Iran has 'proof' US killed scientist

Worshippers carry the coffin of Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, who was killed in a bomb blast in Tehran on Wednesday during his funeral after Friday prayers in Tehran. Photograph: Morteza Nikoubaz/Reuters

Related

• Bomb kills Iranian nuclear scientist | 11/01/2012
• Japan backs Iran sanctions | 12/01/2012
• US seeks Iran sanctions | 12/10/2011
• Bomb kills Iranian nuclear scientist | 12/01/2010

Iranian state television said today Tehran had evidence Washington was behind the latest assassination of one of its nuclear scientists.
In the fifth attack of its kind in two years, a magnetic bomb was attached to the door of 32-year-old Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan's car during the Wednesday morning rush-hour in the capital. His driver was also killed.
The United States has denied involvement in the killing and condemned it. Israel has declined to comment.
"We have reliable documents and evidence that this terrorist act was planned, guided and supported by the CIA," the Iranian foreign ministry said in a letter handed to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, state TV reported.
"The documents clearly show that this terrorist act was carried out with the direct involvement of CIA-linked agents."
The Swiss Embassy has represented US interests in Iran since Tehran and Washington cut diplomatic ties shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution.
State TV said a "letter of condemnation" had also been sent to the British government, saying the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists had "started exactly after the British official John Sawers declared the beginning of intelligence operations against Iran".
In 2010, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service Sawers said one of the agency's roles was to investigate efforts by states to build nuclear weapons in violation of their international legal obligations and identify ways to slow down their access to vital materials and technology.
Tehran has urged the UN Security Council and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to condemn the latest killing, which Tehran says is aimed at undermining its nuclear work, which the West and Israel say is aimed at building bombs. Tehran says its nuclear programme is purely civilian.
Tension has mounted between Iran and the West as the United States and European Union prepare measures aimed at imposing sanctions on the Iran's oil exports, its economic lifeblood.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear dispute.

Russia warns US of new Cold War over missile deal

 President Dmitry Medvedev today cautioned that Russia's ties with the West could slide back to Cold War era if the US went ahead with its missile shield in Europe, seen by Moscow as threat to its nuclear capability.Obama administration has refused to give legally binding guarantees to Moscow on not directing against the anti-missile shield against Russia."It is clear that the missile defence shield is directed at blocking the strategic capabilities of certain states."I understand that other states mentioned (Iran, North Korea) do not have (nuclear) potential compatible with Russia and are unlikely to achieve them in the coming years... So, it is directed against us," Medvedev said.Speaking at a packed news conference here attended by over 800 Russian and foreign journalists and carried live by main state TV channels and radio stations, the Russian leader cautioned: "This would be a very bad scenario, which would take us back to the Cold War era." He said in response to the US missile shield in Europe close to the Russian borders the Kremlin will boost its nuclear strike capabilities. Medvedev, who is in favour of a joint ABM system in Europe involving Russia as an equal partner, but so far NATO has refused to cooperate with Moscow."We will have to take retaliatory measures, which we do not want to have to do. This will mean forcing the development of our nuclear strike potential," he warned.The Russian leader also reminded that under the strategic arms reduction treaty (START) signed last year, Russia reserves the right to suspend the implementation or walk out of the cornerstone nuclear arms control pact and boost its nuclear arsenals.

Vietnam tops Russia's arms client lis

 

disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only

Vietnam is now officially Russia's biggest arms client thanks to recent orders for six Kilo-class submarines and 12 Su-30 fighter jets, according to a Moscow-based think tank. Vietnam's deal for its first submarines is Russia's second-biggest contract for subs in the post-Soviet period, after a 2002 contract with China for eight submarines, said the independent Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies that monitors Russian military exports.
The analysis by CAST confirms what observers believed when the deal was signed during Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung's Dec. 15 visit to Moscow. Vietnam joins India, Algeria, Venezuela and China as Russia's top clients, according to an article on the Defense News Web site, which quotes the Russian news agency ITAR-Tass as the source.
The article did not, however, give any figures for sales to Vietnam.
Russia stands to make another $2 billion for maintenance and repair work, much of it carried out in Vietnam within new facilities at a naval base. Russia is also likely to construct a communications center, said CAST analyst Konstantin Makiyenko. The subs will be designed by the Rubin Central Design Bureau for Machine Engineering and built by the Admiralteiskiye Verfi shipyard, both in St. Petersburg.
The deal for the Su-30MK2 fighters, to be built at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur plant, comes on top of a previous 12-plane agreement signed in January 2009. Delivery starts later this year.
The two contracts have been a boost to Rosoboronexport, an official government arms exporter that cemented the deals. In a brief news article by the ITAR-Tass agency this week Anatoly Isaikin, chief executive officer of Rosoboronexport, was optimistic.
Despite the global financial crunch, Rosoboronexport's order book rose from $32 billion at the end of 2009 compared to $22 billion at the end of 2008. "The crisis hasn't prevented our major foreign clients from paying for the contracts, and there were no hitches in how Russia performs its export obligations," he said.
The submarine contract is being watched closely by Beijing, which sees Vietnam go from having no submarines to operating a dozen of one of the most sophisticated ships in its own back yard, the South China Sea, where there remains a small but niggling territorial dispute.
According to a report in the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, the deal for submarines and jet fighters -- Hanoi's biggest since the end of the Vietnam War 35 years ago -- reflects a widening belief in the region that "Beijing's vaunted show of soft power in the past decade" is taking on a harder edge.
"It comes as Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia seek to expand submarine programs amid concerns that the U.S. will gradually see its traditional naval dominance and influence across East Asia eroded by China's naval expansion."
In the same article, retired People's Liberation Army Gen. Xu Guangyu played down the Hanoi purchase. "It is not a surprise or a threat to China," he said. "Vietnam has a long coastline

and we understand they need to upgrade their naval fleet. Maybe they feel urgency because of our own modernization program. Most navies in the region need to upgrade themselves and it's all perfectly understandable."
But the South China Morning Post article does point out the issue of the two "strategic" Paracel and Spratly island groups consisting of between 100 and 200 reefs, islets and islands, depending on tides.
China and Vietnam have had confrontations in the past. In March 1988 the Chinese navy fired on a group of Vietnamese sailors standing waist deep in water on a tiny reef, killing more than 60 and taking two prisoner.
"The islands sit above a seabed considered rich in oil and gas deposits. Beijing has repeatedly warned Vietnam and the Philippines against continuing oil exploration deals with overseas firms," the Post said. Beijing holds all of the Paracels after driving off the South Vietnamese navy in the closing days of the Vietnam war in 1974. Vietnam, meanwhile, occupies the most islands in the Spratly grouping.
"As tensions rise, Vietnam has been quietly attempting to internationalize the issue -- a move reflected in the latest deal with Russia and growing ties with the U.S.

Stop seeing West as threat, NATO chief tells Russia

Stop seeing West as threat, NATO chief tells Russia

Vietnam defense minister meets key US senators Washington (AFP) Dec 15, 2009 - Vietnam's defense minister, making a rare visit to the United States, met Tuesday with a key US Senator who called ties between the two former war foes "very important." General Phung Quang Thanh met with Democratic Senator Jim Webb, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, and was to meet with Senator John McCain, the Senate Armed Services Committee's top Republican. "It is vitally important that the United States engage with Southeast Asia at all levels," Webb, a former Marine who served in the Vietnam war and visited Hanoi in August, said after his roughly 35-minute meeting. "I have worked for many years to build a bridge between Vietnam and the United States. It is a very important relationship," Webb said through a spokeswoman. McCain is also a Vietnam war veteran who spent five and a half years as a prisoner after being shot down over Hanoi. Thanh also met with his US counterpart, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and agreed to enhance military-to-military engagement through a formalized mechanism for both countries to discuss "issues of bilateral and regional concern" at senior defense levels, a Pentagon spokeswoman said. The countries will conduct the dialogue beginning in 2010, spokeswoman Maureen Schumann said. Vietnamese media have underlined that Thanh was just the second Vietnamese defense minister to visit the United States since the two countries normalized relations in 1995, 20 years after the Vietnam War. The visit came after a long-standing dispute between China and Vietnam over ownership of the Paracels and a more southerly archipelago, the Spratleys, escalated earlier this year.

Russia should stop seeing the West as a threat, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday, as he called for a new partnership between Moscow and the transatlantic alliance. Relations between NATO and Moscow plunged to a post-Cold War low after the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, but Rasmussen has made improving ties a priority since coming to office in August.
"Let me make a very clear statement as secretary general of NATO. NATO will never attack Russia. Never," Rasmussen said in a speech to students at the country's top diplomatic university.
"And we don't think Russia will attack us either. We have stopped worrying about this and Russia should stop worrying about this as well," he told the students, who responded with applause.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created at the start of the Cold War under the principle of collective defence, whereby members would jointly respond to any attack by an aggressor, at that time feared to be the Soviet Union.
If trust can be built between Moscow and NATO "then Russia can stop worrying about a menace from the West that simply doesn't exist," Rasmussen said.
"She can put her resources into defending against the real threats this country faces -- like terrorism, extremism, proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction or drug trafficking."
His comments were warmly received by the audience. Nikita Mulovsky, 17, a diplomacy student, told AFP: "I don't believe NATO is a threat to Russia. I think we need to work together."
Rasmussen, who had met President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, said "the blueprints are already in place for a true security partnership between NATO and Russia."
He said a trusting relationship between Russia and the transatlantic alliance "has enormous potential to make Russia safer, to make the NATO allies safer and to make a real contribution to global security as well."
Rasmussen said that if his "vision" were fulfilled, by 2020 Russia and NATO would be able to link their missile systems to create a "genuine missile shield in the Euro-Atlantic area".
He strongly defended the eastward expansion of NATO, which he acknowledged was "clearly something which many in Russia see as a deliberate strategy to encircle this country."
Russia has bristled at the moves by former Soviet republics like Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO and was also fiercely opposed to the now-shelved US plan to deploy missile defence facilities in Central Europe.
The day earlier, Rasmussen had asked Russia to step up its cooperation on Afghanistan, asking Moscow to send more helicopters for the Afghan government and to help train more Afghan police and counter-narcotics officers.
Such steps would ease the burden on NATO as it struggles to put down a raging Taliban insurgency.
Russia did not immediately say whether it would agree to the NATO requests, with Medvedev simply ordering a review of Rasmussen's proposals.
"I believe that Afghanistan must be a centrepiece of our partnership in 2010," Rasmussen said in Thursday's speech.
Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, cautiously praised the secretary general's visit.
"We were not expecting any breakthroughs, nothing like this was planned. On the other hand, I think the fact of the visit itself was helpful," Rogozin told AFP after the speech.
NATO spokesman James Appathurai, who travelled to Moscow with Rasmussen, described the visit as successful.
"The mood in the meetings was definitely warmer than certainly what I have seen over the past few years," said Appathurai.
"There was a clear willingness on all sides to focus not just on what we don't like about each other, but also to focus on what we can do together."

Fears of a New Cold War in Venezuela and ColombiA

 

While the West celebrates the fall of the Berlin Wall,  Hugo Chavez is stirring up a new Cold War in South America. Over the weekend, the socialist leader of Venezuela warned his citizens to prepare for war with neighboring Colombia, a close U.S. ally. This move escalates tensions that began this summer when Colombia accused Chavez of funding FARC, Colombia's left wing guerrillas. Now, there are fears that the conflict could lead to a full scale arms race in the Southern Hemisphere.

Conservative pundits say this is the latest sign that Chavez is a dangerous "bully" who could potentially destabilize the region if President Obama doesn't get tougher on Venezuela. But others say there's good reason to believe Chavez's latest threats can't be taken seriously.

• Colombia Should Be Very, Very Worried  At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey says Chavez wants to replace Colombia's president with a socialist, anti-American regime and turn Venezuela into a "world power intent on humbling the US in our hemisphere." And Morrissey says that thanks to Obama's weak response to the crises in Iran and Honduras, Chavez thinks he has found the perfect American president to bully.  "The strange response to the Honduran crisis apparently has Chavez believing that Obama is particularly malleable, although it could also be that Chavez has taken the lesson from Obama’s handling of Iran."

• America Should Defend Its Closest Ally  At The Weekly Standard, John Noonan says it's probably a bad idea to send American military power to the region, since a move could play to Chavez's anti-imperialist blustering. But Noonan does wants to see President Obama provide non-military assistance to Colombia. "President Obama will likely avoid involvement--not necessarily an unwise move considering Chavez wants to play up the U.S. as an imperial aggressor meme--but providing some token assistance in the form of a non-combat support role (like AWACs) might be enough to put Chavez in his place," he writes. "And it would further signal other U.S. allies that the White House still takes our defense alliances seriously."

• A Dictator In President's Clothing  At The Wall Street Journal, Mary O'Grady says Chavez's most recent aggression is simply more proof that he is a dictator posing as a legitimate president in order to more easily take over democratic institutions. According to O'Grady, this was a lesson learned out of the playbook of the Chilean left. "Fidel Castro learned a lot from Chilean President Salvador Allende's failed power grab in 1973. And he used the lessons of that bitter defeat to coach Venezuela's Hugo Chávez to dictatorship under the guise of democracy more than 25 years later."
  

• Racing to Stop an Arms Race  At Foreign Policy, Jordana Timerman says arms spending is on the rise across the region. "The Berlin Wall fell twenty years ago, and the Cold War itself ended soon after, but if you're feeling nostalgic, tune into the Cold War of the Andes: somewhat more farcical and definitely less likely to end in nuclear annihilation, but riveting nonetheless." Timerman says the U.S. should help build alliances in the region that would prevent such an arms race. "With Venezuelan troops lining up on the Colombian border, Peruvian officials' urging fellow South American countries to reduce military spending arms purchasing, in addition to creating a regional security force, is making a lot more sense."

Chavez Can't Be Taken Seriously  Steven Taylor of the PoliBlog calls the president's bluff. "The bottom line is that a) there is nothing for Chávez to gain from a war with Colombia and, b) Venezuela would likely lose such a confrontation. As such, it is difficult to take the saber-rattling seriously."

The new Cold War: the War on Terror

An Afghan mobile vender pushes his cart through war damaged buildings in Kabul, Afghanistan, last week. (Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP)

Some policies die hard. In "America's Cold War: the Politics of Insecurity," published by Harvard University Press in October, authors Campbell Craig and Fredrik Logevall argue that American policy formed during the Cold War was dominated by alarmism, political grandstanding and militarism. We asked Craig, a professor of international politics at Aberystwyth University in Wales, to weigh in on how this U.S. political tradition informs American policy today. Logevall is a professor of history at Cornell University.

GUEST BLOGGER: Campbell Craig
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the United States embarked upon a stunning campaign of military spending and war. Vast new bureaucracies were created almost overnight, not least the Department of Homeland Security, employer now of some 200,000 people.
Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of thousands of American and allied soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans (mostly civilians), and have cost American taxpayers a trillion dollars and counting.
And all of this took place in a remarkable political climate, almost one-party in its nature, as Democrats in Washington competed with one another to acquiesce to the Bush administration's demands and thereby demonstrate their toughness on terrorism.
Many critics of this disaster, and many of those who still defend it, suggest that the "Global War on Terror" represented a new form of foreign policy, one shaped decisively by the absence of great-power rivals to the United States and the murky, sub-national nature of the terrorist enemy.
However, while it is undeniably true that the Bush administration broke new ground in the fields of profligacy and incompetence, much of what went on between 2001 and 2008 actually partook of long-standing political traditions formed over the past sixty years.
The United States had entered the Cold War out of the entirely reasonable fear that the Soviet Union, though devastated by its war against Nazi Germany, might eventually expand into key industrial regions in Western Europe and East Asia unless contained by American force. In initiating its containment strategy, however, U.S. architects of the Cold War opened the door to an array of interest groups, industries, and cynical politicians with a vested interest in maximizing the confrontation with the USSR, and eventually with communists everywhere -- perpetuating the politics of insecurity.
Because the United States had long been protected from would-be predators by the two oceans -- a condition the historian C. Vann Woodward termed "free security" -- American politicians were used to being able to play politics with foreign policy, and this tendency did not disappear after 1945.
Though the USSR was effectively contained by 1950, with Western Europe and Japan firmly on Washington's side, and though the Soviets were deterred from attacking the U.S. directly by the spectre of assured nuclear destruction, numerous institutions, together with politicians who saw Cold War alarmism as a sure ticket to electoral victory, had no interest in accepting these realities.
For decades, American policymakers contrived reasons to build new weapons systems, warn of clear and present dangers, and wage war upon nations that posed no threat to American survival. Indeed, the notion that the United States had done all it could to be safe in a dangerous world became itself the greatest threat to the alarmists who prevailed over official Washington. In George F. Kennan's apt phrase, these leaders had become addicted to the Cold War.
In terms of domestic, if not international, politics, the Global War on Terror represents a continuation of America's Cold War more than a break with it. And, as always, the expansion of U.S. militarism can only be stemmed by democratic resistance.
President Eisenhower's demand, in his farewell address of 1961, that an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry" must stand guard against the "disastrous rise" of a military-industrial complex, remains as true now as it was then.