What a Surprise: US-Based Iran “Experts” Promoting Israeli Policy
Flynt Leverett, Hillary Mann Leverett, Going to Tehran, Oct 24 2013
As the new round of nuclear diplomacy between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 unfolds, an informal coalition of forces is coalescing in the West to oppose any prospective deal in which the United States would “accept” safeguarded uranium enrichment in Iran. Of course, Israel and the pro-Israel lobby are at the heart of this coalition. Netanyahu’s remarks about the Iran nuclear talks on NBC Meet the Press this past Sunday, see here, are emblematic of the “zero enrichment” camp:

The question is not of hope; the question is of actual result. The test is the result. The result has to be the full dismantling of Iran’s military nuclear program. If that is achieved, that would be very good. If it’s achieved peacefully, it’s even better … I think the pressure has to be maintained on Iran, even increased on Iran, until it actually stops the nuclear program, that is, dismantles it. I think that any partial deal could end up in dissolving the sanctions. There are a lot of countries waiting for a signal, just waiting for a signal, to get rid of their sanctions regime. And I think that you don’t want to go through halfway measures … As far as the freezing of assets, as far as I remember, those assets were frozen for three reasons: one, Iran’s terrorist actions; two, its aggressive actions, particularly in the Gulf; and three, its continued refusal to stop the production of WMDs. You know, if you get all three done, and they stop doing it, well, then I suppose you could unfreeze them … Those sanctions weren’t Israeli sanctions. I’ve always advocated them, but the international community adopted very firm UNSCRs, and here’s what those UNSCRs say: they said Iran should basically dismantle its centrifuges for enrichment (that’s one path to get a nuclear weapon) and stop work on its plutonium heavy-water reactor (that’s the other path for a nuclear weapon). It’s very important to stress that it’s for nuclear weapons. Nobody challenges Iran’s or any country’s pursuit of civilian nuclear energy. But seventeen countries in the world, including your neighbors Canada and Mexico, have very robust programs for civilian nuclear energy, and they don’t enrich with centrifuges, and they don’t have heavy water plutonium reactors. Here comes Iran and says, ‘I want civilian nuclear energy.’ I don’t know why, because they have energy, with gas and oil, coming out of their ears for generations. But suppose you believe them. Then you ask, ‘Why do you insist on maintaining a plutonium heavy water reactor, and on maintaining centrifuges that can only be used for making nuclear weapons?’ And the answer is because they want to have residual capability to make nuclear weapons. And you don’t want that, and UNSCRs don’t want that. And I propose sticking by that.

Anyone who has been following the Iranian nuclear issue with any measure of objectivity will note that Netanyahu mixes up US secondary sanctions with UNSCRs. Likewise, he misrepresents what the relevant UNSCRs actually say about Iran’s nuclear activities, and misstates basic facts about fuel-cycle technology. Never mind all that. Notwithstanding his myriad factual errors, Netanyahu gives authoritative voice to the main rhetorical tropes of the “zero enrichment” camp: Iran has to dismantle its current infrastructure for uranium enrichment, and stop work on the heavy-water reactor currently under construction at Arak. Moreover, even if Iran does these things, this is not enough to warrant a lifting of sanctions. The Islamic Republic must also terminate its relations with democratically validated resistance/ religious/ social service/ political movements like Hizballah in Lebanon, and stop suggesting that disenfranchised Shi’a populations in countries like Bahrain actually have political rights. In the wake of Netanyahu’s Meet the Press appearance, we were struck by the similarity between his positions and those espoused in a WaPo op-ed earlier this week titled “The World Must Tell Iran: No More Half Steps”:

Despite its softened rhetoric, the new Iranian regime can be expected to continue asserting its nuclear ‘rights’ and to press its advantages in a contested Middle East. The Islamic Republic plans to remain an important backer of the Assad dynasty in Syria, a benefactor of Hezbollah and a supporter of Palestinian rejectionist groups. It will persist in its repressive tactics at home and continue to deny the people of Iran fundamental human rights. This is a government that will seek to negotiate a settlement of the nuclear issue by testing the limits of the great powers’ prohibitions. Washington need not accede to such Iranian conceptions. The US and its allies are entering this week’s negotiations in a strong position.  Iran’s economy is withering under the combined pressures of sanctions and its own managerial incompetence. The Iranian populace remains disaffected as the bonds between state and society have been largely severed since the Green Revolution of 2009. The EU is still highly skeptical of Iran, a distrust that Rouhani’s charm offensive has mitigated but not eliminated. Allied diplomats can use as leverage in the forthcoming negotiations the threat of additional sanctions and Israeli military force. Given the stark realities, it is time for the great powers to have a maximalist approach to diplomacy with Iran.  It is too late for more Iranian half-steps and half-measures. Tehran must account for all its illicit nuclear activities and be compelled to make irreversible concessions that permanently degrade its ability to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program at a more convenient time.  Anything less would be a lost opportunity.

Who is the author of this Op Ed? An AIPAC spokesperson? One of the many neocon firebrands to whom the WaPo long ago turned over its op-ed page? No and no. The author of the remarkably Netanyahu-like Op Ed cited above is Ray Takeyh, the mainstream media’s long-time “go-to” (if also perennially mistaken) Iran “expert” who advised Dennis Ross’s destructively incompetent handling of the Iran nuclear file during President Obama’s first term and is now back at the CFR. We have no reason to believe that Ray is coordinating his public positions with the Israeli government. But it is remarkable how congruent his views are with those of the most hegemonically-minded Israeli prime minister in living memory.

Syria and Our Educational System
A Discussion With Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, Lawrence Davidson and Ilan Pappé
By Daniel Falcone and Noam Chomsky and Richard Falk and Lawrence Davidson and Ilan Pappe

 Syria's civil war that started in March 2011 continues to attract Western attention. Although nearly half of the Syrian population does not support US leadership in the world, the United States has shown a "resolve" to make this one of our international priorities. For many citizens outside of the public arena, Syria is an obscure and irrelevant geographic location. Recent events in the diplomatic field have, however, catapulted the country to headlines across the United States. I spoke with four prominent public intellectuals to discuss the context of Syria within our educational system. This is a roundtable format including the eminent linguist and social scientist Noam Chomsky from MIT, Princeton professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, professor of Middle East studies and author of the Middle East Reader Lawrence Davidson and Israeli historian and author of The Modern Middle East Ilan Pappé.

FALCONE: In The New York Times, recent articles covering Syria keep mentioning the importance of our "resolve." What is meant by American "resolve?"

CHOMSKY: Alternatively, "credibility." What I've called "the Mafia doctrine" in many publications: when the Godfather issues an edict, others must obey, or else. It's too dangerous to allow disobedience. A leading principle of world affairs - though, of course, officials and commentators put it more politely.

FALK: I think "resolve" is a coded way of discussing the willingness to use force in support of what Obama calls America's "core interests." In this sense, a lack of resolve would denote a weakness of political will that would disappoint expectations of the Syrian rebel forces and indirectly others as well, including Israel. In the end, resolve refers to the credibility of American global leadership, which is especially subject to doubt, given the negative outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan - and given Republican obstructionism in Congress and the so-called war fatigue of the citizenry.

DAVIDSON: Within this context, what is meant is a resolve to be the world's policeman. To right the alleged wrongs of those we regard as our enemies (we are not similarly concerned with the wrongs of those we designate our friends) even if we ourselves have carried out similar wrongs.

PAPPÉ: I think what the NYT means by resolve is a stance that does not change easily from day to day on the Syrian crisis. If you ask about what should be the American resolve, then I would say that it cannot be addressed only with regard to the present crisis in Syria. It needs to have a wider conceptual and moral infrastructure. Unless this American administration is willing to diverge from the conventional American policy in the Middle East by changing its basic attitudes on crucial questions, foremost of them Palestine, and support genuinely the rights of people for independence, sovereignty and identity across the board, the only "resolve" one would hope from the USA is to stay out of the Middle East for a while.

FALCONE: Also in conjunction with the articles, there is sort of an insinuation that Iran's "nuclear threat" is being addressed when we address Syria. Doesn't our sabre rattling only force Iran to entertain the idea of advanced weaponry?

CHOMSKY: Definitely. ...

DAVIDSON: ... Absolutely. ... Threatening to attack a principle ally of Iran (Syria) is not the way to encourage cooperation in terms of armaments. However, what if the saber rattling is not designed primarily with Iran in mind, but rather with special interests that want to hear threats to Iran in exchange for their domestic political support? Then it makes sense. 

FALK: It would seem to be the case that pressure on Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is almost totally driven by their need for a deterrent capability to avoid the fate of Iraq, Libya. The use of American military force in Syria thus sends exactly the opposite message as supposedly desired to the leadership in Tehran - and to others. North Korea has been dealt with diplomatically because it has the bomb and might use it if provoked.

PAPPÉ: There was no need for the present charade on Syria to remind the government in Iran that the American dog is wagged by the Israeli tail to be more militant in its policy toward Iran. I am not sure to this very moment that Iran's objective is to obtain "advanced weaponry." The present rulers in Iran do not want to be seen as giving up the idea of "advanced weaponry" due to Israeli and American pressure. The myth, carried out from the end of the Second World War, that only "advanced weaponry" - or even the horrific events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - can produce unimaginable human catastrophes continues to blur our judgment. The worst crimes against humanity in the last half of the previous century and this century are carried out with conventional advanced weapons, upgraded daily by a greedy arms industry, super power's apathy and criminal ideologies. In the Middle East, Iran lags behind many other military powers in this respect.

FALCONE: When President Obama addresses the nation he keeps repeating the phrase, "the international community." What is meant by the international community? 

FALK: As Gandhi famously responded when asked about "Western civilization," "I wish they had one," the same applies to "international community": "I wish there was one." Of course, its use is a convenient way of invoking the collective actions of the world, as through the actions of the United Nations. The misleading implication, however, is to divert attention from the weakness of central institutions and procedures as compared to the strength of leading states. We live in a state-centric world faced with global-scale problems that cannot be met by the actions of single states, no matter how powerful, if assessed from the perspective of military capabilities.

CHOMSKY: The US and whoever goes along with it, often almost no one, as in this case.

DAVIDSON: This is a bit of verbal sleight of hand. The "international community" implies the world's nations. In fact what the president is actually referring to is the US and its allies. And, as we have seen when the British Parliament backed out of the potential attack on Syria, the number of those allies is shrinking.

PAPPÉ: The president probably means those governments which agree with US policy. We can refer back to the UN charter, which saw the peoples, not the governments, as providing the basis for an international opinion. More often than not, there is inconsistency between the two.

FALCONE: I have noticed a lot of teachers using an article from The Washington Post that has gone viral: "9 Questions About Syria You Were Too Embarrassed to Ask" by Max Fisher. The author admits the piece has a limited scope of information. Do Westerners get a cheapened version of Near East affairs in our educational system?

FALK: I think it is less the limited amount of information than the filters that information about the Middle East must pass through before being fairly addressed in the mainstream media. In more intellectual and geopolitical terms, the perceptions of the region are distorted by a combination of Orientalism and the priorities of the state of Israel, including the refusal to discuss the relevance of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal in the context of addressing Iran on its nuclear program.

CHOMSKY: Hopelessly. ...

DAVIDSON: ... Most of the time, teachers who talk about the Middle East do not know the history, culture or present context of the problems they are discussing. So they go to the media, which quote government or academic "experts" (who often are no such thing) or journalists who, by virtue of working for the media, are supposed to know what they are talking about. In the end they know little or nothing beyond a standard line that reflects the perceptions of the US government and its special-interest supporters. That is what the students get. Indeed, that is what we all get. 

PAPPÉ: While in the American academia the knowledge production on the Middle East in general and Syria in particular has been considerably transformed in recent years, the dissemination of these more updated views fails to reach the conventional educational system. For two main reasons: Politics can still subdue and censor views that are not endorsed ideologically, and academics have still not learned how to write openly, directly and, one should say, courageously about these issues.

FALCONE: Can you recommend articles, authors and book titles that can help teachers break the traditional mold of textbook teaching that tend to conceptualize the Near East narrative incorrectly?

DAVIDSON: Well, the best textbook on the market is the one I co-authored with Arthur Goldschmidt, the Concise History of the Middle East (Westview Press). Students and teachers also now have access to web sources that often give an alternate point of view, such as Al Jazeera English and Electronic Intifada. One can balance the standard line on events if one does a bit of searching.

FALK: The literature on the region is generally not very good. The writing on individual countries is far better. There are some books edited by the Iraqi scholar teaching in Canada Tareq Ismael that give good and balanced overviews of regional issues, and I would suggest Edward Said for the cultural underpinnings of misperceptions relating to the region.

FALCONE: Another observation in US media is the marriage of the word terrorist with Muslim. In other words, after last week's shooting at the D.C Naval Yard, news anchors would say, "We still don't know if the suspected killer is a terrorist." What kind of impact might this habitual commentary have on our educational system?

CHOMSKY: The intended meaning is clear: Demonize Muslims, and deflect attention from the obvious but unutterable fact that the US has been the leading terrorist state in the world for many years.

DAVIDSON: The continual linking of the notions of terrorist and terrorism with Muslims and the Middle East is, essentially, an act of propaganda that cannot help but promote "Islamophobia." Shooting down a dozen innocent people (as happened in Washington, DC, last week) at random is an act of terrorism, no matter who does it. What possible justification can there be to restrict the definition to adherents of a particular religion? If the reply is 9/11, the counter fact is that 99.5 percent of the world's Muslims were as appalled at that event as everyone else.

PAPPÉ: Similar demonization of Muslims was done in Norway in the first hours after the massacre carried out by a white supremacist. The demonization has been in the US, long before 9/11, as Edward Said's Unveiling Islam has shown. Films, media, educational system and arts portray Muslims in a racist and negative way. The more interesting question, for which we have no time right now, is who is behind these images.

FALK: There is no doubt that this fusion of terrorist and Muslim feeds virulent forms of Islamophobia, which is also encouraged by such incidents as the Westgate Mall massacre in Nairobi and the Anglican Church bombing in Pakistan. 9/11 greatly intensified this tendency toward fusion, but it had also been nurtured by Israeli propaganda that portrayed their Palestinian and Arab adversaries as "terrorists." In fact, the US government approach after 9/11 was modeled in many of its features on Israeli tactics developed during the long occupation of Palestine.

FALCONE: Have you ever been invited to speak at a high school on the Muslim world? Why might this be so unlikely to happen? 

CHOMSKY: I think you know why it's unlikely. I've occasionally been asked to talk on Israel-Palestine. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it elicits hysteria in the community.

DAVIDSON: I have not been invited into a Muslim high school, but I have been invited to speak to college classes in the Muslim world. I think this is simply because I am better-known in college and university circles. There is no inherent reason why I would be unwelcome at the high school level.

FALK: I have been invited a few times over the years, usually at the initiative of student groups, not the school administration or faculty. This seems unlikely to happen both because of bias and fear of controversy. 

PAPPÉ: Yes, but mostly because those who invited me did not know who I was.

FALCONE: Do you read the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs? What are your thoughts on the publication?

CHOMSKY: Not trustworthy in my opinion, though I often agree with their conclusions.

DAVIDSON: Yes, this is a very good source of information. It is one of those sources that people should use to get an alternative view of what is going on in the region and what are the consequences of US foreign policy. 

PAPPÉ: Excellent and informative publication.

FALK: I believe that the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a valuable resource, probably the best offset to the mainstream treatment of the region. It consistently publishes insightful commentary on delicate issues of US foreign policy bearing on the Middle East and also interprets developments in the region in a more illuminating way.

 

Ex-Mossad Chief: “Turkey Drives the Americans Crazy — and Us, Too”
 A former director of the Mossad, retired General Danny Yatom, reacts to David Ignatius’s column in The Washington Post (reporting that Turkey gave Iran the names of 10 Mossad-run Iranian spies) by saying the Turks committed a “despicable” and unprecedented violation of international intelligence etiquette — and that will leave Turkish intelligence with no friends at all.
Danny Yatom — speaking from Israel, in a telephone conference call arranged by The Israel Project — said: “Assuming what’s in the Ignatius column is accurate, then this was a despicable act by the Turks — by the head of the MIT, the intelligence organization which is equivalent to the CIA plus the FBI. The guy who heads MIT, Hakan Fidan, has very strong power in Turkey. “Assuming the column is true, this is something unheard of.  I don’t remember, during the many, many years I served in the Israeli intelligence apparatuses and as a close advisor to three prime ministers and in the Israel Defense Forces… I don’t recall this phenomenon when information was used by so-called friendly intelligence services [in this way].“The Turks probably had this information [the name of Iranian contacts] from the Mossad. Because the modus operandi is — usually in such cases — when there are meetings between handlers and their agents — let’s say Israel doing it on Turkish soil — then usually the Israelis inform the Turkish MIT in order to avoid any misunderstandings. This is to avoid any Turkish claim that Israel is breaching the laws of Turkey.“If this is true, then the fact that those 10 spies were burned by purposely informing the Iranians is not only a despicable act — this is an act that brings the Turkish intelligence organization to a position where I assume no one will trust it. Not only did they get the information from Israel … They breached all the rules of cooperation between intelligence organizations.“If this is true, what was done by the head of the Turkish intelligence organization — no doubt with the knowledge of his prime minister [Recep] Erdogan — is something that I don’t recall from the many years of my experience.“This is highly disturbing. We also receive information from friendly intelligence organizations. And no one here or in the U.S. or elsewhere would dare to use this information — received from, let’s say Israel — in order to harm Israel.“Only one — the head of Turkey’s intelligence and the prime minister of Turkey. … Knowing the Turks and knowing the reporter, David Ignatius, I tend to believe him [and not any Turkish denials].“About two years ago, it was published — when Hakan Fidan was nominated to head the MIT — that Ehud Barak’s view was that Fidan was very close to the Iranians and had transferred sensitive information to Iran.“We never ever thought he would do something unprecedented by exposing Israeli agents to the Iranians — probably knowing them [the names] because he got the information from Israel.[[[[[[“The relations between the two intelligence organizations [the Mossad and Turkey's MIT], during my time as director of the Mossad [in 1996 to 1998] were excellent — and were excellent before and after that.]]]]]  But what happened caused us to distrust the Turks, and this is the main reason why the relations are losing their intimacy and are deteriorating.”Yatom said the Turks were, in a way, shooting themselves in the foot.  ”They badly need cooperation with friendly intelligence apparatuses.  The Turks are highly worried about what’s going on in Syria. They are against the Iranian military nuclear program. Of course they need to cooperate with friendly [services] to fight terror in their own country — Turkey.“Who now will trust them and cooperate with them? Who now will share sensitive information with them?“We will see a deterioration in intelligence relations between Turkey’s MIT and all the parallel organizations in friendly countries to Turkey.  We will find the Turkish intelligence isolated from receiving any sensitive information, probably for the foreseeable future.”Yatom also said: “We share a lot of information with the CIA, [Britain's] MI6, [the German} BND and other friendly intelligence apparatuses -- and we used to do it, until recently, with the Turks. Our nations shared the same goals and aims: to fight terror, and to prevent Iran from becoming a military nuclear state.
"If this is true, then what the intelligence apparatus of Turkey did was ... to threaten the lives of those Iranians.  And I don't what is their fate.  Maybe they were executed or will be executed.
"This is not only transferring the names to a democratic regime, but it is transferering the names to a regime with no mercy. No doubt in my mind. If this is true, they either have been executed or they will be executed."
When asked whether the Syrian civil war has brought Turkey and Israel closer together -- out of shared worries and interests, considering that Syria is sandwiched between them -- Yatom said: "Unfortunately it has not happened."Yatom added, "Erdogan is even annoying the United States by purchasing ground-to-air missiles from a company in China which is blamed [by the U.S.] for breaking an embargo by assisting Iran with its missile and nuclear projects.  I don’t think this is the first time Erdogan makes the Americans crazy… And the same with us, so what can we do?”For mutual benefits, Yatom suggested, efforts to get past the Israeli-Turkish problems are worth pursuing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Erdogan exposed Mossad agents in Iran, Really!
 Ignatius is trying to make his readers believe that while Barack Obama is calling Erdogan his best friend, Erdogan is helping USrael’s number one enemy, Iran. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu just confirmed my theory.“This is just a smear campaign. This is not true. It is dirty propaganda,” CNN quoted Davutoglu saying on October 17, 2013.David Ignatius has claimed that Turkey’s top spy, Dr. Hakan Fidan, head of Turkish intelligence MIT played a major part in the exposer of Mossad espionage network in Iran. On June 7, 2010, Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the newly appointed head of MIT, Hakan Fidan, has ties with IHH, the group which organized the Gaza flotilla. Hakan Fidan, as Turkish envoy at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2009, had defended Iran’s right to carry on its civilian nuclear program.On Thursday, Turkish officials claimed that the Washington Post allegation was part of a broader effort to discredit Turkey’s top spymaster, Hakan Fidan.Under the smokescreen, Turkey-Israel has secret alliance to use every mean to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region. Only last week, Erdogan told his top government officials to avoid discussing Turkey-Israel secret alliance in public.“Mr Erdogan’s Cairo visit took place in the midst of Israel’s eight-day war on Gaza. Notwithstanding his habitual posturing over Israel’s war crimes, the focal point of his speech at the Cairo University was Syria. The fact remains that for the past 20 years, Turkey, Israel and NATO have maintained a high level of military and political cooperation against Iraq, Iran, Syria and the resistance groups in Palestine and Lebanon. Furthermore, since April 2011, Mr Erdogan’s government has been thoroughly complicit in NATO’s war crimes in Syria,” said Cem Ertur, in A Zionist in disguise: Prime Minister Erdogan’s phony anti-Israel rhetoric, November 30, 2012.

 Israeli Drones Fallin’ from the Skies Like Flies: Third UAV Sabotaged by Hacking
 Israeli media have announced that the IAF has “lost” (Hebrew and English) yet another of its advanced drones, the Hermes-450, one of the most advanced of its fleet.  This marks the third vehicle lost in a similar manner in the past six months.  A fourth drone was “lost” two years ago and reported in a post I published here.  I note my Israeli source reported originally that the drone was operated by Hezbollah and deliberately crashed into the base.  It’s also possible that Hezbollah or Iran took control of an Israeli drone and crashed it into the base; or that its Israeli controllers crashed it purposely because its navigation system had been hacked.  I’ve previously reported (and here) on the various crashes.
Though Israeli security officials invariably call the cause of the failure a “technical malfunction,” it is only that in the sense that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a technical malfunction.  In other words, these crashes were caused by an enemy hacking into the navigation system and taking control of the drone.
Here is how the air force explains its decision to destroy the vehicles in mid-flight:

IDF officials explained at the time that the decision to down the UAV was made due to concerns that control over the drone would be lost, and it might crash into populated areas.

In actuality, they weren’t in control of them and didn’t know what the Iranians or Lebanese would do with them.  They might crash them into a building or air base inside Israel or they might fly it to Lebanon where they could study its components further.Israel’s media itself may not believe the lies offered by the IAF.  This is the Walla! headline:

Drones Falling, and with Them, IDF’s Credibility

The article also notes that the continued failures of the Hermes 450 have harmed the reputation of the IDF.  If I were commander of a drone fleet I wouldn’t allow them to fly again till I had a totally new navigational system that couldn’t be penetrated.  Though Israel did ground portions of its fleet after one of the crashes, it apparently didn’t help.  To me, this indicates either IAF hubris or incompetence.  Of course, Iranian cyber-engineers are no slouches as well. An anonymous Israel source sent me this e mail message which was either written by a terrific bluffer, or by someone who knows what they’re talking about (my bet is on the latter):

The UAV didn’t crash, the UAV control center lost communication due to heavy interference in the COM link. After few very long minutes at which the re establish comm procedure failed, the CCC (control center commander) ordered the self destruction of the UAV. There was lots of drama as it appeared the UAV had a mind of its own or that someone gained positive control.

As I reported in the past, I don’t know for sure whether Iran or Hezbollah is responsible or some combination, but they are the most likely suspects.  Here is what my source says about the latest attack:

The source of the drone hacks was electronically traced to Lebanon, so either Hezbollah did it with Iranian technology or IRG forces there did it themselves.

In addition, Iran announced recently that it had reverse engineered the same Hermes 450 which was downed yesterday.  If it could reverse engineer it, it can figure out how to hack into the controls as well.  This raises another issue: if it’s true Iran succeeded in copying Israel’s most advanced drone it did so in one of two ways; either it captured a drone in the way I suggest above or it gained access to its technical specs through some sort of espionage.  If it captured a drone, that means there was yet another drone failure in which the Iranians actually succeeded in capturing the vehicle as it did a U.S. drone a year ago.  Iran has boasted it has reverse engineered this vehicle too.Ironically, the Israeli defense industry publication, IsraelDefense, will host a conference (Hebrew) on drone technology and cyber-issues related to it in a few hours.  One of the key issues this Hebrew language articles indicates will be at the center of the event will be the issue of security, both how Israelis may penetrate the drones of their enemies and protect their own from such hacking.  Given these failures, conference attendees will have their work cut out for them. The operative phrase here is: what goes around, comes around.  Israel builds these vehicles to spy on its enemies.  It uses them to kill its enemies.  I should add here that my Israeli source renews his claim about the IRG commander Mojtada Ahmadi, who was murdered a few days ago in Iran.  He says the Mossad assassinated him because, among his offenses, was orchestrating the campaign to sabotage Israel’s drone fleet.  I repeat, I haven’t been able to confirm this claim independently and nothing coming out of Iran says anything other than that he was murdered.  So proceed with caution.Israel’s enemies, in turn, will eventually return the favor once they have mastered the technology.  It’s only a question of when and how.  This is yet another part of the cyberwar drama being played out now between Israel and its enemies.  First you had Stuxnet and Flame, then you had Iranian hackers taking down Saudi oil companies and U.S. banks.  Now we have sabotaged drones and possibly assassinated cyberwar chiefs.  This can go a long way and end up in a very ugly place (and likely will)

 Analysis: Foreign allies question America's reliability
Leaders start to doubt U.S. commitment at home, abroad... http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20131006/NEWS03/310060002/Analysis-Foreign-allies-question-America-s-reliability
Danny Yatom, a former director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service, said the U.S. handling of the Syrian crisis and its decision not to attack after declaring “red lines” on chemical weapons has hurt Washington’s credibility.
“I think in the eyes of the Syrians and the Iranians, and the rivals of the United States, it was a signal of weakness, and credibility was deteriorated,” he said.

Mossad Assassinates Iran Cyber-War Commander, Prince Bandar’s Secret Meeting With Israelis on Iran

Those boys of the Mossad have been busy assassinating Iranians again. This time, according to a confidential Israeli source, they murdered the IRG commander, Mojtaba Ahmadi, who ran its cyberwar unit. My source drops a further bombshell (which I haven’t yet been able to confirm independently), that the CIA “tacitly” approved the hit because of the extraordinarily intense level of sabotage by Iran of commercial interests from Saudi’s Aramco to U.S. banks. The attack was approved by Bibi Netanyahu several months ago. Its timing, during an auspicious thaw in U.S.-Iran relations, supposedly wasn’t intentional (if you can believe that!).
If you seek tacit indications of Israeli involvement note this celebratory front-age  report in Bibiton (Yisrael HaYom) announcing the IRG assassination.  The headline might as well have said: “Bib did it!”
Earlier Mossad hits were performed with the inside assistance of local MeK agents who did the actual dirty work.  The involvement of two men on motorbikes (a known method of Mossad surveillance and assassination for decades) who were the killers, mirrors the methods of execution of previous Iranian scientists.  If the MeK played a role it would be significant since it would be the first known terror attack in which it had participated since being delisted by the State Department from the U.S. terror list.
If U.S. intelligence in any way approved of the killing, this too would be significant because it would mark the first known instance in which a state targeted the cyberwar personnel of another for assassination.  As I predicted in blog posts here months ago, the arc of cyberwar activism is bending toward escalation and increased lethality.  Not only are the stakes high as nations begin attacking each other in earnest in order to maximize damage to infrastructure, etc. but they are equally high if countries begin murdering the cyber-war personnel of enemy nations.  If the IRG’s cyber commander is a legitimate target, then so are NSA and IDF Unit 8200 officials.  In case, anyone disputes Iran’s ability to commit such an act, remember that Iran isn’t the only country involved in cyber-war operations.  China as well as many other nations do the same things.  They have significantly greater capabilities than Iran.  And once we’ve breached a taboo and killed Iranians, it’s not far to begin killing others.
This marks a desperate new low in Israeli exploitation of terror in order to take a slap at the IRG and sabotage possible Iran-U.S. rapprochment.  The murdered commander will be viewed as a martyr, his subordinates will redouble their efforts to improve and intensify their cyberwar capabilities.  Instead of marking a bold offensive move by the Mossad to attack the enemy on his home turf, it will be seen by Iranians as yet another Israeli provocation and proof that Israel is a rogue state never to be trusted for anything.
Finally, let everyone remember the next time Bibi brays about Iranian terrorism that his own country has succeeded in far more lethal operations and created far more Iranian widows and orphans than anything Iran has done.  This is state terror, plain and simple.
In a related matter, another bombshell (Hebrew) dropped today.  Israel media reported that senior Israeli security officials met in Israel with a high-level Gulf state official to coordinate a military strategy against Iran.  Israel’s Channel 2 TV news also said the official, from  state with no diplomatic relations with Israel, came to Israel for the consultations.  Though the reports did not name him, my source says that he was none other than the infamous Prince Bandar ibn Sultan.  Lately he’s been known as one of the primary arms suppliers for the Syrian rebels.  But his secret portfolio includes all Saudi security engagements in the region including Iran and Syria.  This would mark the first time such a senior Saudi official has broken the Arab taboo against visiting Israel.
The Israeli reports claims that the meetings mean that Israel might be planning to coordinate its plans to attack Iran with Saudi Arabia.  That, in fact, there might be a joint attack.  Frankly, I think that’s hogwash, though I can’t prove it.  It’s much more likely they were meeting to figure out how to continue the anti-Iran front Israel has been working for several years to bolster among the Gulf states.  Given that the U.S. and Iran may be embarking on a process of reconciliation that could lead to a lessening of tensions and resolution of the nuclear conflict, both Israel and Saudi are probably trying to figure out where they go next.
It’s also likely that Bandar and the Israelis met about Syria since they’re now on record as being among the strongest supporters of the rebels.  There is much more that Israel can do to damage Assad than it has already done.  I’m certain Bandar would love to engage Israel more deeply in the anti-Assad alliance.  For its part, though Israel has made a studied attempt to appear neutral in the fight (despite attacking Syrian and Iranian forces on Syria territory at least five times in the past year), Israel’s latest full-throated support of a U.S. air assault on Assad tore the curtain on that claim.

 Israel and Saudi Arabia are coordinating policies to counter US détente with Iran
http://www.debka.com/article/23323/Israel-and-Saudi-Arabia-are-coordinating-policies-to-counter-US-d%C3%A9tente-with-Iran-
Associates of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Wednesday, Oct. 2, leaked word to the media that high-ranking Gulf emirate officials had recently visited Israel, signaling a further widening in the rift between Israel and President Barack Obama over his outreach to Tehran. These visits were in line with the ongoing exchanges Israel was holding with Saudi and Gulf representatives to align their actions for offsetting any potential American easing-up on Iran’s nuclear program.debkafile reports that this is the first time Israel official sources have publicly aired diplomatic contacts of this kind in the region. They also reveal that Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates have agreed to synchronize their lobbying efforts in the US Congress to vote down the Obama administration’s moves on Iran.

Iran elected to UN disarmament committee post
Aaron Kalman, Times of Israel, Oct 2 2013
Members of the UNGA on Tuesday elected Iran as rapporteur for the committee responsible for Disarmament and International Security, a body that deals with all matters regarding disarmament, including nuclear weapons. Replacing Norwegian diplomat Knut Langeland, the Iranian representative will relay information relating to the committee’s proceedings during the UN’s 68th session, spanning 2013-14, to the UNGA. In July, when Iran applied for the rapporteur position, Israel’s UN Ambassador Ron Prosor said in a statement:

Allowing Iran to be on the UN committee dealing with nuclear disarmament and weapons proliferation is like inviting Assad, the Syrian dictator responsible for the death of 100,000 of his own people, to be the head of the population census bureau.

In addition to appointing Iran as rapporteur, the committee gave the position of chair to Libya (? – RB) and vice chairs to Germany, Ecuador and Montenegro. The committee has no authority to make binding decisions, but is in charge of drafting resolutions on the subject of international security, many of which are later debated and often accepted by the UNGA. It also cooperates with the Conference on Disarmament, based in Geneva, and the UN’s Disarmament Commission. Known also as the First Committee and comprising representatives of all 193 member states, the Disarmament and International Security body is described on the UN’s website as one that “deals with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime.”

Shabak Nabs Alleged Iranian Spy–Surprise!–Same Day Bibi Leaves for UN to Skewer Iran

 

The Israeli Shabak announced (and in Hebrew) with a flourish today that on September 11th it had apprehended an alleged Iranian spy who had been working on behalf of the Iran Revolutionary Guards.  He is Ali Mansuri, 55, a dual Belgian-Iranian citizen.  He went by the name Alex Mans when he entered Israel.  He was born in Iran and lived there until 1980.  Then he emigrated to Turkey, where he lived till 1997 as a businessman.  Then, Belgium offered him a visa to reside there and continue his business activities.  In 2006, he applied for and received Belgian citizenship by marrying a Belgian citizen from whom he was later divorced.
Because of his dual nationality, Mansuri was an especially attractive target for Iranian intelligence.  It should be remembered that the Mossad too recruited Israeli dual citizens like Ben Zygier who were citizens of friendly countries and would not attract undue attention.
The Israeli security service claims that he visited Israel a total of three times under cover of being a businessman. Anyone visiting his website will wonder how he could be a successful businessman, let alone spy:

Hello, World!

European Folded Glass System is Big Company in Europe

We sell the beauty happiness and comfort You could change your design with our system to be more relax and space We have several model such a balcony ,elegant , ray Balcony model in two tempered glass 8 and 10 mm you could use for your any place. Elegant model with 100mm tempered glass Ray model with 10mm tempered glass All usable in different profile and glass color

The Shabak statement doesn’t offer any information on how he was identified.  It does note the Iranians promised Mansuri a $1-million payment for his services though it offered no proof such payments were actually proferred.

Alleged photo of U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv taken by Mansuri

Among the charges offered against Mansuri is this strange one:

The detainee tried to aid Iran in its efforts to circumvent the trade embargo and transfer funds [internationally].

Why and how an Iranian spy would focus on Israel as a target to transfer funds or circumvent the trade embargo makes very little sense unless he was attempting to export forbidden products from Israel to Iran.  If so, it would seem a fool’s errand given the level of security in place inside Israel to prevent such developments.  In fact, the Shabak report says he attempted to establish business connections inside Israel by providing roofing and windows for restaurants and other businesses.  Do these sample products featured on his website appear to be of the sort that would allow massive violations of international sanctions?
This arrest follows another a few weeks ago of a mentally-troubled Israeli citizen who visited the Iranian embassy in Berlin asking to spy on its behalf inside Israel.  The Shabak believes that Iran turned him in in the hopes of distracting from the real spy it was working in Israel’s midst.
Though I don’t doubt the IRG would want to infiltrate its agents into Israel, I somehow find it highly suspect that Israel didn’t know from almost the first moment Mansuri showed up at Ben Gurion that he was a suspicious character.  Even if he tried to conceal his Iranian ethnicity, these things aren’t hard to trace.  I believe that Shabak knew almost from the first moment he arrived what or who he was.  It allowed him to enter Israel, tracing what he was doing to figure out the methods being used by the IRG to try to spy on the country.
The Shabak statement says it didn’t pick up Mansuri the first few times he visited.  Personally, I find it hard to believe the Shabak couldn’t detect someone entering Israel under an assumed name.  But even if true, I never believe he posed a threat to anyone.  In short, this incident is nothing like the Israeli-MeK assassination campaign and sabotage of Iranian missile facilities, which are crimes of state terrorism for which the Mossad and its leadership should be tried before an international court.  Israel’s spying and terror is far more lethal than anything Iran has mounted (even including bombs allegedly exploded in Dehli and Thailand).

Bibi’s speech later today at UN featuring his very own bomb-throwing Iranian spy (Amir Schiby)

My Israeli source confirms that the timing of this announcement is deliberate.  Haaretz confirms this with the following:

Exposure of Iranian agent: ammunition for Bibi’s UN speech

Mako goes even farther:

Security Sources: the Timing of the Arrest of the Iranian Spy is No Accident

Maariv quotes a “senior official accompanying the prime minister,” who my Israeli source tells me is Bibi himself, giving this desperate spin to the incident:

At a time when Iran was denouncing terror on American soil, it sents its agent to gather intelligence for a terror attack against the U.S. embassy in Israel.

Holy smokes! Because they found a single picture in his camera that means Iran was about to blow the U.S. embassy sky-high!
Haaretz columnist Uri Misgav is brutally acerbic in his evaluation of the Shabak’s performance:

An Embarrassing, Troubling Episode in Shabak History:
The report was hurried and amateurish.  The timing ridiculously transparent.  The substance not earth-shaking.  The security services don’t usually supply PR and hasbara services for the prime minister, nor political fodder for the road.

Only the NYT’s Isabel Kershner naively and typically called the timing “serendipitous.”
As Yossi Melman so rightly noted in his latest piece for The Post (Jerusalem Post’s Hebrew edition), Bibi has cried Wolf so many times in the past that it no longer registers with anyone but his own followers.  No one believes that Israel can or will attack Iran given the latest moderating voices that have been heard in New York and Washington.
Yediot also notes that Shabak uncharacteristically released this story before it had completed its investigation.  Another reason to suspect political timing to the report.
Bibi is desperate to change the momentum in world discourse away from Iran’s peace overture and Obama’s embrace of it.  What better way to do that than to remind the world Iran is a perfidious enemy stopping at nothing to attain regional domination through infiltration of its enemies territory and sabotage of its infrastructure.  You’ll note however, there was no display of the weapons, bomb-making equipment, etc. Mansuri was using in his dastardly plot.  All they had to offer was a picture of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv that Mansuri allegedly shot.  Incriminating!
This reminds me somewhat of the Saudi ambassador assassination plot allegedly orchestrated by an Iranian drug-dealer and wife-beater who was a cousin of a senior member of the IRG.  Much ado about very little.  If Bibi does shine a spotlight in his speech on this plot he risks another Wile E. Coyote moment like the one last year in which he offered a magic marker poster board mock up of Iran’ s ticking nuclear time-bomb.  Instead of that ticking time bomb, he might as well hold up a new poster featuring Ali Mansuri holding that bomb in his hands.  It will look about as foolish as last year’s episode.
In short, Mansuri is a convenient foil for Bibi’s upcoming fulminations at the General Assembly in which he will tell the world “the truth” about Iran.  A speech, I might add, that the entire world awaits with bated breath.
Just as interesting as what’s contained in Shabak’s revelations about the Iranian spy incident is what isn’t.  In a list of Iran-inspired terror attacks against Israel there is curiously no mention of the attack on the airport in Burgas.  Those with some memory will remember that Bibi shouted from the rooftops after that attack that Iran’s IRG was responsible.  Now it appears that even this Israel intelligence agency disagrees.  Though the quiescent Israeli press has never called Bibi on his lie.  Unfortunately, Amos Harel’s Haaretz story linked above repeats the false claim that Iran was involved.   In this, he amplifies Bibi’s lies.
So one might add that any Israeli claim that it has proven the hand of Iran is behind anti-Israel terror must be taken with very large grains of salt unless and until proven otherwise.  Further, Israel appears to be making the same mistake the CIA did in 2003 when it allowed itself to be politically co-opted by the Bush-Cheney folks to gin up a false WMD charge and war against Iraq.  Politicizing intelligence is a very bad idea.  But Israel does it shamelessly as I’ve shown here many times.

Israeli analyst discussed scenarios for Syria and relation to Israel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEIJsnoJ0nw
Eyal Zisser is a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University.
 ''IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF ISRAHELL TO HAVE ASSAD REMOVED'' 
[ed notes;also see..
Syria expert Eyal Zisser discusses why Iran fears Assad's downfall ...

Syria expert Eyal Zisser from Tel Aviv University believes Tehran needs a friendly route through Syria to its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah.

Kyrgyz security service disrupts apparent terrorist plot by suspected militants allegedly trained in Syria
A 16 September statement by Kyrgyzstan's State Committee of National Security (SCNS) claimed three men had been arrested in late August in the southern province of Osh on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks in Osh and the capital Bishkek. Those arrested were a Kazak national (Sergei Leskevich) and two Kyrgyz nationals (Sardor Rakhmonov and Majid Abdullaev) from Osh. [[[[The SCNS alleged the men were suspected members of the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) militant group, and it further claimed they had been dispatched to Kyrgyzstan from Syria to carry out attacks in the run up to Independence Day on 31 August, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek on 13 September.]]]]]]
------------------
Air strike kills alleged Azeri militant in Syria's Hama
 AN ALLEGED Azeri Islamist militant, identified as Abu Yahya, was killed in an air strike by security forces targeting the city of Hama in Syria's Hama governorate on 13 September, APA TV reported.

Israeli general says Assad should (pass) die...al qaeda not real threat!
 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE98H09H20130918?rpc=401
 Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could cling to power for years despite having lost overall control of his country, according to Israel's top commander on the frontier with Syria. Major-General Yair Golan's remarks, published on Wednesday in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, reflected debate in Israel over Assad's fate, 2-1/2 years into Syria's civil war, after a U.S.-Russian agreement to force him to give up his chemical weapons.

[[[["He will stay on for years. I don't see any force toppling him tomorrow morning - though he deserves to(DIE) pass from this world, and the quicker that happens, the better," Golan said.]]]]RELATIVE ENEMIES[[[["He can cause us damage, he can harass us greatly, but he cannot today wage a serious ground campaign against the State of Israel," Golan said]]]]].
Interviewed by the Jerusalem Post, ambassador Oren described Assad's defeat as welcome even if it were at the hands of al Qaeda-linked rebels more hostile to the Jewish state.
Agreeing, Golan warned against exaggerating the threat from the radical Sunni jihadis who Israel estimates make up around one in 10 of those fighting Assad - an Allawite who is closer to the rival Shi'ite Islam of Iran and Hezbollah[[[["The Global Jihad is a bad enemy, but it is a relatively primitive enemy that does not enjoy the backing of a regional power," Golan said, using Israel's term for al Qaeda affiliates.]]]]][[[[["The Syrian enemy, with Hezbollah and of course with a regional power like Iran in the background, is a far more dangerous enemy than elements of the Global Jihad."]]]]]Golan said military action would have a limited value as it would be impossible to know exactly how many civilians might be harmed or how much of the chemical stockpiles had been destroyed.''So if this deal ends up successful, and brings about a dismantling of the chemical weapons, it's an achievement."

 Clare Short: ‘Syria is under attack to weaken Iran’
 Clare Short, former British MP and secretary of state for International Development has claimed on her blog that the US-lead war on Syria has nothing to do with “achieving democracy and dignity but to overthrow the regime in order to weaken Iran and Hizbullah.”[[[[“It is deeply hypocritical of Obama, Cameron and the rest to demand action on the use of chemical weapons because it is a breach of international law when they will take no action as Israel continues to breach international law in its behaviour in the occupied territories. On this we have the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the highest authority in the international system on international law, which makes absolutely clear that Israel is in grave breach of international law in the occupied territories. The US and the UK constantly denounce Russia for making impossible Security Council authorised military action against Syria when the US, almost always supported by the UK, constantly blocks any action whatsoever to try to restrain Israel’s breaches of international law in the occupied territories,”]]]]] said Short.One of Short’s other statements, which offended the British Jewish Lobby (“Freinds of Israel”), was: “It’s Europe that’s responsible for the historical persecution of the Jews and the horrendous holocaust, so Europe has a responsibility to heal all of this.” That amounts to delegitimization of the Zionist entity.
Netanyahu is pushing Obama to attack Syria followed by an attack on Iran. Israel’s prominent American anti-Muslim propagandists like Abraham Foxman and Dennis Ross have whined that blocking war on Syria makes an attack on Iran more necessary.Foxman has urged Obama to attack Iran otherwise the United States would loose its world leadership. Ross claimed in the Jewish Washington Post (September 9, 2013) that president Rouhani’s position “will inevitably be weakened once it becomes clear that the US cannot use force against Syria. At that point, paradoxically, the hard-liners in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and around the Supreme Leader will be able to claim that there is only an economic cost to pursuing nuclear weapons but no military danger. Their argument will be: Once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will build its leverage in the region; its deterrent will be enhanced; and, most importantly, the rest of the world will see that sanctions have failed, and that it is time to come to terms with Iran“.Yawn!The Zionist Jew idiot doesn’t realize that under Iran’s Constitution, only the Supreme Leader has the authority to declare war or peace and not president Hassan Rouhani.
However, US-based Jewish intelligence agency, Stratfor, on September 4, 2013 published a analysis, saying that an American military attack on Syria will further increse Iranian influence in the region.“Conventional wisdom says that a weakened Syria would undermine Iran’s regional influence, but a US military intervention in the country could actually benefit Tehran. The government there has devised a sophisticated strategy for responding to a U.S. attack. Of course, Tehran would activate its militant proxies in the region, including Hezbollah, in the event that the United States launches an attack, but it would also exploit Washington’s visceral opposition to Sunni jihadist and Islamist groups to gain concessions elsewhere,” said the sudy.

Zionazi Dennis Ross: Blocking US strike against Syria would lead to an Israeli strike on Iran
In the article titled, "Blocking action on Syria makes an attack on Iran more likely," Ross argues that cancelling the strike would weaken the moderate position of the new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, "who continues to send signals that he wants to make a deal on the nuclear program." The US and its allies accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons, but the government in Tehran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes

ross red tie

. "The hard-liners in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and around the Supreme Leader will be able to claim that there is only an economic cost to pursuing nuclear weapons but no military danger. Their argument will be: Once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will build its leverage in the region; its deterrent will be enhanced; and, most importantly, the rest of the world will see that sanctions have failed, and that it is time to come to terms with Iran," Ross wrote. On the other hand, Ross argues, Rouhani's arguments about the high risk of pursuing nuclear weapons and the importance of maintaining the Iranian regime's stability will be weakened if the US strike is cancelled: If the US president is "blocked from using force against Syria, it will be clear that all options are not on the table," regardless of what the Americans say. Ultimately this will communicate that the US is "prepared to live with an Iran that has nuclear arms." On its part, Israel will not accept such an eventuality, Ross warns, which is why the cancellation of a US military strike against Syria would lead to a strike on Iran. "Israel will feel that it has no reason to wait, no reason to give diplomacy a chance and no reason to believe that the United States will take care of the problem." Netanyahu sees an Iran with nuclear weapons as an existential threat to Israel, but he is ready to comply with US requests regarding a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, as long as he has the confidence that President Obama is determined to deal with the Iranian threat. But this confidence will end if the strike against Syria is cancelled, and that will push Israel to strike Iran. Therefore, Ross suggests that the US is facing a choice between a limited US strike against Syrian targets, considering that "the Syrian and Iranian interest in an escalation with the United States is also limited," or an all out confrontation between Israel and Iran. At the end of his article, Ross asks the opponents of a US military strike against Syria if they would still feel comfortable with their choice when it means that a diplomatic outcome on the Iranian nuclear issue is ruled out. He concludes, "Even in their eyes, the costs of inaction may then not appear so low."

Iran Increases Aid to PFLP Thanks to Syria Stance http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/iran-pflp-gaza-palestine-syria.html
 High-level PFLP sources at home and abroad revealed to Al-Monitor that Iran has resumed its financial and military support for the group in recent months in order to strengthen its alliance with the “Palestinian resistance forces” and not limit itself to only supporting Islamist movements such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Al-Monitor that several meetings were held between the PFLP leadership abroad and Iranian officials in Beirut, Damascus and Tehran under the auspices of Lebanonese Hezbollah. Those meetings resulted in reviving direct support to the PFLP.“Following the resumption of Iranian support, there will soon be a dramatic increase in the strength of the PFLP’s military wing, the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, after the internal reorganization of the group is completed,” the sources said.The PFLP has come out in support of the Syrian regime and Hezbollah’s position on the Syrian crisis. PFLP officials have made pro-regime statements and held Gaza rallies in which participants raised pictures of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. Abu Ahmad Fouad, a PFLP political-bureau member and former PFLP military official, said that the group might retaliate toward Israel if the United States bombs Syria. “We are not exaggerating our capabilities, but we will be in the anti-occupation and anti-aggression resistance trench. We will use the available resources, and we will try to gather the energy of all forces and factions in the face of this aggression, mainly against the Zionist occupation. Our capabilities are found in our occupied country and we will be on the side of our brothers in Hezbollah if they gave us a role in resisting the occupation,” Fouad said in an interview with Al-Mayadeen TV last week. Rabah Muhanna, a PFLP official in Gaza, said that the group intersects with Hezbollah, Iran and Syria because the PFLP supports “resisting the Israeli occupation” and Hezbollah, Iran and Syria “support the various Palestinian resistance forces, including the PFLP.” In a discussion with Al-Monitor, Muhanna did not confirm nor deny the return of Iranian financial and military support for the PFLP. Al-Monitor met with Abu Jamal, the official spokesman for the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, to understand the nature of Iran’s support. “We call on all countries of the world to provide us with financial and military support and we do not oppose it at all,” he said, denying a change in Iranian support for the PFLP. “We have received and continue to receive military training for our personnel in Damascus and Beirut at the hands of Hezbollah trainers, and maybe also from Iran, but I have no information on any other type of support,” Abu Jamal added.

If only more leaders confronted the Israel Lobby's veiled threats like Argentina's Kirchner...via Maidhc Ó Cathail 
The legacy of the AMIA attack continues to cast a shadow over the community. Following the January 27 announcement of an Argentine announcement of an Argentine memorandum of understanding with Iran to investigate the AMIA bombing case, AMIA president Guillermo Borger predicted that “the Iranian pact will lead to a third attack.” AMIA president Guillermo Borger AMIA president Guillermo Borger predicted that “the Iranian pact will lead to a third attack."
[[[[“Why would you make such a terrible statement like that?” Argentine President Cristina Kirchner replied on Twitter. “If an attack is planned in relation to the agreement with Iran, who would be behind it?” she inquired.]]]]

--------------------------------------- 
Abe Foxman: What troubles me more is that Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, in her interest to defend this agreement, goes to the point of intimidating the Jewish community through socia media and challenges its leaders. Moreover, she implicitly exonerates the Iranian regime from any responsibility in case of a future terror attack.

An Unhealthy Nexus: Iran and Argentina

www.adl.org