Iran nuclear negotiations - October 2013

Once again, we witness the theatrics of the West vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear program.   In  reality, nothing has changed.    Interview with RT on these talks. http://youtu.be/it46OYfUTEs

The Syria Resolution: What does it mean?

On September 27^th, UNSC Resolution 2118 was unanimously adopted calling for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.    All hailed the Resolution including the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari.   Without a doubt, and thanks to Russian diplomatic efforts and Bashar al-Assad’s readiness to cooperate, direct military action against Syria was suspended.  Inarguably, when war is averted, there is cause for celebration.   And yet, it seems we can’t see the forest for the tree.

There has been zero evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on August 21s or at any other time.   While the UN inspectors report did confirm the use of chemical weapons, it was outside its mandate to determine who carried out the heinous crime. Western experts were quick to point to the trajectory of the rockets as evidence of Assad’s involvement conveniently leaving unmentioned the important possibility of mobile launching by non-government forces.

While there is no evidence (or motive) pointing to the Assad government  there is little doubt among analysts that the rebels were responsible for the chemical attacks. Colonel Wilkerson, a former high-ranking Bush era official has pointed to the possibility of a false flag operation by the Israelis.   Analysts are not alone.

For well over a year prior to the August 21 incident, Iranian officials had warned Washington  and voiced their concern that rebels had acquired chemical weapons. Turkey, Washington’s ally and culprit in the assault on Syria’s sovereignty, arrested rebels who possessed the nerve agent Sarin.  Most importantly, the US military claimed that the rebels had chemical weapons.  Russia claimed it had evidence that the rebels were responsible.   So what happened? 

UNSC Resolution 2118 sent a loud and clear message.  Terrorist can get away with mass killing – even if they use chemical weapons.   The provision to safeguard against future use of chemical weapons is not without its irony:   “Underscores that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons;”.  Given that that in face of solid indication to the contrary, the Assad government was held responsible for the chemical attacks which resulted in the passing of UNSC 2118 – exonerating the culprits.   A new and dangerous precedent has been set amidst the sight of relief.  

Cross Talk: Obama versus Rohani

On the morning of Tuesday, September 24th,  a representative from Code Pink, one from Brookings, and I discussed  US-Iran.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYEaNJhW9Kg

68th UNGA - remarks on Mr. Rohani's speech

RT interviewed on Mr. Rohani's address to the UN.  http://youtu.be/9_KoCCRmBok

Syria: Whodunit?

The long anticipated UN inspectors report confirmed the use of chemical weapons on August 21, 2013 in the Ghouta area of Damascus. The investigators report provided “clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin were used”.   Warmongers were quick to pounce on the use of rockets as evidence that the Assad government was responsible. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergie Lavrov was quick to point to the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument -- correlation does not equal causation.  So whodunit?

Foremost, given that the report emphasis the use of rockets, the Saudis should be asking themselves  why it is that the accusatory finger has been pointed to them. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syria conflict.    Their involvement is not restricted to providing arms to the rebels but as USA Today reported in January, they have been sending death-row inmates to fight in Syria.   That said, the UN report clearly repudiates dubious reports which surfaced on the internet citing a rebel’s father who had claimed that the Saudis supplied the chemical weapons without instructions, or without telling the rebels what they were which is why “they” (chemical weapons) went off in the tunnel.

While it is not a secret that the Saudis aim to spread their influence in the region by assisting neocons remove Assad from power, what should be of note to the Saudis and of interest to media watchers is the fact that in spite of the Saudi ‘s full cooperation with America and Israel in funding and supporting wars against fellow Arabs and Moslems, and even providing them with terrorists, the neoconservatives such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are now claiming that Saudi Arabia is responsible for pushing for war .   This should give Saudis reason to pause and reflect.  But to the report….

According to the UN report two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified origin – though perhaps not so unidentified.    Shortly after the August incident, Foreign Policy published and made mention of these mysterious rockets which according to former UN inspectors bore a strong resemblance to a 1970’s American weapon—the SLUFAE .  Although SLUFAE had been shelved, the concept was built upon by several countries—namely Israel.  According to the former UN inspector, "a very similar munition was found 3-5 years ago, during one of the Israeli excursions," into Southern Lebanon”.  Further, there is the strong possibility that the rockets with Cyrillic markings (attributed to the Soviets) can be traced back to the “Bear Spares” program.

According to the 1995 Teicher Affidavit, the United States had a “Bear Spares” program with the objective to provide ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry and deliver them third countries without direct involvement.  Israel which had a large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its wars was active in this program and, according to Teicher, transferred the spare parts and weapons to third countries or insurgents (such as to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, to the Afghans, and the Contras).

Of note is the fact that Israel possess Sarin gas and it is not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).  It is worthwhile repeating here that it was Israeli “intelligence” which alerted the United States of the use of Sarin on August 21, and of its delivery method long before the UN report was published.   It was the Israeli ‘intelligence’ which prompted John Kerry to point the finger at Assad with confidence.

Often left unmentioned is the fact that it was John Kerry’s  public suggestion to rid Syria of its chemical weapons which became the basis for the Russian initiative to avert war.  Undoubtedly, Israel stands to gain from this initiative given its territorial ambitions (see HERE for example) given that it is thought that Syria's entire defense against Israel may rest on chemical weapons and warheads[i].   Not surprisingly, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu regards the initiative as a precedent for dealing with Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

While Israel has the most to gain by the chemical attack incident,  it is not unique in its access to Soviet weaponry -  and to Sarin gas.   Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program where it manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis (during the Iran-Iraq war) and other countries.  The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing capabilities.   It is not without relevance to mention here that the Syrian opposition group had headquarters in Egypt for some time.  The leader of Egyptian military coup, General al-Sisi was hailed as a “national hero for all Jews’ by the Israeli ambassador in Cairo.  The military continues to be in charge with the full support of and funding from the United States (and Saudis).

Contrary to the Western media pundits who attempt to pain this as a straightforward case against Assad, without evidence or without thought, one can point the finger to other more likely culprits who stand to gain a great deal from this heinous crime.  The only way to narrow down the field is to consider ‘cui bono’.   Clearly, Assad is the biggest loser.

---

[i] Terrill, W. Andrew,  “The Chemical Warfare Legacy of the Yemen War.”  Comparative Strategy, 10 (1991), 109-119.

Interview with Press TV - Russian proposal on Syria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AcZQmh9s0E

Kerry on Syria: The Absurdity of Certainty

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd”.     Voltaire

In May, 2013, Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria told Swiss TV that there was no evidence of government use of nerve gas, and testimony from victims strongly suggested that it was the rebels who had used Sarin.  The following month, Washington announced it would continue to arm the rebels citing evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people.   In spite of the alleged evidence, Washington refused to send gas masks to the rebels. 

Today, while the UN chemical weapons inspectors in Syria are investigating the possible use of chemical agents, US Secretary of State John Kerry put all doubt aside announcing that he has irrefutable evidence that the Assad government is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.  Mr. Kerry is of the opinion that since he has the ‘facts’, the UN inspectors have nothing new to offer - after all, ‘the American intelligence community has high confidence’ in its findings.   This degree of certainty is simply absurd -- or dishonest.

 These allegations are all the more dubious given their source - the Israeli intelligence.  It was reported that an “IDF intelligence unit was listening in on senior Syrian officials when they discussed the chemical attack”.   In his remarks, Kerry stressed “evidence in the assessment that regime forces had spent three days in eastern Damascus preparing for the attack”.    If true, this indicates that IDF unit was aware of the plans and did not inform Washington (or Washington did not act on it) -- unless the IDF miraculously “intercepted a conversation between high-ranking regime officials regarding the use of chemical agents at the time of the attack” (The Times of Israel).   

As the Kerry-doing-Powell tells us:  “We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and landed only in opposition-held areas”.   Basing the intelligence on these rockets is all the more questionable as the rockets alleged to have been used by Assad bear a strong resemblance to a 1970’s American weapon - the SLUFAE .    Although SLUFAE had been shelved, the concept was built upon by several countries --  namely  Israel.  According to a former UN inspector "a very similar munition was found 3-5 years ago, during one of the Israeli excursions," into Southern Lebanon.” (Foreign Policy).  

So we are left with dubious intelligence and mystifying rockets - but what of the chemical weapons which are reported to have taken a high toll?  Another anomaly in the Kerry allegations is that at the rocket site,  there is a complete absence of fear shown by people posing with the weapons, and an absence of any kind of protective gear.   So if not rockets, what was the delivery method, and by whom?

Dubious  reports have surfaced on the internet which cite a rebel’s father claiming that the Saudis supplied the chemical weapons without instructions, or without telling the rebels what they were which is why “they” went off in the tunnel causing so many accidental deaths.  Although these allegations reinforce the fact that chemicals were used, the unlikely story flies in the face of Israeli intelligence and  Kerry’s  allegations, serving to add confusion to an already mystifying event.  What other plausible explanations are there?

Writing for the prominent Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), in his 2005 article entitled “Unmanned Air Vehicles as Terror Weapons: Real or Imagined?”, Dennis Gormley stressed the danger of UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles - drones) and stated: “Dispersal of chemical or especially biological agent is ideally suited for a UAV; its flight stability permits the release of agent evenly along a line of contamination.”

Coincidentally, in April 2013, The Times of Israel citing Le Figaro reported that ‘Israeli drones were given leave to fly over Jordan  in order to monitor the chemical caches and take action if necessary’.   Could these drones have been used to destroy an existing caches -  or, were the drones used to disperse the chemical weapons? Certainly Israel  had the weapons, the means and the opportunity.  

The Israeli government has issued no policy statement on biological arms control and it has either signed nor ratified the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC); however,    according to Avner Cohen “Ben Gurion’s desire to seek  scientists to “either increase the capacity to kill masses or to cure masses” implied -- in the 1948 context -- was an interest in biological warfare.  Subsequently, the Israel Institute of Biological Research (IIBR) was founded in Ness Ziona, some 12 miles southeast of Tel Aviv[i] (The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2001).

The institute was not without its hazards.  Several ‘accidents’ took place in Ness Ziona and in August 1998, the British Foreign Report citing Israeli sources claimed that “one accident was so serious that the authorities were contemplating evacuating the entire town of Ness Ziona  before the IRIB scientists had concluded that the threat has passed. 

There were further revelations in October 1998 when Israel admitted that the El Al Boeing plane which crashed in Amsterdam in 1992, was carrying cargo destined for Ness Ziona.  The shipment contained DMMP - a dual-use chemical used in the manufacture of sarin nerve gas.   Perhaps it is the experiments being carried out by the IRIB in Ness Ziona, and all the related incidents, in addition to Israel’s policies that has the Israeli  citizens on a constant alert -- masks ready,  images of which are broadcast to justify aggressive, illegal action.  

There are far too many unanswered questions and potential possibilities - all of which underscore the absurdity of Kerry’s certainty on Syria.    As oft repeated on this topic - qui bono (who benefits)?  For now, we know that that Mr. Kerry’s attention been redirected from the ‘peace plan’ to war planning - at a ludicrously high cost to Syria and at the expense of America’s credibility. 

---

[i] Avner Cohen, “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control”