Israel on North Korea's Nuclear Test: It's All About Iran

It took less than a day after Pyongyang’s second nuclear test on 25 May for Israel to identify the real significance: Iran.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated that the international community had to do everything to prevent Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. He told Army Radio: "To our regret we see a mad arms race.....Everything must be done in order thwart their attempts to reach a nuclear capability." Lieberman added:

Up until today there were neither sanctions against Iran nor against North Korea. They need to be completely closed in terms of financial activities; the two states need to understand they are dependent on the supply of petrol because they have no refineries.

This, however, was far from Israel's most ambitious attempt to put Iran at the centre of a global anti-Israel nuclear conspiracy. For that, we have to go to Latin America.

According to Ha'aretz, a secret Israeli government report states that Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program. For those who might have forgotten, Venezuela expelled the Israeli ambassador and Bolivia cut its relations with Israel after the latter’s offensive in Gaza. Thus they join the list of ‘dangerous’ countries whose activities should prompt more hawkish US policies.

The ultimate warning from the North Korean developments had already come from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "If Israel did not take out the Iranian threat, no one would." Of course, for this outcome, he constructed the ‘unique’ situation of Israel in the face of its ‘existential threat.’ The never-ending "existential threat" was outlined to his fellow Likud Party members:

Israel is not like other countries. We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call....These are not regular times. The danger is hurtling toward us.

Of course, the view from the other side is very different. Responding to Israeli charges that Bolivia and Venezuela were supplying uranium to Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted:

There is no cooperation between us. We are opposed to the nuclear proliferation; we are opposed to storing nukes. We have announced this repeatedly.

So the North Korean test becomes just one more rationale in the ongoing process of "securitization". While Israel tries to erect an internationally-supported justification for hard-line policies against Tehran, putting other countries like Bolivia and Venezuela beyond the acceptable, Iran uses those Israeli declarations to set up its own "reasonable" global system, which just happens to include bigger and better --- if non-nuclear --- missiles.

Video: Brzezinski --- "This is the Last Chance for Peace in the Middle East"

Speaking on MSNBC's Morning Joe this week, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, reviewed the Middle East peace process. He declared that President Obama found himself between two options/schools of thought: Israel’s official perspective of delaying the peace with Palestinians, by presenting the Iranian danger as the priority of “existential threat”, and the demand for a two-state solution.

For Brzezinski, the outcome of Obama’s speech in Cairo on July 4 will be the turning point in US policy. It will ether foster a solution or, in its failure, ensure the peace process will be stuck for a long time. Thus, the US must make it clear to Israelis and Palestinians that this is the last chance for peace in the region, particular as the tension with Iran is worsening.

Brzezinski believes Israel must withdraw from occupied Palestine and must be pushed to share Jerusalem and stop the expansion settlements. In return, Israel must be assured that it does not have to accept any Palestinian refugees via a "right to return". Otherwise, a polarization would continue, with Palestinians seeing no alternative outside Hamas.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Iran's President Election: Mousavi Makes His (Economic) Challenge

Chris Emery, who has kept Enduring America on top of the Iranian presidential election, offers a latest observation which suggest there might be a heated contest:

With Iranian voters going to the ballot box in less than three weeks, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the candidate most likely to challenge President Ahmadinejad, has this month stepped up his campaign. With vital television debates beginning next week, in which the economy is likely to feature strongly as an issue, Mousavi's team published details of its economic plans over the weekend.

Mousavi’s manifesto has reportedly drawn on the analysis of 150 economists and is undeniably ambitious. The document calls for transparency on oil contracts, an increase in aid to boost and diversify production, and an economy that encourages “ethics and morality”. Iran’s dependence on oil revenue will be reduced through a shift to an industrial Ieconomy.

Mousavi places Iran’s nuclear energy programme at the centre of this effort. However, he also recognises that an overly provocative pursuit of nuclear energy will do little to advance the role of the private sector, which is another cornerstone of his economic strategy.

Indeed, there is a clear geo-political emphasis in Mousavi’s support for the liberalisation and diversification of Iran’s economy. In contrast to Ahmadinjad’s inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric and his boasting of Iran’s regional power, Mousavi suggests that a stronger and more diverse national economy would offer Iran more influence as the region addresses its problems.

Yet, while the economy is likely to be the defining aspect of this campaign, Mousavi's challenge also shows the importance of political associations, in particular aligning oneself with political icons.

Mousavi’s choices don’t get much more iconic. By placing himself alongside Mohammed Mossedeq, the nationalist prime minister ousted by a CIA plot in 1953, Mousavi asserts his own belief not only in a strong national economy but in an economy linked to greater national autonomy and involvement in the region.

Mousavi's close personal relationship with former president Khatami cements his support from the young and takes advantages of Khatami’s large organisational network. This was seen earlier in the month during a rally Khatami organised to support Mousavi. Video footage shows a young audience, donned in Mousavi’s campaigning colours of green, shown videos of Mossedeq.

Also highly visible in the video is Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard. Whilst candidates’ wives have become important campaigners for Western politicians, it is extremely rare in Iranian politics. President Ahmadinejad has been notoriously guarded about his own wife and children, who are almost never seen in public. In contrast, Rahnavard, a former university chancellor and supporter of women’s rights, has appeared at most of her husband’s campaign events.

The third iconic figure with which Mousavi has closely associated himself is the founder of the Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini. Mousavi, who needs to appeal to moderate conservative elements if he is to win, has emphasised his close relationship with Khomeini, who was his chief political sponsor during the 1980s. After visiting the house in which Khomeini was born earlier this month Musavi stated, "We have to return to Imam Khomeini's values if we want justice and freedom in Iran."

Mousavi knows that a high turnout is vital for his victory. His sparring with Ahmadinejad during the television debates will be watched by millions, but it is his organisational machine which would deliver his success. Access to the reformist campaigning infrastructure which delivered Khatami two consecutive victories is crucial, but this will have to be complemented by a much broader appeal. It will a frantic run-in to the 12 June election.

Gaza: Israel's Destruction of Agricultural Land Continues

On 4 May, Israeli troops set fire to Palestinian crops along Gaza’s eastern border with Israel. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 200,000 square meters of crops were destroyed. Wheats, barleys, vegetables, and the olive and pomegranate trees of local farmers were wiped out.

Why?

Was this a continuation of the war of Operation Cast Lead in December-January, punishing Gazans so would they give up support of Hamas? Is it part of a broader political plan to make Gazans suffer, rendering this more dependent to the West Bank economy which is to be improved with Israeli investment in cooperation with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas?

This is not the first time Israeli forces have carried out this type of operation. The report of the fact-finding Committee, supported by the Arab Human Rights Commission, documented the destruction of Gazan agricultural lands by the Israeli Defense F:orces. Amongst the findings:

The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Mr. Olivier De Schutter (Belgium), reported, "An estimated 80 percent of agricultural land and crops has been damaged during recent hostilities, as evidenced by 395 impact craters resulting from shelling. Arable land has been contaminated by spills of sewage and toxic munitions."

The Palestinian National Early Recovery and Reconstruction Plan for Gaza reported that the agricultural sector was damaged extensively during the conflict. A preliminary damage assessment estimated the direct losses at more than $180 million.

Human rights commssions have reported that, following the bombardment of an agricultural area, cows which ate grass from the area shortly after the attack died.

It is hard to imagine the extent of the damage --- economic, political, and psychological --- in cold numbers. So perhaps the testimony of Safadi, a local farmer in the Gaza Strip, brings home the impact:

The Israeli soldiers fired from their jeeps, causing a fire to break out on the land. They burned the wheat, burned the pomegranate trees ... The fire spread across the valley. We called the fire brigades. They came to the area and put out the fire. But in some places the fire started again.

According to Safadi, he lost 30,000 square meters in the blaze, including 300 pomegranate trees, 150 olive trees, and wheat.

As for Israel's political aims, it is unknown what position Safadi holds, or has ever held, on the legimitacy of Hamas.

The Implications of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Sales between Moscow and Tel Aviv

Here's an international military manoeuvre to de-cipher: according to the Jerusalem Post, Israel is planning to expedite production of unmanned aerial vehicles for Russia.

There are two starting points for an analysis. In summer 2008, when Russia was at war with Georgia, Amos Gilad, the head of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s Diplomatic-Security Bureau, visited Moscow and took away the guarantee that Russia would not sell the S300 defensive missile system to Iran. And only last week, Russia announced that it had decided to halt the sale of advanced MIG-31 fighter jets to Syria.

Contrary to a long-standing assumption, it appears that Moscow has not had significant leverage over Tehran’s nuclear enrichment. This may be partly because of Iran halted its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities in fall 2003, as the latest CIA report reiterates.

Thus, Russia has to find other bargaining chips in the Middle Eastern game. And it need not worry --- even without a nuclear weapons programme, Iran has enough conventional weapons initiatives for either pretext or genuine fear, and there are other countries such as Syria who will have to be kept in their proper military place.