Target Centermass

Category: Central Asia

  • Dutch MPs Back Sending Troops to Afghanistan

    Ah, some good news out of the Netherlands.

    An overwhelming majority of the Dutch parliament yesterday supported sending troops on a controversial mission to southern Afghanistan, ending months of political indecision in the Netherlands that had threatened to embarrass Nato and stall peacekeeping efforts.

    One hundred and thirty one of the 150 MPs – many representing the three largest political factions – said they backed the centre-right Dutch government’s proposal to commit up to 1,400 soldiers to the Nato mission.

    Nato officials had expressed concern that a No vote by the Dutch would slow down the roll-out of the operation, which is set to take place during the first six months of the year.

    It could also have embarrassed Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary-general and former Dutch foreign minister, who has identified Afghanistan as Nato’s most important mission.

    “Of course we welcome this decision,” said a Nato spokesman. “We are glad that the Dutch parliament has confirmed the government’s decision to go forward. What we have done in Afghanistan up to now is a success. This decision will help us reinforce the success.”

    The expansion to the south of the country will be spearheaded by 3,300 British troops, as well as 2,200 Canadians, but the Dutch contingent was seen as a key part of the operation, for both symbolic and practical reasons. The breakthrough came as Wouter Bos, leader of PvdA, the Labour opposition, told parliament all but one of his 42-member parliamentary party supported the mission, which also had the support of the Christian Democrats and liberal VVD, the main parties of the centre-right government.

    I was concerned. Perhaps there’s still a touch of life in NATO yet.

  • Iran Threatens to Lock out UN

    Long-delayed move.

    Immediate Iraninan counter.

    Iran yesterday threatened to halt snap UN inspections of its nuclear sites and resume uranium enrichment if it is reported to the Security Council as agreed by the council’s five permanent members.

    In an angry response to the move by Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States in the early hours of yesterday, Iran also warned it would hit back in the region if put under severe international pressure.

    […]

    The agreement by the five permanent members of the Security Council to call for the IAEA to refer Iran to the full council, where it could face sanctions, was hailed by Tony Blair.

    “I hope it’s sending a message that the international community is united,” the Prime Minister said.

    But Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, responded angrily, amid signs that Russia and China are stalling over the issue.

    He said: “We consider any referral or report of Iran to the Security Council as the end of diplomacy. If these countries use all their means … to put pressure on Iran, Iran will use its capacity in the region.”

    It was not clear what regional capacities he meant. Analysts and diplomats say Iran, with its links to Islamist parties and militants, has the means to create trouble for the West in Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and elsewhere.

    You know, this is a rather tiring dance.

    Tucked into the story is this little tidbit.

    It also emerged yesterday that Iran has given the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a sensitive document that appears linked to nuclear warhead designs in a show of apparent openness designed to stave off being reported to the Security Council.

    Diplomats said the one and a half page document, which described how to cast fissile uranium into the hemispherical shape of warheads, was given to IAEA inspectors last week.

    This is good news, assuming that Iran’s thirst for thermonuclear warfare technology took precedent over their acquiring the copying machine.

  • Dutch Debate Sending Troops to Afghanistan

    The Dutch parliament is set to vote on a commitment of troops to the more volatile southern provinces of Afghanistan and, surprisingly, Kofi Annan is campaigning in favor of the deployment.

    UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is urging the Dutch parliament not to leave Canadian and British soldiers in the lurch in southern Afghanistan. Annan warns international efforts in Afghanistan may fail if the Dutch balk at the deployment of over 1,000 troops.

    “No one can afford to see a destabilized Afghanistan in the region,” said Annan, speaking in The Hague. “We saw what it meant when Afghanistan was destabilized in the hands of the Taliban and terrorists. Do we want to go back to that?”

    Yes, it isn’t very often that I find myself in complete concurrence with dear ol’ Kofi. Let’s cherish this moment.

    Okay, that’s enough cherishing.

    The Dutch government supports the move, but public opposition is growing over the increasing risks to troops in Afghanistan.

    Dutch parliamentarians will vote on the issue on Thursday.

    The Dutch forces would be part of a NATO-led mission. The Afghanistan operation is reviving bitter memories of other peacekeeping missions and stirring fresh debate among the people of the Netherlands.

    It was just over 10 years ago that Dutch peacekeepers faced frustration and horror as they tried to operate in Srebrenica under a restrictive UN mandate. They ended up looking on as Serbs killed thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys.

    This time, the public and politicians are asking a lot of questions.

    I’ve said before that such questions and concerns are understandable in light of earlier Dutch involvement in a NATO misadventure.

    Afghanistan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah even flew to The Hague to plead his nation’s case for Dutch help. Later, upon his arrival in London for an international conference on the future of his country, Abdullah hinted at his frustration.

    “It’s good that these debates are underway,” he said, “but signs of hesitation will not help anybody.”

    I don’t want too hang too much on the Dutch, who most assuredly have their own domest radical Islamist issues, but a vote against military involvement would only serve to strengthen my concerns about the future value of prolonging NATO’s existence.

  • Security Council to Review Iran Nuke Case

    Well, it’s about time the UNSC agreed to take a closer look at the Iranian quest for nukes. Actually, it’s well past time and, even now, too meekly begun.

    The United States and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Tuesday that Iran should be hauled before that powerful body over its disputed nuclear program.

    China and Russia, longtime allies and trading partners of Iran, signed on to a statement that calls on the U.N. nuclear watchdog to transfer the Iran dossier to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions or take other harsh action.

    Foreign ministers from those nations, plus the United States, Britain and France, also said the Security Council should wait until March to take up the Iran case, after a formal report on Tehran’s activities from the watchdog agency.

    Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council, all nuclear powers themselves, can veto an action voted by the full council membership.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other foreign ministers discussed Iran at a private dinner at the home of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. After the four-hour meeting, which spilled over into the early hours Tuesday, a joint statement called on the International Atomic Energy Agency to report the Iran case when it meets in Vienna on Thursday.

    Foreign ministers from Germany and the European Union also attended the dinner and agreed to what amounted to a compromise – take the case to the Security Council but allow a short breather before the council undertakes what could be a divisive debate.

    A short breather? I’m sure the Iranian nuclear program will use the interim just for catching its collective breath, hoping cooler heads prevail. That, or perhaps March will give the Iranians all the time they need to become a nuclear menace.

  • Six Killed in Southwest Iran Bombings

    Today brings us another tale of civilians killed by bombings in Iraq Iran.

    Bombs killed six people and wounded more than 30 others Tuesday in Ahvaz, a southwestern city with a history of violence involving members of Iran’s Arab minority, Iranian state media reported.

    The bombs exploded outside a bank and a state environmental agency building in Ahvaz, the capital of oil-rich Khuzestan province, which borders Iraq, the official Islamic Republic News Agency said.

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a planned visit to Ahvaz Tuesday, citing a forecast calling for heavy rain, IRNA reported. The report did not say whether the blast had any bearing on the cancellation.

    Ahmadinejad and his entire Cabinet had been expected to meet in Ahvaz as part of a series of visits to provincial capitals to address key local issues.

    State TV said the bombs killed six people and wounded 34 others.

    It should be noted that this is not a new occurrence, though it is interesting that today’s bombings would certainly seem to be tied to Ahmadinejad’s scheduled visit.

    Ahvaz was also the scene of bombings in June and October that the government blamed on Iranian Arab extremists whom it claimed were trained abroad and maintained ties to foreign governments, including Britain.

    The October bombings killed six people and those in June killed at least eight. Britain has denied any connection to the Khuzestan unrest.

    Nezam Molla Hoveizeh, a Khuzestan lawmaker, said Tuesday that the bombers were “dissidents based outside our borders,” IRNA reported. Hoveizeh did not elaborate on the allegation.

    Official Iranian fingers were quickly pointed in the direction of the Brits.

    The explosions follow bitter exchanges between Tehran and London.

    In recent months, Iran has repeatedly accused Britain of provoking unrest in Khuzestan, which borders that part of Iraq where 8,500 British soldiers are based as part of the U.S.-led military coalition.

    At the same time, Britain has opposed Iran’s nuclear activities, supporting moves to refer it to the U.N. Security Council, and has accused Tehran of allowing Iraqi insurgents to receive explosives technology that has been used to attack British soldiers.

    Both countries have denied the claims and counterclaims.

    Frankly, I have no faith whatsoever in the Iranian denials, and I can only hope that, with the looming nuclear crisis, both Britain and the U.S. are hard at work fomenting unrest in Iran.

  • Iranian Nuke Crisis: the Dance Continues

    The song remains the same, though the tempo seems to be taking a slight uptick. It is difficult to tell whether Iran or its multitude of dance partners is leading this tripping of the light mushroomic.

    Iran threatens to ramp up nuclear program

    Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the UN Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program, Tehran’s senior envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday.

    The comments by Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh reflected Iran’s unwillingness to bow to growing international pressure, especially in the West, to end all nuclear enrichment activities.

    Iran recently announced it was resuming limited nuclear enrichment. The process can be used to provide fuel for nuclear reactors or, if taken far enough, material for nuclear weapons.

    Step, and then the counter.

    Bush commits US to defence of Israel in face of Iran threat

    George Bush yesterday committed the US to the defence of Israel against threats from Iran, saying he would not allow the world to be “blackmailed” by an Iranian nuclear weapon.

    […]

    “I am deeply concerned about Iran, as should a lot of people be concerned about Iran. I am concerned when the country of Iran’s president announces his desire to see that Israel gets destroyed,” Mr Bush said, referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threat to “wipe Israel off the map”.

    He added: “Israel’s our ally. We’re committed to the safety of Israel, and it’s a commitment we will keep.

    “Secondly, I’m concerned about a nontransparent society’s desire to develop a nuclear weapon. The world cannot be put in a position where we can be blackmailed by a nuclear weapon. I believe it is very important for the Iranian government to hear loud and clear from not only the United States, but also from other nations around the world.”

    Quite. Freakin’. Right.

    And the song continues. I can almost picture Dubya crooning to Iranian president/puppet/madman (pick your poison) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

    Strangers in the night exchanging veiled threats
    Wond’ring in the night
    What were the chances we’d be launching bombs
    Before the night was through.

    Something in your eyes burned so insanely,
    Something in the way you spoke so vainly (apocalyptic),
    Something in my heart,
    Told me I must stop you.

    Doobie doobie doo …

    [With mucho apologies to Frank. That, and the rhyme and rhythm suck]

  • Iran Turns up Heat in Nuclear War of Words

    Because the Iranian nuclear ambitions cannot be allowed to just simmer on the back burner for a day or two.

    Iran yesterday warned Israel it would be making a “fatal mistake” if it took military action against Tehran’s nuclear programme.

    The warning came as part of escalating verbal warfare between the two regional rivals, with Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s Iranian-born defence minister, saying Israel would not let Iran acquire nuclear capability.

    “We are giving priority at this stage to diplomatic action, but we cannot tolerate a nuclear option for Iran and we must prepare ourselves,” Mr Mofaz said.

    Iran’s Foreign Ministry yesterday branded Mr Mofaz’s comments “a form of psychological warfare”.

    A spokesman said: “Israel knows how much of a fatal mistake it would be [to attack Iran]. This is just a childish game by Israel.”.

    But speakers at a seminar in Israel yesterday voiced suggestions ranging from a show of military force to bombing Iran’s nuclear installations.

    “Only a show of force by the entire world, including the United States and, afterwards, Israel, will be effective in doing away with Iran’s acquiring nuclear capability,” said Yitzhak Ben-Rafael, an army reserves general who teaches at Tel Aviv University.

    Ephraim Sneh, an MP from the opposition Labour Party, said: “The state of Israel is on a collision course with the Iranian regime.”

    One could just as easily make the argument that it would almost assuredly be a fatal mistake for Israel if there were no action taken against Iran.

    The story also included this mildly interesting tidbit.

    Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Iraqi cleric, said yesterday that his Mahdi army would help to defend Iran if it were attacked by a foreign nation.

    “The Mahdi army is beyond the Iraqi army. It was established to defend Islam,” he said.

    This little two-bit thug has been allowed to be a repeated pain in the arse for far too long. There is humor to be found, however, in his delusions of grandeur about his little rabble.

  • Sabotage Suspected in Georgia Gas Pipeline Explosions

    Suspicious explosions in southern Russia signal some very cold nights ahead in neighboring Georgia and Armenia, and the expected finger-pointing is well under way.

    Russian authorities have launched a criminal investigation into a series of explosions that tore through two gas pipelines and cut off supplies to the former Soviet states of Georgia and Armenia.

    Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili has accused neighbouring Russia of sabotage.

    The explosions in southern Russia severed two gas pipelines and an electricity supply line.

    Gas exports have been cut to Georgia and Armenia as both countries endure an unusually cold winter.

    Georgia has enough gas to last just one more day and Armenia has been forced to dig into its own meagre reserves.

    Russian officials say it could take several days to repair the damage.

    Okay, everybody suspects sabotage. The key issue is who committed the sabotage.

    Investigators believe the explosions were acts of sabotage and have blamed anti-Russian insurgents.

    But Georgia’s President, the western-leaning Mikhail Saakashvili, has accused Russia of being behind the blasts.

    The President believes the incident is linked to a dispute over recent gas price rises.

    It should be interesting to watch the developments in this matter.

  • Iran Moving Financial Assets

    Having learned a harsh lesson a quarter of a century ago, Iran is preparing itself financially for possible United Nations sanctions.

    Iran is moving its foreign assets to an undisclosed destination, apparently to shield them from any U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program, the central bank governor was quoted as saying on Friday.

    Iran, threatened with referral to the Security Council for possible punitive measures, has bitter memories of its U.S. assets being frozen shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    “We transfer foreign reserves to wherever we see as expedient. On this issue, we have started transferring. We are doing that,” Ebrahim Sheibani told the ISNA students’ news agency when asked about the need to shift Iran’s holdings.

    There was no immediate confirmation of the Iranian action, but Sheibani’s remarks indicated how seriously the Islamic republic is taking the threat of U.N. sanctions.

    The West suspects Iran of seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic program. Tehran denies this.

    The United States and the European Union want the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran to the Security Council when the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s governing board holds an emergency meeting on February 2.

    Russia and China, which both have major commercial interests at stake in Iran, have urged caution.

    China’s state-run press on Friday urged Iran to halt nuclear work and return to talks with Britain, France and Germany, but argued against taking Tehran to the Security Council.

    “Negotiations remain the best option, as sanctions will muddy the waters,” the China Daily said in an editorial. “The crux of the matter is encouraging Iran to come back to negotiations with the European Union.”

    The EU trio scrapped the talks last week after Iran removed IAEA seals on uranium enrichment equipment and resumed a suspended nuclear research program. U.S. and EU officials say there can be no more talks unless Tehran reverses these steps.

    “The international consensus is unmistakable and important,” said the China Daily, which generally echoes official thinking. “Iran should respond to the diplomatic efforts of the international community.”

    Europe cuts off donations and pushes for referral to the UNSC. China urges more, certainly pointless negotiations. Iran begins a financial three-card monte.

    Follow the money.

    ISNA asked Sheibani whether the money was being moved to Asian accounts, as reported in the London-based Asharq al-Awsat, which said on Thursday that Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had ordered foreign holdings to be sent to Asia.

    Sheibani did not say where the funds were going. He told reporters earlier this week that Iran stood ready to repatriate the money it held abroad should this prove necessary.

    It is far from clear how placing assets in Asia or anywhere abroad would protect them from being frozen as few governments or major banks would be willing to flout U.N. sanctions openly. [emphasis added]

    Sure, go ahead and get this matter to the UNSC. That is a mere formality already doomed to worthlessness in the matter. As I’ve stated in the past, this matter will almost certainly only end in flames.

  • Bin Laden Speaks

    Well, it’s been a while, quite a while in fact, but a new audio tape of Osama bin Laden has been released.

    Osama bin Laden broke a year-long silence yesterday to warn Americans that al-Qaida is preparing new attacks against the US, according to a new audiotape attributed to him.

    “The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your houses as soon as they are complete, God willing,” the speaker on the tape said. At the same time he offered a “long-term” truce dependent on the US pulling out of Iraq.

    Al-Qaida has not attacked the US since September 11 2001, but Bin Laden said that was not because the organisation had been foiled by tightened anti-terrorism measures. “The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations,” he said.

    […]

    The release of the tape, parts of which were broadcast by al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic TV channel, may have been timed to quash speculation that Bin Laden had died or been killed. His last taped message came in December 2004.

    […]

    “This message is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end those wars,” yesterday’s tape began. Apparently addressing Americans, it continued: “It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those wars are definitely going our way. But what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by your President Bush, when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

    “We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans don’t want to fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their [American] land.”

    Bin Laden has previously offered a truce to Europe, not the US. In the message he told Americans: “We do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to. We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war.”

    […]

    Mr Atwan, the editor of the London-based daily al-Quds al-Arabi, said he believed Bin Laden was trying to present himself as a politician, not as a terrorist or killer. “He’s saying, ‘We have a political agenda’, and offering a truce. He is saying to the Americans, ‘Your leadership is the source of the problem. Bush is not listening to you when you ask him to withdraw from Iraq.’”

    The full translated transcript is available here. Is it just me, or am I seeing a smattering of lefty and peacenik talking points there? Nope, it’s not just me.

    Now, what to make of that truce thing? Of course, it should be scoffed at and rejected, as it has been. Second, is it a sign of a pending attack or a hint at weakness? Anton La Guardia, diplomatic editor for the Telegraph, seems to opt for the latter.

    Meanwhile, the al-Qa’eda “brand” has been kept alive by videos released on the internet or to Arab satellite stations. For the past 13 months bin Laden has mysteriously vanished. The latest audio tape will quieten rumours of his death, but the feebleness of his voice may stoke speculation that he is too ill to be shown in the flesh.

    The principal role of marketing al-Qa’eda has been performed by Ayman al-Zawahiri. But his video appearances may have exposed him to greater risk of detection.

    The Americans appear to be getting closer, judging from events in the Pakistani village of Damalola. Details are sketchy but a US drone appears to have fired a missile into a building where Zawahiri was expected to be.

    Initially the strike was regarded as a massacre of innocent villagers. But Pakistani officials said yesterday that four or five senior al-Qa’eda figures were among the dead.

    Those killed are said to include a wanted explosives and chemical weapons expert, as well as a Abdul Rehman al-Maghribi, a relative of Zawahiri.

    The troubles of the “core” al-Qa’eda leadership are apparent from an intercepted letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, released by the US last October.

    Zawahiri bemoans the fact that he cannot travel to Iraq, recounts how “the real danger comes from the Pakistani army” and, finally, begs Zarqawi for money because “many of the lines have been cut off”. Still, Zawahiri gives Zarqawi advice, telling him that “we are in a battle, and more than half this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media”.

    Jihad Watch, whose addition to my blogroll was long overdue and finally done, agrees.

    In Islamic theology traditionally the forces of jihad ask for a truce when they are weak and need to gather strength. Hmmmm.

    The post has more on the historical Islamist basis for truces in an update (hat tip to In the Bullpen)

    Michelle Malkin has a nice collection of links on the Osama tape.