Monthly
Analysis:
December 2004
tdcanalyst@optonline.net
Middle
East
With elections in Iraq a month away,
it is important that the Iraqis do something to counter Iranian
influence. Luckily, the best weapon has arrived – Iranian immigrants.
The overwhelming majority of Iranians highly disapprove of the
Iranian mullahs, and this is influencing Shiite groups once more
closely aligned with the Iranians (the most influential being
the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq).
Observers worried that Iraqi politicians
would play to Iran’s
interests and anti-Coalition sentiment, but the opposite has occurred.
In fact, campaigning politicians, including the Iraqi defense
minister and President Yawar, are campaigning on
a platform aimed at countering Iranian influence. The Iraqi
people are speaking with one voice: “We will have tyranny no
more!”
Once the Iraqi president warned Iran against trying to influence the
elections
[i]
, a string of other politicians followed. It
was shockingly similar to the battle between Bush and Kerry over
who was tougher on the War on Terror – both sides are taking pro-active
roles. And this has opened up the opportunity for the Iraqi government
to launch a public relations campaign against Iran, which included the defense ministry releasing
a videotape of 50 suicide vehicles entering via Iran, 14 of which
were carrying explosives.
[ii]
The United
States is reportedly planning a new round
of sanctions on Syria
(which are long over-due) and there are rumors of plans for cross-border
raids and military actions short of official hostilities.
Finally, US
military intelligence has concluded that Ba’athist remnants, calling
themselves the “New Regional Command,” are operating from Damascus,
are directing the insurgents, and are providing funding through
hidden sources in Europe and Saudi
Arabia. The conclusion was reached
as a result of intelligence acquired in Fallujah, including a
global positioning signal receiver, found in a bomb factory that
revealed clandestine waypoints in western Syria.
[iii]
The Iraqis also presented Damascus with evidence this
month, including photos of Syrian officials meeting with insurgents.
Tribes in the west that are facilitating the movements of fighters
and materials, and running the black market, are allied with Syrian
officials, as photos show meetings between the two.
To help prosecute the war in Iraq, Western analysts need to observe Israel more intently.
The Israelis have experienced tremendous success over the past
year. A senior Israeli official summed up their successes, in
2004, by noting that Palestinian organizations sent 343 suicide
bombers to attack Israelis, significantly less than in 2003. Only
54 Israelis were killed this year, one-third of the 2003 count.
The Israelis were, as well, much more effective this year in
counter-insurgency operations. They killed 119 terrorists in the
West Bank, and 148 “civilians.” In subsequent investigations, only 29 of the
“civilians” were found to be non-combatants. The situation in
the West Bank has changed dramatically, with Hezbollah now controlling
the deadliest and most active cells, estimated to number around
40.
[iv]
Iran took headlines this month as
more evidence emerged of their nuclear weapons program. First,
the Iranians announced the capture of CIA and Mossad spy rings
embedded in their nuclear program. In doing so, they as much as
admitted there are secret Iranian nuclear sites undeclared to
the IAEA. There are two schools of thought about this incident:
1)
This is rhetoric, aimed at counterbalancing
the fact that Iranian spies have been caught conducting surveillance
of Israeli targets in the United
States, and that Iran continues to its sponsorship
of terrorism.
2)
This was pure propaganda.
3)
This was the result of a successful
attempt by the Israelis and possibly the Americans to force the
Iranians into admitting there were secret nuclear sites of interest
to the West.
4)
This was rhetoric intended to alarm
the Israelis and Americans into thinking Western intelligence
operations against Iran
have been compromised. The statements by Iran came only weeks after Western
intelligence reportedly sabotaged shipments of nuclear weapons-related
equipment (including “laser guns” used to enrich uranium).
In
perhaps the most stunning evidence, to date, that Iran
is pursuing a nuclear weapon and enriched uranium, despite EU
agreements, it was discovered that they had purchased massive
amounts of beryllium, a metal used to facilitate chain reactions
in nuclear devices. However, while this substance is sometimes
purchased for legitimate civilian uses, there is no declared civilian
need that can possibly justify such a large purchase.
Despite this fact, the head of the IAEA, El-Baradei, is refusing
to report the suspicious activity. Likely emboldened by the anti-American
El-Baradei, Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the chairman of the Iranian
Expediency Council has announced enrichment of uranium will resume
within six months.
[v]
El-Baradei did admit though, that Iran
is refusing to allow inspections at two sites, one at the Parchin
military complex southeast of Tehran,
and in Lavizan, northeast of Tehran.
[vi]
Increased evidence has been acquired that Iran is working on a missile re-entry
vehicle that could accommodate a small nuclear warhead, launched
by its Shahab ballistic missiles.
[vii]
Both the Iranians and the United States have been holding exercises
to simulate a war between the two. From studying these exercises,
and their militaries in general, Anthony Cordesman, of the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, has concluded that Iran
remains “no match” for the USA.
He concluded that Iran
was unable to invade surrounding countries militarily, and has
still not recovered from its brutal 1980s war with Iraq.
The problems Cordesman identified were, as follows:
A)
Funding: Iran
spends $3 billion yearly on defense, less than one-sixth of the
Saudis.
B)
Inability to
modernize their command structure.
C)
Lack of advanced
technology.
D)
Inability to
upgrade surface ships.
E)
Purchased surface-to-air
missiles are often over 25 years old in their design and technology.
F)
Inability to
obtain sensors, and command and communications systems, adequate
for a war with the United
States.
[viii]
In other developments, the Israeli military has determined
that Egypt
is seeking to weaken Israel
via the Palestinian insurgency. It is well known that Egypt is allowing the smuggling of weapons and
terrorists from the Sinai Peninsula
into the Gaza Strip.
[ix]
We at WorldThreats.com also believe that the
Egyptian media and education system is radicalizing the Islamic
world and is, via the aforementioned activities, attempting to
export its internal problems.
Russia, Ex-USSR
Russia’s stance became increasingly
anti-American this month. While the media covered the press conference
where Putin demanded an explanation for American attempts to “isolate”
Russia, the media
did not cover several other important developments. The Russian
oil powerhouse, LuKOil may, according to Putin, team up with Chinese
state-owned companies in what some observers called “an oil alliance”.
Russia also announced it would be
adding non-nuclear cruise missiles to strategic bombers, allowing
Russian aircraft the capability to strike thousands of miles away.
[x]
This greatly enhances Russia’s
nuclear posture, as cruise missiles can quickly have nuclear warheads
fitted to them despite their “non-nuclear” status. This military
enhancement came only weeks after Russia
announced work on a new nuclear weapon which no other nation possessed
– most likely an ICBM that can defeat ABM systems.
Latin America
Hugo
Chavez of Venezuela
has seized all broadcast media in his country.
[xi]
His transformation of Venezuela
into a socialist country – part of an anti-American bloc – is
complete. Chavez also announced that he is trying to modernize
their armed forces to “stop the threat of aggression” (hinting
at the USA)
by closer military relations with Russia.
It is known that, in 2004, arms sales from Russia to Venezuela doubled, and now Chavez
is speaking of purchasing 100,000 machine guns and advanced anti-tank
and anti-aircraft equipment.
[xii]
The media did not cover the following
event and this startled some observers. Chavez visited Libya, in the
last week of November, to receive $250,000 and “Qaddafi’s International
Award for Human Rights”. During his speech, Chavez stated “I feel
like I belong to this land that has given birth to heroes like
Abdul Nasser, Yasser Arafat, Qaddafi and Bin Bella, who are an
extension of the Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America.”
[xiii]
This confirms our suspicions that all of these
anti-American characters are in league, and have a common ideology,
albeit, with cultural variations.
Part of Chavez’ diplomatic offensive
was to claim (and not outrageously) that Spain
and the USA
had some sort of role in the coup plots against him. At this time,
Spain’s new Socialist leader Moratinos confirmed
Chavez’ claims, as did leaders in Chile
and Mexico.
They were in agreement, revealing that the US
fueled a resolution in the Organization of American States that
would acknowledge Pedro Carmona (the coup leader) as the president
of Venezuela after
the coup.
[xiv]
Meanwhile, the leaders of Cuba
and Venezuela
signed an agreement after high-level officials met at Karl Marx
Theater. They showed “the highest expression of unity”, and announced
they’d begin the Bolivarian Agreement for the Americas,
an alternative to NAFTA.
[xv]
Moving north, there is increased hyperbole surrounding the
presidential ambitions of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the popular
mayor of Mexico City. He is part
of the so-called “center-left” Democratic Revolutionary Party,
and he is currently leading in all polls regarding the 2006 election.
He is a known Marxist, eager to ally with the more anti-American
nations of the Western Hemisphere.
[xvi]
Asia
In a recent interview, Deputy Secretary
of State Armitage delivered a timed diplomatic move. Armitage
greatly angered China
watchers and “hawks” by stating that the United
States was not required, by treaty, to defend
Taiwan from
China, once
an invasion began, but was only obliged to sell defense systems,
and attempt to deter China from an
invasion. Armitage’s statements surely encouraged China greatly. Most analysts agree
Armitage’s statement was made in order to limit the actions of
the pro-independence politicians in Taiwan.
[xvii]
In light of the recent election debacle
in the Ukraine,
analysts of the former USSR
are observing that past and present elections in the area may
not have been as “fair” as once believed. And “electioneering”
operations are becoming increasingly bold. On December 27, the
Uzbek parliamentary elections were held and the opposition parties
were banned from running candidates. The Organization of Security
and Cooperation in Europe noted
there were “insufficient conditions” for a valid democratic
vote.
[xviii]
Europe
The fact that Europe is reaching out
to China,
in an effort to balance American power, is worthy of consideration.
Europe has access to industrial and military technology that would
allow China to more quickly become a super-power, and
rival the US.
Germany is
leading the way, with France,
in an attempt to terminate the European Union’s ban on selling
arms to China.
Fortunately for the US,
other European countries are opposing the move, citing human rights
violations in China,
as an ongoing problem
[xix]
That’s the problem they have stated publicly
however, it is more likely these countries see the growth of Chinese
power as far more threatening than the current power wielded by
US.
The situation in the Ukraine got the most attention in Europe. Austrian doctors confirmed that reformist candidate
Yushchenko was the victim of poisoning, which was almost certainly
an assassination plot.
[xx]
Pro-Russian candidate Yanukovych responded
by working with a French PR firm to battle accusations of being
involved in the assassination plot and, in some cases, that there
even was a conspiracy. By now, the debate is almost over. Yushchenko
had dioxin in him at almost 1000 times the normal level, and only
one other person is on record as having higher levels.
The result of the re-vote was a substantial
victory by Yuschenko, which Yanukovych said he would challenge
in the Ukrainian Supreme Court. Prior to the elections, Yushchenko
mentioned that his group had received information indicating a
wide range of plans to disrupt any victory he might enjoy, including
the movement of “brigades” into Kiev.
[xxi]