Iranian nuclear facility damaged by fire and explosion

 (June 6) The New York Times reported that an anonymous Middle Eastern intelligence official claimed that Israel was behing the fire at Iran's nuclear facility. The source said that a powerful bomb was used that caused a fire severely damaging the facility.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) member confirms attack

The Times also spoke with an anonymous IRCG member who also claimed that an explosive was used against the Natanz facility but the official did not assign blame. However, the official ruled out a cyber attack as the cause. Israel has used such attacks in the past. In 2010 the US and Israel damaged Iran's nuclear facilities using a virus named Stuxnet. The IRGC member said it was likely someone took a bomb into the facility rather the explosion being caused by a cruise missile or drone strike.

Israel's response

Israel did not accept responsibility for the incidence but often it will not comment on attacks. Israeli officials were rather vague in their replies when questioned about their responsibility for the attack on Sunday. However, they stressed the danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would create. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said in a radio interveiw “Everyone can suspect us in everything and all the time, but I don’t think that’s correct." He added that not every incident that happens in Iran has something to do with Israel.

There have been other strange incidents in Iran with several fires breaking out at power stations. However, the Middle East intelligence official claimed that these incidents were not related to the Natanz fire.

Another group has claimed responsibility for the attack

Iran has not yet officially blamed any country or group for the attack. Before the Natanz incident even became prominent in the news another group calling itself the Homeland Cheetahs wrote to the BBC claiming it carried out the attack. No doubt Iran feels it is best to carry out further investigations before it assigns blame to anyone. The damage will set back the Iranian nuclear program.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iran claims Luxembourg court released $1.6 billion of its assets

The Luxembourg Court of Cassation has yet to release its report and make a public announcement Iran is already reporting a legal victory. Iran claims that the court has freed $1.6 billion in Iranian assets that were frozen at the request of the US.

Assets frozen at US request

On May 8 of 2018 President Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) an agreement on Iran's nuclear program that had been agreed to in July 2015 by China, France, Russia, the UK, Germany, and the US. The US then reimposed stinging sanctions against Iran.

Background

In 2012 a New York court found that Iran had provided material support and resources to al-Qaida for acts of terrorism. The court awarded the plaintiffs against Iran, all private citizens, damages of over $7 billion. In March of 2019 a Luxembourg court found that there were no grounds in international law to uphold the US 2012 court order. Bahram Qasemi a spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry according to the state news agency said:“The era of totalitarian and bullying behavior of America toward other countries is over and it can no longer raise such groundless accusations." The appended video discusses the Luxembourg court ruling.

The US requested Luxembourg and the EU to keep Iran's assets frozen and they complied. Iran tried to access its funds in 2017 but was unsuccessful. However there are reports that the US has agreed to unfreeze some frozen Iranian assets so that Iran could buy medical supplies to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. This may have influenced the Luxembourg court decision to unfreeze the $1.6 billion to Iran.

Iran also wants the US sanctions to be eased to help fight the crisis but there is no sign of the US doing that as yet.

Iran has also applied to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a $5 billion emergency loan to help finance its fight against COVID-19. However, it is expected that the loan may be rejected as the US opposes the loan and the US has great influence over the IMF many claim. The IMF is based in Washington.

Formerly published in the Digital Journal

Iran criticizes what it terms US obstruction of IMF loan request

(April 7) Iran's Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkrani criticized US obstruction of a loan from the International Monetary Fund(IMF) that Iran was seeking to fight the COVID-19 pandemic that has had a serious impact on the country.

	1 of 2

Shamkrani's tweet

On Sunday the Supreme National Council official tweeted: "The sanction of health items is an illegal & inhumane act & a symbol of #Trump's open hostility to the Iranian people. US opposition to granting #Iran's requested facilities from @IMF to provide items needed to deal with #CoronaVirus is a real case of crimes against humanity." Shamkrani added a hashtag in Farsi that said Trump was more dangerous than the coronavirus. The loan was rejected by the IMF.

The Covid-19 pandemic in Iran is said by Iranian officials to have taken over 3,600 lives and infected more than 58,000 since February 19.

US action

The Central Bank of Iran was reported last month to have asked the IMF for a $5 billion dollar loan its first loan request since 1962. Iran said that it need the loan to deal with the costs of fighting the COViD-19 pandemic. The costs of Iran's fight against the virus are exacerbated by the fact that it faces crippling sanctions imposed by the US in May of 2018 after the US withdrew from the international deal on Iran's nuclear program.

Calls have mounted for the US to ease the sanctions to allow Iran more resources to combat the pandemic. US has shown no sign of doing so. Now it has used it influence to pressure the IMF to turn down the loan. The US has taken similar actions against Venezuela as it attempts to overthrow the government of Nicolas Maduro. The IMF claimed that it was not clear who represented the Venezuela government Maduro or the coup leader Juan Guaido recognized by the US and many allies as the interim president of Venezuela.

Senior officials in the Trump administration claimed that Iran had billion-dollar accounts still at its disposal. The US argued that if Iran were allowed to get IMF financing it could divert the funds to help its economy, or finance militants rather than fighting the pandemic. Of course, it is US sanctions that have to a large extent weakened the Iranian economy. An anonymous US official claimed that Iranian officials had a long history of diverting funds for humanitarian goods into their own pockets and to finance their terrorist proxies. He provided no evidence of this. The remarks fit a pattern of demonizing Iran. The US probably does not worry so much about aid funds being diverted so much as freeing up funds that would have been used to fight the pandemic for other uses such as helping the economy. That the economy would be made stronger from such help is a negative for the US which is using sanctions to ensure it stays weak.

UPDATE: I have corrected the headline as it seems the IMF has not yet made a decision on the application

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US and UAE hold war games to send message to Iran in spite of COVID-19 pandemic

(March 22) A number of planned war games have peen postponed because of fears they would help spread the coronavirus. However, the US and United Arab Emirates (UAE) carried on the biennial Native Fury to send a message to Iran.

Native Fury

The Native Fury exercise involves 4,000 US troops plus fighters from the UAE. The exercises were held on Monday at Al-Hamra base in Abu Dhabi's desert region. The thousands of troops backed by armored vehicles and helicopters "capture" a fictional model Iranian city containing mock multi-story buildings and mosques. The troops roam through narrow streets looking for enemy fighters.

US ambassador claims that the exercise was defensive

US Ambassador John Rakolta Jr. described the exercise as defensive in nature. He claimed this in spite of the fact that the exercises practiced an invasion and attack on a model Iranian city. Rakolta said that he did not think that it was provocative to tell the Iranians the US was coming. To indicate they are coming is to say they will invade and attack Iranian cities. How could that be other than provocative and a clear threat? There is nothing defensive about the exercises.

Rakota praised the UAE and when asked about Yemen where the UAE is involved said: “Partnerships are based on many aspects, many fundamentals, and this happens [to be] just one of them.Trust is a huge, huge factor. Transparency, common values all work into a partnership.” There have been international condemnation of the Saudi-led war with UAE support as involving bombing attacks that amount to war crimes.

US General also defends the exercise

Brigadier General Thomas Savage of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, the highest ranking US Commander of Native Fury said:

"Provocative? I don't know. We're about stability in the region. So if they view it as provocative, well, that's up to them. This is just a normal training exercise for us." So an exercise that threatens to invade Iran and practices doing so promotes stability? Savage does not know if this exercise creates stability even though he says that is what the US is in Iraq to create. The official reason for the US being in Iraq is to defeat ISIS. However, ISIS is more or less defeated and it seems clear that the US remains in Iraq to counter Iran's influence. It remains in Iraq even though the Iraqi parliament passed a motion that all foreign troops withdraw that passed 170 to 0 earlier this year.

The US has refused to reduce sanctions against Iran even though the sanctions negatively impact Iran's attempts to control the coronavirus

Previously published in the Digital Journal

The Iranian ambassador to Iraq warns that US troops we would be targets after US attacks

(Sep. 29)Iraj Masjedi, Iran's ambassador to Iraq warned the US against attacking Iran in comments he made on Iraqi television. He said that Iran would respond to any US strike.

	1 of 2

US troops in Iraq are safe only if they do not cause Iran problems

Masjdedi statement to Iraq's Dijlah TV said: "If they [the US forces] don't cause any problem for the Islamic Republic, Iran won't respond to this presence [of US forces in Iraq]. If the Americans want to cause any problem for the Islamic Republic, they have to expect a response and reaction. A demand of Iran is for American forces to get out of the region because they don't do any positive or constructive work. This is not strictly about Iraq. It is about wherever they exist."

There are about 5,000 US troops still in Iraq.

A number of Iraqi Shi'ite militia would support Iran

Although the Iraq government might wish to stay out of the US Iran conflict as much as they can this is hardly possible given that many politicians and Shi'ite militia would support Iran if any conflict broke out. If war does break out it is likely to be a region-wide conflict.

US and Israel have been blamed for attacks on Iraq militia bases

Al Jazeera back on August 21 reported: "Iraq's paramilitary groups backed by Iran have blamed a series of recent blasts at their weapons depots and bases on the United States and Israel, vowing to defend themselves against any future attack. The statement on Wednesday came from the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), or Hashd al-Shaabi, the umbrella grouping of Iraq's mostly Shia militias. It said the US had allowed four Israeli drones to enter the region accompanying US forces and carry out missions on Iraqi territory. "

The US has denied any responsibility for the attacks but confirmed that Israel was behind an attack on a weapons depot. These attacks have strengthened anti-US views in Iraq and may result ultimately in a motion in parliament to force remaining US troops to withdraw.

So far the US has avoided an outright war with Iran even though tensions have increased and the US has sent more troops and equipment to Saudi Arabia.

Previously published in the DIgital Journal

Iranian and Omani officials discuss safe navigation through the Stratts of Hormuz

Top officials from Oman and Iran are discussing ways to ensure safe transit through the Strait of Hormuz, an economically vital narrow stretch of water, according to Omani FM Yousef bin Alawi bin Abdullah.

Both Oman and Iran stress safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz

The Omani First Minister added that all nations need to maintain contact in order to avoid more incidents. Iran also stressed the importance of safety in the region and warned the UK that Iran would not accept any violations of regulations. Even though Iran has seized a UK tanker in response to the UK seizure of an Iranian oil tanker off Gibraltar, Iran promised to ensure freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. While western nations hostile to Iran are not likely to believe Iran's promises, Oman is broadly on good terms across the region and could add weight to what Iran promises.

Iran condemns the UK during meeting with Omani FM

A recent article in the Jerusalem Post notes: Iran President Hassan Rouhani condemned the UK while meeting with Oman’s Foreign Minister in Tehran, saying that the seizure of an Iranian tanker by UK Royal Marines earlier this month was to the “detriment” of the UK, and that Iran will “stand against any kind of violation of regulations that endangers the security of navigation in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz or Sea of Oman.” The UK says it will provide protection for its ships sailing through the area from now on.

A recent article notes: "A British warship will accompany British-flagged vessels through the Strait of Hormuz to defend freedom of navigation, a change in policy after the government previously said it did not have the military resources to do so."

Tensions between the US, the UK and Iran are high, with the US blaming Iran for several tanker attacks. The US is said to have requested that the UK seize the tanker Grace 1 off Gibraltar as well. This provoked the Iranian seizure of a UK tanker.

Previously published in the DIgital Journal

Trump says it would be OK with him if there were a war with Iran

(July 23) Trump often changes positions on issues quickly. His most recent change is on Iran. He has said several times that he does not want war with Iran. However, on Monday he has said that things could go either way that there may or may not be war with Iran.

Trump's new statements

To reporters in the Oval Office Trump said: "Frankly it's getting harder for me to want to make a deal with Iran, because they behave very badly. Ill tell you it could go either way, very easily... And I'm OK either way it goes."

Trump also said that it was getting more difficult for him to want to make a deal with Iran as he claimed they were behaving very badly.

Trump stated that Iran's government is "a religious regime that is badly failing," and that has "tremendous problems economically." Many of Iran's economic problems are due to US sanctions enforced as much as possible on all countries even those that have no sanctions against Iran themselves.

Hawks within the Trump administration such as Bolton and Pompeo will no doubt be pleased at this change in attitude by Trump towards Iraq, especially his saying that he is OK with a war with Iran. This is exactly what the hawks want to hear. Earlier, Trump insisted that he did not want war with Iran.

Trump cites recent conflicts for his change of stance

Trump mentioned the downing of the two drones, a US drone by Iran and an Iranian one by Iran. Iran denies any of its drones have been downed. Trump also mentioned the Iranian claim that it had arrested 17 people connected to a CIA spy ring, a claim that Trump called a lie.

The US and Iran have been in increasing conflict ever since the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew the US from a landmark 2015 deal the P5 plus 1, in which Iran agreed to put curbs on its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. The EU has tried to keep its part of the bargain after the US withdrew.

Currently, many companies will not trade with Iran because they may be cut off from business with the US. As a result, Iran has not had the promised sanction relief, and the country has begun to break the terms of the agreement in protest. Trump has warned Iran about breaking the agreement even though the U.S. is no longer itself part of the agreement.

Trump could also have mentioned the Iranian seizure of UK tanker Stena Imperio as changing his stance. However, the tanker was seized after the UK had the Iranian tanker the Grace 1 seized off Gibraltar. The seizure is alleged to have been at the request of the US.

John Bolton applauded the seizure: "The US national security adviser, John Bolton, who has long sought regime change in Tehran, exulted in the capture on Twitter. Add in the plentiful historical reasons for Iran to distrust the UK, and its anger that Europe has not mitigated the effects of US 'maximum pressure', and the scene was set for the Stena Impero’s seizure."

As noted in a recent Digital Journal article and also on the appended video, EU sanctions do not apply to Iran so the seizure of the Iranian vessel is arguably illegal. This is an obvious point usually studiously omitted in most mainstream media accounts of events.

The situation seems to be developing exactly as the hawks within the Trump administration desires although so far outright war between the two countries has not broken out.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Global Hawk drone shot down by Iran made by Northrop Grumman

(June 21) Last Thursday Iran shot down a US RQ-4 Global Hawk drone that it claimed was on a spy mission over its territory. The US, on the other hand, claimed the drone was in international air space and subject to an unprovoked attack.

The RQ-4 Global Hawk

Whatever the facts about the downing, the drone involved is used for intelligence-gathering over both water and coastal areas. It costs around $130 million per drone according to industry experts.

The drone is designed to capture near real-time, high-resolution images. It can do so in all kinds of weather in either the day or night time.

Specifics of the Global Hawk

The RQ-4 Global Hawk is considered to be one of the most sophisticated drones used by the US military. The Hawk is designed to fly at altitudes as highs as 60,000 feet or 18 km. In contrast, most commercial planes fly at altitudes ranging from 31,000 to 38,000 feet or 9 to 11 km.

The drone can stay in the air up to 32 hours and has a range of 22,780 km. The drone is 44 feet (13 meters) long and has a wingspan of 116 feet (35 meters). It weighs 25,600 pounds (12 tonnes). It is comparable in size to a small business jet.

First flight

The Hawk made its first flight back in February of 2008. Since the drones have logged more than 250,000 flight hours. This includes operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Africa and also the Asia-Pacific region.

Both US Air Force and US Navy have bought the Hawks

In the early 2000s both forces began to buy the drones. In 2004 the Navy claimed that the Air Force had bought four of the drones at a cost of around $360 million back then. A 2013 news release by Northrop Grumman claimed that the company had delivered 37 Global Hawks to the Air Force.

More recently the Navy has been purchasing the somewhat larger MQ-4C Triton. The Triton has a 130 foot (40 meter) wingspan slightly more than the Global Hawk. In March the Navy requested two of the Tritons and budgeted $473 million for them and associated equipment.

Northrop Grumman

Wikipedia describes Northrop Grumman as follows: "Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) is an American global aerospace and defense technology company formed by Northrop's 1994 purchase of Grumman. The company reported revenues in excess of $30 billion in 2018 and was the fourth-largest arms trader in the world in 2017 with about 84% of all revenue coming from defense related activities.[4][5][6][2] Northrop Grumman is made up of four main business sectors: Aerospace Systems, Mission Systems, Technology Services and Innovation Systems. The corporate headquarters is located in West Falls Church, Virginia. Northrop Grumman ranks number 118 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list of America's largest corporations."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Elected female member of Iranian parliament banned from taking her seat

In February, Minoo Khaleghi handily won a seat in the Iranian parliament along with many other independents and reformists, who now outnumber the conservative hard-liners.

The Dispute Settlement Committee of Branches, which is part of the generally conservative Iranian judiciary, ruled Khaleghi cannot be sworn in as a member of parliament. Iranian women must wear a head scarf while traveling abroad. However, photographs were leaked on social media showing Khaleghi in public both in Europe and China without a headscarf. Conservative hard-liners immediately charged Khaleghi with "betraying the nation."

Opposition analysts claim that the case against Khaleghi was politically motivated. They claim hard-liners were more concerned with marginalizing prominent reformists than about Khaleghi traveling abroad without wearing the head scarf. Opponents and Khaleghi also question the authenticity of the images. Khaleghi said in the official government newspaper that the photos are malicious fakes:“I am a Muslim woman, adhering to the principles of Islam.” She is suing those who distributed the images.

The reformists are fighting back. The Interior Ministry, whose head is an ally of the moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, arrested a hard-line activist for having published the photos. He is the administrator of the channel on the messaging application Telegram where the images first appeared. Rouhani himself sent out a tweet, indirectly supporting Khaleghi as one of 18 women elected to parliament in February:“For the first time, 18 women M.P.’s have made their way to the Majlis, which is a record, and we are happy that the dear ladies of our country are present in all scenes and especially in politics.” The Majlis is the Iranian parliament.

Reformists and moderate supporters of Rouhani won 122 seats in the 290-member parliament. The conservative hard-liners only held 84 according to state media. Independents held 82 seats. On crucial issues many independents side with Iranian conservative clerical leaders especially supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In spite of being the largest group, the moderates and reformers still often lack the majority needed to pass reformist legislation.

Within the state institutions, religion still often trumps the politics within the parliament. The reformers and moderates took all the seats in Tehran. Yet, the morality police continue to operate in the city and actors and artists receive warnings of possible prosecution for not behaving in an "Islamic" fashion.

Within weeks of winning the election Khaleghi was disqualified by the Guardian Council, a 12-member group that includes six clerics. The members are appointed by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. No explanation of the decision was given even though the same council had screened her before the vote and had decided she was fit. Khaleghi and others are concerned that only the parliament is entitled to review and approve the credentials of legislators according to the Iranian constitution. This is the first time the Guardian Council has claimed the right to do so. Ali Shakourirad, a reformist legislator said: “This means that any winner in the elections can be disqualified by the Guardian Council. It sets a bad precedent for future elections.” The issue resulted in conflict between the government and the parliament. The Interior Ministry referred the case to the Dispute Settlement Committee of Branches, which decided Khaleghi could not take her seat.

It is still possible that Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say on the matter, could step in and reinstate her but he is more likely to recognize the judicial group's decision. Farshad Ghorbanpour, a political analyst close to the government said that the battle over Khaleghi is likely just one of many to come, with the division of the parliament between reformists hard-liners. and independents. This is just the first example of the hard-liners flexing their muscles he said but there will be many more. For the first time ever, the number of women in the new parliament 17 outnumbers the number of clerics elected 16. However, with Khaleghi so far unable to take her seat the two groups have the same number.

U.S. bill to allow Saudis to be sued meets resistance

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act introduced in the U.S. Senate would allow the possibility of lawsuits against any foreign nations found to be involved in funding a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The text of the act explicitly mentioned the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The bill appears to target Saudi Arabia in particular, a feature that has angered the Saudis. Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel Jubeir is said to have told the U.S. administration that if the bill was passed, Saudi Arabia would immediately sell $750 billion in US treasuries. This could cause interest rates to spike, damaging the US dollar and the U.S.economy.

Almost immediately, the White House was threatening to veto the bill and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina a co-sponsor of the bi-partisan bill put a hold on the bill saying that it could come back to bite us. The president arrived in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday April 20 for a meeting with King Salman and officials.

The State Department and the White House warned that U.S. citizens abroad could face retaliatory lawsuits.The bill has brought Democratic Senator, Chuck Schumer, into conflict with the Obama administration. Schumer said: "If Saudi Arabia participated in terrorism, of course they should be able to be sued. This bill would allow a suit to go forward and victims of terrorism to go to court to determine if the Saudi government participated in terrorist acts. If the Saudis did, they should pay a price."Josh Earnest, the White House spokesperson, claimed the bill would jeopardize "international sovereignty" and would put the U.S. at risk should other countries adopt a similar law. He said it was difficult to imagine a scenario in which President Obama would sign the bill. The bill would prevent Saudi Arabia and other countries from invoking their sovereign immunity in federal courts.

The House is awaiting Senate action before it goes ahead with its own bill introduced by Peter King, a New York Republican. Paul Callan, a CNN legal analyst pointed out that the law could result in countries retaliating against U.S. drone attacks. Callan said: "Which is why for almost 200 years, international law has recognized this concept of sovereign immunity that countries shouldn't really allow individual courts to sue other countries. It shall be worked down as a matter of foreign relations."While Saudi Arabia has not been implicated in the 9/11 attacks, there have long been suspicions that the Saudi royal family were involved. These suspicions have even been increased by the failure so far for the Obama administration to release 28 pages of an investigation into foreign involvement in the attacks.

There is no similar resistance to allowing a suit against Iran to go forward for a terror attack on marine barracks in Beirut. The US Supreme court ruled that Iran must pay nearly $2 billion from frozen assets to more than 1,000 Americans. The ruling relates to a 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks that killed 241 Marines, as well as other attacks. In 2012 Congress passed a law that directed assets of Iran's Markazi bank be turned over to the families who were suing. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and the Obama administration as well supported the families in this case.

Iranian aid ship offloads Yemen aid in Djibouti while Iranian plane denied permission to land

An Iranian news agency said an Iranian Red Crescent plane carrying 20 tonnes of food for Yemen was denied permission to land in Djibouti the location of a UN food distribution hub.

+ Add Image

The IRNA, official Iranian news agency, quoted the Red Crescent official as saying: “Despite coordination with the United Nations and the World Food Programme, the plane was not granted permission to land in Djibouti." The plane is now in south-eastern Iran awaiting authorization of the foreign affairs ministry of Djibouti to land. Djibouti is the site of a key U.S. military base, the only permanent U.S. base in Africa. Drone missions are launched from the base as well as other flights.

An Iranian cargo ship, the Nejat, carrying 2,500 tonnes of aid to Yemen that had been heading for the port of Hodeida held by the rebel Houthis, changed course and docked in Djibouti after arriving late Friday night. The cargo was being handed over to the World Food Program (WFP) in Djibouti. The port authority chief, Abur Hadi, said: “The ship will be completely unloaded and reloaded onto other vessels, everything is transparent." WFP spokesperson, Abber Etefa, said Saturday: "The ship carries 2,500 tonnes of humanitarian aid and that includes mainly rice and wheat flour, as well as medicine, water, tents and blankets."

The ship diverted from its route to Hodeida after warnings from both the U.S. and the Saudi-led coalition who feared that the ship might be delivering arms to the Houthi rebels.

The U.N. could have monitored the unloading at Hodeida and assured a quicker delivery of the aid instead of having to divert to Djibouti. However, it is clear that the U.S. and Saudis simply do not want any deliveries to be made by Iran of any kind to Houthi-controlled areas. When the ship arrived in Djibouti, it was not just inspected but unloaded and the aid given over to the WFP. There is no guarantee that the aid will even go to Hodeida now.

General Ali Ahmadi, Secretary of the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) said:“We are coordinating with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to deliver Iran’s humanitarian aid to the oppressed Yemeni people in Hudaydah port after making sure that the route is safe. The Nejat ship has been dispatched to Djibouti in order to assess the situation. We are sending humanitarian supplies to Yemen needed by its people and we do not want to face any problems in this regard,”There are a number of international journalists, doctors, and foreign anti-war activists aboard the ship.

I expect that the Nejat will not be allowed to journey to Hodeida at all. The aid has already been offloaded. If the UN, the US, and Saudi coalition were going to allow the Nejat to dock in Hodeida, they would have simply inspected the cargo in Djibouti and sent it on its way with perhaps UN monitors to ensure it did not pick up weapons on the way. The process is transparent. The powers that count, the US and Saudis, ensured that the ship not only did not sail directly to Hodeida but will never go there and will not deliver the aid. The aid could very well end up in Aden to be given to areas controlled by Hadi loyalists. As Etefa from the WFP put it:“The cargo of the ship will be handed over to WFP in Djibouti and will be transferred to WFP-chartered vessels for shipment to the Yemeni ports of Hudaydah and/or (the southern port city of) Aden, It will be delivered to humanitarian partners on the ground for distribution."Saudi Arabia has already stopped an Iranian cargo plane from delivering aid from landing in Sanaa by bombing the runway, preventing any aid planes from landing no matter where they were from. Clearly the aim is not just to prevent arms from being provided by Iran but humanitarian aid to rebel-held areas as well. Some aid will still get in because the UN will need to show some concern for the humanitarian needs of those in rebel areas.

Naval escort to accompany Iran cargo ship to Yemen

Iranian Admiral Hossein Azad said that the 34th naval group was in the Gulf of Aden in the Bab-al-Mandab strait and had been given the task of protecting the Iranian aid ship.

+ Add Image	1 of 3

Azad claimed that the naval group included a destroyer and a logistic ship which were in the area on a 90 day anti-piracy assignment. Iranian state TV claimed the ship carried food, medicine, tents, and blankets, as well as reporters, rescue workers, and peace activists. It is expected to arrive at the port of Hodeida next week.

The Pentagon claims that an escort for the ship was not necessary and said that Iran was planning some sort of stunt. If the ship plans to land in Hodeida, held by the Houthis, and the nearest port to the capital Sanaa, they may need an escort. When an Iranian cargo plane tried to land in the capital, the Saudi coalition bombed the runway making it impossible for it to land and preventing any aid coming in to the airport. There is a scheduled five day lull in bombing and hostilities that started yesterday although there are reports of some continuing clashes on the ground.

Washington is not happy with Iran's plan. US Army Col. Steve Warren said that the US is monitoring the cargo ship and said that Iran should send the vessel to Djibouti where there is a hub being set up and Yemen aid efforts are being coordinated. The UN recently was able to dock an aid ship in the rebel-held port in spite of the coalition blockade but has complained about delays in many cases.

The Iranian cargo ship is flying the Red Crescent Society of Iran flag. The head of the Society in Iran, Amir Ziy'ee said that “based on international regulations, no one can inspect a vessel that is moving in international waters carrying the flag of a country,” according to a report on Iranian TV.

The Houthi's expanded their are of control last year including taking the capital Sanaa last September. When UN-sponsored negotiations between Houthis and the Hadi government failed to produce a government agreeable to the Houthi's, Hadi resigned and was put under virtual house arrest. However, he escaped to Aden and declared himself the legitimate president again and tried to set up his own government in Aden, only to be quickly driven out. He fled to the safety of the Saudi capital, Ryadh. Since then, a Saudi-led coalition started a military campaign of bombing and arming loyalists starting in March in a bid to restore Hadi to power. The conflict has killed more than 1,400 people many civilians and caused a humanitarian disaster as vital supplies dwindle.

Iran supports the Houthis, and the Saudis with their Sunni allies are attempting to retain their dominance in Yemen. However, the conflict goes beyond a sectarian issue. The Houthis could never have expanded their area of control to the south and many other areas without the support of ex-president Saleh who still has many in the armed forces loyal to him rather than Hadi. The conflict is further complicated by a strong southern separatist movement who are fighting the Houthis but want independence rather than rule by a Hadi government. The conflict has led to a huge growth in Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula(AQAP) and the area they control. AQAP hates both the Houthis and the Hadi government. There may be little support left in Yemen for Hadi. So far the Saudi campaign has produced even more bloodshed than before without defeating the Houthis, while strengthening the power of AQAP and southern separatists.

Heavy casualties as Iraq forces attempt to retake Tikrit

Reports on casualties in the Iraqi offensive led by an Iranian general and including many Shia militia groups, are now beginning to emerge. The heavy toll may be one reason why the offensive is stalled.

+ Add Image

Unofficial reports indicate that already 1,000 of the attackers have been killed. The government refuses to confirm any figures. The offensive was paused last weekend. It was supposed to last only two days while awaiting reinforcements. Now the pause is to continue through this weekend March 21 and 22. Attacks against the Iraqi forces during the pause are still resulting in 100 security forces being brought to a hospital in Samarra each day either wounded or dead according to a source there. About 20,000 are taking part in the operation against Tikrit.

Even the highest-ranking Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was concerned about the skills of the Shiite militia and said that better planning by the government was needed and greater professionalism if the IS militants were to be defeated. Earlier reports had suggested that the offensive was successful with the militants being cornered in a part of central Tikrit up against the Tigris river. While IS forces do appear surrounded, the Iraqi forces are still just in the suburban areas of Tikrit. The vastly outnumbered IS forces have built up formidable defenses that are taking a heavy toll on the attackers. The US has not been involved in carrying out this attack. Iraq decided that it would be carried out by a combination of Shia militia and regular forces under the overall command of an Iranian general.

Many are concerned that the Shia militia will take revenge on the Sunni population for supporting the Islamic State. US General David Petraeus, once the commander of US troops in Iraq even claims that political instability is an even greater threat to Iraq than the Islamic State. He mentioned Shia militia specifically. Revenge actions could exacerbate the sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni in Iraq. Tikrit was Saddam Hussein's home town and its citizens strong supporter of Sunni interests.

There appear to be disagreements among government officials and military leaders of Iraqi special forces as to how to continue the offensive. Some in the government want a full assault against the IS. While this might be successful special forces commanders claim the cost in casualties make that strategy inadvisable. No doubt the Iraqi government would emphasize the successful retaking of Tikrit and ignore the cost. Many worry that some Shia militia are quite willing to suffer casualties in order to wreak revenge on the IS and Sunni supporters. Last summer Tikrit was the scene of the massacre of almost 1,000 Shia air force recruits that IS recorded on video.Reports of the number killed vary as shown on the enclosed video. Hadi al Ameri, who leads the Badr Organization militia refers to the attack on Tikrit as revenge for the attack on the recruits. Iranian advisers are also apparently in favour of an advance no matter the cost.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi wants a better plan. Al-Abadi appears to fear that there will be a US backlash if there is a full assault with Shia militia taking revenge. US commanders were opposed to the Tikrit operation and have not used US air power to support it so far. The Islamic State apparently has only a few hundred fighters in Tikrit compared to the twenty thousand attackers. However their area is heavily fortified with booby traps everywhere with many snipers and suicide bombers ready to defend the area. There are also hundreds of roadside bombs. The militia want to press ahead using artillery and bombing that will inevitably cause significant civilian casualties.

The US is said to be concerned that there will be more abuses by militia and even by security forces the US has trained. There have been numerous videos showing these abuses on the internet. Probably the US is not so much concerned about the casualties and abuses per se as that they will complicate the political situation and exacerbate the sectarian aspects of the Iraq conflict.

For now, it seems that the Iraqi military is moving in heavy equipment to clear booby traps while tightening the ring around the city denying the fighters supplies. A spokesperson for the largest Shia militia The League of Righteousness, Abu Zergawi said that operations would resume in a couple of days after more men and equipment were brought into the area.

Back last November, Iraqi forces launched an assault to retake the town of Baiji and a nearby refinery. They met fierce resistance but finally in December secured the refinery and the town. Later much of the town and surrounding area were retaken. The government has been unable to restart the refinery and it has to be constantly guarded. The Iraqi government would like to retake the larger city of Mosul but given what is happening in Tikrit this seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

Letter by group of Republicans warns Iran on agreeing to a nuclear deal

- A letter written to Iran by Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican, and signed by 46 other Republican senators warns Iran against agreeing to a nuclear deal.

+ Add Image

The signers claim that a future U.S. Congress or President might not honor the deal since they oppose it. The Senate has been trying for months to sabotage the talks. Republicans also, without consulting the Obama administration, invited Israeli prime minister Netanyahu to address the U.S. Congress and speak against an Iran nuclear deal. The Senate has been unsuccessfully trying to get "veto power" over the deal and also to impose sanctions in violation of the interim treaty.

The Logan Act makes it a felony for any US citizen to correspond with a foreign government "in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States." However, the Act has never been successfully used — it was passed in 1799 but is still on the books.

The Foreign Minister of Iran Javad Zarif took the letter for exactly what it is and how he described it. The letter. he said, was a "propaganda ploy" attempting to sabotage ongoing diplomacy with the Obama administration. Zarif pointed out that international law makes it clear that treaties are binding from one administration to another. This might not stop the U.S. from breaking the agreement however.

Several of the senators who signed the letter may hope to be presidential candidates for the Republicans including Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Lindsey Graham. Republican Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas also supported the letter. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, an opponent of any nuclear deal with Iran, donates to many Republican campaigns as well as to Netanyahu's reelection campaign.

Just 24 hours after sending his letter to Iran, Senator Cotton is to appear at an "Off the Record and strictly non-Attribution" event sponsored by the lobbying and professional group for defense contractors the National Defense Industrial Association(NDIA). The NDIA is composed of executives from major military defense contractors. Cotton pushes for higher defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy. He has called for military intervention in Iran. He has also suggested that the US Congress should supply Israel with B-52s, and "bunker-buster" bombs both manufactured by NDIA member Boeing.

Some Republicans were critical of the letter. One Republican aide described it as "lighthearted" and accused the Obama administration of lacking a sense of humor:“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.As Obama points out, on the appended video, the Republicans who signed the letter are agreeing with the hardliners in Iran who say the U.S. cannot be trusted in any agreement.

Iran and Saudi Arabia struggle to achieve better relations

Iran and Saudi Arabia are competitors for influence in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia also represents Sunni influence in the area while Iran is a prime supporter of Shia groups. Lately, the rise of the Islamic State, both in Syria and especially in Iraq, has created common areas of interest that may lead to improved relations. The recent attack by the Islamic State on a Saudi border post showed the Saudis the degree to which the Islamic State was becoming a threat to the kingdom. The attack killed two border guards and also the commanding officer. The attackers included three Saudi nationals.

The Saudis have decided to reopen their embassy in Baghdad, establishing relations with a country that has close relations with Iran and has a Shia majority. The new Iraqi government is reaching out to Sunni powers such as the Saudis in the hope of getting support from them to help fight IS in return for more accommodation of Sunni interests within the Shia majority government. The Saudis have an interest in cooperating with Iran to meet the IS threat in Iraq. The Iran Daily noted that differences between Iran and the Saudis were not so substantial that they could not be resolved. The paper also claimed that the Islamic State "could jeopardize the system of government in Saudi Arabia." The drive to improve relations between the two countries is supported by prominent religious authorities as described in detail in this article in Al-Monitor :"Al-Monitor learned from a religious source close to Ali al-Sistani in Najaf that Sistani has a similar vision regarding the necessity of a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, since both countries face the common threat of Salafist jihadism as represented by the Islamic State (IS). Iraqi President Fouad Massoum visited Najaf Nov. 11 to meet with Sistani before embarking on a formal visit to Saudi Arabia. Sistani praised the Iraqi government’s efforts to improve its regional relations and called for the strengthening of ties with all neighboring countries. The Saudi king praised Sistani’s great positions, and expressed his wishes for further unity and consistency among the different components in Iraq." Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani is one of the most influential clerical leaders in Iraq.

 Of course, there are many issues that divide Iran and the Saudis. Iran supports the Assad regime in Syria and also the Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah, while the Saudis oppose Assad and have aided rebel groups against him. In Yemen, Iran has supported the Shia Houthi rebels who have vastly increased their influence and area they control in the country, whereas the Saudis support Mansour Hadi the prime minister and the Sunni majority. However, the Saudis might decide to gain the support of Iran to pressure the Houthis to negotiate with the Sunni government an end to their continuing expansion. The unrest is leading to more Sunnis allying with Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula which is a threat both to the Saudis and the Yemen government.

Another main issue between the two countries is the price of oil. Iran wants the Saudis to cut production to stem the steep drop in the price of oil. The decline is hurting the Iranians. Iran claims that ultimately it could hurt the Saudis, as there will not be sufficient funds for the government programs that generate support for the monarchy. A visit to Saudi Arabia planned by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif was postponed due to the disagreement over oil policy. An article by Fariborz Saremi in CounterPunch claims that the three main policy foreign policy objectives of Iran are survival of the regime, national security, and regional influence. The article details the many obstacles to improving relations between Iran and the Saudis. However, some Gulf States such as Kuwait and Oman have had reasonably good relations with Iran for some time. The threat of the Islamic State may provide grounds to begin a process of cooperation between the two countries which can serve as a spring-board to improved relations.

Protesters in Aden demand independence for South Yemen

Massive protests have broken out in the southern port city of Aden. A southern separatist movement has been demanding an independent state of South Yemen ever since it was absorbed into Yemen more than 22 years ago.

Hundreds of thousands took to the streets demanding restoration of the former independent state of South Yemen. Aden was the capital of South Yemen until 1990. The demonstration was held on the anniversary of a 1986 civil war in which the exiled former leader Abdul Ismail returned from Moscow and tried to reclaim power. In 1990 officials agreed to come under rule of the north. Ever since, there have been secessionist groups who want South Yemen to be restored. There have been constant complaints that southern development is ignored by the north. The roots of the South Yemen movement are in contrast to those of the Islamic radicals in the south. South Yemen was a secular state, Marxist oriented, and an ally of Russia.

In the spring, when there was an offensive against parts of the south controlled by Islamic militants, there was also an offensive in Aden to clear out separatists. Major General Mansour Hadi has offered to negotiate with officials from South Yemen to grant partial autonomy to the region but most at the demonstration were demanding independence.

The Obama administration is a fervent supporter of the new Yemeni government and President Hadi, the new ruler, who was formerly vice-president under former President Saleh who was also supported by the US until protests and civil unrest made it crucial that he be replaced. Hadi was elected in a contest in which he was the sole contestant. This has been help up as a model for democracy in the area! Obama even suggested that Yemen be made a model to follow in Syria after Assad is turfed out.

This was arranged in concert with the GCC and in particular Saudi Arabia. Saleh and his cronies were granted immunity for prosecution for any of their crimes and his relatives continued to wield considerable power in the new government. President Hadi has supported the US intervention in Yemen since it has been instrumental in helping him drive Islamic rebels out of the areas they had occupied last year. However, the groups continue constant attacks on the government using guerrilla tactics.

US Ambassador to Yemen, Gerald Feierstein interviewed by the official Yemeni state media insists that the entire South Yemen secessionist movement is an Iranian plot that is orchestrated by "extremists" opposed to Yemeni democracy in a bid to destabilize the Straits of Hormuz.

Of course the US has been intervening in Yemen for decades. While Iran may be interested in expanding their influence in Yemen, the more likely Iranian intervention would be to aid the Houthi rebels in the north who are Shia. Insofar as there are radical extremists in the south, they are Sunni Islamic radicals often linked to Al Qaeda not to Iran. The democracy in Yemen that Iran is supposed to oppose has been of autocratic rulers supported by the US and neighbouring Arab states.

President Hadi is charged with drawing up a constitution with elections not scheduled until 2014. A national reconciliation dialogue is also to take place to iron out differences among different groups. Islamic radicals are unlikely to take part in the dialogue and apparently most from the Southern secessionist movement will not either. Given that many key groups may not attend, the dialogue will probably be between different factions of the old guard.

Yemen represents a successful model in that the democratic demonstrators who originally tried to bring about democratic change have been mostly sidelined and the transition is led by the old guard under the guidance of foreign powers, but not Iran! Meanwhile the US is advancing its own drone democracy in Yemen to help provide security.

Iran agrees to one-on-one talks with U.S. according to report

According to U.S. officials, Iran and the U.S. have agreed to one-on-one negotiations. The talks on Iran's nuclear program will take place immediately after the U.S. election the officials told the New York Times.

The Iranian officials claim that the talks should take place only after the elections since they want to know which president they will be dealing with.

Just a few hours after the article appeared on the New York Times website, the Obama administration denied the report. Many regard the Times as at times acting as a conduit for information the White House wants released to the public. However, on this report, National Security Council Spokesperson said: ”It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections."

If the Times report is true, the agreement must have been reached after secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials. Ahmadinejad has been pressing for a negotiated solution to the crisis, as indicated in the interview in the appended video. Romney has taken an even more hard line stance on Iran than Obama. If Romney wins, it is not at all clear there would be any talks.

Earlier talks have failed. I think that the U.S. would prefer regime change in Iran rather than a negotiated solution with the present government. At one time, Iran finally agreed to halt 20 per cent enrichment in return for foreign-made fuel rods, after Brazil and Turkey entered talks, but then the Obama administration rejected the proposal and moved on to use sanctions against Iran.

The Iranian side has been subject to constant threats of attack, crippling sanctions, sabotage, and assassinations of scientists. As Harvard professor Stephen Walt notes, the Iranian leadership “has good grounds for viewing Obama as inherently untrustworthy.” Former CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, puts the matter more bluntly. He maintains that the main Western interest is regime change in Iran.

The Times article may be designed to picture Obama as nearing a deal with Iran. He simply needs another term to complete the task. However, Republicans could jump on the announcement and picture Iran as pulling the wool over Obama's eyes to buy time so that it can further advance towards being able to produce nuclear weapons.

Iran wants to tie the nuclear talks with other issues according to the Times article. However the administration wants the talks to be on the nuclear issue alone. The prospects of talks are a problem for Romney as well. If he opposes talks, he could be accused of taking the U.S. towards another war at a time when probably most Americans consider that problems on the domestic front should be of first concern, not costly foreign wars.

Iran is probably anxious for a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue and the easing of sanctions, The Iranian economy is suffering as a result of sanctions and the currency is reaching new lows. The situation is bad enough to cause public protests against the regime.