Diminishing Marginal Utility

Source: WashingtonPost.com

U.S. Moving Against Revolutionary Guard

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 15, 2007; A01

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.

"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."

For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.

Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become a powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are linked to many mainstream businesses in Iran.

"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."

The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The United States took punitive action against Iran after the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions reduced or eliminated their business with Iran after a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. Over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 people -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- linked to Iran's nuclear program.

The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.

China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.

The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 01:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Bloomberg

By Bill Varner

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The United Nations Security Council voted 15 to 0 to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program for the first time, including a ban on acquisition of materials and technology that might be used to build an atomic bomb.

The measure demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects that the U.S. and its European allies have said may lead to the development of nuclear weapons. It freezes the financial assets of 12 named individuals and 11 groups such as the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran.

The resolution also requires the UN's nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report on Iran's compliance within 60 days. ``Further appropriate measures'' such as economic penalties and severance of diplomatic relations will be required if Iran doesn't comply, it says.

``We are sending Iran an unambiguous message that there are serious repercussions to its continued disregard of its obligations and defiance of this body,'' U.S. Acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said. ``We look forward to Iran's full, unconditional and immediate compliance with this resolution.''

The vote, the result of more than two months of negotiations largely aimed at winning Russia's support, occurred as the U.S. and Britain are close to increasing naval power in the Persian Gulf in a display of military resolve, the New York Times reported, citing unidentified Pentagon and military officials.

Serious Message

``Russia views this resolution as a serious message being sent to Iran regarding the need more actively and more openly to cooperate with the IAEA to lift or resolve the remaining concerns relating to their nuclear program,'' Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said. ``We hope that Iran will correctly and very seriously perceive the contents of this resolution and take the necessary measures to redress their situation.''

The Security Council action will likely add to tensions in the region and may contribute to rising oil prices in 2007, according to Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a New York-based organization that analyzes political risk for businesses. Iran is the second-biggest oil producer in the Middle East.

``Oil markets won't move very much on this resolution,'' Bremmer said. ``But we think Iran is one of the biggest risks out there and that there will be escalation of tensions in 2007 as Iran retaliates. They can disrupt markets by driving proxy wars in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.''

Retaliation

Senior Iranian lawmakers said today that their parliament might retaliate by blocking inspections by the IAEA, according to IRNA, the state-run Iranian news agency. Legislation to suspend inspections has been passed by the parliament's security and foreign affairs committee, the agency reported.

At the UN, Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said suspension of enrichment activities was ``not a solution,'' that it was instead a ``temporary, stop-gap measure'' that didn't work from November 2003 to February 206. Without specifying how Iran would react to the vote, he said the ``days of bullying, pressure and intimidation by some nuclear-weapons holders are gone.''

Zarif said the Security Council was guilty of hypocrisy for taking no action against Israel after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared to confirm recently that Israel has nuclear weapons.

The U.S. and its European allies, Zarif said, which ``pushed this council to take groundless punitive measures against Iran's peaceful nuclear program, have systematically prevented any action to nudge the Israeli regime towards submitting itself to the rules governing the nuclear non-proliferation regime.''

Russia agreed to vote for the resolution after Britain, France and Germany dropped a proposed travel ban on Iranian officials and narrowed the scope of the trade embargo to ``proliferation sensitive'' materials and technology. An earlier version of the text, first circulated in October, would have banned any item that could contribute to Iran's nuclear or missile programs.

Nuclear Power Plant

The resolution's sponsors also deleted any mention of the Bushehr commercial nuclear power plant that Russia is helping Iran build. An earlier text would have barred delivery of fuel to the plant.

``It is an important symbolic move, but it is hard to see that this puts sufficient pain on Iran to compel it to do anything,'' said Bruce Reidel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. ``At best, this is a warning shot across the bow of the Iranian state, a long way from authorizing the use of force.''

Iran ignored a July 31 resolution requiring it to suspend enrichment activities by Aug. 31, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pronounced ah-ma-deen-ah-ZHAD, has said his government will continue its nuclear program.

Vigilance

The resolution creates a Security Council committee to monitor implementation of the sanctions and calls on UN member nations to ``exercise vigilance'' regarding the international travel of the 12 Iranian officials and any ``specialized teaching or training'' of Iranian nationals.

UN member governments are to report to the committee within 60 days on steps they have taken to implement the resolution.

The sanctions would be suspended by Iran's decision to suspend enrichment activities and terminated by a report that the government in Tehran has complied with all UN Security Council and IAEA requirements.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in a conference call with reporters that the U.S. would follow the vote with new efforts to persuade other nations to enact the same type of financial and trade sanctions on Iran that the U.S. has had in place for 27 years.

``Russia and China tell us that want to deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability,'' Burns said. ``We want to see more vigorous action by them. We would like to see them stop selling arms to Iran and limit export credits to Iran. We think it is time to an end for business as usual.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Bill Varner in the United Nations at wvarner_at_bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 23, 2006 13:02 EST

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AL-AHRAM On-line [Cairo]

The greatest beneficiary of Israel's military misadventure in Lebanon is Iran, writes Mustafa El-Labbad*

The smoke cleared and the dust settled over Lebanon to reveal a configuration of regional geopolitical dynamics markedly different to those that existed before the Israeli invasion. Israel's architecture of destruction, drafted by its raiding aircraft across large swaths of southern Lebanon, could not conceal the limits of Israeli military might. The Israeli war machine has lost its aura of invulnerability. Hizbullah, by contrast, now stands taller in the region than ever, having succeeded in grinding the Israeli invasion to a halt and, simultaneously, in retaining its own arms and regional alliances. As a result, the US flew to Israel's rescue, producing Security Council Resolution 1701, turning a debacle on the ground to Israel's relative strategic advantage. But no UN resolution can alter the shift in the regional balances that ensued from the confrontation, and there is no doubt that Iran, Washington's actual target in this war, has emerged even more influential.

In the opening phases of Israel's aerial bombardment of Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure, Condoleezza Rice remarked that the death and destruction were the birth pangs of a new Middle East. Yet it appears that the new Middle East that is emerging is not the one she had in mind. After a full month of warfare, which Israel failed to resolve in its favour in spite of the complete military and political support it received from the US, a new set of strategic balances has begun to impose itself on the regional map. In keeping with the laws of Hegelian dialectics, the quantitative political and geo-strategic changes that have taken place in our region as the result of the occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, the occupation of Iraq in 2003 and, finally, the war on Lebanon in 2006, have given rise to profound and far reaching qualitative changes. At the heart of these changes is the emergence of Iran as a prominent regional power.

Iran's growing regional influence is the product of the interaction of numerous factors, foremost being the catalogue of policy failures of the ruling neo-conservative administration in Washington. True, Tehran has slowly and steadily worked to weave a fabric of relations extending from its western boundaries across Iraq and Syria to southern Lebanon, making it possible to speak of an "Iranian-Israeli frontier." However, there can be no denying that America's floundering military adventures in the region have given Iran just the boon its regional ambitions needed. The failure of US policy towards Iraq, in particular, opened the door to Iran to become a key player in Iraqi politics. In like manner, the failure of the Israeli venture in Lebanon has strengthened the moral and political hand of Hizbullah and, by extension, Iran, the Lebanese resistance movement's source of spiritual authority and political and military support.

One of the main aims of 1701 may well have been reducing Iranian-Israeli geopolitical proximity by compelling Hizbullah forces to withdraw north of the Litani River, an objective Israel failed to accomplish militarily. However, international political boundaries are, in reality, no more than a theoretical construct that ultimately reflects the current balances of regional and international power. Lebanon, since its establishment as an independent nation in 1943, has been a focal point of regional tensions and an infallible gauge of the shifts in regional balances of power. This year, the US has tangibly acknowledged the Lebanese dynamic by backing a military adventure the major purpose of which was to sap Iran's regional strength by stripping Hizbullah of its arms. Helping to pave the way to this was the White House's perception of the efficacy of Israel's military might. Key figures in the Bush administration had been under the impression that Israel's army could accomplish the mission of disarming Hizbullah in the space of a couple of weeks, providing that Israeli forces had an internationally acceptable pretext for going on the offensive and that their military operations would focus on the predominantly Shia areas of Lebanon (the south, the Bekaa Valley and the southern suburbs of Beirut), so as to neutralise Lebanon's other religious parties.

Iran, for its part, was operating under different assumptions. It believed that a military confrontation between Hizbullah and Israel would put Arab regimes under unprecedented strain, especially in view of the collapse of the peace process and Israeli belligerency in the occupied territories. Tehran would then be able to turn the fallout from these pressures towards the further expansion of its regional standing and influence. Iran also knew that it could count on the ideological and combat fervour of Hizbullah fighters, through whom it would be able to deliver political and military messages to various regional and international forces.

Where the thinking of Washington and Tehran coincided was in regarding Lebanon as a "rehearsal" for future wars. While Israel was testing American-made military high-tech hardware and demonstrating the ability of "smart" bombs to destroy underground fortifications (Iran's underground nuclear facilities being their eventual target), Hizbullah forces proved their efficacy at thwarting an Israeli advance and at harvesting Israeli tanks and artillery using Iranian-made anti-tank missiles. In addition, Hizbullah succeeded in delivering some powerful messages on its behalf and on behalf of Tehran via the Iranian-made missiles it dispatched in ever increasing depths into Israel. Above all, Washington was given to understand that Tehran could indeed strike heavily populated Tel Aviv with its Shihab-3 missiles if Washington launched an attack against Iran.

Iran has improved its regional hand with consummate skill. Building on its geographic position overlooking the Gulf, from where it could obstruct the passage of oil to international markets, and upon its network alliances, it has so enhanced its spiritual and ideological standing among Arab Shia that Iran has become to them what the Soviet Union was to communists around the world. In this context, the fight of the southern Lebanese Shia to liberate Shebaa Farms and other such just causes has worked to promote Iran's regional interests, just as the Soviet Union once sought to capitalise on the struggles of communist movements elsewhere in the world.

In the absence of an Arab alternative, two regional projects are vying with one another: the neo-conservatives' "new Middle East", stripped of its Arab identity and dominated by Israel, and the other new Middle East, dominated by the Shia "International" or "Comintern". Because the Arabs are highly suspicious of both, but have no alternative of their own, or the ability to impose one even if they had, the region appears headed for another collision revolving around Iran's nuclear capacity. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Washington, which has been outmanoeuvred by Iran at every turn, pressured the Security Council to pass Resolution 1696, giving Iran until the end of this month to halt all uranium enrichment activities or face sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. But, rather than dampening Iran's regional ambitions, international sanctions, which are certain to be forthcoming, will only fuel its resolve. We can therefore expect next month to usher in a new and qualitatively different burst of escalating tensions in the region.

Iran has demonstrated, on numerous occasions, that it has the political acumen to strengthen its presence as a regional power using means far less formidable than those available to the US. The neoconservatives in Washington, by contrast, are plodding their way from one disaster to the next, constantly leaving one predicament by plunging headlong into another with absolute confidence in the ability of military force to solve their problems while blind to the impact their pugnacity has on US interests, and on those of its allies, in the region.

American policymakers still have to wake up to the fact that to the Arabs the regional power struggle with Iran comes second in importance to the Arab-Israeli conflict. They should also realise that Washington's policies have hampered the ability of Arab governments to perform their regional roles effectively and in a manner that would enable them to keep Iranian ambitions within proper bounds and, simultaneously, to secure their own regional goals. If Iran's persistence at promoting itself as a regional power at the expense of the Arabs may have momentarily blurred the above-mentioned order of priorities, Washington's stubborn refusal to respond to the Arabs' minimum demands for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will inevitably propel the region into the embrace of the "Iranian Comintern".

* The writer is a political analyst specialised in Iranian affairs.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 07:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Mercury News [San Francisco Bay Area]

2006-08-24

Excerpts:

"We are creating a situation where everything we're going to try short of military force is going to fail," said Ilan Berman, an Iran expert at the American Foreign Policy Council, which favors an aggressive approach. "By the spring of next year, we're going to be looking at very serious discussions about next steps, including military options."

"If George Bush is serious about denying Iran nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't respond to our diplomacy, then we're headed to a conflict," said Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a research center with strong ties to the "neo-conservatives" who shaped Iraq policy in the Bush administration.

"There exists a very real possibility that, if the U.S. attacks Iran, then Iran will inflict a devastating defeat upon the U.S. in Iraq, and also take the fight to the U.S. across the Middle East," concluded an analysis Wednesday by Chatham House, a respected British research center.

A unilateral U.S. strike probably would inflame world opinion anew against America. It could send global oil prices over $100 a barrel and tip the world into recession. And U.S. voters weary of war could punish Bush and his Republican Party in 2008 - as might Congress in the meantime if Democrats win control of it in November.

"When all the political and strategic pros and cons of an American military strike on Iran are taken into account, there is good reason to believe that the U.S. will stick to diplomacy," Philip Gordon, a foreign policy specialist at the Brookings Institution, a center-left research center, concluded in a recent article. "I know of almost no one who ... sees it as anything other than a last resort."

Still, Gordon added, "it would be foolish" to completely dismiss the idea that "Washington is getting ready to bomb Iran."

There are other possible scenarios. Iran might cave to international pressure and give up its uranium-enrichment programs. A diplomatic stalemate might leave the issue unresolved through Bush's term. The international community might be able to force Iran's cooperation by imposing tough economic sanctions.

That's the American game plan for the moment. U.S. diplomats are trying to come up with a package of sanctions that could win Security Council approval, but Russia and China oppose tough measures and each holds veto power. Both have strong economic ties to Iran.

Many experts think the right mix of sanctions could work. Despite the windfall it's reaped from skyrocketing oil prices, Iran's economy is shaky. Although Iran is the second-largest exporter of Middle East oil, behind Saudi Arabia, it imports about 40 percent of its refined gasoline. The government has drafted plans for fuel rationing.

"The mullahs have terribly mismanaged the economy. They're economically vulnerable," said Peter Brookes, an Iran specialist at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research center. "The hard part, when you're talking about sanctions, is getting the Europeans to do it and getting the Chinese and the Russians not to oppose it at the Security Council."

The Security Council passed a resolution in July demanding that Iran shut down its uranium-enrichment program, but Russia and China blocked American efforts to include an automatic trigger for sanctions if Iran failed to comply.

Iran says it wants enriched uranium for nuclear power plants, not bombs, but few accept that. U.S. intelligence officials think Iran is on track to produce a nuclear weapon over the next four to nine years.

Iran's leaders show no sign of backing down on the nuclear issue. Their prestige in the region is on the rise, as Iranian support for Shiite militias in Iraq and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon has expanded Tehran's influence.

f diplomacy fails and the Iranian regime presses ahead with its nuclear program, Bush could order airstrikes, although Iran's nuclear facilities are hidden and scattered. Or he could let Israel do it; in 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq to prevent it from being used to develop weapons. It's the nation most at risk from a nuclear Iran.

"Political reality may force him to punt it. His credibility is, in a sense, shot internationally. Domestically, there's no appetite for a military confrontation," said Thomas Alan Schwartz, who teaches diplomatic history at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. "He might be faced with the issue of whether he wants to go out with a bang, so to speak, or leave it to his successor."

Brookes of Heritage, who agrees with Bush's zero-tolerance policy toward a nuclear-armed Iran, suggested that events may force a compromise.

"We may have to live with a nuclear Iran," he said.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 05:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Yahoo/Associated Press

JERUSALEM - In a letter to the troops, Israel's military chief acknowledged publicly for the first time Thursday that there were shortcomings in the military's performance during the recent fighting with Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Israel went into the monthlong war as a united front against Hezbollah, but since the fighting ended last week, the country has splintered into a cacophony of reproachful voices.

Criticism of the military's preparedness and tactics swelled after the battles ended without a clear-cut victory for Israel. Questions about the wisdom of 11th-hour battles and reports of food and water shortages have fueled demands for a state inquiry into the war's conduct and the resignation of Israel's wartime leaders.

In a letter to Israeli fighters, military chief Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz wrote: "Alongside the achievements, the fighting uncovered shortcomings in various areas — logistical, operational and command. We are committed to a thorough, honest, rapid and complete investigation of all the shortcomings and successes."

"Questions will be answered professionally, and everyone will be investigated — from me down to the last soldier," according to the letter, released by the military Thursday.

War broke out July 12, hours after Hezbollah fighters killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two in a bold cross-border raid. About 160 Israelis — one-quarter of them civilians — died in the fighting, and northern Israel was all but paralyzed by nearly 4,000 rockets fired from across the border in Lebanon.

While Halutz was owning up to military missteps, the head of the Shin Bet security service was calling the war "a fiasco" in his first public statement on the fighting.

"The north was abandoned, the government systems collapsed there completely," Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin told a closed security forum, according to meeting participants. "There were many failures, and the public sees and understands this. This is not the time to whitewash. The truth must be told. ... Someone has to provide explanations and take responsibility."

During a visit to the rocket-scarred north on Thursday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised that rebuilding the region would be a top priority.

"Billions will be invested ... to turn the north into the paradise it can be," Olmert said, estimating that up to $2.3 billion could be budgeted over the course of several years.

Additionally, more than $300 million raised abroad will be channeled to help towns in the north, he said, promising that a plan would be approved within two weeks.

In the meantime, Olmert has acquiesced to calls for a war probe, and is expected to decide within days what kind of inquiry to conduct.

The most sweeping inquiry would be a state commission, with powers to dismiss government and military officials.

A vocal group of reserve soldiers and bereaved parents has been demanding that Olmert, Halutz and Defense Minister Amir Peretz step down, or that the government conduct an honest reckoning of what went wrong by appointing a state commission of inquiry.

The war's outcome has also unleashed a fierce spasm of political infighting. The governing coalition, established in May, has become even more brittle, with partners feuding over proposed budget cutbacks to pay for the war, which cost up to an estimated $9 billion.

Peretz — a former union boss with scant military experience — has especially come under fire, both within and outside his Labor Party. On top of having his credentials questioned, Peretz now faces a rebellion within his own party by members who oppose the budget cutbacks on the ground they would hurt Israel's disadvantaged.

"Never has his leadership seemed more short-lived," political writer Nadav Eyal wrote in Israel's Maariv newspaper on Thursday.

----

It seems that Israel's efforts at dismantling Hizbollah were a complete failure. Not only did they not succeed but Israel's leaders are being widely criticized both from withing and without Israel. What does this mean for future support for such incursions?

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 03:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It doesn't look like Arab support for Hezbollah's struggle against Israel is going to dry up anytime soon. Quite the contrary, it appears that Israel's airstrikes and incursions into Lebanon have only strengthened Hezbollah's political and, most likely, military support.

Source: eitb24.com, Basque Radio and Television

Excerpts:

Khamenei criticised the US for supporting Israel's evil acts in Lebanon and called on the Islamic world to unite against them. "The aggressive nature of America and Israel will revive the spirit of resistance," he said.

"The only way to succeed is to continue resistance against the occupier regime (Israel)," said Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state in Iran and who dominates the country's policy on the Middle East conflict. "Iran will stand by ... the brave Lebanese nation and the combatant Palestinian nation."

Khamenei criticised the United States for supporting Israel's "evil acts" in Lebanon and called on the Islamic world to unite against Israel. "The aggressive nature of America and Israel will revive the spirit of resistance more than before in the Islamic world," Khamenei said.

An influential hardline cleric on Tuesday called on Muslim nations to arm Lebanese Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 09:53 AM | Permalink

Source: Fars News Agency

While the US tries to isolate Iran, Israel's attacks on Lebanon are strengthening ties across the Islamic world.

Saudi King Malik Abdullah called Mohammad Reza Nouri Shahroudi (advisor to Iran's Expediency Council for International Affairs) 'an asset for Iran and the world of Islam' and praised the progress the two countries have made strengthening their ties during previous Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) meetings.

Abdullah also called for vigilance in thwarting the 'secret hands' that 'intend to sow discord among Muslims and agitate religious disputes and tribalism.'

"Shahroudi, who handed over Rafsanjani's written message to King Abdullah, stressed the importance of more consultation on issues of world of Islam between the two countries and called for expansion of mutual friendly ties in all fields."

He added, "The Islamic Republic of Iran calls for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the Zionist regime's attacks on the defenseless Palestinian and Lebanese people."

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Source: http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Middle_East/0,,2-10-2075_1975489,00.html

"This criminal aggression is a flagrant violation of international laws," the Jordanian monarch said in a statement released by the royal court..."This is a horrible crime committed by the Israeli forces," the king said.

...

Amman - Jordan's King Abdullah II on Sunday denounced Israel's deadly air raid on the south Lebanese village of Qana that killed at least 51 people, and appealed for a quick solution to the crisis.

"This criminal aggression is a flagrant violation of international laws," the Jordanian monarch said in a statement released by the royal court.

At least 51 people, including 22 children, were killed in blistering Israeli air raids on the village of Qana at dawn, officials in the region said.

"This is a horrible crime committed by the Israeli forces," the king said.

He urged the "international community to assume its responsibilities and find a quick solution to the crisis and suffering of the Lebanese people," the statement added.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:50 AM | Permalink

In regard to the escalting conflict between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon:

"If the option of peace fails as a result of Israeli arrogance, then the only option remaining will be war, and God alone knows what the region would witness in a conflict that would spare no one."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_arab_response

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 04:40 PM | Permalink