th e Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think-tank wrote in July 2011 th at Dubai was “a top source of Iranian imports and a key transshipment point for goods – legal and illegal – destined for the Islamic Republic.”

But pressure from the United States and other Western powers to crack down on Iranian sanctions violations has borne some fruit in the form of redoubled efforts to enforce the sanctions and report to the sanctions committee, Western envoys say.

The Security Council imposed four rounds of U.N. sanctions on Tehran between 2006 and 2010 to punish it for defying Security Council demands that it suspend uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear activities.

Tehran rejects charges it is developing the capability to produce atomic weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is intended solely for the peaceful production of electricity.

UAE officials insist that the country’s policy has always been to fully abide by U.N. regulations and cooperate with the sanctions committee. A UAE official who declined to be identified played down the reports to the Iran committee.

“All incidents were reported at the time when they happened, and there has been no incident in more than a year,” the official told Reuters. He did not comment further.

Bahrain’s mission to the United Nations in New York did not reply to a request for comment, and officials in Bahrain were not immediately available to comment.

CARBON FIBER

Bahrain has become increasingly annoyed with what it says are attempts by Iran to undermine its government. The Sunni-led island, along with fellow Gulf Arab countries, have accused Shi ‘ite-led Iran of being behind the unrest in the region. Tehran denies fomenting problems in Bahrain.

U.N. diplomats say that some countries could also do more to enforce the sanctions. They say it is important for China, Russia, India, Turkey and others to counter Iranian attempts to use their territory to circumvent international sanctions.

The UAE reported to the council’s Iran sanctions committee that it had made some 15 interceptions of suspicious items bound for Iran over the last three years, diplomats said.

“Some of those items have been cleared as OK but some remain under investigation,” a U.N. diplomatic source told Reuters.

Diplomats said that reports from the UAE, Bahrain and other countries would likely be mentioned in a briefing later this week for the 15-nation council by Colombia’s U.N. envoy Nestor Osorio, who chairs the Iran sanctions committee.

Osorio’s report was expected to leave out the names of the countries that submitted reports to the committee in keeping with council tradition on such delicate matters, envoys said.

In some cases, the UAE returned seized items to the original shipping countries, diplomats said. Among the firms involved in the procurement efforts the UAE uncovered was Kalaye Electric Co. in Tehran, the former center of Iran’s enrichment centrifuge research and development program, envoys said.

…more

Libyan brigade warns of “inferno” if U.S. intervenes
18 September, 2012 – By Suleiman al-Khalidi – Reuters

BENGHAZI, Libya: A Libyan Salafi group which has denied it was involved in a deadly assault on the American consulate in Benghazi said on Tuesday Libya would turn into “an inferno for U.S. troops” if the U.S. military retaliated.

Yousef Jehani, a senior member of Ansar al-Sharia, told Reuters that the armed group, which espouses an austere form of Islam, wanted to avoid confrontation but was ready for a showdown if Washington acted “foolishly”.

Any U.S. military intervention could push Libyans to wage a holy war, or “jihad”, to defend their nation, said Jehani, whose group is a powerful force in Benghazi, a stronghold for Islamists and cradle of the revolution which toppled Muammar Gaddafi last year.

“If one U.S. soldier arrives, not for the purpose of defending the embassy, but to repeat what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan, be sure that all battalions in Libya and all Libyans will put aside all their differences and rally behind one goal of hitting America and Americans,” Jehani said.

The consulate attack was part of wider anti-American protests that erupted across the Middle East over an obscure, amateurish U.S.-made video that insulted the Prophet Mohammad.

Libya closed its air space over Benghazi airport temporarily due to heavy anti-aircraft fire by Islamists aiming at U.S. reconnaissance drones flying over the city, days after the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died in the attack.

The closure of the airport prompted speculation that the United States was deploying special forces in preparation for an attack against the assailants of the consulate. Two U.S. warships headed for the coast off Libya.

DRONES OVER BENGHAZI

A Libyan official said the spy planes flew over the embassy compound and the city, where Ansar al-Sharia controls a major security compound and a hospital, taking photos and inspecting locations of radical militant groups suspected of planning and staging the attack on the U.S. consulate.

Jehani said senior commanders within pro-government paramilitary units had exonerated Ansar al-Sharia and none of its members was among 50 people the Libyan authorities had identified as having been involved in the attack.

“We are against the killing of the ambassador as he has not committed a crime to be killed for but if America uses this as an excuse, Libya will be an inferno for U.S. troops,” Jehani said, adding that his group was “highly” prepared.

Although no group has claimed responsibility for the attack, some Libyan officials and foreign analysts have pointed the finger at the Salafi group.

Ansar al-Sharia is part of a wider Salafi movement whose members try to model their lives on the early followers of the Prophet Mohammad. Not all Salafis, however, embrace the violent militancy of groups such as al Qaeda that have a similar purist vision of Islam.

Ansar al-Sharia, which incurred persecution for opposing Gaddafi’s rule, has been accused by pro-government paramilitary units of involvement in several violent incidents in Libya’s second city in recent months. The eastern city harbours deep grievances over western Libya’s control of oil pumped from the east.

A year after the end of Gaddafi’s four decades of one-man rule, when many state institutions withered, armed militias spawned by the revolution still provide what passes for official security – when they are not threatening it.

Libya’s new leaders, backed by their Western allies, have been gambling they can forge a political consensus which will seize power back from the heavily-armed revolutionaries in the streets before rivalries spin irretrievably out of control.
…more

The “Secret” Revolution That Could Set the Middle East Aflame
by Nick Turse – 18 September, 2012 – TomDispatch

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was unequivocal in her condemnation. “We have confronted the Russians about stopping their continued arms shipments to Syria,” she said in remarks earlier this year. “They have, from time to time, said that we shouldn’t worry; everything they’re shipping is unrelated to their actions internally. That’s patently untrue.”

Earlier this year, armored vehicles patrolled the streets after Bahrain’s security forces battled protesters on the first anniversary of the 2011 uprising. Next year, thanks to the Obama administration, they may have brand new American Humvees on hand for the crackdown. Nick Turse

Terror and Teargas on the Streets of Bahrain
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (in the U.S. at Least)
by Jen Marlowe – 18 September, 2012 – TomDispatch

Jihan Kazerooni and I drove past scores of armed riot police on Budaiya highway as her iPhone buzzed non-stop: phone calls, Skype calls and, incessantly, Twitter. I had wondered what the phrase “Twitter revolution” really meant when I heard it used in connection with Iran in 2009 and Egypt in 2011. Here, in the small Gulf Kingdom of Bahrain, I was beginning to grasp the concept.

I was in that country for three weeks as a part of the Witness Bahrain initiative, a group of internationals seeking to document and expose human rights abuses perpetrated by the regime against protesters and activists. Aside from brief spurts of coverage, the crisis in Bahrain had largely been ignored by the U.S. media.

Perhaps the lack of coverage of the predominantly Shi’a uprising against an increasingly repressive Sunni monarchy can be explained, in part, by this: Washington considers that monarchy its close ally; Bahrain is the home of the Navy’s 5th Fleet, and the beneficiary of U.S. arms sales. Perhaps it has to do with the U.S.-Saudi friendship, and the increasing tension between the U.S. and Iran. Bahrain has been portrayed as a battleground for influence between neighboring Saudi Arabia (a supporter of the monarchy) and nearby majority Shi’a Iran.

Ignoring the revolution underway there and its demands for freedom and democracy is, however, perilous. If activists move from largely peaceful demonstrations toward the use of violence, Bahrain could prove the powder keg that might set the Persian Gulf aflame. Peaceful activists like Jihan currently hold sway, but given the brutality I witnessed, it’s unclear how long the Bahraini revolution will remain nonviolent.

Jihan took me under her wing, introducing me to dozens of Bahrainis who had been directly affected by the regime’s crackdown on the pro-democracy uprising. They were not difficult to find. There was someone in nearly every Shi’a family, Jihan’s included, who had been fired from his or her job, arrested, injured, or killed. Sunni opposition activists (though much fewer in number) had been harshly targeted as well.

Hitting the Road

Jihan, her hair tucked underneath a brown silk scarf and wearing fashionable sunglasses, opened an app on her phone as we tried to reach the march that had been called by a coalition of opposition parties.

“I’ll tweet that I am here in Budaiya Road, and there are no checkpoints in the area, but there are lots of riot police.” A new tweet came through before Jihan could finish composing hers. She scanned it quickly as she skillfully guided her car around a traffic circle. “Okay. The attack started,” she said. “It’s just at the next roundabout. We might be able to see it from the car.” Jihan rolled down the window. “Can you smell the tear gas?” she asked, began coughing, and immediately rolled her window up again.

As we continued our drive, grey clouds of tear gas billowed up from village after village, Jihan constantly checking her Twitter feed and rattling off the names of areas currently under assault: “A protest in Dair has been attacked and in Tashan as well. A’ali, also the same. Now they are attacking the women in the north of Bilad.”

New tweets buzzed. “Lots of injuries, actually, a woman has been injured, I’ll show you the picture…” She turned her phone my way, allowing me to glimpse a photograph of a bloody limb. “It’s her arm,” Jihan said, telling me that she suspected the injury was from “a sound bomb or a tear gas canister.”

The Evolution of an Activist

Jihan had not started out as an activist. She had been an investment banker, shopping in Bahrain’s high-end malls and socializing with friends. Demonstrations erupted at the Pearl Roundabout — with its imposing 300-foot monument of six arches holding a pearl aloft — in the capital city, Manama, on February 14, 2011, and only grew larger by the day as casualties and fatalities mounted. Still, she did not participate.

She had been largely ignorant of the protesters’ complaints: the same prime minister had governed for 42 years; the majority Shi’a community faced discrimination from the ruling Sunnis, evidenced most clearly by the fact that they couldn’t join the country’s military or its police. Instead, the government was importing foreigners from Pakistan, Yemen, Jordan, and Syria, among other countries, to fill the ranks of the security services, often offering them Bahraini citizenship (which also threatened to alter Sunni-Shi’a demographics). The royal family had taken large swathes of public land for private benefit.

Jihan instead believed the version of the uprising being offered on state-controlled television. In that narrative, the protesters were not peaceful, but armed and dangerous. They had, the government claimed, stolen blood-bags from the hospital and were pouring that blood on themselves to feign injuries for the media. Force was being applied by the regime rarely and only when it was absolutely necessary to disperse those demonstrating. Government spokespeople claimed Shi’a doctors at Salmaniya Hospital were taking patients and co-workers hostage.

On the morning of March 13th, Jihan received a few text messages on her way to her office, appealing for people’s presence at the Pearl Roundabout because government forces were attacking. She decided to go and see for herself what was taking place.

What she saw shook her to the core: unarmed protesters — women and children among them — chanting for democracy, freedom, and equality as riot police fired bullets, birdshot, and tear gas canisters directly into the crowd. Jihan stood to the side, crying, as women around her wailed and read aloud from Qur’an. …more

Washington’s Double Standard
Ted Galen Carpenter – 18 September, 2012 – National Interest

Washington’s reaction to the surge of antiregime movements in North Africa and the Middle East has varied markedly. U.S. leaders did not hesitate to back so-called prodemocracy movements in countries that are adversaries of the United States. Both the Obama administration and Congress issued blistering condemnations of the dictatorial regimes in Iran, Libya and Syria for thwarting the democratic aspirations of their people and brutally suppressing peaceful (and many not-so-peaceful) demonstrations. In the case of Libya, the United States and its NATO allies went beyond verbal support for the insurgents to launch air strikes and provide other crucial assistance to help overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi. A similar course is increasingly likely with respect to Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The U.S. response to movements that targeted dictatorships friendly to the United States has been quite different. Washington dithered about whether to withdraw its support from clients in such places as Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt. Similar reluctance is evident with respect to the simmering conflict in Bahrain. Charges of U.S. hypocrisy are mounting as the Sunni ruling family intensifies its repression of mostly Shia political opponents. The Bahraini government is fast becoming a major embarrassment and potential geopolitical headache for the United States. That is not a minor consideration, since Bahrain is the home port of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet.

Bahrain is perfectly situated to be a pawn in the Sunni-Shia struggle for dominance in the Middle East. The Sunni monarchy of the small island nation in the Persian Gulf rules a population that is nearly 70 percent Shiites, and stark discrimination against the latter is evident in nearly every aspect of life. Tehran openly backs Shia factions in Bahrain, while Saudi Arabia is Bahraini king Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa’s primary patron.

When massive antiregime demonstrations erupted in Bahrain’s capital, Manama, in early 2011, government security forces responded with volleys of live ammunition, killing several dozen demonstrators. Despite that crackdown, insurgents might well have toppled the monarchy if Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies had not intervened with two thousand troops in March 2011.

The Obama administration’s tepid response was in marked contrast to the vitriolic condemnation of similar crackdowns in Iran, Syria and Libya. The number of dead during the initial demonstrations in Bahrain and throughout the following months was relatively modest; estimates range from sixty to one hundred. But Bahrain’s population is very small—some 1,235,000 people. On a per capita basis, the fatalities were comparable to or greater than those in other Mideast countries. Moreover, the number of dead is not the only measure of the monarchy’s brutality. Bahrain’s security forces have jailed hundreds of regime opponents—including both domestic and foreign journalists who dared produce accounts critical of the government. Amnesty International and other human-rights organizations also have documented numerous instances of torture.

Yet Washington’s response to the crackdown and even the Saudi-led intervention has been extremely mild. The administration’s official statement did not even specifically criticize Saudi Arabia for sending troops. Instead, the State Department criticized intervention by the kingdom’s “neighbors” (apparently meaning both Iran and Saudi Arabia) as “alarming” and cautioned all players in the region to keep “their own agendas” out of the struggle between the monarchy and its opponents. Such U.S. evenhandedness also applied to the domestic struggle itself. While cautioning the Bahraini monarchy that a security crackdown was not an answer to demands for political and economic reform, the State Department also admonished the opposition “you cannot use violence. You should return to the negotiating table.”

Such a posture of moral equivalence was strikingly different from the U.S. stance toward the turmoil in Iran, Syria and Libya. That double standard became even more apparent in May 2012, when despite continuing credible reports of arbitrary imprisonment and torture of regime opponents, Washington announced the resumption of arms sales to the Bahraini government. Michael Hayworth, a spokesman for Amnesty International, stated that “the suggestion by the U.S. that attempts at reform are happening is insulting to Bahraini activists who continue to call and bleed for human rights.”…more

Netanyahu too partisan on U.S. poll, warn Israeli critics
18 September, 2012 – By Charly Wegman – Agence France Presse

JERUSALEM: Israeli critics are warning that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone too far in what they call his “meddling” in favour of Republican candidate Mitt Romney in the US presidential campaign.

“Will Barack Obama punish Israel, if he is reelected on November 6,” the Yediot Aharonot daily asked.

Like other media, the top-selling tabloid says that Netanyahu has become “Obama’s opponent” and has broken a taboo by seeking to weaken the incumbent Democrat, rather than observing neutrality.

Netanyahu “interfered, grossly, vulgarly and unreservedly in the campaign” accused the left-leaning daily Haaretz.

“Who do you fear more — (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad or Obama? Which regime is more important to overthrow — the one in Washington, or in Tehran,” opposition leader Shaul Mofaz taunted Netanyahu in a parliamentary debate last week.

“That’s nonsense,” Netanyahu told Israeli media, in interview published ahead of this week’s Rosh Hashana Jewish New Year holiday, saying he would continue to demand the United States set clear “red lines” that Iran would not be permitted to cross in its nuclear programme.

Obama does not want to lock the US into such an ultimatum and says there is still time for diplomacy and international sanctions to quash what he and Israel say are Iran’s nuclear arms plans.

Netanyahu says time is fast running out and has warned of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites, despite opposition from friendly countries such as the United States, Germany, Britain or France.

“The issue that guides me is not the elections in the United States but the centrifuges in Iran,” he has said.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak is distancing himself from such public washing of dirty linen, saying that such “differences” should be confined to closed-door meetings.

For most analysts, beyond his bellicose rhetoric, Netanyahu, known to friend and foe alike by his nickname “Bibi”, wants to wring as many concessions as possible from Obama before the election, hoping to play on Israel’s support among Jewish, and many conservative Christian, voters.

Any loss of the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote could be crucial if the race is as close as that when George W. Bush won by a wafer-thin margin in 2000 against the Democrat Al Gore.

…more

Netanyahu Squandering Israel’s “Rationality” Advantage Over Iran
By Russ Wellen – 18 September, 2012 – FPIF

On Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s personal tachometer of war, the needle is always at the red line.

Widespread in Washington is an assumption as implicit as it is unexamined that the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, even though it hasn’t signed the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), is acceptable because:

1. It’s an ally.
2. It’s “rational.”

Bear in mind that Iran is a signatory to the NPT and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors prowl Iran 24/7 365 days a year.*

But Israel, or to be more exact, Prime Minister Netanyahu, seems to be doing everything within his power to disabuse us of the notion that Israel is either an ally or rational. Netanyahu, constantly monitoring his personal tachometer of war, keeps watching for the needle to approach the red line. His latest impolitic outburst occurred on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sunday, July 16. Among other things he said:

Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East, stabilize the Middle East. I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity.”

Of course, proliferation is never a good idea. But Netanyahu’s language became more and more un-prime-minister-like as the show proceeded. Speaking of Iran’s leadership, he said:

They put their zealotry above their survival. They have suicide bombers all over the place. I wouldn’t rely on their rationality, you know, you– since the advent of nuclear weapons, you had countries that had access to nuclear weapons who always made a careful calculation of cost and benefit. But Iran is guided by a leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism. It’s the same fanaticism that you see storming your embassies today. You want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?

Netanyahu is propagating two myths:

1. Netanyahu is implying that any belief in the return of the Mahdi on the part of Iran’s leadership means that, like Christian millennialists, it courts the Apocalypse.
2. That those attacking American embassies — Sunni extremists at their worst, as in Benghazi — have much in common with Shiite Iran.

Meanwhile, Washington, too, seems incapable of putting itself in Tehran’s shoes. How, Tehran no doubt wonders, does a state like Israel get away with not only not refusing to sign the NPT, but enlisting the help of the entire West in upholding the pretense that it’s not in possession of a nuclear-weapons program?

The jury may still be out on whether disarmament initiatives by states with nuclear-weapons spurs states that aspire to a nuclear-weapons program to give up that dream. But, in a just world, Israel needs to give the world the opportunity to learn what the impact of signing the NPT and allowing IAEA inspectors into its own country would have on Iran before considering an attack. Of course, the evidence that Iran is developing nuclear-weapons or the capability to manufacture is little more — if that — than circumstantial thus far. But nuclear transparency on the part of Israel would likely induce concessions on enrichment from Iran. Of perforce, the temperature of Netanyahu’s war fever would be lowered and the dial on his war tachometer would recede safely into the black.

*Which, incidentally, place them in harm’s way in the event of an attack by Israel. Alternately, if pulled out, Iran knows an attack is forthcoming and Israel loses the element of surprise.
…source

Ambassador Stevens helped cultivate fertile ground for recruiting Mercenaries to fight against the Assad’s regime in Syria. In the end blow-back from reckless CIA operations like his was his undoing… Phlipn

Libya convenes militias to take action against US ambassador’s killers
By Richard Spencer – 18 September, 2012 – The Telegraph

The new prime mininster, Mustafa Abushagur, and acting president, Mohammed Magarief, are understood to have called the meeting in response to pressure from President Barack Obama to take action.

The meeting will consider to what extent the attack was the work of local Islamist extremists, and how much it was co-ordinated with the “foreign elements” identified by Mr Magarief in interviews over the weekend, particularly members of Al-Qaeda from other parts of North Africa.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, the North African branch of what is now often called a terrorist franchise, praised the killing of Chris Stevens at the consulate in Benghazi last Tuesday as “the best gift” and called for more American officials to die.

“We encourage all Muslims to continue to demonstrate and escalate their protests and to kill their (American) ambassadors and representatives or to expel them to cleanse our land from their wickedness,” it said.

The government and Benghazi leaders deny claims that the militias who run security in Benghazi are too fractured to seize the Islamist militants believed responsible for the attack.

“We have a better idea who was responsible, and we are now waiting for a government plan,” said Mohammed al-Gharabi, a leader with the Union of Revolutionary Committees which run security in Benghazi.

He said he was flying to Tripoli this morning for the meeting with the government, along with Fawzi Bukatif, the former deputy defence minister who is senior commander of the Union.

General Yousef Mangoush, the nominal head of the army in Benghazi, is also thought to be in Tripoli.

There has been no direct claim of responsibility for the killing from inside or outside Libya, and US officials are still saying that it was the result of a protest that either got out of hand or was hijacked by extremists.

But there is increasing evidence that it was a co-ordinated assault that had been planned in advance.

On Monday, a security guard wounded in the attack told The Daily Telegraph that there had been no demonstration before hand but the attack had come out of the blue. He said there was a single warning shot, and then hand grenades were lobbed over the wall, accompanied by heavy shooting from automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

He said more than 30 men managed to charge the gates. “They were shouting, ‘Kill the bastards’,” he said, adding there were no religious or protest slogans.

He said they saw him and identified him as a Libyan defender of the consulate. “They said, ‘Kill the dog!'” Many different accounts have emerged from the chaos of the attack last Tuesday. Among those that now appear not to be true is the claim that the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was dead when he was found in a secure room.

Video posted online yesterday appeared to show a group of civilians finding him and declaring he was still alive. “Allahu akbar,” they shout as one man declares he is breathing.

…more