Why was a Navy adviser stripped of her career?
By Jeff Stein – 21 August, 2012 – Washington Post

Gwenyth Todd had worked in a lot of places in Washington where powerful men didn’t hesitate to use sharp elbows. She had been a Middle East expert for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. She had worked in the office of Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in the first Bush administration, where neoconservative hawks first began planning to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

But she was not prepared a few years later in Bahrain when she encountered plans by high-ranking admirals to confront Iran, any one of which, she reckoned, could set the region on fire. It was 2007, and Todd, then 42, was a top political adviser to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.

Previous 5th Fleet commanders had resisted various ploys by Bush administration hawks to threaten the Tehran regime. But in spring 2007, a new commander arrived with an ambitious program to show the Iranians who was boss in the Persian Gulf.

Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff had amassed an impressive résumé, rising through the ranks to command a cruiser and a warship group after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Following a customary path to three stars, he had also spent as much time in Washington as he had at sea, including stints at the Defense Intelligence Agency and as director of the Clinton White House Situation Room.

Cosgriff — backed by a powerful friend and boss, U.S. Central Command (Centcom) chief Adm. William J. “Fox” Fallon — was itching to push the Iranians, Todd and other present and former Navy officials say.

“There was a feeling that the Navy was back on its heels in dealing with Iran,” according to a Navy official prohibited from commenting in the media. “There was an intention to be far more aggressive with the Iranians, and a diminished concern about keeping Washington in the loop.”

Two people who were there said Cosgriff mused in a staff meeting one day that he’d like to steam a Navy frigate up the Shatt al Arab, the diplomatically sensitive and economically crucial waterway dividing Iraq and Iran. In another, they said, he wanted to convene a regional conference to push back Iran’s territorial claims in the waterway, a flash point for the bloody Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Then he presented an idea that not only alarmed Todd, but eventually, she believes, launched the chain of events that would end her career.

Cosgriff declined to discuss any of these meetings on the record. This story includes information from a half-dozen Navy and other government officials who demanded anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, many parts of which remain classified.

According to Todd and another witness, Cosgriff’s idea, presented in a series of staff meetings, was to sail three “big decks,” as aircraft carriers are known, through the Strait of Hormuz — to put a virtual armada, unannounced, on Iran’s doorstep. No advance notice, even to Saudi Arabia and other gulf allies. Not only that, they said, Cosgriff ordered his staff to keep the State Department in the dark, too.

To Todd, it was like something straight out of “Seven Days in May,” the 1964 political thriller about a right-wing U.S. military coup. A retired senior naval officer familiar with Cosgriff’s thinking said the deployment plan was not intended to be provocative.

But Todd, in an account backed by another Navy official, said the admiral “was very, very clear that we were to tell him if there was any sign that Washington was aware of it and asking questions.”

For the past year, the air had been electric with reports of impending U.S. or Israeli attacks on Iran. If this maneuver were carried out, Todd and others feared, the Iranians would freak out. At the least, they’d cancel a critical diplomatic meeting coming up with U.S. officials. Todd suspected that was Cosgriff’s aim. She and others also speculated that Cosgriff wouldn’t propose such a brazen plan without Fallon’s support.

Retired Adm. David C. Nichols, deputy Centcom commander in 2007, recalled in an interview last year that Fallon “wanted to do a freedom-of-navigation exercise in what Iran calls its territorial waters that we hadn’t done in a long time.” Nothing wrong with that, per se, but the problem was that “we don’t understand Iran’s perception of what we’re doing, and we haven’t understood what they’re doing and why,” Nichols said. “It makes miscalculations possible.”

Todd feared that the Iranians would respond, possibly by launching fast-attack missile boats into the gulf or unleashing Hezbollah on Israel. Then anything could happen: a collision, a jittery exchange of gunfire — bad enough on its own, but also an incident that Washington hawks could seize on to justify an all-out response on Iran.

Preposterous? It had happened before, off North Vietnam in 1964. In the Tonkin Gulf incident, a Navy captain claimed a communist attack on his ship. President Lyndon Johnson swiftly ordered the bombing of North Vietnam, touching off a wider war that turned the country upside down and left more than 58,000 U.S. servicemen dead.

Don’t tell anybody? No way.

Todd picked up the phone and called a friend in Foggy Bottom. She had to get this thing stopped. …more

Q&A: Government weighs in on Bahrain protests
By Nicole Dow – CNN – 24 August, 2012

(CNN) — For more than a year, Bahrain has been the site of anti-government protests. What does the government say about the demonstrations and rights groups’ accusations of a crackdown?

Spokesman Fahad AlBinali offers this take:

CNN: A Bahrain court sentenced activist Nabeel Rajab to three years in prison, a government spokesman said Thursday, and this week, the Court of Appeals acquitted him of defamation. Amnesty International has said the sentence questions the independence of the judiciary. How do you respond?

AlBinali: Nabeel Rajab had a number of cases against him. The one you mentioned, the defamation case, the Court of Appeals cleared Nabeel Rajab of that charge. However, he is in prison for other cases, for active incitements and indirect participation in illegal demonstrations and rallies, and through the use of petrol bombs and improvised weapons. There have also been numerous cases of assault against police officers. The minister of state for media affairs gave a press conference a few days ago detailing the decision in that case of inciting illegal rallies and marches in very busy areas and in the commercial district of the capital.

CNN: Najeeb Rajab is still in prison, correct?

AlBinali: Yes.

CNN: And there’s another sentence for which he’s in prison?
Bahrain: Jailed doctor, official speak

AlBinali: No. The minister of information — the minister of state media affairs — she pointed out that there were three specific incidents that took place earlier this year: the first on January 12, the second on February 14, and the third incident was on March 31. This is a form of behavior that has been engaged in regardless of numerous warnings and cautions regarding the illegal state of crowd incitement and detrimental effect it has on safety and public order.

As I said earlier, they have often led to violence through use petrol bombs, Molotov cocktails and also improvised weapons. Such violent activity and conduct has led to deaths in cases of those engaged in the violent activity as well as bystanders who happen to be in the area at the time or good Samaritans. There was a case of death of a person who tried to clear burning tires off the road. There are real consequences to such conduct and behavior. …more

A Look in the Press: Understanding Saudi Protests in Qatif
Mareike Transfeld – 24 August, 2012 – Muftah

Ever since protests in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province were re-ignited by the arrest of Shiite cleric and opposition leader, Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr, in early July 2012, protesters have continued to voice their demands. Mainstream media and Western governments have, however, largely ignored the protests in the oil-rich region, a circumstance which is unlikely to change. Given the historic US-Saudi alliance, increased American reliance on Saudi oil, and the two states’ shared strategic interests in several regional countries rocked by the Arab Spring, including Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain, demands for political change in the oil-monarchy will likely continue to be ignored. While the protests remain limited and reported casualties from government violence are comparatively small, keeping an eye on the region is crucial.

Peter Fragiskatos, professor at the Western University in London, Canada, believes that although the protest movement is weak, it may be potentially devastating to both the Saudi ruling family and the world economy:

Calls for an end to Shiite discrimination, at least from the perspective of Saudi leaders, come off as disguised attempts to capture control over the Eastern Province, its oil and the system of domination it has made possible. This view persists despite the fact that the recent protests have not emphasized a desire for autonomy (although some Shiite activists have proposed reforms in the past, such as a constitution and legislative assembly for the Eastern Province, which hint at precisely this outcome).

Though the Shiite opposition is weak, it also has a potentially devastating trump card: access to vital oil pipeline networks that could easily be attacked if their plight remains unchanged. If and when that happens, there will be more at stake than a rise in oil price.

Chris Zambelis argues that “Saudi Arabia’s reaction to dissent among its Shi’a population provides insight into the way it interprets its evolving geopolitical position in a rapidly changing Middle East”:

Saudi Arabia also sees an Iranian hand behind Shi’a-led activism in the region. As evidenced by its decision to deploy security forces in neighboring Bahrain in March 2011 to crush an uprising led largely by a marginalized Shi’a majority that is agitating for greater freedoms under a Sunni-led, pro-Saudi monarchy, the Kingdom worries that its own Shi’a community will rise up in turn. Saudi Shi’a, many of whom maintain tribal and familial links with their Bahraini counterparts, organized protests in solidarity with Bahrainis while calling on Riyadh to remove its military from Bahrain (see Terrorism Monitor, June 15). In this regard, Saudi Arabia views the organized and sustained political opposition among its Shi’a community in the context of its regional rivalry with Iran. …more

US remains “deeply troubled” on Bahrain activist
24 August, 2012 – Bahrain Freedom Movement

The United States said Thursday that it remained troubled by a three-year sentence Bahrain handed to a leading rights activist, even though a court acquitted him on another charge.

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland welcomed the decision of an appeals court in the US ally to acquit Nabeel Rajab, an activist from the Shiite Muslim majority, over alleged insults issued via Twitter.”However, we’re deeply troubled that the Bahraini court simultaneously sentenced Mr. Rajab to three years last week in prison on charges of leading illegal gatherings,” Nuland told reporters.

“We take this opportunity to urge the government of Bahrain to consider all available options to resolve this case and in general to take more steps to build confidence across Bahraini society and begin a meaningful dialogue with the political opposition, civil society and the government,” she said.

Rajab has led protests among Shiite Muslims who accuse the Sunni leaders of discrimination. Unlike the main Shiite opposition, the activist has insisted on protests in Manama even after the government crushed demonstrators in the capital’s Pearl Square last year.

The United States has faced criticism by human rights groups for supporting and selling arms to Bahrain – a major US military base which has longstanding tension with neighboring Iran – in contrast to its pressure on other Arab leaders to quit in the face of public protests. …more

BBC censors video showing dark side of Syrian rebels
Voltaire Network – 24 August, 2012

The BBC has sensationally censored a news story and a video showing Syrian rebels forcing a prisoner to become a suicide bomber, a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, presumably because it reflected badly on establishment media efforts to portray the FSA as glorious freedom fighters.

The video, a copy of which can be viewed below (the original BBC version was deleted), shows Free Syrian Army rebels preparing a bomb that is loaded onto the back of a truck to be detonated at a government checkpoint in the city of Aleppo.

The clip explains how the rebels have commandeered an apartment belonging to a Syrian police captain. The rebels are seen sneering at photos of the police captain’s family while they proclaim, “Look at their freedom, look how good it is,” while hypocritically enjoying the luxury of the man’s swimming pool.

The video then shows a prisoner who the rebels claim belonged to a pro-government militia. Bruises from torture on the prisoner’s body are explained away as having been metered out by the man’s previous captors. The BBC commentary emphasizes how well the rebels are treating the man, showing them handing him a cigarette.

However, the man has been tricked into thinking he is part of a prisoner exchange program when in reality he is being set up as an unwitting suicide bomber. The prisoner is blindfolded and told to drive the truck towards a government checkpoint.

“What he doesn’t know is that the truck is the one that’s been rigged with a 300 kilo bomb,” states the narrator.

The clip then shows rebels returning disappointed after it’s revealed that the remote detonator failed and the bomb did not explode. The BBC narrator admits that forcing prisoners to become suicide bombers “would certainly be considered a war crime.” …more

Shia killings condemned, protests planned across Europe
Shia Post – 24 August, 2012

LONDON: Europe’s biggest Shia Muslim organisation has announced to launch Europe-wide protest movement against the brazen target killings of Shias in Pakistani cities by extremists from the banned terrorist outfits.

At an emergency meeting held at Markaz-e-Ahle Bait in Tooting here, Majlis-e-Ulema Shia Europe announced that it would launch a series of protests in European countries and would approach the world human rights bodies including the United Nations to call for help to protect the lives of Shias in Pakistan who are under attack all over the country.

Their target killings have increased dramatically in recent weeks and militants now act with impunity as the state agencies seem helpless to counter the killers who wear either the police or military uniforms, said Maulana Jafar Ali Najam.

He announced that a meeting of Shia leaders from Europe will be convened before start of the movement in capitals of European cities to highlight the “plight of Shias in Pakistan who are cut like vegetables by sectarian hate-mongers”.

Maulana Azmat Abbas Zubairi alleged that sectarian killers have the support from within the security agencies of Pakistan and there were powerful people in the agencies who do not want the law to go near them.

“These are the myopic people who are still obsessed with the wrong type of foreign policy agenda. They have not changed with times and they still believe their view will dominate and that will happen with the help of terrorists.

Their thinking is fallacious,” he said, appealing to human rights and peace organisations to take notice of the killings of Shias.

He said that western countries were shedding tears over human rights violations in oil-rich countries but neglected Shia persecution in most Islamic countries by their fellows in faith and some international forces.

Maulana Syed Kalbe Abbas from the World Federation, an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc) of the United Nations, said Shias make up the second largest Muslim sect after the Sunnis and they have lived in harmony historically but some people wanted them to fight each other in the name of religion and sects.

“Those killing Shias are doing it in army uniform but there is no one to check them. The state has failed and the outlaws have taken it upon themselves to kill every Shia. This is a conspiracy against Pakistan,” he said.

Abbas said Pakistani media was being complacent and was not doing enough to expose the killers of Pakistanis despite knowing well who the killers were and who their mastermind is. …source

UN Experts Urge Bahrain To End Persecution Of Human Rights Defender
24 August, 20120 – RTT

(RTTNews) – A group of U.N. human rights experts have called on the Bahraini authorities to comply with the rights to peaceful assembly and expression and immediately release those arbitrarily detained for exercising their legitimate freedoms.”

They also called for the immediate release of prominent human rights defender Nabeel Rajab, who was recently sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The call comes amid serious concerns about the ongoing persecution of human rights defenders in the oil-rich Gulf Kingdom.

Rajab was convicted on three charges of illegal assembly related to his participation in peaceful gatherings in favor of fundamental freedoms and democracy, including a peaceful protest to denounce the detention of fellow human rights defender Abdulhadi Al Khawaja.

“The sentencing of Rajab represents yet another blatant attempt by the Government of Bahrain to silence those legitimately working to promote basic human rights,” said the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya. She called on the Bahraini government to immediately cease its campaign of persecution of human rights defenders in the country.

The Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, stressed that “the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should not be subject to prior authorization from the authorities.” For the rights expert, “the criminalization of people participating in peaceful assemblies for the sole reason that they did not seek the approval of the authorities to hold such assemblies contradicts international human rights law.”

Rajab is also currently serving three months imprisonment for alleged libel through a social networking site.

“The continuing repression of free speech in Bahrain runs counter to international law and standards that individuals will not be prosecuted for peaceful political speech”, said the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. …source

Behind Morsi’s Momentous Decision
by ESAM AL-ALMIN – Counter Punch

Ever since early April when he became an official candidate in the first post-revolution presidential election, Dr. Mohammad Morsi has been generally dismissed by most political observers as a weak and unimpressive politician. In fact, he was an accidental contender since he was the stand-in candidate for the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) first choice, senior leader KEgypt Muslim Brothairat Al-Shater. The MB fielded Morsi as its back-up candidate on the last day of filing because it predicted correctly that its original candidate would be disqualified by the pro-SCAF Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC).

As Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) took the reigns of power in February 2011, many observers believed that a tacit understanding existed between the powerful Egyptian military and the MB, the most organized political and social group in Egypt. For the next eighteen months, this complicated and largely behind the scenes contentious relationship between these two powerful entities had its ups and downs.

When SCAF sided with millions of Egyptians in ousting Hosni Mubarak in early Feb. 2011, it was not to advance the objectives of the revolution but rather to sacrifice the president in order to save his regime. Throughout 2011, there were three centers of powers in the country: SCAF with its apparent military power, the MB with its enormous capacity for organization and mass mobilization, and the other revolutionary and grassroots groups (dominated by the youth but politically unorganized and inexperienced) taking to the streets throughout the year while paying a terrible price with dozens martyred, hundreds wounded, and thousands detained in military show trials.

When SCAF cracked down on the revolutionary groups, especially during the fall of 2011, the MB refrained from challenging the military as it was in the midst of its campaign for the parliamentary elections. By January 2012, it was clear that the Islamist groups led by the MB had won almost seventy five percent of the seats in both parliamentary chambers. As the MB flexed its muscle and asked to be allowed to form the next government, SCAF refused and threatened the group with the dissolution of parliament. Shortly after, the MB reversed its public promise not to field a contender and actually filed for two presidential candidates.

Within days the military revealed its preferred candidate, Gen. Ahmad Shafiq, the last prime minister of the Mubarak regime. Consequently the tension of the two groups came to the fore as SCAF and the Egyptian deep state (where the remnants of the Mubarak regime still occupied strategic positions and were in control of the state bureaucracy) did everything in their power during the first round of the presidential elections in late May to split the opposition and support their candidate in order to get him to the second round.

Despite their apprehension over the MB’s past broken promises, the revolutionary groups largely coalesced behind Morsi, the other winner of the first round, in the runoff elections, which he barely won with just over 51 percent of the vote. When it became clear on the last day of the runoff elections on June 17 that its candidate might lose, SCAF carried out a sweeping power grab as it dissolved the MB-dominated parliament, reclaimed all legislative powers to itself, issued a constitutional declaration that largely diminished the office of president, and assigned itself the right to appoint the constitution-writing committee if the current one was invalidated as expected by the SCC. In short, by the time Morsi took the oath of office on June 30, SCAF -which essentially ruled the country for the past 16 months- was effectively in control of the most important levers of power relegating the elected president to the position of a figurehead with diminished authority. …more

British Policy Towards The Arab Spring Has Been Entirely Consistent
24 August, 2012 – by Dan Glazebrook – JUST

Over the past year, the British government have bombed rebels into power in Libya – and are desperately hoping to do the same in Syria –whilst simultaneously aiding and abetting the crushing of rebel forces in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Some commentators have called this hypocritical. In fact, there is no contradiction: the British government is engaged in a vicious, region-wide attack on all independent, anti-colonial forces in the region, be they states or opposition movements. Client regimes – in many cases monarchies originally imposed by the British Empire – have been propped up, and states outside the orbit of Western control have been targeted for destruction. The policy, in other words, has been entirely consistent: a drive towards the total capitulation of the Arab world; and more specifically the destruction of any potential organised resistance to an attack on Iran. What is more, it has been planned for a long time.

The Arab spring did not come out of the blue; it was both predictable and predicted. All demographic, economic and political trends pointed in the direction of a period of instability and civil unrest across the region, and especially in Egypt. The combination of growing and youthful populations, rising unemployment, corruption and unrepresentative government made some kind of mass manifestation of frustration a virtual certainty – as was recognised by a far-reaching speech by MI6-turned-BP operative Mark Allen in February 2009. In August 2010, Barack Obama issued Presidential Study Directive Number 11, which noted “evidence of growing citizen discontent with the region’s regimes” and warned that “the region is entering a critical period of transition.” Four months later, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia, sparking off the unrest that led to the downfall of President Ben-Ali.

For the world’s imperial powers, wracked by their own economic crises – Britain, France and the US – it was clear that this unrest would present both a danger and an opportunity. Whilst it threatened to disrupt the Gulf monarchies imposed by Britain during the colonial period (Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait et al), it could also create the ideal cover for the launching of long-planned proxy wars against old enemies. …more

Bahrain, UK pledge closer ties
By Habib Toumi – 24 August, 2012 – Gulf News

Manama: Bahrain and Britain have agreed to boost cooperation to safeguard stability and security in the region, Bahrain’s foreign minister has said.

King Hamad Bin Eisa Al Khalifa on Thursday met British Prime Minister David Cameron in London for official talks.

“The visit by HM King Hamad is highly significant and is happening at a time when closer ties between Bahrain and London are required,” Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmad Al Khalifa said.”

The talks between King Hamad and Cameron covered bilateral relations and ways to safeguard stability and security in the region. The two leaders also discussed ways to safeguard peace in the Middle East as well as the latest developments in Syria. “There is common concern about the bloodshed [in Syria] and its repercussions for security in the region,” Shaikh Khalid said in a statement carried by the Bahrain News Agency. …source