Courcy's Intelligence Brief - 22 August 2012

Items

  • Egypt reinforces Israel's fears of a "multi-front confrontation"

    LatinNews 22 August 2012 Hits: 771

    When, on 12 August, Egypt’s President Muhammad Mursi dismissed the army top brass and annulled a constitutional declaration by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf) curbing the powers of the presidency, it is said that Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reacted by saying that Mursi would prove to be far more dangerous for Israel than Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  He said that Mursi could be expected to continue to produce “dangerous surprises”.  The reaction in Egypt would appear to corroborate Netanyahu’s fears, with the majority agreeing with the sentiment expressed by the commentator Fahmi Houeidi in the Egyptian daily Ashurouq, who wrote on 16 August: “If these decisions have caused such shock and exasperation in Israel, then this can only mean that they are leading us in the right direction and that they will serve to lay the foundations for a new Egyptian regime that will wash away the shame of the phase in which our country was viewed as ‘Israel’s strategic asset’.”

    The “dangerous surprise” that Israel most fears is a move by Egypt to regain full sovereignty over the demilitarized Sinai peninsula  - and on 13 August Al-Masri al-Youm quoted a legal adviser to Mursi, Mohamed Gadallah, as saying that Mursi intends to “ensure Egypt’s full sovereignty and control over every inch of Sinai”.

    This rhetoric has been supported by actions on the ground, with Egypt taking military steps in the Sinai beyond the scope of what had been agreed with Israel for the combating of militants.  On 19 August Israel’s state-funded Israel TV reported that Egypt had deployed a battalion to the Sinai without the requisite permission from Israel.   On 21 August, a senior Israeli defence official told Maariv: “Israel is worried about the tanks in northern Sinai.  This is an outright breach of the peace agreement.”

    Although, on the face of it, Egypt’s strong response against the militants in the Sinai is helpful for Israel – which is the main target of the militants – it does nevertheless indicate a disregard for the terms of Camp David.  The feeling in Israel is that while there is no immediate threat to the Camp David accords, Egypt is purposely testing the boundaries and that an eventual demand for the renegotiation of the terms of the Sinai demilitarization – which is a cornerstone of the peace agreement - is all but inevitable.

    Of particular note was the comment by “an Egyptian military source” quoted by the Reuters news agency on 21 August.  Discussing the deployment of Egyptian troops and armour in the Sinai, and the lack of co-ordination with Israel, he said: “We don’t need to issue a daily report to Israel on the operation as it is a matter of sovereignty and national security.”

    Beyond the specific question of the Sinai, the feeling that Egypt under Mursi will not be friendly to Israel is hardening, and it has been noted that Mursi’s new chief of staff, Mohamed Fathi Refaat El-Tahtawi, a former ambassador to Libya and Iran, once described Israel as “the greatest threat to the security of Egypt”.

    Nor is it just the Israelis who think this.  On 21 August, the editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab al-Quds al-Arabi, Abdelbari Atwan, wrote: “We have said it before, we say it again today and we shall continue to say it loud and clear in the future: Egypt is changing and in the right direction.  That is the direction of regaining its dignity, sovereignty, and independent decision; the direction of rejecting US/Israeli diktats.”

    The militant threat from the Sinai has, naturally, also produced a military reaction from Israel, which deployed its Iron Dome air-defence system west of Eilat on 19 August and has been conducting intensive military exercises.  This prompted the Palestinian Maan news agency to report on 20 August that Israel has been undertaking “intensive” and “unprecedented” military training in the Negev desert “as if Israel was preparing for a major war with Egypt”.

    Israel is now waiting to see if Mursi will indeed travel to Iran for meetings of the Non-Aligned Movement at the end of August, as is currently planned.  If he does go to Tehran, it will be the first visit to Iran by an Egyptian head of state since the 1979 Iranian revolution.  But even if Mursi takes the cautious view, sending his deputy Mahmoud Mekki instead, it is clear that Iran is continuing to make big efforts to mend fences with the Mursi regime in Cairo.

    Observers who saw the encounter between Mursi and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the margins of the Mecca Islamic summit last week say that it was noticeably warm and confirmed the impression that a resumption of diplomatic ties between the two countries was just a matter of time.

    And in a little noted initiative on the Syrian crisis, Egypt has put forward the idea of forming a ‘contact group’ including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran.  Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the international community have pretty much ignored the initiative, but even if it plays no role in the future of Syria it is perhaps indicative of Egypt’s more accommodating attitude towards Iran.  Iran, not surprisingly, has reacted positively to the idea, wanting not only to do anything it can to save the Assad regime in Damascus, but also to draw closer to Egypt and to capitalize on Saudi animosity towards the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

    Finally, it is worth noting that these unwelcome developments from Egypt have all come since the 9 August warning from Israeli chief of staff Benny Gantz that Israel now has to “prepare for every scenario – even a multi-front confrontation”.   A “multi-front confrontation” is, of course, code for a war that involves Egypt.  JdeC.

  • Israel and Iran continuing full tilt towards a collision

    LatinNews 22 August 2012 Hits: 777

    There are hopes that Iran will resume talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 24 August, for the first time since 8 June.  There are also hopes that Iran will offer some concessions as the meeting comes ahead of the next IAEA safeguards report on Iran’s nuclear activities, due to be presented to the IAEA governing board at their September meeting.  But a significant breakthrough appears highly unlikely.  Iran has continued to step up its anti-Israel rhetoric and continues to dismiss the threats of an Israeli military strike as bluster.  Bluster or not, Israel, on the other hand, is continuing to send signals of increasing preparedness to attack.

    The past week has seen three significant verbal assaults on Israel from Iranian leaders.  On 17 August President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marked international al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day by calling for the elimination of the “insult to all humanity” that is Israel.  And at the end of the al-Quds Day rallies in Tehran a statement was issued “on behalf of the Iranian nation” which called for “the obliteration of the Zionist regime, the Zionists’ withdrawal from the occupied lands, and the return of all Palestinian refugees from around the world to their homeland”.  This was followed two days later by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei calling Israel “the Zionist cancerous tumour in the heart of the Islamic world”.

    Naturally, these statements have been seized upon in Israel as irrefutable evidence that a nuclear-armed Iran would seek the destruction of Israel.  And, indeed, even before these latest blood-curdling threats from Iran, the new civil defence minister Avraham Dichter said at the changeover ceremony with his predecessor Matan Vilnai that Israel faced an existential threat for the first time since the founding of the state.  Dichter was appointed on 14 August in order to support the hawkish views of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, and he has duly obliged, saying: “Our enemies have built attack capabilities against Israel.  There are those that represent a strategic threat from Lebanon, from Gaza, and from Syria, and an existential threat from Iran for the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel.”  He added, however, that the “era where Israelis are killed only because they are Jews is over.”

    For us what is interesting is that despite the best efforts of Netanyahu, Barak, Dichter, and the other Israeli hawks, it would appear that Iran does not believe that Israel will attack it, or that if it does it will be defeated.  For instance, on 20 August, Iran’s defence minister, Ahmad Vahidi, said about threats of an Israeli attack: “Officials of the Zionist regime are having serious political disagreements and these remarks bear no value.”  On 21 August, hard-line Keyhan said: “Israeli threats are just psychological manoeuvring”.

    Also on 21 August, Evaz Heydarpur, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said that Iran has “no doubts that the Zionists’ claim on attacking Iran is nothing but a psychological warfare.”  However, he added, if Israel does attack “Iran will not accept any ceasefire request by that regime’s allies and will attack the occupied lands by missiles until all the Zionists die or surrender.”

    Elaborating further, Heydarpur said: “Iran’s defence capabilities will not allow the Zionist regime’s missiles to hit their targets and their fighter jets won’t be able to be present in Iran’s air space.  In addition, the Zionist regime’s military bases will be completely destroyed during the early days of the war by the Iranian missiles.  We predict that after the Zionists’ defence gets destroyed by Iranian missiles on the first day, the Iranian army and IRGC jets will be flying across Israel on the second day.”

    Chillingly, he added: “Before the Zionists make a mistake, Iran announces that if they attack there would be no guarantee for even one Zionist to stay alive in the occupied lands...”

    Many Western observers share this scepticism about Israel’s capabilities and intentions.  Our own sources do not believe Israel is bluffing, and in the past week it has been interesting to see efforts by the Israeli government to rebut two of the main objections to an attack.

    On 15 August, Israel’s ambassador to the US Michael Oren argued in a speech in Washington that gaining a delay in the Iranian nuclear programme was a worthwhile goal, even if total destruction were not possible.  He said: “One, two, three, four years are a long time in the Middle East – look what’s happened in the last year.”  Sources in Jerusalem say this is very much the view of Netanyahu.

    There have also been reports this week that Netanyahu has been countering those who say an Israeli attack on Iran would only consolidate the regime by arguing that the 1976 Entebbe raid did not have that effect on public support for Idi Amin.  It may not sound like a strong argument, but it is what Netanyahu is saying.

    So the points that need emphasizing from the past week’s developments are these: Iran is continuing to give Israel every reason to believe that it poses an existential risk and thus cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons; Iran appears to be sceptical about Israel’s ability or willingness to attack, while having confidence in its own retaliatory capabilities should this judgement be proved wrong; and, thirdly, Netanyahu is continuing to make the case (greatly aided by Iran itself) for an early strike even if Washington cannot be persuaded to participate.  It could hardly be a more volatile mix.

  • Kim Jong-un hardens his rhetoric

    LatinNews 22 August 2012 Hits: 1015

    South Korea and the US began their annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian (UFG) joint military exercise on 20 August against the usual background of North Korean allegations that the exercise is a practice for an invasion of the North.  The interesting point this time around is that the intensity of the protests has been stepped up under the new leadership of Kim Jong-un.

    In a visit to North Korea’s westernmost island a few days before the start of UFG, Kim Jong-un told soldiers that North Korea would turn the West Sea “into a graveyard of the invaders” if the South were to start a war.  He also awarded the title of “hero” to an artillery unit that killed four South Koreans in an attack in 2012.  The award citation praised the unit for hitting the targets “to mercilessly smash provocations of the enemy for aggression”.

    The concern in South Korea is that the young and inexperienced Kim Jong-un might be considering another such attack in order to help him secure full control over the military.  And this has prompted South Korea to issue a firm warning to the North.  On 21 August, a “senior military official” was quoted by the South Korean news agency Yonhap as saying that in the event of such an attack: “The military will immediately strike the sources of the attack, its supporting and commanding forces as well as corresponding targets.”  He added: “It is an expression of our intention to devastate the source of the attacks and its surroundings if the North provokes again, in a bid to prevent it from launching an additional attack.”

    In the November 2010 incident, the North accused South Korean troops of firing towards the North during a live-fire exercise, which the South denied.  In a ‘retaliatory’ artillery attack on Yeonpyeong, the North killed four South Koreans and injured 19.  Since then, South Korea has strengthened its rules of engagement which now call for an immediate strike against “the sources of attack as well as its supporting forces”.

    In our 25 July issue we reported that the latest intelligence from Pyongyang was suggesting that Kim was preparing agricultural and economic reforms, including reducing the role of the military in the country’s economy.  The big question this week is whether the step-up in belligerent rhetoric indicates that hopes of reform will - once again - prove to have been misplaced.  So far it has never paid to be optimistic on North Korea, however it is still possible to reconcile Kim’s belligerent rhetoric and pro-military gestures with an underlying reformist agenda.  Whatever his intentions, Kim has to shore up his relationship with the military.  It may not pay to be optimistic on North Korea, but, at the very least, we’re prepared to say that we would be surprised if this week’s belligerent rhetoric were to be converted into action.

  • Risk pointers

    LatinNews 22 August 2012 Hits: 484

    *** Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in Iran’s sights as well as Israel.  On al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day in Tehran, it was not just Israel that was the target of aggressive sloganeering.  According to the Fars news agency, “a group of youths participating in Quds Day rallies was carrying a Bahraini flag and chanting slogans against the Al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain.”  The same group chanted anti-Saudi Arabia slogans.  Iran supports the Shia opposition in Bahrain against the minority-Sunni ruling family, and it supports the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia.

    A spokesman for the group was quoted as saying: “Americans want to divert the Islamic Awakening and save the Al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain by creating conflicts and unrest in Syria.  But the Iranian people as defenders and supporters of the resistance will not let the dictatorship system divert the Islamic Awakening movement...”

    *** A warning on China’s rural wealth gap.  On 21 August the official Chinese news agency Xinhua quoted a report warning about inequalities of wealth in rural areas.  The report from the Central China Normal University’s Centre for China Rural Studies said the Gini coefficient in rural areas last year was 0.3949.  The index has a range of 0 to 1, and 0.4 is considered to be the level at which social disturbances could happen.  If urban areas are included, China’s Gini coefficient is well above 0.4.  The government hasn’t released this figure since 2000, but in that year it was 0.412.

    *** India’s Kashmir government intimidated by China.  According to sources in India’s Jammu and Kashmir state, the state government has suspended work on an irrigation project in the Leh district of Ladakh following warnings from the Chinese army.  An official from Leh says the project has only been temporarily suspended, but it is reportedly the third time in three years that a major development project in Leh has been stopped under Chinese pressure.  In 2010, the state government suspended construction of passenger shelters near the border at Demchok, and a road project was stopped following Chinese objections.

    *** Drought affects North Korean harvest.  As a result of the drought in the spring, it is thought that North Korea’s annual harvest may be down by 700,000 tons.  The summer harvest of wheat, barley, and spring potatoes was down by 200,000, according to Seoul’s Korea Rural Economic Institute.  The autumn harvest of corn, rice, and beans could be down by another 400,000, with non-grain produce dropping another 100,000 tons.

    According to a researcher at the institute, as a result of the poor harvest, the total food shortfall could reach 1m tons this year.  The North has secured 600,000 tons of grain through imports and aid, but it still needs to find 400,000 tons to feed the population.