Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 4-1-Iran-10

Intel to Rent C de Waart [email protected] In Confidence

Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 4-1-Iran-10

Iran's foreign minister urged Gulf Arab countries to join forces with Tehran to fight against extremism and militancy in the Middle East.

"Any threat to one country is a threat to all... No country can solve regional problems without the help of others," Mohammad Javad Zarif said at a news conference in Kuwait.

Iran's foreign minister began a charm offensive in the Gulf on Sunday to defend a nuclear deal seen by some Arab states as heralding greater Iranian support for armed groups and governments opposed to the hereditary monarchies.

Most Gulf Arab states are worried that Iran's July 14 accord with world powers will hasten detente between Tehran and Washington, emboldening Tehran to increase backing for Middle Eastern allies at odds with Gulf Arab countries.

US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter wants to convince Israel that the Iran nuclear deal does not limit American options when it comes to the ally’s security. Carter has set out to meet Israeli officials, who have been staunchly opposed to the deal. “One of the reasons this deal is a good one is that it does nothing to prevent the military option — the US military option, which I’m responsible for,” Carter told reporters aboard his plane while traveling to Tel Aviv.

27 Feb 2015, Saudi Arabia has reportedly agreed to let Israel use its airspace to attack Iran if necessary, in exchange for “some kind of progress” on the Palestinian issue, Israel’s Channel 2 TV station quoted an unnamed European official as saying. The Saudis have declared their readiness for the Israeli Air Force to overfly Saudi air space en route to attack Iran if an attack is necessary,” the report stated. In return for cooperation, Saudi Arabia wants to see some “progress” on the Palestinian issue. The move will reportedly allow Israel to bomb targets in Iran by offering a shortcut, which will save fuel and time. The Saudi position was confirmed during multiple diplomatic talks, according to the TV report. “The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” the European official from Brussels was quoted as saying.

Iran’s opposition to ‘arrogant’ US won’t change despite nuclear deal – KhameneiPublished time: 18 Jul, 2015 ran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says that Tehran is still at odds with the United States over its policies in the Middle East and that it won’t change its attitude to Washington, even despite a nuclear deal being reached. "Whether the (nuclear) deal is approved or disapproved, we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon. Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change," he said, as cited by Reuters. Khamenei made it clear that discussing Iran’s nuclear program with the US should be regarded as an exception to the rule. "We have repeatedly said we don't negotiate with the US on regional or international affairs; not even on bilateral issues. There are some exceptions like the nuclear program that we negotiated with [the] Americans to serve our interests. US policies

1The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see. – Winston Churchill

mailto:[email protected]


in the region are diametrically opposed with Iran's policies," the country’s supreme leader added. Five US presidents since the Revolution have either died or been lost in history wishing to make Iran surrender; you are also like them! In his address that marked the end of Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Khamenei also urged the Iranian government to study the deal carefully to make sure national interests are secured. "The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it's not true. We had a fatwa (religious ruling), declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks," Khamenei mentioned.

Nuclear Creepout: Iran's Third Path to the Bombby Gary C. GambillThe National InterestJuly 22, 2015Originally published under the title, "Creepin': Here's How Iran Will Really Build the Bomb."

In assessing whether the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed by the P5+1 world powers and Iran last week is an adequate safeguard against the latter's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Obama administration officials and arms control wonks typically discuss two heavily stylized breakout scenarios.In an overt breakout, Iran brushes aside nuclear inspectors and begins openly racing to enrich weapons grade uranium (WGU) using its two declared enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow. The JCPOA ostensibly blocks this path by limiting the number of centrifuges Iran can operate to 5,060 and capping the amount of low-enriched uranium (LEU) it can keep on hand to use as feedstock at 300 kilograms. This supposedly lengthens its breakout time—how quickly it can produce sufficient fissile material for one atomic bomb should it make a rush to build one—from two or three months at present to at least a year, giving the international community more time to mobilize a response to the breakout.In a covert breakout, or sneakout, Iran builds parallel infrastructure in secret to produce the fissile material for a bomb. The JCPOA ostensibly blocks this path with an inspections regime designed to detect the diversion of fissile material, the construction of illicit centrifuges, off-the-books uranium mining, and so




forth. Though much ink has been spilled about whether these two "paths" to the bomb have been blocked, both presuppose a decision by Iran to sacrifice its reconciliation with the world in the next ten to fifteen years for the immediate gratification of building a weapon (the purpose of a covert breakout is less to avoid detection before crossing the finish line than to make the process less vulnerable to decisive disruption). Such an abrupt change of heart by the Iranian regime is certainly possible, but more worrisome is the prospect that Iran's nuclear policy after the agreement goes into effect will be much the same as it was before—comply with the letter and spirit of its obligations only to the degree necessary to ward off unacceptably costly consequences. This will likely take the form of what I call nuclear creepout—activities, both open and covert, legal and illicit, designed to negate JCPOA restrictions without triggering costly multilateral reprisals.It is important to bear in mind that the JCPOA bars signatories from re-imposing any sanctions or their equivalents on Iran, except by way of a United Nations Security Council resolution restoring sanctions. "That means there will be no punishments for anything less than a capital crime," explains Robert Satloff. The language demanded by Iranian negotiators, and accepted by the Obama administration, makes small-scale cheating virtually unpunishable.Moreover, the specific terms of the JCPOA appear to have been designed to give the Iranians wide latitude to interpret their own obligations. Two, in particular, should raise eyebrows.

The LEU Cap About 1,000 kilograms of LEU is supposedly needed to produce, through further enrichment, enough weapons grade uranium for a nuclear explosive device (let's assume for sake of argument that that the Obama administration's erroneous math is correct). This is what inspectors call a "significant quantity" (SQ). The JCPOA's requirement that Iran "keep its uranium stockpile under 300 kilograms" would force it to enrich a substantial quantity of natural uranium all the way up to weapons grade, thereby lengthening the process of producing a SQ by several months.But what exactly happens to LEU produced by Iranian centrifuges in excess of the 300-kilogram limit? The JCPOA appendix says it "will be down blended to natural uranium level or be sold on the international market and delivered to the international buyer." Maintenance of the 300 kilogram limit relies upon Iran continually and punctually reprocessing or transferring material it already possesses. What happens if Iran's handling of all this is less than perfect? Suppose 100 kilograms or so of LEU in the process of being down-blended or delivered to an "international buyer" of Iran's choosing routinely remains recoverable at any one time because of apparent inefficiencies and bottlenecks. Would the international community be willing to cancel the JCPOA over this infraction? Almost certainly not. What if this number swelled periodically to 150 or 200 kilograms every so often because of some special complication or another, like a breakout of plant machinery or truck drivers' strike? Probably not. Since an overt breakout attempt would likely commence at one of these peaks in LEU availability (and when smaller amounts of medium enriched uranium have yet to be converted or transferred), we can knock a month or so off its breakout time.




The Centrifuges Cap The Obama administration's one-year breakout time calculation assumes that Iran uses only the 5,060 IR-1 centrifuges it is allowed to have spinning under the JCPOA—and that it does not bring more into operation for a whole year after kicking out inspectors and beginning a sprint for a nuke. This could have been achieved by dismantling the large majority of its roughly 15,000 excess centrifuges falling outside this quota, but Iran insisted from the beginning that it would never destroy any of them and its adversaries eventually caved. Although U.S negotiators reportedly proposed a variety of disablement mechanisms designed to slow down the process of reconnecting them, all were rejected by the Iranians and the final agreement makes no mention of any. The JCPOA requires only that excess centrifuges and associated equipment at Natanz be disconnected and put into IAEA-monitored storage on-site. At the Fordow facility, buried deep underground, Iran is allowed to keep "no more than 1044 IR-1 centrifuge machines at one wing" installed, but not enriching uranium.There is considerable disagreement among informed analysts about how long it would take the Iranians to get an appreciable number of these excess machines up and running, with estimates ranging from a few to several months. Whatever that length of time is, the Iranians can surely shorten it by training personnel to rapidly reactivate centrifuge cascades, modernizing equipment, acquiring new technology, and other methods not explicitly barred by the JCPOA.Indeed, the JCPOA appears to have been drafted by diplomats who failed to imagine that the Iranians might seek to bolster their latent nuclear weapons capacity under the new rules of the game with as much guile and gusto as they did under the old. Considering that the Obama administration's one-year projected breakout time for Iran is deeply flawed to begin with, Iranian exploitation of these loopholes could bring it perilously close to the finish line even while remaining officially in compliance with the JCPOA. If the international community has less time to respond to a breakout attempt, an attempt presumably becomes more likely.But the real danger is that the mullahs will put off a breakout attempt in the next decade or so, while creeping out of their vaguely worded obligations. With so many opportunities to escape the strictures of the JCPOA, the mullahs would be fools not to offer the minimal degree of compliance necessary to keep it in force (while continually stretching the boundaries of how minimal that degree can be). Openly exploiting the JCPOA's loopholes while enjoying its rewards will do more to intimidate Iran's regional rivals than a reckless dash for the end zone or a high-risk covert attempt, while paving the way for eventual grudging international acquiescence to the Islamic Republic's construction of a bomb.Gary C. Gambill is a research fellow at the Middle East Forum and former editor of Middle East Intelligence Bulletin.




Beware the Hyde-and-Jekyll Defense of the Iran Nuclear Agreementby Gary C. GambillForeign Policy Research InstituteJuly 2015

After two years of negotiations with Iran over the fate of its nuclear program, the Obama administration has unveiled an agreement abandoning the pursuit of a decisive reduction in the Islamic Republic's breakout capacity – the ability to quickly and successfully produce a bomb – and lifting the economic sanctions that have hobbled its economy. The agreement not only sanctifies Teheran's retention of sufficient enrichment infrastructure to produce a bomb in a year or less, but also drops or dilutes a range of other longstanding demands, from closing a once-secret, heavily fortified underground enrichment facility to providing inspectors with a full accounting of its bomb-making research and development.As the Obama administration and its supporters seek to rally domestic and international support for this historic compromise, listen for what can best be described as a Hyde-and-Jekyll defense.When discussing what will happen if the P5+1 world powers maintain their long-standing refusal to accept Iran's retention of proliferation-prone nuclear infrastructure, the administration has often depicted the Islamic Republic as a menacing force hell-bent on continuing its march toward the brink, whatever the consequences. Secretary of State John Kerry has suggested that Iran might "rush towards a nuclear weapon" if the talks collapse. Obama has characterized the alternative as "letting them rush towards a bomb." Outside of the administration, supporters of the pending nuclear agreement have typically offered more measured warnings that the Iranians could "take the lid off their program" and "rapidly ramp up their uranium enrichment." Most believe that war will be likely, if not unavoidable, if there is no agreement.However, when speaking about what will happen if the P5+1 recognizes and validates Tehran's nuclear threshold status, the administration and its supporters have depicted the Islamic Republic as an eminently rational actor likely to abide by the letter and spirit of a prospective agreement. Obama sees the P5+1 as offering the Iranians the prospect of being "a very successful regional power" in return for accepting monitored limits on their nuclear program. "Without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions ... [or] the nature of that regime, they are self-interested," according to Obama. "It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have." Put simply, if we continue refusing to lift sanctions until Iran fully unclenches its nuclear fist (dramatically downsizes its enrichment infrastructure, acknowledges past weaponization work, gives inspectors wide latitude, etc.), we will get Mr. Hyde. But we will get the friendly Dr. Jekyll if we give in and accept the agreement Obama has put before us. And this is only if we give in – proponents of the agreement are quite certain that the good doctor won't pop up if the international community stands firm (i.e. that the Iranians won't, upon further reflection, make more concessions on the nuclear issue, or otherwise try harder to win international confidence).Oddly enough, the Hyde portraiture isn't one of Iran reverting to its nuclear posture before direct talks with the Obama administration began in early 2013. Back then, the mullahs weren't "rapidly" ramping up enrichment capacity (let alone "rushing" for a bomb), but increasing it slowly enough not to cross certain thresholds deemed likely to trigger Israeli




and/or American military action (e.g., accumulating enough near-20% enriched uranium to produce through further enrichment sufficient weapons grade uranium for a bomb). The Iran they suggest will emerge from our failure to compromise is far more unhinged and oblivious to its people's welfare than the one they sat down with two years ago. And dumber, too – an attempt by Iran to "rush" for a bomb or significantly narrow its nuclear breakout time by ramping up enrichment capacity would be supremely stupid when international resolve is at a peak. While some proponents of the agreement are simply cherry-picking diametrically opposed characterizations of Iran to fit mismatched legs of a bad argument, many appear to genuinely believe that a nuclear threshold détente will somehow transform Iran into the kind of partner one might trust to linger near the finish line of producing a bomb, and that lack of one will put it on a path to war. There are three overlapping strands of reasoning in this argument. All have an elegant logic with a weak empirical track record outside of Iran and little applicability to the particulars of the case at hand."More to lose" The first holds that lifting sanctions will accelerate Iran's integration into the world economy, creating disincentives to misbehave. "If in fact they're engaged in international business, and there are foreign investors, and their economy becomes more integrated with the world economy, then in many ways it makes it harder for them to engage in behaviors that are contrary to international norms," explained Obama in April. Although there is much to be said for free markets and trade, economic integration hasn't reliably inhibited the aggression of states. The European continent was more economically integrated on the eve of World War I than at any time prior and for many decades after.In any case, lifting sanctions isn't likely to result in Iran's headlong integration into the world economy. This isn't a situation where a bankrupt dictatorship opens up to the world out of desperation and falls prey to socio-economic forces beyond its control. The Iranian regime is getting a direct financial windfall out of this (access to frozen Iranian assets worth as much as $150 billion, ability to sell oil, etc.), which it can simply pocket while forgoing the kind of increased trade and foreign investment that might constrain its freedom of action later."More like us" The second line of reasoning holds that drawing Iran into closer economic and socio-cultural contact with the rest of the world will cause religious extremism, xenophobia, and other unsavory attitudes among the public at large to give way to materialist

and individualist concerns that will constrain government decision-making. Obama "believes the more people interact with open societies, the more they will want to be part of an open society," says Ivo Daalder, Obama's former NATO ambassador and head of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. But this presumes that the Iranian public has influence over its government's aggressive regional and international policies. As was made clear in the

deadly aftermath of the rigged 2009 elections and at many other times, the Iranian government can and does ignore public opinion.In any case, there's little evidence that Iranian public opinion supports the regime's nuclear brinksmanship. While most Iranians do express support for a civilian energy program, few attach a high priority to it. Despite a steady diet of government propaganda heralding the nuclear program as the sacred right of the Iranian people, only 6% of respondents in a September 2013 Zogby poll said that continuing Iran's enrichment program was one of their top two policy priorities. Iranian leaders threaten world peace because of ideological and strategic reasons, not public opinion.




"Empower moderates"

Finally, Obama has argued that an agreement "could strengthen the hands of more moderate leaders in Iran." President Hassan Rouhani and other "moderates" will gain clout in Iran's government if there is a deal on his watch, while "hardliners" will gain influence if there isn't one.But this is a misreading of what causes the strength of moderates in government to fluctuate. This variable is in large part a function of how aggressively radical mullahs vet who can run in elections. So-called "moderates" are allowed to ascend the ranks of power when the system is under threat and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei needs them to safely channel public dissent and/or soften international hostility to Iran, but they lose clout when they are no longer needed to deflect such challenges. Might not the exorbitant financial payoff to the Iranian state of having sanctions lifted boost the legitimacy of the system and thereby weaken moderates? Alan J. Kuperman, head of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas at Austin, is concerned that such a windfall "would entrench the ruling mullahs, who could claim credit for Iran's economic resurgence." Moreover, Kuperman adds, the Iranian regime will acquire "extra resources" to "amplify the havoc it is fostering in neighboring countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen." And once a nuclear deal is signed, fear of provoking Tehran to violate it will surely discourage the international community from punishing it for its terrorism sponsorship and bloody proxy interventions in the region.Rouhani may get a personal boost from getting sanctions lifted on his watch, but it's a mistake to translate that into broad advancement of "moderates." The Iranian president may be a soft-liner on some domestic issues, but he is no less committed to realizing Iran's nuclear ambitions than so-called hardliners. Indeed, he is arguably more so. Many hardliners are more interested in using the nuclear program to throw a wrench into Iran's relations with the West and keep it on a "rogue" footing than in the delicate task of preventing the international community from stopping its eventual construction of a bomb. Not surprisingly, the above-mentioned Zogby poll showed that Iranians who believe Iran should have nuclear weapons are more likely to self-identify as Rouhani supporters than those who don't.

Conclusion The reality is that we don't know what will happen inside Iran in the years to come. But it's a good bet the nature and temperament of the regime won't change dramatically for better or worse as a result of whether or not the international community sanctifies Iran's nuclear threshold status. The nature of the Iranian regime likely won't change dramatically for better or worse as a result of the nuclear agreement.

Although Obama administration officials are quick to insist that their proposed nuclear agreement with Iran is a good idea regardless of the nature and intentions of the Iranian regime, no one really believes this. If Iran is completely unchanged by its opening to the world, then the best case scenario is that we'll be exactly where we are today when modest restrictions on its enrichment capacity expire in 10 years, only Iran will have recovered economically from the impact of sanctions, shattered the global coalition arrayed against it, and obtained the internationally sanctioned right to ramp up enrichment.The worst-case scenario is, well, a lot worse. Gary C. Gambill is a frequent contributor to




The National Post

Sunni Arabs: Iran Deal Opens the 'Gates of Evil'by Jonathan SpyerThe Jerusalem PostJuly 18, 2015Originally published under the title, "Opening the 'Gates of Evil'."

The response in the Arabic-speaking world to the conclusion of a deal between the P5+1 countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran over the latter's nuclear program has divided along familiar lines. Among pro-Iranian elements, such as President Bashar Assad of Syria and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, the news of the deal has, predictably, been met with jubilation. Assad described the agreement as a "historic achievement" and a "great victory." Among Sunni elements opposed to the advance of Iran, concerns have focused less on the nuclear elements of the deal – that is, whether it will effectively halt Iran's march toward the bomb. Instead, attention has centered on the deal's implications for Iran's push for hegemony in the Middle East, and its interference in and subversion of regional states as part of this effort.An editorial by Salman Aldosary, in the Saudi-owned Asharq al-Awsat newspaper, summed up these concerns in the following passage: Western governments will be under great pressure to make the deal succeed and therefore turn a blind eye to many of Iran's destabilizing policies as well as Tehran's blatant interference in the domestic affairs of its neighbors. Moreover, the West will also have to neglect Tehran's support of extremist militias, such as Iraq's Popular Mobilization forces, also known as the Hashd al-Shaabi, that have gradually become almost part of Iraq's military. Iran has established a policy based on the equation of fighting terrorism with terrorism amid deafening silence from the West.Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states can only welcome the nuclear deal, which in itself is supposed to close the gates of evil that Iran had opened in the region. However, the real concern is that the deal will open other gates of evil, gates which Iran mastered knocking at for years even while Western sanctions were still in place.From this perspective a particularly notable and dismaying aspect of the deal is its removal of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and its Quds Force commander, Maj.-Gen. Qasem Soleimani, from the list of those subject to sanctions by the West.The ending of sanctions on the IRGC, and more broadly the likely imminent freeing of up to $150 billion in frozen revenue, will enable Iran to massively increase its aid to its long list of regional clients and proxies. Iran today is heavily engaged in at least five conflict arenas in the region. The Iranian creation and proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon is the dominant political and military force in that country. The organization depends on Iranian support, training and funding to maintain this position. nIn Syria, beleaguered dictator and Iranian client Assad remains in control in the west and south largely because of Iranian support and assistance – up to $1 billion per month, according to some estimates. For as long as Assad remains, the war remains, allowing such monstrous entities as Islamic State and al-Qaida to flourish. Iran's Revolutionary Guards are unmatched in clandestine and proxy warfare, having effectively created an alternative armed force for Assad when his




own army became unreliable in 2012. This force, the National Defense Forces, has plugged the gap in manpower which is the regime's greatest vulnerability. But in addition, Iran has channeled others of its proxies, including Hezbollah, Iraqi Shi'ite militias, and lately increasing numbers of Afghan Hazara Shi'ite "volunteers," toward the Syrian battlefield.

In Iraq, the Iranian-supported Shi'ite militias of the Hashd al-Shaabi are playing the key role in defending Baghdad from the advance of Islamic State. These militias are trained and financed by the Revolutionary Guards and organized by Soleimani and his Iraqi right-hand man, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, also thought to be an IRGC member.In Yemen, the Iranians are offering arms and support to the Ansar Allah, or Houthi rebels, who are engaged in a bloody insurgency against the government of President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi. Among the Palestinians, Tehran operates Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a client/proxy organization, and is in the process of rebuilding relations with the Izzadin Kassam, the powerful military wing of Hamas. All this costs money. In a pattern familiar to the experience of totalitarian regimes under sanctions in the past, Iran has preferred to safeguard monies for use in service of its regional ambitions, while allowing its population – other than those connected to the regime – to suffer the consequent shortages.Still, in recent months, things weren't going so well. Assad has been losing ground to the Sunni rebels. Hezbollah has been hemorrhaging men in Syria. The Shi'ite militias were holding Islamic State in Iraq but not advancing. Saudi intervention was holding back further advances by the Houthis in Yemen. Hamas was looking poverty-stricken and beleaguered in its Gaza redoubt. The sanctions, plus these many commitments, were bringing the Iranian regime close to an economic crisis that would have confronted the regime with the hard choice of lessening its regional interference or facing the consequences. Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani (left) with Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis No longer. The deal over the nuclear program is set to enable Tehran to shore up its investments, providing more money and guns to all its friends across the Middle East, who will as a result grow stronger, bolder and more ambitious. This, from the point of view of the main powers in the Sunni Arab world, is the key fallout (so to speak) from the deal concluded in Vienna. IRGC "outreach" to Shi'ite minorities in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and to the Shi'ite majority in Bahrain, is also likely to increase as a result of the windfall.It has been felt in recent years in Riyadh, Cairo, Amman and other Sunni Arab capitals that the United States is determined to withdraw from active involvement in the region, and in pursuit of this goal is currently pursuing a dangerous path of appeasement of Iran. This impression is compounded not only by the stance toward the Iranian nuclear program but also by the US response to Iran's activities across the Middle East. In Iraq, the US appears to be acting in tandem with Iranian goals, with no apparent awareness of the problems in this regard. Similarly, in Lebanon the West is supporting and equipping the Lebanese Armed Forces, without understanding that the Lebanese state is largely a shell, within which Hezbollah is




the living and directing force. In Syria, the US is pursuing a half-hearted campaign against Islamic State, while leaving the rest of the country to its internal dynamics.The nuclear deal compounds and completes the picture. From the perspective of the Saudis and other Sunni Arabs, Iranian ruthlessness, clarity and advance combined with the flailing, retreating US regional policy now so much in evidence spell potential disaster. The Sunni Arabs, along with Israel and other regional opponents of Iran, will now develop strategies independent of the US to stem this advance and turn it back. The outcome of that struggle will determine the fate of the Middle East.Jonathan Spyer, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is director of the Rubin Center for Research in International Affairs and the author of The Transforming Fire:

How Israel Might Destroy Iran's Nuclear Programby Daniel PipesNational Review OnlineJuly 16, 2015 Israeli alternatives in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat

The Vienna deal has been signed and likely will soon be ratified, which raises the question: Will any government intervene

militarily to stop the nearly inevitable Iranian nuclear buildup?Obviously it will not be the American or Russian governments or any of the other four signatories. Practically speaking, the question comes down to Israel, where a consensus holds that the Vienna deal makes an Israeli attack more likely. But no one outside the Israeli security apparatus, including myself, knows its intentions. That ignorance leaves me free to speculate as follows.Three scenarios of attack seem possible: Airplanes. Airplanes crossed international boundaries and dropped bombs in the 1981 Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear installation and in the 2007 attack on a Syrian one, making this the default assumption for Iran. Studies show this to be difficult but attainable. Special ops. These are already underway: computer virus attacks on Iranian systems unconnected to the Internet that should be immune, assassinations of top-ranking Iranian nuclear scientists, and explosions at nuclear installations. Presumably, Israelis had a hand in at least some of these attacks and, presumably, they could increase their size and scope, possibly disrupting the entire nuclear program. Unlike the dispatch of planes across several countries, special operations have the advantage of reaching places like Fordow, far from Israel, and of leaving little or no signature.Nuclear weapons. This doomsday weapon, which tends to be little discussed, would probably be launched from submarines. It hugely raises the stakes and so would only be resorted to, in the spirit of "Never Again," if the Israelis were desperate. Of these alternatives, I predict the Netanyahu government will most likely opt for the second, which is also the most challenging to pull off (especially now that the great powers promised to help the Iranians protect their nuclear infrastructure). Were this unsuccessful, it will turn to planes, with nuclear weapons as a last resort.Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict (Continuum, 2011).




July 16, 2015 Special Dispatch No.6108 Assad Regime, Hizbullah: Iran Nuclear Agreement Is Historic Victory For Resistance Axis, Surrender For Americans, Defeat For SaudisThe Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon, both of which are allies of Iran, were overjoyed at the announcement of the Iran-P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. They called it "a huge victory" for the entire resistance axis, and "an historic turning point" that would shift the balance of power in the region and globally. President Assad sent a congratulatory letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei expressing his delight at the "huge victory" that he said was achieved thanks to Iran's steadfast position. The head of Hizbullah in the Lebanese parliament, Muhammad Ra'd, stated that the superpowers, humiliated and vanquished by Iran, were also forced to recognize Iran as a superpower, and added that the agreement opens a new page that will lead to changes in the global balance of power.The Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hizbullah, celebrated "the surrender of the West," led by the U.S., with a series of extremely anti-U.S. articles. For example, in an article titled "Death To America," Ibrahim Al-Amin, head of the Al-Akhbar board of directors, called on the oppressed Arab peoples to learn a lesson from the Iranian achievement and work to remove Western and American hegemony worldwide. Other articles in the daily also stated that the nuclear agreement strengthened Iran, transforming it into an influential power vis-à-vis other Middle East issues as well. One article even called on the Arabs to recognize the rise of "the era of Iran" in the region, and the waning of the "the black Saudi era."Articles in the official Syrian press also called the agreement a major victory for the entire resistance axis, including Syria and Hizbullah, as well as a surrender by the U.S. and the West and a crushing defeat for Arab countries, primarily Saudi Arabia.The following are excerpts from official responses by the Assad regime and Hizbullah, as well as articles in the Syrian press and the Hizbullah-affiliated daily Al-Akhbar:Hizbullah: Iran Has Humiliated And Vanquished The Superpowers; Global Power Balances Will Change The head of Hizbullah in the Lebanese parliament, Muhammad Ra'd, discussed the agreement at a Hizbullah memorial service for its fighters, saying: "Iran has started a new page [in the history] of the world, with the agreement that it reached with the superpowers. We say in full confidence that what will happen after the agreement with Iran will not be like what happened before it. This is because many equations and balances of power [in the world] are destined to change. The world now recognizes a force [i.e. Iran]... that, during 11 years of negotiations, not just over the past two, succeeded in humiliating the world's ruling powers." He added: "Iran is now a superpower, and the [other] superpowers have recognized this. Today it is a strong and mindful country that can be trusted to play a role in reaching arrangements and dealing with crises of tension in our region. However, it will absolutely not recognize Israel, the entity that stole Jerusalem and Palestine, and no one can forget this. Iran has said this and is committed to it..."Ra'd added: "The Iranian people were patient for 36 years, under a most criminal international siege. The entire world rejected it and besieged it, [but] it had the willpower for confrontation... Iran reached a phase where it [managed] to provide for itself, in agriculture, industry, technology, science, education, and culture, and to




export its science, culture, art, technology, and industry. It became a superpower that is taken into account. All those who participated in the siege on it succumbed to [this reality], surrendered to Iran's will, and negotiated with it, in an attempt to preserve their honor, while recognizing its status, role, and effectiveness among nations. The world powers, represented by the P5+1 Group, which won World War II and distributed global influence among themselves each other, stood on one side of the [negotiating] table, while Iran stood alone on the other side, under the leadership of Sayed 'Ali Khamenei. [Iran] negotiated with them until they bent to its will, acknowledged its right to a nuclear program, and were forced to acknowledge [Iran's] importance and the importance of the role it plays – to the point that there are those who say that security and stability in the Middle East can only be achieved with Iran's cooperation..."[1][] Pro-Hizbullah Daily 'Al-Akhbar': The West Has Surrendered To IranThe day after the agreement was signed, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is identified with Hizbullah, devoted large sections of the newspaper to this topic. The

front page featured the Persian headline "[Yes] We Can" – a play on the famous Obama campaign slogan – which the daily claimed was a motto of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini dating back to the 1960s, when he began his struggle against the Shah's regime.Articles in the daily celebrated Iran's victory in both the international arena against the U.S. and the West and in the regional arena against Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia. July 15, 2015 cover of Al-Akhbar with the Farsi headline "[Yes] We Can"We Raise Our Voices And Shout "Death To America"The head of Al-Akhbar's board of directors, Ibrahim Al-Amin, wrote in an article titled "Death To America" that the agreement between Iran and the superpowers was actually an American surrender to Iran. He added that the

Arabs should understand that vanquishing the West, Israel, and the Arab regimes hostile to the resistance axis is now possible, and must act accordingly: "...We must learn this lesson well in order to stand against the global hegemonic order led by the West itself, which yesterday was forced to surrender to Iran. The important thing is that we reexamine the events around us and simply conclude that the age of Western hegemony over the world is waning, and that the independence of nations is within the reach of every oppressed person... We should state that we, in a small country like Lebanon, have succeeded over the past quarter century [since the fall of the Soviet Union] to thwart plans to transform the country into an obedient and pathetic servant of the new world order. We have managed to thwart the Israeli plan to occupy Lebanon, and have launched resistance that has become a role model, helping the residents of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to work against the forces of the West and their Arab allies..."We must accept that we cannot continue to [act] ambiguously, seek arrangements here and there, and deceive ourselves only for the sake of appeasing the despicable




West or the doomed Arab regimes for a drop of water. We must prepare for a new stage in the struggle, which will be based on the idea that the West, and America with it, are a capable force, but are no longer [an immutable] force of nature, and that removing this oppression has become attainable..."It is no longer difficult to be rid of the hegemonic world order; it is no longer impossible to topple the Zionist regime in Palestine; and it is no longer tough to topple what is left of the Arab regimes of ignorance and failure. What Iran has achieved vis-à-vis the West puts us back at square one, where we must raise our voices and shout at the top of our lungs a single slogan: 'Death to America.'"[2][] 'Al-Akhbar' Article: The Agreement's Military Facilities Inspection Clause Is Of No Practical Significance Journalist Elie Chalhoub argued in an article in Al-Akhbar that the sanctions imposed on Iran did not prevent it from reinforcing its nuclear capabilities and that the newly reached agreement reinforced Iran still further. Enumerating Iran's achievements vis-à-vis the U.S. in the agreement, he claimed that "the events laid the U.S. bare and made clear to everybody the limits to its power," and that "the war option against Iran is completely off the table..."Chalhoub noted: "Also the second option – sanctions – is of no avail and does not prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capabilities and expanding its influence in the region. Therefore, [the West] is left with no other option aside from engagement and mutual understanding [with Iran]. Furthermore, the agreement enjoyed an Iranian consensus in the framework of the red lines set by the Supreme Leader [Khamenei], has torpedoed every [American] wager to exploit it [the agreement] as a Trojan horse for creating internal fitna [within Iran between liberals and conservatives]..."In the address by Sayyid Ali Khamenei the day before yesterday, it was clear that the conflict with the U.S. in the region would continue, and could even escalate. True, Iran agreed to supervision over all its facilities including the military ones and this according to the mechanism determined in the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT], but this is a very complicated mechanism that makes the [Iranian] 'surrender' of no practical significance..."The agreement accomplishes two things: first, the international community cannot [henceforth] impose sanctions on Iran under any pretext whatsoever without running the risk that Iran will announce that it is renouncing its commitments under this agreement. Secondly, the agreement gives Iran greater room for action on the regional level, and equips it with [additional] capabilities that it will receive as a result of the lifting of the sanctions..."With regard to the issue of [lifting] the sanctions, we are not dealing with a minor detail pertaining to money.. This will effectively bring $120 billion into the Islamic Republic [of Iran]. And when will this happen? [It is happening] at the peak of the financial crisis striking the world. Additionally, this measure will bring Iran back to working with [the international financial clearinghouse] SWIFT, and will remove the ban on trade with it [Iran], with all its implications for thousands of Western companies that are dying of hunger and [seeking] [just] such investment opportunities. This by itself will block the West from [eventually] escalating against Iran."[3][]This Is The Age Of Iran; Arabs Must Coexist With Iran – Otherwise It Is Suicide For ThemOther articles in Al-Akhbar addressed the regional implications of the agreement, in light of the current Sunni-Shi'ite struggle in several arenas in the region, and




struggles between the Iran-led resistance axis and the opposing Saudi-led bloc. According to the articles, this agreement improves Iran's standing and strength in the region, and recognizes its status. Al-Akhbar columnist Nahed Hatter, a Jordanian national, wrote that the region was on the brink of an "era of Iran" to replace the "black Saudi era," and that the Arabs have no choice but to accept this reality. Not working together with Iran, he said, would be suicide for them: "Iran has earned its status as a regional power that controls the raging geopolitical conflicts in our area... The Iranians have received recognition of their central status on the issues of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, with regard to the various geopolitical conflicts on borders, security, sectarianism, etc. The main thing is the clear recognition of the Iranian role in combating terrorism..."Thus begins a complex – and possibly lengthy, but effective – political process between the Americans and Iranians, for mutual understanding on issues that are all Arab issues, and in which the Arab element is absent..."This is the era of Iran, that leaves behind the black Saudi era that has prevailed since the mid-1970s, that destroyed Egypt and later Iraq and Syria, and for whose destructive plans the Palestinians and Lebanese have paid a heavy price... The Arabs, with their various political trends, have no choice but to launch an initiative aimed at finding a new formula for coexisting with this [Iranian] era and benefiting from it:"a. In the field of combating terrorism;"b. To restore the importance of the Palestinian problem;"c. To return to rehabilitation and development; and"d. To establish a more rational and dynamic regional order."However, in order to maximize the positive aspects of this Iranian era and minimize its negative aspects for the Arab world, there are basic conditions [that the Arabs must meet], which are:"a. To immediately cease the various forms of aggression against Syria and reach understandings with its legitimate [Assad] government in order to support its efforts to combat terrorism and restore the country; and"b. To end the so-called Sunni program that is based on sectarian incitement and growing close to Israel at the expense of Iran."[This is] in order to rebuild the Arab order on the basis of mutual understanding among its traditional foundations, which are Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This will create [a framework] for positive relations and cooperation with the rising Iranian force, while benefiting from redefining Israel as a common enemy; it will also bring about political and national solutions in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Libya, and Bahrain. "This is the only rational option to preserve the general interests of the Arab forces that are fighting each other. Will Saudi Arabia – and especially Saudi Arabia – understand this picture, or will it insist on committing suicide?"[4][]Syrian Regime: An Historic Turning Point; A Victory For The Entire Resistance Axis As noted, the Syrian regime of President Bashar Al-Assad also welcomed the announcement of the Iran-P5+1 nuclear agreement, and called it "an historic turning point" and a "victory" for the entire resistance axis. This was conveyed in Assad's letters to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and to Iranian President Hassan Rohani, as well as in announcements by the Syrian Foreign Ministry and in articles in the official press and the Al-Watan daily, which is close to the regime.Assad In Letter To Khamenei: I Am Happy About Iran's Huge Historic Victory Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad wrote in a letter of congratulation to Iran's




Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei: "I am gladdened by the huge victory that Iran achieved in reaching a final agreement with the [P] 5+1 on the Iranian nuclear dossier. In the name of the Syrian people and in own name, I congratulate you and the fraternal Iranian people from all my heart on this historic victory."This agreement was attained thanks to the steadfastness by the Iranian people, in all its elements, in the face of the oppressive sanctions... that the noble Iranian people transformed into an opportunity for reinforcing its independent capabilities and progressing in its research studies, in its universities and achievements until it reached the stage where the entire world recognizes these achievements."The signing [sic] of this agreement is a major turning point in the history of Iran, of the region, and of the world, and unequivocal recognition by the world's countries that the Iranian nuclear program is civilian in nature, that guarantees the national rights of your people and emphasizes Iran's sovereignty and political independence. We are most confident that Iran will continue with even greater impetus to support the just causes of the peoples and will work to institute peace and stability in the region and the world..."In his letter to President Rohani, Assad wrote, inter alia: "We have no doubt that in the coming days, the constructive role that Iran played in supporting the rights of peoples and consolidating the principles of peace and amicable relations among states will gain impetus... Warm congratulations to you and the fraternal Iranian people on this historic achievement, which constitutes a victory for all lovers of peace and justice throughout the world..." [5][]Victory For Iran, Syria And Hizbullah; Defeat For Saudi Arabia, The Great SatanWaddah 'Abd Rabbo, editor of the Syrian daily Al-Watan, wrote on July 16, 2015 that the agreement was a major victory for the resistance axis of Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah, and a bitter defeat for Saudi Arabia. 'Abd Rabbo demanded that Saudi Arabia apologize to the whole world for the terrorism that for many years it had helped to spread:"...Today is not as it was before. Saudi Arabia has been defeated. Its plan to prevent any closeness between Iran and the West has utterly failed, as have its attempts to destabilize Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq... Over the past years, Saudi Arabia has tried to bring about a conflagration in Iraq and Lebanon, and has spent tens of billions of dollars to spark sectarian fitna... to prevent the spread of Iranian influence that supports resistance in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine... This has failed thanks to the mighty stand of Syria, Hizbullah, and the Iraqis."Iran has never threatened Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country... The Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, [and the wars in] Lebanon, Iraq, and later Syria were carried out under the guidance and management of the U.S., which controls the minds, policies, and leaders of Saudi Arabia, who are mere puppets in its hands... The game is over, and Saudi Arabia and its media must admit defeat and begin trying to fix the unfixable... "The Iranian agreement is a victory for Iranian diplomacy over three decades, but is also a success for all Syrians, without whose steadfastness and vigilancethis agreement would not have been reached in its current form."The Vienna agreement is a crowning moment for the steadfastness of Syria and Hizbullah, and is a mark of honor pinned to the chests of the families of the martyrs in Syria and Lebanon... The victory of Iran is the victory of Syria and the entire resistance axis... From today onwards, Saudi Arabia will have no choice but to recognize its defeat and to apologize to the peoples of the region and the world for




the terrorism, the killing, and the destruction it has senselessly caused them."Many believe that the main victim of the Vienna agreement is Israel, but Saudi Arabia is the true Great Satan in the region. That is the truth."[6][]The Agreement Is A Victory For The Iranian-Syrian ViewDr. 'Amran 'Abd Al-Latif, editor of the official Syrian daily Al-Ba'th, wrote that the nuclear agreement proves that Syria's strategy is right, and that its opponents – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey – are wrong. He also called on the Arabs to benefit from the agreement: "The Syrian position was to quickly express faith and optimism regarding this agreement... The letters [sent] by President Assad to Khamenei and Rohani embody Syria's positive and practical strategic view regarding this new turn to be taken by international relations as a result of the agreement – which stems from political and diplomatic discourse for conflict resolution, as opposed to supporting terrorism, extremism, and accusing others of apostasy. This view will prove, in time, that the governments that supported the plot against Syria will, one by one, enter a path of isolation and failure, leading them to helplessness and despair..."It is our duty as Arabs to hasten to reap the benefits of this agreement, and not to divert Arab worries away from Zionism and towards our Iranian friends and brothers. Yes, it is our duty to look positively at the coming Western rush towards Iran, which reality has proven is a good and successful actor that has succeeded, on its own, in dialogue with the superpowers. There is no fear that those who succeed in such dialogue will sell [their] sovereignty, resources, justice, and duties."Therefore, we are optimistic: First, in light of the concern of those [i.e. the Israelis], and second, because it has been proven that our strategy is strong and practical."[7][]Obama Realized That Iran Would Not Relinquish Its National Pride; He Will Soon Learn The Same About SyriaBassam Abu 'Abdallah, an international relations lecturer at Damascus University and a columnist for the Syrian daily Al-Watan, claimed that the forces of resistance, led by Syria and Hizbullah, had played a part in the Iranian achievement. Just as Obama realized that there was no point fighting the Iranian nuclear program, because it is a matter of national pride that Iranians would never relinquish, he would also realize that there was no point fighting Syria and its regime, because it too is a matter of national pride.He wrote: "Those who observe and follow the Iranian nuclear negotiations cannot help but feel tremendous respect and esteem for Iran's steadfastness and for the resistance and willpower of the Iranian people and its leadership, leading up to the announcement of the historic agreement. [This agreement] was also achieved thanks to the forces of the resistance axis led by Syria, with its heroic people, proud army, and great sacrifice, and thanks to the resisting, honorable, and heroic Hizbullah."Obama has recognized that the nuclear achievements of the Iranian people have become a matter of national pride from which there is no turning back, and that they are achievements for which all Iranians paid a price, and so no one is entitled to bargain with them. Based on Obama's new American view regarding Iran, which led to this historic agreement, can it be said that it will apply to other issues in the region, primarily Syria? The answer is yes... [because] the main headline of the bitter battle [in Syria] is 'national pride'..."[8][]Iran's Success Inspires Other Countries Who Seek To Break Free Of Subordination To The WestFares Riyadh Al-Jiroudi, a columnist for the Syrian daily Al-Watan wrote: "...The strategic importance of the announcement [of a nuclear agreement] does not stem




from the [technical] nuclear details or from Iran's entry into the nuclear club... but rather from the fact that after 35 years of trying to impose isolation, siege, and indirect wars on it... Iran has forced the West to acknowledge it as a major force and an important factor in the international community... while Iran has not abandoned the political slogans it touted during its [Islamic] revolution, which led to the harsh historic confrontation with the West..."This has massive implications, and opens the horizons for aspiring third-world countries that seek to break free of the burden of economic and political subordination to Western countries..."[9][]Endnotes:[][1][] Elnashra.com, July 16, 2015.[2][] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 15, 2015.[3][] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 15, 2015.[4][] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 15, 2015.[5][] Al-B'ath (Syria), July 15, 2015.[6][] Al-Watan (Syria), July 16, 2015.[7][] Al-Ba'th (Syria), July 15, 2015.[8][] Al-Watan (Syria), July 16, 2015.[9][] Al-Watan (Syria), July 16, 2015.

Al-Qasabi in "selfie" with "the truth about ISIS" (Source: Al-Madina, Saudi Arabia, June 23, 2015)



Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 4-1-Iran-10

Documents

Transcript of Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 4-1-Iran-10