Will Iran and Russia join forces on Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict? - Hamidreza Azizi - http://www.al-monitor.com
TEHRAN, Iran - More than two decades have passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Moscow's domination over vast territories in the Caucasus and Central Asia. One bitter legacy of the Soviet era is the continued existence of "frozen conflicts" in these areas, conflicts that every now and then flare up for various reasons. During the past two weeks, the eruption of a new wave of fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region has shown that this legacy still has serious destabilizing potential, at least in the South Caucasus.
Although the clashes between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops that began April 2 have been temporarily halted, with a truce implemented after three days of fighting, the death of dozens of soldiers and civilians from both sides has caused serious concern among neighboring countries as well as regional and outside powers. After the eruption of clashes, Iran - which due to various economic and security considerations has always been concerned about stability in its northern regions - urged the two sides to show restraint and refrain from further escalation. It also called for resolving the issue through diplomatic means. At the same time, Tehran declared its willingness to mediate to end the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in an April 5 phone conversation with his Armenian counterpart, Edward Nalbandian, emphasized the need to stop the clashes in the disputed region while declaring Iran's readiness to play a role in this regard, should the two involved parties consent to such an undertaking. Zarif, who traveled to the northern Iranian city of Ramsar the same day to participate in a trilateral meeting with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, emphasized to Mammadyarov "Iran's full readiness to resort to good offices with the aim of resolving the conflict peacefully."
The next day, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani held separate phone conversations with his Azerbaijani and Armenian counterparts in which he stressed Iran's readiness to play an active role in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. "The Islamic Republic of Iran is very upset about the killing of civilians and troops of the two friendly, neighboring countries," Rouhani said, adding that Iran is ready to use all of its capacities to achieve a peaceful settlement of disputes between the two sides through political dialogue.
The fact of the matter is that Iran, for a variety of reasons, is opposed to an escalation of conflict in the South Caucasus. A rise in tensions in the region could lead to an increase in the military presence of countries from outside the region in support of the opposing sides. This has always been a primary regional security concern in Tehran. Furthermore, due to the economic and social ties Iran has with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, an escalation of conflict between the two could pose serious challenges for Iran. Thus, senior Iranian officials' emphasis on the need to prevent an escalation is rather logical and understandable. The real question, however, is given the present circumstances, could Iran act as a mediator between Azerbaijan and Armenia, or more generally, play an active and distinct role in this regard? To answer this question, two points must be considered.
First, in the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has sought to keep the former Soviet republics within its political and economic orbit and to maintain control over what it calls its "near abroad." In this context, Moscow has always been wary of any role, whether negative or positive, played by external actors in the former republics, especially in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Thus, Moscow has attempted to direct all political, diplomatic, economic and security initiatives through its own channels. In regard to Iran, this was demonstrated when Tehran made efforts to mediate in the Nagorno-Karabakh War and Tajikistan civil war in the early 1990s. Because of Russian considerations, Iran was never able to stake out an independent role in either instance. Iranian mediation initiatives in Tajikistan could, at best, have led to a "joint" Iranian-Russian solution, and in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, Moscow preferred to pursue the issue through an entirely different track, namely, the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Second, in the current situation and with the recent round of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Moscow is pursuing an agenda that makes the role of external actors, including Iran, an even more sensitive matter. On the one hand, during the past two years in the wake of the Ukraine crisis - which has led to the most serious confrontation between Russia and the West in more than two decades - Moscow has been trying to further strengthen its ties with the former Soviet republics. The most obvious manifestation of this trajectory is the proposition to create a Eurasian Economic Union. In this context, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is an opportunity for Moscow to, by playing an active role, persuade both Baku and Yerevan to accept Russia's special role in the region. On the other hand, given the current unfriendly relations between Russia and Turkey and Ankara's public expression of support for Azerbaijan in the conflict against Armenia, the Nagorno-Karabach clashes have turned into a Russian-Turkish face-off, and thus, grown in importance for Moscow.
Considering these factors, one cannot expect an Iranian willingness to mediate between Azerbaijan and Armenia to result in Tehran actually playing an independent role in the current crisis. Rather, the best possible outcome for Iran could be its potential engagement in efforts to find a diplomatic solution through partnership with Russia and within the framework of a multilateral mediation process. In practical terms, however, by pursuing a policy of positive neutrality or active neutrality, Iran has already scored diplomatic points in the region. By avoiding taking sides and emphasizing a diplomatic settlement to the clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh, Tehran has presented itself as a responsible and peace-seeking actor in its northern neighborhood.
Iranian general 'holds military talks with Putin in Moscow' - http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-general-heads-to-moscow-for-military-talks-with-putin/
Revolutionary Guards' Qassem Soleimani said to have made trip from Tehran in private jet, despite ban on his international travel
The head of the al-Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, Qassem Soleimani, is reportedly in Russia for a secret military meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
The Iranian major general is subject to UN sanctions that restrict his international travel, but according to Fox News, "multiple intelligence sources" report that he took a private jet on Thursday morning from Tehran to Moscow. The report speculates that the use of a private plane was most likely intended to hide his movements.
Reuters also quoted "three sources with knowledge of his trip" who confirmed that Soleimani had gone to Moscow. Fox said that Soleimani was making a 48-hour visit to the Russian capital.
According to Reuters, a "Moscow-based Western diplomat" said that he believed Soleimani would meet with Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.
"General Soleimani traveled to Moscow last night to discuss issues including the delivery of S-300s and further military cooperation," the news agency quoted a senior Iranian security official as saying.
The Russian-made S-300 is one of the most advanced missile defense systems in the world, offering long-range protection against both airplanes and missiles. Israel has long sought to block the sale to Iran of the systems, which analysts say could impede a potential IDF strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities. Other officials have expressed concern that the systems could reach Syria and Hezbollah, diluting Israel's regional air supremacy.
The trip marks the first meeting between the two men since Russia began withdrawing its troops from Iranian ally Syria, where they had been shoring up the regime of embattled President Bashar Assad after five years of civil war. Iran has not officially acknowledged sending troops to Syria to help Assad maintain his grip on power, but says it has "advisers" on the ground assisting the regime.
A spokesman for the Kremlin denied Friday that such talks were set to take place, saying that a meeting with Soleimani was not on Putin's schedule.
This is not the first time in recent months that reports have emerged of a Moscow meeting between Putin and Soleimani. The Kremlin in December also denied that the president met with Soleimani in Moscow.
But Iran's semi-state Fars news agency at the time quoted unnamed sources saying Soleimani did meet Putin "and high-ranking Russian military and security officials during a three-day visit last week to pursue the issues raised during the [late November] meeting between Putin and Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei [in Tehran]."
Fars said Putin discussed the "latest developments in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon" with Soleimani, and referred to him as "my friend, Qassem."
It also said that the IRGC denied the report, but noted that, since Soleimani is under constant threat by enemies including "Israeli and American secret services," his activities are generally conducted in secret.
Fars noted that Soleimani was reportedly instrumental in encouraging Putin to enter the Syrian civil war in support of Iran-backed Assad, having previously visited Moscow to meet Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu in July.
Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah also acknowledges its forces are fighting on the ground, and the presence of Iranian, Iraqi and Afghan "volunteers" has been documented. Hezbollah has seen between 1,300 and 1,500 of its fighters killed in battles in the Syrian civil war, which means that together, with the wounded, it has lost as much as one-third of its fighting force, according to Israeli estimates.
Nuclear deal puts US between Iran and a hard place - Matthew Lee - http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a1c98e3bf9bf4f0db2dbd5f18c383569/analysis-nuclear-deal-puts-us-between-iran-and-hard-place
The Obama administration is in a bind. Between Iran and a hard place.
As it seeks to implement, preserve and strengthen the landmark nuclear deal it negotiated with Iran, the administration is being buffeted by criticism from all sides: Iran, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, not to mention members of Congress, including some who supported the agreement.
Eager that a successful deal and a new era in the U.S.-Iran relationship be part of President Barack Obama's legacy, his administration finds itself encouraging foreign trade with Iran even as it forbids most American commerce with the Islamic Republic. Those efforts are complicated by the fact that the United States continues to condemn and try to punish Iranian actions in non-nuclear arenas such as Tehran's support of terrorist groups and belligerence toward Israel.
Under the nuclear deal that took effect in January, Iran curtailed its nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Iran has complied with its obligations to date.
But Iran says the economic boon isn't enough because of remaining U.S. economic penalties for its other behavior, and some officials have threatened to walk away from one of Obama's chief foreign policy achievements - the other is the rapprochement with Cuba
Asian and European government and companies, primarily banks, are balking at doing now-legal business with Iran, because of uncertainty over those remaining sanctions. They want written clarification about what current U.S. laws and financial regulations allow them to do. Essentially, they want a promise that the U.S. will not prosecute or punish them for transactions that involve Iran.
Adding to their unease is the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in which the top Republican prospects have pledged to rip up the nuclear deal.
At the same time, Israel, its supporters and Arab nations are crying foul over Iran's continued testing of ballistic missiles as well as its ongoing support for Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, Syrian President Bashar Assad's government and Yemen's Houthi rebels.
They say Iran is as dangerous as ever. Many members of Congress agree and are demanding new sanctions.
While the administration says it remains vehemently opposed to Iran's missile tests and destabilizing activities throughout the Middle East, it insists the nuclear deal has made Iran less of a threat. The cost of walking away from the deal, U.S. officials maintain, will be even more destabilization and a graver threat.
Thus, the U.S. has been thrust into a role of defending Iran on its nuclear deal compliance and condemning its other actions as it simultaneously promotes business with Iran in the context of the new leeway afforded by sanctions relief.
Obama and his national security aides have ruled out allowing Iran access to the U.S. financial system or direct access to U.S. dollars - still prohibited by U.S. law. But they are considering whether, and how, to respond to the Iranian complaints and the European and Asian demands for clarity on the financial rules.
The administration has sent State Department and Treasury officials to try to explain the regulations, but questions remain. Some European leaders, notably French President Francois Hollande, have personally raised the matter with Obama, diplomats say.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal, argue that the administration must live up to the "letter and spirit" of the sanctions relief. They say Iran has complied and must get the benefits of the agreement even if Tehran continues other objectionable activities. They have left the door open to further sanctions relief, primarily as it concerns foreign businesses trading with Iran.
U.S. lawmakers, many of whom opposed the nuclear deal on principle, have moved to prevent what they say is an administration overreach: a proposal to ease rules relating to the use of the dollar in third-party foreign currency exchanges in support of deals with Iran. Administration officials say such an easing is unnecessary because those transactions are allowed. Still, the suggestion of a change has Capitol Hill on edge.
Despite the uncertainty, the administration has refused so far to say what, if anything, it will do to clear the air.
Amid Syria War, Iran arms Hezbollah for a deadly conflict with Israel, UK-based research group - by Vijeta Uniyal - http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/04/amid-syria-war-iran-arms-hezbollah-for-a-deadly-conflict-with-israel-uk-based-research-group/
Hezbollah stockpiles up to 150,000 missiles aimed at Israel, many hidden amongst civilian population in South Lebanon, says BICOM report
Terrorist group Hezbollah is using the conflict in Syria to prepare for a war with Israel, reveals a report published by the UK-based research group BICOM. In 2015, Iran funneled a billion dollars to the Lebanon-based terrorist group. According to a strategic analysis released by Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre (BICOM) on Monday, Iran-backed Hezbollah's missile stockpile is now estimated to be around 100,000-150,000, with large portion of it hidden among Lebanon's civilian population.
Hezbollah entered the Syrian civil war 5 years ago to fight on behalf of Iran-backed dictator Bashar Al Assad. Since then 5,000 of its 20,000-strong fighting force is pinned down in Syria. The terrorist militia now controls territory within Syria, creating a base for Iran - a fallback option in case Assad regime were to collapse.
The Obama-Kerry Nuclear Deal gave Iran a signing bonus of $150 billion. Flushed with fresh cash, regime in Tehran is making up for the past cuts it had to make in funding its proxy terrorist group across the Middle East including Hezbollah.
Shia Islamist group Hezbollah was trained and equipped by Iran in mid-1980s to wage war against Israel. Unable to confront Israel head-on militarily, the terrorist group has carried out an asymmetric war using suicide attacks against the Israeli civilians and military targets. The BICOM report says:
Over 5,000 Hezbollah combatants are currently operating in Syria which comprises a quarter of the group's entire regular fighting forces. These troops provide an essential reinforcement of the regime's allied Iraqi/Shia forces, as well as giving training to regime forces (...) Hezbollah is believed to have lost between 1,300 - 1,500 members in the civil war and suffered over 5,000 injuries. (...)
Iran provides extensive military equipment and financial support to Hezbollah through a web of channels such as Iranian Revolutionary Guards Banks. At its peak, Hezbollah received an annual sum of approximately a billion dollars which was reduced in the years leading up to the July 2015 nuclear deal that provided sanctions relief to Iran.
While the Syrian civil war restrains Hezbollah's policy vis-�-vis Israel, the organization - together with Iran - continues to try and establish military infrastructure on the Golan and to improve its already significant rocket arsenal, a strategy that the current Syrian ceasefire is unlikely to alter.
The stockpile of missiles amassed by Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon has creating a direct security threat to Israel. Judging the current operational capabilities, Hezbollah could launch up to 1200 missile per day in case of a conflict with Israel. Terrorist group's military build-up includes sophisticated missiles such as Iranian-made FATEH as well as Russian-made Yakhont and Scuds.
Hezbollah has declared its intentions to hit civilian and non-military targets within Israel. Israel's ports, commercial centers, industrial and energy installations are within the rage of Hezbollah missiles.
However, Hezbollah's terrorist threat is not limited to Israel alone. The Lebanese group regularly carries out international terrorism on behalf of the Iranian regime and has now created footholds in Europe. Hezbollah's operates openly in Europe under the guise of its 'political wing.'
Hezbollah's growing military build-up should not be a matter of great concern to Israel alone but to Europe and the wider Western world as well, that is becoming increasingly vulnerable in the wake of the Migrant Crisis.
Israel Acquires Nuclear Submarines for Attack On Iran - by Sean Adl-Tabatabai - http://yournewswire.com/israel-acquires-nuclear-submarines-for-attack-on-iran/
In an interview with AcTVism Munich's Zain Raza, Chomsky explained what happens to submarines Germany sends to Israel:
"These dolphin class submarines that Germany is providing to Israel are instantly refitted in Israel to have nuclear weapons capacity, and that's not aimed at defense of Israel. They are meant for attack, that's what they are. And we know what attack they're aimed for in the short run: an attack on Iran in the Gulf. That's a terrible threat, not only to Iranians, but to the world."
Theantimedia.org reports:
If Israeli aggression against Palestinians could predict possible future behavior with other nations, which it arguably easily could, nuclear-armed submarines specifically intended to target Iran could be potentially highly dangerous as a trigger for unprecedented war.
"Israel, after all, has a doctrine. An official doctrine," Chomsky continues. "They say, they're free to attack Iran if they choose to. Furthermore, Israel is engaged in what the Pentagon has described as a war against Iran - and so is the United States. The U.S. Pentagon declares that cyber war is an act of war," and NATO has agreed, making cyber-attacks an offense which can be answered by military force. With that in mind, Chomsky explained, U.S. and Israeli cyber-attacks against Iran, which they proudly claim responsibility for carrying out, should be considered "an act of war."
He adds, "To send submarines, which are, in effect, nuclear-armed submarines to Israel at this time is a radical act of adventurism."
Though Chomsky doesn't discuss it directly in the interview, United States aid to Israel likely makes possible the outfitting of submarines with nuclear capabilities. Officially, through the end of last year, the U.S. gave just over $3 billion annually in "security assistance" to Israel, though President Obama had sought to increase that total to $5 billion. Unofficially, however, as Grant Smith reported for Antiwar.com, more covert aid might total as much as $13.2 billion - though "the CIA refuses to disclose how much the Obama administration is secretly funneling to Israel, a matter now subject to a Freedom of Information lawsuit."
Furthermore, just a hair under 70 percent of people in the U.S. say the government's aid to Israel is "too much," 32.5 percent of whom say the aid is "much too much."
AcTVism's interview with Chomsky also delves into the roles of the U.S. and other Western nations in the explosion of radicalized groups fighting in the Middle East - particularly fueled by the invasion of Iraq, which "hit the country like a sledgehammer."
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY ALL NEW PROPHECY AND CREATION DESIGN WEBSITES. THERE IS A LOT TO SEE AND DO..........
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.