Iranian nuclear scientists assassinated? 29, November 2010
Posted by thegulfblog.com in American ME Relations, Iran.Tags: Iran, Iran's nuclear project, Iranian nuclear scientists assassinated, Iranian nuclear scientists killed, Nuclear power Iran
add a comment
Though reports are sketchy, it appears as if there were two successful assassination attempts against two Iranian nuclear scientists this morning.
Dr Majid Shahriari and Fereydoon Abbasi were, according to one Iranian newspaper, ‘distinguished members of school of Nuclear Engineering at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran’ and members of the Iranian Nuclear Association. Both also – allegedly – had close connections with the Ministry of Defence.
This is either the third of fourth such assassination this year, depending upon what sources one believes.
It takes no imagination whatsoever to imagine that Israel and America would be interested in carrying out such assassinations. However, barring another spectacular diplomatic breach, we are unlikely ever to know exactly the cause of these deaths.
Qatar in the cablegate relases 29, November 2010
Posted by thegulfblog.com in American ME Relations.Tags: Cablegate, Qatar, Qatar American relations, Qatar bahrain relations, Qatar wikileaks, Qatar-Iran relations, Wikileaks
2 comments
Iran
As with most of the cables, we did not learn anything overly new but had existing suspicious confirmed. Qatar maintains a close relationship with Iran to safeguard its “trillions of dollars of potential wealth”. Nevertheless, the Head of the Army noted that “while we’re neighbours, we’re not friends” and HBJ (the Foreign and Prime Minister) bluntly states that “we lie to them, and they lie to us.”
Regarding Al Udeid, it was noted that the U.S. pays no rent, Qatar funded 60% of the improvements on the base and would not allow it to be used as a base for “kinetic operations” [what a phrase!] against Iran [as the Emir also noted in a recent interview]. Only a “permanent USG security guarantee to Qatar, to include its offshore gas fields shared with Iran” could (perhaps) persuade Qatar to change its position.
U.S. relationship
When U.S. Deputy Secretary thanked HBJ for Qatar’s support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he replied that “We might have our own Katrina.” An allusion, it was suggested, regarding potential crises in the Qatar-Iran relationship and the Qatari reciprocal need for support [quid pro Clarisse…etc].
The Head of the Army, to whom the responsibility falls for maintaining a strong U.S. military relationship, complained that Qatar had been “disapproved” of the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system as an add-on to their purchase of c-17s. (It is an automatic counter-missile system). Others in the region had been granted this system.
It is reasonable to assume that this addition was left off specifically for the U.S. to use in a quid-pro-quo. Assistant Secretary of Defence Vershbow, for example, suggests that were Qatar to “bring about a change in Hamas’s behaviour, it could enhance the U.S.–Qatar strategic relationship.”
Qatar’s record on anti-terrorist activity is noted as being conspicuously poor. The NYT records that Qatar is the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts and its security services were “hesitant to act against known terrorist out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals.” Additionally, the leaked (available) cables note that the U.S. is concerned with Qatar’s continuing support of Hamas via charities and the “moral support” that Hamas receives from Al Qaradawi.
This is not the first time that Qatar has been accused by the U.S. in this way. They continually play a tight-rope game between appeasing the U.S. and ‘Islamists’ (for want of a better catch-all phrase). Perhaps they have a similar notional-agreement as was once mooted in Dubai between authorities and ‘Islamists’: ‘use our city for transit or occasional respite, but don’t do anything here’.
Hamas
The Emir believes that Hamas would accept the 1967 border with Israel but cannot currently do so lest they lose popular support. Senator Kerry confirmed that he had heard similar sentiments in Damascus.
HBJ, in another round of the ongoing Egyptian-Qatari tiff, suggested that Egypt has “a vested interest in dragging out Palestinian reconciliation talks for as long as possible.”
Bahrain
The perennially frosty Bahrain-Qatar relations continue. King Hamad voiced annoyance/concern/anger with Qatar on two counts.
Firstly, because of the visit of the Head of the Army to Iran where, he believes, Qatar agreed to too much cooperation with Iran.
Secondly, because Qatar have consistently refused to supply Bahrain with Gas. He claims that Qatar have said that they do not have spare supply but notes new agreements signed with various countries.
I can only assume that this is a simple disagreement over price. Earlier this year Kuwait balked at the price that Qatar wanted for gas. Both expect, I believe, some kind of ‘brotherly’ GCC, wasta-like discount.
King Hamad also suggested that he would like “our brother in Saudi Arabia to send a note telling Qatar not to play like this [re: Iran].” This suggests that Hamad has a rather longingly antiquated view of the Qatar-Saudi Arabian relationship.
Food security
The Embassy in Doha judges that food security is “a key national priority” for Qatar and a growing one for the Arab region. (Perhaps a summation of interest to those with an interest in the ‘widening’ security debate.)
Kyrgyzstan
One of my favorites so far:
In a conversation between the U.S. and Chinese Ambassadors in Bishkek over the topic of the Chinese seeking to offer inducements to prompt the Kyrgyz authorities to not renew the Manas Base, one cable reports that:
Very uncharacteristically, the silent young [Chinese] aide then jumped in: Or maybe you [Americans] should give them $5 billion and buy both us and the Russians out.” The aide then withered under the Ambassadors’ horrified stare.
What a curious outburst. Here’s hoping that he’s not been reassigned to a post in the middle of the Gobi desert.
On the Wikileaks cables 29, November 2010
Posted by thegulfblog.com in American ME Relations.Tags: Berlusconi US cables release, Cables, King Abdullah on Ahmadinejaf, Libya Cables release, Saudi Iran war, Saudi wikileaks, Wiki leaks, Wikileaks, Wikileaks cables, Yemen US bombing, Yemen US bombing cables
2 comments
What a mess. The release by Wikileaks of nearly a quarter of a million U.S. diplomatic cables has caused embarrassment for America the world over. Many newspapers even charge that the release will increase the danger for Westeners working in the Muslim world (see any of the British newspapers this past weekend).
While the cables are fascinating they must be approached with serious caveats. The notion that Wikileaks is an impartial organization is a joke. It clearly has a quasi-anti-U.S. stand point and is specifically anti the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Calling a video ‘Collateral Murder’ shows no signs of seeking impartiality.
But the key problem that I have with the latest release is that they are excerpts selected to have been released. We know none of the background to the cables, which ‘diplomats’ wrote them (Ambassador or a junior staffer) or how each individual release fits into the overall narrative. Moreover, surely the ones released are the most media-friendly and salacious? Hardly a judicious or balanced picture.
Having said that, they are undoubtedly a good read and, for a scholar in particular, a fascinating glimpse into what personalities are thinking and saying.
Regarding the Gulf, the key headline is that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and others in the region beseeched America to topple Ahmadinejad. What a shock. This is not news for anyone with a vague interest in the Gulf.
Overall, I don’t think that they are really a threat to US National Security or say anything massively new.
As some commentators have mentioned, this will be a real test for Arab media on how they report the leaks. So far, most media outlets appear to be grossly failing, but that too is hardly a shock.
Here are some random but interesting snippets that I’ve come across so far:
On absurd levels of corruption in Afghanistan:
When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)
On the basket-case in Libya:
the volatile Libyan leader was rarely without the companionship of “his senior Ukrainian nurse,” described as “a voluptuous blonde.” They reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia. The American ambassador to Libya told Colonel Qaddafi’s son “that the Libyan government had chosen a very dangerous venue to express its pique,” a cable reported to Washington.
Interesting to note just how dangerous these types of rulers are: on a whim after public embarrassment they are prone to take extremely damaging moves simply for petty revenge.
“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Mr. Saleh said, according to the cable sent by the American ambassador, prompting Yemen’s deputy prime minister to “joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament” that Yemen had carried out the strikes.
Again, although the fact that the U.S. was bombing Yemen is hardly a secret, having it spelt out so plainly is sobering.
The buffoon-like Italian Prime Minister is (accurately) described as
feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader
Most of these quotations are from an excellent NYT piece on the topic.
