Sunday, October 25, 2009

Iran buys North Korean WMD for Syria, midget submarines for both


Midget subs from North Korea for Iran, Syria

Iran buys North Korean WMD for Syria, midget submarines for both

DEBKAfile Special report




October 25, 2009, 9:32 PM (GMT+02:00)
Midget subs from North Korea for Iran, Syria





The US Congressional Research Service reveals that Iran has helped Syria obtain "various forms of weapons of mass destruction" and missiles, as well as buying midget submarines - all from North Korea.


DEBKAfile's military sources report that the North Korean miniature subs are capable of dropping small teams of commando forces on enemy shores, damaging large warships and mining the approaches of naval bases and harbors. They are capable of sowing EM-52 "rising mines" originally developed by China, which lurk on deep sea beds until triggered by a passing ship to release a missile which shoots up to strike its hull.


This weapon substantially enhances the Syrian and Iranian navies' menace, a development Israel will have take into account in the defenses of its Mediterranean naval bases and commercial ports.
The US CRS notes" Iran purportedly has acted as an intermediary with North Korea to supply Syria with missiles and various forms of WNMD, without specifying whether they are nuclear, chemical or biological.


To keep one of its few allies close, Tehran uses Syria as a "transit point for Iranian weapons shipments to Hizballah and both countries see Hizballah as leverage against Israel to achieve their regional and territorial aims."


The report sees the Obama administration's engagement with Syria as a bid to draw Damascus to loosen its bonds with Tehran, but sees little chance of this effort succeeding.


On Oct. 20, DEBKAfile's military sources disclosed that Syria, Iran's second ally with an Israeli border, has decided to transfer one-third of its missile stockpile to the Hizballah in Lebanon, topping up its arsenal with 250 medium-range surface rockets that can cover central as well as northern Israel, which was heavily blitzed in the 2006 war.
To read this article click HERE



Afghanistan: The War we will Not Win...Lawmakers split on timing of Afghan decision


Lawmakers split on timing of Afghan decision

Featured Topics: 
A U.S. Special Operations force soldier peers through his rifle scope during aAP – A U.S. Special Operations force soldier peers through his rifle scope during a patrol in Afghanistan's …
WASHINGTON – Top lawmakers sparred Sunday over the timing ofPresident Barack Obama's decision on how to move ahead inAfghanistan, with Republicans urging a quick move to boost troop levels and Democrats counseling patience.
In partisan displays, senators generally agreed on the need to support whatever Afghan government emerges from a Nov. 7 run-off election between President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah. But they differed on exactly how to do that and when.
Republicans said Obama must sign off soon on a recommendation from the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to substantially increase the number of American troops there by as many as 40,000 or more. Democrats warned against a hasty decision on any increase.
"Clearly, time is of the essence here," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican. "I'm afraid that with every passing day we risk the future success of the mission."
"I think it's taken too long," added Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Why not follow the advice of his hand-picked general?"
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee for president last year, said that "every day we delay will be a delay in this strategy succeeding." The deteriorating situation "argues for a rapid decision," he said.
Obama has had McChrystal's recommendation for weeks but has yet to decide on putting it in place even after numerous strategy sessions with senior aides. The White House has said the president will not be rushed, but suggested a decision will be made soon.
None of the Republicans would second a claim made last week by former Vice President Dick Cheney that Obama is "dithering" in making a decision, but they agreed that continued delay would endanger the 68,000 U.S. soldiers now on the ground in Afghanistan.
"I would never want to call my president dithering," Hatch said. He stressed, though, that "they need these troops, there is no question about it. We're exposing them without the proper help that they have just got to have. ... I think it's a mistake."
Distancing himself from Cheney, McCain also said he "wouldn't use that language." But, he added, "The sooner we implement the strategy the more we will able to ensure their (troops') safety."
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, lashed out at Cheney's criticism, which came in a speech on Wednesday while accepting an award from a conservative national security group.
"I thought that comments of the former vice president were totally out of bounds," said Levin, D-Mich. "I don't think he has any credibility left with the American people in any event. But I think it is really wrong. ... The president needs to make the right decision."
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., another member of the Armed Services Committee, also disagreed.
"The process that this administration is using is, I think, is a very proper and smart process," he said. "This deliberative process is what we need because we're going to end up living with the results for some time."
In addition to differing on the timing of the decision, lawmakers were divided by party over on what it should be. Republicans wholeheartedly endorsed McChrystal's appeal while Democrats were more skeptical.
Levin, who has urged that the Afghan security forces be built up before any increase in U.S. combat troops, said "it would be a mistake to have any significant number of additional combat forces because I would like to see a large increase in the Afghan army be the major way in which this is successful."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., was more strident, saying he is against a build up of American forces.
"It is time to start thinking about bringing troops out of Afghanistan and reducing our commitment there," he said. He pledged to oppose a decision to send more.
"There will be resistance to this if necessary," Feingold said. "If necessary, we will act to prevent this mistake."
Kyl and Levin spoke on "Fox News Sunday," Hatch and Webb were on CNN's "State of the Union," and Feingold and McCain appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation."

(When Iraq Falls...,) Bombings target government in Baghdad, 147 killed


Bombings target government in Baghdad, 147 killed


Iraqis gather at the site of a massive bomb attack at the Ministry of Justice inAP – Iraqis gather at the site of a massive bomb attack at the Ministry of Justice in Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, …
BAGHDAD – A pair of suicide car bombings Sunday devastated the heart of Iraq's capital, killing at least 147 people in the country's deadliest attack in more than two years. The bombs targeted twogovernment buildings and called into question Iraq's ability to protect its people as U.S. forces withdraw.
The bombings show that insurgents still have the ability to launch horrific attacks even as violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq. Many fear such attacks will only increase as Iraq prepares for crucial January elections.
The dead included 35 employees at the Ministry of Justice and at least 25 staff members of the Baghdad Provincial Council, said police and medical officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. At least 721 people were wounded, including three American contractors.
The street where the blasts occurred had just been reopened to vehicle traffic six months ago. Shortly after, blast walls were repositioned to allow traffic closer to the government buildings. Such changes were touted by Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a sign that safety was returning to the city.
The Iraqi leader walked among the mangled and blackened cars, which lay in front of blast walls that had been decorated with peaceful street scenes of Iraq. At the Justice Ministry, windows and walls on both sides of the street were blown away, and blood pooled with water from burst pipes.
Al-Maliki has staked his political reputation and re-election bid on his ability to bring peace to the country and pledged to punish those responsible, who he said wanted to "spread chaos in the country, undermine the political process and prevent the holding ofparliamentary elections." But the Sunday attacks seemed designed to paint the Iraqi leader as incapable of providing security to the beleaguered city, undermining much of his political support.
The attacks occurred just hours before Iraq's top leadership was scheduled to meet with heads of political parties in order to reach a compromise on election guidelines needed to hold the January vote.
President Barack Obama, who earlier this week reaffirmed the U.S.'s commitment to withdrawing its troops from the country, called al-Maliki to offer his condolences.
"These bombings serve no purpose other than the murder of innocent men, women and children, and they only reveal the hateful and destructive agenda of those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that they deserve," Obama said.
The fact that the vehicles were able to get into an area home to numerous government institutions — just hundreds of yards from the heavily fortified Green Zone where the U.S. Embassy and the prime minister's office are located — sparked demands that those in charge of the city's security be held accountable.
"Those responsible for security and intelligence should be checked and interrogated," said Sunni Iraqi lawmaker Wathab Shakir. "Why should innocent people be killed?"
The initial investigation suggested the vehicles, each loaded down with more than 1,500 pounds of explosives, might have passed through some security checkpoints before hitting their destination, said Maj. Gen. Qassim al-Mousawi, a spokesman for the city's operations command center.
There have been no claims of responsibility so far, but massive car bombs have been the hallmark of the Sunni insurgents seeking to overthrow the country's Shiite-dominated government. Iraq has accused members of the outlawed Baath Party living in neighboring Syria of being behind another series of deadly bombings in August that also targeted government buildings. Al-Maliki blamed the attacks on Baathist and Al-Qaida.
Black smoke billowed from the frantic scene, as emergency service vehicles sped to the area. Many of the wounded were loaded into the back of trucks and into civilian cars because there were too many for ambulances to carry.
"The walls collapsed and we had to run out," said Yasmeen Afdhal, 24, an employee of the Baghdad provincial administration, which runs the city. "There are many wounded, and I saw them being taken away. They were pulling victims out of the rubble, and rushing them to ambulances."
The provincial council is the city government, which oversees a broad range of city services such as garbage collection, electricity, distribution of fuel for generators and school maintenance.
U.S. troops were also called in at the request of the Iraqi government to help secure the area, deal with any explosive material and offer forensics personnel to assist in the investigation, said a military spokesman, Maj. Dave Shoupe.
The coordinated bombings were the deadliest since a series of massive truck bombs in northern Iraq killed nearly 500 villagers from the minority Yazidi sect in August 2007. In Baghdad itself, it was the worst attack since a series of suicide bombings against Shiite neighborhoods in April 2007 killed 183.
Three American security contractors working for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad were injured in the blasts, said Philip Frayne, an embassy spokesman. Frayne could not immediately provide details about who the contractors were escorting, which company they worked for or the nature of their injuries.
The explosions were just a few hundred yards from Iraq's Foreign Ministry, which is still rebuilding after massive bombings there in August. The bombings were a devastating blow for a country that has seen a dramatic drop in violence since the height of the sectarian fighting in 2006 and 2007.
On the streets of Baghdad, many Iraqis were angry at what they described as a lapse in security and wary about what will happen when U.S. forces leave.
"Everyday, we hear statements from different government officials that our forces are ready to control the situation on the ground when the U.S. forces withdraw," Zahid Hussain Najim said. "But day after day it has been found that these officials are either liars or have no idea about what's going on outside their offices."