Monday, December 3, 2012
Western intel detects movement of Syrian chemical weapons as Washington warns of deeper involvement
Activity around arms sites ramps up; Clinton says movement constitutes ‘red line’; Damascus says such arms would not be used against citizens
The Obama administration stressed anew Monday that it wouldn’t accept any use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, as Western intelligence agencies detected movement of Syria’s stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. In response, Damascus stated it “would not use” such weapons against Syrians.
The US and allied intelligence detected Syrian movement of chemical weapons components in recent days, a senior US defense official told the Associated Press, as the Obama administration again warned the Assad regime against using chemical weapons on Syrian rebels.
The senior defense official said intelligence officials have detected activity around more than one of Syria’s chemical weapons sites in the last week. The defense official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about intelligence matters.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in Prague for meetings with Czech officials, reiterated President Barack Obama’s declaration that Syrian action on chemical weapons was a “red line” for the United States that would prompt action.
“We have made our views very clear: This is a red line for the United States,” Clinton told reporters.
“I’m not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people. But suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur.”
She didn’t address the issue of the fresh activity at Syrian chemical weapons depots, but insisted that Washington would address any threat that arises.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Damascus said in response to the reports that Syria “would not use chemical weapons — if there are any — against its own people under any circumstances.”
Damascus has been careful over the years not to confirm such weapons were in the regimes arsenal.
Israel has reportedly asked Jordan for permission to attack the storage centers of Syria’s nonconventional weapons, but the Hashemite kingdom has not approved.
A senior defense official in Washington said the US does not believe that any Syrian action beyond the movement of components is imminent.
Syria is believed to have several hundred ballistic surface-to-surface missiles capable of carrying chemical warheads.
Its arsenal is a particular threat to American allies Turkey and Israel. Obama singled out the threat posed by the nonconventional weapons earlier this year as a potential cause for deeper US involvement in Syria’s civil war. Up to now, the United States has opposed military intervention or providing arms support to Syria’s rebels for fear of further militarizing a conflict that activists say has killed more than 40,000 people since March 2011.
Clinton said that while the actions of President Bashar Assad’s government have been deplorable, chemical weapons would bring the enormity to a new level.
“We once again issue a very strong warning to the Assad regime that their behavior is reprehensible, their actions against their own people have been tragic,” she said. “But there is no doubt that there’s a line between even the horrors that they’ve already inflicted on the Syrian people and moving to what would be an internationally condemned step of utilizing their chemical weapons.”
While the US and other countries warned Assad’s regime against the use of chemical weapons, the Atlantic reported Israel was ready to take a preemptive strike at the storage facilities before the nonconventional warheads fell into the wrong hands.
Though Israel could attack Syria on its own, it was worried Jordan could suffer as a result of such a strike on chemical weapons depots, some of which are located near the border with Jordan, the report said.
Israel was ready to strike Syria, an unnamed source told the Atlantic, but “they were told that from the Jordanian perspective, the time was not right.”
Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that unusual activity at chemical weapons depots suggested that the Syrian regime may be mulling the deployment of its nonconventional weapons.
There are fears that the Assad government, which maintains a tentative hold on power in the civil war-ravaged country, may use its chemical arsenal in a last-ditch attempt to thwart rebel forces.
Washington calls on Israel to pull back from settlement plan after PM’s office says move won’t be reversed!
WILL THIS BE THE EXCUSE OBAMA USES TO NO LONGER SUPPORT ISRAEL? TIME WILL TELL!
Spain and Denmark join UK, France and Sweden in calling in ambassadors for ‘harsh’ rebuke; PA official praises Europe
Several European capitals on Monday summoned Israeli ambassadors to sharply express unhappiness over Israel’s plans to significantly expand settlement construction, as anger over the move worldwide continued to simmer.
In Washington, the White House called on Israel to reconsider its plans to develop the controversial E1 tract of land east of Jerusalem in the West Bank.
Yet officials in Jerusalem said they would not back down from the plan, which is seen as a punitive measure against the Palestinians for going to the United Nations to be upgraded to a nonmember observer state.
The foreign ministries of France, Britain, Spain, Denmark and Sweden on Monday summoned and sharply rebuked the Israeli ambassadors to their countries. An Israeli official quoted by Israel Radio said the tone of the rebukes was “harsh and very unpleasant.”
A British Foreign Office spokesman issued a severely worded condemnation of the Israeli government decision on Friday to approve 3,000 housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including in the controversial E1 corridor that connects Jerusalem to Ma’aleh Adumim, one of Israel’s largest settlements, and called on Israel to reverse the initiative.
“We deplore the recent Israeli government decision to build 3,000 new housing units and unfreeze development in the E1 block. This threatens the viability of the two-state solution,” the spokesman said. “Any decision about any other measures the UK might take will depend on the outcome of our discussions with the Israeli government and with international partners including the US and European Union.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that the administration was calling on Israel to reconsider the plan and urged restraint.
The US State Department said it “opposes all unilateral actions, including West Bank settlement activity and housing construction in East Jerusalem.” In a statement by Mark C. Toner, Washington stated the policy “includes building in the E1 area as this area is particularly sensitive and construction there would be especially damaging to efforts to achieve a two-state solution.”
Elsewhere in Europe, Germany and Russia joined the chorus of condemnations, with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs tweeting a steady stream of denunciations.
US ultimatum averted Iranian-Pakistani warships’ drill in Port Sudan
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report December 3, 2012, 1:14 PM (GMT+02:00)
; "Pakistani warship off Port Sudan")
Iranian and Pakistani warships had planned their first ever rendezvous to take place in Port Sudan Friday, Nov. 30. It was rumored in Khartoum that the Pakistani Shashmir had docked Thursday carrying nuclear arms or nuclear-related equipment ready to meet two Iranian warships for joint naval drills on the Red Sea.
The United States put a stop to this plan at the last moment by threatening to call off the direct talks with Tehran that were scheduled to open Saturday, Dec. 1.
The naval exercise would have seen Iran collaborating for the first time in military activity with a nuclear power that would take place, moreover, close to the shores of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.
Parading the two Muslim powers in military partnership - one a nuclear power and Iran on the threshold of attaining nuclear arms – was an attempt by Tehran to leverage its position as a regional power when facing Washington at the negotiating table.
Responding to persistent reports of nuclear arms aboard the Pakistani vessel, the Port Sudan Director Sheiba Mohamed Babikir issued the following statement on Dec. 1: “There is no risk to the lives of citizens who want to visit the ships as all weapons will be secured.”
According to debkafile’s military and intelligence sources, Riyadh and Jerusalem warned the Obama administration separately last week that unless the Iranian-Pakistani maneuver was called off, action would be taken to prevent it, prompting Washington’s stiff message to Tehran that their nuclear talks were on the line unless it was cancelled.
Our sources disclose that Tehran climbed down and postponed the visit by its two warships to Port Sudan to a later date, Dec. 7. By then, the Pakistani vessel would have departed.
Since the US was not certain until the last minute how Tehran would act to the warning, it was decided to reschedule the first US-Iranian session from Saturday to another date this week.
Both have thrown a dense blanket of secrecy over the talks, their venue and the identities and ranks of their negotiating teams. The only hint that something of the kind was up was offered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday, Nov. 30, when she sad:
“We are working on the G5-1 and making our willingness known that we are ready to have a bilateral discussion if they are ever ready to engage.”
A day earlier, Robert Wood, US delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, set March 1 as the deadline for Iran to deliver positive results, failing which, Washington would turn to the UN Security Council.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly 567 out last Friday, Nov. 30, ran an exclusive review exploring the issues and prospects of the direct talks between the Obama administration and the Islamic regime headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Extreme Saudi objections to these talks were set out in an article run by the royal mouthpiece, the London-based Ashark al-Awsat Monday, Dec. 3. Referring to Clinton’s remark, the paper’s editorial said:
“The problem with the current US administration is that the carpet merchants, i.e. the Iranians, understand full well that Washington is not trying to change what has already changed; rather it is seeking to coexist with the new status quo… Thus … Iran and the US will negotiate at our expense, i.e. at the expense of all those in the Middle East and of course the Gulf…This is the strategic Iranian goal; either to use a nuclear weapon to impose its influence or to use negotiations as a means to extend that influence, while America’s behavior in this regard is lax."
FLASHBACK 2002! Barack Obama's Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War!
"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I Don't Oppose All Wars I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil. I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. On Saddam Hussein Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president. You Want a Fight, President Bush? You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."
Muslim Brotherhood 'paying gangs to go out and rape women and beat men protesting in Egypt'
Country has seen rise in mob sex attacks on protestors in the last year
Egypt's ruling party is paying gangs of thugs to sexually assault women protesting in Cairo's Tahrir Square against President Mohamed Morsi, activists said.
They also said the Muslim Brotherhood is paying gangs to beat up men who are taking part in the latest round of protests, which followed a decree by President Morsi to give himself sweeping new powers.
It comes as the Muslim Brotherhood co-ordinated a demonstration today in support of President Mohamed Morsi, who is rushing through a constitution to try to defuse opposition fury over his newly expanded powers.
Just 24 hours earlier around 200,000 people gathered in Tahrir Square, the heart of last year's revolution which toppled President Hosni Mubarak, yesterday to protest against a new draft constitution.
Large marches from around Cairo flowed into the square, chanting 'Constitution: Void!' and The people want to bring down the regime.'
Egyptians warn Morsi is no friend to US
By Richard Engel, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent
News Analysis
TAHRIR SQUARE, CAIRO -- This was the place where the revolution began: the roundish square where Egyptians celebrated Mubarak's fall.
This is where they are shouting on bullhorns again, outraged because they say the Muslim Brotherhood has stolen the revolution and is railroading though a constitution that could lock in Muslim Brotherhood rule for 50 years, bringing more Islamic law. They cry -- not against Islam -- but that an extremist interpretation is being forced down their throats by a president who critics say is acting every part the tyrant.
This is also a warning, they claim, of what may happen across the Middle East. The era of the Muslim Brotherhood appears to have arrived. President Obama has hailed the Brotherhood's President Mohammed Morsi as a pragmatist who helped end the Gaza crisis. Egyptians here think the Brotherhood has conned Washington, just like it conned them.
Christians, liberals left out as Islamists back Egypt's draft constitution
"President Obama is supporting a terrorist," a man told me amid chants of "Leave! Leave!" in Tahrir Square and "Down, down with the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader." Before, it was "Down, down with Mubarak."
Morsi's decree divides Egypt
Egypt was torn in half just over a week ago when Morsi made himself more powerful than Mubarak ever was, and the kings before him. Morsi declared himself above judicial oversight, his decisions final and unassailable. He made himself, according to critics, a new pharaoh on the Nile. Imagine if, after five months in office, an American president announced that he could pass any law he pleased regardless of Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine if he said his decisions were final and inspired by God.
Morsi last night apologized for the power grab and said he didn't want the extra authorities, but that they were necessary for the good of the people and to safeguard the revolution. Dictators always say stuff like that. Burn down the village to save it.
At first Egyptians were shocked that Morsi would make such an obvious and, according to Egyptian judges, blatantly illegal move.
It's clear now, as some analysts have long feared, that the brotherhood is making sure it doesn't lose power again by taking control of Egypt's constitution. The Brotherhood wants to write the rules of the game. Now they've done that too.
Protected by the president's new-found supreme and unquestionable powers, Morsi ordered his Islamist allies to finish writing the constitution and get it on his desk by the end of this week. They did it, even though many independent legal experts, Christians and opposition politicians boycotted the drafting process. The Brotherhood called the new constitution "a jewel." Many Egyptians say it leaves too much room for the implementation of Shariah law.
The constitution also empowers the people and government with a duty to uphold moral values, a vague clause that could pave the way for vigilante morality police. The constitution barely mentions protecting women's rights. According to women who were originally involved in the drafting process, and who subsequently left because they felt they were being ignored, clauses specifically demanding that women be protected from violence and sex trafficking were dropped because Islamists feared it would conflict with their desire to allow child brides.
ANALYSIS: Crisis tests Egyptians' constitution
The constitution has long been the Muslim Brotherhood's lodestar and, in the past, they have been willing the kill for it. In 1954, not long after a group of 'free officers' carried out a coup against the British-backed monarchy, a Brotherhood assassin tried to kill President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser, a leading free officer, favored a mostly secular, pro-military constitution. The Brotherhood, an Islamist group that supports the return of Arab and Islamic unity and the revival of ancient Muslim glory and Shariah laws, couldn't accept the new rules.
The Brotherhood's assassination attempt failed. The gunman's eight bullets, fired while Nasser was giving a speech in Alexandria, all missed. The Brotherhood was banned. The group went underground, at times tolerated but more often repressed by Nasser's successors: presidents Mubarak and Anwar el-Sadat.
When the revolts started against Mubarak, the Brotherhood saw that fate had given them another chance.
Muslim Brotherhood's calculated rise to power
Looking back now, it all seems so obvious, yet many Egyptians refused to see it coming. In fact, many of the secular revolutionaries backed the Brotherhood, arguing they were better allies than the hated military. The Brotherhood played its cards well.
The Brotherhood was late to join the anti-Mubarak revolts in 2011. When students and liberals initially occupied Tahrir Square, it looked like it might be a passing thing. The Brotherhood either didn't appreciate its significance, or wanted to wait to see who was winning.
I remember watching the Brothers march into the square. They arrived in a large group of perhaps five hundred. Nearly all were men. Many had beards. Most were dressed in poorly cut dark suits.
They occupied a corner of Tahrir near a Kentucky Fried Chicken.
They came with microphones and wood to build a platform. The other protesters in the square seemed happy to have the support of the new arrivals.
Egypt's Morsi, top judges compromise to defuse soaring tensions over decree
The protests continued to grow. Labor unions went on strike. The military enacted a coup against Mubarak. President Obama withdrew his support for Washington's long-time Arab friend. And Mubarak the president was no more.
The Brotherhood first said it wouldn't seek the new presidency at all. It promised to exist solely as an influential member of civil society. Back then, many Egyptians feared the Brotherhood. It was a semi-secret group. It had a small office in a Cairo apartment building with a sign on the door the size of an index card. Mubarak-era officials had often described the Brotherhood as a group of terrorists. One security official I know called the Brotherhood the most dangerous group in the world. But in the heady 1960s-like days after Mubarak's resignation, the Brotherhood's bad reputation only seemed to give the group more credibility. They'd been oppressed by the man. It was a new day. Everyone, it appeared, deserved a new beginning.
The Brotherhood went to work. It organized its considerable finances. It built a big new headquarters with far bigger signs on the doors. It sent its representatives around the world, especially to Washington, on a charm offensive. We've been oppressed, they claimed. We were slandered by a tyrant. We're not what you've heard. We can unite the Sunni world against Iran. We can help bring Israeli-Palestinian peace. There were many promises of a great future.
Even then, the Brotherhood's focus on the constitution was clear. The Brotherhood insisted the constitution be drafted only after a new president was elected. The military was overseeing a transition back then. The Brotherhood argued that the military couldn't be trusted to oversee the creation of such an important document.
Many Egyptians agreed -- a decision some sorely regret today.
NBC's Ayman Mohyeldin discusses the current unrest in Egypt
Morsi won the election by a narrow margin and then five months into his term, made himself a dictator and ordered his Islamist friends to quickly finish the constitution. Morsi has said he'll drop his extraordinary powers as soon as the constitution is approved in a referendum in December. Islamists are convinced they'll be able to use their grassroots network of activists to win the referendum like they won the elections. Western diplomats tend to agree.
Yet the United States has remained mostly silent on all this, urging both sides to stay calm and work it out. Washington's policy seems to be that what's going on is simply democracy in progress as Egyptians learn to use their new rights.
But in Tahrir Square people seem convinced the Brotherhood isn't testing its fledgling wings. They say Morsi knows exactly what he's doing, Washington be warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)