Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘iran’

Mossad Agents Pose as CIA to Recruit Iranian Terror Agents

Friday, January 13th, 2012
jundallah leader rigi

Jundallah leader Abdolmalek Riggi attended meeting in Morocco he believed was with NATO officials, who were either CIA, or more probably Mossad agents

Foreign Policy’s Mark Perry reports the astonishing story that Mossad agents posing as CIA operatives recruited Iranian Sunni dissidents affiliated with Jundallah to engage in acts of terror inside Iran

Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives — what is commonly referred to as a “false flag” operation.

…The [CIA] memos also detail…field reports saying that Israel’s recruiting activities occurred under the nose of U.S. intelligence officers, most notably in London, the capital of one of Israel’s ostensible allies, where Mossad officers posing as CIA operatives met with Jundallah officials.

…They were stunned by the brazenness of the Mossad’s efforts.

“It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with,” the intelligence officer said. “Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn what we thought.”

I’ve been reporting for some time that the Mossad has been doing this with the MEK, which has assassinated Iranian scientists and bombed Iranian missile bases. Le Figaro also wrote that Israeli intelligence recruited Iranian Kurds inside Iraqi Kurdistan to engage in sabotage within Iran. Now, Perry’s story confirms an Israeli anti-Iran terror Trifecta.

I published a post here some time ago based on a Wikileaks cable in which Meir Dagan confirmed to Nicholas Burns the broad outlines of the above plan. The Israelis operate under the mistaken impression that by playing on the natural internal dissension among ethnic groups inside that country that it can subvert both Iranian stability and the current regime.

This is similar to the CIA’s tactics throughout the 1960s and later in Cuba, by which we tried mightily to bring down Castro through invasion, assassination attempts, and airline bombings. You can see how well that turned out.

I think it can and should be argued that such outside intervention by nations already viewed by the native population as hostile to their country’s interests, only serve to reinforce internal cohesion. They rally citizens around a repressive regime by focussing fear and paranoia on an external enemy. This is why it would a terrible idea for the U.S. to be seen to intervene publicly on behalf of the Iranian Green Movement and why the current black ops war against Iran fueled by both the U.S. (indirectly, see Stuxnet) is an even worse idea. It’s a typically ham-handed operation displaying all the subtlety of a jack hammer on a New York street.

I haven’t even begun to talk about the outrageous abuse of the U.S.-Israel alliance in this Jundallah operation. The Israelis had to adopt a false flag identity because they’re hated in the Arab world even more than Americans. So Israel likely recruited Israeli-Americans or native Israelis with excellent language skills in American English to pose as CIA agents. As an American-Jew, this aspect of the operation makes my blood boil. Americans in Israel already have a reputation of being settler hardliners, if not outright Jewish terrorists. Do we need to become known as well for betraying our American roots by becoming fake CIA spies in the Arab world?

What particularly upset the CIA operatives who discovered this Mossad dirty game was that the Israelis essentially didn’t care. They pursued their own interests without any sense that they needed to have any concern for the betrayal our own national interest:

“The report sparked White House concerns that Israel’s program was putting Americans at risk,” the intelligence officer told me. “There’s no question that the U.S. has cooperated with Israel in intelligence-gathering operations against the Iranians, but this was different. No matter what anyone thinks, we’re not in the business of assassinating Iranian officials or killing Iranian civilians.”

…[Under] Obama…U.S. intelligence services have received clearance to cooperate with Israel on a number of classified intelligence-gathering operations focused on Iran’s nuclear program, according to a currently serving officer. These operations are highly technical in nature and do not involve covert actions targeting Iran’s infrastructure or political or military leadership.

“We don’t do bang and boom,” a recently retired intelligence officer said. “And we don’t do political assassinations.”

…Israel’s activities jeopardized the administration’s fragile relationship with Pakistan, which was coming under intense pressure from Iran to crack down on Jundallah. It also undermined U.S. claims that it would never fight terror with terror, and invited attacks in kind on U.S. personnel.

Though President Bush, when he discovered the Israeli operation was enraged, there was enough pro-Israel sentiment within the administration (Cheney, Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al.) that the U.S. never confronted Israel about it:

In the end,” the officer noted, “it was just easier to do nothing than to, you know, rock the boat.” Even so, at least for a short time, this same officer noted, the Mossad operation sparked a divisive debate among Bush’s national security team, pitting those who wondered “just whose side these guys [in Israel] are on” against those who argued that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Another element to consider in the Mossad strategy behind this operation is that getting the U.S. associated with it, even in a fraudulent way would advance their interest. They could then argue, you’re already implicated, why not just take the plunge and go all the way on this? There is a slippery slope in military-intelligence activities. Once you go part way, it’s that much easier to persuade someone to go all in. Perry’s article makes clear that Israeli intelligence made such proposals regularly to their U.S. counterparts who, if they can be believed, uniformly rejected them.

One thing that you have to learn about Israel is that it is like the school bully in pursuing it’s interests. If you don’t confront it aggressively when such red lines are crossed, Israel understands from this that silence equals consent. From there, they will further test the limits by pushing that red line as far as they can in their direction.

One of the few times the U.S. pushed back was in the case of Jonathan Pollard, when the egregiousness of the betrayal of U.S. intelligence secrets to Israel and the transfer of much of that data to the Soviet Union caused a severe backlash inside the Reagan administration. Neither Bush nor Obama seem to have the spine of Reagan officials like Caspar Weinberger or George Schultz, who lobbied successfully for severe punishment of Pollard. While Pollard is still in prison, do you think it would prevent Israel from recruiting another Pollard from within U.S. intelligence if it could?

Final note: I just realized that some particularly astute Foreign Policy editor displayed an image with Perry’s story of Israeli soldiers standing before an Israeli flag.  If you combine this image with the article title, False Flag, the editor made a particularly acute visual pun.

Iran Threatens U.S. With Closure of Vital Strait If It Invokes New Oil Sanctions

Tuesday, December 27th, 2011

What do Howard Berman, Brad Sherman, Jane Harman, Gary Ackerman and all the other Congressional water-carriers for Aipac care about the impact of their vote for closing Iran’s oil spigot, even if it might force Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation and start a regional war?  This is precisely the danger foreseen by the Founding Fathers when they arrogated the conduct of foreign policy to the executive branch and not the legislature.  Members of Congress grandstand and posture for their constituents.  They pander for votes.  Of course, they will vote for everything Aipac tells them to and more, in return for unlimited cash from pro-Israel donors.  Who the hell cares if their actions bring the region closer to conflagration?  When the shit hits the fan, they’ll blame Obama and say it’s the president who conducts foreign policy, not them.

strait of hormuz mapIran today warned that if Obama signs into law the new sanctions regime approved by Congress, it will close the Straits.  If it does that it will throw a huge wrench into the flows of Middle East oil around the world and send the price of oil through the roof.  Obama claims he has a plan to counteract such an Iranian act.  What might that be?  He’s not saying.  But it’s highly likely that anything the U.S. might do to respond to such an Iranian closure would escalate tensions even further.  How much higher can they go before real hostilities break out?  And perhaps that’s precisely what the U.S. and Israel want–to ratchet up pressure gradually so that Iran finally breaks and does something that will be a cause for war.  If they do this incrementally, they believe the world won’t be as likely to blame THEM for starting the war.  But we know better, don’t we?

On a slightly different note, UPI is reporting the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the government against the defense contractor which provides the fuses for the bunker buster bombs Obama gave the Israelis for use in penetrating Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.  The lawsuit alleged that fuses for the weapons were defective.  This may have some impact on Israel’s plans for attacking Iran, unless they’ve already solved the problem.

Returning to the NY Times story, I found this passage in David Sanger’s report to be foolhardy:

…A White House spokesman said there would be no comment on the Iranian threat to close the strait. That seemed in keeping with what administration officials say has been an effort to lower the level of angry exchanges, partly to avoid giving the Iranian government the satisfaction of a response and partly to avoid spooking financial markets.

You mean passing a law to destroy Iran’s ability to feed its people wasn’t provocation enough?  And not responding to the Iranian threat will somehow assuage them?  And do Sanger and Obama think that the financial markets don’t read the NY Times and won’t understand the full import of the Iranian threat?

As I’ve written here, any attempt to stop Iran’s access to world oil markets is likely to blow up in our faces.  It will send the price of oil sky-high, it will not necessarily shut Iran out of the markets, and will benefit Iran which stands to gain a financial windfall from increased oil prices.   In fact, today world oil prices broke the $100/barrel  barrier.  Hey, the sky’s the limit.  Howard Kohr and the boys from Aipac are probably working up some new ploy which will send them even higher.  I can’t wait to find out what they have in store for us next.  And this couldn’t have happened at a more opportune moment economically when the 99% (which excludes Obama, Sherman, Harman, Berman, et al.) face a looming recession and nearly 10% unemployment.

Don’t ya just love the cool certainty of this Treasury Department wise man who assures us the administration knows precisely how to handle this situation so that it will cause maximum harm to Iran and minimum harm to the U.S.:

“We have flexibility here, and I think we have a pretty good opportunity to dial this in just the right way that it does end up putting significant pressure on Iran.”

Why didn’t you say so?  Now I know we’re in good hands and nothing bad can come of this nonsense.

So here’s the U.S. plan in all its brilliance:

…The administration’s aim is to reduce Iran’s oil revenue by diminishing the volume of sales and forcing Iran to give its customers a discount on the price of crude.

Got that?  Through some sort of magical hocus-pocus we’re going to cut Iran’s ability to sell oil to anyone.  That won’t send the price of oil for us through the roof by some sleight of hand.  Luckily, there are some sane analysts out there who take a dim view of the practicalities of this:

Some economists question whether reducing Iran’s oil exports without moving the price of oil is feasible, even if the market is given signals about alternative supplies. Already, analysts at investment banks are warning of the possibility of rising gasoline prices in 2012, due to the new sanctions by the United States as well as complementary sanctions under consideration by the European Union.

Note that the administration plans to offer “alternative supplies” to Iran’s trading partners so that they can wean themselves from that country’s oil.  We haven’t ever been able to get the Saudis to do anything we wanted regarding raising or lowering their oil production.  Now all of a sudden not only will the Saudis answer the call, but they’ll have enough to replace what the world supply will lose from Iran.  Libya, Iraq (with it’s Shiite majority largely sympathetic to Iran) and Angola will take up the slack.  Oh, and we’ve got to approve the Keystone pipeline too and approve all those new fracking wells that threaten to destroy the water supply for hundreds of thousands of Americans.  If you believe this fairy tale, I’ve got a rusting hulk of a NYC bridge to sell you.

Another alarming intended effect of the new sanctions is to wreck the Iranian economy, which is supposed to be in free-fall.  But this appears to be a game of chicken: who will such a collapse hurt more–the country’s rulers or the tens of millions of ordinary Iranians who will be bankrupted and starved by the destruction of their national economy?  I strongly doubt that the common folk will rise up to smite their rulers because of the impact of these sanctions.  In fact, it’s liable to have precisely the opposite effect.  While we’re playing this game of Russian roulette determining who will lose the most, thousands of Iranian babies will begin dying from lack of basic sustenance and available health care just as happened in Saddam’s Iraq.  Is this really a moral burden Barack Obama wants to shoulder?  Of course, George Bush was happy to do so.  And the Aipac crowd will be happy to do so as well.  But does Obama want to be called the killer of Iranian babies?

Note also how the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador has become real in this passage from Sanger’s report:

…A plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States…

Now here I always thought it was the responsibility of the government to prove its claims in a court of law.  How foolish of me.  I didn’t realize reporters could decide for themselves that a government allegation was actually a proven fact.

New Evidence Iran Cracked Communications System of U.S. Stealth Drone, Downed It

Friday, December 16th, 2011
u.s. rq-170 drone

Captured U.S. RQ-170 drone on display in Iran (AFP/Getty)

There is new evidence to support Iran’s claim that the U.S.’ most advanced stealth drone, the RQ-170, did not crash inside Iran due to a simple malfunction as U.S. officials claimed.  But rather, the Iranians attacked weaknesses in its GPS system to force it to land inside Iran.  Jeffrey Carr and Public Intelligence released separate statements adding credence to the Iranian claims.  Public Intelligence released a secret air force report that described serious weaknesses in the drone communications systems which might allow them to be sabotaged or jammed by those it is targeting.  After reading this report, Carr, a top cybersecurity expert wrote this:

With this report as background, the capture of the RQ-170 by Iranian forces needs to be evaluated fairly and not dismissed as some kind of Iranian scam for reasons that have more to do with embarrassment than a rational assessment of the facts.

An Iranian engineer familiar with his country’s campaign to sabotage U.S. drones described it to the Christian Science Monitor:

“The GPS navigation is the weakest point,” the Iranian engineer told The Monitor, giving the most detailed description yet published of Iran’s “electronic ambush” of the highly classified US drone. “By putting noise [jamming] on the communications, you force the bird into autopilot. This is where the bird loses its brain.”

The “spoofing” technique that the Iranians used – which took into account precise landing altitudes, as well as latitudinal and longitudinal data – made the drone “land on its own where we wanted it to, without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications” from the US control center, says the engineer.

CNN reported on December 6th that U.S. officials claimed the drone was doing reconnaissance on an “intelligence” flight over western Afghanistan and not intending to enter Iranian airspace:

A senior U.S. official with direct access to the assessment about what happened to the drone said it was tasked to fly over western Afghanistan and look for insurgent activity, with no directive to either fly into Iran or spy on Iran from Afghan airspace.

Since there are no quotations in this passage it’s hard to know what this official said.  But it may very well be that the drone wasn’t surveilling Iran from within Afghanistan but rather from within Iran itself.  This would allow the statement to be nominally true, with an emphasis on very nominally.

Today, defense secretary Leon Panetta reacted to Iran’s demand of Afghanistan that it cease serving as a host for U.S. drones and their incursions into its territory.  Instead of denying this as it had earlier, Panetta said such flights would continue:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, visiting with Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, in Kabul on Wednesday, said that surveillance flights over Iran would continue despite the loss of the drone.

A major about-face in U.S. policy which few in the media seem to have noticed.  So in fact, the U.S. is now admitting that it is invading Iran’s territory, which is a major escalation in the battle of wills between Israel-U.S. and Iran.

In that December 6th report, the U.S. official seemed to lie again when he said all the Iranians have is a “pile of rubble.”  Given that the Iranians are displaying an intact RQ-170 for public viewing, that would seem to give the lie to this claim as well.  Unless the U.S. would like to claim that the craft on display isn’t the one the Iranians brought down.  But then again, how did they get this one if not the way they claim?

Aside from its implications for heating up the covert U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, these reports raise another serious issue: the U.S. now has near zero credibility in almost anything it has to say about Iran.  Its claims about the nature, trajectory and imminence of the Iranian bomb program; its claims about IRG hit men seeking to assassinate Saudi ambassadors; its claims it is not involved with acts of sabotage and violence inside Iran; its claims not to be involved in cyber warfare episodes like Stuxnet…all of these have been questioned, even ridiculed by seasoned analysts.  This new development will hold U.S. protestations up for even greater disdain.  They will also cause future claims by the U.S. on these and related subjects to be treated dubiously.

I’m also reminded of U.S. claims that Osama bin Laden was not murdered in cold blood.  They have the videotape to prove what happened.  The fact that they don’t release them tells us the truth.

In fact, I’m thinking that U.S. officials may be taking lessons from the Israeli hasbara apparatus: when anything happens that makes you look bad, lie and deny it.  If someone catches you in a lie it will take so long for them to do so that you’ll already be onto the next story and the media and public will be scrambling to catch up.  When you can, make up stuff to make your opponent look bad.  This is why I treat pronouncements from the Israeli military-intelligence apparatus skeptically.  Any statement from the Israelis that is at odds with or contrary to their interests I treat with deference and respect; any statement that advances their ulterior motives must be taken with great a grain of salt unless it can be verified independently.  Now we need to do the same with our own government.

New IDF Special Forces Command to Attack Iran

Thursday, December 15th, 2011
Idf special forces iran command

Yediot headline: 'General Iran Command'

The IDF announced in the past few days that it was creating a new Special Forces command (Hebrew) that would be designed to project Israeli force far beyond its borders.  It would operate behind enemy lines and take the fight to the other side and sabotage key infrastructure and generally wreak havoc.  The Yediot headline announces, only slightly facetiously, the promotion of the new commander to “General of the Iran Command.”  Haaretz’s article (Hebrew, and a shorter version in English) also points out that this will be one of the special purposes of the new operational command.

The units in the new command would not operate in areas like Lebanon or Gaza where there are already Special Forces who could serve.  It would be designed to operate at longer distances of more than 50 miles from Israeli territory.  To give one an idea of how important the new “Deep Command” is, its military leader will report directly to the chief of staff.

The Mossad already engages in such operations, but the new command would engage in more complex operations involving numbers of personnel and military-type firepower.  It would also combine air, land and sea operations that cross operational boundaries.  That’s why Israeli reporter’s first thought is that this would be a perfect match for Iran.  My only question would be how it could operate so far from Israeli territory.  But if you think about Iran’s neighbors and the fact that American forces are based right next door in Afghanistan (where the U.S. super-drone was based which fell inside Iran last week), it’s not beyond the realm of possibility for Israeli personnel to operate secretly from territory much closer to Iran.  It might also be possible for Israeli commandos to be delivered to Iran by sea.  If it were discovered though that Israeli forces were based even secretly in a Muslim country it would be terribly embarrassing to the host nation.

Another type of mission this new unit could pursue would be something like the reconnaissance allegedly performed by Israeli forces at the Syrian nuclear site before IAF jets destroyed it in 2007.  As the IDF is known to have intercepted and destroyed purported shipments of Iranian arms in Sudan and elsewhere that were destined for Gaza, this is another role the Deep Command could perform, interdicting arms shipments while still far from Israel’s borders.  The latter is especially concerned about arms shipments to Hezbollah routed from Iran through Syria.  This too would be an operations responsibility for the new unit.

This is without doubt an escalation in the war of nerves and sabotage by Israel against Iran.  The former is already conducting a covert war killing Iranian generals and scientists and blowing up key military bases.  Now it may secure the wherewithal to mount even larger scale operations.  The drawback is that just like the Bay of Pigs invasion, in which the CIA bit off far more than it could chew, ending in a disaster that sorely embarrassed a new U.S. president, this new combat command too could attempt a mission inside Iran that could misfire badly.  Think Jimmy Carter’s abortive rescue mission of the U.S. hostages in Iran in 1979.

The new IDF deployment is also designed to spook the Iranians into believing that the ‘long arm’ of the IDF has just grown longer.  You hear this sort of testosterone-infused bragging from IDF generals, Israeli intelligence sources and their journalistic enablers all the time.  The problem is that I doubt the Iranians are spooked.  In fact, the more Israel brags about its capabilities the more likely they are to make a mistake, of which the Iranians are sure to take advantage.

U.S. Continues Deadly Game: Drone Beast Busted Over Iran

Sunday, December 4th, 2011
rq 170 stealth drone

U.S. Air Force's RQ-170 stealth drone

The deadly game the U.S. and Israel are playing with Iran continued today with news that a U.S. advanced technology stealth drone had fallen or been downed (depending on who you talk to) inside Iran.  The Iranians claim the vehicle was the U.S.’ most advanced Sentinel stealth drone also known as the Beast of Kandahar.  This plane was likely unarmed and had a solely surveillance mission.  The U.S. is not only interested in spying on Iran’s nuclear program, it is seeking proof of the extent of the damage in Isfahan to the uranium enrichment plant there from an explosion last week.  Since the Beast was used to surveill Osama bin Laden’s compound in the week’s before his assassination, the craft might also be tracking individuals or spying on military/government compounds as well.

The U.S. says the drone had a malfunction and that operators lost contact with it, which caused it to enter into Iranian airspace and crash.  The Iranian claim that it shot down the plane seems contradicted by the accompanying claim that there was little damage to the craft that was recovered.  Whatever the truth of the story, the Iranians may now have access to a fairly complete version of the most advanced aerial surveillance technology in the U.S. arsenal.  As the NY Times notes, negotiations are probably underway as we speak with Russian or Chinese representatives who would be dying to have a crack at it so that they can steal the technology and incorporate it into their own designs.  Not to mention they will be able to develop systems to counter the drone and its capabilities.  So if Hezbollah can’t now bring the plane down, it may be able to shortly.

Bloggers on the left, some of whom have been taking potshots at me as a dupe of Israeli intelligence for my reporting on Israeli acts of sabotage against Iran and Hezbollah, have claimed that the Iranians may’ve discovered ways to jam ground communications with the drones, thus enabling them to cause them to crash.  Hezbollah has also leaked such stories to the Lebanese press attempting to explain an Israeli drone that crashed a few weeks ago in southern Lebanon.  The theory might be that if Iran has developed such technology it may’ve shared it with Hezbollah.  The only problem is that Hezbollah has not taken credit for downing the Israeli drone and Iran doesn’t say it jammed the U.S. drone, but that it shot it down.

I’m doubtful that Iran shot the Sentinel down for the reason I mentioned above, and as it has made similar claims regularly over the past few years which the U.S. has disputed.  If the Iranians have figured out how to fool the drone’s communications systems I still haven’t seen any evidence of it.  But I remain open to the possibility if anyone can offer any.

Missile Blast Disrupted Research on New Iranian Weapon Designed to Counter Israel

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Earlier today, Iranian officials made two contradictory sets of statements about the blast at the missile base two days ago, which killed 17 IRG soldiers including the “father of the Iranian missile program.  Majlis speaker Lariani denied any Israeli involvement in the incident saying it was a “fiction” not even worth wasting time discussing.

An IRG official, while denying Israeli involvement, revealed that the weapon which Brig. Gen. Moghadam was testing, and which caused the explosion, was a new one specifically designed to counter the Israeli threat:

“The incident happened during a research program which could have become a severe punch on [the] Israeli regime’s mouth,” General Hassan Firouzabadi said…

ISNA news agency quoted the general as saying that due to the incident “the program was only temporarily stopped but would resume again soon.”

AFP reported the story with an important difference in nuance:

…The base was being used in the production of “an experimental product” being developed to unleash “a strong fist in the face” of the United States and Israel.

He did not elaborate, but said development of the military product had been delayed by “two weeks” because of the blast.

You tell me: if Lariani is right and Israel had nothing to do with it and it was an accident, why would the IRG feel the need to reveal anything about the nature of the incident or the research that was involved in it?  Why would they also pointedly note that the weapon was designed to counter an Israeli-U.S. threat?  Also, the Iranians have claimed officially that the explosion occurred when ammunition was being moved at the base.  If the testing of a new weapon (“experimental product”) was the actual cause, then this is a flat-out contradiction to the original.

Further, Iranian reports now concede that the number of dead was almost double what was reported originally.  There were funerals yesterday for 36 soldiers.  This too indicates a desire to conceal the full extent of the damage caused by the event.  There might be many reasons they would want to do so, but one might be to conceal from the enemy what was damaged and the extent of the damage caused by the sabotage.

One can speculate on the identity of the “research” in question that might cause Israel grief.  Iran is reported to be developing the latest version of the Shehab which, according to some reports, is the Shehab 4.  There are also reports that Iran is testing ways of adapting the Shehab so that it can carry a nuclear warhead.  Either of those might be candidates for weapons that might’ve been tested and which could’ve caused the disaster.

 

 

Iran Missile Base Blast: Annals of Israeli Terror Redux

Sunday, November 13th, 2011

Yesterday’s report here based on an authoritative Israeli source, that the explosion which rocked an Iranian Revolutionary Guard missile base and killed one of the IRG’s top commanders, was the work of the Mossad and MEK, received a flurry of attention in the Israeli media.  I was cited by one of Israel’s pre-eminent intelligence correspondents, Ronen Bergman, in the Telegraph, and interviewed for two shows on Channel 10 (5PM news–7 minutes into the video, and Tzinor Layla) and the 6PM news on Channel 2.  While it’s exhilarating to get ones voice into the Israeli mainstream media, it takes a lot out of you when you have to do your interviewing between 3-4AM (due to the 10 hour time difference)!

One result has been a cascade of angry, sometimes menacing comments here from the Israeli audience claiming that my report was bogus, or that I hate Israel, or that I’m fomenting war against the Jewish people.  As to the first, it’s important to note that other independent sources are now coming forward confirming the substance of my source’s claim.  Time Magazine’s Israel correspondent features a boastful “western intelligence source” (cf., American):

For Israeli readers, the coy implication is that their own government was behind Saturday’s massive blast just outside Tehran. It is an assumption a Western intelligence source insists is correct: Mossad — the Israeli agency charged with covert operations — did it. “Don’t believe the Iranians that it was an accident,” the official tells TIME, adding that other sabotage is being planned to impede the Iranian ability to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon. “There are more bullets in the magazine,” the official says.

Former senior Mossad officer, Gad Shimron all but confirms the agency’s involvement in this Channel 10 TV interview (at 11:20 on the video–in Hebrew).

I especially like another objection by the pro-Israel crowd: that this wasn’t an act of terror because you don’t commit terror against a military target.  To which I reply: fine it’s not terror.  Then let’s just call it a naked act of military aggression why don’t we, a casus belli?  That’ll send us to war right now.  So which do you prefer?  Terror or naked act of aggression?  Either one is fine by me.

gen. hassan moqqadam

Senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Hassan Moqqadam killed in likely Israeli bomb blast at Iranian missile base

In Israel, leading politicians are embracing the explosion as something like Divine Providence.  When Ehud Barak was asked for comment he said obliquely, and almost obscenely (my translation is more colloquial than the one offered in the linked article):

May there be many more.

Ronen Bergman further reports today on Hassan Moqaddam, the Iranian general who died in the explosion.  Aside from his key role in the development of the Iranian missile program (which included all those capable of hitting Israel, notably the Shihab III), he had played a key role in the transfer of Iranian weapons to its proxy allies.  He was supposedly a special favorite of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei.  Bergman also calls him one of Mahmoud al-Mabouh’s key contacts in arms transfers to Hamas, providing it many of the rockets in its arsenal.  You’d have to have been hibernating for the past half decade not to know that the Palestinian arms dealer met his untimely end at the tip of a Mossad needle in Dubai several years ago.

Further, the Syrian general Muhammad Suleiman, who served the same role of intermediary between Syria and Iran on behalf of Bashar al-Assad, was also mysteriously assassinated several years ago while relaxing at his oceanfront home.  Another major part of his role was to arrange for transfer of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah through Syrian territory.  In other words, the Mossad is systematically eliminating key figures among Iran’s proxy allies who would serve to amplify any Iranian reply to an Israeli attack.

Bergman pointedly notes the only remaining figure alive who served a similar role on behalf of Hezbollah is Hassan Lekis.  This is a pointed indirect warning from Israel’s Mossad to watch his back.  They have his eyes on him.

Nowhere does Bergman explicitly say Mossad killed Moqqadam or inspired the missile base explosion.  Perhaps he doesn’t feel able to say so if he does know due to Israeli military censorship.  But there is a strong subtext here that is: we did it and here’s why we did.

Israeli media reports like Bergman’s tend to recite a litany of achievements of the murdered individual, turning him into a veritable fiend of an enemy.  The implication is that in killing him they have rid the world of yet another Jew killer–and thank God for that.  Bergman cites Iranian eulogies which boast that the Iranian general single-handedly enabled Hezbollah to beat Israel in Lebanon and Hamas to beat Israel during Operation Cast Lead.  Any Israeli reading this will breathe a sigh of relief and harbor the lingering thought: next time they’ll lose to us because they won’t have this monster fighting for them.

No matter how evil the enemy may be (and in my opinion there is little that Iran or any of these dead men did that isn’t done by Israeli generals and Mossad killers), there is absolutely no chance of destroying him or even weakening him through such methods.  For every Moqaddam, there are ten who will take his place.  Yes, some may do their jobs worse than he did his.  But a good number may do it better (eg. Hassan Nasrallah).  And their zeal will be fortified by the memory of their martyred predecessors, just as Jewish zeal is fortified by remembrance of our martyrs.  In other words, this is a zero sum game.  An epic fail.

Just as an aside, I note the outrage that pro-Israel figures express against Hezbollah, blaming it for the bombings of the Israeli embassy and Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires.  While I will on no account countenance the murder of innocent Jews by such means, it’s important to note that these tragic events occurred shortly after Israel had assassinated Abbas al-Musawi, the Hezbollah leader who preceded Hassan Nasrallah.  IF (and I note that the charges against them are only charges and not yet proven facts) Hezbollah or its Iranian ally were involved, from their point of view (though not mine) they had eminent reason to seek such revenge.

Which brings me to one of my main messages tonight: do not think that Israeli assassinations, bombings, cyberwarfare, etc. are risk-free and bear no price.  There is always a price.  You may have to pay it tomorrow or you may pay it next year.  But you will pay it.  And you don’t know what form that payment may take.  It may be a tiny innocent baby in a stroller.  It may be a cabinet minister.  It may be a lost UN vote.  But pay Israel will.

There are many foolish people in the world like Ehud Barak and Israeli commenters here who cheer these assassinations.  As if the more of them that happen the less dangerous Iran will be.  The less capable of destroying Israel and the Jewish people.  Those who feel this way can only see an unending war to the death between Gog and Magog, in which Israel is the Force of Good and Iran the force of Evil.  This may play well for the Book of Revelations and similar apocalyptic world views.  But it fails in the real world.

UPDATE: I’m proud to say I ate Haaretz’s lunch on this story.  They made the missile base blast their top story today referring to Time’s report (linked above) quoting a “western intelligence source” that Mossad was behind the attack.  When yesterday, they could’ve had an Israeli source telling them the same thing.  But it would’ve meant acknowledging my reporting, which apparently is verboten in the pages of Israel’s so-called quality liberal paper.  This is typically tepid, follow-the-leader stuff, not bold, challenging reporting.  It only hurts them that they shut themselves off from my contributions.  Others lead, they follow.

UPDATE I: My comments in the Update above were based on the English translation of the Haaretz article which I read first.  Israeli friends have sent me the original Hebrew version and it does indeed credit my work in that article (though it calls this blog, Brit Olam!).  So I apologize for my overhasty condemnation.  Instead I guess I blame the editor of the English edition and translator of the article, who thought my contribution wasn’t important enough to include in the English version.

The Guardian’s Julian Borger wrote two stories about the missile blast today and credited Time Magazine’s story (the second one to publish a claim of Mossad involvement) but left my original scoop out of the mix.  The MSM seems to have a congenital disposition to ignore us political bloggers for some strange reason.

U.S. Miscalculates on IAEA Report: Russia Repudiates New Sanctions as “Instrument of Regime Change”

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Russia has reminded the U.S. what happens when you stack the deck and then ask your opponent to pick a card: he might just upset the table and storm out of the room.  Russia did the equivalent when it dismissed the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program and rejected calls for further economic sanctions against that country, calling it a step toward “regime change”:

“The world community will see all additional sanctions against Iran as an instrument of regime change in Tehran,” Gennadi M. Gatilov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said in comments to the Interfax news agency. “This approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such a proposal.”

There are a number of issues bugging the Kremlin.  First, the IAEA rejected Russian and Chinese entreaties that the final report not include certain material that they deemed objectionable.  Second, the IAEA’s director, Yukio Amano is increasingly seen as a creature of the U.S. and Israel, thus rendering his credibility close to nil.  Third, the Russians are bridling at the pressure the U.S. and Israel are trying to exert on them to invoke draconian new sanctions.  Fourth, they can’t have enjoyed seeing a scientist, Vyacheslav Danilenko, who worked at one time in Russia deceitfully raked over the coals in the report.

When you put your relationship with a country under such pressure it’s only natural that it might break.  That’s what happened today.  The reaction may help quiet the braying dogs here and in Israel calling for a military attack.  If you can’t even get Russia and the Chinese to go for more sanctions imagine what they and others similarly disposed in the world community might do if Israel attacked Iran.

My only concern is that Israel may not care what anyone says or thinks.  It may go ahead with an attack and leave the U.S. to clean up the mess that will remain of the Russian relationship afterward.