Friday, November 9, 2012

Targeting Sudan: Israel sends Iran a message

Following up on this post :Israeli strike on Sudan a dry run for attacking Iran ??? 

Israel’s bombing of a munitions factory in Sudan last week (actually two weeks ago) has raised questions about the country’s intentions towards Iran

In the wake of the storm surrounding Israels bombing of the Yarmouk military production complex in Sudan, the aftershocks of the incident have revealed the extent of Israels breach of Sudan’s security under the pretext that Khartoum was cooperating with terrorist groups and raised questions about whether Israel’s willingness to send its warplanes to bomb Sudan could be a dry run for a possible attack on Iran. (that was my line of thinking)

 The attack also revealed how far Iran is willing to go in playing a prominent regional role, battling Israel in a sphere traditionally outside its immediate area of interest

 It uncovered Egypts position regarding the transformations that have taken place in the region

There has been anger in the government and opposition in Sudan after assertions by the government that Israel was implicated in the attacks 48 hours after they were announced. This is not the first time that Israel has bombed Sudan in recent years,” Abdo Hamed, a Sudanese political commentator, told the Weekly.
In 2011, Israel attacked Sudan four times.”

Controversy has also erupted in Khartoum over Sudans ties with Iran, following Israel’s bombing of the military production complex and the docking of two Iranian warships at Port Sudan on the country’s Red Seacoast
 Reports indicate that the foreign relations division of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) in Sudan failed to respond to aquestion posed by foreign minister Ali Karti at a news conferenceon the issue.
Kartihad asked whether it was in Sudans“strategic interest to move towards boosting ties with the Arab Gulf states in order to guarantee funds, economic assistance and more investment, or to align itself with Iran because of anticipated changes in the Israeli-Iranian conflict in the region that could put Sudan in a vulnerable position if it were forced to participate in any confrontations.”

Two days after this question, two Iranian warships headed to Port Sudan, raising concerns that the Yarmouk plant could also be funded by Iran. Israel refused to respond to the news, instead mobilising a vessel in the Red Sea to follow the same route

Two days later, the Iranian ships returned to base, as did the Israeli vessel.

Leaked reports about a possible crisis inside the Sudanese regime regarding the country’s ties with Iran have reinforced reports about Tehrans link to the military factory at Yarmouk.

Sources said that there had been a fierce debate over the issue in a cabinet meeting that took place after the incident, particularly given the continual Israeli breaches of Sudanese security under the pretext of Khartoums relationship with Tehran.
Sudanese media reports stated that Tehranhad not responded to reports that it aimed to expandits security and military alliance with Khartoum in the Red Sea. There is already a joint defence agreement between Sudan and Iran.
The NCP bloc in the Sudanese parliament questioned minister ofdefencegeneral Abdel-Rehim Hassan in an attempt to hold him responsible forthe attack. SudaneseParty sources told theWeeklythat politicians did not see eye-to-eye on relations with Iran in the light of the crisis that has emerged in Sudan.
The dilemma has an economic dimension, since Irans presence negatively influences the Gulf States, which disapprove of Iranian-Sudanese cooperation,” the sources said. Some Gulf States such as Qatar have been helping the Khartoum regime, and Iran cannot in the long run play the same role due to its economic situation.”
Ambassador Hussein Haridi, former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister, told the Weekly that Iran intended to increase its interests in the Nile Basin and Horn of Africa, using Sudan as a base in doing so.
Cooperation between Iran and the regime of president Omar al-Bashirin Sudan was nothing new, he said, but it had become more public. Israel viewed this cooperation as a possible alliance between what it regards as extremist Islamist regimes, its presence representing a security threat forIsrael in the region.
Although US state department spokesman Mark Toner expressed Washingtons concern about the Iranian vessels being present off the coast of Sudan, he said the reasons for this were unclear. “We are concerned,” Toner said.But we dont have any details.”
However, Haridi said that Israel would not have carried out the bombing of Sudan without first receiving the green light from Washington.
This is not the first time that Iranian vessels have arrived at Sudanese ports, but the timing of their arrival requires evaluation. “Since the beginning of 2012, Iran has succeeded in creating a foothold in this region through legal means,” Fathial-Marahgi, an expert on Iranian affairs, said.
The world has been fighting piracy off the coast of Somalia, and since Iran has vessels available it deployed one of three submarines in this direction and succeeded in playing a key role in the Arabian Sea. It also used its presence after a drop in the piracy incidents to patrol the African coast, substituting the submarine for the destroyers Al-Shaheed Naqdi and Kharak.

“The presence of the destroyers was approved by Sudan and considered as a friendship visit. Iran wants to convey to the US and Israel that it can threaten their interests not only in the Straits of Hormuz, vital for the transport of oil from the Gulf, but also in the Arabian Sea and Africa,” he added.

According to the Sudanese sources, there has been concern not only at government level but also among the opposition and population at the country’s apparently moving closer to Iran. The Yarmouk factory produced weapons used in conflicts in the regions of Kordofan, Darfur and the Blue Nile. “People are paying the price for these ties for no reason,” the sources said.

There was no official statement from Egypt, apart from the comment that Egypts sovereignty had not been breached by the Israeli flight to carry out the Yarmouk bombing. (Egypt's sovereignty had not been breached by the Israeli fly over? What does that mean, exactly?)

However, Egypt came under diplomatic attack for its allegedly sitting on the fence on the issue, Haridi asking what Cairos strategic outlook was on such Israeli operations and what was being done to deal with them.Was Egypt’s leadership turning a blind eye to operations related to the Islamist project in the region at a time when there were deteriorating security conditions in Sinai caused by the presence of smuggled weapons through Sudan, he asked.

Sudan is part of Egypts ‘strategic depth’ and a key member of the Nile Basin countries,” Haridi said.Our distraction with domestic issues does not justify our failure on these matters, because the challenges are immense and complex. Delaying addressing them will create a crisis in the near future and will also give the impression that there is a structural inconsistency in Egypts policies.”

Israel has its eyes set on Africa, and it was party to the crisis between Egypt and Ethiopia on the issue of the River Nile’s water and the dams that the latter country intends to build on the Nile.
Israel is seeking to extend its influence in Africa, and Iran is seeking to create a front to counter this presence, according to brigadier Hussein Hammouda, former director of the Zionist Combat Unit in the now-dissolved Egyptian State Security and the author of a book on the Israeli presence in Africa.

What has happened was a case of muscle-flexing by Iran and Israel since this region is a sphere of influence for their national interests,” Hammouda said. “What we are concerned about here is that both sides have exposed Egypt to a test balloon in order to measure our reaction to events taking place in a region that is vital to our strategic depth.”

Sudan, stuck in the middle?


  1. "...raised questions about the country’s intentions towards Iran" ???

    I really don't think there are ANY questions about the Israeli govt's intentions toward Iran.
    Or Sudan, for that matter.

    Hostility, aggression and war...those are the Israeli govt's intentions - but not necessarily the Israeli people. The same is true with the criminal US govt, in direct contrast with the views of the American people.

    The globalist elite do not care at all what we think, or even what is legal or not legal - just in case no one else has noticed that yet.

  2. Putin sacks armed forces chief after defense chief. Now Petraeus resigns?

    Is there more to what is transpiring in Russia than meets the eye? Putin canceled the Japanese PM visit due to his schedule?

    Rumors have been flying aorund about his being injured?

  3. Oh and that alleged attempted Mossad hit back in Feb pre elections?

  4. Israel fires into Syria after the provocation campaign kicked off with Syria tanks into the Golan. Then an stray bullet hit IDF vehicle.

    Meanwhile, Obama calling on abbas to back off the UN push while Netanyahu was quoted last week as saying the Israelis preparing countermeasures.

    Abbas says he is commited

    More Gaza bombing over the weekend

    And Russia says to help with the Arafat investigation - French and Swiss so far..

    Is the Israeli escalation - well telegraphed over the past two week (RE Syria) - drummed up as Abbas pushed toward Statehood.

    A few more curious things:
    Clinton was in Algeria pushing the Mali intervention which was rebuked. An Algerian military plane went down in Souothern France late last week?

    Here is what is curious...
    The plane carried five military personnel and one official of the Algerian national bank, the Algerian defense ministry said. It had taken off from Paris and was returning to Algeria.

    Read more here:

    Chevron is now saying Stuxnet. Could this be the reason the Saudis were warning of about Israeli and IS linked companies while the NATO countries (Us) pushing the Shampoon amateur stories and the coincident hacker attacks on US bank ATMs? Recall the virus that attacked the saudi computers allegedly ended with a video of a brning flag - contrived or otherwise?

    1. Algeria warns military intervention would worsen situation in Mali

    2. Saw the new James Bond movie and the bad guy (a former British agent like 007 who went rogue b/c 'mummy' betrayed him--like David Morrell's 'Brotherhood of the Rose'), hacked into British intelligence system and showed a burning flag on M's computer to taunt her.

  5. British troops may be deployed to Syrian border: British Chief of General Staff

    Israeli troops fired into Syrian territory today for the second time in less than 24 hours after a mortar shell again hit the Israeli-controlled side of the Golan Heights

    And those IDF|US exercises
    IDF and U.S. Army launch four Patriot missiles as part of mass joint drill. The drill, considered the largest ever carried out by the two countries, will be conducted over the course of three weeks, and will simulate an extensive Mideast war with U.S. intervention.

  6. Russia will “react in the sharpest manner” to any US ships equipped with the Aegis combat system attempting to sail by its shores, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told RIA Novosti in an interview. Rogozin did not elaborate on Russia’s possible reaction, but lambasted the US missile defense system – part of which involves ships equipped with the Aegis integrated naval weapons system – for fuelling “an arms race.” “We have never placed our interceptor missiles near US borders on ridiculous fabricated pretexts such as ‘protecting our American friends from Canada and Honduras.’ But they do, on the pretext of protecting us and Europe from ‘bad guys in Iran and North Korea,’” Rogozin said.

    1. Thanks!

      See this as well:

      Growing Global Cooperation on Ballistic Missile Defense

      Frank A. Rose
      Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
      Berlin, Germany
      September 10, 2012:

      "As you know, we have made great progress in implementing the President’s vision in Europe.

      EPAA Phase One gained its first operational elements in 2011 with the start of a sustained deployment of an Aegis BMD-capable multi-role ship to the Mediterranean in March 2011 and the deployment of an AN/TPY-2 radar in Turkey, which became operational in December 2011. Spain has also agreed to host four U.S. Aegis destroyers at the existing naval facility at Rota. These multi-mission ships will support the EPAA as well as other EUCOM and NATO maritime missions.

      For Phase Two of the EPAA, we have an agreement with Romania to host a U.S. land-based SM-3 interceptor site beginning in the 2015 timeframe. This site will provide protection against medium-range ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East. In June of this year, the United States conducted its second consecutive successful test of the SM-3 IB interceptor and the second generation Aegis BMD 4.0.1 weapon system. This success was a critical accomplishment for Phase Two of the EPAA, which will see SM-3 IBs deployed in Romania in the 2015 timeframe.

      We also have an agreement with Poland to place a similar land-based interceptor site there, including the SM-3 IIA, in the 2018 timeframe for Phase Three of the EPAA, which will extend BMD protection to all of NATO Europe.

      Finally, the Department of Defense has begun concept development of a more advanced interceptor, known as the SM-3 IIB, which will be deployed in EPAA Phase Four in the 2021 timeframe. The SM-3 IIB will provide an intercept capability against intermediate-range ballistic missiles and an additional layer for a more enhanced homeland defense against potential ICBM threats to the United States from the Middle East. . . .

      Despite our differences of opinion, we remain convinced that missile defense cooperation between the United States and Russia (and between NATO and Russia) is in the national security interests of all countries involved. For that reason, missile defense cooperation with Russia remains a Presidential priority for this Administration, as it has been for administrations going back to President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. . . ."

    2. If it was that easy the Koreans would have bowed.

    3. Another perspective