McChrystal Opens the Militants Floodgate Into Waziristan, Removes Six Border Posts

[As long as Pak Army operates under American rules, Pakistan is destined for total civil war, so that US Special Forces can ride to the “rescue.”]

On whose side is US anyway?

US vacates checkposts ahead of SWA operation

By Qudssia Akhlaque

ISLAMABAD: The US-led Nato forces vacated more than half a dozen key security checkposts on the Afghan side of the Pak-Afghan border just ahead of the major Pakistan Army ground offensive (code named: Rahe Nijaat) against Taliban-led militants in the volatile tribal area of South Waziristan, it is learnt.

It is feared that the American decision will facilitate Afghan Taliban in crossing over to Pakistan and support militants in striking back at the Pakistani security forces in the troubled tribal area.

Sources close to the NWFP government and military strategists involved in the planning of S Waziristan operation told The News over the weekend that the Americans vacated eight security checkposts on the Afghan side of the border just five days before the Army operation. Four of these close to South Waziristan including one each at Zambali and at Nurkha, and four in the north in the area of Nuristan where American forces recently came under violent attacks by the militants.

Latest reports indicate that the Americans have also removed some posts close to North Waziristan, which could encourage even more Afghan Taliban fighters to cross over to the Pakistan side. This has raised many eyebrows in government and military circles with points being made about “conflicting interests” and dubious American designs.

The NWFP government, civilian and military officials in the provincial capital have been astonished by this move and more so intrigued by its timing. Alarmed and concerned about its likely adverse affect on the military operation in S Waziristan where the Pakistani troops reportedly comprising 28,000 soldiers are expected to face fierce resistance from the heavily armed Taliban-led militants, the NWFP government recently alerted the relevant authorities in Islamabad about it.

Pakistan has now taken up this matter with the Americans and conveyed its serious concern about vacating the checkposts at this crucial juncture. Notably the security checkposts on the Afghan side of the border are already almost a third of what Pakistan has on its side.

Recent communication intercepts by Pakistani intelligence outfits have revealed that Taliban commander in Nuristan Qari Ziaur Rehman has invited TTP leader Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, former deputy of late Baitullah Mehsud, to come to Nuristan and operate from there if he finds space in Wazristan shrinking.

Experts believe the American move of vacating security checkposts on the Afghan side close to Pakistan’s border could undermine the military action by Pakistan Army. While on one hand it could offer an easy escape route to some militants, it is believed that this would facilitate movement of Afghan Taliban into Pakistan side to join hands with the al-Qaeda-backed local Taliban and other locals as well as foreign militant groups against the military action there.

Some observers see it as a tactical move by the US to ward off pressure from its own forces in Afghanistan that have been under severe attacks by the Afghan Taliban. Hence they want to provide them unhindered passage to Pakistan side, as it would help shift the main theatre of war from Afghanistan to inside Pakistan. Americans themselves have been saying that 70 per cent of area in Afghanistan is out of their control.

The Pakistani Tabiban in S Waziristan backed by al-Qaeda are joined by a large number of foreign militants including a battalion of Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens and Arab fighters. According to military sources the toughest resistance is expected from an estimated 1,500 battle-hardened Uzbek fighters, equipped with highly sophisticated weapons. “The Uzbek fighters face a do or die situation with the all-out army action in the hostile mountainous area,” a senior government representative maintained.

The uninterrupted flow of sophisticated arms and funding to the foreign militants in S Waziristan has also lured many criminals to join hands with them in challenging the writ of the state, defence experts say. The presence of various foreign and local militants in the rugged terrain of South Waziristan is estimated at between 15,000 and 20,000.

Officials in the military and civil bureaucracy are cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the operation. “Either these militants will run to Afghanistan, settled areas or stand and fight to the end,” is how one key NWFP government representative summed it up.

A seemingly more realistic view from a key office holder in Peshawar is: “We are half way in containing insurgency and hopefully by end of the year major military operations will be over and 2010 will be the year of consolidating the gains made in recovering the lost ground.”

Whatever the outcome, observers believe that operation in the Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan became inevitable. “It became imperative to go for a military operation in South Waziristan to regain the lost space that has been used as training ground for planning and executing attacks targeting key security installations of Pakistan including the GHQ,” the Army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said earlier shortly after the launch of the operation.

Despite several attempts on Sunday The News was unable to get an official version from the Pakistan Army Spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas on this alarming development. However, when the US Embassy Spokesman Richard Snelsire was contacted by this correspondent and his attention was drawn to the question of vacated checkposts he remained non-committal. When a confirmation was sought and he was asked what had prompted this move, Snelsire said he had no clue about it. “I do not have information on that, and that is outside our purview,” he noted, adding that he had not seen any reporting on that.

Iran Warns U.S., U.K. of Retaliation After Attack

Iran Warns U.S., U.K. of Retaliation After Attack

Monday, October 19, 2009

AP

Deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s ground force, Gen. Noor Ali Shooshtari is seen.

The chief of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard said Monday that a Sunni rebel group blamed for a deadly attack on the force was linked to U.S., British and Pakistani intelligence, an Iranian news agency reported.

"Behind this scene are the American and British intelligence apparatus and there will have to be retaliatory measures to punish them," Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said.

The reaction comes after a homicide bomber killed five senior commanders in the Guard and at least 37 others in an area of southeastern Iran that has been the focus of a growing Sunni insurgency.

Earlier Monday, an Iranian MP raised the prospect of a possible military operation into Pakistan against the group blamed for the attack on the Guard.

"There is even unanimity that these operations (could) take place in Pakistan territory," the ISNA news agency quoted MP Payman Forouzesh as saying.

The official IRNA news agency said the dead included the deputy commander of the Guard’s ground force, Gen. Noor Ali Shooshtari, as well as a chief provincial Guard commander for the area, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh. The other dead were Guard members or local tribal leaders. More than two dozen others were wounded, state radio reported.

The headquarters of Iran’s armed forces blamed the bombing on "terrorists" backed by "the Great Satan America and its ally Britain," Fars News Agency said Sunday.

"Not in the distant future we will take revenge," Iran’s statement read, according to Reuters. Iran’s forces claim the country "will clear this region from terrorists and criminals."

"The global arrogance, with the provocation of its local mercenaries, targeted the meeting of the Guard with local tribal leaders," said the Guard statement read out on state TV.

The United States, however, condemned the attacks on Sunday and denied any involvement.

"We condemn this act of terrorism and mourn the loss of innocent lives. Reports of alleged U.S. involvement are completely false," U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in a brief statement.

The Revoutionary Guard commanders were inside a car on their way to a meeting with local tribal leaders in the Pishin district near Iran’s border with Pakistan when an attacker with explosives blew himself up, IRNA said.

Iran’s state-owned English language TV channel, Press TV, said there were two simultaneous explosions: one at the meeting and another targeting an additional convoy of Guards on their way to the gathering.

The region’s top prosecutor was quoted by the semi-official ISNA news agency as saying the Sunni rebel group Jundallah claimed responsibility for the blast.

There was no immediate statement directly from the group.

The group accuses Iran’s Shiite-dominated government of persecution and has carried out attacks against the Revolutionary Guard and Shiite targets in the southeast.

That campaign is one of several ethnic and religious small-scale insurgencies in Iran that have fueled sporadic and sometimes deadly attacks in recent years — though none have amounted to a serious threat to the government.

The Guard commanders targeted Sunday were heading to a meeting with local tribal leaders to promote unity between the Shiite and Sunni Muslim communities.

In April, Iran increased security in Sistan-Baluchistan Province, at the center of the tension, by placing it under the command of the Guard, which took over from local police forces.

The 120,000-strong Revolutionary Guard controls Iran’s missile program and has its own ground, naval and air units.

Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, condemned the assassination of the Guard commanders, saying the bombing was aimed at disrupting security in southeastern Iran.

"We express our condolences for their martyrdom. … The intention of the terrorists was definitely to disrupt security in Sistan-Baluchistan

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Israeli Mercenaries Up to Their Old Tricks in Honduras

[Israeli mercenaries trained infamous Honduran death squad, Battalion 316, during contra war in Nicaragua. 3/16 connected to Iran/contra figure John Negroponte. Next door in Guatemala, Mossad high-up/arms dealer, Pesakh Ben-Or implicated in deals with Columbian Medellin cocaine cartel and associated assassinations.  All of the previous, connected with arms/drugs/money laundering network of Panama’s Manuel Noreiga, whose “right-hand man” was another Mossad big-wig, Michael Harari, the hunter of the Palestinian Olympic terrorists and other criminal activities.  Contact between Harari network and US, allegedly through George Bush Sr’s own “right-hand man,” national security adviser, Donald Gregg.  If President Zelaya is assassinated, it will probably be by an Israeli assassin, or someone from this Mossad-related network.]

Ousted Honduran leader: Israeli mercenaries are trying to kill me

By Roy Semione, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service
26/09/2009

Eighty nine days after being ousted from office in an opposition coup, ex-Honduran president Manuel Zelaya has claimed in an interview with an American newspaper that Israeli mercenaries are trying to kill him.

“We are being threatened with death” Zelaya told the Miami Herald, adding that “Israeli mercenaries” are torturing him with high-frequency radiation at his refuge at the Brazilian embassy, where he has been since returning to the Central American country on Monday.
“I prefer to march on my feet than to live on my knees before a military dictatorship,” Zelaya said, after telling the newspaper that the mercenaries were likely to storm the embassy and assassinate him.
Advertisement

The report also quoted a Honduran police spokesman as saying he knew nothing of any radiation devices being used against the former president.

“He says there are mercenaries against him? Using some kind of apparatus?” the spokesman was quoted as saying. “No, no, no, no, sincerely no. The only elements surrounding that embassy are police and military, and they have no such apparatus.”

Zelaya was ousted at gunpoint on June 28 and returned to the country on Monday, two days before he was scheduled to speak before the United Nations General Assembly.

Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews

Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews

Kim Petersen

Review of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews Zionism is the ideology that dispossessed the Palestinians of their traditional territory. It is the ideology that nuclearized the Middle East.

It is the ideology whose lobby gained inordinate sway over the world superpower through manipulating the US electoral process (former BBC and ITN correspondent Alan Hart says Jewish Americans account for three percent or less of the US population but nearly 50 percent of campaign funds; result: Americans have a choice between two pro-Zionist parties).

It is the ideology that foments instability and wars in the Middle East. Perhaps, most importantly, Zionism is an ideology that attacks the heart and soul of justice and humanity. It is an attack that, on some level, affects all people. That is why Zionism must be met head on: to institute genuine justice and restore the humanity of all peoples.

Hart has the credentials to tackle the subject of Zionism (specifically, political Zionism: that a certain collection of non-native people has a, purportedly, God-given right to a particular piece of real estate that overrides the rights of Indigenous Palestinians) having worked for over three decades covering history unfolding in the Middle East. Much of his experience is first hand. The False Messiah is volume one of, what is planned to be, a three or four volume series Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.

Disseminating information that challenges the immensely influential Zionist bloc is difficult. Hart wrote, “… all in the UK were too frightened to publish this book out of fear of offending Zionism too much and being falsely accused of promoting anti-Semitism.” Here Hart exposes the absurd inversion of morality: Zionists accuse defenders of Palestinian human rights as being racist against the abuser of Palestinian human rights!

Hart identifies it as a smear tactic and a phony one since Arabs are Semites.

That the morality of Zionism is challengeable was keenly illustrated by an exchange between Hart and erstwhile Israeli prime minister Golda Meir. Hart queried Meir on-air: “You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?”

Meir’s prompt response: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”

How do Zionists get away with crimes against humanity? Hart points to the suffering Zionists experienced in the WWII Holocaust. To this an obvious question arises: does victimization give the victims the right to victimize another people?

Paulo Freire in his opus Pedagogy of the Oppressed warned that oppression creates a recycling dynamic that dehumanizes not only the oppressed people but also the oppressor. Hart touches on this dynamic.

Zionism and Judaism

Hart has to cover a lot of ground. He points out that Zionism is not Judaism. Hart describes Zionism as “brutal and cruel [behaviors], driven by self-righteousness of an extraordinary kind, without regard for international law and human rights conventions” which “makes a mockery of the moral values and ethical values of Judaism.”

Hart does not delve deeply into these moral and ethical values of Judaism, but he leaves this reader with the impression that Judaism is an principled faith. However, the laws and morality underlying many religions are often interpreted variously. The late Israel Shahak, a chemistry professor and social justice activist, in his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years rued that classical Judaism had been subverted toward profit and Jewish supremacism. I submit that much as no people should be seen as a monolith neither should a religion be regarded as a monolith.

The Legitimacy of a Jewish Claim to the Holy Land

Hart reasons that there is no legitimacy to Israel’s claim to a “right to exist.” Moreover, the Jewish claim to the Holy Land does not hold up under scrutiny.

The bloodlines of the majority of Israeli Jews do not tie them with the Holy Land. Ashkenazim stem from eastern and central Europe and are converts to Judaism. Hart cites the work of Joseph Reinach, Alfred Lilienthal, Arthur Koestler, and Shlomo Sand in outlining this case. The refutation of Jewishness as an ethnicity is important because, quoting Sand, “…it encourages a segregation that separates Jews from non-Jews” that allows Zionists to claim Israel as a Jewish state.

Furthermore, writes Hart, the Mizrahim (Semitic Jews indigenous to the Middle East) were strongly opposed to Zionism.

Hart focuses on two different sets of Jews: Haskala Jews who sought to make the place they lived their home and Zionist Jews who strive to separate Jews and Gentiles. Haskala Jews see themselves threatened by a backlash to crimes committed by Zionist Jews.

Early Zionism

Hart paints a picture of early Zionist history and the roles of early Zionist figures such as Zionism’s “founding father,” Theodr Herzl, key lobbyist, Chaim Weizmann, and the financier of Zionism, Lionel de Rothschild.

Hart details the collaboration of Britain with the Zionists from Arthur Balfour whose letter provided a pretext to dispossess Arabs. The chicanery was such that Britain reneged on its promise to recognize the sovereignty of its WWI Arab allies. Britain, writes Hart, laid the foundations for a Zionist takeover: “Without the British presence Zionism could not have entrenched itself in Palestine. On their own the Palestinians could have pushed the Zionists out.”

Britain went so far as to declare war on the Palestinians and assassinate Palestinian leaders.

All along the way, Zionist Jews were opposed by Haskala Jews who, as history shows, always lost out. After WWII, the Holocaust card was effective at backing down Haskala Jews.

Yet, Zionism has also flourished among Jews living abroad. Citing humanist Lilienthal: the migrating Jews carried a “nation complex” within them. According to Hart, this “made many of them susceptible to Zionism’s nationalist propaganda.”

Later, Zionists such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Vladimir Jabotinsky would terrorize the British out of Mandate Palestine. Hart sources Ralph Schoenman on the Koening Memorandum that made transparent the Zionists’s plans for terrorism against Palestinians: “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

Israel today, Hart notes, defines legitimate Palestinian resistance as terrorism. The author holds, “… all peoples have the right to use all means including violence to resist occupation.”

The US and Zionism

As Imperial Britain headed into decline, Imperial USA was ascending. The US would have a greater role in the Middle East.

Hart lauds US president Woodrow Wilson, “a real, towering statesman, a true giant among men.” Woodrow was apparently hamstrung on Palestine by his lobbying for the League of Nations. Hart blames “Imperial Britain-and-Zionism and their allies in [the US] Congress and the media; with … France” for screwing Wilson on Palestine.

Hart presents many “what if” scenarios. For example, he quotes British official John Hope Simpson: “Had the Jewish authorities been content with the original object of settlement in Palestine – a Jewish life without oppression and persecution in accordance with Jewish customs – the national home would have presented no difficulty.”

Or what if president Franklin Roosevelt had not died when he did? Hart speculates that Roosevelt would have rejected a Jewish state in Palestine.

Hart identifies influential Zionist agents in the White House, among others, David K. Niles. Although Truman is depicted as a president who grappled with the Zionist lobby, he had a vulnerability exploitable by Zionists.

Biting the Hand that Feeds

Ends would justify the means for Zionists. Even though Britain had set the stage for Jewish immigration to Palestine, even though Britain was at war with Nazi Germany — Zionists sought out a possible collaboration with Britain’s wartime enemy and an enemy to Jews. Hart sources Marxist writer Lenni Brenner who disclosed the Zionist negotiations with Nazi Germany. Zionists were dedicated to thwarting Jewish immigration to elsewhere than Palestine and were even willing to sacrifice Jewish lives to realize the goal of a Jewish state in Palestine.

And it was Jewish terrorism that forced Britain out of Palestine.

Zionism and Terrorism

The Zionist plan was to drive the British out, then drive the Palestinians out. Hart relates the strategy of the man who would become Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, for keeping all the land: creating facts-on-the-ground. The problem with this strategy is that if old facts-on-the-ground can be erased to establish new ones, what is to stop new facts-on-the-ground from being created again?

The methods for creating these facts-on-the-ground were incredibly gruesome. The massacre at Deir Yassin is a historical testament to Zionist war crimes – “in its own tiny way it was another holocaust.” The village was a “soft and easy target”; “the butchers of Deir Yassin” killed 254 victims, mainly the elderly, women, and children. One-hundred-and-forty-five women were killed, 35 of them pregnant. Many were raped before being killed.

Hart quotes Mordechai Nisan of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: “Without terror it is unlikely that Jewish independence would have been achieved when it was.” [emphasis added by Hart]

Abdul Khader, portrayed as a respected Palestinian resistance leader, died the day after the Deir Yassin Massacre. Gloom set in on the Palestinian side. Deir Yassin had its intended effect, sowing fear in the hearts of Palestinians, and the expulsion was underway.

Arab and International Complicity with Zionism

The Palestinians did not just have to deal with British treachery, they “were at the mercy of the Arab League” who at British insistence kept the Palestinians unarmed, much as the illegal sealing of Gaza’s borders today and control of the West Bank borders keeps Palestinians unarmed under brutal occupation and creeping dispossession.

Hart wonders: what if the Arab regimes of the time had sought an alliance with Stalin to defeat Zionism? He speculates that Truman might have had to stand up to Zionism.

Hart points out that the United Nations General Assembly, in defiance of its own charter which calls for respect for the principle of self-determination, would, aided by Zionist manipulation (disinformation, bribery, threats), decree an illegal partition of Mandate Palestine. Not only was the partition illegal, he argues, it was also unfair. Jews would receive 56.4 percent of the land while being 33 percent of the population and owning only 5.67 percent of the land. The valuable coastal and fertile areas were in Jewish hands while mountainous, infertile areas were left to the Palestinians. Hart calls it “a proposal for injustice on a massive scale.”

In the end, Truman capitulated to Zionism and recognized the partition. Truman had been subjected to “a political hit-squad of 26 pro-Zionist U.S. Senators” beholden to Jewish votes and money.

Truman’s secretary of state George Marshall resisted Zionism, putting “America’s national interests first and, to the limit of the possible within that context, doing what was legally and morally right.” Joining Marshall in opposition was US secretary of defense James Vincent Forrestal who might have been the most steadfast opponent of the corrupting influence of Jewish money on the Democratic Party had he not, according to Hart, died under suspicious circumstances. Nonetheless, the Zionists had access to a more influential actor on Truman.

Hart takes a sympathetic slant toward Truman, noting he had kept the Zionist lobby at bay until it discovered his Achilles heel: his good friend Eddie Jacobson, a non-Zionist Jew. Through Jacobson, Zionists could reach Truman.

It appears that Truman, although much irked by the selfishness of the Zionist lobby, bore much of the responsibility for opening the door to the influence of money from lobbyists. Grant F. Smith in his book America’s Defense Line supports this view: “The historical record reveals how Truman’s policy on the Palestine question became heavily influenced by his need for campaign contributions…” Smith credits Truman with starting a “competition to see who was more ‘pro-Israel'” among US presidential candidates. Smith presents evidence that Truman was swayed by “massive funds” for his 1948 presidential campaign raised with the help of arch-Zionist Abraham J. Feinberg.

The Brazilian pedagogue Freire theoretically described — without referring to it –what underlies the Zionist-Palestinian dynamic: that of the oppressor and the oppressed. Freire argued that oppression and the struggle of liberation from oppression are both oppressing. Oppression, he contends, is necrophilic. “Indeed, the interests of the oppressors lie in ‘changing the consciousness of the oppressed, not the situation that oppresses them.'”

To overcome the oppressor-oppressed dynamic, the oppressed must see themselves as agents of change. Revolution requires solidarity, and this, said Freire, is achieved through love — affirmation of one’s humanity. The act of rebellion by the oppressed is a gesture of love. The desire to be human saves oppressors from their own dehumanization caused by oppressing other humans.

“It is only the oppressed who, by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors,” wrote Freire.

Many Haskala Jews believe that liberation for all Jews will come from Palestinians achieving their liberation.

This looks like the direction Hart is heading with his Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews series. Volume One: The False Messiah is an important reference on what has transpired in the lead up to and formation of the Jewish State by Zionists. He brings valuable first-hand perspective, such as what lay behind Meir’s statement that there were no Palestinian people.

Hart gives a human face to some of the historical protagonists, portraying them not merely as actors but delving into the character of the persons. It is as if Hart seeks to humanize some of the persons who capitulated to Zionism.

However, there is no reason that evil should always appear in the guise of a demon. Humans come in all shades. Evil acts are evil despite the appearance of the evil-doer. Yes, it is probably much easier to perpetrate evil acts in cherubic rather that demonic guise, but why play to such stereotypes?

Hart’s book is a good act, a brave act for someone from British state media. He says he has to live with himself, and it is obvious this book comes from a place of integrity. Volume One: The False Messiah augurs well for the rest of the series.

IDF Caught Violating UN 1701, Again, After Detonating Discovered Eavesdropping Site

[SEE: Mysterious Blast in the South Linked to Hizbullah Telecom Network]

Israel may have planted spy gear in Lebanon: U.N.

Photo

Photo

Photo

BEIRUT (Reuters) – A U.N. investigation into explosions in south Lebanon indicated on Sunday that Israel had planted spy devices on Lebanese land in what a senior U.N. official said would be a violation of a ceasefire agreement.

The UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon said its preliminary probe into two explosions in the south showed they had been caused by the detonation of underground sensor devices.

The units were apparently buried by Israeli forces during the 2006 war with the Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah, it said.

“These do look like some sort of espionage device,” Michael Williams, the U.N. special coordinator for Lebanon, told Reuters.

If confirmed, the devices would represent violations of Security Council resolution 1701 which halted the 34-day war.

A first explosion was reported on Saturday evening and a second on Sunday morning. No injuries were reported. The devices had been placed some 2 km inside Lebanese territory between the villages of Houla and Meiss al-Jabal.

“Preliminary indications are that these explosions were caused by explosive charges contained in unattended underground sensors which were placed in this area by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) apparently during the 2006 war,” UNIFIL said in a statement.

UNIFIL was investigating what had caused the devices to blow up. A Lebanese security official said they appeared to have been detonated by remote control from Israel after their discovery by Lebanese security forces.

Israel did not respond specifically to the Lebanese assertion. But an Israeli military statement said Sunday’s incident proved Hezbollah’s military presence in south Lebanon, especially in rural Shi’ite areas along the border with Israel.

PROTEST OVER DRONES

UNIFIL said it had protested to the Israeli military about overflights by drones while the Lebanese army and the peacekeepers were investigating on the ground. Lebanese army troops opened fire on the drones with machine gun and small arms fire, the UNIFIL statement said.

Williams said the use of drones was an obvious violation of Lebanese sovereignty and resolution 1701 “and not particularly helpful at a time of obvious tension in the south.”

UNIFIL is also investigating another incident in south Lebanon last week at the village of Tayr Filsi, a UNIFIL spokesman said. The Lebanese army and Hezbollah said one person was wounded when a shell exploded in the garage of a Hezbollah member in the village on Monday.

Israel has said the blast showed munitions were being stockpiled in violation of resolution 1701 and has complained to the United Nations about the incident.

The next report on Security Council resolution 1701 is due to be filed later this month.

The 2006 war broke out after Hezbollah, an anti-Israeli Shi’ite group backed by Iran, launched a raid into Israel, capturing two soldiers. More than 1,000 people, mostly Lebanese civilians, were killed before the United Nations brokered a ceasefire.

(Reporting by Tom Perry in Beirut and Jerusalem bureau; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Iran Blames U.S., Britain for Deadly Attack Against Revolutionary Guards

Iran Blames U.S., Britain for Deadly Attack Against Revolutionary Guards

By Golnaz Esfandiari, RFE/RL

Thirty-one people have been killed or wounded in southeastern Iran in an attack against the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
According to Iranian media, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the Pishin area of the Sistan-Baluchistan Province, killing at least five Revolutionary Guards members, including two high ranking commanders, as well as tribal elders and civilians.


General Nourali Shoushtari was among the high-ranking victims

Iran’s semi official Fars news agency has identified the two commanders as the deputy head of the Guards’ ground forces, General Nourali Shoushtari, and the Guards’ commander in Sistan-Baluchistan, General Rajabali Mohammadzadeh.
Iranian officials are accusing the United States and Britain of backing the perpetrators of the suicide attack, which took place as Revolutionary Guards commanders were meeting with tribal elders.
The United States condemned the attack and denied any connection to it. "We condemn this act of terrorism and mourn the loss of innocent lives. Reports of alleged U.S. involvement are completely false," U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in a brief statement.
The attack is likely to raise tensions with the West a day before Iranian and Western officials are due to meet in Vienna to discuss the county’s nuclear program.
It could also lead to increased security measures in Sistan-Baluchistan Province, which is the scene of frequent clashes between security forces, drug traffickers, and rebel groups.
London-based analyst Abdol Sattar Doshoki told Radio Farda that the Islamic Republic could use the attack in order to increase pressure on its opponents.
"Unfortunately we have a regime that wants to solve everything and push its plans through military means," Doshoki said. "This results in the spread of violence in Tehran and also Baluchistan."
‘Foreign Elements’
The IRGC said in a statement that foreign elements backed by the United States are to blame for the deadly attack. Iran’s state television quoted "informed sources" as saying that Britain was directly involved in the attack.
Parliament speaker Ali Larijani also said that the United States was implicated, adding that the attack has "burned" the hand of U.S. President Barack Obama.


Shoushtari and another IRGC commander meeting with Balouch elders

Iranian state television reports that the Sunni rebel group Jundollah has claimed responsibility for the attack.
A journalist based in the region, Emadedin Mazari, the editor in chief of the "Sobhe Zahedan" weekly, finds Jundollah’s claim credible. The group has been behind a series of deadly attacks in Sistan-Baluchistan. Iran has in the past accused the United States and Britain of supporting the group to create instability in the country.
"Today’s attack is very similar, in its form and nature, with previous attacks in the region," Mazari said. "Therefore it’s highly likely that it’s the work of the terrorist group led by Abdol Malek Riggi," he said, referring to the leader of Jundollah.
Mazari says the attack was a move by the rebel group to disrupt a new plan by the Revolutionary Guards aimed at involving different tribes in improving security in the region.
Mazari told RFE/RL that Jundollah wanted to prevent any rapprochement between the Baluch Sunni minority and the establishment.
"Commander Shoushtari had started this new initiative to get in touch with tribal elders," Mazari said. "He seemed to really believe in it; he wanted to bring security through the elders and the people themselves."


Shoushtari getting ready for prayer

The IRGC said in a statement that the attack is in line with the "evil" strategy of foreigners to create discord between Shi’a and Sunnis.
Mazari says the attack will have political, social, and economic consequences for the region, which is among the most deprived in Iran.
Britain condemned the "terrorist attack" in Sistan-Baluchistan and the loss of life that it caused.
Iran’s Interior Ministry said the perpetrators of the attack will be arrested "very soon" and punished.


Copyright (c) 2009 RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org