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: Reaction to North Korea's Second Nuclear Test

On Tuesday, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its second underground nuclear test, producing an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.7. The first test in October 2006 was followed by protracted negotiations in which Pyongyang would disable its nuclear facilities in return for energy aid and removal of its name from a US list of states supporting terrorism. However, from February 2009, North Korea once again moved towards nuclear armament.

International reactions and background follow the video of President Obama’s statement:

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

- President Obama: “Grave concern to all nations.”

- Gordon Brown: “Erroneous, misguided and a danger to the world.”

- European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana: “Provocation and we strongly condemn them.”

- NATO: "These irresponsible actions by Pyongyang pose a serious challenge to peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and are being universally condemned by the international community. We call upon Pyongyang to refrain from any other actions which could contribute to raising tensions and to restore dialogue within the Six-Party framework. The Alliance will continue to carefully monitor developments with deep concern."

- United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon: “I am deeply worried by a report of nuclear test by Democratic Republic of Korea.”

- Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith: “Provocative.”

- The Kremlin: “Deep regret and the most serious concern.”

- Chinese Foreign Ministry: “Resolutely opposed.”

- Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso: “Unacceptable and a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions."

France called on the UN Security Council to impose further sanctions against North Korea and the South Korean Prime Minister Lee Myung-bak called an emergency meeting of cabinet members. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tried to convince the international public that he had nothing to do with North Korea’s nuclear test, declaring, “We oppose the production, the amassing and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

— 1994: Under agreement with US, North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for help building two safer power-producing nuclear reactors.

— Aug. 31, 1998: North Korea fires suspected missile over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean, calling it a satellite.

— Sept. 13, 1999: North pledges to freeze long-range missile tests.

— July 2001: U.S. State Department reports North Korea is developing long-range missile.

— December 2001: President George W Bush warns Iraq and North Korea will be "held accountable" if they develop weapons of mass destruction.

— Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea announces withdrawal from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

— August 2003: North Korea joins first round of six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing with China, U.S. Japan, Russia and South Korea.

— July 5, 2006: North Korea launches seven missiles into waters between the Korean peninsula and Japan, including a medium-range Taepodong-2.

— July 15, 2006: UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1695 demanding North Korea halt missile program.

— Oct. 9, 2006: North Korea conducts underground nuclear test blast after citing "extreme threat of a nuclear war" from U.S.

— Oct. 15, 2006: UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1718 condemning test, imposing sanctions and banning North Korea from all activities related to its nuclear weapons program.

— Feb. 13, 2007: North Korea agrees to disable its main nuclear facilities in return for energy aid and other benefits.

— July 14, 2007: North Korea shuts down main Yongbyon reactor, later starts disabling it.

— June 27, 2008: North Korea destroys cooling tower at Yongbyon.

— Sept. 19, 2008: North Korea says it is restoring nuclear facilities at Yongbyon.

— Oct. 11, 2008: U.S. removes North Korea from a list of states that sponsor terrorism.

— Feb. 15, 2009: North Korea claims it has the right to "space development."

— Feb. 23: South Korea says North Korea has a new type of ballistic missile capable of reaching northern Australia and Guam.

— April 5: North Korea launches long-range rocket from its base on the country's northeast coast.

— April 13: UN Security Council condemns launch.

— April 14: North Korea announces withdrawal from disarmament talks and says it will restore partly disabled nuclear facilities.

— April 25: North Korea announces start of reprocessing of spent fuel rods from its nuclear plant. A UN Security Council committee approves new sanctions on three major North Korean companies in response to the rocket launch.

— April 29: North Korea threatens to conduct nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests unless the UN Security Council apologizes for criticizing its long-range rocket launch.

— May 7-12: Special U.S. envoy on North Korea visits Asia, says Washington is ready for direct talks with Pyongyang.

— May 8: North Korea dismisses talks with U.S. as useless, citing Washington's "hostile policy".

— May 25: North Korea announces it successfully conducted a nuclear test.

It is obvious that North Korea did not keep an account of what the majority of ‘others’ said, but the following days will show us to what extent Obama Administration’s leadership and effectiveness in handling the situation can bring a solution which can allay and satisfy its partners. All eyes are now looking curiously for the next line in the timeline of Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs…

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.

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.

May Plan C on the Israeli-Arab Peace Process Work?

My colleague Scott Lucas wondered for weeks whether the Obama Administration has a Plan A for the Middle East before, last Friday, he finally wrote of an American "grand design".

With respect, I differ. The President and his advisors not only have a Plan A. They are ready with a Plan B and a Plan C.

Obama put Plan A for a two-state Israel-Palestine outcome and general Arab-Islamic agreements to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israelis made clear, and let the press know they had made clear, that this was not acceptable. So Plan B is working groups with the Israelis while encouraging regional leaders, such as Jordan's King Abdullah, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to maintain the call for an Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Then there is Plan C. The Associated Press reported last week that the Obama Administration may set a deadline of the end of 2009 on talks with Iran if they are not producing result.

The immediate reading was that Washington might be siding with Tel Aviv on the need for an eventual showdown with Iran. The reality could be more nuanced: the Obama Administration may use Tehran’s uncompromising position to pull Arabs and Israelis together for a regional process including Israel-Palestine.

Although some claim that this Plan C will never work, since Arabs and Israelis have different fears with regards to Iran’s policies, others argue that it is the best path. "The administration has to find the best path," says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Is this the best path? Given the opportunities, yes. They may not produce success but they offer the best alternative available."

The key to full Arab participation may be Syria, which has recently been in talks with Iran on a possible common approach. Here George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East envoy and a legendary negotiator, comes into play. Washington's ploy may be for Mitchell talks in Damascus to open the doors both to a diminishing of Iran’s influence and Israeli-Syrian talks.

Because Israel wants to see the Iranian threat "dealt with" before any peace deals with the Arabs, this subtle move by the Obama Administration could bring success. Instead of Israel’s insistence on clearing Tehran's nuclear facilities, Washington can change the context of the Tehran issue by adding the more political yet still forthright policies of Arab states into a broad-based coalition against Tehran. This approach may be enough to allay Tel Aviv’s concerns.