The US Empire looses yet another country, this time El Salvador

Leftist Victory in El Salvador Closes an Historic Cycle

By Marc Cooper for the Huffington Post

The apparent victory of leftist candidate Maurico Funes in Sunday's presidential election in El Salvador finally closes out the Cold War in Central America and raises some serious questions about the long term goals of U.S. foreign policy.

With Funes' election, history has come full cycle. Both El Salvador and neighboring Nicaragua will now be governed by two former guerrilla fronts against which the Reagan administration spared no efforts in trying to defeat during the entire course of the 1980's. We will now coexist with those we once branded as the greatest of threats to our national security. Those we branded as "international terrorists" now democratically govern much of Central America.

Funes, once a commentator for CNN's Spanish-language service, comes to power representing the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), a Marxist guerrilla group-turned-political -party, an organization that the U.S. government once described in terms now reserved for Al Qaeda and Hizbollah.

From the late 1970's until a negotiated peace settlement in 1992, the FMLN fought a bloody civil war against a series of U.S.-backed right-wing regimes. Those Salvadoran regimes engaged in horrific massacres and deployed savage death squads, taking a massive human toll. While the FMLN also perpetrated atrocities, all independent analysts agree that the overwhelming majority of the 75,000 who were killed in the war in El Salvador were victims of government-sponsored violence.

This same FMLN which now comes to power in El Salvador was once declared as the primary perpetrator of "international terrorism" by the Reagan administration who deployed hundreds of U.S. military advisors to the tiny Central American country and who quadrupled the size of the Salvadoran Army. In this all-out quest to crush the FLMN, U.S. authorities, at best, turned a blind eye to the bloody excesses of the Salvadoran regime. At worst, it encouraged them.

At the same time in history, the U.S. spent billions creating a "contra" army to destabilize and dislodge the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) which had taken power in Nicaragua in 1979, overthrowing the dynastic and dictatorial rule of the Somoza family - another U.S.-backed ally.

During the entire eight years of the Reagan era, defeating both the FMLN and the FSLN were the absolute top priorities of U.S. foreign policy as the administration argued that the Texas border was a short hop from the fields of Central America and that all must be done to stop the northward march of hemispheric revolution. The sort of inflammatory rhetoric used to describe the Central American guerrilla movements was an eerie precedent for the overheated war of words against "The Axis of Evil" that would emerge earlier this decade.

The Nicaraguan Sandinistas were eventually defeated by an American-backed opposition in elections in 1990 and democratically and peacefully transferred power (something the Reaganites claimed could never happen). But the Sandinistas returned to power last year re-electing its historic leader Daniel Ortega as president. Almost twenty years of rule from the pro-U.S. coalitions that had succeeded the Sandinistas had failed to implement any meaningful social change.

The Salvadoran FMLN, meanwhile, which has acted as a parliamentary opposition party since the 1992 Salvadoran peace accords, now comes to power ending twenty years of uninterrupted rule by the country's ultra-conservative ARENA party - a political organization born directly from the death squads of the 1980's and, yes, a close ally of the U.S.

All of this raises the question of why so many lives were spent and so many billions in U.S. dollars were burned in an attempt to expunge these leftist forces twenty years ago? Wouldn't it have been possible in 1989 to find some sort of accommodation with these radical forces and not postpone the inevitable for twenty years?

In the case of Nicaragua, the year-old reborn and duly elected Sandinista administration--while far from a model of democratic ethics-- hardly poses any threat to U.S. interests. Though President Ortega, saddled with governing one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, still clothes his actions in revolutionary rhetoric, he has headed up what many think is essentially a conservative regime which recently outlawed all abortion (a move that could warm the deceased Ronald Reagan's heart). Ortega campaigned successfully for the presidency last year by quoting from scripture and has not flinched from pacting with the most conservative of political elements.

In the case of El Salvador, President-elect Funes has pledged to maintain close and cordial relations with the U.S. And while the FMLN--like the Sandinistas - clings to some of its Cold War revolutionary rhetoric, no one expects any radical moves by the incoming government. Fighting widespread poverty aggravated by the global slump and a chilling crime wave, the FMLN will have its hands full just keeping the government on keel. President-elect Funes holds distinctly moderate views and in an American context would be little more than a liberal Democrat. In any case, the FMLN can point to its recent governance of several Salvadoran cities (including until recently the capital of San Salvador) as its democratic bona fides.

The resurrection of the FMLN and the FSLN at this time in history raises a troubling irony regarding U.S. foreign policy. Yesterday we were told they were our greatest enemies. Today, now in power, they hardly garner any U.S. press coverage, let alone much attention from Washington. Likewise, the right-wing forces we bankrolled with blood and treasure and who we were told were a bulwark of Western Civilization, utterly failed in solving the basic existential questions that bedeviled their respective countries. Twenty years from now, we have to ask, what will Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria look like? Might we find ourselves peacefully co-existing with the same undefeated forces who today we proclaim our mortal enemies? Might we be better off using our soft power, our economic and diplomatic clout to force negotiation and moderation with those we perceive as irrational and radical enemies? Or do we only reach that conclusion after the dissipation of prolonged, bloody and ultimately unsuccessful armed intervention and war?


Journalist and author Marc Cooper is a Special Correspondent for The Huffington Post as well as Editorial Director of its campaign reporting project OffTheBus. A contributing editor to The Nation magazine, Marc is also a member of the faculty at the USC Annenberg School for communication and Associate Director of its Institute for Justice and Journalism. Marc can be reached at cooper@huffingtonpost.com .

Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah speech on Islamic Unity Week

Marking the anniversary of the blessed Birthday of The Prophet of Mercy Mohammad (pbuh) and the Islamic Unity Week (12-17 Rabai I), Hezbollah held a massive ceremony in the Sayyed Ashuhada (pbuh) Compound in Rweiss in the Southern Suburbs. The sponsor of the ceremony, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, made the following speech in the occasion.

In the Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Peace be on the most honorable among all creatures and the most revered among all messengers, our master Abi Al Qassem Mohammad Bin Abdullah and his chaste and purified Household, chosen companions and on all of Allah's messengers and prophets.

Brothers and sisters! Peace be on you and Allah's mercy and blessing. First, I congratulate you on the occasion of the blessed birthday anniversary of the Prophet of Allah Al Mighty. The Prophet (pbuh) is the Seal of all prophets and the Master of all messengers and the dearest among all creatures to Allah Al Mighty. These days we are celebrating the blessed and dear birthday to learn from the Prophet of Allah – the teacher - and to be rightly guided by the Prophet of Allah – the guide, the bringer of good tidings as well as warnings. From this occasion we learn and are guided to faith and monotheism, to good manners and morals, to defend man's dignity and freedom and to all what is good for man in this world and in the afterworld.

Brothers and sisters! As usual I like to handle in this occasion some aspects of the occasion and some recent general developments. As it is well known among Muslims and perhaps is agreed on, Mohammad Bin Abdullah (pbuh) was born in the year of the Fil (Elephant). Almost always when we read the Prophetic biography or when it is tackled, the time of birth is passed over while the incidents that took place in the biography are tackled. But during this occasion I like to pause for a while at the time of the birth. The year of the Fil (Elephant) has been well known among Arabs before Islam, after Islam and until this day. It is tackled in history books, tradition books, biographies and all other books that handle history comprehensively. They mention this incident that happened during that year and pursuant to it that year was referred to as the Year of the Fil (Elephant). That incident is all-agreed on historically. No one denies or neglects it whether as a whole or in most of its details.

The Year of the Fil is the year on which the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was born. In the Islamic chronology, it is before the start of the mission of the Prophet by 40 years. The story is well-known. I will relate it briefly to mark its significant points. I don't want to tackle history for itself but rather to highlight its significant signs which find reflections in our days as well. In that year, King Abraha of Al Habasha (Ethiopia) – who was the king over vast lands including parts in the Arab Peninsula and Yemen – decided to attack Mecca, break through it and demolish the Kaaba because he noticed that the Kaaba was the destination of all people's hearts. He wanted to establish an alternative for the Kaaba in another place to make it the destination of the hearts of peoples and caravans. So he had ideological and ritual as well as political, economic and commercial considerations. That's because Mecca and the Kaaba in Mecca was viewed from several perspectives. So all attempts to orient the hearts of the peoples and caravans to that other place flopped. The reason behind that was that the Kaaba in Mecca had a holy status for Arabs and all former prophets (peace be upon them). It is the place of the Mission of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham).

So because it was the destination of hearts, he – as all world tyrants do – formed a huge full-fledged force and prepared all the weapons available at that time. He also made took a number of elephants. He announced that he was heading towards Mecca. On his way all Arab tribes and clans (Tomorrow they will say he touched on the Arabs and we are Arabs and those are our fathers and ancestors) were defeated before the Habashi Army. They used to flee. Their hearts were full with fear and terror. So he was moving rapidly until he reached the threshold of Mecca and the Kaaba. It was expected that Qoraish with all its various tribes and clans - which is the master, the guardian, the inhabitant and the first beneficiary from Mecca religiously, politically, commercially, morally and materialistically – to defend the holy Kaaba. But as it is historically known, Qoraish took the decision of withdrawing from Mecca and heading towards the mountain passes. Mecca was abandoned. They abandoned Mecca and left it open before the army or Abraha. When Abraha decided to storm into Mecca and started to break into it with his army, Mecca was vulnerable. The equation was: The House of Allah (Kaaba) has a Lord who will protect it. When all people abandoned the Kaaba, its Lord protected it. As it is unanimously agreed on in history and as the Holy Qoran says Allah the Al Mighty sent against them flights of birds holding small stones of baked clay in their beaks. They started striking the soldiers and elephants with them. The army was fear- stricken. Thus was the onset of the defeat. (Perhaps this was the first concentrated aerial shelling in human history.) The army of Abraha was defeated and it retreated with humiliation. Qoraish came back to Mecca and the House was defended by its Lord.

In the year in which this incident took place, Mohammad bin Abdullah bin Abdulmutaleb bin Hachem (pbuh) was born. The Prophet of Allah was born in the very year in which this great and divine incident took place. As an assertion of the consensus on the incident as a whole, when the Holy Qoran was revealed, it tackled the incident of the elephant in The Elephant Sura and no one - whether from Qoraish, from among the Arabs, from Habasha or from the whole world - denied the incident with its details knowing that they were tracking the Prophet of Allah to find even if a small detail or word to find a mistake or a slip or a lie (God forbids) that disagrees with the facts and truth. But as for The Elephant Sura which depicted this incident with its details, all were submissive. So in that year, two great divine incidents took place and changed history. They are both linked to each other and the coincidence is not by chance. The first is that Allah Al Mighty protected the Kaaba with a crystal clear miracle and the second incident which is linked to the first is the birth of the Prophet of Allah who will be sent to all people whether the white, black, yellow or red and not only to Qoraish or the Arabs. He will be sent to all peoples as a mercy to the whole world. With his prophethood all prophethoods will be sealed, and with his message all messages will come to an end. He will offer humanity an eternal divine message that will last till Doom's Day.

Back to the first incident, we find two significant points from which we draw the moral. The first point is all the Arabs at that time whether princes, heads of clans or tribal alliances were ultimately unable to do anything to defend not their land, water, oil, personal dignity or honor but rather the holiest of their holy sites: the Kaaba. They were totally weak. We didn't see any heroic struggle all through the army's journey which has announced its target from the onset: destroying the Kaaba despite all what it stands for. No one from among the inhabitants of the Arab Peninsula took action. This is a very important point. Even Qoraish with all claims it used to make, fled to the mountain passes. The second significant point is divine interference. To all who disapprove when we talk about divine interference, divine support or divine victory, we say that divine interference is clear and evident. It does not need or have any other interpretation. It means what took place in the Elephant incident and the divine interference to protect the Kaaba. Even in the very details of the incident, we find that Allah the Al Mighty did not sent to humiliate those arrogant tyrants the greatest among his creatures. No. He sent birds that stroke them with stones of baked stones and defeated them. They don't deserve anymore and that's the whole story. This second significant point must remain vivid in our minds: Allah Al Mighty interferes whenever He wants to protect whom He wants to protect. Yes, in some historical incident, the divine will was that this prophet or that Imam would be martyred or that or this incident takes place in this or in that way. But the divine will has red lines. When Allah wills to interfere, He interferes and in His own way and manner. That's exactly what took place in the year of Fil (Elephant). nasrollah 13 march

So in the year which marked the ultimate Arab weakness, feebleness and disaccord and the year of the clear divine miracle, Mohammad (pbuh) was born. The miracle of the Elephant incident is not unlinked to the time of the birth and the divine role and historical mission allotted to the newborn in that year. From the very beginning, Mohammad (pbuh) was embraced with Allah's mercy, care, teachings and protection. He was a true evident to (So that you be molded before my eyes). He stood willing to assume responsibility. With patience, he called for Islam, guided, fought, defended and bore pains. Thus were the miracles Allah made on the hands of the Prophet (pbuh). The man - who was born an orphan to a poor disjointed illiterate ignorant and weak people in that barren desert and tough mountains - turned within 23 years with that very land and among those very people to a great nation and culture. This is an aspect of the greatness of the occasion and the greatness of the Prophet (pbuh). That's because one of the means to know the greatness of a man is to see his work and achievements which he left to humanity and history. The other aspect of His great miracles is the Holy Qoran which was revealed to the heart of Mohamad (pbuh) in that society and in that environment with all what was mentioned of its educational, cultural, political and social status. This Qoran is that book revealed by Allah Al Mighty via the greatest of His angels to the greatest heart of the greatest man. (It was revealed by the faithful spirit on His heart)). This Qoran which is still in our hands today after more than 1430 years since its revelation on the heart of Mohamad (pbuh) is a divine miracle. It's a daily and annual recurrence of the Elephant incident in every generation but in another form.

In the Elephant incident, Allah defended His House (The Kaaba). With the wonder of the Qoran, Allah Al Mighty defends his book every day, year and generation until Doom's Day. (We have revealed the recitation and we will safeguard it). The Qoran available today is the very Qoran which was revealed on the heart of the Prophet of Allah (pbuh) without a letter or a word added or a letter or a word missing. This is what all Muslims believe in. This is their belief and conviction. The safeguarding of the Qoran free from any addition or miss, free from any distortion or falsification and free from concealing and being concealed is a divine miracle vivid before our eyes. That's because after the prophethood of Mohamad (pbuh), human motives - for many reasons – agreed on concealing the Qoran or some of this Qoran, altering this Qoran, falsifying it or producing a similar Qoran or ten suras or even only one sura similar to its suras. But all who have such motives and tried to do so flopped. That's because in doing that, they are challenging Allah the Al Mighty who promised to safeguard the Qoran. And He protected it, is still protecting it and will protect it until Doom's Day. That's why today we as Muslims in all our factions and sects, concerning the Prophetic traditions we all agree that during the time of the Prophet and afterwards, liars put traditions and attributed it to the Prophet (pbuh). That's why we find the Sunnites, the Shiites and the other Islamic sects have the Science of Men and the Science of the tradition which handle any tradition attributed to the Prophet (pbuh). Are the men who narrated the tradition truthful, God-fearing or liars? We do not believe any tradition we hear. We must scrutinize its narrators to know whether they were God-fearing and truthful or not. Still all Muslims when they deal with the Qoran from cover to cover believe it is from Allah and was revealed to the Prophet of Allah (pbuh). It's the Book of Allah – nothing added and nothing lost.

Today we have this eternal divine prophetic relic. This Qoran from among all Holy books revealed on the previous prophets (pbut) is the divine relic. Now we as Muslims have - I will not say that the greatest common point but rather – a very great common point (despite our intellectual and juristic differences) which is the book of Allah: the Holy Qoran.

In every stage and generation some try to accuse the others here or there because they believe in falsifying the Qoran or concealing a part of it. This is baseless. This is the Qoran found in the houses of all Muslims whether Sunnites, Shiites or the other sects. This is the Qoran we recite day and night, in our happy and sad occasions, in war and peace and on which we bring up our children and upcoming generations. This is the great common point worthy of being the starting point to form an Islamic unity which was suggested always by Muslim scholars before and after the Islamic Revolution in Iran. But Imam Khomeini (May Allah bless his soul) - from his position as a scholar, a man of intellect and a great leader – adopted this presentation and gave it a great momentum in the Arab and Islamic worlds. This is what we need. Before and after Imam Khomeini, no Muslim leader or scholar put forth the idea of Islamic Unity in the form of integrated unity or organized unity because this is a unity that annuls privacies of sects, factions and schools. This intellectual and juristic variety in Islam is the most important point of force in Islam which made it spread in time and place and all through generations and over history. Consequently, no one is concerned with annulling this variety which is a point of force, one of the elements of Islam's immortality and a factor that gave Islam the ability to cope with all the events and incidents all through ages. When we talk about unity, we mean harmony, mutual affinity, cooperation, common interests as a nation and exerting common efforts to achieve all the goals and all these interests. Islam and the Prophet of Allah called for dialogue, harmony and meeting and getting acquainted not only with other Muslims but also with the followers of other religions. The Prophet himself was the pioneer leader in expansive dialogues which used to take place with Jewish and Christian religious men among other religious scholars.

Today, in face of all contemporary challenges and existing risks, we need this concept. We know that our enemies do not want this affinity to take place. The enemies of this nation don't want Muslims to reach such an affinity whether among Muslims as an Islamic nation or as Lebanese for example as Muslims and Christians. The same applies to any other Arab or Islamic country when it comes to rapprochements and national unity between the various popular, religious, racial and ethnic groups. This does not need any evidences. After all the events that took place in the past centuries and decades don't leave us in need to pause and think whether the enemies of this nation want to control our sanctities, wealth, oil, water, market and political decision and whether they want us to be in disaccord. This is absurd because the truth is crystal clear. But in the other hand what are we doing to confront that? They always bet on disjointing us but there are in the nation people who are working for affinity, harmony and cooperation… So the whole scene still exists in both its positive and negative aspects. I hope in the anniversary of the Birthday of the Prophet of Allah (pbuh) that we discard with such claims that cause great tension between Shiites and Sunnites. We have noticed that for a period of time, no one has been able to stir again the major national issues because Muslim scholars and the various other Muslim trends are taking control of the track of major issues. There are wise men in all regions and countries who are working positively on the level of countries and the whole nation. The latest tone which has been wrought on for several years says that Shiites have a project which is converting Sunnites to Shiites! Some fabricate stories and present untrue reports. Notice that the senior scholars must not accept such stories unscrutinized. They must probe into them. For years it has been said that in Lebanon there is a Shiite plot to convert the Sunnites into Shiites. Here we are in Lebanon which is no more than 10452 Km2. We all know what takes place in all villages, towns and neighborhoods. Where is that plot? Point it out for us. In a previous occasion, Al Jazzier Channel addressed a question in this perspective to the Mufti of Tripoli and northern Lebanon. He gave a clear and brave answer: there is nothing of this sort in Lebanon. (May Allah bless Sheikh Malek for his kindness.) Such was also said about Egypt. The same question was asked to the Mufti of Egypt and he said: there is nothing of this kind in Egypt. They wrote on some websites that hundreds of thousands of Sunnites converted to Shiites in Syria. They wanted to make use of this to confront the Syrian leadership. Where are these converts? Give us a list of their names. This is being promulgated in many regions and unfortunately it is adopted by some scholars and men of intellect. Alas, they build on it, make a cause out of it and unrightfully set for a baseless battle and confrontation. Well not only in the Arab world, but also all over the world, today we have the internet, TV channels and books which are exposed in libraries exhibitions and on the websites. Everyone presents his ideas, concepts and evidences… Great incidents take place in the world in which some Shiite youths get influenced and convert into Sunnites or influences Sunnite youths and thus they convert into Shiites. But neither any country – I am speaking decisively - nor Hezbollah, nor any Shiite movement, nor even the regime of the Islamic Republic in Iran on head of which is His Eminence Sayyed Khamenai (May Allah prolong his lifespan) nor any great Shiite authority in the Islamic world has such a project or is in the process of preparing for such a project. These are all baseless illusions. These are exaggerated and at least inaccurate issues on which an endless battle is being prepared for. Voices are raised for such issues while they are kept silent when for instance in 22 days more than 1300 Palestinian Sunnites were killed. We didn't hear these zealous voices but when they are told that there is information that a Sunnite man in a remote area converted to a Shiite, they become ardent. Here I tell you also that in remote areas Shiite men converted to Sunnites and took fanatic trends also. Some are here in Lebanon and there are names. Shall were build a battle and make a confrontation because of that? We must all cooperate to handle this issue with the required realism.

From such basis, I turn to the political status and say: yes we back every Arab rapprochement, Islamic rapprochement, Arab reconciliation between two, three, four or five countries, or any Arab reconciliation. Reconciliation is what is demanded, and it must be backed and supported. I tell you that nothing in these reconciliations causes fear which some speak about. For instance, I read that a senior official in March 14 group say that after the quartet reconciliation in Riyadh, Hezbollah must search for its head. What does that mean? Where is he living? In what world? Indeed it is he who is searching for his head. Any Arab meeting is a source of power to all of us. Any Arab reconciliation is a source of power for all of us. We back and support it. We don't find in it what causes worry at all. We also call on Arabs – as we are on the doors of an upcoming summit in Doha – to extend their hands to the other countries that back the Arab rights such as Iran and Turkey. It's really weird. The Arabs must - as any people who has rights or is persecuted – search all over the world for someone to support them. On the contrary when someone comes to support us, we invent a project of enmity, disagreement and separation with him. Isn't it a point of power to the Arabs that Venezuela for instance backs the Arab right? Is it accepted that we disagree with Venezuela because of Bush (Now Bush is gone...) If whatever country in the world – disregard of its religious, cultural or political affiliations - supports the Arab right, the Palestinian people, the Arab causes, how come we say no to him at a time its our duty to search worldwide for someone who backs the Arab rights and causes. Today Iran is in such a position as is new Turkey. There are countries in this world who are in such a position. Here I tell you these countries will increase and not vice versa if Allah wills. But as Arab peoples and governments we must mutually back and support them and not answer their support with feud and accusations.

In this context, the dialogues taking place now in Cairo among Palestinian brothers from the various factions are supported by all of us. Indeed there are Palestinian complexities. The Palestinian brethrens themselves must address them with the required wisdom, braveness and flexibility. It's great tyranny that states from behind seas accuse this or that country or this or that ally of crippling talks. From our position in Hezbollah for instance I tell you – and this is valid on all the Lebanese national opposition and the Palestinian factions which we are accused of and they are accused of alliance with us, with Iran or with Syria. No one interferes in their affairs. No one imposes choices on the. No one tells them what to do. They decide what to do, what to agree on and what to refuse. This is a testimony for Allah Al Mighty in this great occasion.

Here I say and this is the truth. We in Hezbollah, we join our voice to all the voices that call on the Palestinians to exert all efforts to achieve unity, cooperation, affinity and rapprochement and get out of the regrettable division which was prevailing among them. In this framework, there is a point which I want to highlight. We call for this to take place not only on the political level. Unfortunately, I found some Arab and Lebanese channels trying to accuse Hezbollah of intervening in some details that are taking place in Gaza such as the launching of some rockets from Gaza and the like. Here I decisively tell you and the whole world: Hezbollah doesn't have any organization or faction in Gaza. There is a relation of mutual cooperation, respect and trust between us and all the Palestinian factions. We trust all of them but we do not interfere in their affairs. They take decisions. As we don't like to be dictated on, we do not dictate on others or interfere in the least detail or procedure no matter now trivial or critical. We consider ourselves like a brother whose duty is to help if his brother asks for that and he is able to do so. That's it. The interest lies in what the Palestinian Resistance leadership decides on. So it decides to make an appeasement, to launch rockets, or to make operations. Any interference from any party cripples the Palestinian interest. We are committed to this stance and we see its opposite as a treasury, infidelity and an illegal jihad act.

In the same Arab framework, we must pause before the decision taken by the attorney general of the International Criminal Court to arrest Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir. Indeed we in Hezbollah have denounced this decision. In this occasion, I like to renew our denunciation. I frankly tell you, the ICC has never proven to be fair and just and that it works free of political considerations so that we respect its decisions. As for President Bashir, they say they went to Darfore and investigated and found out that women and children were killed by the Sudanese Army or militias upon the order of President Bashir. These are their allegations. But the ICC does not need to make investigations in many crimes perpetrated and are still perpetrated daily and broadcasted on TV screens. In July War for 33 days TV screens used to broadcast Israeli crimes. Women, children and elderly were killed. Villages and neighborhoods were totally demolished upon the order of Olmert, Livney, Halotz and others. Still the ICC did not take any action. In these incidents, it doesn't need to make investigations. The direct responsibility is clear. What took place in Gaza and was seen by the whole world is another example. More than 1300 martyrs were killed. The overwhelming majority or more than half of them were women and children. Their killing was adopted by Israel. Neither the ICC prosecutor nor any judge in the ICC dared to say a single word. Qana Massacre I does not need any investigation; nor does Qana Massacre II. The same applies to the ICC bias to Bush and the US military leaders. Every other day, 30, 40, 50 or 100 civil victims are killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and at times in Iraq. Then the ICC decides that they were killed by mistake. The information was wrong. There was an intelligence failure!

Over the past five year, the intelligence failure has led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi, Afghani and Pakistani civilians, and still the ICC did not take any action. So we are not talking about President Bashir in particular. We are discussing the ICC in principle. Is it basically a fair independent judiciary body? Or is it one of the international bodies which are used to settle political debates and to serve major political plots around the world. Sudan has been targeted for long years. Sudan is targeted for its unity, wealth, water and oil. Sudan has been targeted on more than one level and it remained firm all through these years. Now came a new series of conspiracies. This must be clear. We don't aim at denouncing the decision taken by the ICC attorney general only. We also stand to say that it is a great scandal to the ICC and its attorney general. It's a great scandal to those who turn a blind eye on the massacres in which hundreds of thousands are killed in more than one Arab and Muslim country while they persecute a president for unverified accusations based on unsound investigations. This is scandalous. This might recur. So it's the right of everyone targeted by the US administrations and the Zionist project to look cautiously and doubtfully to such international bodies which do not act on sheer judiciary and legal basis but rather on mere political basis. It finds a legal opinion there or an advisory pretext here to achieve its goals.

Now we really started the stage of elections. I stress on internal calmness. The situation is somehow reasonable despite the tension that takes place occasionally. In this perspective, I like to warn against exaggerating the sporadic security incidents by the media. Such incidents used to take place before the elections in 2005 and even when we had political stability in Lebanon: exaggerating incidents, interpreting them in other than what they stand for and making rapid and speedy accusations. I don't want to accuse any party. This does not lead but to tension in the country while these incidents are almost always personal and have nothing to do with the political decision. At times evidences show that the data on which a sweeping media campaign were wrong or reversed.

The security apparatuses and the Lebanese justice are responsible for investigating. It is noticeable that in the south for example every now and then the car of such and such explodes or is set on fire. They instantly accuse a definite political party. How did you know that? What are your evidences? Why can't we say that it is you who are burning cars to attract the media? You can't make haphazard accusations.

Some incidents take place and must be revealed but after all they turn to be limited, personal and sporadic. We mustn't work at exaggerating them to cause tension in the country. Some say that such sporadic incidents aim at scaring emigrants so that they don't come to Lebanon for elections. When you take a limited and short report and work at exaggerating it and build on it political theories and baseless accusations, you yourself will be working at scaring emigrants so that they won't come and vote. So let's make things path naturally. We keep whatever incident that takes place in any region under control and address it with responsibility and cooperation among political forces and security and judiciary apparatuses so as to guard the integrity, security and stability of our country and head to the elections in a sound and natural atmosphere.

In this very framework also, some make haste and accuse the Opposition of being responsible of such incidents to say that the Opposition wants to cripple the elections. This is also sarcastic. What would the Opposition lose if the elections took place and it did not win the majority? It's not a parliamentary majority now. You know that should we win the upcoming elections, it remains that the parliamentary majority is not necessarily the popular majority. This is true in Lebanon due to the sectarian regime and the way offices and departments are organized. So what will the Opposition lose if it did not win the majority in the upcoming elections? Nothing at all.

No who might lose anything might be accused and not the Opposition. Your are today the parliamentary majority and you are the authority. Discussing the issue of the crippling one third suggestion is lengthy. But after all, should the elections take place and the majority loses, you will lose. But if the elections takes place and we didn't become the majority, we will remain where we are and will not lose anything. In the contrary, the elections are the chance for the Opposition to get the majority. It has no other chance. So it's logical and natural that the Opposition be more careful for reserving security, stability and calmness in the country so that the elections take place and we see their results.

Now I will talk about what has been spread lately about a new US stance on the possibility of dialogue with Hezbollah and Hamas but with two conditions. The first condition is recognizing Israel, and the second condition is to renounce violence… When the US accepts to make dialogue with any party with or without conditions - and especially when these conditions start to retreat and concede - it doesn't do that for moral reasons but rather for the US flop of projects in the region. It has been shown that all attempts to isolate and eliminate Syria, change its regime and conduct and boycott Syria have been fruitless. So let's make dialogue with it. The issue is not moral. Since Syria remained steadfast and it is a part of the statue quo and is influential in the regional equations let's make dialogue with it.

Iran has been established for 30 years: eight years of war and 22 years of siege. Still it's growing in its power, might and influence. Iranians are going to the outer space, manufacturing their civil and military needs. Its nuclear capabilities have been a source or worry. Isolating, fighting and pressuring Iran have proved fruitless. If you want talks in the region, you must hold talks with all these influential nations including Iran and Syria. Prejudice does not lead but to flopping. This is true with countries as well as with political forces and movements and especially the resistance movements.

If the resistance movements are weak and defeated, they don't need to make dialogue with them? There is no dialogue with the weak and the defeated. This is on one side. On the other side, when it comes to conditions, Hezbollah is on the terrorism list among many other organizations even the TV channel of Hezbollah and Waed Institution. Other names also are on the list: such and such including Martyr Hajj Imad Moghniyah (May Allah bless his soul). A group of names – some brethrens and I – are on the terrorism list. See what the Americans want in the region and this is my goal now. They mean that we forgive you who make terrorist acts and overlook all your countless deeds. If they accuse us of shedding American blood, they will forgive us. If they accuse us of terrorism they will forgive us. We will overlook all the bygones if you recognize Israel. This is the whole story. Is this US politics in the region? There is Israel in the region. Recognize Israel and renounce violence! What does violence mean: renouncing the resistance. So they want us to recognize Israel and renounce violence and we will overlook all what have taken place before.

To those who rejoice for the US delegations that come to Lebanon I say: Should we open dialogue with the Americans, recognize Israel and renounce violence – if what they want takes place – Beirut southern Suburbs (Dahyieh) will be overcrowded with US delegations. The Americans follow their interests. They don't have eternal friendships or eternal enmities. It's not moral values which rule. Frankly speaking, before the US sets conditions on Hezbollah to make dialogue with it, the question is: Is Hezbollah ready to make dialogue with the Americans? And if it's ready, will that take place with or without conditions? As for the US conditions, they are rejected.

Today, on the anniversary of the birth of the Prophet (pbuh) in 2009 AC and 1430 hijri, as long as we are Hezbollah, neither we nor our children, grandchildren and generations will recognize Israel neither today, nor tomorrow, nor after a year, a hundred year, a thousand year, nor until Doom's Day. Israel is a usurper entity. It's an illegal and illegitimate state. It's a racial, aggressive and terrorist state. Based on what norms, a Muslim or an Arab person might recognize an entity of this kind? How come he simply says: Yes, this is Israel while three quarters if not more of its area was given to wanderers who were gathered from all over the world while the true right owners, the owners of the land and the sanctities from among the Muslim and Christian Palestinian people were forced to leave and expelled and forced to submit and yield? What kind of norms are these: religious, moral, humanistic, national or public? There is only one norm: that of the Arab clans and tribes which were defeated before the Army of Abraha which says: what are we able to do? This is Israel backed by the US. They did say: This is the army of Habasha. We can't confront the elephant. Let's run away and leave our holiest sanctities to Abraha. This is the only logic of the year of the Elephant which says we can't do anything in face of Israel. This is Israel backed with the US. We have no choice. This is the statue quo, the logic, coexistence…. They search for whatever terms to impose on us so that we accept their conditions…

No the only norm which pushes in the direction of recognizing Israel is the feeling of defeat and humiliation. Only when man feels weak, he is forced to recognize. But if we don't feel we are that weak and helpless but rather we are strong and able if we stood side by side and with all our might to defeat this entity and also eliminate its very existence. They say they are backed by the US. So what? We are backed by Allah. Allah backed us during July War and during Gaza War. They are backed by the US, they say. Let the Americans stand erect from their fall. We really don't know where the USA is going on the financial level, the economic level, and world hegemony. They are working now on being positive and making dialogue. They left this possibility as they are not able to do anything during these couple of years. So they want to let time pass to see how to address this financial and economic catastrophe. This is a valid assumption.

Thus to those who put conditions on us we say: for all the above mentioned reasons, we will not recognize the existence of a state called Israel. There are two points. You might say not recognizing means going into war. No one called on any one to go to war. If you are not able to go to war and fight, do not recognize and establish this truth and give it legitimacy. If our generation is unable to fight, the upcoming generation will fight or the generation that follows. Why should we admit defeat? If we are unable to fight, don't share in the confrontation. Why should we give legality to occupation, usurp and terrorism? This is the logic which we talk about. But as long as there is a terrorist, greedy and aggressive entity, the resistance is not only a matter of no renunciation, it is rather our dignity, honor, livelihood, existence and the pride of our sanctities.

Anyway, later when all these conditions fall, we'll see if we are ready for dialogue and what are our conditions for dialogue. Who said we accept unconditional talks? But now I won't say what the conditions are because there is nothing of this sort of talks so far. The issue is not serious. We are in such a position. We see ourselves in such a position.

On the anniversary of the birth of the Prophet of Allah (pbuh), in these blessed days, there is a call for mutual sharing, harmony, cooperation, assistance and constructive competition to reach unity and to work for the pride and honor of this nation and to defend its sanctities. I pray to Allah to help us to assume responsibility and to be equal to this responsibility shed on our shoulders. Again I felicitate you on this blessed and dear anniversary. Hundred returns. Peace be upon you and Allah's blessings and mercy.

Source: In Their Eyes

The Case Against Israel's "Right to Exist"

by Roger Tucker

An Open Letter to Representative David Price (D) 4th District, NC

As you know, Mr. Price, I was invited to join a group of activists who met with you Monday morning to urge you to take action regarding the siege of Gaza, the Occupation and American support for Israel. I declined to attend because my particular focus is on One State advocacy, and you have made it crystal clear that this is not your view, nor is it ever likely to be (unless and until, in the due course of time, it becomes politically expedient). You represent the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill), fondly known as the pat of butter in a sea of grits, a highly educated, liberal, metropolitan area that votes heavily Democratic. You received 63% of the vote in the recent election, and fly under the "progressive" flag. Yet you voted for House Resolution 34, supporting Israel's massacre in Gaza.

Dr. Sarah Shields of UNC took you to task for that in her excellent article, but biting and accurate as that was, she only went halfway. All of the actions you were urged to take are mere palliatives .They would serve no other purpose than to apply a little band-aid to a wound so deep and life threatening that the patient belongs in the Intensive Care Unit (too bad the hospital was bombed out of existence). That sort of thing makes progressives feel good about themselves but doesn't even begin to address the real problem, which is the continued existence of the State of Israel. To say such a thing is the most blasphemous conceivable heresy from the Zionist perspective, which they have managed to convince most Americans is a sane and reasonable point of view. But, like the "official" version of the Holocaust, that other jury-rigged pillar supporting the edifice of the Rube Goldberg contraption called Israel, it is actually sane and reasonable to call such dogmas into question. From the point of view of science and history, of reason and the pursuit of truth, there can be no forbidden subjects, or we take the risk of returning to the Dark Ages.

So let us examine this curious notion that Israel has some sort of inherent "right to exist," a claim that no other nation-state has ever felt it necessary to make. We would all agree that human beings have a right to exist, although there are many who would make an exception for those who commit murder. Some even go further and say that all sentient beings have a right to exist, but only in this one peculiar case is there this insistence that a particular nation-state has such an inalienable right. Why is that? Is it, perhaps, because in this particular case the contention is on particularly shaky ground? Sorry, but methinks the lady protesteth too much. We can't, particularly as Americans, question Israel's right to exist on the basis that they commit mass murder - so many nations, including our own, have routinely done so. Nor can we merely point to the fact that Israel is an ethnocentric colonial-settler state - patterned on the now universally abhorred orgy of 19th century European colonialism - which has established itself through a long, ongoing process of genocide against the indigenous population.

Would pointing out that Israel is a xenophobic, racist state that has been practicing ethnic cleansing since its inception do the trick? How about making the case that Israel practices a form of apartheid that observers like Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu say is worse than what existed in South Africa - would that suffice? What about the numerous crimes against humanity, serial violations of the fundamental principles of the UN enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Then, of course, one might say that Israel's flagrant flouting of International Law would be sufficient, or the fact that Israel has refused to even acknowledge numerous UN resolutions, let alone abide by them, or the commission of numerous war crimes, as perpetrated during the recent holocaust in Gaza,. Wasn't the not forgotten false flag attack on the USS Liberty in itself sufficient cause to change course? Still not enough? How about the clandestine development of nuclear weapons irrespective of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel refused to sign? These facts are beginning to add up - perhaps the combination of the above would be sufficient to make the case.

The Zionists chose to locate their Jewish State in Palestine, of all places. Actually, the idea was first cooked up by the British Home Office in the early 19th Century, one of many strategies contemplated to establish and secure the Empire. That came to nought, but the notion was popular in some circles and gained renewed momentum when Theodor Herzl popularized a paranoid scheme to create an impregnable ghetto somewhere, anywhere, where the Jewish People would at long last be insulated from the consequences of their actions. After shopping around, Palestine was chosen. This was the result of various coincidences; the sentimental attachment to their supposed origin in the Holy Land, as expressed in the venerable saying "Next year in Jerusalem," that it also happened to promise proxy control over the resources and markets of the Middle East, as well as offering a simple and convenient means for the Europeans to rid themselves, once again, of the accursed Jews (as they were nearly universally perceived).

The land, however, was already populated, and thus began the organized hasbara (Heb: propaganda) campaign that has reached a crescendo in our time, to the point that Zionism now has effective control of the entire Western world, with even the Vatican paying obeisance to their Zionist Inquisitors. They said, "A land without a people, for a people without a land" (coined by Lord Shaftesbury, 1853). The brazen self-deception and lying had begun, and has only gathered steam over time. And how were they going to reconcile a dream based firmly within the tradition of the Western Enlightenment, replete with democratic ideals and socialist idealism, with the stark reality of colonizing someone else's land against their will? The idealists at that time were in the firm majority, so, in the spirit of Cecil Rhodes and their own version of Manifest Destiny, they conjured up a vision of enlightened Westerners (never mind that the new settlers were the widely detested Eastern European ashkenazim , the scattered turko-finnic remnants of the Khazarian Empire, established by tribes allied with Attila the Hun) uplifting the primitive peoples of the Orient (never mind that the Palestinians were a highly cosmopolitan and civilized people consisting of Muslims, Christians and Jews - largely secular - who all got along rather swimmingly).

They would buy the land fair and square and build a veritable City of Light in Jerusalem, or so the story went. It would be a bi-national state shared between the natives and the newcomers. This was cultural Zionism, primarily a product of the idealistic Viennese and other Western European Jews, which predominated until the early days of the Third Reich, at which time a much darker form of Zionism (a near mirror image of Nazism) began to gain ascendancy among the immigrant Jews in Palestine. This was the political Zionism of Vladimir Jabotinsky, and with it came the original outrages of Middle Eastern terrorism at the hands of the Irgun and the Stern Gang, directed at both their Arab neighbors and the representatives of the British Mandate. The leaders of these terror organizations became the future Prime Ministers of Israel, Menachem Begin among them (Albert Einstein's warning was and is applicable to all of them), and this tradition has continued into another generation in the person of Tzipi Livni, the current Foreign Minister and daughter of Eitan Livni and Sara Rosenberg, both prominent former Irgun members. Israel is a terrorist organization masquerading as a nation.

Israel has been more or less continuously at war with its neighbors as well as the indigenous population since its inception. It has made no serious attempt to resolve the conflict other than through force, stonewalling and subversion (Oslo, Annapolis and Camp David were all charades), only a steady, seemingly inexorable process of bringing to fruition the Zionist dream of Greater Israel - either the more grandiose version that would encompass all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates, or the relatively modest one, from the Jordan River to the sea. Through financial and political arm-twisting, relentless hasbara that has established the fanciful Zionist narrative as "history" in the popular mind, and using the Holocaust to guilt-trip the craven and gullible Western world, the secular fascist ideology of Zionism and its quasi-religious sibling, the Holocult, have, in a very real sense, also conquered the West. An extraordinarily successful campaign one might say, the ultimate real estate scam, but one that is doomed, as it is based only on lies and greed, violence, bribery and extortion.

Merely pointing out that the State of Israel is an abomination on moral, ethical and legal grounds (and religious ones) is perhaps insufficient, but we can do better than that. We Americans are known for being a pragmatic people, so let's look at it from that perspective. I'll use a few analogies from the field of medicine to illustrate what I mean.

Zionism has been compared to a virus, even to a viral meme complex. The latter usage is apropos, but I'm referring to its biological meaning. It is an adaptation by a primitive organism that allows it to invade a host body and then multiply many fold, often inflicting serious injury on the host and sometimes even death. The original host was Palestine, but viruses are often contagious and may even cause epidemics, and there is no shred of a doubt that Zionism has become a major pandemic. It has already done enormous damage to the interests of the United States, and it threatens the well-being of the entire human race - in the worst case scenario, which is not all that far fetched, it threatens to plunge the world into a major nuclear conflagration.

Sometimes a useful plant is improved by grafting on a part from a closely related species, resulting in a beneficial hybrid. Grafting is also used in medicine, as in skin grafts. It is elementary to observe that the practitioners of these specialties must take great care to avoid rejection of the graft, or organ in the case of human transplants - otherwise the graft does harm to the host or patient, and often leads to death. Therefore, one would suppose that a group of people, with little in the way of military might and intending to colonize a foreign land would take sensible precautions to avoid such an outcome. In the case of the early 19th century Zionist "pioneers" in Palestine there was a healthy awareness of such dangers and therefore a tendency to act like civilized human beings. But as time went on and the settlers became much stronger vis-a-vis the locals such precautions were cast to the winds, and were replaced by the hoary adage that might makes right. The logical result of such a malignant grafting technique is the death of the host, as we have been witnessing over the last agonizing 60 years. And what, then, happens to the graft - can it survive by replacing the host? Perhaps, if the host had merely been Palestine, but the difficulty here is that Palestine was in many ways the hub of the Middle East and remains at the heart of the Islamic world, the larger host in this case. Can the graft survive in the midst of 1.2 billion people that have been outraged to the point of vowing that sooner or later, whatever it takes, the graft will get the shaft? As they say in medicine, the adverse side affects far outweigh any benefit and therefore the procedure is contra-indicated.

Last but not least, Israel resembles most closely a malignant tumor. It exists in a state of war with its host, sucking the life blood out of it. There are various modalities for dealing with such a tumor. One is to cut off its supply of blood, but we do just the opposite. Another is to improve the health and bolster the immune system of the affected patient. We do just the opposite. In the end it will have to be killed. There are various ways of doing this, from poisoning it with radiation and/or chemicals to having it surgically removed. It would be good if such drastic and dangerous methods could be avoided, but they are inevitable if in the meantime the tumor is not only allowed, but encouraged, to grow. The benign method, not available to modern medicine but easily achieved through political intervention, is to transform the whole of Palestine into a healthy, thriving. multiethnic democracy. Isn't that what we preach to the world (except in this one instance)? All it would take is a worldwide movement, similar to that which brought down apartheid South Africa. It is very doable, but decent, compassionate, aware people - people who pay more than mere lip service to such notions as peace and justice - need to stop pussyfooting around and get on the same page.

Israel cannot exist except in a state of war with an external enemy. Those who have lived there, like myself, know full well that absent a unifying enemy, Israelis would go at one another like cats and dogs and the so-called State would quickly dissolve into chaos. After all, Israel is comprised of a melting pot population that is only nominally "Jewish" and has no commonality other than the mostly fictitious Zionist narrative, a resurrected dead language, and the dubious opportunity to lord it over the untermenschen. It is only the Zionist elite who benefit by this ongoing tragedy - ordinary Israelis and Jews worldwide are as much victims of this scheme as are the Palestinians. They haven't suffered to anywhere near the same extent yet, but give it time. History has a way of repeating itself, and we all know that what goes around comes around. I can tell you that Jews like myself, who are aware of what has been going on and can see the handwriting on the wall, have no great desire to be up against the wall when the shit hits the fan.

As in South Africa, when the bloom began to fade from the rose - ah, the romantic and inspiring tale of the Afrikaaners as the 13th tribe of Israel! - the Israeli government has been desperately trying to combat the demographic problem by importing many thousands of pseudo-Jews, as well as trying to bribe the Persian Jews (at $10K/head). That was the rationale for importing the Ethiopians, hundreds of thousands of Russians who merely have to declare that they are Jews no matter how far-fetched (or purely fictitious) the connection, and now they have gone so far as to ship in Peruvian Incas no less. They'll take anybody, as long as they aren't Palestinians (the rightful owners of the land) or Muslims from anywhere. In spite of all that, there has been a net loss of population in the last two years as the rats begin to leave the ship.

Congressman Price, isn't it high time something were done about this, that Americans finally stand up and stop acting like pitiful sheep with wool covering their eyes? And don't even think about mentioning the so called "two state solution," that fraudulent scam, that ridiculous fig-leaf for further ethnic cleansing, or any of the other lame excuses for procrastinating (I've heard them all), like waiting for the Palestinians to take the lead. Don't you think they would jump at the chance (70% support a one-state solution in historic Palestine where Muslims, Christians and Jews would live together with equal rights and responsibilities), or do you think they're stupid?

Little talked about are the obvious benefits to the Israelis (even the Zionists). At long last they could have the peace and security that they, like any other people, long for. They would have the option of living anywhere they choose in Palestine, without having to act like ravening beasts. In cooperation with the Palestinians and the neighboring peoples, they could develop a healthy, prosperous and respected country and region. And if this all happens voluntarily, while the demographics are still on their side, they could negotiate an advantageous deal that would leave them with much of what they now have, and without the enormous expense of an incredibly out-sized military or the threat of eventual destruction. That would truly be a real victory for the Israelis, for all Jews, for the Palestinians and for everyone else - what they call a win-win situation. But the clock is ticking.

The choice is, theoretically, among four possible solutions. Which among them would you choose, based on the best available information? It is, as they say, a no-brainer.

Roger Tucker is a writer and activist living in the Triangle, NC. He is a committed advocate for the One State Solution. He is thinking of moving out of the country, perhaps to Mexico, conceivably to Tierra del Fuego, maybe even off planet although he worries that he might be getting too old to learn a new language. This essay was first published on his website http://onestate.info on Mar 13, 2009.

For more about Roger and his views, check out his interview with The Saker here.

The Israel Lobby scores another huge victory

POLITICS-US: Freeman Withdrawal Marks Victory for Israel Lobby

By Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe for IPS news

WASHINGTON, Mar 10 (IPS) - Amb. Chas Freeman withdrew from consideration for a top intelligence post in the Obama administration on Tuesday, following a vitriolic battle that pitted Republican lawmakers and pro-Israel hardliners opposed to his appointment against liberals and members of the intelligence and diplomatic communities who had come to his defence.

Freeman’s withdrawal came as a surprise to many in Washington, particularly since it came only hours after Adm. Dennis Blair, the administration’s director of national intelligence (DNI) who made the appointment, issued a strong defence of Freeman during his testimony before the U.S. Senate.

His withdrawal is likely to be viewed as a significant victory for hardliners within the so-called "Israel lobby," who led the movement to scuttle his appointment, and a blow to hopes for a new approach to Israel-Palestine issues under the Obama administration.

A brief notice posted late Tuesday on the DNI website stated that "Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret."

The DNI did not provide any further reason for Freeman's withdrawal.

Senator Chuck Schumer, a critic of Freeman who privately conveyed his concerns to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last week, released a statement taking credit for the withdrawal, according to Greg Sargent of the Plum Line blog.

"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position," Schumer's statement read. "His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

The battle over Freeman began in late February, soon after Blair appointed him as chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). The NIC, among other responsibilities, is tasked with producing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), which are consensus judgments of all 16 intelligence agencies.

Freeman was reportedly Blair’s hand-picked choice for the job. He is a polyglot with unusually wide-ranging foreign-policy experience - his previous jobs have included chief translator during President Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 trip to China, ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs.

But Freeman is also known for his outspoken and often caustic political views. He has been especially critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of the "war on terror" and of Israeli policies in the occupied territories.

Initial resistance to the appointment came from neoconservatives and other pro-Israel hardliners who were opposed to Freeman’s critical views of Israeli policies. The campaign against Freeman was spearheaded by Steve Rosen, a former official for the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who is currently facing trial for allegedly passing classified information to the Israeli government.

It was quickly taken up by neoconservative commentators in the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the New Republic, among other places.

However, Freeman’s critics soon shifted their focus from his views on Israel to his ties with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family has provided funding to the Middle East Policy Council, a think tank that Freeman headed, leading to allegations that he was "on the Saudi payroll" or even a "Saudi puppet."

Last week, 11 congressional representatives - including several with major financial ties to AIPAC and other right-wing pro-Israel groups - called on the DNI’s inspector-general to investigate Freeman’s financial ties to Saudi Arabia.

Later in the week, Blair sent the representatives a letter offering his "full support" for Freeman and praising the appointee’s "exceptional talent and experience." The letter also discussed Freeman’s financial ties to Saudi Arabia, stressing that "he has never lobbied for any government or business (domestic or foreign)" and that he "has never received any income directly from Saudi Arabia or any Saudi-controlled entity."

Blair’s letter appeared to have defused the case against Freeman based on his Saudi ties.

On Monday, the seven Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee sent their letter of concern to Blair, but they made no mention of the Saudi charges that formed the backbone of their House colleagues’ letter from the previous week. Instead, the senators focused on Freeman’s alleged intelligence inexperience and his "highly controversial statements about China and Israel."

It was the China issue that had become the central attack against Freeman in recent days. Critics pointed to a leaked email that he sent to a private listserv about the Chinese government’s 1989 repression of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, in which he appeared to argue that the Chinese authorities’ true mistake was not the violent repression but their "failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud."

Blair and others countered that the email was taken out of context, and that Freeman was not describing his own views but what he referred to as "the dominant view in China."

One member of the listserv who did not wish to be identified said that Freeman’s email came in the context of an extended conversation about what lessons the Chinese leadership took from the Tiananmen Square events, and that Freeman himself has always regarded the events as a "tragedy."

Regardless, the leaked email became the focal point of the debate over Freeman. On Thursday, 87 Chinese dissidents and human rights activists released a letter conveying their "intense dismay" at his appointment and asking President Obama to withdraw it.

But others stepped in to defend Freeman’s record on human rights in China. China scholar Sidney Rittenberg told James Fallows of the Atlantic that Freeman was "a stalwart supporter of human rights who helped many individuals in need" during his diplomatic career in Beijing. Jerome Cohen, an expert in Chinese law, told Fallows that the allegations that Freeman endorsed the Tiananmen Square repression were "ludicrous."

Fallows was one of several prominent media figures - including Joe Klein of Time and Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic - who came to Freeman’s defence in recent days. While many of them disagree with Freeman’s outspoken views, they warned against what Fallows calls the "self-lobotomisation" of U.S. foreign policy that results from shutting out dissenting voices.

Diplomatic and intelligence professionals in the foreign policy bureaucracy - in which Freeman was seen as enjoying strong support - also rallied to his defence.

Last week, 17 former U.S. ambassadors – including former ambassador to the U.N. Thomas Pickering and former ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis – wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal praising Freeman as "a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence estimates."

On Tuesday, seven former senior intelligence officials wrote to Blair in support of Freeman. They called the attacks on him "unprecedented in their vehemence, scope, and target" and perpetrated by "pundits and public figures... [who are] aghast at the appointment of a senior intelligence official able to take a more balanced view of the Arab-Israel issue".

These endorsements by figures with solidly establishmentarian credentials appeared to have strengthened Freeman’s position. This made Tuesday’s announcement especially unexpected, since many felt that Freeman had succeeded in riding out the storm.

Despite the Saudi and Chinese angles of the Freeman controversy, many still saw it as heart a neoconservative campaign to shut out critics of Israel from positions of power.

"The whole anti-Freeman effort was engineered by the people who fear that Obama will abandon current policies toward Israel from acceptance of the occupation to forceful opposition to it," M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum wrote on the Huffington Post.

The timing of Freeman’s withdrawal is likely to prove especially bad for the Obama administration, since it came after Blair had committed a significant amount of political capital to defending his appointee.

In his testimony before the Senate on Tuesday, Blair responded to concerns raised by Lieberman by praising Freeman’s "inventive mind" and argued that his critics "misunderstand the role of the development of analysis that produces policy."

"I can do a better job if I’m getting strong analytical viewpoints to sort out and pass on to you and the president than if I’m getting precooked pablum judgments that don’t really challenge," Blair told Lieberman.

Lieberman seemed unsatisfied with Blair’s answer. "OK, I guess I would say, ‘to be continued’," he replied.

As it turned out, Lieberman did not have to wait long to get the response he wanted.
-------

The tactics of the Israel Lobby

by Charles Freeman in the Wall Street Journal

To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect.

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was "asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse." I added that I wondered "whether there wasn't some sort of downside to this offer." I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else's, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

Detailed description of the Russian Iskander-M missile

I have mentioned the Russian short range missile Iskander-M several times on this blog: this is the missile which Russia will deploy if the USA persists in fielding its anti-missile system in Europe. Some have asked how exactly this new Russian missile could defeat the US anti-missile systems. Here below is a very interesting article below partially answering this question.

I will try to find an equally well-informed article about the new Russian mobile intercontinental ballistic missile RS-24 and post it here.

The Saker
-------

Iskander the Great

Mikhail Barabanov for the Moscow Defense Brief

The Iskander short-range mobile theater ballistic missile system is the latest armament to burst onto the political arena, serving as a persuasive argument for politico-military discussions taking place in Russia, Europe, and the Middle East. The reason why the Iskander (Western designation SS-26 Stone) has attracted so much attention is that it is quite possibly the most effective and deadly nonstrategic ballistic missile in existence.

From the Oka to the Iskander

In 1980, the Soviet Union adopted the 9K714 Oka (SS-23 Spyder) short-range theater mobile ballistic missile into service, having a range of up to 450 km and a high precision, single-stage solid propellant missile with a nuclear or conventional warhead. This system was developed by the Kolomna Machine Building Design Bureau (KBM). The accuracy of the Oka missile (Circular Error Probable – CEP) is 30 m. Oka missiles were meant to replace the notorious old 9K72 Elbrus (SS-3B Scud) short-range theater ballistic missile with a range of up to 300 km, used by the Soviet Army and forces of the Warsaw Pact. The USA was worried from the start by the outstanding accuracy of the Oka missile. In 1987, exploiting Mikhail Gorbachev’s inclination to compromise, the United States was able to have the Oka (as OTR-23) included in the list of systems to be eliminated under the U.S.-Soviet Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, even though the Treaty applied only to missiles with a range over 500 km. The Soviet Union was required to destroy every one of its 106 transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles and 339 Oka missiles by 1991. Later, the United States insisted that former Soviet allies destroy the Oka missile systems they received in the mid-1980s on a unilateral basis: Bulgaria (eight TEL vehicles and 25 Oka missiles), Czech Republic (two TEL vehicles and 12 Oka missiles) and Slovakia (two TEL vehicles and 24 Oka missiles).

The destruction of the Oka missiles in accordance with the INF Treaty was hotly debated among Soviet politico-military circles and was seen by society as a glaring example of Gorbachev’s «betrayal.» Thus, the Soviet Union and Russia were deprived of their most effective short-range theater ballistic missile. Moreover, the R-17 Elbrus (SS-3B Scud) short-range ballistic missiles («operational-tactical» ones in Russian terminology), based on the design of the German V-2 liquid propellant ballistic missile, were withdrawn from operational use due to their low accuracy and outdated technology. Accordingly, the Kolomna Machine Building Design Bureau began to develop a new and more modern, highly accurate single-stage solid propellant short-range theater mobile ballistic missile with a range of up to 500 km to satisfy the requirements of the INF Treaty. The new system was named Iskander, after the Persian name for Alexander the Great, and intended to fill the armaments gap left by the elimination of the Oka and Elbrus ballistic missiles. Later, it was decided to use the Iskander to replace the Tochka and Tochka-U (SS-21 Scarab) short-range ballistic missile mobile systems with ranges of up to 70 and 120 km respectively, as their service life was to expire after 2000.

The Iskander ballistic missile is 7.3 m long, has a body diameter of 0.92 m and a launch weight of between 3,800 and 4,020 kg, depending on the payload. A Soyuz NPO single-stage solid-propellant engine provides propulsion. The high velocity of the missile allows it to penetrate antimissile defenses. Iskander missiles can fly a depressed trajectory below 50 km and can make evasive maneuvers up to 30 g during the terminal phase, to prevent interception by surface-to-air missiles. The Iskander has several conventional warhead options weighing between 480 and 700 kg, depending on type. These are believed to include cluster warheads with antipersonnel/antimaterial blast/fragmentation submunitions, area denial submunitions, high explosive unitary, fuel-air explosive, high explosive earth penetrator for bunker busting, and an antiradar blast/fragmentation warhead. A nuclear warhead can be affixed to the Iskander, though this capability is not advertised officially. The payload can also include tactical decoys.

The guidance system, designed by the Central Scientific Research Institute for Automation and Hydraulics (TsNIIAG), features an inertial unit with terminal guidance electro-optical correlation seeker with digital target area data. The missile has been reported to have an accuracy of 10 to 30 meters CEP, or even better. Some versions have guidance systems capable of GPS/GLONASS satellite navigation system updates during mid-course and with missile datalink for in-flight re-targeting. Other types of terminal guidance system are possible, using active radar or imaging infrared sensor seekers.

The Iskander ballistic missile system was created in two basic versions. The 9K723 Iskander missile system (sometimes called the Iskander-M or Tender) was made for the use of the Russian Army, using the 9M723 ballistic missile with a maximum range of up to 450 or even 500 km. The 9K720 Iskander-E export version uses 9M720-E ballistic missiles with a reduced payload of up to 480 kg and a reduced maximum range of up to 280 km, to respect the limits imposed by the international Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

The Iskander 9P78 TEL vehicle carries two missiles. The 9P78 four-axle TEL vehicle was developed by the Titan Central Design Bureau in Volgograd and based on a Minsk MZKT-7930 chassis. It has a length of 13.1 m, a width of 2.6 m and a height of 3.55 m, with the two missiles in the stowed traveling position. The fully loaded weight is 42,850 kg. This TEL has a 650 HP diesel engine, with a maximum road speed of 70 km/h, and an un-refueled range of 1,100 km. The vehicle has a launch crew of three, has full nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and amphibious capabilities. The TEL contains a command post with an automated fire-control system, so that each TEL can operate independently if necessary. The command post has target data and designation, navigation, and weather control positions, as well as built-in system-test equipment. The TEL can be positioned on sloping ground, and leveled with four hydraulic jack supports within 30 to 80 seconds. The missiles are raised to an angle of 85°, which takes around 20 seconds. The reaction time can vary between 5 and 16 minutes, and two missiles can be fired in salvo with 60 seconds between launches. The Iskander missile system also includes a 9T250 transporter-loader vehicle based on a MZKT-7930 chassis, which carries two reload missiles and a crane. This has a crew of two, with a fully loaded weight of 40,000 kg. There are four other vehicles based on the six-axle KamAZ-43101 truck chassis. These are a 9S552 command and control post with four operator stations and a communications suite, a 9S920 mission planning vehicle with two operator stations, a maintenance vehicle, and a crew accommodation vehicle.

A typical Iskander operational battery is expected to consist of two TELs with two reload vehicles, two command and control vehicles, two mission planning vehicles, a maintenance vehicle, and a crew accommodation vehicle. An Iskander battalion is composed of two operational batteries. A Missile Brigade equipped with Iskander missile systems, is composed of three missile battalions, with 12 TELs and 12 transporter-loader vehicles, and a total of 48 ballistic missiles.

Testing of the Iskander ballistic missile system has been ongoing at the Kapustin Yar Test Range in Astrakhan Oblast since 1995. The state tests were complete in August of 2004, and in 2007 the Iskander was formally passed into service by the MOD. Limited serial production of the system began in 2005. Iskander ballistic missiles are manufactured at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Udmurtia and the solid propellant motors are built by the Soyuz NPO (now part of the Tactical Missiles Corporation) at Dzerzhisky. The TEL and transporter-loader vehicles are built at the Barrikady Plant in Volgograd.

Further development of the warfighting capabilities of the Iskander missile system should include the integration of the high-precision R-500 (3M14) subsonic cruise missile, developed by the Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg. The R-500 missile is actually a conventional version of the Soviet 3M10 (RK-55) long-range cruise missile, which was the analogue of the U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile. The 3M10, is installed as the Granat (SS-N-21) system with a range of up to 2,600 km on the Russian Navy’s nuclear-powered attack submarines and was previously deployed as the Relief (SSC-4) ground-based long-range mobile cruise missile system, eliminated by the 1987 INF Treaty.

The R-500 is equipped with a conventional warhead and has an official range of up to 500 km to honor the limits of the INF Treaty. However, several observers have suggested that the R-500 could easily be modified to attain ranges of up to 1,000 km or even more (up to 2,500 km, depending on the size of the warhead).

In November of 2007, the Commander of the Missile Troops and Artillery of the Russian Ground Forces, Colonel General Vladimir Zaritsky said that «at present the Iskander-M missile system fully complies with the conditions of the INF Treaty, but if a political decision were made to withdraw from the Treaty, we would increase the fighting capabilities of the system, including its range.» The R-500 cruise missile guidance system has an inertial unit, a GPS/GLONASS satellite navigation system, and a terminal guidance electro-optical correlation seeker with digital target area data or active radar seeker. Testing of the R-500 cruise missile was completed at Kapustin Yar in 2007, and it was announced that the missile would be passed into service as part of the Iskander system in 2009. The Iskander missile system with the R-500 cruise missile is designated Iskander-K. Six R-500 cruise missiles with vertical launch canisters can be installed in place of the two ballistic missiles on a standard 9P78 TEL vehicle.

Iskander in Service

On January 1, 2007, the 630th Training Missile Battalion with four Iskander TEL vehicles, the first one of the kind, was formed at the 60th Combat Training Center of the Army Missile Troops at the Kapustin Yar Test Range, based in the North Caucasus Military District. According to the National Armaments Programs for 2007-2015, 60 serially-produced Iskander ballistic missile systems (that is, 60 TEL vehicles) will be procured to equip five of Russia’s ten Missile Brigades. The newly equipped brigades will be distributed right across Russia: the 26th (Luga, near St. Petersburg in the Leningrad Military District), the 92nd (in Kamenka, near Penza in the Volga-Urals Military District), the 103rd (in Ulan-Ude, Siberia Military District), the 107th (Semistochny, near Birobidzhan in the Far East Military District), and the 114th (in Znamensk, near Astrakhan, in the North Caucasus Military District). Each of those missile brigades is currently equipped with Tochka and Tochka-U short-range ballistic missile mobile systems. The 92nd and 107th Missile Brigades are to be the first to be reequipped, by 2011, with the first deliveries to begin in 2008. It should be noted that the list of five brigades designated to receive the Iskander does not include the 152nd Missile Brigade in Kaliningrad, the two missile brigades of the Moscow Military District (the 50th in Shuya and the 448th in Kursk), and yet another missile brigade in the North Caucasus Military District (the 1st in Krasnodar).

On May 9, 2008, four TEL vehicles loaded with Iskander missiles of the 630th Training Missile Battalion of the 60th Combat Training Centre of the Army Missile Troops took part in the Military Parade on the Red Square in Moscow. On August 630th Training Missile Battalion took part in Five-Day War with Georgia over South Ossetia. Several 9M723 missiles were reportedly fired from Russia against military targets in Georgia with cluster and high-explosive unitary warheads. According to unconfirmed reports, it was an Iskander missile that inflicted the infamous, high-precision strike on the Georgian Separate Tank Battalion base in Gori. Moreover, the Iskander missile made a direct hit on the arms depot, causing it to explode and inflicting extensive damage on the tank battalion. Russian officials have not admitted to using the Iskander missile against Georgia. However, unofficial reports testify to the high effectiveness of the Iskander missiles, as one of the most devastating and accurate weapons in the Russian arsenal.

The fate of the Iskander missile took a new turn on November 5, 2008, when President Dmitry Medvedev announced in his address to the Federal Assembly that Russia would deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Oblast as a response to the planned deployment of parts of the American missile-defense system on Polish and Czech territory. In principle, Medvedev’s announcement should not have been a surprise to anyone following Russian military developments. First Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov had said as much in July of 2007, and similar announcements have been made several times in Russian military circles in 2008. There was even a story about the plans in a September issue of Krasnaya Zvezda, the MOD’s newspaper. In fact, the issue concerns nothing more than the replacement of the Tochka-U missiles of the 152nd Guards Missile Brigade, located at Chernyakhovsk in Kaliningrad Oblast, part of the Kaliningrad Special Military Region, which is under Naval Command.

The rearming of the 152nd Guards Missile Brigade with Iskanders would allow 9M723 missiles with a range of 500 km to reach all of Poland, the eastern parts of Germany and northern Czech territories. It could target all elements of the American Ballistic Missile Defense system planned for deployment in this area, including the radar station in the Czech Republic. The accuracy of the 9M723 missile is sufficient to defeat even heavily fortified targets, including the American GBI silo-based missile interceptors, with conventional warheads. The R-500 cruise missile would allow for an even more effective destruction of targets in Europe from Kaliningrad, and probably at a greater range as well. Moreover, Russia has not excluded the possibility of equipping the Iskander with a nuclear warhead.

However, the decision to rearm the 152nd Guards Missile Brigade with Iskander missiles is only part of a full-scale review of the original plans for their deployment. Two days after Medvedev’s speech, a high official of the Russian MOD told the RIA Novosti news agency that the new plan would have all five brigades armed with Iskanders by 2015 «facing the West.» This would imply that instead of equipping the 92nd, 103rd and 107th missile brigades with Iskanders, the new weapons would be deployed to the 50th and 448th missile brigades of the Moscow Military District, the 152nd in Kaliningrad, and the 26th in the Leningrad Military District, and the 114th in the North Caucasus. On the basis of several subsequent official statements, it seems that the 152nd Guards Missile Brigade in Kaliningrad will be equipped with Iskanders no sooner than 2011, and would be timed to coincide with the deployment of American GBI missile interceptors in Poland.

Clearly, the decision to change the plan for the deployment of Iskander missiles to concentrate on reequipping the European parts of Russia first, reflects the significant deterioration of relations between Russia and the West over the past few years, especially in the wake of the Five-Day War with Georgia. In military terms, the deployment of the Iskander system in Kaliningrad and other European parts of Russia represents a radical increase in the capacity of Russian formations to inflict high-precision strikes against any target in Eastern, Central, and Northern Europe. It is extremely difficult for even the most modern and prospective air defense systems possessed by Western countries to intercept the Iskander ballistic missile. The TEL vehicles themselves proved to be difficult to detect and relatively invulnerable to American forces in 1991 and 2003 during the two wars with Iraq.

The sharp reaction of West European states to the announced deployment of the Iskander system in Kaliningrad comes as no surprise, as it represents a quantum leap for Russian military capabilities in the enclave. However, the Europeans should not forget that it is the American plan to deploy its Ballistic Missile Defense system along the Russian border that has led Moscow to making this decision. The Kremlin has clearly reasoned that the Iskander should be a weighty argument for European discussions on whether they are prepared to sacrifice their own immediate security interests for the sake of America’s politico-military ambitions. After all, the Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad are a lot closer and much more real than any hypothetical Iranian missiles.

Export Opportunities

The Iskander-E short-range theater ballistic missile mobile system was publicly offered for export in 1999, though the sale of such a sensitive article was bound to meet with many political obstacles. Syria and Iran were the first to express an interest in 2000, though Russia apparently refused delivery for fear of spoiling its relations with the United States and Israel. By late 2004, Russia had practically concluded a contract for the sale of 18 systems to Syria, but President Putin canceled the deal at the last minute. Nevertheless, future sales cannot be excluded, and Russia is clearly exploiting the prospect of deliveries to Iran as a playing chip with the United States and Iran. The Iskander-E has become a powerful card in Russia’s hand in the complex game over the Middle East.

Negotiations with the United Arab Emirates have taken place, and Rosoborneksport has also named Algeria, Kuwait, Yemen, Vietnam, Singapore, and South Korea as potential customers. In 2006, KBM representatives announced that a contract for the delivery of the Iskander-E was concluded, but did not name the purchaser. This information has not been forthcoming to date. The Novator Design Bureau has also offered the Club-M missile system with 3M14E cruise missiles and 3M54E/E1 (SS-N-27) antiship missiles for export. The Club-M is actually the export version of the Iskander-K missile system. The UAE has expressed an interest in this system.

However, Belarus is likely to make the first purchase of the Iskander-E. In November 2007, General Mikhail Puzikov announced a government decision to acquire an Iskander-E missile system brigade to rearm the 465th Belarusian Missile Brigade by 2015-2020. Puzikov said that funds had already been allocated and the missile systems would be acquired at domestic Russian prices, in accordance with the terms of the Tashkent Agreement of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The first deliveries of the Iskander-E should begin in 2010.

The Iskander-E and Club-M are unique wares on the global arms market in terms of their technical specifications and warfighting capabilities. The acquisition by any country of the Iskander-E, the Russian arms industry’s most advanced export, is sure to influence the balance of forces in any corner of the world.