Email |  Print | RSS | Comment |  

 Email |  Print

Donderdag, 9 December 2010 | The Guardian: Document 1, Document 2, Document 3, Document 4 | Bewerkt door Crethi Plethi

Hezbollah top terrorist Imad Mughniyah kwam door een mysterieuze bomaanslag op zijn auto om het leven.

WikiLeaks: Israël Beducht Op Represailles Na Mysterieuze Moord Op Hezbollah Terrorist

Imad Fayez Mughniyeh alias Hadj Radwan was één van de meest gezochte terroristen ter wereld. De Israëlische Mossad, de CIA, het Franse SGDN en andere inlichtingendiensten waren méér dan 20 jaar op zoek naar de man die een lange lijst van terroristische aanslagen op zijn CV had staan: bomaanslagen, moorden en ontvoeringen. Op 12 februari 2008 wordt hij gedood door een bom die verborgen zat in de hoofdsteun van zijn beveiligde SUV in de rustige buurt Kfar Suseh in Damascus (Syrië). Tot aan zijn dood was Hezbollah terughoudend geweest om Mughniyeh als één van hun te betitelen, maar nu liet de Hezbollah er geen twijfel over bestaan dat ze een groot verlies hadden geleden.

“Met trots verklaren wij dat de grote jihadistische leider van de islamitische verzetsbeweging in Libanon, commandant Imad Mughniyeh hadj, tot de rijen der martelaren is toegetreden door de handen van de Zionisten”, aldus een verklaring van Hezbollah Manar-TV.

De 45-jarige Imad Mughniyeh werd verantwoordelijk gehouden voor het gijzelen van westerlingen zoals de Amerikaan Terry Anderson en de Britten Terry Waite en John McCarthy, hij was het brein achter de bomaanslag op de Amerikaanse ambassade in Libanon in 1983 en van de aanval op een Amerikaanse kazerne in Beiroet in hetzelfde jaar wat het leven kostte aan 242 mensen en zou hij deelgenomen hebben aan wapensmokkel en een vliegtuigkaping. Daarnaast werd hij verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de ontvoering van Israëlische soldaten die uiteindelijk zou leiden tot de oorlog met Hezbollah in 2006.

Imad Mughniyeh is geboren in de buurt van de stad Tyrus in het zuiden van Libanon in 1962 en begon zijn carrière bij de Force 17, een terroristische tak van Fatah van Yasser Arafat, voordat hij betrokken raakte bij de Libanese sjiitische militie Islamitische Jihad die verbonden is met de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde. Na de Israëlische invasie in Libanon, bedoeld om de voortdurende infiltraties van Palestijnse terroristen in het noorden van Israël te stoppen en de PLO definitief uit Libanon te verjagen, gingen verschillende terroristische groepen in Libanon samenwerken. Mughniyeh heeft vanaf die tijd altijd een hechte relatie gehad met Teheran. In een verklaring op de Iraanse staatstelevisie werd de aanslag als een daad van “staatsterrorisme door het zionistische regime” veroordeeld.

Als Israël achter de moordaanslag zit dan zal het ook gezien worden als een signaal aan Syrië dat Israël ook leiders van Palestijnse islamistische bewegingen als de Hamas en Islamitische Jihad, die vertegenwoordigingen in de Syrische hoofdstad hebben, kan treffen. De aanslag op Mughniyeh wordt algemeen gezien als een hoogstaande geheime operatie waar veel voorbereiding voor nodig is geweest. Mughniyeh wisselde regelmatig van identiteit, had plastische chirurgie ondergaan en foto’s dateerden van jaren geleden. Hij stond erom bekend dat het leek alsof hij in rook opging zodra inlichtingendiensten hem in het vizier kregen en kreeg hij VIP bescherming van de Syrische geheime diensten.

“Mughniyeh was een van de meest gevaarlijke terroristen ooit,” aldus Danny Yatom, die hoofd was van de Mossad toen Hezbollah er van werd beschuldigd de aanvallen op de Israëlische ambassade en een Joodse gemeenschapscentrum in Argentinië in de vroege jaren ’90 te hebben uitgevoerd wat 120 mensen het leven kostte. Deze aanvallen werden gezien als vergelding voor de dood van Hezbollah-leider Abbas al-Musawi die door een aanval met Israëlische Apache-helikopters gedood was. Volgens Argentinië was Mughniyeh betrokken bij de voorbereidingen voor de aanslagen in Buenos Aires.

De Syrische autoriteiten waren aanvankelijk verbijsterd door deze mysterieuze aanslag op deze gewiekste en goed beveiligde Hezbollah terrorist in Damascus waardoor er ruzie ontstond tussen Syrische veiligheidsdiensten en speculaties over wie het gedaan had.

De begrafenis van Imad Mughniyeh. (Foto: Hussein Malla/AP)

Uit Amerikaanse documenten uit februari 2008, onthuld door Wikileaks, blijkt hoe het regime van president Bashar al-Assad geschokt was toen Imad Mughniyeh, al vanaf het begin lid en mede-oprichter van de militante sjiitische beweging, werd gedood door een geavanceerde bom in zijn auto.

“De Syrische militaire inlichtingendienst en de Algemene inlichtingendienst zijn met elkaar in een strijd verwikkeld over de vraag wie er schuldig is voor het lek in de beveiliging wat resulteerde in de dood van Mughniyeh,” stelde de Amerikaanse ambassade.

Volgens de goed ingelichte Saudische ambassadeur in Libanon, Abdel Aziz Khoja, dacht Hezbollah dat de Syriërs verantwoordelijk waren voor de aanslag in Damascus. Er was op de dag na de aanslag geen officiële Syrische vertegenwoordiging aanwezig bij de begrafenis van Mughniyeh in de zuidelijke buitenwijken van Beiroet. Iran werd vertegenwoordigd door haar minister van Buitenlandse Zaken die, volgens de Saoedische ambassadeur, gekomen was om Hezbollah tot kalmte te manen en zich te onthouden van het nemen van maatregelen tegen Syrië.

Een ander gerucht was, volgens Khoja, dat Syrië en Israël een deal hadden gemaakt om Mughniyeh te doden waar Israël al die jaren op gewacht had. Niemand heeft ooit de verantwoordelijkheid opgeëist voor de moord, maar Israël werd in het algemeen als schuldige aangewezen.

Amerikaanse diplomaten meldden ook dat de aanslag leidde tot spanningen tussen Syrië en Iran, misschien omdat Teheran de verdenkingen van Khoja, wat betreft de medeplichtigheid van Syrië in de affaire, deelde.

Het duurde meer dan een jaar voordat de Syrisch-Iraanse betrekkingen weer verbeterden met een low-profile bezoek aan Damascus [eind 2009] door de commandant van de Al-Quds troepen [de elite eenheid van de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde (IRGC)], Qassem Suleimani, die door een Libanese bron beschreven wordt als “zakelijke regelaar” voor de militaire activiteiten van Hezbollah in Libanon. Amerikaanse functionarissen speculeerden erover dat de lange afwezigheid van Suleimani “misschien een reflectie was van de aanhoudende spanningen tussen Iran en Syrië als gevolg van de moord op Mughniyeh.”

In 2006 vertelde de Libanese minister van defensie, Elias Murr, aan Amerikaanse diplomaten dat Mughniyeh “zeer actief was in Beiroet,” hiermee doelend op de golf van moorden op Libanese politici die vijandig stonden tegenover Syrië en waar Mughniyeh mogelijk bij betrokken was.

Volgens Murr werkte Mughniyeh aan de ene kant samen met de Iraanse Revolutionaire Garde en aan de andere kant met de chef van de Syrische inlichtingendienst (en president Assad’s zwager) Asef Shawkat.

In de afgelopen weken zijn de spanningen in Libanon weer aan het toenemen, omdat er signalen zijn dat het speciale VN-tribunaal, die de moord op de voormalige premier Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005 aan het onderzoeken is, Hezbollah functionarissen zal aanklagen voor betrokkenheid bij deze moord. Hezbollah heeft alle Libanese burgers opgeroepen tot een boycot van het VN-tribunaal. Syrië werd op grote schaal beschuldigd van de moord, maar heeft altijd ontkend betrokken te zijn geweest bij die aanslag.

Volgens Amerikaanse documenten hebben Israëlische functionarissen in januari van dit jaar hun bezorgdheid geuit bij de VN-coördinator voor Libanon dat Hezbollah het plan zou hebben om “hun nog steeds uitstaande dreigement voor vergelding van de dood van Imad Mughniyeh” uit te voeren. Israël had reeds eerder gewaarschuwd dat “bij een volgende ronde van gevechten met Hezbollah er waarschijnlijk raketten afgevuurd worden die ook Tel Aviv kunnen treffen en wanneer dit gebeurt zal Israël hard terugslaan in heel Libanon.”

Bron: WikiLeaks

Thursday, 28 February 2008, 13:07

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 DAMASCUS 000146
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
STATE FOR NEA/ELA, EEB/TFS; TREASURY FOR LEVEY/GLASER; NSC
FOR ABRAMS/SINGH/GAVITO
EO 12958 DECL: 02/28/2028
TAGS ECON, EFIN, EINV, KCOR, PGOV, SY, LE
SUBJECT: CORRECTED COPY: REACTIONS TO MAKHLUF DESIGNATION
REF: A. DAMASCUS 126 B. DAMASCUS 70 C. DAMASCUS 54
Classified By: Charge d’Affaires Michael Corbin for reasons 1.4(b,d)

This is a corrected copy of DAMASCUS 142 — deleted extra word in the comment.

1. (S) Summary: The February 21 designation of Rami Makhluf pursuant to E.O. 13460 generated considerable discussion, but Syrian media coverage has been minimal. Makhluf’s defiant announcement on BBC Arabic radio that the designation was tantamount to a medal of honor was as close to an official reaction as we have seen. Human rights contacts overwhelmingly supported the action. A few Syrian websites reporting the designation generated comments that generally denounced corruption and favored the action, but roughly 30 percent of the postings had positive things to say about Makhluf. Business and other reactions were mixed, with some saying the timing of the designation could not have been better, while others suggested the USG action was a desperate political act that failed to achieve anything significant. We nonetheless detected uncertainty about what the designation could mean for Rami’s partners and his foreign-based assets. End Summary

—————————————-

MAKHLUF REACTS WITH BRAVADO ON BBC RADIO

—————————————-

2. (SBU) The February 21 designation of Rami Makhluf hit Damascus on the eve of the Syrian weekend and thus generated little initial media reaction. Two days after Washington’s announcement, Rami took to the airwaves of BBC Arabic Radio to respond, calling the designation “a medal we hang on our chest” as part of a “political ploy aimed at undermining important (Syrian) individuals.” He added, “They accuse us of corruption, while we are among the group that is working to invest the most in Syria.” Discounting the impact of the designation, Makhluf claimed that he had no assets in the U.S. “Only a fool would invest in America,” he said. “We were expecting such a decision to be issued over a year ago, but they were late.” Although FM Muallem responded publicly when the E.O. was first announced on February 13, there thus far has been no official SARG reaction to the Makhluf designation.

——————————————— —

SERENDIPITOUS TIMING AMPLIFIES IMPACT ON REGIME

——————————————— —

3. (S) Coming just a week after the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, and during a period of rising tensions with Saudi Arabia and the West, the timing of the Makhluf designation amplified its impact on the regime. Contacts report that Syrian Military Intelligence (SMI) and General Intelligence Directorate (GID) officials are currently engaged in an internecine struggle to blame each other for the breach of security that resulted in Mughniyeh’s death. In recent days, the Saudi-sponsored Sharq al-Awsat published scathing articles suggesting that Syria is not worthy of hosting the upcoming Arab summit. Additionally, President Mubarak has publicly linked Syrian policy in Lebanon to Egypt’s

DAMASCUS 00000146 002 OF 004

participation in the Arab League summit, and Syrians are increasingly concerned about the direction Lebanon is heading. Thus, in the conspiracy-fueled streets of Damascus, our sources indicated that the Makhluf designation seemed to be a well-timed ratcheting-up of pressure on the regime.

——————————————–

EDUCATED SYRIANS AND CIVIL SOCIETY CELEBRATE

——————————————–

4. (S) The designation resonated on the Syrian “street” among middle class followers of international media, many of whom quietly celebrated Makhluf’s public humiliation as a long-overdue comeuppance. The website “Syrianews” covered Makhluf’s response on BBC, and approximately 70 percent of readers’ comments to the article were anti-Makhluf. “As for Santa Claus Makhluf who is showering us with his deeds,” wrote one, “could he explain to us where did he bring his first millions from?” Another commented, “Did Rami invest in any project which would support scientific research, develop the country, or do such projects that do not yield profits in the billions?” Still another opined, “Does anybody dare criticize the economic genius Professor Rami?” The human rights community was also very supportive, but expressed to Poloff their desire to see additional designations in the near future. Upon hearing the news at a meeting with Post’s TDY Press Attache, a XXXXXXXXXXXX dissident shouted and kissed the officer’s cheek.

————————————-

SOME BUSINESSMEN EXPRESS APPREHENSION

————————————-

5. (S) Reaction from Embassy business contacts tended to fall into one of two categories, depending on the contact’s relationship with the regime. Apolitical businessmen reported that the designation had sent shockwaves through Rami’s business partners who were now waiting nervously for any additional shoes to drop. Most were concerned about their potential liability due to their business relationship with Makhluf, especially those with assets in the U.S. and Europe. One contact predicted that if this designation was quickly followed by others, or even rumors of additional ones, Rami’s foreign and local partners would completely divest out of self-preservation and absorb whatever regime criticism resulted.

6. (S) XXXXXXXXXXXX, a businessman XXXXXXXXXXXX argued any corruption sanctions that did not include Rami would be meaningless. He predicted before the designation that most Syrians were fully aware of Rami’s corruption and would secretly applaud it. Some regime insiders would attempt to portray the designation as a personal matter between the Bush administration and the Asad family. While Rami had been expecting the sanction for some time, it was nonetheless important for the U.S. to send a strong signal. XXXXXXXXXXXX did not think that sanctioning Rami alone would have much of an effect on Syria’s regional or domestic policies. More designations and tough implementation would be needed to convince the regime the U.S. was serious.

7. (S) A reporter for XXXXXXXXXXXX said he

DAMASCUS 00000146 003 OF 004

wasn’t sure the details of the designation were well understood by Syrian businessman and the average Syrian in the street. How would the designation affect foreign investment prospects, for example? Most Syrian elites assumed that the absence of Rami’s assets in the U.S. would make this a moot case. If there were ripple effects on Rami’s business partners, then that might cause people to pay closer attention.

8. (S) XXXXXXXXXXXX a XXXXXXXXXXXX correspondent working on his own piece regarding Makhluf, passed along that he and other journalists had interviewed a former XXXXXXXXXXXX employee of Rami’s empire who had XXXXXXXXXXXX knowledge of Rami’s holdings. That source said the designation created many questions that had to be answered before one could assess the impact. Would all of Rami’s partners be sanctionable? Did Rami have to own a majority share in a company before Americans and others were liable? How would the designation affect ongoing negotiations regarding the sale of Rami’s share of Syriatel’s cell concession? XXXXXXXXXXXX supported the designation and reported that his contacts said that it was overdue. He believed more designations were desirable, arguing, “One a week for the next three months would pressure the Syrians and force them to capitulate.”

———————————

WHILE OTHER ELITES ARE DISMISSIVE

———————————

9. (S) Elites with a pro-regime bias characterized the designation as a purely symbolic gesture with no tangible economic repercussions. They viewed the designation as a feckless personal attack on the Asad family from a U.S. Administration with little remaining political leverage over Syria. Regarding Makhluf’s many prominent business partners in Cham Holding, this group’s opinion was that no Syrian would dare try to divest from Rami — even if he wanted to — for fear of being perceived as a coward in the face of US pressure. Consequently, this line of thinking concluded, Makhluf’s designation will result in a “circling of the wagons” around the regime.

10. (S) XXXXXXXXXXXX admitted to Econoff that, after hearing about the designation on Al Jazeera, he had run his own name through Google to see what public information might connect him to Rami. Claiming to have no affection for the Makhlufs or the regime, he said he still could not imagine divesting XXXXXXXXXXXX and remaining in Syria. “I love the U.S.,” he explained, “but my entire life is in Syria. What am I supposed to do, take my family to the U.S. and get a job making 5000 dollars a month, or be my own boss and XXXXXXXXXXXX a better life in Syria?” XXXXXXXXXXXX would not put him in legal jeopardy, he finally shrugged his shoulders and said, “Whatever happens to Rami…happens to all of us.”

11. (S) XXXXXXXXXXXX assessed Rami’s designation as an empty, desperate attempt by the outgoing Bush administration to punish a member of Bashar’s inner circle. A marketing expert XXXXXXXXXXXX asked, “What was the intended message (of the designation)? I looked and looked, but could find very

DAMASCUS 00000146 004 OF 004

little. The time for such an action was two years ago.” Unless the U.S. could sanction Rami’s Byblos Bank (five percent share) or convince the Emiratis to freeze Rami’s UAE-based assets, he concluded that the designation would have very little teeth and would be regarded by most Syrians as yet another “wayward arrow from the warped bow of George Bush.”

12. (S) XXXXXXXXXXXX characterized Rami’s designation as a “mostly symbolic gesture” that would have little impact on the regime’s policies. XXXXXXXXXXXX said Bashar had already put some distance between himself and his cousin and Makhluf had moved a great deal of his personal assets to Dubai. XXXXXXXXXXXX conceded that most Syrians viewed Rami in a negative light and that his strong-arm business tactics had earned him many enemies. He nonetheless believed that a majority of Syrians, at least the few who had heard about it on BBC or read about it on the internet, would see the act as a last-ditch effort by the Bush administration to punish Bashar.

13. (S) XXXXXXXXXXXX said he had had several run-ins with Makhluf XXXXXXXXXXXX during his tenure, but that Rami had learned “the hard way” from Bashar that there was a limit to how much he could get away with on the basis of his family ties. He predicted that Bashar would secretly welcome any U.S. sanctions against corruption, because corruption was rife in Syrian government and society and had undermined the President’s credibility with the Syrian people. Designating Rami, however, would have very little practical impact because Rami had diversified his many investments and it would be hard to identify majority share interests that he owned.

——-

COMMENT

——-

14. (S) Rami Makhluf’s designation has generated the most reaction among Embassy contacts of any USG action vis-a-vis Syria in the past three years. With increased murmurings casting a pall over the Arab League summit, uncertainty about what will happen in Lebanon, and never-ending conspiracy theories about the Mughniyeh assassination, Rami’s designation occurred at a time when the SARG is facing pressure from multiple sources. Early indications are that the “business community,” regardless of political affiliation, is definitely nervous about the potential implications of doing business with Rami. CORBIN

Bron: WikiLeaks

Tuesday, 22 December 2009, 03:40

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 DAMASCUS 000880
NOFORN
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR NEA/FO, NEA/ELA, NEA/I
NSC FOR SHAPIRO/MCDERMOTT
PARIS FOR NOBLES
LONDON FOR LORD
EO 12958 DECL: 12/20/2029
TAGS PREL, IR, LE, IZ, TU, SY
SUBJECT: SYRIAN-IRANIAN SHOW OF SOLIDARITY MASKS TENSIONS
OVER IRAQ, YEMEN, AND WAR WITH ISRAEL
DAMASCUS 00000880 001.2 OF 004
Classified By: CDA Chuck Hunter for reasons 1.4 b and d.

1. (S/NF) The successive visits of three high-level Iranian officials to Damascus in early December appear at first glance to reaffirm strong Iranian-Syrian security ties and other forms of bilateral cooperation, but they may, in fact, mask deepening rifts over Iraq, Yemen, and the possibility of war with Israel. Syrian observers suggest the a shifting balance of power between Iran and Syria. The Iranian government, challenged domestically by anti-regime protests and abroad by building pressure over its nuclear program, has sought Syria’s help just when Syria has begun to enjoy other strategic options, such as its relations with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Asad’s government proved willing to host the visits, sign a defense MOU, and allow Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Meshaal to visit Tehran, all the while continuing close cooperation with Iranian security services and Hizballah operatives. But Asad reportedly resisted Iranian arguments for closer bilateral coordination in Iraq and Yemen and flatly rejected being drawn into a war between Iran and Israel. End Summary.

—————————————–

Reaffirmation of Staunch Syrian-Iran Ties

—————————————–

2. (C) On the surface, the early-December visits of three Iranian officials — National Security Advisor Saeed Jalili on December 3, Vice President and head of the Environmental Department Mahammed-Javad Mahamadzideh on December 5-6, and Minister of Defense Ahmad Ali Vahidi on December 8-11 — represented a concerted reaffirmation by both countries of their strong security ties and their commitment to expanded relations. Set against a backdrop of rising international pressure on Iran over its nuclear program and an exchange of threats between Israel and Iran, the visits signaled continuing cooperation in confronting Israeli policies. Asad publicly praised Iran’s support for resistance against Israeli occupation after his December 3 meeting with Jalili. According to the Syrian press, Jalili also met with Palestinian leaders based in Syria, including Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Meshaal, whom he invited to visit Tehran the following week. Though less focused on security issues, the visit of VP Mahammadzideh affirmed both countries’ commitment to expanding economic cooperation and working together on responding to climate change. On December 11, Vahidi and his Syrian counterpart, Ali Habib, expressed a desire for a deepening of defense and military ties, formalized in a memorandum of understanding calling for “efforts aimed at the establishment of a comprehensive regional security pact,” and establishing recurrent meetings of the Joint Defense Cooperation Committee.

3. (S/NF) The public showcasing of these three visits contrasted with the secrecy with which Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander/al-Quds Force Ghassem Soleimani conducted his. Reportedly accompanying Jalili, Soleimani returned to Damascus after a long absence, perhaps a reflection of lingering tensions between Iran and Syria that erupted after the February 2008 assassination of Hizballah military strategist Imad Mugniyah in the Syrian capital. XXXXXXXXXXXX spoke very reluctantly about Soleimani’s presence in Damascus, saying only that “he was here,” and “when he visits, it’s usually significant.” XXXXXXXXXXXX reported seeing Jalili and Soleimani at a XXXXXXXXXXXX meeting with Syrian officials that included FM Muallim, as well as unspecified members of Hizballah. “Soleimani represents the

DAMASCUS 00000880 002.2 OF 004

business end of the resistance,” commented XXXXXXXXXXXX, also reluctant to discuss the sensitive issue of Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah military cooperation.

4. (S/NF) Taken collectively, the Iranian visits over eight days were meant to dispel doubts that Syria would or could abandon its ties to Iran, according to XXXXXXXXXXXX The visits allowed the Syrian government to project an image of strength at a time when Israel was rejecting Syria’s demand for a commitment to withdraw to the June 4 lines and a return to Turkish-facilitated proximity talks prior to moving to direct peace negotiations. In a joint press conference with Jalili, FM Muallim supported Iran’s right to enrich uranium and to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Moreover, the Iranian visits coincided with the introduction of a law in the Knesset to require a national referendum on any peace treaty. “Iran provides us diplomatic cover as well as the military might to back up our demands for peace,” argued XXXXXXXXXXXX. “In return, we’re providing Iran support when the West is pressuring Iran on its nuclear program,” he said.

———————————-

But Did Iran Wear Out Its Welcome?

———————————-

5. (S/NF) Whatever Syrian rationale there may be for showcasing military ties to Iran, many Syrian observers are emphasizing the shifting balance of power in their bilateral relationship. According to XXXXXXXXXXXX Iran, not Syria, sought the visits as a sign of Syrian reassurance. “Be assured,” commented XXXXXXXXXXXX “they needed these visits far more than we did.” Summing up a view heard repeatedly around Damascus, “things in our relations with Iran are starting to return to normal” after a long period of Syrian dependence, XXXXXXXXXXXX asserted. He added, “U.S. isolation and the invasion of Iraq made it necessary to adopt such extreme measures. But now, things are moving back to equilibrium.”

6. (S/NF) By the time of Vahidi’s visit, some Syrian officials were quietly grousing that the Iranians were “too needy.” The Syrian government wanted to extend support to a loyal Iranian ally, according to XXXXXXXXXXXX, but the dramatic display of multiple Iranian visits in a short period of time “was Iran’s doing.” The Syrian government, said XXXXXXXXXXXX, perceived a note of panic in the Iranian requests and some were saying Syria’s renewed relations with Saudi Arabia, its deepening ties to Turkey, and even Washington’s desire to re-engage Syria had made Iran “jealous.”

7. (S/NF) While the Syrian government responded positively to Iranian requests for public statements of support on the nuclear issue and against Israel, it remained silent after the Iranian Minister of Defense’s arrival statement denounced Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States. By the time Vahidi arrived on December 8, press contacts noted, the Syrian government’s attitude had shifted to “let’s get this over with,” according to XXXXXXXXXXXX. Indeed, at the same time Vahidi was parading his 20-car motorcade around Damascus, several other visits were occurring, including one by the Turkish military commandant and President Sarkozy’s Middle East advisors, Nicolas Gallet and Jean-David Levitte. Most of Presidential Media Advisor Bouthaina Shaaban’s December 10 press conference was dedicated not to Syrian-Iranian relations, but to Syria’s ties to other countries, according to press contactsXXXXXXXXXXXX.

DAMASCUS 00000880 003.2 OF 004

—————-

Signs of Discord

—————-

8. (S/NF) Going beyond atmospherics XXXXXXXXXXXX reported several disagreements between Jalili’s delegation and their Syrian counterparts. On Iraq, Jalili reportedly proposed a “joining of Syrian and Iranian efforts” to influence the upcoming Iraqi elections. “They (the Iranians) basically asked us to focus on co-opting Shia politicians and to drop our support for the Sunnis and former Baathists,” arguing that the center of gravity in Iraq lies with the Shia. On this issue XXXXXXXXXXXX reported, Syrian officials expressed great reluctance and continued to insist on the reintegration of former Iraqi Baathists into the political system. Some Syrian officials XXXXXXXXXXXX agreed that Syria needed to extend the range of its political connections in the Iraqi Shia community, said XXXXXXXXXXXX. But Iran’s vision for Iraq was “a Shia-dominated state made of up of mini-states,” an outcome the Syrian government opposed, he said. The SARG continues to desire a stronger centralized power base in Baghdad.

9. (S/NF) On Yemen, Vahidi’s public remarks rebuking Saudi Arabia for interfering in its neighbor’s affairs drew sharp criticism from Syrian officials during the Iranian Defense Minister’s meetings XXXXXXXXXXXX Vahidi was clearly trying to drive a wedge between Damascus and Riyadh, but “it didn’t work,” he said. Asad stopped short of publicly contradicting the Iranian official during his visit, but he reassured Saudi King Abdullah’s son Abdul Azziz, in Syria to pay personal condolences after the death of President Asad’s brother Majd, that Syria fully supported Saudi Arabia’s efforts to defeat the Huthi separatists. “There weren’t any newspaper reports of Iranian ministers here (paying condolences),” noted XXXXXXXXXXXX.

10. (S/NF) More significantly, Syria reportedly resisted Iranian entreaties to commit to joining Iran if fighting broke out between Iran and Israel or Hizballah and Israel. XXXXXXXXXXXX said Iranian officials were in Syria “to round up allies” in anticipation of an Israeli military strike. “It (an Israeli strike on Iran) is not a matter of if, but when,” XXXXXXXXXXXX said, reporting what Syrian officials had heard from their Iranian counterparts. The Syrian response, he continued, was to tell the Iranians not to look to Syria, Hizballah or Hamas to “fight this battle.” “We told them Iran is strong enough on its own to develop a nuclear program and to fight Israel,” he said, adding, “we’re too weak.” The Iranians know Syria has condemned Israeli threats and would denounce Israeli military operations against Iran. “But they were displeased with Asad’s response. They needed to hear the truth,” XXXXXXXXXXXX said.

11. (S/NF) Asked what advice Syria was giving Iran, XXXXXXXXXXXX replied that Syria, along with Turkey and Qatar, was preparing for an Israeli-Iranian military exchange in the near future. “Military officials tell me they have noticed Israeli drones snooping around our sites,” he explained, noting some Syrian officials saw Israeli reconnaissance as an indication that Israel might seek to disable anti-air radar stations as part of a plan to fly bombers over Syrian territory en route to Iran. “We expect to wake up one morning soon and learn the Israeli strike took place. Then we expect an Iranian response. At that point, we, Turkey, and Qatar will spring into action to begin moderating a

DAMASCUS 00000880 004.2 OF 004

ceasefire and then a longer-term solution involving both countries’ nuclear programs. That’s the best scenario. All the others are bad for us and the region,” summed up XXXXXXXXXXXX. “We would hope the U.S. would recognize our diplomatic efforts to resolve a regional crisis and give us some credit for playing a positive role.”

——————

Comment: So What?

——————

12. (S/NF) Many Syrian and some diplomatic observers believe Syria is in the process of re-calibrating its relations with Iran and is seeking to avoid choices that would constrain the country’s flexibility as it faces an uncertain regional setting. Does, however, Syria’s instinct for self-survival and desire for less dependence on Iran represent anything other than a shift of emphasis as long as Damascus insists on maintaining its military relations with Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas? Some analysts here argue that Syria’s improved relations with Turkey, France, and Saudi Arabia afford Damascus a greater range of choices in dealing with the West, the Arab world, Israel, and Iran. This school asserts that better ties with the U.S. would further increase Syria’s range of options and its potential to move farther away from Iran. Even if Damascus and Tehran maintained some semblance of their political-military relationship, the extent of their ties would be constrained by Syria’s competing equities in deepening relations with others, including the U.S. Others argue that a wider range of options would only perpetuate Syria’s decision-averse orientation; if the Iranians can’t pin down Syria on matters of war and peace, then what chance would the United States have? Syria could pocket openings offered by Washington and simply use our gestures to play rivals off one another.

13. (S/NF) At the end of the day, it may be impossible to assess Syria’s intentions with any confidence until the regional context becomes clearer. In the meantime, the U.S. should take a modicum of quiet satisfaction that Syria is showing signs of wanting to moderate Iran’s influence in its affairs, even though expecting the relationship to end altogether remains unrealistic. If Syria’s improved relations with France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey can initiate cracks in the Syrian-Iranian axis, then perhaps discrete U.S.-Syrian cooperation could add further stress to these fault lines. A willingness to offer concrete deliverables as evidence of a U.S. desire for improved relations would force Syrian officials to calculate how far they would go in response, providing us with a more accurate measure of their intentions. At a minimum, increased Washington interest in Syria would increase Tehran’s anxiety level and perhaps compound Syrian-Iranian tensions, at a time when Syrian officials themselves may be unsure how they will react to unfolding events.

HUNTER

Bron: WikiLeaks

Friday, 29 January 2010, 16:02

C O N F I D E N T I A L BEIRUT 000096
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 01/29/2020
TAGS PREL, PGOV, UNSC, MARR, MOPS, PTER, PINR, IS, SY, LE
SUBJECT: UNSCOL WILLIAMS ON UNIFIL INCIDENT, GHAJAR
REF: A. BEIRUT 53 B. 09 BEIRUT 974 C. 09 BEIRUT 1334
Classified By: Ambassador Michele J. Sison for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

1. (C) Summary: UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon (UNSCOL) Michael Williams shared with the Ambassador on January 27 a disturbing report of a January 23 act of aggression against a UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) foot patrol in the southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil involving an angry crowd and denial of the UNIFIL patrol’s freedom of movement. Williams called the incident “clearly worrying” because of its quick escalation and its occurrence during a routine patrol. Following his January 24-26 consultations in Israel, Williams also questioned the GOI’s commitment to withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese village of Ghajar. While Williams concluded that the GOI did not expect an immediate conflict with Hizballah, he reported it still harbored deep concern about potentially destabilizing factors in south Lebanon. Even so, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) praised its relationship with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) via the Tripartite mechanism. On UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1559, Williams argued against the insistence of some Lebanese that the resolution be “canceled,” noting “the big elephant in the room is Hizballah End Summary.

ROUTINE PATROL OBSTRUCTED, INCIDENT ESCALATED

———————————————

2. (C) The “temporary obstruction” of UNIFIL’s movement January 23 in the southern town of Bint Jbeil was a violation of UNSCR 1701, UNSCOL Michael Williams told the Ambassador on January 27, since any denial of UNIFIL’s movement was considered a violation. At approximately 1100 on January 23, members of an eight-man French UNIFIL foot patrol noticed that they were being photographed by individuals following them in a civilian vehicle. Soon after a UNIFIL soldier wrote down the car’s license plate number, a crowd of approximately 50 people — some armed with baseball bats, metal bars, and one individual with a knife — formed around the UNIFIL soldiers. The soldier’s notebook was seized by a member of the crowd and set ablaze with kerosene. After the crowd tried to isolate one of the UNIFIL soldiers in a threatening manner, the patrol fired warning shots. While the members of the LAF were present, it is not clear what role they played. Reportedly, one of the LAF soldiers told his UNIFIL counterpart that UNIFIL needed to “respect the (local residents’) rights as civilians.”

3. (C) Williams characterized the incident as “clearly worrying.” It was “very unusual,” he emphasized, for local residents to exhibit such behavior during the course of routine patrols, especially because the UNIFIL unit was not headed to search someone’s home. When asked for his assessment of the LAF’s and UNIFIL’s renewed commitment to work together more closely after several incidents in the second half of 2009, Williams replied it was not yet clear what specific steps had been taken to improve the relationship.

DEALBREAKERS ON GHAJAR REMAIN UNRESOLVED

—————————————-

4. (C) UNIFIL’s January 25 meeting with the GOI Ghajar team was positive, UNIFIL polchief Milos Strugar told polchief separately on January 26. The Israeli team had visited the village, spoken with residents and local leaders, and inspected infrastructure since their last meeting, so they had a more comprehensive picture of the issues involved, he underscored. On January 25, the Israelis made a presentation on humanitarian issues to be addressed, Strugar said, but they did not return to discuss the key security and legal jurisdictional concerns they had raised previously (ref A). Strugar, who had been downcast after the Israelis presented a maximalist position on January 7, was more upbeat, although he assessed that the talks would progress slowly despite what he described as “an effort” on the Israeli side.

5. (C) The next meeting between UNIFIL and the GOI on Ghajar would be held in approximately two weeks due to the disruption caused by the handover of UNIFIL,s command from Italian General Claudio Graziano to Spanish General Alberto Asarta Cuevas, Strugar noted. In his final Tripartite meeting on January 25, which Cuevas attended, Graziano laid out the history of the Ghajar issue and described the current status of negotiations, Strugar said. His comments, in memorandum form, would be the basis for Asarta going forward, Strugar explained. Williams believed Asarta shared Graziano’s understanding of the importance of resolving Ghajar, although Graziano had invested a great deal of his personal capital on the issue.

6. (C) In his meeting in Jerusalem, Strugar reported, Graziano conveyed his concerns regarding the Israeli presentation made on January 7 and urged the Israelis to return to the UNIFIL plan as a basis for progress. Strugar described the Israelis as “open” and said that MFA DG Yossi Gal emphasized that the previous Israeli presentation was “just a starting point.” The Israelis will return to the UNIFIL plan as a basis, Strugar predicted, although he believed that the legal and jurisdictional questions at stake — not the security ones — would be difficult to resolve. Before the next meeting, UNIFIL would brief the Lebanese on the negotiations, as well, Strugar confirmed. UNSCOL Williams told the Ambassador that it was his impression that no progress had been made on the legal or security questions raised with respect to Ghajar, terming the remaining concerns “dealbreakers.”

7. (C) After Williams’ January 24-26 consultations in Israel, he believed that Israel was “looking for something” from Lebanon before withdrawing from Ghajar. Williams relayed that the Israelis did not specify what that “something” could be, but in any case, he was not convinced that the GOL had the political cover — or inclination — to negotiate seriously over Ghajar. He noted that the Israeli Ministry of Defense seemed more “flexible” on the issue, while he questioned whether the MFA (the lead agency) was really committed. MOD General Yossi Heymann, whom Williams called “impressive,” believed that the issue of Ghajar was suffering from “over legislation” and that sometimes it was better to “have some gray.” When Israel pulled out of Ghajar in 2000, there were no detailed arrangements and it “kind of” worked, Heymann pointed out. Williams said he assured his Israeli interlocutors that after an Israeli withdrawal from Ghajar, he would “do (his) damnedest” to push the Lebanese to take reciprocal positive steps in accordance with their UNSCR 1701 obligations.

ISRAELI CONCERNS IN LEBANON

—————————

8. (C) Williams reported that while in Israel, he had met with not only Gal and Heymann, but also with representatives of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office, as well as MOD Chief of Staff General Gabi Ashkenazi for the first time. Williams reported the GOI did not expect a conflict with Hizballah in the near future along the Blue Line. He heard repeated worries, however, about the potential for Hizballah to acquire anti-aircraft missiles or act on its standing threat to retaliate for the death of Imad Mughniyeh. Ashkenazi assessed that the early January attack on the convoy of the Israeli ambassador in Jordan could have had some limited Hizballah involvement, but it was uncharacteristically unsophisticated for the group, Williams said. Israeli interlocutors also expressed concerns about extremist Palestinian groups in Lebanon, particularly in the Ain el-Hilweh refugee camp near Saida.

9. (C) For his part, Williams expressed concern to the Ambassador that if another rocket attack were to occur — whether by Palestinian militants or Hizballah — Israel would respond forcefully. In such an event, UNIFIL would likely be unable to contain any escalation, he worried, adding, “Everything we’ve worked for could go away in as little 12 hours.”

IDF PRAISE FOR THE LAF

———————-

10. (C) The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) praised the LAF’s participation in the Tripartite talks, especially the leadership of Brigadier General Abdulruhman Shehaitly, Williams said. General Heymann had mentioned to Williams, in particular, the late August incident when an (possibly mentally ill) Israeli citizen walked across the Blue Line and was picked up and returned to Israel by the LAF after questioning (ref B). In that instance, Heymann asserted to Williams, the credit for the man’s return to Israeli authorities goes to the LAF and former UNIFIL Commander General Graziano.

UNSCOL ON 1559

————–

11. (C) When asked about the December efforts by some to target UNSCR 1559, Williams explained that Security Council resolutions never die or “get canceled,” as some Lebanese politicians had advocated. Williams noted that many Lebanese were naive about why UNSCR 1559 still existed, even though the resolution had not yet been fully implemented. While key parts of UNSCR 1559, such as Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon, had been implemented, Williams said, “the big elephant in the room is Hizballah.” Williams noted that Lebanese FM Ali Chami had not raised the issue of UNSCR 1559 recently, despite Chami’s involvement in lighting December’s media firestorm on the issue (ref C). During his latest consultations in Israel, Williams recalled, no one had raised the issue of UNSCR 1559 either.

12. (C) Williams confirmed that the next UNSCR 1701 report was due at the end of February, with consultations to follow in March, but the next UNSCR 1559 report was not due until April. Williams characterized this timeline as “a better sequence.” He noted that previously, when the UNSCR 1559 report had come first, it added tensions to the UNSCR 1701 report and consultations.

13. (C) COMMENT: The January 23 incident in Bint Jbeil is disturbing because of its rapid escalation and the unanswered questions about the role the LAF played. We will underscore the need for strong UNIFIL-LAF cooperation with new UNIFIL Commander Asarta in a scheduled February 4 meeting and with our LAF interlocutors at the first opportunity. End Comment. SISON

Bron: WikiLeaks

Thursday, 18 June 2009, 08:49

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 TEL AVIV 001324
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR S/SEMEP
EO 12958 DECL: 06/18/2019
TAGS PREL, LE, SY, UN, IS
SUBJECT: GOI DISCUSSES LEBANON AND SYRIA WITH HOF
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Luis G. Moreno, reason 1.4 (b) a nd (d)

1. (C) SUMMARY. On June 10, Fred Hof, Special Advisor for Regional Affairs in the office of Special Envoy Mitchell, held a series of meetings with GOI officials from the MFA and MOD to discuss the situation in Lebanon and Syria and the possibilities for progress towards opening negotiations with each. The Israeli officials expressed cautious optimism over the election results in Lebanon, but did not believe they would lead to major changes in the power balance in Lebanon, or serious reduction of Hizballah influence. However, both Amos Gilad, Pol-Mil Director in the MOD and Nimrod Barkan, Director of the MFA Political Research Division (INR equivalent), told Hof that the Lebanese election results took Syria by surprise, and were a blow for Syrian President Asad. The officials were split over the prospects for Israeli peace with Syria. Alon Ushpiz, Chief of Staff for the MFA Director General, believes Syria is only interested in a process that gives it international legitimacy. However, in a separate meeting, Gilad called Syrian/Iran ties a “marriage of convenience” which could possibly be broken with a peace agreement with Israel and incentives from the United States. On Ghajar and Sheba’a, there was consensus within the GOI that Ghajar can be resolved, but doing so will not have much utility, while Israeli will only agree to discuss Sheba’a within the context of Syria. End Summary.

—————————-

Lebanon Elections Hurt Syria

—————————-

2. (C) The Israeli officials said that it is too soon to tell what the results of the elections in Lebanon will really mean. Nimrod Barkan told Hof that he does not see the elections as damaging for Hizballah, as their popularity among the Shia remained solid. He added that if Hizballah could maintain its blocking third within the GOL as established in the Doha Agreement, the Lebanese government would remain paralyzed. In another meeting, Amos Gilad assessed that the elections results were largely due to huge amounts of Saudi Arabian money and the Maronite Patriarch throwing his support to March 14, and not because of a fundamental shift in Lebanese society.

3. (C) On the other hand, both Gilad and Barkan agreed that the elections were a blow to Syria, which was completely caught off-guard by the results. The Syrian presidential advisors on Lebanon, they said, are now in trouble. Barkan explained that the Syrians were so convinced the pro-Syrian March 8 would win the elections that they thought they could minimize their interference and still win. They wanted to appease France and the United States, and not irritate Saudi Arabia, and thought they could do so at no cost. In this way, Barkan said, French and American actions and rhetoric in support of March 14 were productive.

——————————————— ——-

Hizballah Still Planning to Avenge Mughniyah’s Death

——————————————— ——-

4. (S) Barkan emphasized that Hizballah still plans on avenging the death of Hizballah operations chief Imad Mughniyah, and that Israel has already thwarted two terror attacks in third countries. Barkan said Israel has very sensitive intelligence that Hizballah has completed operational planning for a third attack outside Israel, but so far Nasrallah has not decided whether to give the order to carry it out, despite Iranian pressure to launch the attack. Barkan said he had personally drafted the MFA’s post-Lebanon election statement, which included a warning the GOL that Israel will hold them responsible for any attacks “emanating from Lebanon” and not just attacks from Lebanon. Gilad also told Hof that Hizballah had shown restraint in the face of Iranian pressure due to the elections, especially during the Gaza operation. Barkan and Gilad both emphasized that they did not know if Hizballah’s calculus would change post-election. Gilad warned Hof that the next round of fighting with Hizballah would likely involve rockets falling on Tel Aviv, and if this happens Israel will respond harshly throughout Lebanon.

————————————

Can Syria Separate Itself from Iran?

————————————

5. (C) Hof also held a meeting with senior MFA staff, including Deputy Director General for Coordination (Director General Chief of Staff) Alon Ushpiz, Minister Lieberman’s Chief of Staff Naor Gilon, and Deputy Minister Ayalon’s Chief

TEL AVIV 00001324 002 OF 003

of Staff David Siegel. Ushpiz asked Hof if the United States really sought peace with Syria in the near term, or if it saw Israeli engagement with Syria as a way to put pressure on the Palestinian track, create space in the Arab world, and gain influence with Syria. Hof replied that all of those goals could be pursued simultaneously, including peace. During the proximity talks in Turkey conducted under the Olmert government, Ushpiz said that President Bush gave PM Olmert the approval to hold talks through Turkey, but said the United States would not get involved, so Israel went as far as it could. Israel was also unsure about proceeding because, they said, the GOI remained skeptical regarding Syria’s intentions to withdraw itself from its alliance with Iran in exchange for peace.

6. (C) Amos Gilad, on the other hand, told Hof that the GOI defense establishment assesses that Syria may be serious about removing itself from Iran and withdrawing support for Hizballah in exchange for reconciliation with the West, especially the U.S., and the return of the Golan Heights. Gilad asserted that peace with Syria is critical to achieving Israel-Palestinian peace due to Syria’s ability to support spoilers. Therefore, he asserted, it was worth it for Israel to make the attempt. In the talks through Turkish mediation, however, Gilad said that Israel had been too forthcoming about its security requirements, and too enthusiastic, and Syria was not ready. He also noted that Israeli security requirements with Syria had changed radically since the last talks in 2000, as Israel no longer fears a Syrian surprise armor attack across the Golan but rather is concerned about Syrian missile attacks on Israeli cities, so those issues would need to be renegotiated.

7. (S) Negotiations with Syria may succeed, Gilad said, because Iran was a marriage of convenience for Syria. He believes Syria would much rather be close to their fellow Arabs and the rest of the international community, if given the chance. Gilad stressed that both the Iranians and the Arab Sunnis despise the ruling Alawite minority in Syria – he recalled that Sadat used to call the Alawites “pagans” – and said the Iranians would like to get rid of the Asad regime at the appropriate time. Gilad noted that Syria did not inform Iran of its nuclear reactor, which was built entirely with North Korean assistance, and did not notify Iran in advance of its proximity talks with Israel. In addition, he said, the Golan Heights have remained Israel’s quietest front, evidence that Syria can uphold its commitments as long its commitments are clear.

8. (C) While Syria may want peace, Gilad cautioned that it may be impossible for Syria to extricate itself from Iran and Hizballah, even if it tried. Hizballah is now an integral part of Syria’s defense concept, and is a more effective fighting force than the Syrian army. But in the end, Gilad stated, Israel only has two choices with Syria: war or peace.

——————————————— —–

Hof: Small Steps Needed Towards Talks with Lebanon

——————————————— —–

9. (C) Turning to the prospects for moving toward peace with Lebanon, Barkan and Gilad separately told Hof that the GOI had examined the question of renewing the 1949 armistice commission, at the USG’s suggestion, and there were many questions, including some basic legal questions posed by MFA lawyers. Hof replied that much of the armistice agreement is obsolete, but the armistice allows for mutually agreed modifications, and recognition of its basic legitimacy among the Lebanese, and the fact that it is mentioned in the Taif Agreement, could create cover for talks.

10. (C) Hof suggested an incremental strategy for Lebanon, expanding existing, low-level mil-mil trilateral contacts with UNIFIL gradually until they eventually can encompass some political progress. Small steps were needed because the Lebanese people’s attitude toward Israel had hardened over the past 30 years, Hof explained, and we need to get them back to seeing peace with Israel as a realistic prospect.

11. (C) Gilad, Barkan, and the senior MFA officials separately told Hof that Israel was ready to move forward with resolving the issue of the northern end of the village of Ghajar, but doubted that resolving the issue would lead to real progress and risked boosting Hizballah. Hof replied that Ghajar can be an important step as long as any Israeli public message is carefully calibrated to emphasize that Israel is fulfilling its 1701 obligations, and that other parties should do the same, and not as a benefit to the Lebanese moderates. It is a small step, Hof said, but the kind of small step needed in this process.

TEL AVIV 00001324 003 OF 003

12. (C) On Sheba’a Farms, all the GOI officials separately repeated the long-standing position that Sheba’a must be resolved in the context of Syria and not Lebanon. Sheba’a, they said, was simply a pretext for Hizballah’s claim to represent “resistance to occupation,” and if it were resolved Hizballah would simply find another pretext. Hof agreed that it was a pretext, but thought it would be useful to make Hizballah publicly shift their pretext. Issues like the seven Lebanese villages in northern Israel, Hof explained, are not taken seriously in Lebanese society, but the Lebanese claim to Sheba’a Farms is. Forcing Hizballah to shift its excuse for retaining an armed force could help expose them to Lebanese society as Iranian surrogates willing to fight to the last Lebanese.

13. (U) Fred Hof has cleared this message.

********************************************* ******************** Visit Embassy Tel Aviv’s Classified Website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv ********************************************* ******************** CUNNINGHAM