Author: Gunner

  • Analysts: Chirac’s Nuclear Warning is Signal to U.S.

    On Thursday, French President Jacques Chirac threateningly signalled a willingness to unleash his nation’s nuclear weaponry against terrorist states, a move some see as a French counter to American power.

    By warning that France could use nuclear weapons against state sponsors of terrorism, President Jacques Chirac is signalling that the United States does not have a monopoly on nuclear deterrence, analysts said.

    French experts also agreed that Chirac’s speech on Thursday did not mark a fundamental policy shift but rather a refinement of current nuclear doctrine. Chirac’s unexpected warning to “rogue” states was intended to show that “one does not leave the monopoly of deterrence to the Americans”, argued Dominique Moisi, of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).

    “It was a Gaullist-inspired speech aimed at giving renewed legitimacy to France’s deterrent arsenal, within the context of Europe,” he said.

    Jean-Pierre Maulny, deputy director of the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), also saw the message as an assertion of nuclear independence from the United States, but one aimed at France’s European partners. “Jacques Chirac wants to give credibility to the European Union’s strategic autonomy,” Maulny said – despite the fact that, according to one military expert, most European nations wish to remain under the US nuclear umbrella.

    Whatever Chirac’s motivation, and a contrary position the the U.S. would not be a surprising one for the man, the effectiveness of the statement should be considered.

    France and Britain are the only EU nations to have nuclear arsenals. Asked whether Britain would consider using nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism, the British Foreign Office said its policy was not to give advance warning of its intended response to specific threats.

    Meanwhile, Maulny questioned the strategic wisdom of Chirac’s decision to clarify French strategic doctrine in the face of emerging threats.

    “Is this necessary? That’s not certain. Because the doctrine of deterrence is all the more effective when it stays vague. “Under (late presidents) De Gaulle and Mitterrand, the doctrine was simply to say: ‘I have nuclear weapons and I will not hesitate to use them.’”

    In a wide-ranging policy speech, Chirac warned on Thursday that any state that sponsored a terrorist attack – or was considering using weapons of mass destruction – against France, would be laying itself open to a nuclear attack. Although no specific country was mentioned, Chirac was understood to be referring to Iran. The West is currently engaged in an escalating dispute with Tehran over its nuclear programme and is seeking to win guarantees from Iran that it is not developing nuclear arms.

    While I am certainly opposed to publicly stating that any means by which a country may carry out its defense is off the table, it is also rash to essentially brag about a willingness to employ all of those means. Still, for once I cannot be too hard on Chirac; it is better to stumble strongly than wobble weakly.

    Others around the globe have also expressed concern about Chirac’s statement.

    Chirac May Spur Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions, German Lawmaker Says

    French President Jacques Chirac’s threat to use nuclear weapons against states that might resort to using weapons of mass destruction may make it harder to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program, a German lawmaker said.

    “I’m concerned that Iran will use these comments as a pretext to underline its own interests and that it will make negotiations more difficult rather than easier,” Eckart von Klaeden, a foreign policy spokesman in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, said in an interview in Berlin.

    Arab News Editorial: Chirac’s Nuclear Threat

    French President Chirac’s announcement on Thursday that France would consider using nuclear weapons against any country that launches a terrorist attack against it is political bombshell. Not even George Bush has gone as far as saying that, even though he might like to. Chirac’s threat is alarming. Clearly, had Al-Qaeda flown hijacked planes into the Eiffel Tower or the Montparnasse Tower rather than the World Trade Towers, Chirac might have nuked Kabul. Again, not even George Bush considered that — or if he did, he wisely kept quiet about it.

    Chirac’s nuclear policy speech draws fire across Europe

    French president Jacques Chirac drew scorching criticism in Europe today for threatening a nuclear response to state-sponsored terrorism.

    […]

    The speech sparked widespread criticism in the European media.

    “Jacques Chirac is an idiot,” chided Belgian daily De Morgen in an editorial. “He lives in a time where France is no longer a world power, but he’s still acting as if prolonging a Napoleonic dynasty.”

    Spain’s El Pais called the speech “radical and dangerous”.

    Iran denounces Chirac’s warning of nuclear response

    Iran on Saturday denounced as “unacceptable” recent comments by French President Jacques Chirac that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

    Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Chirac’s threats last Thursday reflect the true intentions of nuclear powers, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

    “The French President uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games,” IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.

    Cuban leader expresses concern about Iranian nuclear dispute

    Cuban President Fidel Castro expressed concern Saturday about the nuclear dispute between Iran and countries including the United States and France, urging all countries to refrain from using nuclear weapons.

    The Cuban leader chided France for recent comments by President Jacques Chirac that his country could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack. Castro also accused the United States of searching for an excuse to attack Iran.

    “It is very worrisome that this alliance of countries is proclaiming the right to use nuclear weapons against ‘terrorist’ states,” Castro said in a live appearance on the daily Cuban TV public-affairs program Mesa Redonda, or Round Table.

    “What’s being spread is fear,” he added.

    Oh no, Monsieur Chirac

    Jacques Chirac has a gift for the theatrical, and he displayed his talent to great effect on Thursday when he signalled that France was prepared to use nuclear weapons against any state that backed a terrorist attack against it. The president was speaking to a highly interested party — the crew of Le Vigilant, one of the submarines that carry most of France’s 350 or so nuclear warheads (De Gaulle’s “force de frappe”), and he was also trying to protect costly nuclear modernisation from possible budget cuts. But he clearly knew that his comments would create a global frisson…

    France is one of the world’s five “officially” recognised nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN security council. As such, it is in the forefront of a potentially dangerous confrontation with Iran over its alleged ambitions to acquire atomic weapons. Tehran’s response is that it is entitled, under the non-proliferation treaty, to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which it insists is all it seeks. France is obliged, under the same treaty, to make progress towards disarmament…

    […]

    But there is a simple point here: how can countries such as Iran and North Korea be persuaded not to seek the bomb if the “official” nuclear powers flaunt their double standards and issue threats? As President Chirac quipped memorably of someone else in a different context: he missed an excellent opportunity to shut up.

  • 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.

  • Quote of the Week, 22 JAN 06

    We cannot count on the instinct for survival to protect us against war.

    —Ronald Reagan

  • 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.

  • Iraqi Shiites Fail to Get Majority, Need Coalition

    The Iraqi parliamentary election results have been announced, and the news is good.

    Iraq’s Shiite Muslim-based religious parties won 128 out of 275 seats in the December vote for a permanent parliament, requiring them to form a coalition government, according to results released today.

    The United Iraqi Alliance, which controlled the transitional assembly with 146 seats, fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to form a government, according to a tally given by Safwad Rasheed Sidqi, a spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission, in a televised news conference from Baghdad.

    The minority Sunni Muslims, who boycotted the January 2005 election of the transitional assembly, made the biggest gains after their leaders encouraged participation in the Dec. 15 vote to gain representation in the new government. The National Concord Front won 44 seats and another Sunni-based party, the National Dialogue Front, won 11, Sidqi said.

    “The elections have now confirmed that Sunnis are not the majority in Iraq and that they will not call the shots,” said Vali Nasr, professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The Bush administration has expressed hope that the participation of Sunnis in the new government will help to stem a Sunni-led insurgency, allowing the withdrawal of U.S. troops to begin.

    The Kurdish Alliance, which voted with the Shiite bloc in the current parliament, saw its presence reduced to 53 from 75. The rival Kurdish Islamic Party won five seats, a gain of three. Former premier Ayad Allawi’s secular Iraqi National List party took 25 seats, down from 40, according to the commission. Small parties won a total of 14 seats, according to the commission.

    No date has yet been set for lawmakers to take their seats in the new Council of Representatives, formerly the National Assembly. Council members will serve four-year terms.

    Politicians have four days to appeal the outcome, which were largely in line with the Dec. 21 preliminary returns. Officials then have 10 days to study any complaints before they certify the results.

    Allawi and some Sunni politicians have already made complaints saying there was voting fraud and intimidation by Shiites. Sunnis dominated ousted President Saddam Hussein’s regime, which suppressed the Shiite majority and the ethnic Kurds.

    Excellent. The best hope for Iraq right now is a continued pressure towards political compromise. Had the Shiites achieved a threshold allowing them to dictate the formation of the government, Iraq’s fledgling democracy may have taken quite a hit with non-Shiites as it struggles to continue its momentum forward.

    The results are hopeful but must be kept in perspective.

    “The fact that elections have gone forward now three times shows that the political process is taking root in Iraq and the insurgency is losing ground,” Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a former adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, said in a telephone interview. “That said, the insurgency is still going to be with us for years. There’s no magic formula to end it, and most insurgencies on average last 10 years.”

    Quite right. There remains still a long row to hoe in Iraq, both politically and militarily, but progress is undeniable.

  • Leftist Peacenik Group Caught Photoshopping

    Code Pink has been caught red-handed manipulating a photo in a rather disgusting manner by Publius Pundit‘s A.M. Mora y Leon.

    Unbelievable. Code Pink, an anti-American, anti-Iraqi-freedom, anti-Iranian-democracy full-Sandalista nuisance group, has taken to photoshopping photographs of Iranian freedom babes brave enough to protest against the monstrous mullahs of Iran, and used their beautiful images as recruiting tools for their own odious, anaphrodisiac cause. This cause just happens to be cut-and-run from Iraq, so that mullahs will be free to oppress women in ‘peace.’ That’s Code Pink’s cause! It is so disgusting!

    They can’t even tell the difference between Iranians and Iraqis, among other things, and just don’t care. But that’s not nearly as bad as changing the message the women were putting their lives on the line to get across.

    Go check out the photographic evidence. Realize, of course, that the useful idiots of Code Pink are the newest friends of pro-retreat Congressman John Murtha (D-IsForDefeat).

  • 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.

  • Surprise! Syria Backs a Nuclear Iran

    Oh wait, no, this isn’t a surprise at all.

    Syria yesterday backed Iran in its nuclear confrontation with the West as their leaders met in Damascus in a defiant show of solidarity.

    The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, welcomed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said the Iranian leader had the right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. In turn, Mr Ahmadinejad asserted his host’s right to freedom from foreign interference.

    Both men face confontations with the United Nations Security Council.

    Both men also face the danger of a virus called democracy growing between them.

  • Strike Reportedly Kills al-Qaida Militants

    We aimed for Ayman al-Zawahiri, ranked number two in the latest al Queda polls but bouyed in the BCS by being ranked higher in some computer rankings. We apparently missed.

    Now, the news is that it looks like we nailed some key bad guys.

    Pakistani intelligence agents hunted Wednesday for the graves of four al-Qaida militants believed killed in an airstrike near the Afghan border including one authorities suspect was a high-ranking al-Qaida figure.

    ABC News reported that a master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert for al-Qaida was killed in the attack on the village of Damadola last week. He was identified as Midhat Mursi, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, who ran an al-Qaida training camp and has a $5 million reward on his head.

    According to ABC, Pakistani officials also said two other terror network officials were killed: Khalid Habib, the al-Qaida operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan; and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi, a senior operations commander for the group.

    Pentagon officials said they had no information on the report. A Pakistani intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to speak to journalists, said authorities still did not know the names of the dead foreign militants but suspect one was a ranking al-Qaida figure.

    “We have no names. We know one of them had value in al-Qaida. He had intelligence value in the network, but we are still checking his name,” said the official.

    […]

    The U.S. government refuses to discuss the airstrike, which has been condemned by Pakistan.

    Provincial authorities say the attack killed 18 residents of the Pashtun village, and they also say they believe sympathizers took the bodies of four or five foreign militants to bury them in the mountains, thereby preventing their identification.

    “Efforts are under way to investigate further,” said Shah Zaman Khan, director-general of media relations for Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

    He said authorities were also looking for two prominent pro-Taliban clerics accused of harboring militants, Maulana Faqir Mohammed and Liaqat Ali, who were allegedly in Damadola and survived the assault.

    Intelligence officials say the dead foreigners could be aides of al-Zawahri, who is thought to have sent them in his place to an Islamic holiday dinner to which he’d been invited in Damadola on the night of the attack.

    My first point is this: either the residents of this village knew how to spin on a global stage or the international media was willing to give them a helping hand.

    Hours after the attack, an Associated Press reporter visited the village, which consists of a half-dozen widely scattered houses on a hillside about four miles from the Afghan border.

    Residents said then that all the dead were local people and no one had taken any bodies away. However, it appeared feasible bodies or wounded could have been spirited away in the darkness after the attack, which took place about 3 a.m.

    Islamic custom dictates that bodies be buried as soon as possible, and the reporter saw 13 freshly filled graves with simple headstones and five empty graves alongside them apparently prepared for more dead. When the reporter returned the next day, the five empty graves were filled in, apparently because no more bodies had been found in the rubble.

    The only tidbits of official information that have surfaced since then have come from provincial authorities, and they have yet to give a list of the dead. But Pakistani intelligence officials have said they believe some of those killed were Pakistani militants and that their bodies were also removed from the scene.

    A Pakistani army official has told the AP that some bodies were taken away for DNA tests information at odds with reports from provincial authorities. The federal government has not confirmed the report about DNA tests.

    The rush by the media resulted in a major gaffe, as Michelle Malkin and a good chunk of the blogosphere showed us yesterday.

    My second point is that our intelligence appears to have been rather good and timely in this case — certainly a nice development. And some bad guys are taking that long dirt nap. Hooah!

    Assuming Zawahiri lives, I’d reckon his ties with the locals have certainly become a wee bit less enthusiastic … from both perspectives.

  • West Sees No Point in More Nuclear Talks with Iran

    Next stop on the Iranian nuke journey: the United Nations Security Council.

    An emergency meeting over Iran’s controversial nuclear programme is to be held by the United Nations’ atomic weapons watchdog at the request of Britain, France and Germany, it was revealed yesterday.

    The so-called EU3 and the United States are expected to push at the session of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s governing board to have Tehran referred to the UN Security Council after it resumed research that could be used for generating electricity or making atomic bombs.

    The US and EU said yesterday they saw no point in holding further negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programmes and it was time for the Security Council to tackle the issue.

    Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said there was “not much to talk about” and Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, agreed. Ms Rice said the international community was united in mistrusting the Islamic republic and its present leadership with nuclear technology.

    ‘Bout freakin’ time. It was obvious from the beginning that the Euro-led negotiations were a waste of valuable time, time Iran has used to its advantage. A week ago, I blogged the following:

    It is time, actually well past time, to admit that the Euro diplomacy path was a gambit doomed to fail. The U.S. was forced to allow it, as the Bush administration had been painted into a corner with all the false and politically-driven accusations of unilateral action and rush to war surrounding the Iraqi theater. From the beginning, there was a key fault with the negotiations — one side didn’t actually want them to succeed.

    So now we find the matter heading toward the UNSC. Make no mistake, however — that will not be the last stop on this hellish ride. It’s just another point on a journey that will likely end in flame. The true story ultimately lies in just who will decide the locations of said flame.