Program chief named in leaked documents

THE leaked documents regarding Tehran's atomic secrets pinpoint Mohsen Fakhrizadeh as the man everyone would like to reach to learn the secrets of Iran's nuclear program. No one outside Iran has succeeded so far.

The classified memo, leaked to London's The Times newspaper is signed by Mr Fakhrizadeh, identifying him for the first time as the chairman of the Field For The Expansion of Deployment of Advance Technology (FEDAT).

Intelligence sources say this is the most recent cover name for the organisation running Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The UN's atomic watchdog has long believed him to be the head of Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program but Tehran, which jealously guards his secrets, has rejected attempts to interview him.

Mr Fakhrizadeh, a physics professor and a former officer in the Revolutionary Guard, is no longer able to leave Iran because the UN Security Council slapped travel sanctions and an assets freeze on him. He is regarded as one of the regime's most loyal servants.

The memo from Mr Fakhrizadeh, dated December 29, 2005, is addressed to heads of 12 departments that make up FEDAT. Experts say the grouping of these disciplines under a single military command points to nothing other than a weapons program.

The Iranian government denies the existence of any military nuclear program, insisting the only nuclear activities in the country are under the civilian control of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, which purports to be developing a nuclear power program.

Western diplomats believe it to be little more than a front for a clandestine military program, the justification for the production of nuclear fuel despite the absence of a single home-grown nuclear power plant.

The memo bears a close resemblance to documents presented at an extraordinary board meeting at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna at the beginning of last year. Those documents included letters -- to the same department heads as mentioned in the memo seen by The Times -- that chastised staff for using the real names of military scientists. The latest document uses only their titles.

FEDAT's obsession with secrecy is evident in another leaked document, an internal report from 2007 that was drawn up within the Centre for Preparedness at the Institute of Applied Physics, one of the organisation's 12 departments. It lays out a four-year plan for the testing of a neutron initiator, a key component in a nuclear weapon. It also offers an insight into the structure of a program that ensures as few people as possible gain a complete overview of it.

More at the Australian

Hezbollah, Iran May Get 'Arm' Inside U.N. Security Council

On Jan. 1, 2010, Hezbollah and its de-facto ruler Iran could have a direct line to the Security Council and gain access to all the confidential information to which Security Council members are privy.

In October the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly voted for Lebanon to be the Asian bloc's new non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for a 2-year term.

Earlier today the Lebanese Government endorsed Hezbollah's demand allowing it to keep its huge weapons arsenal. In doing so the Lebanese government is able to maintain its shaky unity government in which Hezbollah, a designated terrorist group by the U.S. state department, holds two ministries.

Critics worry that the Lebanese will essentially be sitting on the Security Council while ignoring Security Council resolutions that call for the disarming of armed militias, in other words Hezbollah.

Analysts point to the influence wielded by the Iranian-funded Hezbollah in Lebanon as a cause for concern over Lebanon's acceptance into the Security Council. Walid Phares, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Fox News contributor on terrorism, was one of the architects of U.N. Resolution 1559 which passed in 2004 and called for the immediate disarmament of armed militias. Given the new structure of the Lebanese government that now includes Hezbollah, he says the organization will have "an arm and an eye inside the Security Council."

Hezbollah's acceptance of joining the national unity government came with a promise of not having to disarm

as well as receiving the power of veto following months of complicated negotiations.

While repeated calls to the Lebanese foreign ministry in Beirut went unanswered, Lebanon's ambassador to the U.N., Nawaf Salam, was recently quoted in reports as saying that once on the Security Council, Lebanon would "work for a more just and democratic international system."

More at Foxnews

World Powers Discuss Punishment for Tehran Nuke Program

BRUSSELS — The United States and five other world powers will meet Friday in Brussels to discuss what measures can be taken to punish Tehran for its refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment program.

Diplomats in Vienna, meanwhile, said International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors paid a second visit to Iran's recently revealed Fordo uranium enrichment facility on Thursday.

Iran acknowledged Fordo's existence in September in a confidential letter to the U.N. watchdog, then faced sharp criticism from the U.S., Britain and France for hiding the facility for years. Iran says it is building the fortified facility as a backup in case its main plant at Natanz is attacked.

The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity in exchange for divulging confidential information.

The United States and other nations fear Iran wants to build nuclear arms, but Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.

Friday's meeting will include the U.N. Security Council's permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. — plus Germany, EU foreign affairs spokeswoman Cristina Gallach said Thursday. She said it would bring together political directors — foreign ministry officials below the ministerial level — from the six nations "to take stock of the situation."

Iran announced Wednesday it would not export its enriched uranium for further processing, effectively rejecting the latest plan brokered by the IAEA. That plan aimed to delay Tehran's ability to build a nuclear weapon by sending most of the uranium needed for that out of the country.

More at FoxNews

Obama green-lights Arab land grab

By Aaron Klein

TEL AVIV – A top Palestinian Authority negotiator told WND that the Obama administration won't stand in the way of a Palestinian threat to unilaterally ask the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state outside of negotiations with Israel.

Despite widespread assumptions the U.S. would veto any such U.N. Security Council resolution, the PA negotiator said that in initial discussions, the Obama administration did not threaten to veto their conceptual unilateral resolution.

"The U.S. told us that they prefer a negotiated settlement with Israel, but if we (Palestinians) insist on a resolution, the Americans will not necessarily reject it," the PA negotiator said.

"The U.S. has a history of never before vetoing any UN move to create a new state," the negotiator pointed out.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said yesterday the Palestinians had decided to turn to the U.N. Security Council to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.

Separately, the negotiator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the Obama administration is "totally on board" with a plan by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to create a state on the pre-1967 borders within two years.

WND first reported in September that according to a top PA official, the Obama administration has largely adopted the positions of the Palestinian West Bank leadership to create a Palestinian state within two years based on the pre-1967 borders, meaning Israel would retreat from most of the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

The PA negotiator WND spoke with yesterday said that his authority's primary goal now is to secure a letter of support from the Obama administration affirming the U.S. commitment to a pre-1967 Palestinian state within two years.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday hit back at the PA plan to unilaterally declare a state, warning such a move will be met by "one-sided Israeli measures." He did not elaborate.

"There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral attempts outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us and could entail unilateral steps by Israel," Netanyahu told a high-level gathering of Israeli and American policy makers at the Saban Forum in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu stressed that in order to achieve peace, "negotiations must resume immediately." He affirmed Israel was prepared to begin talks "with a generous spirit."

"I want to stress that we are willing to take steps that will help in advancing the peace process, but it must begin, there is no reason to waste time," said the Israeli leader.

While negotiations were not easy, Netanyahu said, "there is no other way to bring about change."

In September, a senior PA official told WND that aside from supporting a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders, the Obama administration also had accepted the PA position that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations begin where they left off under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who went further than previous Israeli leaders in his concessions to the Palestinians.

Olmert reportedly offered the PA not only 95 percent of the West Bank and peripheral eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods but also other territories never before offered by any Israeli leader, including parts of the Israeli Negev desert bordering Gaza as well as sections of the Jordan Valley.

"We understand from the U.S. that the Netanyahu government is not in a position to go against creating a state within two years," the PA official said.

The official claimed the Obama administration was ready to ultimately consider "sanctions" against Israel if the Netanyahu government rejected negotiations leading to a Palestinian state. The official refused to clarify which sanctions he was referring to or whether he was specifically told by the U.S. government it would consider sanctions.

The PA official claimed Obama can make a "headache" for Netanyahu if the Israeli leader does not conduct negotiations leading within two years to a Palestinian state.

WND

Ban Ki-moon: Hizbullah poses threat to stability

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that the presence of armed Hizbullah and Palestinian terrorists in Lebanon is contributing to tensions and insecurity and could eventually lead to a resumption of hostilities.

In his six-month report to the UN Security Council on Lebanon, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, the UN chief focused on implementation of a 2004 resolution that calls for the disbanding of all militias and urged that Hizbullah and the Palestinian groups be disarmed quickly.

"The existence and activities of Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias ... continue to pose a threat to the stability of the country," Ban said.

"The presence of weapons in the country outside government control and the continued existence of militias contribute to tensions and insecurity in Lebanon and beyond, and could eventually lead to the resumption of hostilities unless immediately addressed," he warned.

The secretary-general said he took seriously recent reports "of a proliferation of extremist groups activities and of arms in Lebanon," but said the UN does not have the means to independently verify them.

He said Hizbullah's independent paramilitary force "poses first and foremost a key challenge to the safety of Lebanese civilians, and to the government's monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

"I call on the leaders of Hizbullah to complete the transformation of the group into a solely Lebanese political party," Ban said.

"Regional parties that maintain close ties with Hizbullah must encourage it in the same direction," he added.

Ban also expressed great concern at the continued presence of Palestinian paramilitary groups - the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and Fatah al-Intifadah - outside refugee camps near Lebanon's border with Syria.

He said he has called on the government to dismantle four Palestinian military bases along the Lebanese-Syrian border and a fifth base south of Beirut.

Ban said the disarming and disbanding of all militias should "take place through an inclusive political dialogue that addresses the political interests of all Lebanese, and ultimately confirms the sole political and military authority of the government of Lebanon."

The secretary-general urged all countries to abide by the UN arms embargo against militias, saying "this is a key factor for stability in Lebanon and the region."

Ban called the June 2009 parliamentary elections "another milestone" in Lebanon's commitment to democracy and urged the country's leaders - who have not been able to form a government - to "transcend sectarian and individual interests and promote the future and the interests of the nation."

He also praised the establishment of diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria and urged both countries to mark their border.

Source: JPost

U.N. War Crimes Report Creating Obstacles for Mideast Peace

JERUSALEM — A U.N. war crimes report against Israel and Hamas meant to promote justice and accountability has instead created new obstacles for the Obama administration's Mideast peace push and deepened an internal rift among Palestinians.

Israel says that if the case against it gains steam, the Jewish state will not be able to make the wide-ranging concessions necessary for any peace deal.

Hamas, the militant group that violently seized control of the Gaza Strip more than two years ago, is reaping benefits from the report's fallout, while shrugging off the serious allegations the document makes against its own fighters.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Western-backed Palestinian president whose forces hold sway in the West Bank, has been seriously weakened by perceptions among his people that he caved in to U.S. pressure over the affair.

The 575-page report accusing Israel and Hamas of war crimes during last winter's war in Gaza — compiled by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone — has largely overshadowed an aggressive U.S. drive to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

A month after the report's release, Israeli leaders are denouncing it daily and speaking about little else.

International condemnation of Israel is gaining momentum, meanwhile, with two U.N. debates on the Goldstone report scheduled this week.

At a meeting of the Security Council on Wednesday Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Al-Malki and Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gabriela Shalev traded accusations about the report, with Shalev accusing the world of "doing nothing" about Hamas' smuggling of Iranian arms into Gaza, its launching of attacks from schools, mosques and hospitals, or firing rockets at innocent civilians.

Read more here,,,,

Source: FoxNews

US working on compromise for Goldstone

The United Nations Security Council was scheduled to convene Wednesday night to decide whether or not to accept a Libyan request to discuss the Goldstone Report, which accuses Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.

The United States and other countries are against a discussion on the report, but even if the Libyan initiative is curbed, the matter is expected to be raised during the periodical discussion on the Middle East on October 20.

Libya, which represents the Arab countries bloc at the Security Council, surprised the Arab countries and the Palestinians when it asked for a discussion on the report.

Ynet has learned that other countries are also opposed to a Security Council discussion, both because of the political aspect and due to the fact that the report should be first discussed by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which was behind the initiative to probe the Israeli operation in Gaza.

The Geneva vote has been postponed by half a year after the Palestinians pulled a resolution to adopt the Goldstone Report and condemn Israel.

Diplomatic sources have said that the Libyan initiative will be opposed by several Security Council members, but that the issue may be voted on any case, although Libya may find it difficult to get the support of nine countries out of 15, as required.

Behind the scene, the Americans are trying to come up with a compromise which will see the vote on the Goldstone Report held as part of the open periodical discussion on the situation in the Middle East.

As far as Israel is concerned, this option is the lesser of two evils, as the discussion will deal with a variety of issues in the region. One possibility is that the sides will compromise on moving up the discussion on the situation in the Middle East.

A State Department source said that the US had not changed its mind on the report, which the source said focused on Israel in an unbalanced manner in most of its recommendations.

The American stand, which was to be expressed at the Security Council discussion Wednesday night, is that the report includes serious accusations which must be probed by both sides. Washington wants the discussion on the report to be held as part of the Human Rights Council in Geneva rather than at the UN headquarters in New York.

The Obama administration supports an independent Israeli investigation into the war crime claims, for fear that the controversy over the Goldstone Report will disrupt the efforts of US special envoy George Mitchell to resume peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Source: YNet

Hamas: Netanyahu seeking support for Zionist-terrorist agenda

Ali Waked

Senior Islamist group legislator slams PM's speech before UN Security Council as 'attempt to impose twisted logic on entire world'

Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri told Ynet Thursday, following the Israeli prime minister's address before the UN General Assembly.

Benjamin Netanyahu , he added, "Was seeking the UN's support for his Zionist-terrorist agenda against the Palestinian people, in an attempt to cover up the massacre he has perpetrated."

Al-Masri said that Israel and its prime minister "couldn't care less about international reports, including the one Israel failed to cooperate with… It was an Israeli attempt to evade the truth; of course Israel wants the world to follow it."

The Hamas legislator was referring to the Goldstone Report probing January's Israeli offensive in Gaza. The report accused both Israel and Hamas of violating international law and possibly committing war crimes.

Harshly criticized as biased by both Israel and the US, Hamas too rejected the report's findings, calling them "imbalanced."

The Palestinians, al-Masri continued, do not expect the UN Security Council to censure Israel in wake of the report: "As long as there is an America there can be no condemnation of Israel, which only proves how two-faced the UN and the international community are.

"The US has vetoed over 50 resolutions meant to condemn Israel for harming the Palestinians… this only bolsters Israel, which mocks not only the Goldstone Committee but all UN resolutions.

"This proves that Israel aspires to be above international law in order to cement its illegal presence on our land," he added. "Israel's conduct is a moral challenge the UN has to deal with."

Netanyahu's claim that Operation Cast Lead was meant to counter Hamas' incessant rocket fire on its southern cities is nothing but a "pathetic excuse," said al-Masri.

"You cannot compare the Israeli killing machine that was implemented in Gaza, killing 1,500 Palestinians within days, to the humble means used by the resistance in its self-defense efforts," he said.

"History is no stranger to incidents when the American and Europeans defended themselves against occupation. What aren’t the Palestinians allowed to do the same?"

Source: Ynet

Gaddafi defends Afghanistan's Taliban

Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi launched a spirited defense of Afghanistan's hardline Taliban in a rambling address to the UN General Assembly.

'Why are we against the Taliban? Why are we against Afghanistan?' he asked leaders of more than 120 nations attending the annual General Assembly debate.

'If the Taliban wants to make a religious state, okay, like the Vatican. Does the Vatican constitute a danger against us? No,' said the Libyan leader, addressing the 192-member body for the first time in his 40 years in power.

'If the Taliban wants to create an Islamic emirate, who said they are the enemy?' he added.

The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is now at its deadliest since a 2001 US-led invasion ousted their extremist regime. Winning the war in Afghanistan is one of the priorities of the new US administration.

Gaddafi went on to attack the United Nations Security Council in his first appearance at the world body criticising it for failing to prevent 65 wars around the world since it was founded in 1945.

Gaddafi's called for reform of the Security Council either by abolishing the veto power of the five permanent members or by expanding with extra member states to make it more representative.

He says it shouldn't be called the Security Council but would be better named the 'terror council'.

Source: SkyNews

Iran nuclear chief: We built new generation of centrifuges

Dudi Cohen

Atomic Energy Organization head Salehi says Iranian scientists made 'new generation centrifuges' that are currently being tests; adds Israel 'in no position' to launch attack

Iran has built a new generation of centrifuges which are currently undergoing technical tests, the new head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi said on Tuesday.

"Iranian scientists have made new generation centrifuges that are currently undergoing necessary tests," he told a news conference, according to the official news agency IRNA.

According to a recent report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has increased the number of operational centrifuges at its nuclear sites to 8,308, despite decreasing uranium production.

The IAEA said the large amount of centrifuges will allow Iran to expand its uranium production should it choose to do so.

Asked about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Salehi said, "The Zionist entity is in no position to take such a step," adding that Tehran was working to improve its defense systems to better protect the nuclear facilities.

Salehi spoke ahead of next week's talks between Iran and the six world powers (five permanent members of the UN Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United States and Britain - plus Germany), and said Tehran's representatives will not discuss the nuclear program during the negotiations.

The West suspects Iran is seeking the means to produce bombs, not just fuel for nuclear power plants as it says.

Source: YNet

President feels Gadhafi heat

Stewart Stogel

NEW YORK – Feeling the heat of growing U.S. resentment over Libyan strongman Col. Muammar Gadhafi's visit to the United Nations, President Barack Obama is moving quickly to keep his distance from the mercurial leader.

There will be numerous opportunities for the two to meet this week, such as a lunch and dinner hosted by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for visiting VIPs, including Gadhafi and Obama.

U.N. sources admit the two will be kept at some distance, making it as difficult as possible for them to cross paths at the receptions.

That didn't work at last summer's G-20 Summit in Italy, where Gadhafi sought out Obama for a brief photo op.

Obama is also hosting his own lunch for African heads of state on Tuesday and a gala dinner at the Metropolitan Opera House for U.N. VIP's Wednesday.

A White House spokesman, Ben Chang, however, told WND that Gadhafi is definitely "not on the invite list" for either function.

Chang refused to elaborate.

That would put the Libyan out in the cold with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, however, two long-time U.S. foes, may get a pass this time.

Obama also holds the presidency of the U.N. Security Council for September, and Libya is a non-permanent Council member.

Chang admitted the two "could meet" during a special meeting called for Thursday morning by the White House to discuss nuclear non-proliferation.

It was less than four years ago that Libya admitted to operating a secret nuclear arms program for more than a decade.

Many feel the nation only came clean after the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

"[Gadhafi] felt he could be next," explained former US/UN Ambassador John Bolton.

While Obama attempts to give Col. Gadhafi the cold shoulder, New York City officials have also been keen to jump into the fray.

Intentionally leaking various attempts by the Gadhafi entourage to find a place to set up his infamous traveling tent, city officials succeeded in forcing Gadhafi to set up shop inside the Libyan U.N. mission on East 48th Street.

Not missing a beat, The New York Daily News today highlighted a photo showing a neighbor's dog relieving herself on the red carpet being rolled out in front of the Libyan high-rise.

"She has great taste," said a smiling passer by.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was not available for comment.

Source: WND

Hizballah’s Possible Back Door into the UN

One of the world's most dangerous terrorist organizations is worming its way toward a seat at the UN Security Council

By W. Thomas Smith, Jr.

Though barely registering a blip in Western media this week, there have been several reports – primarily throughout a variety of Middle East media – that Lebanon may well be a candidate for membership (though non-permanent) on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

According to several publications this week, Lebanese foreign minister Fawzi Salloukh says the UNSC membership would comply with a “contract” between members of the Arab League and the rotation of seats in the UNSC every two years, adding that the Arab League “has supported Lebanon's application.” Read more ...

Source: FSM

What If Israel Strikes Iran?

The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb.

• By JOHN R. BOLTON

Whatever the outcome of Iran's presidential election tomorrow, negotiations will not soon -- if ever -- put an end to its nuclear threat. And given Iran's determination to achieve deliverable nuclear weapons, speculation about a possible Israeli attack on its nuclear program will not only persist but grow.

So what would such an attack look like? Obviously, Israel would need to consider many factors -- such as its timing and scope, Iran's increasing air defenses, the dispersion and hardening of its nuclear facilities, the potential international political costs, and Iran's "unpredictability." While not as menacingly irrational as North Korea, Iran's politico-military logic hardly compares to our NATO allies. Central to any Israeli decision is Iran's possible response.

David Klein

Israel's alternative is that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs reach fruition, leaving its very existence at the whim of its staunchest adversary. Israel has not previously accepted such risks. It destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007. One major new element in Israel's calculus is the Obama administration's growing distance (especially in contrast to its predecessor).

Consider the most-often mentioned Iranian responses to a possible Israeli strike:

1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. Often cited as Tehran's knee-jerk answer -- along with projections of astronomic oil-price spikes because of the disruption of supplies from Persian Gulf producers -- this option is neither feasible nor advisable for Iran. The U.S. would quickly overwhelm any effort to close the Strait, and Iran would be risking U.S. attacks on its land-based military. Direct military conflict with Washington would turn a bad situation for Iran -- disruption of its nuclear program -- into a potential catastrophe for the regime. Prudent hedging by oil traders and consuming countries (though not their strong suit, historically) would minimize any price spike.

2) Iran cuts its own oil exports to raise world prices. An Iranian embargo of its own oil exports would complete the ruin of Iran's domestic economy by depriving the country of hard currency. This is roughly equivalent to Thomas Jefferson's 1807 embargo on American exports to protect U.S. shipping from British and French interference. That harmed the U.S. far more than the Europeans. Even Iran's mullahs can see that. Another gambit with no legs.

3) Iran attacks U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Tehran hard-liners might advocate this approach, or even attacks on U.S. bases or Arab targets in the Gulf -- but doing so would risk direct U.S. retaliation against Iran, as many U.S. commanders in Iraq earlier recommended. Increased violence in Iraq or Afghanistan might actually prolong the U.S. military presence in Iraq, despite President Barack Obama's current plans for withdrawal. Moreover, taking on the U.S. military, even in an initially limited way, carries enormous risks for Iran. Tehran may believe the Obama administration's generally apologetic international posture will protect it from U.S. escalation, but it would be highly dangerous for Iran to gamble on more weakness in the face of increased U.S. casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.

4) Iran increases support for global terrorism. This Iranian option, especially stepping up world-wide attacks against U.S. targets, is always open. Assuming, however, that Mr. Obama does not further degrade our intelligence capabilities and that our watchfulness remains high, the terrorism option outside of the Middle East is extremely risky for Iran. If Washington uncovered evidence of direct or indirect Iranian terrorist activities in America, for example, even the Obama administration would have to consider direct retaliation inside Iran. While Iran enjoys rhetorical conflict with the U.S., operationally it prefers picking on targets its own size or smaller.

5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. Because all the foregoing options risk more direct U.S. involvement, Tehran will most likely decide to retaliate against the actual attacker, Israel. Using its missile and perhaps air force capabilities, Iran could do substantial damage in Israel, especially to civilian targets. Of course, one can only imagine what Iran might do once it has nuclear weapons, and this is part of the cost-benefit analysis Israel must make before launching attacks in the first place. Direct Iranian military action against Israel, however, would provoke an even broader Israeli counterstrike, which at some point might well involve Israel's own nuclear capability. Accordingly, Iran's Revolutionary Guards would have to think long and hard before unleashing its own capabilities against Israel.

6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. By process of elimination, but also because of strategic logic, Iran's most likely option is retaliating through Hamas and Hezbollah. Increased terrorist attacks inside Israel, military incursions by Hezbollah across the Blue Line, and, most significantly, salvoes of missiles from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are all possibilities. In plain violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, Iran has not only completely re-equipped Hezbollah since the 2006 war with Israel, but the longer reach of Hezbollah's rockets now endangers Israel's entire civilian population. Moreover, Hamas's rocket capabilities could easily be substantially enhanced to provide greater range and payload to strike throughout Israel, creating a two-front challenge.

Risks to its civilian population will weigh heavily in any Israeli decision to use force, and might well argue for simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Obviously, Israel will have to measure the current risks to its safety and survival against the longer-term threat to its very existence once Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse. All these scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons. So does daily life in Israel, elsewhere in the region and globally.

Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime. Most of the Arab world's leaders would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem, although they certainly won't say so publicly and will rhetorically embrace Iran if Israel strikes. But rhetoric from its Arab neighbors is the only quantum of solace Iran will get.

On the other hand, the Obama administration's increased pressure on Israel concerning the "two-state solution" and West Bank settlements demonstrates Israel's growing distance from Washington. Although there is no profit now in complaining that Israel should have struck during the Bush years, the missed opportunity is palpable. For the remainder of Mr. Obama's term, uncertainty about his administration's support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli governments and complicate their calculations. Iran will see that as well, and play it for all it's worth. This is yet another reason why Israel's risks and dilemmas, difficult as they are, only increase with time.

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Source: Wall Street Journal

Andrew Bolt: Why are we going to this hate-fest?

Opposition Foreign Affairs spokeman Julie Bishop is right - there is no way the Rudd Government should go to the UN’s latest group hate against the West and Israel:

The Australian Government should not attend the United Nations Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva on 20-24 April, due to the obvious potential for a repeat of the anti-Semitism that marred the first Durban conference..

The Australian Jewish News is even more adamant:

The US has joined Israel and Canada in pulling out. Some European countries have also indicated they are considering not attending the conference in Geneva… Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and Philip Chester, president of the Zionist Federation of Australia, both called on Australia to follow the US.

The US State Department agrees the draft document of the UN conference is clearly anti-Israeli, and suggests it is also biased against the West and its freedoms:

Sadly, however, the document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse, and the current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable… It must not single out any one country or conflict, nor embrace the troubling concept of “defamation of religion.” The U.S. also believes an acceptable document should not go further than the DDPA on the issue of reparations for slavery.

So why is the Rudd Government so eager to go to such a festival of hatred against our values and allies? Writer Alan Gold is right - because a refusal to attend might offend Muslim and African countries whose UN votes Kevin Rudd is unnaturally eager to have:

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith hasn’t yet announced whether Australia will attend the review in Geneva. Much is at stake. Australia is a leading contender for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council and boycotting may affect how we are viewed at the tables of the world body.

How shameful a sell-out. As if it wasn’t enough that to toady for UN votes this Government has already voted for two anti-Israeli resolutions in the United Nations that the Howard Government wouldn’t support, and has now resumed aid even to Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.

And if you doubt that this UN conference could be as loaded and viciously anti-Western and anti-Israeli as I suggest, read its draft declaration here - a document created under the supervision of a Preparatory Committee chaired by Libya with the help of co-chairs including Iran and Pakistan, as well as a rapporteur from Cuba. (Yes, you couldn’t write a farce this absurd.)

Here are just some of the most alarming excerpts, which emphasise the sins of the West above those of the rest, blame colonialism for Third World failures, elevate “Islamophobia” above other forms of racism, propose legal restrictions on criticism of religions and Muslims in particular, single out only Israel for (extreme) criticism, recommend reparations for colonialism and (particularly colonial) slavery, accuse Israel of torture and collective punishment; attack moves by the West to protect itself against Islamist terrorism, and suggest the deletion of a reference noting the Holocaust wiped out a third of the world’s Jews.

You’d never guess from this document that in recent decades the worst genocides have been in Africa, the most savage terrorism has been launched by Islamists, the worst ethnic cleansings have been in Africa and Asia, and the people most likely to kill for their faith are Muslims:

20. Welcomes the actions taken to commemorate the memory of victims of slavery and the slave trade in particular the transatlantic slave trade [and the abolition of those historic tragedies and including the establishment of national, regional-hemispheric bicentennial committees to commemorate the bicentenary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade [and stresses the need to similarly address the trans-Saharan slave trade and the slave trade in the Indian Ocean.] [Also]Welcomes the adoption of GA Resolutions 61/19 and 62/122 related to the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade and remembrance of its victims and, in particular, the designation of 25 March as the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade …

(Note: square brackets indicate words that some delegates have suggested be removed.)

Further welcomes the initiative of the States Members of the Caribbean Community to erect at a place of prominence at United Nations Headquarters that is easily accessible to delegates, United Nations staff and visitors, a permanent memorial in acknowledgement of the tragedy and in consideration of the legacy of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade…

ALT: Appreciates the actions of those countries that have, in the context of colonialism and slavery, expressed remorse, apologized, paid reparations or restituted cultural artifacts…

[Draws attention to the impact of] [Strongly deplores the [overt and covert] discriminatory] counter-terrorism measures [on] [that have led to] the rise of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance [including the practice of racial, ethnic, national and religious profiling;]…

NEW PARA: Reaffirms that counter-terrorism strategies should not undermine the protection of human rights and the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance ...

26. [[Notes with concern] [Seriously concerned at the] instances of defamation of religions, which manifests itself in [projecting negative, insulting and derogatory images of religions and religious personalities,] generalized and stereotypical association of religions, in particular Islam, with violence and terrorism, thus impacting negatively on the rights of individuals belonging to these religions, including Muslim minorities, and exposing them to hatred and discrimination…

(Holocaust) [proposal to change title]

29. [Affirms that the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people, along with numerous members of other minorities, will forever be a warning to all people of the dangers of hatred, bigotry, racism and prejudice; recalls again that the Holocaust must never be forgotten;]

ALT: Recalls that the Holocaust must never be forgotten; ...

30. [Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinian people as well as [Syrian nationals of the occupied Syrian Golan] [other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories] which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence and prevent the enjoyment of fundamental rights, and renews the call for the cessation of all such practices;]

31. [Reiterates that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to self determination and that, in order to consolidate the [Israeli] occupation, they have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture, economic blockade, severe restriction of movement and arbitrary closure of their territories. Also notes [with concern] that illegal settlements continue to be built in the occupied [Arab] territories [since 1967];]

32. [Reaffirms that a foreign occupation founded on settlements, laws based on racial discrimination with the aim of continuing domination of the occupied territory[y][ies], as well as the practice of reinforcing a total military blockade, isolating towns, villages and cities from one another, [totally] contradicts the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations [and constitutes a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, a crime against humanity, a contemporary form of apartheid and serious threat to international peace and security] [and violates the basic principles of international human rights law];] ...

34. [Re-emphasizes the responsibility of the international community to provide international protection, in particular from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, for [Palestinian] civilian populations under occupation in conformity with international human rights law and international humanitarian law;]

[Proposal to include reference to Gaza situation – language to be provided] ...

36. Regrets recent attempts at the [pseudo] intellectual and [allegedly] [pseudo] scientific legitimization of racism [on the grounds of descent], in particular the revival of negative stereotyping of Africans and People of African descent [as inferior to other races, as slavery and colonialism have originated in such misguided ideas]...

53. Acknowledges that a most disturbing phenomenon is the intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia. When it is expressed against migrants it takes the form of religious-ethnic or religious-racial tones, when it is expressed in the form of defamation of religions, it takes cover behind the freedom of expression and when it is expressed in the form of profiling, it hides behind the war against terrorism. Believes that association of terrorism and violence with Islam or any other religion, including through publication of offensive caricatures and making of hate documentaries, would purposely complicate our common endeavours to address several contemporary issues, including the fight against terrorism and the occupation of foreign territories and peoples; ...

Recognizes that individuals, groups, peoples and nations that are affected by [the violation of] [discriminatory] policies and practices, such as colonialism, slavery and ethnic cleansing based on theories of racial national superiority, hatred and distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, as well as culture, religion and language as victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and have the right to address these scourges…

Urges States that have not yet condemned, apologized and paid reparations for the grave and massive violations as well as the massive human suffering caused by slavery, the slave trade, the transatlantic slave trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide, to do so at the earliest.

Source: Herald Sun

A price too high to pay

Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor, March 07

AUSTRALIAN foreign policy is in danger of being seriously distorted by our bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2013-14.

In some ways it is impossible to prove that our foreign policy is being distorted by this bid. But the circumstantial evidence is mounting.

Exhibit No1 is the continued indecision of the Rudd Government about whether to attend the UN anti-racism conference, officially titled the Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva in late April. This meeting is commonly called Durban II. Durban I was notoriously one of the most disgraceful and counter-productive official international gatherings ever held. Instead of making a strong consensus statement on the evil of racism, the conference focused obsessively on the alleged racism of Israel.

Durban I called Israel an apartheid and racist state and promoted boycotts, sanctions and legal harassment of the country. This is not remotely consistent with Australian government policy or any sincere effort to combat racism.

The draft text of Durban II looks even worse and will also embrace "defamation of religion" in an attempt to outlaw critical scrutiny of Islamic movements. Some time ago, the Canadians walked away from the process and said they would not attend such a charade. The Bush administration did not make a decision but quite properly left it to the Obama administration.

Now the Obama administration, in a decision personally approved by Barack Obama, has decided to withdraw from Durban II.

Obama sent senior officials to a planning meeting for Durban II. They were so appalled by the behaviour at the meeting, and the wholly destructive nature of the draft text, that the US pulled out altogether.

Since then Italy has pulled out and some European foreign ministers have said their nations will too unless all references to Israel are dropped.

Yet the only guidance I can get from the Rudd Government on this is that it has not yet made up its mind and that a decision ultimately will be made on the basis of whether Australia can positively influence the outcome of the conference and the extent to which the conference is likely to be marred by anti-Semitism.

Well, excuse me, but what on earth is Australia doing attending a conference that could be marred by anti-Semitism? What possible reason could there be for the Rudd Government to dillydally on this decision?

Rudd, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and other senior ministers are strong supporters of Israel. They certainly do not regard it as an apartheid or racist state. So what gives?

The only explanation is Canberra fears it will earn hostility from Arab League and African nations if it denounces Durban II. Then they may not vote for us in the Security Council election. If that is the case, we have already paid too high a price for our UN Security Council seat bid.

The Opposition, including its latest foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, forever in a fitful slumber on these issues, had no position at all on whether Australia should attend.

Only after prompting from this newspaper yesterday had Bishop taken the position that the Government should not attend Durban II as, like Durban I, it would become an instrument promoting racism rather than opposing it. Better late than never.

Similarly, in February the Rudd Government switched previous Australian policy on two UN resolutions that were the normal, one-sided, anti-Israel stuff. The Rudd Government voted in favour of two completely unbalanced, anti-Israel resolutions, where previously Australia had abstained or voted no.

At first this looked as if it might be a new pattern of voting. However, after a previously unpublicised but substantial revolt from within its ranks, the Government did not change Australia's traditional support of Israel on any other resolutions. Again, what could be the motive except trying to look like a less conspicuous pro-Israel force in front of the Arab and African blocs for the purpose of securing UN Security Council votes?

But we are paying for this UN bid in other ways, too. In this budget year the Government has allocated $1.9 million for the UN bid. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is stretched beyond breaking point in terms of resources. This special funding does not remotely cover the full effort that our diplomatic missions across the world will have to put in for this vote.

Already Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has travelled to Addis Ababa in pursuit of elusive African votes. Yet there are many allied and friendly countries with which we have important defence relations that Fitzgibbon has notvisited.

Australia always has trouble winning African votes because we have only five small embassies in all of Africa (and only four in Latin America).

In 1996, the last time we campaigned for a Security Council seat, we sent former prime minister Malcolm Fraser to Africa. His efforts were singularly unsuccessful.

You may conclude that this reflects the limits of Fraser's charm and diplomatic skill. But in fairness to the former PM, it is impossible to convince a country that you take it seriously if you can't be bothered having a resident embassy. Special envoys, whose message is we love you but we couldn't be bothered stationing anybody in your country, never work.

Now Quentin Bryce is off on a seven-nation tour of Africa; nine if you count the stop-overs, as The Age's political editor Michelle Grattan points out. She is visiting Ethiopia, Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania and Kenya, having been already to France, Singapore, Malta, East Timor, Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates. This is a spectacular misallocation of resources and represents a misunderstanding, at the top, of the Governor-General's role. Governors-general should only travel overseas to funerals, to ceremonial occasions and sometimes to comfort afflicted Australians.

They should do this only if no senior minister is available. This is not a frivolous point but a deadly serious one in the environment of grotesquely strained diplomatic resources that Australia confronts. To put it at its baldest, a governor-general's visit is as much trouble, expense and use of diplomatic capital as a prime minister's, but has no pay-off for Australia.

In any country the Governor-General visits, protocol will demand appointments with the host head of state and often head of government. This is precious face time that is always hard to come by. But the Governor-General has no policy role so her meetings are useless. The foreign head of government cannot ring her if there's a problem with Australia or if he wants to co-operate with Canberra in some initiative. It's high-level tourism.

Unlike the Queen, who can at least gain publicity for Britain, no one knows who the Australian Governor-General is or what she does. So there's no pay-off even at that level.

If Australia had munificent diplomatic resources this might not matter. But we don't. The Rudd Government is starving DFAT of funds for core business and this is likely to get worse because of the financial crisis, while lavishing funds on gimmicks and fripperies.

Silly, silly, silly.

Source: The Australian