Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist, was killed early today by US special forces in a helicopter-borne operation at Abbottabad near the Pakistani capital, climaxing a over 10-year long massive manhunt. The special forces personnel swooped down on the compound where bin Laden was holed up guarded by his ultra-loyal Arab bodyguards in a pre-dawn operation killing the dreaded terrorist, US officials said. The news of the slaying of the world's most prominent terror mastermind was broken to the world by US President Barack Obama, who made the announcement live from White House."Bin Laden, 54, is dead and his body is in US custody," President Obama said at half-past 11 mid-night US time after initial story had been broken by news channels.

Though it was dark, crowds massed outside White House chanted 'USA, USA'. Besides the al-Qaeda chief who carried a bounty of USD 25 million, two couriers one of whom was his son and the other a woman, reportedly used as a human shield, were killed in the operation, unnamed American officials were quoted as saying by ABC News. First reports said that it was through these couriers that bin Laden had been traced. Other women and children present in the compound were not harmed, according to Pakistani officials.

An American helicopter was destroyed by US Navy Seals after it was damaged and crashed during the operation that targeted a large compound in Bilal Town area near Abbottabad, 120 km from Islamabad. There was no word from the Pakistani government or military on the operation. Two US helicopters swept into the compound at 1:30 am and 2 am and 20 to 25 Navy Seals under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command stormed the compound in cooperation with the CIA and engaged bin Laden and his men in a firefight, US officials told ABC News.

Bin Laden fired his weapon during the fight, the US officials said. The Americans took bin Laden's body into custody after the firefight and confirmed his identity. One of the US helicopters was damaged during the operation and the troops decided to destroy it themselves with explosives.

Several Pakistani news channels beamed grainy footage of a burning helicopter on the empty lawn of the compound. They also beamed footage of the compound surrounded by Pakistani troops this morning.

(OECEL News Services)

WASHINGTON: American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas.

While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a ration- ale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehran’s nuclear program. “The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command and as vice chair- man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential adversaries like Iran.

The Iranian targets, General Cartwright and other American analysts believe, would include petroleum infra- structure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces.

Both American and Israeli officials who discussed current thinking on the potential ramifications of an Israeli attack believe that the last thing Iran would want is a full-scale war on its territory. Their analysis, however, also includes the broad caveat that it is impossible to know the internal thinking of the senior leadership in Tehran, and is informed by the awareness that even the most detailed war games cannot predict how nations and their leaders will react in the heat of conflict. Yet such assessments are not just intellectual exercises. Any conclusions on how the Iranians will react to an attack will help determine whether the Israelis launch a strike – and what the American position will be if they do.

While evidence suggests that Iran continues to make progress toward a nuclear weapons program, American intelligence officials believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. But the possibility that Israel will launch a preemptive strike has become a focus of American policy makers and is expected to be a primary topic when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel meets with President Obama at the White House on Monday.

In November, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said any Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack would be “bearable,” and his government’s estimate that Iran is engaging in a bluff has been a key element in the heightened expectations that Israel is considering a strike. But Iran’s highly compartmentalized security services, analysts caution, may operate in semi-rogue fashion, fol- lowing goals that seem irrational to planners in Washington. American experts, for example, are still puzzled by a suspected Iranian plot last year to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

“Once military strikes and counter strikes begin, you are on the tiger’s back,” said Ray Takeyh, a former Obama administration national security official who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And when on the tiger’s back, you cannot always pick the place to dismount.” If Israel did attack, officials said, Iran would be foolhardy, even suicidal, to invite an overpowering retaliation by directly attacking United States military targets by, for example, unleashing its missiles at American bases on the territory of Persian Gulf allies. “The balance the Iranians will try to strike is doing damage that is sufficiently significant, but just short of what it would take for America to invade,” said General Cartwright, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

A former Israeli official said the best way to think about retaliation against Israel was through a formula he called “1991 plus 2006 plus Buenos Aires times 3 or 5.” The reference was to three instances in the last two decades when Israel came under attack: the Scud missiles sent by Saddam Hussein into Israel in 1991 during the first gulf war; the 3,000 rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah during their 2006 war; and the attacks on the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish center in Argentina in the early 1990s. Those attacks each killed 100 to 200 people, wounded scores more and caused several billion dollars of property damage. Hundreds of thou- sands of Israelis in the north had to be evacuated from their homes to bomb shelters or further south during the 2006 war.

But there is a broad Israeli assessment that Iran’s response to an attack would be limited. “If Iran is struck surgically, it will react – no doubt,” said the former Israeli official, echoing Mr. Barak’s comments last year. “But that reaction will be calculated and in proportion to its capabilities. Iran will not set the Middle East on fire.”

“Is 40 missiles on Tel Aviv nice?” the official asked, summing up the Israeli calculus. “No. But it’s better than a nuclear Iran.”

By contrast, administration, military and intelligence officials say Iran would most likely choose anonymous, indirect attacks against nations it views as supporting Israeli policy, in the hope of offering Tehran at least public deniability. Iran also might try to block, even temporarily, the Strait of Hormuz to further unsettle oil markets.

An increase in car bombs set off against civilian targets in world capitals would also be possible. And Iran would almost certainly smuggle high powered explosives across its border into Afghanistan, where they could be plant- ed along roadways and set off by surrogate forces to kill and maim American and NATO troops much as it did in Iraq during the peak of violence there. But Iran’s primary goal would be quickly rebuilding – and probably accelerating its nuclear program, and thus, according to these assessments, it would be likely to try to avoid inviting a punishing second wave of attacks by the United States.

Vali Nasr, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said Iran would “have to retaliate visibly against Israel to protect its image at home and in the region.” Along a second line of reprisals, Iran also “would try and keep the United States busy by escalating tensions in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.

In 2009, the Brookings Institution held a simulation to assess Day 2 of an Israeli attack on Iran, casting former government officials, diplomats and regional experts in the roles of American, Israeli and Iranian officials. Karim Sadjadpour, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, played Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The faux Iranian leader- ship had to “calibrate their response with great precision,” he said. “If they respond too little, they could lose face, and if they respond too much, they could lose their heads.”

During the simulation, Iran also fired missiles at Israeli military and nuclear targets, and unleashed Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants to fire rockets at population centers in Israel, with a goal to create an atmosphere of terror among Israelis. In the simulation, Iran also activated terrorist cells in Europe, which bombed public transportation and killed civilians.

Mr. Sadjadpour said that one thing the exercise demonstrated was how quickly things would deteriorate, adding that “as for long-term consequences, it’s way too murky to say anything but this: It will be ugly.”

Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Ethan Bronner from Jerusalem. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.

– OE News Bureau

Hosni Mubarak military council, leading to widespread celebrations in the streets of the country on Friday.

“The people have toppled the regime,” chanted protesters, whose 18 days of swelling protests forced the 30-year-long autocratic government to quit.At the presidential palace in Cairo, where demonstrators had gathered in the thousands, people flashed the V-for-victory sign and shouted, “Be happy, Egyptians, today is a feast” and “He stepped down.”

They handed out candy. Many prayed and declared: “God is great.” Crowds packed Tahrir (Liberation) Square, the scene of massive protests against Mubarak that began on January 25. The celebrations continued early Saturday, with throngs of people milling around in downtown Cairo.”Egypt is free. We are a great people and we did something great. This is the expected end for every dictator,” said one demonstrator.Others warned that Egypt still faces many challenges, including how to go about ensuring a peaceful transition to free elections and a full democracy. Some soldiers joined the crowd in the square to celebrate. Protesters lifted them onto their shoulders. Other troops stayed Some soldiers joined the crowd in the square to celebrate. Protesters lifted them onto their shoulders. Other troops stayed at their posts, watching the scene in awe. People posed with them for photo- graphs in front of tanks. Flag-waving children climbed onto the vehicles.

The protesters’ barricades that had controlled entry to the square were dismantled, and security checkpoints at which demonstrators showed identification and had their bags searched were also gone. Several hundred thousand protesters cheered outside the presidential palace of Rasel-Tin in coastal Alexandria.They also waved flags, whistled and danced.

People in the southern city of Assiut fired guns in the air as they roamed the streets on motorcycles or pickup trucks. Coffee houses distributed free sweet drinks to anyone who walked by.

Mubarak resignation creates political vacuum for US in Middle East

President Hosni Mubarak’s decision to step down after three decades in power presents the Obama administration with a political vacuum in the Middle East.According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration will be compelled to shift roles from managing a volatile political standoff that paralyzed a regional ally to ensuring that Egypt’s commanding generals, many of them trained in the United States, carry out the political and legal changes necessary to guarantee fair elections later this year.

According to the paper, Washington is now looking beyond on the ground situations in Cairo, Tunis and Amman.It is looking at how to encourage the election of governments that are responsive to their electorates and to U.S. interests.Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, said the administration had reached out by phone to officials across the Arab world in recent days to assure them that the United States intends “to keep its commitments.”But a senior Republican member of Congress who has access to intelligence reports said U.S. spy agencies have seen recent indications that other Middle East leaders were dismayed by the United States’ treatment of Mubarak. An expert on terrorism, Middle East politics and Homeland Security issues has said Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s exit will usher a new political process in Egypt.Institute for Advanced Computer Studies Researcher Aaron Mannes of the University of Maryland said it could be the beginning of an Egyptian renaissance, or even an era of far greater tyranny and in stability in the region.He also said the Egyptian leadership military or civilian, would be ” hard- pressed” to tackle the country’s innumerable social, economic, and political problems.”There are no instant solutions to these problems. So far, the Egyptian protesters have appeared moderate in tone and action. But a new government that has difficulty coping with its challenges may turn to radicalism or repression,” Mannes added.Turning the economy around would be the primary concern of Egypt.”Although Egypt was liberalizing its economy and the overall macro-economic numbers were strong, most Egyptians were not benefiting. Unfortunately two of Egypt’s leading sources of income, tourism and tolls on the Suez Canal, will be adversely affected by ongoing turmoil, reducing the Egyptian government’s options for addressing the national challenges,” Manas said.

Israel has reacted with quiet and deep concern over the exit of long-term ally Hosni Mubarak as the president of Egypt.The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintained the same studied silence on the assumption that nothing it said could serve its interests.

Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they were worried that a post Mubarak regime could be less friendly to Israel.”We don’t know who will be running things in the coming months in Egypt, but we have to keep two things in mind.

The first is that the only example we have of this kind of thing in the region is Iran in 1979. You can’t take that out of your mind. The second is that if Egypt pulls back in any way from its peace with Israel, it will discourage anyone else in the region, including the Palestinians, from stepping forward. So the regional implications for us are significant,” the New York Times quoted one official, as saying.

The official said it was more likely than not that Egypt would maintain its peace treaty with Israel and added that, in any case, relations with Israel would probably not be among the first concerns of the incoming Egyptian authorities.

Prime Minister Netanyahu laid out three possible situations after Mubarak resigned. He said: “First, Egyptians may choose to embrace the model of a secular reformist state with a prominent role for the military.

There is a second possibility that the Islamists exploit the influence to gradually take the country into a reverse direction – not towards modernity and reform but backward.”And there’s still a third possibility that Egypt would go the way of Iran, where calls for progress would be silenced by a dark and violent despotism that subjugates its own people and threatens everyone else.”Mubarak is reported to have told close friend and former Israeli defense minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer that he saw great peril ahead for Egypt.”He spoke about a snowball that was starting to roll, which would not leave a single Arab state untouched in either the Middle East or North Africa,” the NYT quoted Ben-Eliezer, as saying.”He spoke of his disappointment with the Americans,” he added.Across the border, in Palestine, marches were held in the Gaza Strip on Friday. The marchers chanted against Mubarak and also against President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, whom they consider a traitor.Hamas officials are calling on Egypt to open its border with Gaza completely.

– OE News Bureau

Sarkozy bats for India’s civil nuclear programme, UNSC seat

Cappt Vinay Goyal report for OEMCL from New Delhi

French President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed his country’s full support to development of India’s civil nuclear programme but felt access to this industry was “restricted”. Sarkozy backed India’s entry into Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and its case for a permanent membership of the expanded United Nations Security Council, saying it was “unthinkable” to keep a country of over one billion out. French President visit may not have created buzz that US President Obama visit impacted India but in terms of pure government prospective, it was a great success.

“France is a friend of India. It will stand with it in its efforts in developing non polluting energy and nuclear industry,” the French President said addressing scientists at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). “We need to put an end to nuclear isolation of India. It was injustice done to India challenging your right to access to civil nuclear energy,” India is now going to be a full fledged member of the multilateral groups over seeing non proliferation regimes, he said adding France would support India’s application for candidacy of NSG. Sarkozy noted with “delight” that a French company Areva would be setting up nuclear plant at Jaitapur in Maharashtra that would go on to produce 10,000 MWE of “non-polluting” energy.

He, however, noted there was certain “inconsistency” in India’s approach as while it wanted development of clean energy on one hand, at the same time “restricting access”. “We cannot force upon India obligations without giving it the means to meet the obligations,” he said. Speaking of France’s relationship with India, Sarkozy said that his country has been a good friend of India. “We don’t speak in two languages. We mean what we say.” Condemning the 26/11 attacks, he said any such strike on India was an attack on democracy and all democracies stand by India. “When India is attacked, it is democracy attacked,” he said.

He observed that terrorism emanating from Pakistan and Afghanistan is a “major source of instability” in the world. Talking about Afghanistan, he praised India’s role and said the world cannot afford to lose the war against Taliban.

“We cannot afford to allow Taliban to comeback. No one stand benefited if civil war raises its ugly head…we must succeed,” he said. Noting that one cannot stand still if India wants to move ahead in 21st century, he said, “India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, some representatives of Africa and Arab world must be in UN Security Council.”

Sarkozy showered praise on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh saying the Indian leader was obsessed with peace through development and eradication of poverty. “I have great admiration for Prime Minister Singh. I value his friendship. He is right in believing in peace and stability. India’s challenge is that if you succeed through peace, it will have a huge knock-out effect on the world,” he said.

India and France are united by common values and believe that international relations should not be governed by brutality or force and it should be based on dialogue and rule of law, Sarkozy said adding the relationship between the two countries should go much further.

Appreciating India’s growth, he said its voice has to be heard in the global level. “We need India to regulate the world monetary order. I believe Indian currency will be counted as one of major currencies,” he said.

On education sector, Sarkozy said he expected a three fold growth in the number of Indian students going to France. “We want to train young Indians in our universities and open our research facilities for them. I very much hope that the reverse will also be true,” he said.

France and India strengthen bi lateral, diplomatic relations

The Indian diplomatic establishment has ample reasons to feel happy and satisfied with French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s just concluded visit to India this week.

Sarkozy deftly used diplomatic symbolism by choosing India as his first foreign destination after France recently assumed the rotational Presidency of the G20 for one year. After a long hiatus, India is starting on January 1, 2011 a two year tenure as one of the 12 non permanent members of the United

Sarkozy said what the Indians wanted to hear by reiterating his support to India’s candidacy for permanent seat of the to be reformed UNSC something that Obama also did during his India visit last month. Sarkozy posed a rhetorical question: “It is not just an important matter for India but for the equilibrium of the world that after its two year term, are we going to ask India to simply stand down?”

Nations Security Council. This means that India can now expect to wield better clout at the G20 as well as the UNSC. France has been one of the staunchest India supporters in the world for quite some time as the two countries have entered into the 12th year of their strategic partnership.

Sarkozy said what the Indians wanted to hear by reiterating his support to India’s candidacy for permanent seat of the to be reformed UNSC something that Obama also did during his India visit last month. Sarkozy posed a rhetorical question: “It is not just an important matter for India but for the equilibrium of the world that after its two-year term, are we going to ask India to simply stand down?”

Sarkozy also enthralled the Indians by taking Pakistan to task on the terror front. He slammed Pakistan for allowing safe havens to terrorists in its tribal border areas. He reserved his fierce attack on Pakistan for the last leg of his trip in Mumbai on December 7, some three hours before the terror attack in Varanasi. He was unsparing, unambiguous and unrelenting when he remarked: “It is unacceptable for the world that terrorist acts should be masterminded and carried out by terrorist groups in Pakistan.” His advice to Pakistani authorities was to “step up their efforts and show that they are resolute in combating these criminals.” As for India, he pledged unlimited counter terrorist cooperation. Significantly, like Obama, Sarkozy did not visit Pakistan.

Though Sarkozy’s India visit was not historic, just as Obama’s trip wasn’t, such visits are essential for taking bilateral ties from strength to strength. Seven agreements were signed during Sarkozy’s visit, the most important of these a “general framework agreement” for constructing two nuclear reactors in Jaitapur (Maharashtra). Jaitapur is an ambitious project that will have six reactors which together will generate 10,000 MW power after completion in 2018. Generation of 10,000 MW from one single plant is indeed impressive considering that India currently produces just about 4000 MW, or less than three percent of total power generation.

India will have to tread carefully on the Jaitapur plant and will have to ensure that the cost of power per unit is not too high or else India will be breeding another Enron, this time again in Maharashtra. For the state of Maharashtra, Jaitapur means happy tidings as it will generate substantial employment for the locals. But it is the long-term risk that has to be guarded against because the Government of India will be spending a hefty $9.3 billion on the Jaitapur plant. Another important area of concern in context of the Jaitapur plant is that it is going to have European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs), the first of which is yet to be built, and therefore, the technology remains untested. The twin risks pricing of power produced which is yet to be worked out and the very high capital investment makes Jaitapur a high stakes gamble for the government.

Sarkozy pledged a more robust, intense and wide ranging cooperation with India, especially in such key areas as defense, space, nuclear energy, education and trade. It is a happy development for India, especially as it comes from a P5 power and the world’s fifth largest economy that is a powerhouse of advanced technology. The seven agreements that were signed during Sarkozy’s visit and the coming together of France and India in as diverse fields as satellite launches and construction of two nuclear reactors in Jaitapur signify that the Indo French strategic partnership is ready for the next phase of growth.

Another rosy picture for Indo French bilateral relations is the French announcement that its companies will invest $12 billion in India by 2012. Paris has dangled a carrot before New Delhi saying that the French FDI investments in India could be even dramatically higher if India opened up sectors like insurance and retail, particularly multi-brand retail. This is a contentious and sensitive political issue in India, considering the Left parties’ strident opposition.

India for its part has been treading cautiously on this issue. India maintains that the liberalization of insurance and retail sectors is “very much” on the government’s agenda but the policy has to be calibrated. “…(Relaxation of) FDI cap on insurance and multi-brand retail is very much on the agenda,” Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia said in the presence of French Minister of Economy and Finance Christine Lagarde who was part of the delegation accompanying Sarkozy.

Sarkozy’s visit is a demonstration of India’s growing influence, which is projected to be the world’s third largest economy by 2030 after the U.S. and China. Sarkozy is the third P5 leader to have visited India this year after British Prime Minister David Cameron in July and U.S. President Barack Obama in November. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are scheduled to visit later this month, the former from December 15 to 17, and the latter a week later. This means that before 2010 rings out India would have received all five heads of the permanent members of the UNSC.

Courtesy Diplomatic Courier Inputs and written by Rajeev Sharma