Iran, Golfo, armamenti
● L’Iran mostra i muscoli anticipando nel Golfo le esercitazioni militari navali, aeree e terrestri (effettuate ogni anno dal 2006), in risposta al rilancio americano dell’opzione militare contro Teheran;
o nelle manovre, chiamate “Grande Profeta” sono dispiegate oltre 300 motovedette in grado di lanciare missili, e una nuova motovedetta rapida più potente (Ya Mehdi)
– Il Golfo Persico, da dove proviene circa il 40% della produzione mondiale di petrolio che per la maggior parte transita attraverso lo stretto di Ormuz, è uno dei possibili teatri principali in cui l’Iran potrebbe rispondere ad attacchi occidentali.
– L’Iran ha lanciato l’avvertimento: può paralizzare il commercio petrolifero bloccando lo stretto di Ormuz.
– A seguito degli avvertimenti da parte di Turchia e Qatar, l’Iran si prepara a possibili attacchi aerei israeliani.
– Il Pentagono ha minimizzato l’importanza delle esercitazioni militari dell’Iran,
o l’Occidente segue in ogni caso l’evoluzione del suo arsenale: ad inizio aprile è stato inaugurato un nuovo sistema di difesa anti-aerea (Mirsad); in corso sforzi per la fabbricazione di droni, e di navi in grado di sfuggire ai radar in funzione sull’altra sponda del Golfo.
– Iran e Zimbabwe hanno discusso la cooperazione per energia idroelettrica e da carbone, non nucleare,
o in preparazione della visita del presidente iraniano Ahmadinejad nello Zimbabwe, su invito del presidente Mugabe, per inaugurare la fiera commerciale annuale, una visita contestata dagli oppositori dell’MDC (Movimento per il Cambiamento Democratico), guidato dall’ex primo ministro Tsvangirai.
– Lo Zimbabwe possiede depositi di uranio non ancora sfruttati.
Ahmadinejad cerca di rafforzare le relazioni tra i due paesi, entrambi bersaglio delle critiche occidentali.
L’Iran montre ses muscles dans le Golfe
Par Georges Malbrunot
22/04/2010 | Mise à jour : 21:53 Réactions (6)
Les gardiens de la révolution ont entamé, jeudi, trois jours de manœuvres pour «protéger» le détroit d’Ormuz.
– Au moment où, à Washington, l’option militaire contre l’Iran semble être relancée, Téhéran affiche ostensiblement ses capacités de défense. Plus de 300 vedettes capables de tirer des roquettes et des missiles participent, depuis jeudi, à trois jours de manœuvres aériennes, navales et terrestres dans le golfe Persique.
– Ces exercices ont pour objectif de rappeler les moyens de riposte des gardiens de la révolution, l’armée idéologique en charge de la défense d’un régime contesté en interne et sous la menace de sanctions internationales à l’ONU, pour son refus d’abandonner son programme nucléaire.
– Lors de ces manœuvres baptisées «Grand Prophète», une nouvelle vedette rapide a été testée. «Ya Mehdi serait capable de percer un trou de 7 mètres sur 7», a déclaré le commandant Alireza Tanghsiri. Les Occidentaux redoutent l’utilisation par l’Iran de ces petits navires furtifs, capables de causer d’importants dégâts à leurs bateaux.
– Le golfe Persique pourrait être l’un des principaux théâtres de la riposte iranienne en cas d’attaque occidentale contre ses installations nucléaires. Près de 40 % de la production mondiale de pétrole proviennent de la région du Golfe et une grande partie de cet or noir transite par le détroit d’Ormuz. Téhéran a déjà averti qu’il pourrait paralyser le trafic pétrolier en bloquant ce point de passage, stratégique pour l’économie mondiale.
Ces manœuvres ne sont, toutefois, pas nouvelles. Chaque année depuis 2006, Téhéran effectue des exercices dans le Golfe, de préférence pendant l’été. À Washington, un porte-parole du Pentagone a minimisé leur importance, rappelant que l’Iran surestime souvent les capacités de ses nouveaux équipements présentés durant des manœuvres.
– Les Occidentaux suivent néanmoins de très près l’évolution de l’arsenal iranien. Début avril, le ministre de la Défense, Ahmad Vahidi, a inauguré un nouveau système de défense antiaérienne (Mirsad). Téhéran fait également d’importants efforts pour fabriquer des drones, ces avions sans pilote, mais aussi des navires capables d’échapper à la surveillance des radars, en service sur les côtes de l’autre rive du Golfe, chez les voisins arabes de l’Iran, inquiets de ses ambitions nucléaires.
La menace de frappes israéliennes
– Les autorités iraniennes n’ont donné aucune explication sur un avancement de ces manœuvres au printemps. Depuis que des émissaires turcs et qatariens ont averti Téhéran du danger de frappes israéliennes, les responsables iraniens prennent au sérieux un tel risque. Jusqu’ici, l’Iran répétait ne pas craindre ces attaques.
– Mais, aujourd’hui, au sommet de l’État, «tout le monde se méfie de tout le monde», assure un Iranien qui a ses entrées dans certains cercles décisionnaires. «Le régime, ajoute-t-il, se sait infiltré.» D’où le recours à la terreur pour dissuader les candidats à la défection aux États-Unis, comme ce fut le cas l’an dernier de l’expert nucléaire Shahram Amiri, qui avait disparu à La Mecque, avant d’être récupéré par la CIA.
– Quelques semaines après, Massoud Mohammadi, un enseignant, fut assassiné à Téhéran. Le pouvoir iranien accusa Israël et les États-Unis. En fait, la victime «était proche d’Amiri et connaissait son histoire», selon son entourage. Ce témoin gênant ne devait pas parler.
Ahmadinejad on controversial visit to Zimbabwe
Friday, April 23, 2010
– HARARE: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began a visit to Zimbabwe on Thursday condemned by President Robert Mugabe’s opponents as a meeting of despots which could further isolate Harare.
– Ahmadinejad, whose government is pursuing a nuclear program despite threats of more United Nations sanctions, was invited by Mugabe to open Zimbabwe’s annual trade fair.
– There was no official indication of any link between the two-day visit and Iran’s nuclear program, but Zimbabwe does hold uranium deposits which have yet to be exploited.
Zimbabwean state media said Ahmadinejad’s visit was part of a drive to strengthen ties between countries at odds with the West.
Ahmadinejad was met at Harare’s international airport by Mugabe, Cabinet ministers and diplomats, amid singing and chants from hundreds of Zimbabwean Muslims waving Iranian flags.
– Mugabe’s old foe, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, and ministers from his Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) did not attend the welcoming ceremony.
The MDC has called the visit a “colossal political scandal” and it could increase tensions in the power-sharing government set up last year to try to end a decade of political crisis.
– The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) attacked Ahmadinejad over his record on human rights and other issues.
“He has made his reputation as a warmonger, a trampler of human rights, an executioner of those with dissenting voices and leader of questionable legitimacy,” it said.
– The party said Ahmadinejad’s visit would send the wrong message about Zimbabwe at a time it was trying to show the world it was working to restore democracy. Elections won by Mugabe in 2008 were condemned around the world.
“Inviting the Iranian strongman to an investment forum is like inviting a mosquito to cure malaria,” it said.
– Government media said Ahmadinejad’s visit was part of a drive to strengthen relations between countries targeted by Western powers.
“These countries have declared Zimbabwe a pariah state and Iran an ‘axis of evil’ for daring to defend the interests of the citizens and scuttling the West’s bid to plunder the resources of our two nations,” said the official Herald newspaper.
“The West’s neocolonial agenda should only make us stronger,” it added Thursday.
Mugabe and his top officials face Western travel restrictions aimed at trying to force change.
Iran faces a possible new round of UN sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment. The West accuses Tehran of trying to build nuclear weapons. Iran says it aims only to generate electricity.
– Zimbabwean and Iranian ministers discussed cooperation ahead of Ahmadinejad’s visit, including on energy, but the focus was on coal and hydroelectric power rather than nuclear energy.
By JAY SOLOMON in Washington and JOHN LYONS in São Paulo
– The Obama administration, still struggling to win China’s pivotal backing for a new round of United Nations sanctions against Iran, is increasingly worried about gaining the support of some other members of the U.N. Security Council, particularly Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon, according to U.S. and European officials.
– Officials involved in the diplomacy fear that China’s stated opposition to tough new sanctions, if reinforced by other players, could weaken any U.N. penalties against Tehran. Though Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon hold temporary seats and can’t veto sanctions—unlike permanent council members including China—they could make it harder for the U.S. to get agreement by sustaining the opposition campaign.
Senior U.S. diplomats have intensified discussions in recent weeks with leaders in China, Turkey, Brazil and Lebanon in a bid to push a sanctions vote at the U.N. on Iran by next month. But on Wednesday, Brazilian officials publicly rebuffed the U.S. during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to the capital, Brasilia. "It is not prudent to push Iran against a wall," President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva told reporters ahead of their meeting. Afterward, foreign minister Celso Amorim said sanctions "could be counterproductive." Turkish and Lebanese officials have made similar comments in recent weeks.
The Security Council could still gain passage of new U.N. sanctions on Iran, as long as China declines to use its veto. Nine of the 15 members of the Security Council need to support a resolution, without a veto by one of the five permanent members—the U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K. Diplomats say the Russians are increasingly supportive of fresh sanctions.
China could abstain from a vote and the measure could still pass. But tensions between the U.S. and China over other issues have intensified in recent weeks, and the bad blood is complicating Iran policy, say U.S. and European officials involved in the diplomacy. The White House this week dispatched two of its most senior China hands to Beijing to discuss Iran—Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and the National Security Council’s Asia director, Jeffrey Bader.
The U.S. has won unanimity each of the four times the U.N. Security Council has passed resolutions condemning Iran’s nuclear work over the past five years, except for one vote by Indonesia in 2008. Diplomats say new sanctions watered down to overcome multiple countries’ opposition could fall short of forcing Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.
The cooperation of the fast-growing economies of China, Brazil and Turkey is also crucial to successful implementation of any sanctions regime, whether endorsed by the U.N. or not.
The U.S. views Brazil as a crucial player in the global debate on nuclear power. In addition to its current role on the Security Council, Brazil is also a leader among the "nonaligned" developing countries that have regularly defended Iran’s right to enrich uranium and develop nuclear power.
Brazilian President da Silva said Wednesday that Iran needs to be given more time to address international concerns about the potential military dimensions of its nuclear program. And he again defended Tehran’s right to develop nuclear technologies, though he said Brazil is against Iran developing atomic weapons.
Brazil’s own aggressive, but peaceful, nuclear-development plans help explain its position. Brazil doesn’t want sanctions against countries without what it considers hard proof of weapons programs. Energy-hungry Brazil wants reactors to feed its growing economy. Its navy is building a nuclear engine to power a submarine.
"I want for Iran the same thing that I want for Brazil, to use the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," Mr. da Silva said. "If Iran is in agreement with this, then Iran will have the support of Brazil."
Brazil’s support for Iran also reflects the nation’s growing economic reach and ambitions. Brazil is a major exporter of food to Iran. Mr. da Silva also has strived to position Brazil as a voice for emerging nations and a mediator in global disputes. Brazil’s foreign minister, Mr. Amorim, describes the country as a "privileged interlocutor."
Brazil is the only country in the Western Hemisphere on good terms with all the other nations. Mr. da Silva may be the only leader to have hugged both George W. Bush and his outspoken foe, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
Brazil "sees this as a way to build its own profile and put itself on the world stage in a way that will get it noticed, and it is certainly getting noticed," says Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas, a New York business association.
The U.S.’s inability so far to nudge Brazil closer to its position also reflects the unexpected tension that has arisen between the nations in the past year. The U.S. and Brazil have butted heads over the handling of the coup in Honduras and over U.S. bases in Colombia. Brazilian officials were furious last year after Mrs. Clinton admonished Brazil for its engagement with Iran.
"Brazil wants to make it clear to the U.S. that it is not a country that can be lectured to," said Peter Hakim, president of think tank Inter-American Dialogue.
The tension has been a disappointment for U.S. officials, who hope that Brazil will become an important regional ally, bringing new economic might to Latin America and taking over the U.S.’s role as referee of disputes between leaders.
Brazil has credibility on the issue of nonproliferation. Along with Argentina, it is in a tiny club of nations that voluntarily gave up established nuclear-weapons programs. Brazil signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in the late 1990s. It banned nuclear weapons in its constitution. And Brazil is the only one of the fast-developing BRIC countries without the bomb, while Russia, India and China are nuclear powers.
Brazil has so far refused to sign a U.N. protocol that would allow officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct snap inspections of Brazil’s nuclear installations.
Turkey and Lebanon also continue to voice reluctance to support new sanctions, according to Western and Middle East diplomats in the dialogue. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly played down the potential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear-fuel program, comparing it with Israel’s existing, if undeclared, nuclear arsenal and arguing the two should get equal attention. He also has stressed Turkey’s common border, history and trade with Iran, and has said he wants to see the two countries’ trade triple to $30 billion annually in the near future.
In recent weeks, Turkish diplomats have sought to rework an IAEA-backed offer under which Iran would ship most of its low-enriched uranium to Western countries in return for assistance in developing medical applications for Tehran’s principal research reactor. Turkey has coordinated closely with Washington on these Iran talks, Turkish and U.S. diplomats said. But the fear remains that Mr. Erdogan could seek to use these negotiations to further stall a move toward new sanctions at the Security Council.
U.S. and European diplomats also worry that Lebanon’s new government will almost certainly abstain from voting to punish Iran. Pro-Western Prime Minister Saad Hariri heads the government, but political party and militia Hezbollah holds positions in the Lebanese cabinet and is expected to seek to protect Tehran from further sanctions. Iran established Hezbollah in the early 1980s and is the principal financier and arms supplier to the Shiite movement.
—Marc Champion in Istanbul contributed to this article.
Hillary Clinton warns of Revolutionary Guard’s growing influence in Iran
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 16, 2010; A06
RAWDAT KHURAYIM, SAUDI ARABIA –
– Iran is increasingly acquiring the attributes of a "military dictatorship," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asserted repeatedly Monday, pointing to how the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has grabbed ever-larger chunks of the country’s economic, military and political life.
– Clinton’s statements, made first in Qatar, then to reporters traveling with her and again after meeting with Saudi King Abdullah at his desert winter retreat here, were clearly a calculated effort to stir the waters in the administration’s stalled effort to win support for new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
– Clinton appeared to be trying both to sound the alarm within Iran about the Guard’s increased influence — perhaps hoping to drive a wedge between the Guard and the rest of the political elite — and to sow doubts about the nature of Iran in nations that are wary of additional sanctions, such as China and Brazil.
Iran insists that it has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, but in recent months — as political turmoil in the Islamic republic has mounted — the leadership has shunned offers of engagement by the United States and refused to discuss its nuclear program with major powers.
– U.S. officials have said they plan to target the sanctions at the Guard, which is heavily involved in Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs, because such tactics would damage the nation’s power structure while in theory not affecting many ordinary Iranians. Clinton suggested that the sanctions being contemplated are also designed to thwart the growth of the Guard’s role in Iran’s internal political dynamics.
"That is how we see it," Clinton told students on the Doha, Qatar, campus of Carnegie Mellon University during a televised town-hall-style meeting. "We see that the government of Iran, the Supreme leader, the president, the parliament is being supplanted and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship."
– The Guard, which has been instrumental in the suppression of opposition protests, has received at least $6 billion worth of government contracts in two years, according to state-run media, but the total is probably much higher because many contracts are not disclosed.
– Working through its private-sector arm, the group operates Tehran’s international airport, builds the nation’s highways and constructs communications systems. It also manages Iran’s weapons-manufacturing business, including its controversial missile program.
– Although the Obama administration has repeatedly said it does not seek to meddle in Iranian politics, Clinton suggested that Iran’s elected leaders — long at odds with the United States — needed to take action. She said the current political climate is "a far cry from the Islamic republic that had elections and different points of view within the leadership circle."
– At a news conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, she said she hoped "that this is not a permanent change but that the religious and political leaders of Iran act to take back the authority which they should be exercising on behalf of the people."
Similarly, she told reporters that "the civilian leadership is either preoccupied with its internal political situation or is ceding ground to the Revolutionary Guard" as it tries to contend with opposition protests. She said that whether the country changes course "depends on whether the clerical and political leadership begin to reassert themselves."
Clinton spent 5 1/2 hours at Abdullah’s desert compound, about 60 miles northeast of the capital, Riyadh. After an opulent lunch, they spoke for nearly four hours on a range of issues, including Afghanistan, Yemen and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Iran dominated the discussion.
– A key roadblock to robust sanctions is China, which has deep economic and energy ties to Iran. The Obama administration has pressed Saudi Arabia, China’s top oil supplier, to put pressure on Beijing. Iran is China’s No. 3 supplier of oil.
– After the talks, Saud appeared lukewarm about the effectiveness of sanctions. "They may work" in the long term, but the Saudis are anxious in the short term because they "are closer to threat," he said.
But Saud also signaled impatience with China’s reluctance to embrace tough action against Tehran.
– Saud said he was sure that China took its role as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council "very seriously" and that "they need no suggestion from Saudi Arabia to do what they ought to do."
In Doha, Clinton said that the administration "is still open to engagement" with Iran but "would not stand idly by" if it seeks to develop a nuclear weapon. In an echo of her controversial comments last year and during the 2008 presidential campaign that the United States should extend a defense umbrella to Persian Gulf allies, she asserted: "We will always defend ourselves, and we will always defend our friends and allies. And we will certainly defend countries here in the Gulf who face the greatest immediate nearby threat from Iran."
© 2010 The Washington Post Company
Usa, Mo, Siria Daily Star 100423
Clinton defends Syria outreach despite Scud missile row
Friday, April 23, 2010
Arshad Mohammed
TALLINN: The United States defended its policy of engagement with Syria on Thursday despite its concerns that Damascus might be trying to transfer Scud missiles to Hizbullah guerrillas in Lebanon.
Speaking in the Estonian capital ahead of a NATO meeting, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dodged questions about whether Iran might have given Syria Scud technology ultimately destined for Lebanon’s Hizbullah.
Israeli President Shimon Peres has accused Syria of sending Scuds to Hizbullah. Syria denies the charge and says Israel may be using the accusation as a pretext for a military strike.
In Lebanon, Hizbullah MP Nawwaf Al Moussawi concurred as his organization commented on the matter for the first time. “The issue of the Scud missiles was made and exploited by Israel to [escape] the diplomatic deadlock resulting from its disagreement[s] with Washington.”
The alleged weapons transfer could threaten US President Barack Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Syria and create fresh obstacles to US Senate confirmation of a new ambassador being sent to Damascus after a five-year absence.
“We have expressed directly to the Syrian government … in the strongest possible terms our concerns about these stories that do suggest there has been some transfer of weapons technology into Syria with the potential purpose of then later transferring it to Hizbullah,” Clinton told a joint news conference with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet.
Washington has long accused Tehran of arming Hizbullah, which fought a war with Israel in 2006 and enjoys deep support in mainly Shiite south Lebanon.
But the United States has not publicly addressed where Syria itself may have obtained the Scud missiles nor has it said it could confirm that any transfer to Hizbullah took place.
Despite Syria’s failure to satisfy long-standing US demands that it cease interfering in Lebanon’s affairs and make greater efforts to forge peace with Israel, Clinton argued that it was in the US interest to have an ambassador in Damascus.
“This is not some kind of reward for the Syrians and the actions that they take which are deeply disturbing,” Clinton said. “It’s a tool that we believe can give us extra leverage, added insight, analysis, information with respect to Syria’s actions and intentions.”
The last US ambassador to Syria was withdrawn in 2005 after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The killing triggered an international outcry that led Syria to end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon.
The Obama administration’s plan to return an ambassador to Damascus has been criticized by some Republicans, including Representative Dan Burton, who this week said that the Syrians “just spit right in our face.”
Clinton noted Washington’s long list of complaints against Damascus, which include accusations that it hosts Palestinian militants and fuels violence in Iraq, but said an ambassador would help to convey the United States message.
“We think having an ambassador there adds to the ability to convey that message strongly and hopefully influence behavior in Syria,” she said. – with The Daily Star