Israel scuppers Iran nuke deal

[David Guyatt]

Looks to me like Israel is still intent on scuppering the Iran nuke deal, and is spreading the good news to Congressmen?

The ultimate question is who do these Congressmen work for, the US or Israel?

Silly question.

Dollars speak louder than national loyalty and common decency.

Kerry warns Congress: sanctions threat endangers historic Iran nuclear deal

Proposal for more further sanctions is 'gratuitous', Kerry says
Influential house committee opposes agreement with Tehran

• Paul Lewis in Washington
  
• theguardian.com, Tuesday 10 December 2013 21.48 GMT
  

John Kerry testifies before the House committee. 'Let me be clear: this is a delicate diplomatic moment.' Photograph: Ron Sachs/Corbis

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, struggled to persuade a deeply sceptical Congress to abandon a plan for new sanctions against Iran on Monday, warning lawmakers that they risked scuppering a major nuclear agreement.
Kerry said the notion of introducing new sanctions, a month after a historic interim agreement was reached with Tehran, and in the midst of negotiations for a final, comprehensive deal, was "gratuitous".
"I'm not saying never," Kerry told members of the House foreign affairs committee, most of whom favour more sanctions to increase pressure against Iran. "I'm just saying: not right now. Let me be very clear: this is a delicate diplomatic moment."
Kerry's attempts to sell the current policy towards Iran, however, met a wall of opposition from members of the committee, who appeared almost entirely unified against the deal, which some argued had endangered the US and its ally Israel.
A succession of committee members, Republican and Democratic, told Kerry they did not trust Iran's commitments and said the only viable way to avoid Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon was to press forward with yet tighter sanctions.
Kerry countered that the world was at "a crossroads, one of those hinge points in history", and said there would be "gigantic implications" if the talks broke down. "They know that if this fails, sanctions will be increased," he said of Iran's leaders. "But you don't need to do it [now]. It is actually gratuitous, in the context of the situation. Because you can do it in a week if you need to."
Under the interim agreement, forged last month between Iran and a six-nation group comprising the US, three European countries, Russia, and China, Tehran has agreed to halt progress of its nuclear program, neutralise a stockpile of higher grade uranium and open its facilities to inspectors.
In return, some sanctions have been eased which, according to US estimates, will provide a $7bn boost to Iran's debilitated economy. The agreement, brokered in Geneva, will last just six months, after which all sides are seeking to achieve a final, comprehensive deal.
The Republican chairman of the foreign affairs committee, Ed Royce, and the Democratic ranking member, Eliot Engel, authored the bill to increase sanctions against Iran, which passed 400 votes to 20 in July. Both said at the hearing that they had serious concerns about the Geneva agreement, arguing that tightening sanctions on Iran at this stage would actually strengthen the hand of US negotiators.
A major concern for sceptics of the deal is the possibility that Iran will be permitted to maintain a limited, civil nuclear-enrichment program on its soil, rather than import nuclear materials from abroad. "Iran is not just another country," Royce told Kerry. "It simply can't be trusted with enrichment technology, because verification efforts can never be foolproof."
The Royce-Engel bill, which would dramatically tighten existing sanctions, is currently with the Senate banking committee. But there is growing pressure for the legislation to be put to a vote, possibly with a clause that would mean the implementation would be delayed by six months, allowing the current round of talks to continue.
When Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, was asked how Tehran would respond in the event of Congress imposing new sanctions with a six-month delay, the usually conciliatory diplomat responded: "The entire deal is dead. We do not like to negotiate under duress." Zarif, Iran's lead negotiator, told Time magazine: "And if Congress adopts sanctions, it shows lack of seriousness and lack of a desire to achieve a resolution on the part of the United States."
Although most western leaders have cautiously backed the Geneva deal, Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has called the agreement a "historic mistake", and his officials have been pressing their case hard in Washington.
Kerry looked visibly irritated during his testy exchanges with members of the committee, warning them that any new sanctions jeopardize the achievements already achieved by negotiations and undermine the unity the US has achieved with other powers such as China and Russia. "It implies a lack of faith in the process, and an unwillingness to play by the rules that our partners are playing by," he said.
He insisted there was only "very limited and reversible" easing of sanctions under the interim agreement, saying the $7bn Iran is forecast to gain from the deal "pales in comparison" to the $30bn it will still lose from the many other sanctions that have remained intact. In an effort to win support, Kerry complimented members of Congress and said they should take "great pride" in the fact that years of sanctions had brought about the historic negotiations.
As well as freezing Iran's nuclear program, Kerry said the provisional settlement provided inspectors with daily access to Fordow, the secret mountain-top enrichment plant, as well as unprecedented access to a heavy-water plutonium reactor, Arak. "I think Congress deserves an enormous amount of credit for that," he said.
Few on the committee were persuaded, repeating that Iran could not be trusted and that the provisional agreement falls short of what the US should be demanding.
The debate over the new sanctions bill is merely a foretaste of the major confrontation between Congress and the Obama administration that could be unleashed in July if a comprehensive deal is reached. Although the White House can ease some sanctions through waiver authorities, experts agree that unraveling the wider sanctions regime, which stretches back three decades, would require congressional approval.
The challenge of securing that support from Congress was laid bare by Kerry's reception from the committee. Obama's critics are not restricted to Republicans, but include hawks from the president's own Democratic party. In the Senate, they include the chairman powerful foreign relations committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and the third-ranking Democrat, Chuck Schumer of New York.
Obama insisted on Saturday that regardless of the outcome of talks, the "first-step" deal forged in Geneva had at least postponed Iran's so-called "breakout capacity". However, the president said that the likelihood of a satisfactory outcome from the negotiations with Iran was no more than "50-50".

[David Guyatt]

I wonder who's actual hand might be concealed by these Congressional manoeuvres? I suspect dear ol' Netanyahu myself...

Iran nuclear deal imperiled by new sanctions bill, White House warns

Iranian experts concerned Congress could sabotage final deal
Senior Senate Democrats back bill as draft leaks to press

• Paul Lewis in Washington
  
• theguardian.com, Thursday 19 December 2013 17.04 GMT
  

Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate chamber, is a co-author of the bill. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters

Two of the most senior Democrats in the US Senate have thrown their weight behind a bill to impose new sanctions on Iran, a move the White House believes could sabotage delicate negotiations over a final nuclear deal.
Democrat Robert Menendez, who chairs the powerful foreign affairs committee, is the lead author of the bill, alongside Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the chamber, and a Republican senator, Mark Kirk.
According to a copy of the draft obtained by Foreign Policy magazine, it would permit Barack Obama to suspend the implementation of harsh new sanctions on Iran for the duration of the nuclear talks, but only on the basis of strict criteria laid down by Congress.
The administration would need to certify to Congress every 30 days that Tehran was meeting a set of conditions, including those laid out in a temporary accord reached in Geneva last month. The bill also compels the Obama administration to provide Congress with a detailed progress report on negotiations at monthly intervals.
Iranian experts are increasingly concerned that Congress poses one of the greatest obstacles to a final nuclear settlement with Tehran.
Technical experts are fine-tuning how the temporary deal reached in Geneva last month will be implemented, but it is expected to come into force sometime in January. It would initially last six months, but officials close to the negotiations say it would almost certainly have to be renewed.
The deal provides limited sanctions relief to Iran which, according to US estimates, will provide a $7bn boost to Iran's economy. In return, Iran has agreed to freeze its nuclear program, destroy stockpiles of higher-grade uranium and commit to more rigorous inspections.
Forged between Iran and a six-nation group comprising the US, three European countries, Russia and China, the temporary deal was intended to provide momentum and space for more sustained negotiations in search of a final, comprehensive agreement.
Crucially, it contains a clause in which the US administration committed itself to "refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions", although the wording provided some acknowledgement that President Obama could not control legislation passed by Congress.
However, a high-ranking official closely involved with the negotiations, who spoke anonymously because they were not authorised to talk publicly about nuclear talks, told the Guardian a new sanctions bill would be seen by the Iranians to be in breach of "the spirit" of the agreement. The official said a new bill would risk Iranians walking from the negotiating table before the Geneva agreement has even begun, adding: "We could be back to square one."
The temporary Geneva deal has been received with widespread scepticism in Congress, not least because it paves the way to Iran maintaining some capacity to develop civil nuclear fuel on its territory, albeit under strict limitations. Washington's hardliners insist Iran should not be permitted any nuclear enrichment capability, arguing they should be forced to dismantle all their reactors and instead import nuclear fuel from abroad. The Menendez-Schumer bill comes close to making this demand.
It would prohibit Obama from waiving sanctions on Iran unless, under a final agreement, the country dismantles "illicit nuclear infrastructure, including enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and facilities and the heavy water reactor and production plant at Arak". It also contains a provision enabling Congress to override any easing of sanctions authorised by the White House bypassing a "joint resolution of disapproval" against any final deal.
It is unlikely to be debated before the recess but will likely resurface in early January. The White House has so far managed to dissuade Democrats on Capitol Hill from pursuing bills and resolutions they argue would imperil the current talks, but it is unclear how much sway the administration has over Menendez and Schumer. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, is also likely to play a crucial role in determining whether an Iran sanctions bill reaches the floor.
Last week the Democratic chair of the Senate banking committee, Tim Johnson, shelved a similar Iran sanctions bill, which passed overwhelmingly by the House in July, after pressure from the White House.
The administration also appeared to have convinced the House Democratic whip Steny Hoyer from supporting a resolution that called for additional sanctions on Iran and laid out a tough set of criteria that should be met before any final deal. Hoyer was closely involved in drafting the resolution, and only pulled his support at the very last minute.

[Magda Hassan]

Obama will Veto new Iran Sanctions, Israel War Mandate pushed by AIPAC Senators

By Juan Cole | Dec. 21, 2013 |

In his end-of-the-year press conference, President Obama had to defend his Iran negotiations in the face of a revolt within his own party. Thirteen Democratic senators and thirteen Republican senators banded together…

In his end-of-the-year press conference, President Obama had to defend his Iran negotiations in the face of a revolt within his own party.
Thirteen Democratic senators and thirteen Republican senators banded together to try to derail President Obama's negotiations with Iran by slapping new sanctions on that country in the middle of delicate negotiations. This behavior is no surprise coming from the GOP, but the thirteen Democratic senators involved are traitors to the party. They are acting at the behest of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other American supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who actively wants to torpedo Obama's Iran talks. They are attempting to make the leader of their party, their president, fail in one of his major diplomatic initiatives. They are disloyal and the Democratic National Committee should pull their funding. They include most prominently Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA). If we could trace the money involved it would go back to billionaire American Likudniks.
The bill they crafted includes $55 bn in new sanctions on Iran and requires the United States to support Netanyahu in any war he launches on Iran. (President Obama and his officials have in the past have hinted broadly that Israel is welcome to attack Iran but is on its own if it does so.)
The proposed new sanctions split the Israel lobbies in the senate, being opposed by Sens. Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer and seven other committee chairs, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. As Democratic Party committee chairs, they had no choice but to maintain party discipline (and some of them probably don't like Netanyahu or the prospect of more Middle East wars).
According to the transcript, this is what Obama said about the Senate rebellion:

"And so I'm not surprised that there's been some talk from some members of Congress about new sanctions I think the politics of trying to look tough on Iran are often good when you're running for office or if you're in office. But as President of the United States right now, who's been responsible over the last four years, with the help of Congress, in putting together a comprehensive sanctions regime that was specifically designed to put pressure on them and bring them to the table to negotiate what I'm saying to them, what I've said to the international community, and what I've said to the American people is let's test it. Now is the time to try to see if we can get this thing done.
And I've heard some logic that says, well, Mr. President, we're supportive of the negotiations, but we think it's really useful to have this club hanging over Iran's head. Well, first of all, we still have the existing sanctions already in place that are resulting in Iran losing billions of dollars every month in lost oil sales. We already have banking and financial sanctions that are still being applied even as the negotiations are taking place. It's not as if we're letting up on that.
I've heard arguments, well, but this way we can be assured and the Iranians will know that if negotiations fail even new and harsher sanctions will be put into place. Listen, I don't think the Iranians have any doubt that Congress would be more than happy to pass more sanctions legislation. We can do that in a day, on a dime. But if we're serious about negotiations, we've got to create an atmosphere in which Iran is willing to move in ways that are uncomfortable for them and contrary to their ideology and rhetoric and their instincts and their suspicions of us. And we don't help get them to a position where we can actually resolve this by engaging in this kind of action. "

Obama in his gentlemanly way excused the senators on the grounds that they might have tough reelection fights coming up in which hawkish posturing on Iran might be useful for fundraising and vote-getting. Nevertheless, the White House had earlier made clear that Obama would veto any such sanctions bill.
In fact, the vast majority of Americans approve of Obama's Iran negotiations in polling and only a minority is opposed. So the rebel senators aren't playing to the voters, but rather to determined and very wealthy special interests in the Northeast.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has warned that a major new round of sanctions would kill the negotiations.
The government of President Hassan Rouhani, elected this past summer, faces its own hard line hawks who want to cause the talks with the US to fail. Maj.-Gen. Mohammad Jaafari, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, criticized Rouhani for being infected with Western ideas.
The question is if Jaafari from his side and Menendez and Schumer from their side can succeed in sinking the talks and ensuring we march off to war instead.
Related video:
Reuters on Obama's defense of his Iran negotiations on Friday :

http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/sanction...ators.html

[David Guyatt]

Obama will Veto new Iran Sanctions, Israel War Mandate pushed by AIPAC Senators

By Juan Cole | Dec. 21, 2013 |

In his end-of-the-year press conference, President Obama had to defend his Iran negotiations in the face of a revolt within his own party. Thirteen Democratic senators and thirteen Republican senators banded together…

In his end-of-the-year press conference, President Obama had to defend his Iran negotiations in the face of a revolt within his own party.
Thirteen Democratic senators and thirteen Republican senators banded together to try to derail President Obama's negotiations with Iran by slapping new sanctions on that country in the middle of delicate negotiations. This behavior is no surprise coming from the GOP, but the thirteen Democratic senators involved are traitors to the party. They are acting at the behest of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other American supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who actively wants to torpedo Obama's Iran talks. They are attempting to make the leader of their party, their president, fail in one of his major diplomatic initiatives. They are disloyal and the Democratic National Committee should pull their funding. They include most prominently Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA). If we could trace the money involved it would go back to billionaire American Likudniks.

The question has to be asked is whether the 13 democrats are disloyal to their party out of conscience, or because they are loyal to Israel, or if their source of funding/income is threatened if they don't come out in favour of Israel?

I lean to the latter explanation. :

[Magda Hassan]

The question has to be asked is whether the 13 democrats are disloyal to their party out of conscience, or because they are loyal to Israel, or if their source of funding/income is threatened if they don't come out in favour of Israel?

I lean to the latter explanation. :

Definitely this. I remember what McKinney had to say about that.

[Magda Hassan]

Well this will throw a spanner in the Israeli anti Iran narrative.

Iran FM: We may recognize Israel after Palestinian deal

Zarif also says Holocaust tragically cruel,' should not occur again; officials in Tehran deny he made Holocaust statements

By Marissa Newman February 3, 2014, 7:33 pm







Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at The World Economic Forum in Davos on January 24, 2014. (photo credit: AFP/Eric Piermont)



The Islamic Republic may consider recognizing Israel after a peace accord is struck with the Palestinians, Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif said Monday in an interview with German TV.

"After the problem with the Palestinians is resolved, the conditions that will enable recognition of the State of Israel will be established," Zarif said.
"If the Palestinians are happy with the solution, then nobody nobody could prevent that from happening."
However, the foreign minister also declared that no acceptable agreement had been proposed thus far to the Palestinians, and decried the "crimes" perpetrated against the Palestinian nation.
"We can't do anything," he said. "The Palestinians need recognition and afterward it will possible to discuss other solutions."
Iran cut off all diplomatic ties and stopped recognizing Israel after the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Zarif also described the Holocaust as an event that was "tragically cruel and should not happen again."
"We have nothing against the Jews. We do not feel threatened by anyone," Zarif said.
The semi-official Fars News Agency later denied that the foreign minister had made the Holocaust statements, and quoted his deputy denying them too, despite footage of the interview being available online.
"In a phone conversation that I had with Mr. Zarif he completely rejected the remarks attributed to him and declared that the Islamic Republic's stance about the (Zionist) regime is what has been repeatedly announced by the country's diplomacy apparatus and this stance has not changed," said Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Qashqavi said, according to the Iranian news agency.
Zarif was in Germany to attend the weekend's Munich Security Conference. Notably, Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon sat in the front row of a session at which Zarif spoke, and other Israeli delegates also remained in the hall. At the UN General Assembly last fall, by contrast, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered Israel's delegates to leave the hall for the address by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
In late January, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Rouhani dodged a question about whether Iran would recognize Israel.
During the brief question and answer session after the speech, WEF founder Klaus Schwab focused on Rouhani's stated desire to work toward better relations with the rest of the world.
"Do you include all countries?" Schwab asked, presumably intending Israel. There was a hum of laughter and expectation from the audience.
Rouhani paused for a moment and laughed. "There are no exceptions; we wish for a better future and to have beneficial relations with all that we recognize," he then said with a smile.
In the interview with German TV, Zarif also maintained that a nuclear deal could be reached between Iran and the six world powers within six months should goodwill between countries persist, and said Iran was not concerned about US efforts to renew sanctions.
"I am not afraid of Congress's decision because the US president has promised to veto such a resolution," Zarif said.
Fifty-nine Republicans and Democrats back legislation to impose a new round of penalties on Iran, maintaining that crippling economic sanctions forced Tehran to make concessions.
The legislation, sponsored by Sens. Bob Menendez and Mark Kirk, would blacklist several Iranian industrial sectors and threaten banks and companies around the world with being banned from the US market if they help Iran export any more oil. The provisions would only take effect if Tehran violates the six-month interim deal or lets it expire without a comprehensive nuclear agreement.
In his State of the Union address last week, US President Barack Obama repeated his threat to veto any new Iran sanctions if Congress passes legislation. On Monday, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Congress that new sanctions against Iran would undermine diplomatic talks.
Zarif also said Iran "would never start a military operation against anyone."
Iran agreed in November to slow its uranium enrichment program to a level that is far below what would be necessary to make a nuclear bomb. It also agreed to increased international inspections to give world leaders confidence that it is not trying to build weapons in secret.
In exchange, the US and five other nations Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China agreed to ease an estimated $7 billion worth of international sanctions against Iran's crippled economy for a six-month period while negotiators try to broker a final settlement.
The next round of talks is set to commence in Vienna on February 18.



Read more: Iran FM: We may recognize Israel after Palestinian deal | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-fm-we-may-recognize-israel-after-palestinian-deal

And I wonder if this sort of thing has had a role to play in it all?

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...e-Conflict

[Lauren Johnson]

Magda, agreed.

Obama is a water-carrier. When he announces a new policy, a pivot to the Asia, we know he is carrying somebody's water. How about the DOD.This possibly looming movement away from the State of Israel, has to be seen in the light of The Pivot, the final solution to the China Question. We have established many bases in Central Asia. Israel, America's closest ally in the ME (next to Saudi Arabia), is not as vital to the USA "interests." They were, but they are kind of a pain in the ass.

The Republicans have been maneuvered via the Hegelian dialectic into a position of guaranteeing the election of a globalist Democrat President. Easy peasy.

EDIT: Obama's "Pivot to Asia" which overtly threatens China is the endgame of this historical process. --Michel Chossudovsky

[David Guyatt]

It really is interesting to see all this unfold and wonder where it is all going.

But I'm inclined to agree, Lauren. Chossudovsky's essay you posted yesterday (or was it the day before?) was an excellent pointer of where everything might well be headed.

Even so, assuming Chossudovsky has read the tea leaves correctly, I don't see Israel sitting still for being sidelined after so many decades of being a vital US ally. Of course, without full US support they can only ever be a minor player anyway.

[Magda Hassan]

Serial Israeli Sanctions-Buster Again Guilty of Shipping Arms to Iran

by Richard Silverstein on February 17, 2014 in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society


Iranian F-4 fighters

The Israel Lobby and GOP have made a huge geschrei about Iran sanctions. They're the magic bullet that purportedly brought Iran to its knees. They advocate tightening the noose ever further. If only we took the sanctions regime to the end, Iran would completely acquiesce to western demands concerning its nuclear program. Or so the argument goes.
The U.S. screams bloody murder when it catches a foreign company violating the sanctions regime. U.S. media made sure to note that Pres. Obama lectured Francois Hollande when he was here about a French trade delegation that recently visited Iran.
How curious then, that Israel itself would be found to be in violation of U.S. sanctions law. Not once, not twice, but tens of times over the years. But did we hear about this latest incident from the NY Times or Washington Post? Did the administration hold a press conference to announce the Israeli violation as they would if it were a Pakistani, North Korean or Chinese company? Are you kidding. We had to learn about it in the pages of an obscure Greek media outlet, which reported that an Israeli arms dealer sent spare parts for Iranian F-4 Phantom jets to Iran via Greece.
A U.S. Homeland Security investigation cooperated with Greek officials to foil the transaction:

…The operation was carried out in two phases one in December 2012 and the second in April 2013…Officials traced containers packed with the F-4 parts on Greek territory. The cargo had been sent by courier from the Israeli town of Binyamina-Giv'at Ada and had been destined for Iran, which has a large fleet of F-4 aircraft, via a Greek company registered under the name Tassos Karras SA in Votanikos, near central Athens. SDOE officials established that the firm was a ghost company…
According to HSI memos, the cargo appears to have been sent by arms dealers based in Israel, seeking to supply Iran in contravention of an arms embargo, and using Greece as a transit nation.

Avichai Weinstein, serial Iran sanctions buster

The location of the Israeli company gave away the identity of the arms dealer to my Israeli source. This serial violator of the Iranian arms embargo is a devout Jew, Avichai Weinstein, whose companies QPS and PAD, have had numerous brushes with the law, both Israeli and U.S. I am the first media source revealing Weinstein's involvement in this affair.
In 2003, Weinstein and his brother-in-law Eli Cohen were accused of procuring parts for Iranian F-4 jets and Hawk missiles using a U.S. Jewish arms dealer, Leib Kohn. In that case, the weapons systems were to be exported from the U.S. to Israel. There was no word on how Weinstein intended to get them to Iran, though it likely would've been through a third-party.
Yossi Melman reported here that the pair were also suspected of trying to ship armored personnel carriers to Iran in 2002. He noted in his article that this was the third time they were suspected of shipping illegal arms to Iran in the past decade.
In none of these cases were they even charged with a crime, let alone prosecuted. There can be no doubt that they are colluding with Israeli intelligence. Channel 2′s military reporter, who didn't reveal Weinstein's identity, said:

…Whoever did this, did not do so in opposition to Israeli interests.

How might such a scenario play out? For example, it's known Iran was deliberately sold defective centrifuges which caused damage and delays to Iran's nuclear program. Was Weinstein involved? Further, Israel needs to supply its MEK allies inside Iran with munitions and communications equipment for its sabotage campaign against that country's nuclear and missile program. Was Weinstein involved? Israel is reported to be supplying Syrian rebels in the Golan with weapons in their fight against the Assad regime. They might want to do this via a third-party to conceal official involvement.
These are all speculative questions meant to suggest the type of shady dealings and relationships that might prove useful to Israel's military-intelligence apparatus. They might explain how such dirty arms dealers could keep themselves out of prison despite supplying weapons to a sworn Israeli enemy.
If this was the only Israeli weapons dealer who'd done this, you could chalk it up to a single rotten apple. But there have been many other knowing and unknowing violations by Israeli arms merchants and defense contractors. Only a few months ago, the U.S. summoned the Israeli defense ministry official charged with monitoring arms exports for a dressing down. He'd approved the export of sophisticated cooling systems that can be used in Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. suspected that the equipment, which originated from the Israeli affiliate of Ricor, traveled via several European countries, then to China, and then to Iran.
Concerning the latest Weinstein arms deal, it was far more straight-forward. The F-4 parts went directly from Israel to Greece and from there were to go directly to Iran. One wonders whether the U.S. plans to take any action in this case. Clearly, Israel will not since this is at least the fourth time this pair have tried to sell weapons to Iran. You have to ask yourself: if Weinstein has been willing to sell arms to Iran which might be used to kill Israeli soldiers in a possible war, why wouldn't Israel throw the book at them?
That brings us into the sordid underbelly of the Israeli defense industry in which billions are exchanged in bribes, in which brutal dictators are sold weapons systems used to maintain their blood-soaked rule, in which the shadiest of former Israeli intelligence agents and generals do favors for their former colleagues to advance Israeli intelligence interests. In fact, I have little doubt that even in this incident, Israeli intelligence would prefer us to believe that Weinstein was serving the interests of his country. How could anyone justify this swine unless he was doing you dirty favors? The question is what is he doing for them and where?
Israel of course has a long history of supplying Iran with weapons, going back to the era of the Shah. Even after he was toppled, Israel sold the Islamic Republic spare parts for U.S.-made planes when we imposed an arms embargo on the new Islamist regime. Infamously, Israel shipped U.S. missiles to Iran in return for freeing the Lebanese hostages. Israeli arms dealers don't care about international arms embargos when there's a profit to be madeeven if the target country is Israel's arch-enemy.
I also reported that Israeli oil companies were transshiping oil to Iran. The U.S. also penalized the Ofer shipping conglomerate for selling its tankers to Iran. In fact, Ofer had carried Israeli secret agents to Iran on some of these ships.
All this is incredibly ironic in light of Bibi's shameful performance before the Conference of Presidents today in which he thundered that the west must not give an inch in Iran negotiations; and that the only path is relentless pressure, punishment and ostracism. How does Israel's leader get off telling the world to up the pressure when he refuses to prosecute a citizen who's attempted multiple times to violate precisely the same sanctions regime? His motto must be: do as I say, not as I do.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/0...s-to-iran/

[Magda Hassan]

Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם
Promoting Israeli democracy, exposing secrets of the national security state

Israel Detains Sanctions-Busting Ultra-Orthodox Arms Dealers

by Richard Silverstein on February 20, 2014 in Mideast Peace


Avichai Weinstein and Eli Cohen under investigation

UPDATE: Haaretz reports that Weinstein and Cohen were not arrested, but questioned.
After reporting here that Israeli serial sanctions-busters and arms dealers, Avichai Weinstein and Eli Cohen were being investigated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Greek security services for attempting to send spare parts for F-4 fighter jets to Iran, yesterday the Daily Telegraph followed up with its own report which quoted Tikun Olam.
This induced Israeli police to arrest Weinstein and Cohen a few hours ago. My Israeli source conveyed this message from the security services:

"We realized that keeping the gag only gives this bastard Silverstein more traffic and more publicity, and now he was even quoted by The Daily Telegraph! This is certainly not what we want, and so we decided it would be better to allow the Israeli public to read the arms dealers' names in the local media, and not in Tikun Olam."

It's most unfortunate that it should take my exposure of such unnecessarily secret information to get Israeli law enforcement to do its job. However, we must remember that the arms dealers have been investigated before, but never charged, convicted or imprisoned for their flaunting of international sanctions. The question remains whether they engaged in this trade at the behest of the security services. If so, what was the purpose? If there was no collusion, why didn't the Israelis intervene before the material got to Greece, where it could easily have been forwarded to Iran without DHS intervention.
Weinstein and Cohen have operated under a number of different corporate names. Their current iteration is Rebuilt Spare Parts (RSP). Ironically, RSP has procured federal government contracts! Given that the corporate owners have been serial violators of Iran sanctions, why would the government even allow them to bid? Thanks to reader, Oui, for pointing that out.
After attempting to elicit a comment from the Department of Homeland Security, the best I could muster was this e-mailed statement from Brian Montgomery of ICE:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) does not confirm or deny any possible active investigation.

Considering that everybody and their brother (and sister) knows there is such an investigation, the statement doesn't go very far.
Yeshivaworld reveals that Weinstein and Cohen are members of the Permishlan Chassidic sect. Which raises the question about the relationship between these particular ultra-Orthodox Jews and the State itself. There are such sects which are anti-Zionist and refuse to recognize Israeli sovereignty. As such, it would be easier for these arms dealers to traffic in contraband, since they would see the State as an evil entity which usurps divine will (some ultra-Orthodox believe only God and the coming of the messiah will cause the rebuilding of the Temple and revival of the Jewish State). This serve as part of the reasoning behind the refusal to prosecute them as well. Presumably, doing so would arouse the ire of a massive voting bloc of Haredi constituents.
Haaretz has been pretty much asleep at the switch in reporting this story. Today, in the first story in which they named the arms dealers (linked above) they called them "Avichai Cohen" & "Eli Weinstein." None of the Israeli media reports I've read have credited Tikun Olam with breaking the gag and exposing the identity of these arms smugglers. If you'd like to consider giving your own personal credit for this effort, give a donation via WePay or Paypal links in the sidebar.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/0...ms-dealers