Foreign News and Analysis Since April 2005China Confidential
Monday, March 14, 2011
JAPAN NUCLEAR CRISIS WORSENS
NEW EXPLOSION AT JAPAN N-PLANT COMPLEX
Iran and the Saudi Countermove in Bahrain
Nuclear Crisis or Catastrophe? Steel Walls Surrounding Reactor Cores Will Determine Outcome of Unfolding Disaster in Japan
SYRIA SUPPLYING KHADAFY WITH ARMS
Bangladesh Islamists Threaten Jihad
Saudi Troops in Bahrain; Martial Law Likely
China to Help Iran Build World's Tallest Dam
JAPAN FACES MONTHS OF RADIOACTIVE RELEASES
VIDEO OF SECOND JAPAN N-PLANT EXPLOSION
DEADLY CLASHES IN YEMEN
Sunday, March 13, 2011
SAUDIS INTERVENING IN BAHRAIN
JAPAN'S NUCLEAR CRISIS DEEPENS
TSUNAMI DESTROYED WHOLE TOWNS
OVER 800 HURT IN BAHRAIN CLASHES
JAPAN RADIATION COULD REACH US
LIBYA LESSON FOR CHINA
JAPAN'S NUCLEAR EMERGENCY SHOULD BE WARNING TO IRAN, MIDEAST NATIONS PLANNING ATOM PLANTS IN QUAKE ZONES
Iran now has a nuclear power plant at Bushehr, and other countries in the region, including Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have plans to build them as well. Many areas of the Middle East are also in or near earthquake fault zones, including Iran, which is on the Mokran fault line, and where several major earthquakes have occurred. Jordan is planning a nuclear power plant to be built near Aqaba, and is on the Syria –African Rift fault line. Nuclear plants in these areas could face radioactive particle leakage situations similar to what is now occurring in Japan.
JAPAN'S NUCLEAR CRISIS WORSENS
Saturday, March 12, 2011
JAPAN CONFIRMS MELTDOWN
How Bibi Could Outmaneuver Obama
JAPAN UPDATE: RADIATION RECEDING
US Defense Chief Warns of Iran Influence in Bahrain
OBAMA'S OVERT SUPPORT FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND POLITICAL ISLAM RECALLS CARTER'S COVERT SPONSORSHIP OF IRAN'S ISLAMIC REVOLUTION, AFGHANISTAN JIHAD
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
LIVE NHK-TV FEED ...
The Japanese government says a fourth reactor at the Fukushima nuclear complex is on fire, and more radiation is being released. The Prime Minister has warned people living within 19 miles (30 kilometers) of the complex to stay indoors or risk getting radiation sickness.
Related: Real Worst Case Scenario
THIRD EXPLOSION IN FOUR DAYS
Japan's nuclear safety agency says an explosion has been heard at Unit 2 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant. An agency spokesman told NHK the explosion was heard at 6:10 AM (2110 GMT).
"There was a huge explosion" between 6:00 am (2100 GMT Monday) and 6:15 am at the number-two reactor of Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant, a Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) spokesman said.
The government also reported apparent damage to part of the container shielding the same reactor at Fukushima 250 kilometres (155 miles) northeast of Tokyo, although it was unclear whether this resulted from the blast.
TEPCO says is it is evacuating all but 50 employes from the stricken plant.
NHK is reporting half of one uranium fuel rod is exposed.
By George Friedman
Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition force into Bahrain to help the government calm the unrest there. This move puts Iran in a difficult position, as Tehran had hoped to use the uprising in Bahrain to promote instability in the Persian Gulf region. Iran could refrain from acting and lose an opportunity to destabilize the region, or it could choose from several other options that do not seem particularly effective.
The Bahrain uprising consists of two parts, as all revolutions do. The first is genuine grievances by the majority Shiite population — the local issues and divisions. The second is the interests of foreign powers in Bahrain. It is not one or the other. It is both.
The Iranians clearly benefit from an uprising in Bahrain. It places the U.S. 5th Fleet’s basing in jeopardy, puts the United States in a difficult position and threatens the stability of other Persian Gulf Arab states. For the Iranians, the uprisings in North Africa and their spread to the Arabian Peninsula represent a golden opportunity for pursuing their long-standing interest (going back to the Shah and beyond) of dominating the Gulf.
The Iranians are accustomed to being able to use their covert capabilities to shape the political realities in countries. They did this effectively in Iraq and are doing it in Afghanistan. They regarded this as low risk and high reward. The Saudis, recognizing that this posed a fundamental risk to their regime and consulting with the Americans, have led a coalition force into Bahrain to halt the uprising and save the regime. Pressed by covert forces, they were forced into an overt action they were clearly reluctant to take.
We are now off the map, so to speak. The question is how the Iranians respond, and there is every reason to think that they do not know. They probably did not expect a direct military move by the Saudis, given that the Saudis prefer to act more quietly themselves. The Iranians wanted to destabilize without triggering a strong response, but they were sufficiently successful in using local issues that the Saudis felt they had no choice in the matter. It is Iran’s move.
If Iran simply does nothing, then the wave that has been moving in its favor might be stopped and reversed. They could lose a historic opportunity. At the same time, the door remains open in Iraq, and that is the main prize here. They might simply accept the reversal and pursue their main line. But even there things are murky. There are rumors in Washington that U.S. President Barack Obama has decided to slow down, halt or even reverse the withdrawal from Iraq. Rumors are merely rumors, but these make sense. Completing the withdrawal now would tilt the balance in Iraq to Iran, a strategic disaster.
Therefore, the Iranians are facing a counter-offensive that threatens the project they have been pursuing for years just when it appeared to be coming to fruition. Of course, it is just before a project succeeds that opposition mobilizes, so they should not be surprised that resistance has grown so strong. But surprised or not, they now have a strategic decision to make and not very long to make it.
They can up the ante by increasing resistance in Bahrain and forcing fighting on the ground. It is not clear that the Bahraini opposition is prepared to take that risk on behalf of Iran, but it is a potential option. They have the option of trying to increase unrest elsewhere in order to spread the Saudi and Gulf Cooperation Council forces, weakening their impact. It is not clear how much leverage the Iranians have in other countries. The Iranians could try to create problems in Saudi Arabia, but given the Saudis’ actions in Bahrain, this becomes more difficult.
Finally, they can attempt an overt intervention, either in Bahrain or elsewhere, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. A naval movement against Bahrain is not impossible, but if the U.S. Navy intervenes, which it likely would, it would be a disaster for the Iranians. Operations in Iraq or Afghanistan might be more fruitful. It is possible that Shiite insurgents will operate in Iraq, but that would guarantee a halt of the U.S. withdrawal without clearly increasing the Iranians’ advantage there. They want U.S. forces to leave, not give them a reason to stay.
There is then the indirect option, which is to trigger a war with Israel. The killings in the West Bank and Israeli concerns about Hezbollah might be some of Iran’s doing, with the emphasis on “might.” But it is not clear how a Hezbollah confrontation with Israel would help Iran’s position relative to Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf. It diverts attention, but the Saudis know the stakes and they will not be easily diverted.
The logic, therefore, is that Iran retreats and waits. But the Saudi move shifts the flow of events, and time is not on Iran’s side.
There is also the domestic Iranian political situation to consider. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been strong in part because of his successful handling of foreign policy. The massive failure of a destabilization plan would give his political opponents the ammunition needed to weaken him domestically. We do not mean a democratic revolution in Iran, but his enemies among the clergy who see him as a threat to their position, and hard-liners in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who want an even more aggressive stand.
Ahmadinejad finds himself in a difficult position. The Saudis have moved decisively. If he does nothing, his position can unravel and with it his domestic political strength. Yet none of the counters he might use seem effective or workable. In the end, his best option is to create a crisis in Iraq, forcing the United States to consider how deeply it wants to be drawn back into Iraq. He might find weakness there that he can translate into some sort of political deal.
At the moment we suspect the Iranians do not know how they will respond. The first issue will have to be determining whether they can create violent resistance to the Saudis in Bahrain, to both tie them down and increase the cost of occupation. It is simply unclear whether the Bahrainis are prepared to pay the price. The opposition does seem to want fundamental change in Bahrain, but it is not clear that they have reached the point where they are prepared to resist and die en masse.
That is undoubtedly what the Iranians are exploring now. If they find that this is not an option, then none of their other options are particularly good. All of them involve risk and difficulty. It also requires that Iran commit itself to confrontations that it has tried to avoid. It prefers covert action that is deniable to overt action that is not.
As we move into the evening, we expect the Iranians are in intense discussions of their next move. Domestic politics are affecting regional strategy, as would be the case in any country. But the clear roadmap the Iranians were working from has now collapsed. The Saudis have called their hand, and they are trying to find out if they have a real or a busted flush. They will have to act quickly before the Saudi action simply becomes a solid reality. But it is not clear what they can do quickly. For the moment, the Saudis have the upper hand. But the Iranians are clever and tenacious. There are no predictions possible. We doubt even the Iranians know what they will do.
Click here and here for the news reports.
STRATFOR reports:
Saudi military intervention in Bahrain is not unprecedented. Saudi Arabia sent troops to Bahrain in 1994 when Riyadh determined that Shiite unrest threatened the al-Khalifa regime.
Regional implications of the unrest in Bahrain became more obvious when U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Manama on March 12 and urged the Bahraini regime to implement bold reforms. Gates said Iranian interference would become a greater possibility if Bahrain fails to do so. While Bahrain and Saudi Arabia seem to be coordinating to avoid that possibility, it is not without risks. Leader of hardliner [Shiite] al-Haq movement, Hassan Mushaima, who is believed to be increasing the Shiite unrest in Bahrain by Iranian support, said on Feb. 28 that Saudi intervention in Bahrain would give Iran the same right to intervene as well. A scenario of regional Sunni Arab forces cracking down on Shia would apply pressure on Iran to respond more overtly, but its military ability is limited and it is a very risky option given the U.S. 5th fleet is stationed in Bahrain. As of this writing, there is no sign that Iranian military is taking steps toward that end, however, the situation on the ground could escalate if Shia in Bahrain ramp up demonstrations.
TENS OF THOUSANDS COULD BE PREVENTED
How alarmed should we be? Click here for an excellent explanation of Japan's unfolding nuclear crisis. Two reassuring points: so far, the containment vessels have held; and the China syndrome scenario is "wholly fictitious."
UPDATE 9:31 AM US EST: TECHNICIANS TRYING
The explosion occurred mid-morning Monday, while workers were battling to bring down temperatures inside the Fukushima Number One nuclear power plant's number three reactor.
Television images showed a strong explosion obliterating the upper walls of the reactor building and causing a huge plume of white smoke.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano spoke moments later at a news conference, saying the explosion appears similar to one that occurred Saturday at the same plant's number one reactor.
That was sparked with hydrogen, which was being vented to relieve pressure, mixed with oxygen.
Officials at the plant say Saturday's explosion destroyed the operations floor of the reactor building, but did not damage the reactor's containment vessel or core.
Pressure and temperature levels at the reactor had been very high since a large tsunami on Friday disabled generators running its cooling system.
Earlier Monday, workers had been evacuated because of dangerously high pressure levels.
Tokyo Electric Power company, which operates the plant, said an undetermined number of workers had been injured in the blast.
The government advised anyone within 20 kilometers of the power station to stay indoors and close windows. Several people were exposed to radiation following Saturday's blast.
Police in Yemen have fired bullets and tear gas against anti-government demonstrators near Sana'a University. Medical sources say dozens of people are wounded.
Witnesses say government supporters with knives and clubs also attacked the protesters on Sunday.
Demonstrators have been camped out near the university for days, pressing demands for the resignation of Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
Anti-government protests were also reported Sunday in the southern provinces of Taiz and Aden, where a police station was set on fire.
Seven people were reported killed during Saturday's violence in Yemen as the government toughened a crackdown on protesters.
Preparing for Worst Case ...
NUCLEAR CRISIS IN CRITICAL STAGE
An American nuclear expert says radiation from Japan could spread across the Pacific and reach the United States if a complete meltdown occurs at a Japanese nuclear facility damaged as a result of last week’s earthquake and subsequent tsunami.
Nuclear expert Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund says Japan’s nuclear crisis is in a critical phase.
"One of the [Japanese] reactors has had half the core exposed already. This is the one they are now flooding with seawater in a desperate effort to prevent a complete meltdown."
Cirincione spoke on the Fox News Sunday television program. He said the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on Japan’s northeast coast is one of at least three nuclear facilities at risk.
Japan has evacuated civilians from areas surrounding the troubled plant, but Cirincione says radiation could spread far beyond Japan if efforts to contain the crisis fail.
Worst Case Scenario
The worst-case scenario is that the fuel rods fuse together - temperatures get so hot that [they] melt together into a radioactive molten mass that busts through the containment mechanisms. So they spew radioactivity into the ground, into the air, into the water. Some of that radioactivity could carry in the atmosphere to the west coast of the United States."
Japan’s ambassador in Washington, Ichiro Fujisaki, acknowledged potential dangers, but said no complete nuclear meltdown appears imminent.
"It is true that part of [the] fuel rod may have been deformed or melting. But it is not a situation where [the] core reactor, the substantial part of [the] reactor, is melting down."
The ambassador spoke on NBC’s Meet the Press. Also appearing on the program was the head of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Institute, Marvin Furtel, who praised Japan’s response to the nuclear crisis. Furtel said a meltdown at a nuclear power plant does not always result in a massive release of radiation, as America’s own history shows.
"At Three Mile Island [in Pennsylvania], which was the worst accident we ever had, about half of the core melted, so about 50 percent. It resulted in no [radiation] releases off-site that threatened anybody. So, you can have fuel melt, and if the rest of your safety systems, your containment, works and you manage to keep the reactor under control, the dangers for public health and safety are really minimal."
Thirsty for oil and other raw materials needed to fuel its breakneck development, China is funneling money and manpower into ever more volatile regions of the globe to lock up natural resources. Despite international pressure, Beijing has developed trade ties with energy-rich pariah states, including Iran and Sudan, carefully avoiding any criticism of those regimes.
In Libya, the world's 12th-largest oil exporter, China has emerged as a major investor and financial partner of strongman Moammar Gadhafi. China is now the third-largest buyer of Libyan crude behind Italy and France. European and American oil firms have worked in Libya for years, but their governments have long sought to punish Gadhafi for terrorist ties. Meanwhile, China has stuck to a hands-off policy it has dubbed "non-interventionism."
But that approach hasn't protected it in Libya, whose angry citizens attacked Chinese workers and infrastructure projects following the Gadhafi regime's violent crackdown on civilian protesters.
CONFLICTING OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said March 12 that the explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 nuclear plant could only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core, Japanese daily Nikkei reported. This statement seemed somewhat at odds with Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano’s comments earlier March 12, in which he said “the walls of the building containing the reactor were destroyed, meaning that the metal container encasing the reactor did not explode.”
NISA’s statement is significant because it is the government agency that reports to the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy within the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. NISA works in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Commission. Its role is to provide oversight to the industry and is responsible for signing off construction of new plants, among other things. It has been criticized for approving nuclear plants on geological fault lines and for an alleged conflict of interest in regulating the nuclear sector. It was NISA that issued the order for the opening of the valve to release pressure — and thus allegedly some radiation — from the Fukushima power plant.
NISA has also overseen the entire government response to the nuclear reactor problems following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. It is difficult to determine at this point whether the NISA statement is accurate, as the Nikkei report has not been corroborated by others. It is also not clear from the context whether NISA is stating the conclusions of an official assessment or simply making a statement. However, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant, also said that although it had relieved pressure, nevertheless some nuclear fuel had melted and further action was necessary to contain the pressure.
If this report is accurate, it would not be the first time statements by NISA and Edano have diverged. When Edano earlier claimed that radiation levels had fallen at the site after the depressurization efforts, NISA claimed they had risen due to the release of radioactive vapors.
Caroline Glick's essay is essential reading. Here's an excerpt.
Since Obama came into office, he has consistently demonstrated that no Israeli concession will convince him to support Israel against the Palestinians. So too, the fact that every Israeli concession has been met by Palestinian intransigence has had no impact on either Obama or his European counterparts. Netanyahu correct claims that the Palestinians’ intransigence shows they are not interested in peace is of interest to no one. And it is this lack of interest in Palestinian intransigence rather than Palestinian intransigence itself that is remarkable. What it shows is that Obama and his European counterparts don’t care about achieving peace. Like the Palestinians, all they want is more Israeli concessions.
Since taking office, Obama has only supported Israel against the Palestinians twice. The first time was last December. After months of deliberate ambiguity, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the administration opposes the Palestinian plan to unilaterally declare independence. Then last month the administration grudgingly vetoed the Palestinian-Lebanese draft resolution condemning Israeli construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
In both cases, the administration’s actions were not the result of Israeli appeasement, but of massive Congressional pressure. Congress issued bipartisan calls demanding that the administration torpedo both of these anti-Israel initiatives.
What this shows is that Netanyahu’s strategy for contending with Obama is fundamentally misconstrued and misdirected. Obama will not be moved by Israeli concessions. The only way to stop Obama from moving forward on his anti-Israel policy course is to work through Congress.
And the most effective way to work through Congress is for Netanyahu to abandon his current course and tell the truth about the nature of the Palestinians, their rejection of Israel, their anti-Americanism and their support for jihadist terror.
At the same time, Netanyahu must speak unambiguously about Israel’s national rights to Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, our required security borders, and about why US national security requires a strong Israel.
The stronger the case Netanyahu makes for Israel, the more support Israel will receive from the Congress. And the more support Israel receives from the Congress, the more Obama will be compelled to temper his anti-Israel agenda.
While the left-wing of the U.S. Democratic Party despises Israel--seeing the establishment of a Jewish State in the Middle East as a terrible mistake, and right-wing political Islam, ironically, as a potent force to be used and "engaged" in order to reduce the power, prestige, and influence of the United States, and to hasten the collapse of capitalism--Obama is actually the most anti-Israel U.S. President since Dwight Eisenhower (notwithstanding Jimmy Carter's well known hatred of Menahem Begin during their times in power and current support for Hamas and Hezbollah).
Just as the Israel-bashing, Islamist-appeasing Democratic Party of Obama and Clinton and Carter ... and Brzezinski and Bill Ayers ... is not the Democratic party of Harry Truman and FDR, the staunchly pro-Israel Republican Party of Palin and Gingrich and Romney bears little resemblance in terms of Middle East policy to the GOP of the Eisenhower administration, which, during the Cold War, sought to push a weakened and declining Great Britain out of the oil-rich region, and to counter the threat of Soviet encroachment by (a) secretly supporting the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, and (b) viciously pressuring Israel into making potentially catastrophic concessions to its Arab enemies. Eisenhower's pressure tactics--likely to be copied by a second Obama administration no longer in need of faking moderation in response to Congressional criticism and concerns--included, under cover of adopting a new (in contrast with that of the preceding Truman administration) "evenhanded policy" toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, instructing the U.S. Treasury Department to draft an order removing the tax-deductable status of contributions made by American citizens to the United Jewish Appeal and other organizations in the U.S. raising private funds for Israel and suspension of U.S. economic aid to Israel. (The U.S. under Eisenhower also pressured Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, which it captured, together with Britain and France, following a series of terrorist attacks on Israeli farms and villages by Egyptian-sponsored Fedayeeen groups and Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser's decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal. The U.S. also pressured Britain financially as demonstration of opposition to the tripartite invasion.)
Owing to his farewell address warning of the dangers of the "military-industrial complex," Eisenhower has become an improbable hero to leftists and old-line Republican isolationists (e.g. the Nazi-sympathizing Pat Buchanan) opposed to expansion (or simply maintenance) of U.S. military power. China Confidential analysts predict that Obama and his adoring, liberal media backers will try to invoke "Ike" as a model for pressuring and isolating Israel in the coming months.
OFFICIALS SAY MAJOR MELTDOWN
STRATFOR reports:
New developments at Japan’s earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor No. 1 may suggest positive signs for authorities’ efforts to contain the problem. But many dangers and risks remain.
Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said that while an explosion did occur at the plant, it did not damage the steel container around reactor No.1, where emergency workers are still struggling to cool down the reactor core after nuclear fuel rods were damaged following the failure of cooling systems due to the earthquake damage and short power supply. Edano said the explosion did not occur within the reactor container and thus did not lead to a large leak of radioactive material. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency claims that radiation levels support the view that there has been no breach of the container around the reactor, though they have risen as a result of actions taken to relieve pressure in the container by releasing radioactive steam.
If accurate, these would be positive developments for the attempt to avert a meltdown in the reactor core. A number of nuclear engineers and experts interviewed in the press have also suggested that the explosion at the nuclear plant was not caused by a breach of the reactor itself, but rather involved the sudden release of hydrogen, which Edano confirmed, saying the hydrogen had been trapped between the reactor core and the surrounding containment structure, and exploded when released and mixed with oxygen. The government did not call for an expansion of the evacuation area of 20 kilometers (about 12 miles) around the two plants, and the fact that the evacuation zone has not been expanded is a positive sign.
It is too early to say, however, that a catastrophe has been averted. The nuclear safety agency said the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which operates the nuclear plant, had succeeded in relieving pressure, but confirmed that some of the nuclear fuel had melted and that further depressurizing was necessary to continue to contain the reactor heat and pressure. TEPCO claims it is continuing to pump sea water and boric acid into the reactor container in order to substitute for the failed cooling process. Edano estimated it would take five to 10 hours to fill the container and 10 days to complete the process of cooling.
A number of questions remain. For instance, Edano claimed radiation levels were decreasing around the area, whereas the nuclear safety agency pointed to the fact that the release of steam to depressurize the reactor resulted in increased radiation levels. Other questions include the nature of the earlier explosion and whether it is true that the container was not damaged; whether radiation levels are as negligible as the government says; whether pressure in the reactor is indeed dropping; the sustainability of the cooling effort which is using batteries due to the lack of electricity; and the status of the Fukushima Daini reactors that were also reported to have had cooling malfunctions (water levels and radiation levels there last appeared to show no cause for worry). Thus while the official statements suggest some progress, potentially making this incident more similar to Three Mile Island than Chernobyl, nevertheless details are sparse and the situation remains precarious.
ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT – Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was convinced Bahrain’s ruling family was ready to take more than “baby steps” toward reforms, but the opposition movement’s slow response to enter negotiations is allowing more time for Iranian influence to foment.
“There is clear evidence that as the process is protracted – particularly in Bahrain – that the Iranians are looking for ways to exploit it and create problems,” he said.
SHAH: 'WE SEPARATE OIL FROM POLITICS.... THE WEST IS OUR FRIEND'
Posts
