Multi-billion-dollar IP project virtually runs aground

Multi-billion-dollar IP project virtually runs aground By Zafar Bhutta Published: November 18, 2014 According to sources, the economic decision-makers believe the project couldn’t be implemented under the present geopolitical situation because of Tehran’s association with the project. PHOTO: AFP ISLAMABAD: The troubled multi-billion-dollar gas pipeline project between Pakistan and Iran is virtually dead. With the sword of possible international sanctions dangling over their head, Pakistan’s economic managers have decided to stall the $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline project until the international community lifts sanctions against the Islamic Republic, The Express Tribune has learnt. According to sources, the economic decision-makers believe the project couldn’t be implemented under the present geopolitical situation because of Tehran’s association with the project. They decided the border phase of the project would only be implemented once international sanctions were lifted and Pakistan was in a position to construct and connect its portion of the pipeline with the Iranian pipeline with no concern for sanctions on its companies for receiving gas or making gas payments to Iran. The decision-makers in a meeting of the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) held on October 2 had noted that since phase-II would comprise construction of an approximately 80-kilometre long pipeline, it would require little time for completion, sources said. The meeting was informed that a gas sales and purchase agreement (GSPA) between the Inter-State Gas Systems Pvt Limited (ISGS) from Pakistan and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) was signed in June 2009. Despite Pakistan’s best efforts, the project repeatedly hit snags due to the international sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic for its controversial nuclear programme. Iran’s association with the project and possible risk of violating sanctions has scared away potential financiers, reputable international suppliers of crucial equipment and contractors. The economic managers were also informed about Iran’s unilateral withdrawal from the government-to-government cooperation agreement and the $500 million financing for the construction of Pakistan’s portion of the pipeline. This had created a force majeure situation for Islamabad and accordingly the matter was taken up with Tehran as per the provisions of the GSPA. It was also stated that the Gwadar-Nawabshah LNG terminal and pipeline project had been planned keeping in view any future developments in the IP project. The pipeline would meet growing needs of the energy-starved Pakistan and could also be utilised to link up to the Iranian border in future. “As work of pipeline route has already been done for the IP project, it has been envisaged that the same specifications should be utilised for this project,” an official of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources said, adding that this project would provide capacity of up to 500mmcfd of LNG-based gas supply which could be used to cater for the needs of public and private sectors. It shall also serve as a means to realise the objectives of the IP project for the import of substantial qualities of urgently needed natural gas within three years. After detailed deliberations, the ECC approved in principle the Gwadar-Nawabshah LNG terminal and pipeline. Officials of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources said that proposals for this purpose had been shared with Iranian authorities who would respond after discussing with their high-ups. Published in The Express Tribune, November 18th, 2014. ==================== Exclusive: Iran uses China bank to transfer funds to Quds-linked companies – report By Louis Charbonneau, Jonathan Saul and James Pomfret NEW YORK/LONDON/SHENZHEN Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:19am EST A general view of the Central Bank of Iran building in Tehran January 23, 2006. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl A general view of the Central Bank of Iran building in Tehran January 23, 2006. Credit: Reuters/Morteza Nikoubazl Related News U.S. 'disappointed' with Iran's IAEA cooperation ahead of nuclear talks China gives Australia investment rights, yuan clearing bank India's Oct Iran oil imports rise 60 pct y/y -trade Analysis & Opinion How to fix the climate change beat China’s stock connection: a guide to the perplexed Related Topics China » (Reuters) - There is no trace of Shenzhen Lanhao Days Electronic Technology Co Ltd at its listed address in the beige and pink-tiled "Fragrant Villa" apartment complex in this southern Chinese city. The building's managers say they’ve never heard of it. But a Western intelligence report reviewed by Reuters says Shenzhen Lanhao is one of several companies in China that receives money from Iran through a Chinese bank. Such transfers help to finance international operations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' elite Quds Force, the report said. The Quds provides arms, aid and training for pro-Iranian militant groups in the Middle East, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Shi'ite Muslim militias in Iraq. They have also armed and trained government forces in Syria's civil war in violation of a U.N. arms embargo, U.S. and European officials say. Washington designated the Quds a supporter of terrorism in 2007. The European Union sanctioned them in 2011. The report said that the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) holds accounts with the Bank of Kunlun Co Ltd, a China National Petroleum Corp unit. Quds-controlled Iranian companies, including one called Bamdad Capital Development Co, initiate transfers from these accounts to either Chinese entities directly controlled by the Quds or to Chinese entities owed money by the Quds, such as Shenzhen Lanhao. "The money transfers from accounts held by the CBI with Bank Kunlun are initiated by the Quds Force and transferred to Chinese companies connected to the Quds Force in order to meet its financial needs," the seven-page report said. Reuters could not independently verify the claims in the report. The suspected movement of Iranian funds linked to the Quds Force through a Chinese bank and Chinese companies is a reminder of the difficulty of enforcing sanctions on Iran at a time when the United States and other world powers hope to clinch a nuclear deal with Tehran by Nov. 24. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned Kunlun in 2012 for conducting business with Iran and transferring money to an entity linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards, but there was no mention then of any link to the Quds. Once the money is transferred from Kunlun to other entities, the intelligence report said, the Quds can use it for acquisitions in China and to finance all sorts of covert activity in other countries. The report does not say how specific funds moving out of the CBI's accounts at Kunlun would be used by the Quds. The report does not suggest that either the Chinese government or Bank of Kunlun were aware of the possibility that there could be a Quds Force connection to Kunlun's transactions. But the report's assertions underline Tehran's complex and economically close relationship with Beijing: Iran is China's third-largest crude oil supplier, making China the Islamic Republic's biggest oil client. BEIJING PICKED KUNLUN The exact amount of money the Quds could have received from the Kunlun channel is unclear. But the sums flowing from the Iranian central bank to Kunlun over the past year have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the report said. As Western sanctions tightened on Iran in 2012, Beijing picked Kunlun as its main bank to process billions of dollars in oil payments to Iran, shielding other banks from penalties. Kunlun had assets of 246.5 billion yuan ($40 billion) at the end of 2013, according to its annual report. The U.S. Treasury's 2012 sanctions targeted money Iran was being paid for oil exports, including $22 billion held at Kunlun. However, there was an easing in the restrictions on Iran’s access to the money in November 2013 under a bilateral agreement with China, and as an interim nuclear deal was reached with six world powers in the same month. The deal between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China gave Tehran access to several billion dollars in assets frozen at banks worldwide in exchange for assurances it would curtail a nuclear program that Western powers suspect will give it the ability to build nuclear weapons. Negotiators gather in Vienna this week to try to reach a comprehensive deal that would prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb while eventually lifting sanctions that have badly hurt its economy. Hopes of a breakthrough are slim. METALS PURCHASE Officials at Kunlun did not respond to Reuters requests for comment, nor did CNPC, China's biggest oil and gas company. The Chinese government said China's trade relations with Iran and other countries do not violate international laws. "China maintains normal trade relations with relevant countries, including Iran," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement in response to queries from Reuters. "This does not violate any international law or (U.N.) Security Council resolution, and does not harm the interests of other countries or the international community." Iran’s U.N. mission declined to comment. Reuters viewed a payment transfer order from 2014 showing Bamdad requesting Iran's central bank transfer 1.45 million euros ($1.81 million) from an account at Kunlun to Shenzhen Lanhao for a payment "related to purchasing metals." While it was unclear how and whether the Quds Force received any funds through the transaction, it appeared to show the movement of funds as described in the report. The report says other companies also initiate and receive transfers from the central bank's Kunlun accounts in this way. Bamdad's website said it is engaged in pharmaceutical and base metals trading. Its Iranian telephone number was out of service. It lists an address in a non-existent Iranian province. A person listed as a general manager in a directory for Shenzhen Lanhao said he does not work for the company when contacted by telephone. The apartment complex listed as the business address for Shenzhen Lanhao in Shenzhen's western suburbs is occupied by a family. They told a Reuters reporter they hadn't heard of the company, nor of its general manager. (Additional reporting by Michael Martina, Fayen Wong and Chen Aizhu in Beijing, and Parisa Hafezi in Ankara. Editing by Jason Szep and Martin Howell) ============================

عودة التهجير الطائفي إلى بغداد

ودة التهجير الطائفي إلى بغداد | english | کوردی نقاش | أحمد هادي | بغداد | 24.07.2014 مرة أخرى يقف عمار العامري مدمع العينين وهو يشرف على بعض العمال الذين استأجرهم لحمل أثاث منزله إلى سيارة حمل كبيرة بعد تهديدات تلقاها من قبل إحدى المليشيات الناشطة في مناطق شرقي العاصمة. يحمل العامري ذو الأربعين ربيعاً الذي ينحدر من مدينة بعقوبة بديالى ذكريات أليمة عن عام تهجيره الأول عام 2006 حين بقي يدور في حلقة مفرغة لعله يجد طائفة تحتظنه وتقبل به وزوجته التي تنتمي لطائفة أخرى. يقول عمار لـ"نقاش" أنه انتقل عام 1996 لبغداد بعد زواجه من زينب ابنة منطقة الصدر لكنه لم يكن بحسبانه حينها إن زواجه وأسمي أولاده سيكونان سبباً في بقائه متشرداً. عمار تم نهجيره عام 2006 من مدينة الصدر فعاد حينها إلى ديالى لكن عودته هذه لم تكن موفقة بعد مداهمة عناصر من القاعدة منزله وتخييره بين الذبح أو مغادرة المدينة بعدما عرفوا أن ولديه يحملان أسماء كرار وسجاد وإن زوجته من طائفة أخرى فعاد ليسكن في مدينة الشعب. وبعد مرور ثمان سنوات على تلك المعاناة طرق عناصر مليشيا معروفة وقال له احدهم دون مقدمات "شفعت لك زوجتك وإلا كنا قتلناك دون تحذير وعليك ان تغادر المكان". بحث العامري كثيراً عن منطقة يستطيع الخلاص فيها من نار الملسحين والمليشيات على حد سواء ويقول"لم أجد سوى المنطقة الخضراء حيث ساعدني القاضي الذي أعمل كحارس شخصي له منذ أكثر من عقد على السكن فيها مؤقتاً" يختتم العامري حديثه. حامد الجبوري شخص آخر تم تهجيره من منطقة أبو دشير جنوبي العاصمة في السادس من تموز الجاري بعدما قضى اأكثر من ست سنوات في تلك المنطقة. لم نستطع الحديث مع الجبوري الذي غادر العاصمة متوجهاً إلى مدينة الموصل مسقط رأسه وأهله إلا إن زوجته عبير التي فضلت البقاء في بغداد بين أبناء طائفتها خوفاً من بطش داعش روت لنا ماجرى. جهشت عبير بالبكاء وهي تتحدث لـ"نقاش" عن ما حدث لزوجها على أيدي إحدى المليشيات حين اختطفوه من أمام المطعم الذي كان يعمل فيه وبعد توسلات ووساطات من شخصيات مؤثرة من المنطقة والأقارب رموه على باب البيت وهو فاقد الوعي من شدة التعذيب. تزوج الجبوري الذي تجاوز عقده الثلاثين بعام عبير بعد تخرجه من جامعة بغداد التي ارتادها وتعرف خلالها عليها ليسكن العاصمة انصياعاً لرغبة زوجته ويستقر فيها تقول عبير " لم يشكل انتماء حامد المذهبي أي مشكلة لدينا في المنطقة على مدى ست سنوات مضت، حتى إن علاقاته كانت جيدة مع أبناء المنطقة جميعهم رغم اختلافهم مذهبيا معه". ويبدو إن تأثيرات سيطرة داعش بعد العاشر من حزيران الماضي على العديد من المدن العراقية وعودة الشحن الطائفي من قبل الأطراف السياسية كان له تاثيرات سلبية كبيرة على النسيج الاجتماعي والسلم الأهلي لاسيما في المناطق المختلطة مذهبياً. داعش هجّرت آلاف العوائل الموصلية من التركمان الشيعة بمنطقة تلعفر والشبك القاطنين في قرى بازوايا وعلي رش والقبة وغيرها في مناطق سهل نينوى للأسباب ذاتها الأمر الذي أثار ردة فعل عنيفة ضد العائلات السنية في بغداد. غادر الجبوري العاصمة لكنه لم يستطيع أخذ عبير وطفليه محمد وحسين معه لأن أهله حذروه من القدوم للمدينة لمعرفة أهالي المنطقة التي يعيشون فيها في الموصل بأن زوجته تنتمي لغير مذهبهم، وبالتالي الخشية من استباحة داعش لدمها ودم أطفالها. محمد مهدي الشاب العشريني الذي يحمل في ذهنه توجهات مدنية بعيدة عن الأحزاب والطوائف والأديان تعرض هو الآخر للتهجير. اشترطت زوجة محمد السكن قرب أهلها بمنطقة السيدية ذات الغالبية السنية جنوبي بغداد للموافقة على الزواج به وقبل بشرطها حتى تغير واقع الحال بعد ثلاث سنوات وقبل أيام وجد رسالة في ظرف صغير مع رصاصة تطالبه بمغادرة المنطقة دون رجعة. محمد حمل أثاث منزله فور تلقيه التهديدات لينتقل إلى بيت والديه بمنطقة القاهرة شرقي العاصمة التي تقطنها الغالبية الشيعية ويقول "لم أنسَ تلك الأيام الجميلة التي قضيها في تلك المنطقة ومحبة الأصدقاء لي". عمار والجبوري والكثيرون غيرهم غادروا بغداد بانتظار عودة الأمن إليها وربما لن يعودوا مجدداً. == People walk through the rubble of the tomb of the Prophet Jonah (Yunus) in Mosul after it was destroyed in a bomb attack by militants of the Islamic State, July 24, 2014. (photo by REUTERS) Islamic State destroys sacred shrine in Mosul The Islamic State (IS) bombed and destroyed the tomb of the Prophet Jonah east of Mosul on July 24. Summary⎙ Print The shrine of Prophet Jonah was held as sacred by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Author Ali Mamouri Posted July 25, 2014 Translator(s)Cynthia Milan Previously, IS had carried out numerous bombings, destroying important cultural sites such as the shrine of the Prophet Daniel west of Mosul, the shrine of one of the grandchildren of the second Caliph Omar Bin al-Khattab, as well as mosques, various shrines and numerous other churches. These sites are not only for Shiite Muslims or non-Muslims. Most of them are sacred places for Sunni Muslims as well, and some are even only affiliated with them, in addition to a significant number of statues of famous figures and other cultural sites that also were destroyed. Sources inside the city confirmed this information to Al-Monitor. Activists on social media networks uploaded pictures and several videos showing the magnitude of the destruction of cultural sites around the city. Sources told Al-Monitor that a state of sorrow and regret reigns in the city and that they have seen plenty of people crying while witnessing the destruction of Jonah’s tomb. Jonah is considered sacred by all Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. What these groups are doing is based on an endemic Salafist principle common to most Salafist movements, whether they are jihadists or not. This principle underlines the need to purify the earth of polytheism and disbelief. These groups consider religious shrines or any other sites related to a certain person to be a kind of sanctification, which is, according to them, a true sign of polytheism. The destruction of these sites is part of the process of returning to the authentic Islam and eliminating all alien elements, according to the Salafist understanding. This contradicts the traditional understanding of Islam by all Muslim confessions, which means that Islam does not contradict other sanctities, but rather understands them and considers them sacred, especially when the people of these sacred places are prophets of the Quran, such as the prophets Jonah and Daniel and many others from both the New and Old Testaments. 1 The tomb of the Prophet Jonah before its destruction. (Twitter/@IraqPics) Therefore, international Muslim figures, such as the mufti of Egypt, condemned the destruction of sacred places by IS. The mufti also called for an urgent intervention from the authorities in Iraq and international organizations such as UNESCO to protect these sacred places. The destruction of sacred places also happened during the establishment of Saudi Arabia, which was described as the first political entity for Salafists in the Islamic world. Hundreds of shrines of the prophet’s companions and family have been destroyed, in addition to other important historical sites related to different eras of Islamic history, from the establishment of the first and second Saudi states until this day. These actions also occurred in Afghanistan, Syria and certain areas in Iraq that fell under the control of Salafist groups. IS threatened to continue the process of destroying sacred places of other confessions and religions, as well as others related to Sunnis. These threats raised the concerns of most Iraqis, especially the Shiites and the religious minorities, in addition to Sunnis who share the same respect and sanctification for these shrines and religious places. It's mandatory for the international organizations concerned about human rights and preserving religious freedom and heritage, specifically UNESCO, to work harder and on a larger scale to put an end to this destruction. This is essential since a large number of these places are sanctified and respected by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The concerns about the destruction of sacred places are not limited to them being historic and cultural sites; they include forgiveness and coexistence between different religions and confessions in Iraq. Such destruction harms the long history of coexistence among Iraqi religions. It targets the symbols and main sites which attracted and gathered all confessions and paved the path for communication and understanding, and thus, their coexistence. It also heightens intolerance and religious hatred and hostility between different confessions. This usually does not quickly fade away, and could create social divisions and demographic subdivisions on a large scale across Iraq. This could eliminate any sort of communication between the various elements of society and create severe conflicts between them. Iraq is heading toward total destruction of its historic and human heritage, which will turn it into a barren desert isolated from its time-honored cultural and religious history. This is taking place in light of chaotic circumstances involving terrorism that is on the offensive, Iraqi government ignorance, global silence and an international letdown — specifically from the United States, which completely abandoned its responsibilities toward the situation in Iraq.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/iraq-is-destruction-shrines-abrahamic-religions.html##ixzz38bmhuSac ===== Join the discussion… − ⚑ Avatar Armando Logic • a day ago I don't know what reaction should one show towards these filth? there are no words, these barbarians did the same thing in Afghanistan with the Buddha statues, the same in Syria and now in Iraq, on another note when Islam spread through out this region they did a lot of the same things, they left many Christian and Jewish sites intact as they considered them "the people of the book" but they showed no mercy to the other religions, they destroyed all the other religious sites, in Kurdistan and Iran it was Zoroastrian and Ezidi sites, many other small religions and sects in Syria Iraq etc. going back many millenia disappeared, even historical sites 4 △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar The Technical Analyst • 21 hours ago These such shrines have been the centers of Polytheism, Witchcraft and voodoo practioners all across Iran and where ever Shias live. These Shias have been adept in cheating innocent people threatening them with useless witchcraft and good for nothing voodoos and managed to rob innocent people of money - even to this day. And the Islamic State in its aim to completely purge itself of 'Shias' across Syria and Levant seems to have chosen to have destroyed the real 'Shia Barracks'. Shia or no Shia - such useless, witchcraft and voodoo practicing centers have no place in Modern World - let alone in Islam. Period. △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar Terence Darby > The Technical Analyst • 15 hours ago Says the 'analyst' with a picture of a sacred site as his/her avatar 7 △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar The Technical Analyst > Terence Darby • 8 hours ago Thank you very much for helping me set a mistake of mine right. And by the way your criticism of my reply also goes to show how much 'Shias' have infiltrated 'Muslims' - that United Arab Emirate fellows have been condoning and following the Shia religion for their own benefits. No wonder than Dubai lost itself after being indebted to bankruptcy and came under the control of Abu Dhabi - changing the name of its tallest building as 'Burj Khalifa'. Allah never allow such people who relinquish Islam in favor of Grave Worship - no matter what. United Arab Emirate is famous for many things anti-Islamic and condoning Shiism and Grave Worship is one of that is sure to be opposed. Thank you very much for pointing out my blunder - I am changing the picture to an Islamic Architecture bereft of any 'graves' or 'shrines' into it right away. △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar Faux-News > The Technical Analyst • 3 hours ago lol again. The UAE follows the maliki madhab and all their official fatwa boards are maliki. You have no clue at all. 1 △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar Faux-News > The Technical Analyst • 9 hours ago This actually is a typical example of wahhabi misinformation. When they cant justify their destruction from Islam and traditional scholarship and history, they invent these totally ignorant and false stories about how these sites are places of voodoo, magic, criminals, prostitution and other excuses and use it as blanket excuse to destroy these relics, as though if someone in his own house practiced voodoo would these people take a bulldozer and destroy his own house. In any case this is much needed article. Because of Saudi Salafi funding causing their Salafi Islam to be loud, there has come a misunderstanding among many non-muslim that what these Wahhabists do are actually something that Islam teaches and something that was practiced by pious Sunni Muslims and orthodoxy for 1400 years of Islamic history and that those who say otherwise are some unorthodox sufi group, when in reality its the total opposite. Because of this misunderstanding many non-muslims are showing reluctance to condemn and take action against this massive scale historical and religious genocide being perpetrated against Islam by these cult criminals under garb of Islam. 3 △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar The Technical Analyst > Faux-News • 8 hours ago Fool the world has changed and every 'Duplicate Muslim' who condoned 'Grave Worship' in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria, UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Central Asia and Qatar are standing 'naked' with their anti-Islamic private part displayed to a world that 'spits on them'. Why is that so? Because Shia Grave Worship brought in its way Allah's curse and Shias are being punished with disgrace and loss of face in all these nations. Allah gives Satan and his follower a reprieve and when the appointed time comes - these anti-Islamic Criminals would find what they deserved for their subversion and trickery. △ ▽ • Reply • Share › Avatar Faux-News > The Technical Analyst • 7 hours ago Yea showing more that you have nothing to do with Islam and that you are some badly mutated product of a modern day changing world and you have to come up with more weird arguments that are not even factually true let alone rationally sound. Either way go on, you are proving exactly the point for us what type of twisted mentality you have. Just reminded that last time you made this drivel you said you were shafi and your mother was following shafi madhab. Well here are the fatwa of pillars of shafi scholarship permitting what you call as "grave worship". Imam Ghazzali (d.505) in al-wasit: وَلَو أوصى بعمارة قُبُور أَنْبِيَائهمْ نفذناه لِأَن كل قبر يزار فعمارته إحْيَاء زيارته وَيجوز ذَلِك فِي قُبُور مَشَايِخ الْإِسْلَام أَيْضا Imam Nawawi in Rawdah-Talibeen: يجوز للمسلم والذمي الوصية لعمارة المسجد الاقصى وغيره من المساجد، ولعمارة قبور الأنبياء، والعلماء، والصالحين، لما فيها من إحياء الزيارة، والتبرك بها Ibn Hajr al Haythami in his Tuhfa : Imam Ramli in his Nihaya: وشمل عدم المعصية القربة كعمارة المساجد ولو من كافر وقبور الأنبياء والعلماء والصالحين لما في ذلك من إحياء الزيارة والتبرك بها ، ولعل المراد به كما قاله صاحب الذخائر ، وأشعر به كلام الإحياء في أوائل كتاب الحج ، وكلامه في الوسيط في زكاة النقد يشير إليه أن تبنى على قبورهم القباب والقناطر كما يفعل في المشاهد إذا كان الدفن في مواضع مملوكة لهم أو لمن دفنهم فيها لا بناء القبور نفسها للنهي عنه ، ولا فعله في المقابر المسبلة فإن فيه تضييقا على المسلمين خلافا لما استوجهه الزركشي من كون المراد بعمارتها رد التراب فيها وملازمتها خوفا من الوحش والقراءة عندها ، وإعلام الزائرين بها لئلا تندرس . Hafiz al-Munawi (d. 1031) in Fayd al-Qadir: أما من اتخذ مسجدا بجوار صالح أو صلى في مقبرته وقصد به الاستظهار بروحه أو وصول أثر من آثار عبادته إليه لا التعظيم له والتوجه نحوه فلا حرج عليه ألا ترى أن مدفن إسماعيل في المسجد الحرام عند الحطيم؟ and tons more too long to quote here. ========= Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi's Blog Reflections on Methods by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi • Jul 22, 2014 at 3:41 pm Over the course of the past year or so, I have intensely tracked the jihadist group the Islamic State (formerly ISIS). I did this on both Twitter and in my analytical articles, such that I attracted the attention of primary sources in my role of what the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization would term a 'disseminator'. To gain the confidence of these circles, I feigned sympathy for their views and adopted a 'jihadi persona' in communications with them. While this indeed garnered some valuable information (eg it helped me first identify Moroccan ex-Gitmo detainee Muhammad Mizouz and his presence in Syria), it was also unethical, pure and simple. Not only that, but the jihadi persona and a desire to seem humourous on Twitter led to other unethical actions, such as a silly tweet in December 2013 calling for JM Berger's account to be reported, even as I quickly deleted it. Though I did not think much of it at the time and believed I had resolved the issue, it was nonetheless wrong and the tweet would not have necessarily appeared as an immature joke to those who saw it, which is why I deleted it, but it should be admitted. Accordingly, I apologize unequivocally for these mistakes. They can only come across as weird to those who do not know me, and I regret not listening earlier to those who counselled me against these approaches and the adoption of multiple personas in which I got caught up. I would like to stress nonetheless that this did not affect the quality of the final product of my work. I only analyse this subject out of personal concern for my family's country's future (Iraq). A full analysis of the insurgent dynamics- and thus have I aimed for a full analysis of all insurgent groups in Iraq for thoroughness- is essential in that regard. I stress that my personal views are solely reflected on this site in 'ارائي الخصوصية' and anything I have written not put up on this site is disowned, as made clear in 'Reflections on my writings'. Update In light of the Business Insider article, I should like to respond as follows: Much of the article is focused on the allegation that my actual analysis has been tainted and compromised by being 'played' by IS fighters. On this, I would note the following: - It is interesting to note that the authors don't cite something from the body of my articles to show this. - Contact with IS fighters and their supporters was not an integral part of my work. I made occasional reference to such contact but their testimony did not largely inform my overall anlaysis of the group: in fact my primary interest in contact with IS fighters was to illustrate their ultimately global ambitions (one may criticise me for accepting too readily the idea of a fight against the UK as a distant dream, of course) I could not have cared less what they like for breakfast or how they enjoy their spare time, unlike some who have been too eager to put a spin on IS fighters as simply ordinary guys like others- an image I have never accepted or endorsed. In any case, here I disputed their narrative of a pre-planned 'Sahwa' against them in Syria, pointing largely to IS' own expansionism, dictated by its own self-perception as a state, as the cause of this infighting, such that it largely overrode the reconciliatory tendencies of e.g. Ahrar ash-Sham. It is certainly true that I underestimated the timescale of wider infighting, but that was not because of testimony IS fighters or supporters relayed to me, but rather conservatism in my analysis (cf. in 2012 I certainly underestimated the timescale, if at all, of an unravelling in the security situation in Iraq), with heavy focus on localization, a dynamic I saw as distinguishing Syria from Iraq in terms of grand 'Sahwa' narratives. Even so, I stand by my assertion from 2013 that an international troop presence in the long-run is needed to roll back IS and bring some kind of stability, and draw attention to the Libyan experience if anyone thinks militias will simply go away and form a new strong state post-regime overthrow. A key error of mine was my presumption in autumn 2013 that Jabhat al-Nusra and IS would steer clear of wider infighting, primarily because I accepted the idea of IS and Nusra as part of al-Qaeda and therefore 'brothers' in ideology and organization who would not come to blows. As it happens, that presumption was wrong precisely because IS was de facto independent by this point, something that was not in fact widely recognized at the time. I shifted my view on that matter in January 2014, citing testimony on both sides while also accepting that one had to be careful of IS spin of "always independent" since the founding of ISI in 2006. Further, despite IS spin on jizya as a benign institution, I made it abundantly clear that it should be seen as no such thing here (i.e. it is the equivalent of a Mafia extortion racket), and that it was a sign of Baghdadi's projection of himself as a caliph, which turned out to be correct. I also stress that when IS' announcement of the caliphate came out, I emphasized that this phenomenon should be seen in terms of the wider idealization of past Caliphates but such idealization is ultimately as detached from reality as glorifying the Roman Empire and its conquests, something I affirmed on Twitter. - I again stress that contact with IS circles and the wider jihadi community also offered insights: for example it is in fact the case that Suqur al-Izz, as I noted, is an al-Qa'ida front project, despite its official claims to be independent, as illustrated by its recent joining of Jabhat al-Nusra as part of the new emirate project. Similarly I was the first to identify Moroccan ex-Gitmo detainee Muhammad al-'Alami as having fought and died in Syria. This was so before the video release from Harakat Sham al-Islam. - The article completely omits the extensive body of my work going beyond IS: that contacts with other factions turned up far more extensively in my work on Iraq and Syria than IS. Here for example on Druze militias; here on the Alawite Muqawama Suriya; here and here on Christian militias; here on the factions of Albukamal (at the time none of them including IS). In none of these cases did I let contacts 'play' me, with the possible exception of being too willing to accept brotherology claims with IS: for instance despite Qamishli Sootoro's official claim to be neutral, it is apparent they are aligned with the regime. It is of course true that I accept the pro-Assad Druze activists' claims that the community is generally aligned with the regime, but there is little ground to dispute that. I have also analyzed the non-IS insurgent groups in Iraq and have not been 'played' by any of them. - Taking articles from 2010-11 as indicative of a 'confused' outlook is misleading, especially as I disowned my 2010 writings as part of 'Reflection on my writings' in 2013. Further Update In light of controversies over my background, I affirm the following: As to now, I do not disclose a personal religious stance (whatever experiments I made with other identities), but my real background is as follows: my father's side of the family was Shi'a and my mother's side Sunni (given the latter is ultimately from Mosul, not really surprising). I do not deny my struggles with identity here (going back to my mid teens) and people are right to draw this to attention as transparency is needed at the personal level. I emphasize that none of this affected the final product of my analytical work (i.e. I did not use any claimed identities to give a certain point more credibility or to fabricate a point). Regardless, I should not have claimed different identities, which is wrong and disturbing in any circumstance. In this context, I should also stress that my family's history has played almost no role in the actual analysis, but at this stage, it is important to affirm one aspect of it that motivated me to want to look into what is now IS. The Islamic State of Iraq- ISI, a predecessor of IS- took one of my uncles hostage in Baghdad in 2007 for 3 weeks, eventually being released for a ransom of $40,000. Unless I am suffering from a curious case of Stockholm syndrome, then the logical conclusion is that I am an opponent of IS and aimed to gather intel on the group. I oppose IS, simple as that. So, once again, I apologize to everyone for my mistake of trying to extract info under my real name from IS sources by feigning sympathy for their views, and all other issues regarding multiple personae. Further Update (II) Business Insider has also put out some past tweets attempting to show I uncriticially echo IS positions. Those tweets were actually mocking IS spirations to global domination, which as I wrote previously are indeed delusional. The third tweet meanwhile is taken out of context from the thread. However, I readily admit that these were irresponsible tweets to an audience of more than 9000 followers, not all of whom will have understood what I was trying to get at. The General Military Council is arguably the main new name in the Iraqi insurgency to have emerged in 2014. Though there is an official claim to separation from the Naqshbandi Army (JRTN), the distancing, as I have outlined before, needs to be treated with the same caution as the Kurdish PYD's official distancing of the YPG militias, and the Syriac Union Party's distancing of the Syriac Military Council as "independent." I translate below a sample of their daily operations, this one from 22nd July. "The revolutionaries of the military council in Salah ad-Din undertook to strike a gathering of the Maliki army and militias aiding him in the al-Ishaqi region with a shower of 120mm mortar rounds leading to a direct and exact hit with the killing of 13 soldiers and wounding of a great number of them." "The revolutionaries of the military council in Salah ad-Din undertook an ambush set between two regions (Al-Oweinat-Al-Awja)* on a Maliki army military convoy and militias aiding him...leading to the destruction of 9 Hummer vehicles and killing of those inside it." "The revolutionaries in south Baghdad undertook an IED operation on a Hummer vehicle in the Mada'in area, leading to the destruction and killing of all inside it." "Anbar: al-Khalidiya: the revolutionaries in Ramadi hit a Maliki army point near the al-Sadiqiya bridge with three 120mm mortar rounds, leading to an exact and direct hit." *- Note that in al-Awja today, the Islamic State also claimed operations against the security forces. ========= Bound by Bridge, 2 Baghdad Enclaves Drift Far Apart By ALISSA J. RUBINJULY 26, 2014 Continue reading the main story Slide Show Slide Show|12 Photos Two Baghdad Neighborhoods, a World Apart Two Baghdad Neighborhoods, a World Apart CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times Continue reading the main story Share This Page email facebook twitter save more Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story BAGHDAD — Al Imams Bridge spans the Tigris River between two of the oldest communities in Baghdad — one Sunni, the other Shiite — and on Ramadan evenings it can seem as if the mosques near either bank are calling to each other as their muezzins sing prayers. But the two neighborhoods, the Sunni Adhamiya and the Shiite Kadhimiya, once inextricably joined in the imagination of Baghdad residents, are drifting further and further apart. To walk through each as they break the daily fast during Ramadan is to glimpse the diverging realities of Baghdad: a vibrant and expanding Shiite way of life, and a subdued and dwindling Sunni one. “Now we have two Ramadans,” said Yassin Daoud, 35, a Sunni boat operator who works at an amusement park in Adhamiya on the banks of the river. He made his living taking pleasure cruisers to Al Imams Bridge and back, but no one has asked for a ride yet this year. The two neighborhoods are each anchored by a renowned mosque and shrine nearly as old as Islam itself: Abu Hanifa on the Sunni side, which began to be built in the late 700s, and Imam Kadhim on the Shiite side. Both areas still share some of the character of old Baghdad: the crafts shops, leather workmen and cobblers, halal butchers and gold workers. Continue reading the main story Two Communities in Baghdad Tigris IMAM KADHIM MOSQUE Baghdad AL IMAMS BRIDGE Kadhimiya ABU HANIFA MOSQUE IRAQ Adhamiya Area of detail Baghdad Tigris 5 miles Although the ebb and flow between the two was once as natural as the Tigris’s tides, the past 11 years have taken a deep toll, eroding both the routes that people walked from one community to the other and the trust they once had. Ali al-Nashmi, a professor of history at Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, who grew up in Adhamiya, dates the period of sectarian division to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the American-led coalition in 2003, with the most recent chapter coming after the fall of Mosul to Sunni militants in June. “The Shia people used to walk through Adhamiya to Imam Kadhim,” said Mr. Nashmi, thinking back to his youth. “But then the sectarian troubles started after 2003 and they were attacked in Adhamiya and they stopped coming that way.” As the Shiites vanished from Adhamiya’s streets, many young Sunnis there, and elsewhere, angered by the sudden loss of Sunni hegemony with Hussein’s exit, joined the insurgency and either were killed or imprisoned or fled. And there were fewer and smaller families to take Mr. Daoud’s boat or lay out their evening meals on the carefully tended grass of the amusement park where his small craft were tethered on the banks of the Tigris. Now almost every table is empty at the Adhamiya park, where hundreds of families every year for more than three decades had spread out their iftar dinners to break the Ramadan fast. Not a single child is on the swan ride; the Ferris wheel seats are empty; the bumper cars clatter round, but no children are in them. Mustapha al-Qaisi, a Sunni taxi driver, brought his family with trepidation to the park, and only because it was a tradition they could not quite bear to give up. “The difference between now and 2006 was that before, we were targeted by militias, but now we are targeted by militias backed by the government,” he said. Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story “I am afraid all the time now that I will be targeted because of my identity,” he said, meaning that a militia checkpoint would recognize that his tribal name was Sunni and abduct or even kill him. If he has a problem with his taxi or an altercation with a customer, he no longer dares to go to the police station to complain, because with his Sunni name, he is fearful the police might detain him. When he saw a foreigner at the park, the first thing he thought was that they might be with a refugee agency. “Are you with the International Organization for Migration?” he asked. “Is it possible to help us get out of Iraq?” Across the river lies a different world. In Kadhimiya, where nearly everyone is Shiite, Ramadan feels like a monthlong street party. Even during the hours of fasting in the heat of the day, when temperatures often reach 115 degrees, people are hard at work preparing for the meal that breaks the fast. They stir vast vats of rice in communal kitchens, shred lamb into small pieces to mix with it, chop tomatoes and cucumbers for salad and slice wheelbarrows of watermelon. At dusk on Kadhimiya’s outskirts, the main entrance is closed for safety because the neighborhood has been attacked so many times. (Just last Tuesday, a suicide bomber detonated his explosives-packed car near the gate, killing 33 people and wounding more than 60.) Accordingly, the road follows a back route. It winds through urban palm groves and crosses an irrigation canal where boys are swimming, whooping as they plunge into the water and splash each other. When visitors reach the long pedestrian street that leads to the shrine, paces quicken with eagerness to get through the line of friskers who check for bombs and weapons and stroll on to the long esplanade ahead. This shimmering, glimmering main street leads to the Imam Kadhim shrine, its gates outlined in gaudy, jubilant green and white neon. “It’s very good this year,” said Shahad Hamed Harbi al Khafaji, 70, smiling broadly and showing a mostly toothless mouth as he sat on the edge of one of the many long carpets that serve as picnic mats for the iftar meal. “There are very many people; it’s very beautiful here. We are just asking the American people to come and kill ISIS, take them away from us,” he said, referring to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Sunni militant group that has taken over large areas of northern and western Iraq. Now Shiite militias help protect the road from his family’s village in Diyala Province to the highway, and the family came to the shrine to celebrate Ramadan. “We all feel safe to come,” he said, nodding at his five daughters and their children. A few yards away, the Sadr Foundation, founded by the family of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, offered an iftar meal, and some 150 men were digging in. Nearby were families bringing their own simple picnics of homemade yogurt that they ladled into glasses to eat with a basket of dates. Groups of children ran back and forth, tugging at their mothers to buy the balloons and tufts of cotton candy that hawkers sell. Those same mothers threw on the special black abbayas used for prayers in Shiite shrines, handed their cellphones to their eldest sons, and slipped away for a few minutes at the Imam Kadhim shrine. Ruminating on all this, Mr. Nashmi sees a deepening divide that will not easily be halted, much less reversed. “It will get worse: the Sunnis will leave Baghdad and the Shias will leave the north, the Christians are almost gone and we will face really a separated country,” he said. “We cannot find any solution now, and I am very sad.” He continued: “The world lost Iraq, but we must fight, you and me and all the friends, to do something, something mysterious and very far off. We must teach history in the primary school and show our kids Iraq’s great civilization.” A version of this article appears in print on July 27, 2014, on page A5 of the New York edition with the headline: Bound by Bridge, 2 Baghdad Enclaves Drift Far Apart. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe =

Noam Chomsky: The Gravest Threat to World Peace,

India approves plan to develop Iran's Chabahar port By AFP Published 3 days ago The port in southeast Iran is central to India's efforts to circumvent Pakistan and open up a route to landlocked Afghanistan. – File Photo/AFP The port in southeast Iran is central to India's efforts to circumvent Pakistan and open up a route to landlocked Afghanistan. – File Photo/AFP NEW DELHI: India will float a company to develop Iran's Chabahar Port, a government statement said on Saturday, as New Delhi aims to take advantage of a thaw in Tehran's relations with world powers. The port of Chabahar in southeast Iran is central to India's efforts to circumvent Pakistan and open up a route to landlocked Afghanistan where it has developed close security ties and economic interests. Iran and six world powers are engaged in talks to agree on a deal easing sanctions against Tehran before a late-November deadline. The powers want Iran to scale back its uranium enrichment programme to ensure it cannot produce nuclear bombs. Iran says the programme is for peaceful purposes. India plans to sign an agreement with Iran for the development of the port and New Delhi intends to lease two berths at Chabahar for 10 years, the statement said. The planned Indian company will invest $85.21 million in one year to convert the berths into a container terminal and a multi-purpose cargo terminal, the statement said, adding India would consider the participation of Iranian firms if needed. ============= Noam Chomsky: The Gravest Threat to World Peace Americans are kept in the dark about consequences of a possible nuclear-armed Mideast, and the US's potential role. January 4, 2013 | Reporting on the final U.S. presidential campaign debate, on foreign policy, The Wall Street Journal observed that "the only country mentioned more (than Israel) was Iran, which is seen by most nations in the Middle East as the gravest security threat to the region." The two candidates agreed that a nuclear Iran is the gravest threat to the region, if not the world, as Romney explicitly maintained, reiterating a conventional view. On Israel, the candidates vied in declaring their devotion to it, but Israeli officials were nevertheless unsatisfied. They had "hoped for more 'aggressive' language from Mr. Romney," according to the reporters. It was not enough that Romney demanded that Iran not be permitted to "reach a point of nuclear capability." Arabs were dissatisfied too, because Arab fears about Iran were "debated through the lens of Israeli security instead of the region's," while Arab concerns were largely ignored – again the conventional treatment. The Journal article, like countless others on Iran, leaves critical questions unanswered, among them: Who exactly sees Iran as the gravest security threat? And what do Arabs (and most of the world) think can be done about the threat, whatever they take it to be? The first question is easily answered. The "Iranian threat" is overwhelmingly a Western obsession, shared by Arab dictators, though not Arab populations. As numerous polls have shown, although citizens of Arab countries generally dislike Iran, they do not regard it as a very serious threat. Rather, they perceive the threat to be Israel and the United States; and many, sometimes considerable majorities, regard Iranian nuclear weapons as a counter to these threats. In high places in the U.S., some concur with the Arab populations' perception, among them Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic Command. In 1998 he said, "It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East," one nation, Israel, should have a powerful nuclear weapons arsenal, which "inspires other nations to do so." Still more dangerous is the nuclear-deterrent strategy of which Butler was a leading designer for many years. Such a strategy, he wrote in 2002, is "a formula for unmitigated catastrophe," and he called on the United States and other nuclear powers to accept their commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make "good faith" efforts to eliminate the plague of nuclear weapons. Nations have a legal obligation to pursue such efforts seriously, the World Court ruled in 1996: "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." In 2002, George W. Bush's administration declared that the United States is not bound by the obligation. A large majority of the world appears to share Arab views on the Iranian threat. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has vigorously supported Iran's right to enrich uranium, most recently at its summit meeting in Tehran last August. India, the most populous member of the NAM, has found ways to evade the onerous U.S. financial sanctions on Iran. Plans are proceeding to link Iran's Chabahar port, refurbished with Indian assistance, to Central Asia through Afghanistan. Trade relations are also reported to be increasing. Were it not for strong U.S. pressures, these natural relations would probably improve substantially. China, which has observer status at the NAM, is doing much the same. China is expanding development projects westward, including initiatives to reconstitute the old Silk Road from China to Europe. A high-speed rail line connects China to Kazakhstan and beyond. The line will presumably reach Turkmenistan, with its rich energy resources, and will probably link with Iran and extend to Turkey and Europe. China has also taken over the major Gwadar port in Pakistan, enabling it to obtain oil from the Middle East while avoiding the Hormuz and Malacca straits, which are clogged with traffic and U.S.-controlled. The Pakistani press reports that "Crude oil imports from Iran, the Arab Gulf states and Africa could be transported overland to northwest China through the port." At its Tehran summit in August, the NAM reiterated the long-standing proposal to mitigate or end the threat of nuclear weapons in the Middle East by establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Moves in that direction are clearly the most straightforward and least onerous way to overcome the threats. They are supported by almost the entire world. A fine opportunity to carry such measures forward arose last month, when an international conference was planned on the matter in Helsinki. A conference did take place, but not the one that was planned. Only nongovernmental organizations participated in the alternate conference, hosted by the Peace Union of Finland. The planned international conference was canceled by Washington in November, shortly after Iran agreed to attend. The Obama administration's official reason was "political turmoil in the region and Iran's defiant stance on nonproliferation," the Associated Press reported, along with lack of consensus "on how to approach the conference." That reason is the approved reference to the fact that the region's only nuclear power, Israel, refused to attend, calling the request to do so "coercion." Apparently, the Obama administration is keeping to its earlier position that "conditions are not right unless all members of the region participate." The United States will not allow measures to place Israel's nuclear facilities under international inspection. Nor will the U.S. release information on "the nature and scope of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities." The Kuwait news agency immediately reported that "the Arab group of states and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member states agreed to continue lobbying for a conference on establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction." Last month, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution calling on Israel to join the NPT, 174-6. Voting no was the usual contingent: Israel, the United States, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. A few days later, the United States carried out a nuclear weapons test, again banning international inspectors from the test site in Nevada. Iran protested, as did the mayor of Hiroshima and some Japanese peace groups. Establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone of course requires the cooperation of the nuclear powers: In the Middle East, that would include the United States and Israel, which refuse. The same is true elsewhere. Such zones in Africa and the Pacific await implementation because the U.S. insists on maintaining and upgrading nuclear weapons bases on islands it controls. As the NGO meeting convened in Helsinki, a dinner took place in New York under the auspices of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an offshoot of the Israeli lobby. According to an enthusiastic report on the "gala" in the Israeli press, Dennis Ross, Elliott Abrams and other "former top advisers to Obama and Bush" assured the audience that "the president will strike (Iran) next year if diplomacy doesn't succeed" – a most attractive holiday gift. Americans can hardly be aware of how diplomacy has once again failed, for a simple reason: Virtually nothing is reported in the United States about the fate of the most obvious way to address "the gravest threat" – Establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. © 2012 Noam Chomsky -- Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate ========================== Published on Jan 5, 2013 The United States has imposed fresh sanctions on Iranian media despite Washington's claims of respecting free speech. Sanctions have all been applied under the umbrella of concern for Iran's nuclear program becoming militarized. The CIA and IAEA have constantly reported that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons while mainstream American media have promoted that Iran has or is producing a nuclear bomb. Many observers though contend that the many sanctions on Iran are an act of war as part of Western colonialism and imperialism that also serves the Zionists of Israel. To further discuss the issue, Press TV's News Analysis has conducted an interview with Joe Iosbaker, Stop FBI Repression, from Chicago, Kevin Barrett, a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, from Wisconsin, and Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, from Philadelphia. Follow our Facebook on: https://www.facebook.com/presstvchannel Follow our Twitter on: http://twitter.com/presstv Follow our Tumblr on: http://presstvchannel.tumblr.com

'US sets stage for war against Iran'

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:08:39 GMTThe recent allegations made by the United States against Iran have set the stage for a war against the Islamic Republic, an American analyst says. "With the typical backdrop of alarmist propaganda in place, the stage is now set for a new war, this time with Iran," Robert Parry said in an article on Global Research. "There is now a cascading of allegations regarding Iran, as there was with Iraq, with the momentum rushing toward war," he added. The analyst noted that "tougher and tougher Western sanctions against Iran have pushed the various sides closer to war… as happened with Iraq -- when harsher economic sanctions merged with a US troop build-up." Warning of "devastating consequences" of a "prospective war with Iran," Parry also said Washington's allegation that Iran is on pace to build a nuclear bomb resembles accusations that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In 2003, the US invaded Iraq under the pretext that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed the Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, it was later revealed that not only Iraq was not in possession of WMDs but also that US and UK leaders were aware the non-existence of such weapons. The US analyst blasted the recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about Iran, saying that the report "was widely accepted as gospel truth without any discussion of whether the IAEA is an unbiased and reliable source." Parry said the documentary evidence showed that IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano was installed with the support of the United States and that he privately indicated to US and Israeli officials that he would help advance their goals regarding Iran. In November, the IAEA accused Iran of conducting activities related to developing nuclear weapons before 2003, adding that these activities “may still be ongoing.” Iran, however, rejected the report as “unbalanced, unprofessional and prepared with political motivation and under political pressure mostly from the United States.” Washington and Tel Aviv have repeatedly threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike, based on their allegation that Iran's nuclear program may include a covert military aspect. Iran insists that it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA.=======================Iran dismisses U.S. sanctions on its Central Bank -report01 Jan 2012 08:59Source: Reuters // ReutersTEHRAN, Jan 1 (Reuters) - Iran dismissed on Sunday Washington's move to impose new sanctions on financial institutions dealing with the Islamic state's central bank over the country's disputed nuclear programme, the Students news agency reported.President Barack Obama signed the bill, approved by Congress last week, which aims to reduce Tehran's oil revenues but gives the U.S. president powers to waive penalties as required.The head of Iran's Chamber of Commerce, Mohammad Nahavandian, rejected the move as "unjustifiable", saying such sanctions would have reciprocal consequences."The Iranian nation and those involved in trade and economic activities will find other alternatives," said Nahavandian.Washington and the European Union have already pushed four rounds of sanctions through the United Nations over Iran's nuclear programme and imposed unilateral measures that have deterred Western investment in Iran's oil sector, making it harder to move money in and out of the country.Imposing sanctions on the central bank would tighten that screw and make it more difficult for Iran to receive payments for exports -- particularly oil, a vital source of hard currency for the world's fifth-biggest crude exporter.Iranian officials insist that foreign sanctions have had no impact on the country's economy."The sanctions have raised the cost of trade and economic transactions but it has not managed to change Iran's political behaviour," Nahavandian said.So far, Iran's leaders have shown no sign of changing the country's nuclear course despite mounting international pressure to force it to stop.U.S. financial institutions are already generally prohibited from doing business with any bank in Iran, including the central bank, so the new measure by Washington would have to be carried out with international agreement.Nahavandian said European countries should not miss the investment opportunity in an emerging market like Iran."Considering the economic crisis in Europe, the European companies are after finding new markets ... political disputes should not have an impact on trade relations," he said.Senior U.S. officials said Washington was engaging with its foreign partners to ensure the sanctions can work without harming global energy markets and stressed the U.S. strategy for engaging with Iran was unchanged by the bill.Washington and its allies say Iran is trying to build nuclear bombs under the cover of a civilian programme. Tehran denies that, saying it needs nuclear technology to generate power. (Reporting by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Paul Tait)=========================Persian Gulf no place for arrogant powersSun Jan 1, 2012 3:38AM GMTThe commander of the Iranian Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah SayyariThe commander of the Iranian Navy says the message of the ongoing Velayat 90 naval maneuver is that arrogant powers have no place in the Persian Gulf region.Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari made the remarks during a visit to the domestically- manufactured Jamaran destroyer on Saturday. “We (Iran) are diplaying our defensive and preventive capabilities in the free waters through the Velayat 90 maneuver,” he said. He noted that the presence of foreign navies in the region causes regional insecurity and emphasized that the establishment of sustainable security in the region in cooperation with neighboring countries is one of the goals of the naval maneuver. Iran's Navy launched the massive 10-day Velayat 90 naval exercise on December 24, covering an area stretching from the east of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden. EU foreign ministers failed in their attempts to enforce an embargo on Iran's oil exports during a meeting in Brussels on December 1, about a week after the United States, Britain, and Canada imposed unilateral sanctions on the Islamic Republic's energy and financial sectors over Tehran's nuclear program. Iran has warned that it can respond to proposed Western oil sanctions and threats against the Islamic Republic by choking the oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz. Sayyari announced on December 30 that the country's naval forces can block the strategic Strait of Hormuz if necessary, saying, “Our (Iran's) intention is to bring stability and security to the region, and we would like to show everyone that we can provide security in the region without a need for extra-regional powers.” And Iranian First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi warned on December 27 that the imposition of oil sanctions against the Islamic Republic would prompt Tehran to prevent oil from passing through the strategic route. “If they impose sanctions on Iran's oil, not even a drop of oil will be allowed through the Strait of Hormuz,” he added. =====================FACTBOX-Sanctions imposed on Iran02 Jan 2012 13:48Source: Reuters // ReutersJan 2 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law on Saturday new sanctions against financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank, which if fully implemented could hamper Tehran's ability to sell oil on international markets.The bill gives the White House some discretion to issue waivers to protect energy markets, and U.S. officials say Obama will discuss with international partners how to impose the measures without causing major oil market disruption.The European Union is also expected to consider at the end of this month whether to impose an oil embargo.While Iran will still probably be able to sell oil to customers in Asia, they will demand a discount, which would cut Tehran's income from its main export sector.Following are details of major sanctions imposed on Iran by the European Union, the United States and the United Nations over the years.EU SANCTIONS:- On Aug. 12, 2010 the EU toughened its sanctions against Tehran, including banning the creation of joint ventures with enterprises in Iran that are engaged in the oil and natural gas industries and any subsidiary or affiliate under their control.- Member states must prohibit the provision of insurance and re-insurance to the government of Iran.- The import and export of arms and equipment that could contribute to uranium enrichment or have a "dual use" is banned.- The sanctions forbid the sale, supply or transfer of energy equipment and technology used by Iran for refining, liquefying natural gas, exploration and production. The EU expects the effects of the sanctions to increase over time as existing parts wear out.- In May 2011, EU foreign ministers significantly extended sanctions and added 100 new entities to a list of companies and people affected, including those owned or controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL).- In October, the European Union imposed sanctions on 29 people, extending the list targeting individuals associated with human rights violations to 61.- On Dec. 1, EU foreign ministers decided new sanctions should be drawn up in time for their next meeting in Jan. 2012.Separately, they added 180 Iranian people and entities to a sanctions blacklist that imposes asset freezes and travel bans on those involved in the nuclear programme.U.S. SANCTIONS:- Initial sanctions were imposed after Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy and took diplomats hostage in 1979. Iranian products cannot be imported into the United States apart from small gifts, information material, foodstuffs and some carpets.- In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued executive orders preventing U.S. companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and trading with Iran. Tehran has looked for other customers.- The same year, Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. government impose sanctions on foreign firms investing more than $20 million a year in Iran's energy sector.- In Oct. 2007, Washington imposed sanctions on three Iranian banks and branded the Revolutionary Guards a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. The Treasury has since added numerous other Iranian banks to its blacklist.- The Treasury has identified about 20 petroleum and petrochemical companies as being under Iranian government control, an action that put them off-limits to U.S. businesses under the trade embargo.- Congress approved tough new unilateral sanctions on June 24, 2010, aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran.- The June, 2010 law imposes penalties on firms that supply Iran with refined petroleum products worth more than $5 million over 12 months. It also effectively deprives foreign banks of access to the U.S. financial system if they do business with Iranian banks or the Revolutionary Guards.- In May, 2011 the United States blacklisted a 21st Iranian state bank, the Bank of Industry and Mines, for handling transactions on behalf of two previously sanctioned institutions, Bank Mellat and Europaeisch-Iranische Handelsbank.- It also announced new sanctions on Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA, and six other smaller oil and shipping firms for engaging in trade with Iran in violation of the U.S. ban, prompting fury from Hugo Chavez's government.- On June 11, it announced new sanctions applicable to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Basij Resistance Force, Iran's Law Enforcement Forces and its commander, Ismail Ahmadi Moghadam. The sanctions freeze any of the targets' assets under U.S. jurisdiction and bar U.S. persons and institutions from dealing with them.- On Nov. 21 the United States named Iran as an area of "primary money laundering concern", a step designed to dissuade non-U.S. banks from dealing with it. The United States also blacklisted 11 entities suspected of aiding its nuclear programmes; and expanded sanctions to target companies that aid its oil and petrochemical industries.- U.S. sanctions against Iran can be found on the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control website: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx- On Dec. 31, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law a defence funding bill that imposes sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank, which is the main conduit for oil revenues. Sanctioned institutions would be frozen out of the U.S. financial markets.- The sanctions would take effect after a 2-6 month warning period. Under the law, the president can issue waivers if doing so is in the national security interest of the United States or otherwised necessary for energy market stability.OTHER COUNTRIES:BRITAIN: On Nov. 21, in a coordinated action with the United States and Canada, Britain ordered all British financial institutions to stop doing business with their Iranian counterparts, including the Iranian central bank. The sanctions were in response to a Nov. 8 IAEA report which said Iran has worked on developing a nuclear weapon design.CANADA: Canada announced on Nov. 21 it would immediately ban the export to Iran of all goods used in the petrochemical, oil and gas industry, as part of an international sanctions package, the government said.SWITZERLAND: Added five people and 111 organisations to its list of Iranian entities under sanction on Nov. 18. Earlier sanctions included a ban on certain financial transactions and Swiss companies selling or delivering so-called dual use goods.U.N. SANCTIONS:- The Security Council has imposed four sets of sanctions on Iran, in December 2006, March 2007, March 2008 and June 2010.- The first covered sensitive nuclear materials and froze the assets of Iranian individuals and companies linked with the nuclear programme.- The second included new arms and financial sanctions. It extended an asset freeze to 28 more groups, companies and individuals engaged in or supporting sensitive nuclear work or the development of ballistic missiles.- The third increased travel and financial curbs on individuals and companies. It expanded a partial ban on trade in items with both civilian and military uses to cover sales of all such technology to Iran.- A Security Council resolution passed on June 9, 2010, called for measures against new Iranian banks abroad if a connection to the nuclear or missile programmes was suspected.- It expanded a U.N. arms embargo against Tehran and blacklisted three firms controlled by IRISL and 15 belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The resolution called for setting up a cargo inspection regime.- Annexed to the draft resolution was a list of 40 companies to be added to an existing U.N. blacklist of firms. (Reporting by David Cutler, London Editorial Reference Unit, and Peter=========================Iran threatens action if US carrier returns-IRNA03 Jan 2012 09:27Source: ReutersMembers of Iran's Navy cheer after launching a long-range shore-to-sea missile called Qader (Capable) during the Velayat-90 war game on the Sea of Oman's shore near the Strait of Hormuz in southern Iran January 2, 2012. REUTERS/Jamejamonline/Ebrahim Norouzi. This image has been supplied by a third party. It is distributed, exactly as received by Reuters, as a service to clientsTEHRAN, Jan 3 (Reuters) - Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf, the state news agency quoted army chief Ataollah Salehi as saying on Tuesday. "Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasise to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Salehi told IRNA. "I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying. Salehi did not name the aircraft carrier or give details of the action Iran might take if it returned. Iran completed 10 days of naval exercises in the Gulf on Monday, and said during the drills that if foreign powers imposed sanctions on its crude exports it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's traded oil is shipped. The U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain, said it would not allow shipping to be disrupted in the strait. Iran said on Monday it had successfully test-fired two long-range missiles during its naval drill, flexing its military muscle in the face of mounting Western pressure over its controversial nuclear programme. Iran also said it had no intention of closing the Strait of Hormuz but had carried out "mock" exercises on shutting the strategic waterway. Tehran denies Western accusations that it is secretly trying to build atomic bombs, saying it needs nuclear technology to generate electricity. The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to resolve the Islamic state's nuclear row with the West. The European Union is considering following the United States in banning imports of Iranian crude oil. U.S. President Barack Obama signed new sanctions against Iran into law on Saturday, stepping up the pressure by adding sanctions on financial institutions that deal with Iran's central bank. (Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Tim Pearce) ((parisa.hafezi@thomsonreuters.com)(+98 21 8820 8770)(Reuters Messaging: parisa.hafezi@thomsonreuters.com))=================Iran threatens U.S. Navy as sanctions hit economy=203 Jan 2012 23:23Source: Reuters // Reutersa hard bargain. China, which bought 11 percent of its oil from Iran during the first 11 months of last year, has cut its January purchase by about 285,000 barrels per day, more than half of the close to 550,000 bpd that it bought through a 2011 contract.The impact of falling government income from oil sales can be felt on the streets in Iran in soaring prices for state subsidised goods and a collapse of the rial currency."The rate is changing every second ... We are not taking in any rials to change to dollars or any other foreign currency," said Hamid Bakshi at an exchange office in central Tehran.The economic impact is being felt ahead of a nationwide parliame===============EXCLUSIVE-WRAPUP 1-In major blow, EU agrees embargo on Iranian crude04 Jan 2012 17:54Source: Reuters // Reuters(Corrects to 2.6 million bpd in paragraph 6, sted 2.6 billion bpd)* Oil move targets key sector of Iranian economy* Embargo would force Iran to seek business elsewhere* Ban could hurt Iran's revenues, stoke tensions at homeBy Justyna Pawlak and Parisa HafeziBRUSSELS/TEHRAN, Jan 4 (Reuters) - European governments have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian oil, EU diplomats said Wednesday, dealing a potentially heavy blow to Tehran that crowns new Western economic sanctions imposing real pain just months before an Iranian election.The prospective embargo from the European Union, along with tough U.S. financial measures signed into law by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, form a concerted Western campaign to impose sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme.Iran says its nuclear programme is strictly peaceful, but Western countries say a November U.N. report shows it has sought to build an atomic bomb. Talks between Tehran and major powers broke down a year ago.Diplomats said EU envoys had held talks on Iran in the last days of December, and that any objections to an oil embargo had been dropped - notably from crisis-hit Greece which gets a third of its oil from Iran, relying on Tehran's lenient financing. Spain and Italy are also big buyers."A lot of progress has been made," one EU diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The principle of an oil embargo is agreed. It is not being debated any more."The embargo will force Tehran to find other buyers for oil. EU countries buy about 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iran's 2.6 million bpd in exports, making the bloc collectively the second largest market for Iranian crude after China.The news caused a spike rise in oil prices, with Brent crude peaking at nearly $114 a barrel in intraday trading, up nearly $2 from Tuesday's close.Tehran insisted it would have no trouble: "We could very easily replace these customers," said S. M. Qamsari, International Director of the National Iranian Oil Co.But the new U.S. sanctions have already made it difficult for Iran to keep the customers it has, and could force it to offer steep discounts to countries willing to risk doing business with it, hurting its revenues.Biggest trading partner China, driving a hard bargain, has cut its order of Iranian oil by more than half this month.REAL IMPACTWestern countries have imposed various sanctions on Iran for years with little impact but the latest measures are qualitatively different, directly targeting Iran's oil industry, which forms 60 percent of its economy.Most traders expect Iran will still find buyers for its crude, mostly in Asia, but it is going to have to offer substantial discounts, cutting back the revenue that the state relies on to subsidise basic goods for its citizens.Tougher sanctions appear to be having an impact already on Iran's streets, where prices for foodstuffs are soaring. The rial currency has lost 40 percent of its value against the dollar over the past month.Currency exchanges have shut in Tehran and Iranians have queued to withdraw their savings from banks and buy dollars.That economic hardship is being felt by the public two months before a parliamentary election, Iran's first since a disputed 2009 presidential vote that led to massive street demonstrations, put down violently by Iran's rulers.Iran's leaders are anxious to prevent any popular unrest, especially after the Arab Spring revolts last year showed the vulnerability of Middle Eastern governments to street protest.Iran has warned that any steps to cut its oil exports could cause havoc in international oil markets at a time of global economic pain. In recent weeks it has also resorted to increasingly aggressive military sabre-rattling.Tehran threatened last month to shut the Strait of Hormuz - outlet to the Gulf through which 40 percent of traded oil flows - and on Tuesday threatened to take unspecified action if a U.S. aircraft carrier sails through the strait.Washington, which has a carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis in the Arabian Sea, brushed off that threat and said its navy would continue to sail the strait.Most analysts dismiss the sabre-rattling as a bluff and say they do not expect war."There's an anticipation that it might lead to an escalation of military activity in the region, but we think this is overplayed," said Gareth Lewis-Davies, energy strategist at BNP Paribas in London.The EU diplomats said member countries had not yet agreed on how soon the embargo should take effect and were still debating other possible sanctions.France has said it wants the EU embargo and other sanctions agreed at a meeting of the bloc's foreign ministers at the end of this month. Paris also seeks a ban on transactions with the Iranian central bank, similar to what Washington has imposed.The new U.S. financial sanctions, if imposed fully, would make it all but impossible for many refineries to pay for Iranian crude. The law grants Obama the power to issue temporary waivers to prevent shocks in energy markets.A Turkish energy official said Ankara, which buys about 30 percent of its oil from Iran, was seeking a waiver from Washington for its biggest refiner, Tupras.Washington says it is discussing with its allies how to implement the measures without causing an oil supply shock. (Additional reporting by Julien Toyer in Brussels and Peg Mackey in London; Writing by Peter Graff; Editing by Jon Boyle)======================Trading oil on Iran: untangling rhetoric from reality06 Jan 2012 20:17Source: Reuters // Reuters(Fixes typo in additional reporting by credit)* Some traders see oil supply disruption fears overblown* Memories of shipping continuing in Iran-Iraq war* Global economy concern, Saudi supply pledge caps pricesBy Dmitry Zhdannikov and Simon FalushLONDON, Jan 6 (Reuters) - How does an oil trader play the market when Iran threatens to shut the Strait of Hormuz and strangle Middle East oil supplies?"Buy!" some would say.But "Sell!" could come from cooler heads, the grizzled veterans who can cut through the bellicose( war like) rhetoric and who remember the 1980s Gulf "tanker war" in the Iran-Iraq conflict.Iran did not block the Strait then, nor during decades of tensions with the West."There's a lot of rhetoric," said Rob Montefusco, trader at Sucden Financial. "Some people who have been around a long time are saying 'we've seen it all before', so they are using the recent price spikes as an opportunity to sell."Back in the 1980s, the United States, with its mighty Fifth Fleet stationed in the region, threatened to go to war if the strait was closed."We've seen this movie before," said Cliff Kupchan, an Iran analyst at the Eurasia Group. "Neither side wants a war. A lot of this rhetoric is overstated."Iran is OPEC's second biggest exporter, but the prospect of the loss of a chunk of supply seems to be sparking fewer and fewer doomsday predictions that oil prices will soar to $200 a barrel, very common just a few months ago.Benchmark Brent oil prices have fluctuated around $110 a barrel, despite rising fears about Iranian oil supply as a result of tensions with the West over Tehran's nuclear programme.Prices have been capped by fears of a steep downturn in euro zone economies, which could upset the recovery around the world and crush demand for crude, and by expectations that OPEC leader Saudi Arabia's will fill the supply gap as it did last year when Libya's oil was lost.Doing without Libyan production in 2011, although less than half that of Iran, with only a manageable price spike gave the oil market a taste of coping with a supply shock.The most serious fears debated at oil trading desks include the possibility of Iran mining the straits, attacking ships as it did during the Iran-Iraq war, or challenging the legality of the passage of some vessels through its territorial waters."The Iranians have raised the rhetoric stakes hugely in the last two weeks, but for them the game has changed," said Philip Wiper from oil brokerage PVM."One could even envisage the Iranians putting a few mines in the Strait with little effort, and maximum inconvenience for a few days while the U.S. navy clears them up," he added.But bracing for even the second or third worse case scenarios may not be a feasible trading position for now."Everyone loves the idea of being long oil into an Iran situation but I can't just sit on the bid hoping that something will kick off. So to take it seriously, something serious needs to happen," a veteran products trader said."Until then it's something on the sidelines. Any rallies we are seeing on the news is purely day trading, and it may reverse just as quickly as it rallies."Nor has there been much evidence of big hedge funds or speculators rushing to the options market to buy cheap out-of-the-money calls in order to profit from a price spike.A call owner has the right to buy crude at a preset strike price. Calls begin to pay off when oil rises and when rising price volatility increases the odds the option will expire in the money.CBOE's oil volatility index has eased for the past three days, trading near its lowest since early August. Open interest in June $140 strike calls jumped by by more than 7 million barrels this week, but other key contracts for both Dec 2012 and Dec 2013 were all but unchanged, suggesting no great rush to buy upside insurance.Unusually, there's been a bias toward trading "puts", which confer the right to sell oil at a predetermined price if the market falls, a bearish trade."As the Iranian news has made its way into the market over the last few weeks, I've seen a greater influx of call and put buying than I normally see at this time of year, with an emphasis on the put side," said Anthony Rosado, options broker at GA Global Markets in New York.WORST CASE SCENARIOLate December was a lesson in the ups and downs of headline trading on Iran. Oil prices jumped by around 2 percent when Iran threatened to block Hormuz but pared most gains the next day after the U.S. Fifth Fleet said it would not allow any disruption to oil flows.On Friday, oil barely moved when Iran said it would hold new naval exercises in the Strait.The U.S. Fifth Fleet keeps one or two aircraft carrier battle groups either in the Gulf or within striking distance in the Indian Ocean."If Iran prohibits the U.S. warships from transiting in their territorial waters this is not by itself a case of "casus belli" to retaliate militarily on Iran. Furthermore, the U.S. warships could still transit the strait... on the Omani side," said Olivier Jakob from Petromatrix consultancy.Traders said that a full loss of Iranian oil would no doubt trigger a major spike in oil prices as Saudi Arabia would be forced to use all its spare output capacity, a crucial safety cushion for oil markets.But the European Union and the United States appear to be taking a calculated risk approach by planning a gradual phase out of Iranian oil which might take months.The EU is close to imposing sanctions on Iranian oil but with some exceptions while the United States, which has banned it since 1979, is talking to China, Japan and South Korea to persuade them to reduce purchases from Tehran.Jakob said he believed Iran will continue the soft escalation to keep the oil prices high to increase revenues amid what looks like an inevitable loss of exports volumes."I don't see any serious threat to supply even if there is a full blown war. It will last for two weeks during which the U.S. will kick the hell out of Iran and make sure all is fine in the Strait of Hormuz," said a veteran trader with oil majors and trading houses.In the event of a big stoppage the consuming nations' International Energy Agency would very likely release emergency government stocks to tame prices, as it did in June last year when Libyan output was lost.(Additional reporting by Christopher Johnson, Claire Milhench and Peg Mackey, and Jeff Kerr in New York, editing by Richard Mably and Alden Bentley)=======================U.S. slaps sanctions on China state oil trader over Iran13 Jan 2012 03:44Source: Reuters // Reuters* U.S. takes first swipe at China state energy sector* Move comes as U.S. seeks to squeeze Tehran* Sanctions seen as signal to China oil majors* Follows trip to China this week by U.S. Treasury Secretary (Adds no comment from China, Kuo)By Andrew QuinnWASHINGTON, Jan 12 (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday imposed sanctions on China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, which it said was Iran's largest supplier of refined petroleum products, as it sought to impress on Beijing and Tehran its resolve to increase economic pressure over Iran's nuclear program.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also imposed sanctions on Singapore's Kuo Oil Pte Ltd and FAL Oil Company Ltd, an independent energy trader based in the United Arab Emirates, the State Department said in a notice.The State Department said the move was part of a broadening international effort to target Iran's energy sector and persuade Tehran to rein in its nuclear ambitions."The sanctions announced today are an important step toward that goal, as they target the individual companies that help Iran evade these efforts," the statement said.The sanction bar all three companies from receiving U.S. export licenses, U.S. Export Import Bank financing or loans over $10 million from U.S. financial institutions, the department said, stressing that the sanctions apply only to the companies and not to their governments or countries.The U.S. announced the decision after China's rebuff this week of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who traveled to Beijing to press China on U.S. demands it do more to help curb Iran's oil revenues.A Zhenrong spokeswoman and China's Foreign Ministry both said they had no immediate comment.'SHOT ACROSS THE BOW'Analysts said the U.S. move was largely symbolic, given that Zhenrong was unlikely to have much U.S. business exposure.But the move will send a signal to Beijing and its state-run oil giants such as China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), China Petroleum and Chemical Corp (Sinopec Corp) and China National Offshore Oil Corp. , they said.These companies have invested billions of dollars in the U.S. energy sector, and are much more exposed to the impact of potential sanctions."It's a good shot across the bow and signals the U.S. is serious about vigorous sanctions enforcement," said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington pressure group that favors stronger sanctions on Iran."This could be the beginning of a cascade of more sanctions on Chinese companies if China doesn't curtail its Iranian trade."Zhuhai Zhenrong - one of four dominant Chinese state oil traders - brokered the delivery of over $500 million in gasoline to Iran between July 2010 and January 2011 in contravention of U.S. sanctions law, the State Department said.While the U.S. move targeted Zhenrong for its gasoline sales, the Chinese company has a broader role in Beijing's energy dealings with Iran.It has been a major buyer of Iranian oil since at least 1995, typically selling the oil to Sinopec and PetroChina, the country's two dominant refiners.Zhenrong has been buying about 240,000 barrels per day for several years, representing about 5 percent of China's imports. Sources last week said China would cut crude imports from Iran for a second month in February.In mid-2010, Zhenrong joined Chinese state energy giants in filling a void left by Western oil companies and trading houses that had halted sales of gasoline to Iran because of toughening U.S. sanctions.Derek Scissors, an expert in the Chinese economy at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said the action against Zhenrong would send a message to other Chinese state oil majors."We don't want to be taking action against Sinopec, CNPC and CNOOC. They are huge, and politically powerful," he said."But Zhenrong is close enough to them, and won't really do that much harm beyond sending the signal."TARGETING COMPANIESThe U.S. announcement followed Western moves to tighten the economic noose on Tehran through unilateral sanctions.President Barack Obama has signed a U.S. law imposing sanctions on financial institutions that deal with Iran's central bank, its main clearinghouse for oil exports, while the European Union is expected soon to agree to a new ban on Iranian oil imports.Washington has sought to impress on friends and foes that it means business, sending U.S. officials around the world to warn of the dangers of dealing with Iran.A senior Obama administration official stressed that the purpose of sanctions was to draw Iran back to the negotiating table to discuss curbing its nuclear ambitions, the other half of the 'two-track' U.S. policy of pressure and engagement."The theory of the case here is that these two tracks will ultimately converge and Iran will make a decision that it is important to come to the table to try to remove some of these sanctions, to improve their economy," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity.The other two companies listed by the State Department, both well-known names in the Asian oil trading world, are smaller, private trading firms that typically specialize in shipping bunker fuel or heavy residual products but, like Zhenrong, had also begun doing deals to sell gasoline to Iran.The State Department said Kuo Oil had provided over $25 million in refined petroleum to Iran between late 2010 and early 2011, while FAL provided over $70 million in refined petroleum to Iran over multiple shipments in late 2010.Kuo had no immediate comment, a senior official said.In all cases, individual deliveries were worth significantly more than the $1 million threshold under U.S. law and the total value of the transactions was well above the $5 million threshold for sanctionable activities within a 12-month period, the State Department said. (Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner, Jim Bai and Chris Buckley in Beijing and Randy Fabi in Singapore; Editing by Peter Cooney and Sandra Maler)=====================Japan policy on reducing Iran oil in doubt13 Jan 2012 10:38Source: Reuters // Reuters* PM Noda distances himself from cutting Iran oil imports* Some in Japan worry Iran sanctions will push up oil prices* French formin: sanctions won't necessarily boost prices (Recasts)By Stanley WhiteTOKYO, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Japan's policy on Iranian oil was left in doubt on Friday after the prime minister distanced himself from the finance minister's pledge to reduce oil imports in support of a U.S. push to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons.Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said the pledge, made by Finance Minister Jun Azumi only a day before in a joint press conference with U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was Azumi's "personal opinion" and that the government wants to discuss the matter with the business community.The foreign minister and the government's top spokesman also made comments suggesting Japan was not yet committed to reducing Iranian oil imports, which could potentially damage the credibility of its foreign policy and its dealings with the United States, its most important ally."The outlook shared by Finance Minister Azumi, I believe, was a personal one," Noda said in a press conference."Going forward, the government will deal with this issue by conducting working-level discussions."U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner travelled to China and Japan this week, seeking cooperation on stricter sanctions as the U.S. tries to choke off oil revenue to Iran, an OPEC member and the world's fifth-largest crude exporter.Iran denies Western suspicions that its nuclear programme has military goals, saying it is for purely peaceful purposes. Washington has rejected Iran's assertion and has pressed ahead with new sanctions.Other countries, including major Iran oil buyers such as South Korea and India, are also scrambling to react to the new sanctions law as countries fear that conduits for Iranian oil payments could snap under the U.S. pressure.Buying less Iranian oil is sensitive for Japan because its reliance on energy imports has jumped after the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year.But unless it does so, it will not win an exemption for Japanese banks from sanctions that would freeze financial institutions out of U.S. markets for facilitating trade in Iranian crude.On Thursday, a few hours after Azumi pledged to take "concrete" steps to lower oil imports, Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said importing less Iranian oil was only one of many opinions on how to deal with the matter.Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba also said on Friday the government hasn't reached a decision, Kyodo News said.Iranian crude makes up 10 percent of Japan's overall oil imports and some in Japan are concerned the new sanctions could drive up oil prices, dealing a blow to its economy, which is recovering from last year's earthquake and nuclear power disaster.Separately, Gemba said in a joint news conference with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe that sanctions would be ineffective if they end up boosting oil prices, a negative development for the global economy, but a boon for oil producing Iran."The higher oil prices go, the better it gets for Iran ... We need to take steps in a careful, smart way," he said.Juppe, however, said he did not fully share Gemba's concerns, saying that when there was a similar situation with Libya, there was not much of an increase in oil prices and that there were other countries to turn to for oil.Iran faces the prospects of cutbacks in oil sales to China, Japan and India, its top three buyers who together take more than 40 percent of its crude exports. The European Union, a major buyer, has committed to banning imports of Iranian oil.President Barack Obama authorised a law on December 31 imposing sanctions on financial institutions that deal with Iran's central bank, the country's main clearing house for oil payments.The United States can waive some institutions if it deems it necessary for energy market stability or if the institutions' home country significantly reduces trade with Iran. (Additional reporting by Kiyoshi Takenaka and Shinichi Saoshiro; Editing by Edwina Gibbs and Neil Fullick)===============China's Wen presses Saudi Arabia for oil accessRELATED QUOTES^DJI 12,422.06 -48.96^GSPC 1,289.09 -6.41^IXIC 2,710.67 -14.03By Chris Buckley – Sat Jan 14, 10:40 pm ETBEIJING (Reuters) – Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao pressed Saudi Arabia to open its huge oil and gas resources to expanded Chinese investment, media reports said on Sunday against a backdrop of growing tension over Iran and worries over its crude exports to the Asian power.The Saudi kingdom is China's biggest source of imported oil, and securing energy security was high on Wen's agenda in Riyadh, in part reflecting concerns about how nuclear tensions and sanctions could unsettle ties with Iran."China and Saudi Arabia are both in important stages of development, and there are broad prospects for enhancing cooperation," Wen on Saturday told Prince Nayef, who is a senior member of the Saudi government, according to Xinhua."Both sides must strive together to expand trade and cooperation, upstream and downstream, in crude oil and natural gas," said Wen, referring to access to extracting oil and gas and then processing the them.The Xinhua report made no mention of any discussion of Iran, whose oil exports to China face pressure from new U.S. sanctions. The U.S. sanctions threat is a particular worry for China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil. Only Saudi Arabia and Angola sell it more crude."Beijing is concerned with the potential response to Iranian bellicose statements and with the spike in oil prices that would ensue from greater turmoil in Syria and Iran," Michal Meidan, an analyst in London with the Eurasia Group who studies Chinese energy investment and policy, said in an emailed research note.Late on Saturday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry denounced U.S. punishment of China's state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp.On Thursday, the Obama administration invoked U.S. law to sanction Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, which it said was Iran's largest supplier of refined petroleum products."Imposing sanctions on a Chinese company based on a domestic (U.S.) law is totally unreasonable, and does not conform to the spirit or content of U.N. Security Council resolutions about the Iran nuclear issue," the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said in a statement issued on the ministry's website (www.mfa.gov.cn)."China expresses its strong dissatisfaction and adamant opposition," said Liu.The Obama administration said its sanctions against the Chinese company and two other firms are part of a broadening effort to target Iran's energy sector and press Tehran to curb in its nuclear ambitions, which Western governments say appear aimed at developing the means to make atomic weapons.Iran says its nuclear activities are legitimate and entirely for peaceful ends.China cut oil imports from Iran in January and February in a commercial dispute over contract terms, and has been looking for alternative supplies.Yet China is unlikely to dramatically boost crude imports from Saudi Arabia, even with the Iranian worries, said Meidan, the analyst with the Eurasia Group."In the likely event that Iran will offer discounted oil, Chinese traders will buy more Iranian barrels and could consequently reduce their Saudi imports," she said."Wen will therefore need to convey both commercial and diplomatic realities to Saudi Arabia, China's number one source of crude imports, and ensure that bilateral ties remain on steady footing."MORE TRADE TOO, PLEASEWen also said his government wants "strong and reputable" Chinese companies to invest in Saudi Arabia's ports, railways and infrastructure, the Chinese Xinhua news agency reported.China and Saudi Arabia should keep deepening cooperation "in the face of changeable and complicated regional and international trends," he said, according to Xinhua.Crown Prince Nayef is King Abdullah's half brother and became heir to the throne in October. The Xinhua report paraphrased the prince as saying that Saudi Arabia is willing to expand cooperation in energy and infrastructure.China is already Saudi Arabia's biggest customer and the kingdom is keen to diversify its economic ties.On Saturday, the state-run Saudi oil giant Aramco and Chinese companies finalized an initial agreement signed last year to develop a 400,000 barrel per day (bpd) refinery in Yanbu, on the kingdom's Red Sea coast.Aramco will hold a 62.5 percent stake in the joint venture formed to develop Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Co (YASREF), and Sinopec will own the rest.In the first 11 months of 2011, top supplier Saudi Arabia shipped 45.5 million tons of crude to China, a rise of 12.9 percent over the same period in 2010, according to Chinese customs data. Angola and Iran were China's second and third biggest suppliers.Wen is also scheduled to visit the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.(Reporting by Chris Buckley, Editing by Jonathan Thatcher)====================Obama vows to work with Israel to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear power2012-02-06 07:22:03 [ Big Normal Small ] 　CommentWASHINGTON, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- U.S. President Barack Obama said on Sunday that the United States will work with Israel to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, signalling that a diplomatic resolution to the current crisis is still possible.In an interview with the NBC television from the White House, Obama said both the United States and Israel, which is "rightly" concerned about Iran's nuclear program, believe that "Iran has to stand down" on the current standoff.When asked if Israel is determined to attack Iran, Obama said he didn't think that Israel has made such a decision, adding that the United States and Israel will work "in lockstep" on dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. "I will say that we have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we've ever had," he said.The president emphasized his goal in resolving the nuclear standoff diplomatically, though repeating that he was not taking any options off the table."We're going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating an arms race -- a nuclear arms race -- in a volatile region," Obama said.When asked about the possibility of Iran launching a retaliatory attack on the U.S. soil, Obama said he didn't see "any evidence that they have those intentions or capabilities right now."Obama made the remarks after media reports revealed Thursday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's suspicion on Israel's attack toward Iran this spring.Panetta believed there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June before Iran enters a "zone of immunity" to commence building a nuclear bomb, according to an article written by the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.The article said Obama and Panetta had cautioned the Israelis that Washington opposes an attack, citing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.While believing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not made a final decision on attacking Iran, senior U.S. officials are still worried about "the guns of spring -- and the unintended consequences," the article added.The U.S.-led West and Iran have been in a standoff over the latter's nuclear program since last November, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapons capacity. Iran has strongly dismissed the claims, stressing its nuclear program is solely for peaceful use of nuclear energy despite the West's suspicion that it is an attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.The standoff escalated in December 2011, when Iran held large-scale military exercises in the Gulf and threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic route in transferring one-fifth of oil traded worldwide, to protest the Western sanctions over its nuclear program.Washington warned Tehran against crossing the red lines to block Strait of Hormuz and to acquire a nuclear weapon, which will provoke dire consequences including a military strike. Washington has also been rallying its allies in imposing crippling sanctions on Iran, including a ban on its export of crude oil and financial transactions with Iran by foreign countries.On Dec. 31, Obama signed a bill on imposing new sanctions on Iran, targeting foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank, the main conduit for its oil revenues. In late January, the European Union (EU) imposed further sanctions against Iran's oil exports as well as its central bank, following the U.S. steps.U.S. Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus, who testified at a Jan. 31 Senate hearing, said the new sanctions on Iran "have been biting much, much more in recent weeks," though it remained to be seen whether they would force Iran to change its course on its nuclear program.=========================

Iran attack decision nears, Israeli elite locks down
Thu, May 17 12:39 PM EDT
image

By Michael Stott

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A private door opens from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office in central Jerusalem directly into a long, modestly furnished, half-paneled room decorated with modern paintings by Israeli artists and a copy of Israel's 1948 declaration of independence. It contains little more than a long wooden table, brown leather chairs and a single old-fashioned white projector screen.

This inner sanctum at the end of a corridor between Netanyahu's private room and the office of his top military adviser, is where one of the decade's most momentous military decisions could soon be taken: to launch an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program.

Time for that decision is fast running out and the mood in Jerusalem is hardening.

Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of international pressure, saying it needs the fuel for its civilian nuclear program. The West is convinced that Tehran's real objective is to build an atomic bomb - something which the Jewish state will never accept because its leaders consider a nuclear armed-Iran a threat to its very existence.

Adding to the international pressure, U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro said this week American military plans to strike Iran were "ready" and the option was "fully available".

The central role Iran plays in Netanyahu's deliberations is reflected in the huge map of the Middle East hanging by the door of his office. Israel lies on one edge, with Iran taking pride of place in the centre.

Experts say that within a few months, much of Iran's nuclear program will have been moved deep underground beneath the Fordow mountain, making a successful military strike much more difficult.

LOCKDOWN

As the deadline for a decision draws nearer, the public pronouncements of Israel's top officials and military have changed. After hawkish warnings about a possible strike earlier this year, their language of late has been more guarded and clues to their intentions more difficult to discern.

"The top of the government has gone into lockdown," one official said. "Nobody is saying anything publicly. That in itself tells you a lot about where things stand."

Last week Netanyahu pulled off a spectacular political surprise, creating a coalition of national unity and delaying elections which everyone believed were inevitable. The maneuver also led to speculation that the Israeli leader wanted a broad, strong government to lead a military campaign.

The inclusion of the Iranian-born former Israeli chief of staff and veteran soldier, Gen. Shaul Mofaz, in the coalition, fuelled that speculation - even though both Mofaz and Netanyahu deny that Iran was mentioned in the coalition negotiations.

"I think they have made a decision to attack," said one senior Israeli figure with close ties to the leadership. "It is going to happen. The window of opportunity is before the U.S. presidential election in November. This way they will bounce the Americans into supporting them."

Those close to Netanyahu are more cautious, saying no assumptions should be made about an attack on Iran - an attack with such potentially devastating consequences across the volatile Middle East that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas even went so far as to predict in an interview with Reuters last week that it would be "the end of the world".

Israelis particularly fear retaliation from Iran's proxy militias - the Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon and the Hamas fighters in the Gaza Strip. Both are believed to possess large arsenals of rockets which could hit major Israeli towns and cities.

Hezbollah's deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem told Reuters in February that an Israeli attack on Iran would set the whole Middle East ablaze "with no limit to the fires". "Gone are the days when Israel decides to strike, and the people are silent," he said.

The Israeli Prime Minister and his key allies repeat for public consumption the mantra that economic sanctions against Iran must be given time to work and that now is not the time to speak about military options.

Top officials explain the new coalition on purely domestic grounds, saying it was needed to tackle the thorny and divisive issue of pressing Orthodox Jews into military service - in other words, that its formation has much more to do with the agenda inside Israel than abroad.

BURIED NUCLEAR STATES

Diplomats are divided. "I think the Iran thing is a red herring," said one senior Western envoy. "This is 98 percent about domestic politics". Others are less convinced.

Mofaz himself refuses to speak about military action against Iran, even in the theoretical.

A military veteran with almost 40 years' operational experience, whose office in the Israeli parliament displays a poster of Israeli warplanes flying low over the Auschwitz concentration camp, he scoffs at the idea that his Iranian descent gives him special influence on an Iran attack decision. He derides the idea any serious official in the know would talk to visiting journalists about such a sensitive military subject.

But behind the carefully evasive language of top officials, basic facts are clear. Time is running out. Iran's nuclear program - regarded by Netanyahu as an existential threat to the state of Israel - will soon be buried deep enough underground to render an Israeli attack impossible. The Jewish state's options are narrowing.

"I think they've gone into lockdown mode now," the senior Western diplomat said. "Whatever happens next, whatever they decide, we will not find out until it happens."

There are indeed those who see in Israeli posturing over Iran only bluff intended to press world powers into harsher sanctions and avoid war. Some military experts openly doubt how much damage Israel could inflict. The risk of a fiasco is big.

Perhaps the strongest clue as to Israel's real intentions is to be found in Netanyahu's private office, behind his desk. Officials say the Israeli premier was strongly influenced by his father, who died last month at the age of 102.

Benzion Netanyahu was a distinguished scholar of Jewish history and his strong sense of the past lives on in Benjamin, who laments to visitors that "most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time".

On a shelf behind Netanyahu's desk, along with pictures of his family, is a photograph of Winston Churchill. Netanyahu admires the British wartime premier because he saw the true dangers posed by Nazi Germany to the world at a time when many other politicians argued for appeasing Hitler.

The parallels with modern-day Iran are obvious and Netanyahu is explicit about the dangers he believes are posed by militant Islam: as he puts it, its convulsive power, its cult of death and its ideological zeal.

But Churchill, although eloquent on the dangers posed by the rise of Nazi Germany during the 1930s, ultimately failed to prevent Hitler's ascent to power, the world war he unleashed or the Holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered.

Netanyahu, those who know him say, is determined to avoid going down in history as the man who shirked his opportunity to stop Iran going nuclear. (Additional reporting by Samia Nakhoul and Crispian Balmer; editing by Ralph Boulton)

(Created by Michael Stott)

====

China's crude imports from Iran rise 53.2 percent in April
A Chinese oil tanker (file photo)

Mon May 21, 2012 9:58AM GMT
China's oil imports from Iran have increased by 53.2 percent in April to 388,034 barrels per day (bpd) from 253,302 bpd a month earlier, Chinese customs data shows.


The jump in China's crude imports came after Tehran and Beijing "resolved disputes over annual contracts," Reuters reported.

The Monday data also indicated that China's oil imports from Iran stood at 355,989 bpd in January-April.

Last week, data released by Italy's oil refining industry body Unione Petrolifera (UP) showed that the country's oil imports from Iran increased by 6 percent in March to 425,200 tons, compared with the 401,600 tons in February.

The growth in Italy's crude imports from Iran came despite the oil embargo imposed by the European Union on the Islamic Republic.

On January 23, the European Union approved new sanctions on Iran's oil and financial sectors. The sanctions are meant to prevent EU member states from buying Iranian crude or doing business with its central bank. The sanctions will come into force as of July 1.

The US and the EU have imposed new financial sanctions as well as oil embargoes against Iran since the beginning of 2012, claiming that the country's nuclear energy program includes a military component.

Tehran refutes such allegations, noting that frequent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have never found any diversion in Iran's nuclear energy program toward military purposes.

Iran's Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Shamseddin Hosseini has warned that if EU sanctions against the Islamic Republic take effect, oil prices will soar to as high as USD 160 per barrel.

============