Category Archives: Iran

Iran, Israel, Middle East, Russia, Syria, United States

On the brink of a cataclysmic Middle East war?

MIDDLE EAST

Israel Iran

The Middle East is on the brink of a major conflagration. The situation is complex but Russia’s Vladimir Putin could play a significant role in calming tensions. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria has raised the stakes, precipitated some say by Donald Trump’s decision to reverse the 2015 nuclear agreement.

FOR much of 2018 so far, the world has been fixated by fears of nuclear Armageddon erupting in North Korea.

But over the last few days, alarming developments in the Middle East remind us of the even greater likelihood of conventional warfare on a cataclysmic scale in the region.

Now that its heavyweights – Israel and Iran – have traded blows for the very first time, we ignore that threat at our peril.

After 20 Iranian rockets were fired from Syria at military positions held by the Jewish state on the Golan Heights, Israel immediately responded by launching dozens of missiles at Iranian forces in Syria.

They hit a radar station, air defences and an ammunition dump – killing at least 23 people, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which is based in the UK.

Iran’s rockets – fired by the Quds Force, a wing of the Revolutionary Guards – either fell short of their targets or were knocked out by Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defence system. Whilst not all out war, these events certainly take us to the brink.

In the Middle East, two major conflicts have been simmering side by side for years – the Arabs versus the Israelis, and the Shi’ite Muslims against the Sunni Muslims.

Last week’s events seem about to drag them into convergence and into a gigantic and highly unstable flash point.

Iran, which is not an Arab nation, is the chief Shi’ite power. Since the revolution of 1979 which overthrew the pro-Western, modernising Shah and imposed the harsh religious rule of the Ayatollahs, it has been spreading radicalism. The regime detests the West, with America its biggest adversary followed by Britain.

Iraq is dominated by Shi’ites, as indeed is Lebanon after Hezbollah, the paramilitary party aligned to Iran and which loathes Israel, won this month’s general election.

The Ayatollahs in Iran back the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Surrounded by hostile pro-Western nations, Iran needs all the allies it can find to help protect its regional interests. Support for Syria also allows it to station forces far to the West of its own borders – closer to the Mediterranean, in fact, than it has been since the days of the Persian empire 1,400 years ago.

Those forces, as we are now seeing, are within an easy striking distance of Israel. But that’s only half the story. Tensions are also at breaking point between Shi’ite Iran and Saudi Arabia, the leading Sunni country. The two nations have been fighting a proxy war in Yemen, with the Iranian-backed forces enjoying most of the success.

However, it is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states which control a majority of the region’s colossal oil resources. Now, many hardliners in Tehran are saying that, with Iran’s superior military power, it could seize those oilfields if they wanted.

And the ultra-hardliners in Tehran, who are even more numerous, welcome that plan because it would inevitably bring America and its allies (including Britain) into a war they know we wouldn’t have the stomach to fight. With such immense conventional forces arrayed on both sides, Iranian military planners believe the result would, in all probability, be a stalemate. While Iran would be prepared to take hundreds of thousands of casualties, they are betting that the Western allies would not.

That, bizarrely, would be seen in the Middle East as a win for Iran. If America cannot overcome its enemy, its enemy is victorious. No matter how much Europe would want to stay out of another Gulf war, it’s naïve to imagine for one moment that it could do so. For one thing, the Americans would expect the support of Britain and NATO. For another, we are heavily dependent on the Middle East’s oil.

And Britain is already deeply involved, for economic reasons as far as Saudi is concerned, and for moral reasons when it comes to its long-term ally, Israel.

Small wonder, then, that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson argued so vehemently against President Donald Trump’s decision last week to tear up the 2015 agreement which reduced economic sanctions on Iran in return for a freeze on nuclear development.

The idea of provoking more conflict and giving Tehran an excuse to restart its experiments with enriched uranium, seems wilfully reckless.

 

TRUMP, though, has a rationale for his action. He argues that his aggressive tactics over North Korea has forced dictator Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table, and kickstarted a process which might even bring about the reunification of the two Koreas.

Absurd as it may seem, suggestions that he is a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize should not be dismissed lightly.

When President Obama began talks with Iran to persuade them to abandon their nuclear programme, much was made of an ‘Axis of Evil’ – a loose alliance of Iran, North Korea and other rogue states, intent on global mayhem.

But what Trump has proved in his face-off with ‘Little Rocket Man’ Kim is that Obama’s evil axis is an illusion. North Korea isn’t interested in Iran. Dictators don’t do solidarity.

Trump hopes that by reimposing sanctions, he will force the Ayatollahs back to the table – and this time they will agree not only to cancel their nuclear weapons programme but also to cut back their conventional military forces and to withdraw from Syria.

That’s the goal, but the difficulties with the plan are twofold. Firstly, with America ending the trade deal, in economic terms Iran has nothing left to lose.

In theory, it can still deal with Europe (which continues to support the 2015 deal): In practice, it can’t buy any items that rely on US digital technology, such as the Airbus plane it dearly desires, and it can’t borrow from international banks that have dealings with America (which means all international banks).

Secondly, Iran is not a one-man dictatorship. Power is shared between religious, political and military leaders, all of whom are competing to prove they are more hardline than the next, all of them convinced America isn’t prepared for a ground war fought to the last man.

It’s true that the US does not want to commit ground troops. Israel, too, is anxious to avoid fighting with tanks and assault rifles against an enemy with long experience of guerrilla warfare.

That’s why the Israeli response to Iran’s failed missile attack was so swift and emphatic. ‘If it rains on us, it will storm on them,’ warned Israel’s defence minister Avigdor Lieberman. Iran is promising to respond, though this does not necessarily mean an all-out missile attack. Reprisals could take the form of terrorist attacks, whether in the Middle East or further afield.

Whatever happens, we are closer to open war between Iran and Israel, with the Saudis and US potentially being drawn in from the start, than we have ever been.

Is there are chink of hope? Curiously, there is, and it comes from an improbable source. Russia, which has been so belligerent over Ukraine and Syria, does not want to see Iran dominate the Middle East where it now has significant interests.

So, President Vladimir Putin may hold the balance of power here. It’s worth remembering that the monstrous Russian dictator Josef Stalin was the West’s vital ally in World War II. Significantly, the Israeli PM was in Moscow to mark the Russian victory over the Nazis last Wednesday.

Strange as it may seem, because he can talk to all sides, Putin could be the leader who can avert a Third World War.

Overview of events: how Iran and Israel traded blows for the first time

1.      20 rockets were fired from Syria at Israeli positions in the Golan Heights on May 10, 2018.

. Four rockets were intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome aerial defence system, while 16 others fell short of their targets;

. No injuries or damage have been reported.

2.      Israeli fighter jets responded by striking 70 military targets belonging to Iran inside Syria, including:

. A logistics HQ belonging to the Quds (insignia right), the Iranian special forces; 

. A military compound in Kiswah, south of Damascus;

. A military compound north of Damascus; 

. Quds Force munition storage warehouses at Damascus International airport; 

. Intelligence systems and posts associated with the Quds Force;

. Observation and military posts and munitions in the Golan demilitarised zone;

. Syrian military air defence systems;

. 23 people were killed in the strikes, including five Syrian soldiers and 19 other allied fighters.

Appendage: 

Iran's presence in Syria

Mapping of Iran’s presence in Syria.

Standard
European Union, Government, Iran, Middle East, Society, United Nations, United States

Trump condemned as US withdraws from Iran nuclear deal

IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

Walking away: Donald Trump announcing that the US is withdrawing from the Iran deal.

DONALD TRUMP has faced global condemnation after the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement.

As the President inflamed tensions in the already volatile region, Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel said his decision had been met with “regret and concern”.

In a joint statement, the French, British and German leaders said “the world was a safer place” because of the deal and pledged to remain committed to it.

But Mr Trump said he was walking away from the 2015 pact in order to stop a “nuclear bomb” being acquired by the “world’s leading state sponsor of terror”.

Announcing “powerful” sanctions for Iran, he claimed failing to withdraw from the agreement would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

And he warned that, if Iran developed weapons, Tehran would have “bigger problems then it has ever had before.”

However, Iran’s president responded by saying that if negotiations failed over the nuclear deal, it would enrich uranium “more than before… in the next weeks”.

Mrs May, Mr Macron and Mrs Merkel – who each spoke to the President about the decision over the past few days – said they remained committed to the deal that was “important for our shared security”. They also urged Tehran “to show restraint in response” to the US decision.

In a much anticipated response from the White House, Mr Trump said: “If I allowed this deal to stand there would soon be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Everyone would want their weapons ready by the time Iran had theirs.

“We cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotting structure of the current agreement. The Iran deal is defective at its core.

“In just a short period of time the world’s leading state sponsor of terror would be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Under the agreement, Iran had agreed to limit nuclear activities in return for easing economic sanctions. Tehran claimed at the time it had pursued only nuclear energy rather than weapons.

But Mr Trump said that, since the deal, “Iran’s bloody ambitions have grown only more brazen” and the pact “didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will”.

The President, who had committed to scrapping the deal during his election campaign, pointed out that Iran had boosted its military expenditure, supported terrorism and “caused havoc” throughout the Middle East and beyond.

He said that he had spoken to France, Germany, Britain and friends across the Middle East who were “unified” in their conviction that Iran must never deliver nuclear weapons. He added: “America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail.

“The US no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises I keep them.”

However, the President said he would be open to a new deal in future. Mr Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, who signed the deal, said the “misguided” decision could even lead the US into war.

He said: “At a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away… risks losing a deal that accomplished – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

“We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region.”

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said there was a “short time” to negotiate with the countries remaining in the nuclear deal.

He told Iranian state media: “I have ordered Iran’s atomic organisation that wherever it is needed, we will start enriching uranium more than before.” The UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said he was deeply concerned by the US decision, while the EU’s diplomatic chief Federica Mogherini said Brussels was “determined” to preserve the deal.

Tensions were already heightened after Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu announced that his nations spies had stolen thousands of files on Iran’s nuclear programme. He also said Israel would rather face a confrontation with Iran “now than later”.

 

THE 2015 nuclear deal was signed by Iran, the US, Britain, Russia, France, China and Germany.

The agreement lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to its nuclear energy programme, which many feared would be used to make a nuclear weapon.

Under the deal, Iran agreed to slash enrichment levels of uranium to prevent it reaching “weapons grade” and by redesigning a heavy-water nuclear facility it had been building so it would no longer be capable of producing plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran also agreed not to engage in activities, including research and development, that it would need to develop a weapon.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted greater access and information to monitor Iran’s nuclear programme. It also had powers to investigate suspicious sites.

In return, the lifting of sanctions meant Iran gained access to more than $100billion in assets frozen overseas. It was also able to resume selling oil on international markets and use the global financial system for trade.

The agreement stated that any violation would lead to UN sanctions being put into place for ten years.

. See also Israel, Iran and the tinderbox of the Middle East

Standard
Iran, Israel, Middle East, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Israel, Iran and the tinderbox of the Middle East

ISRAEL-IRAN

Israel is prepared for a direct conflict with Iran if the threat of the regime’s terrorist proxies increases, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned.

TENSIONS between arch-enemies Israel and Iran have once again threatened to plunge the two countries into direct military conflict – one which could lead to a new and terrifying regional war.

Any escalation would drag in other regional major powers such as Saudi Arabia and the Lebanese-backed Shia militia Hezbollah. These proxies are aligned militarily with the Middle East’s two main opposing power brokers, the United States and Russia.

A ferocious Israeli missile strike on alleged Iranian military bases in Syria on Sunday reportedly killed dozens of soldiers. It is certainly true that Israel has launched more than 100 such strikes inside Syria since the bloody and brutal civil war broke out in that country seven years ago. Those strikes have targeted both Iranian and Hezbollah forces sent to the country to help prop up the regime of President Assad. The latest attacks are the most brazen and deadly yet.

Those attacks were then followed by a dramatic claim from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he has proof the mullahs in Tehran have secretly been developing nuclear weapons, in blatant contravention of an internationally brokered deal – secured by Barack Obama in 2015 – aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It saw the lifting of crippling economic sanctions on Iran, in return for strictly imposed limitations to the country’s controversial nuclear energy programme.

Mr Netanyahu accused Iran of having a secret plan called ‘Project Amad’, whose primary objective and aim is to produce five ten-kiloton nuclear weapons.

This unverified claim will have been music to the ears of Donald Trump and the anti-Iran hawks the President has surrounded himself with in the White House.

Even before this dramatically theatrical display from Israel, Mr Trump has appeared stubbornly determined to scrap the controversial nuclear deal, because he sees it as being fatally flawed. The deal is still strongly backed by Britain, the EU, Russia, China and the UN-sponsored watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). All remain adamant that inspections show Iran has and continues to abide by its principles.

During a visit to the White House last week, French president Emmanuel Macron similarly urged Mr Trump to stick to the agreement. This echoed earlier pleas by Theresa May and Angela Merkel.

But it is apt to ask whether Mr Trump is listening more closely to his old friend Mr Netanyahu?

What we do know is that, as the deadline nears for Mr Trump’s decision on whether to ratify the nuclear deal – due next month – unprecedented threats and counter-threats of death and destruction are being routinely hurled between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

In the past few weeks, each has promised to destroy the other’s major cities if threatened, raising fears that the proxy war they have been waging in Syria may soon explode into a direct military confrontation.

We should remember, too, that over the past few decades Mr Netanyahu has repeatedly, but erroneously, suggested that Iran is just months away from declaring it has developed a nuclear weapon. Still, it is easy to see why he is so paranoid. Since the revolution in 1979 brought the Shia Islam mullahs to power, the Tehran regime has proudly promoted the destruction of Israel as its top foreign policy objective.

Worse for Israel, the civil war in Syria has resulted in thousands of Iranian fighters joining thousands more militia men from Hezbollah, Iran’s main regional Shia ally, which has already fought numerous wars with Israel.

Their ostensible aim was to help Assad fight Islamic State and other Islamist rebel groups, but that brutal experience means they are now battle-hardened. They are armed to the hilt and firmly entrenched right on the Jewish state’s border.

 

UNTIL now, Russia – which is allied with Assad, Iran and Hezbollah, but which has warm relations with Israel – has played a delicate diplomatic balancing act, backing Israel’s enemies while turning a blind eye to the Jewish state attacks against them in Syria.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin recently signalled, however, that his patience with Mr Netanyahu had run out, and he has promised to deliver the advanced S-300 air defence missile system to Assad to help him defend against such aerial attacks. Israel responded by saying that any such system would be destroyed before it could become operational.

It is easy to see, then, why the price of oil is soaring on the back of Mr Netanyahu’s claims. It’s a sign that the international markets are concerned that supply will be disrupted by strife and conflict in the region.

The great fear for diplomats around the world is that, if Mr Trump does decide to withdraw from the nuclear deal and reimposes sanctions, Israel will launch unilateral air strikes against what it says are Iranian nuclear facilities. That would almost certainly provoke a devastating military response – not just from Tehran, but also its allies in Syria and Lebanon.

And if that does happen, it will take a massive effort of will to stop the US and Russia coming to the aid of their allies – at which point the risks of a global conflict will rise sharply. The tinderbox of the Middle East is once again threatening to drag two of the world’s great powers to the edge of the abyss.

How the UN sanctions were lifted in 2015

The 2015 nuclear deal was signed by Iran, Britain, the US, Russia, France, China and Germany.

It lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country’s nuclear energy programme.

Under the deal, Iran agreed to keep its uranium enrichment levels at no more than 3.67 per cent, down from almost 20 per cent. The country’s uranium stockpile was also to be kept at under 300kg (660lbs), which then US President Barack Obama said would see a reduction of 98 per cent.

Tehran also agreed to redesign a heavy-water nuclear facility it had been building that was capable of producing plutonium suitable for a nuclear bomb. In return, the lifting of UN sanctions meant Iran stood to gain access to more than $100billion in assets frozen overseas.

It was also able to resume selling oil on international markets.

But if the country violated any part of the deal, the sanctions would ‘snap back’ into place for ten years.

Appendage:

Iran Nuclear Deal

Standard