Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | March 6, 2014

IDF intercepts deadly Iranian arms shipment in Red Sea

On 5 March, Israeli forces stopped and boarded a freighter in the Red Sea, KLOS-C, which was carrying a cargo of battlefield rockets from Iran to Port Sudan.  The crew of the ship doesn’t appear to have known what was loaded in Iran; more on that later.  Sudan has of course served for years as a waypoint for Iranian arms deliveries to Gaza.  (See The Tower on this as well.)

According to the IDF, Israeli intelligence actually observed the rockets in question being transferred from Syria to Iran several months ago.  The rockets are versions of the Syrian-made M-302, the rocket used in a 302mm multiple-rocket launch system (MLRS).   The Assad regime has supplied the Syrian M-302, called the “Khaibar,” to Hezbollah in Lebanon for a number of years.  Upgraded versions have ranges in excess of 200km (125 statute miles) when fired from their native launchers.

Quite as bad is the explosive power of the warhead an M-302 rocket can deliver.  Again, getting the maximum bang out of it requires having a spec-grade launcher.  Jerry-rigged launchers wouldn’t be able to toss rockets with the biggest warheads to the max ranges the Syrian-made launcher will achieve.  (It’s quite possible Hamas already has the necessary launchers, which could be sneaked into Gaza in pieces.  They’re not mentioned in the IDF report on the KLOS-C intercept, however.)

The warheads in question are much bigger than what Hamas has traditionally been able to target Israeli civilians with.  Warhead weights for the versions of the M-302 range from 125 kg (275 lb) to 144 kg (317 lb) of high explosive.  Hamas has been able to launch a 90 kg warhead on the (Iranian-designed) “Fajr-5” rocket in the last several years, but most of its Fajr warheads run to 45 kg of explosive.  The Qassam rockets and Grad rounds are 20 kg or less.  The ranges for all these rockets are substantially less than what the M-302 can achieve.

Ranges of the highest-threat variants, Syrian M-302 artillery rocket.  Assumed launch from Gaza. (Google map; author annotation)

Ranges of the highest-threat variants, Syrian M-302 artillery rocket. Assumed launch from Gaza. (Google map; author annotation)

For additional comparison, the M31 high-explosive round for the U.S. Army’s M270 MLRS has a 90 kg warhead.  A unitary high-explosive, 9M55K-variant round for the Russian BM-30 MLRS carries about a 160 kg warhead.  The 500-lb class air-dropped bomb used by the U.S. and Israel has the equivalent of 226 kg of high explosive.  And during World War II, the most common warhead sizes for bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe in the London Blitz ran from 50 kg to 250 kg.

The M-302 throws serious weight – and Hamas, like Hezbollah, would use it against the Israeli population.

A world enabling arms shipments

There’s more.  There’s a sense in which various national policies colluded to suffer these arms to be shipped from Iran, and quite possibly – absent the alertness of Israeli intelligence and the IDF – to get to Gaza.

First of all, Syria manufactures these weapons as a modified version based on China’s WS-1 MLRS.  China began exporting missile and rocket technology to Syria in the late 1980s, shortly before Syria first began manufacturing the M-302.  China is now Syria’s largest trading partner, although Syria’s largest arms suppliers are Russia, Iran, and Belarus, which together provide 89% of Syria’s foreign-sourced weaponry.

The official flow of arms traffic may be a bit misleading today, as some Chinese arms, like the C802 anti-ship cruise missile, make their way into Syria via Iran.  The M-302 has been manufactured in Syria long enough, however, that the “proliferation” occurred some time ago, and directly.  (The U.S. in fact imposed sanctions on computer and other IT sales to China because of Beijing’s arms sales to Syria in the 1980s and 1990s.  The sanctions were later relaxed under Bill Clinton.)

The Iran connection highlights another global facet of the arms-to-terrorists problem.  Iraq and Sudan are serving as conduits for Iran’s arms exports (and now for an attempted Syrian-Iranian export to Hamas).  Egypt’s uncertain control of the Sinai Peninsula is another key piece of the arms route.  It’s worth reiterating that Iran is prohibited by UN Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) from exporting arms.

Cargo of the KLOS-C. (IDF image)

Cargo of the KLOS-C. (IDF image)

 

In the case of this particular arms shipment, it transited Iraqi air space on its first hop from Syria – very much the path of least resistance for contraband moving in either direction.  But the ship, the KLOS-C, also stopped in Umm Qasr, Iraq, to load cement after she left Bandar Abbas with the arms cargo.  As we’ll see in a moment, other circumstances suggest the stop in Iraq was not an innocent one, from the standpoint of what the shipping agent there might have known.  (Innocence was unlikely anyway, given the sensitive nature of the arms cargo coming out of Bandar Abbas.  Knowing the focus of foreign intelligence on ships’ movements after departing her ports, Iran wouldn’t leave it to chance where KLOS-C was going next.)

Sudan, of course, has been implicated on several occasions in the movement of arms from Iran to Hamas.  (The Iranian naval supply ship, Kharg, which is currently headed for the Americas,  has visited Port Sudan on a number of occasions since multinational antipiracy patrols began in the Gulf of Aden in late 2008.  We can assume Kharg is being used for arms deliveries on at least some occasions.)

But then there’s the ship, and its owner and manager.  As indicated above, the crew of the KLOS-C appeared to have no knowledge of what they were carrying.  The shipment documentation was presumably fraudulent.  The ship herself, which is Panamanian flagged, is owned by a small, virtually anonymous shipping company named Whitesea Shipping & Trading Co, Ltd.  Whitesea bought the ship, which had been named Klostertal, in 2012, renaming it KLOS-C.  The company has only one ship, KLOS-C, and is incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) – the former U.S. trust territory, which gained independence in 1986, and has been in a Compact of Free Association with the United States ever since.

Alert readers will remember that the Karine-A, the ship at the center of a previous, well-known arms-smuggling attempt in 2002, had been purchased by an agent of the Palestinian Authority prior to her ill-fated smuggling expedition (and was captained by a Fatah operative).  In 2009, the Francop, carrying a huge cargo of Iranian arms bound for Lebanon, was being operated, apparently unwittingly, by a legitimate, high-profile shipping company, Cyprus-based United Feeder Services, which manages a large fleet.

The option of operating with these more-detectable profiles has become increasingly risky for the arms-supply axis to Hamas and Hezbollah (which includes North Korea, of course, as well).  The KLOS-C operating profile appears significantly less detectable, in part because Whitesea Shipping & Trading Co, Ltd is incorporated in RMI.  Here are the benefits of incorporating in RMI:

There is no public registrar of companies thus the level of confidentiality is at its highest. The bearer shares as well as nominal directors and shareholders are also accepted. Furthermore, annual financial reporting and auditing is not required. There is also no requirement for annual general meetings, while if they do take place it can be carried out anywhere in the world by any means, e.g. telephone. …

The Marshall Islands is a perfect offshore location for companies that are planning to own and manage yachts and ships as the jurisdiction has one of the biggest ships registers.

I am in general a friend of light regulation, and do not suggest that the conditions for incorporation in the Marshall Islands need to be altered.  But it’s a good question whether Israeli intelligence would have detected what was being planned for this shipment if the rockets had not started their journey from a facility in Syria which the Israelis watch 365 days a year.

We don’t know who the owner of Whitesea Shipping & Trading Co, Ltd is.  It could certainly be an agent of the Iranian government, acting through proxies.  Whitesea probably had no more than a P.O. Box and a phone number in the RMI, has probably already disbanded, and could reincorporate as something else – perhaps somewhere else – tomorrow.  There are hundreds of shipping companies incorporated the world over to operate single vessels, in RMI and elsewhere, and on any given day it’s impossible to know what the unnamed affiliations of all of them are.

Trying to limit the options of the billions of people with honest intentions, or conduct surveillance of them all, is a fool’s errand.  At some point, we will have to calculate that it’s more feasible to shut down the terrorism (Hamas, Hezbollah) and the sponsorship of terrorism (Iran, Syria, North Korea – and, yes, China and Russia, which sell or have sold arms to the others).

Israel lives with this threat on a daily basis.  The “high-confidentiality” incorporation of Whitesea Shipping & Trading Co, Ltd is a reminder that Israel may well not be the only nation that has to worry about attempts at near-anonymous arms shipping, out there in the post-Pax Americana world.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard online. She also writes for the new blog Liberty Unyielding.

Note for new commenters: Welcome! There is a one-time “approval” process that keeps down the spam. There may be a delay in the posting if your first comment, but once you’re “approved,” you can join the fray at will.


Responses

  1. “At some point, we will have to calculate that it’s more feasible to shut down the terrorism (Hamas, Hezbollah) and the sponsorship of terrorism (Iran, Syria, North Korea – and, yes, China and Russia, which sell or have sold arms to the others)”.

    What are the odds of us reaching that point before too much serious damage is done? It seems our national security establishment prefers to believe that Iran, Syria (Assad), N. Korea and perhaps even Hizballah/Hamas will realign w/the US if only we toss enough allies under the bus.

    What is amazing to me is that those who are today considered to be some of our elder statesmen (Gates, Petraeus, Crocker, Burns (and perhaps also Mathis?)) seem to support that PoV. From what I have observed in the media, it is VIPs such as these who have prevented out taking decisive action against Iran and N. Korea for the past decade (granted, N. Korea is a tough nut, holding Seoul hostage, etc.). For example, talk of targeting Iran with military action or with political action to effect régime change is now utterly beyond the pale and politically equivalent to advocating pedophilia. This wasn’t the case 7 to 10 years ago.

    BHO would be an impotent loudmouth teaching as an adjunct in a state college if he hadn’t been anointed by the establishment.

    I’d be curious to read thoughts on this, JE. How is it that a prince of the establishment such as Ryan Crocker can essentially blame Iranian hostility to the US on Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/opinion/talk-to-iran-it-works.html?_r=1&)?

    • “What are the odds of us reaching that point before too much serious damage is done?”

      IMO, the odds are virtually nonexistent.

      Gates, Petraeus, Crocker, Burns, perhaps Mathis all rose to prominence under Clinton. Presumably they’d already established their military/wonkish competence/credentials by the time Bush got there.

      At the higher levels, it’s all about politics, as an adviser. As it’s the top civilian leadership that sets policy within the context of the President’s overall policy. So it is NOT “VIPs such as these who have prevented our taking decisive action against Iran and N. Korea” but the President and those advisers that have influenced him.

      Unfortunately, I must disagree that targeting Iran with military action was NOT beyond the pale 7 or 10 years ago. It became beyond the pale when Bush invaded Iraq and the dems and media stuck their knife in his back.

      “How is it that a prince of the establishment such as Ryan Crocker can essentially blame Iranian hostility to the US on Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech”?

      By ignoring history, fact and common sense in service of party ideology, the country be damned.

      • “… must disagree that targeting Iran with military action was NOT beyond the pale 7 or 10 years ago. It became beyond the pale when Bush invaded Iraq and the dems and media stuck their knife in his back”.

        Thanks for your response, GB. I am afraid I must disagree, in part, w/you.

        We do know the government of Iran didn’t think it beyond the pale because they put the brakes on their nuke program in 2003.
        On the other hand, I think you and I would agree that in the period 2004 to 2006, elements of the Dems, media and national security establishment did “stick the knife in the back” of Bush w/the “Bush lied” and “Iraq = quagmire” memes. The Iranians then cautiously revived their nuke and terrorism efforts in response.

        IMHO, the most quagmire-conducive feature about post-invasion Iraq was how weakness on the US home front conveyed to the governments of Syria and Iran that they could act as insurgent safe havens w/o consequences.

        • I suspect our ‘disagreement’ is due more to quick summaries, than actual disagreement. Here’s a fuller explanation of my view;

          Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the US attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities may not have been beyond the pale. I believe that part of the original rationale in invading Iraq was to send a message to rogue regimes that the prior status quo no longer applied. There was hope that Iran would follow Libya’s example and abandon its pursuit of nukes. Failing that, the plan was to go after Iran next, after Iraq had been settled.

          But Bush and his neocon advisers greatly underestimated the willingness of dems to backstab him. I suspect naively assuming that Moynahan’s old dictum that, “Politics stops at the water’s edge” still applied. Once the dems placed party ideology over the fate and common good of the nation and the MSM crucified Bush, then attacking Iran’s nuclear facility became ‘beyond the pale’ because Bush now lacked both the political and public support needed.

          Thus at every step, the left and democrats have prevented America from responding effectively to the threat.

    • Sorry, guys, but – while I find the argument about faded support for Iran regime change provocative – I’m going to have to confess ignorance on this point: “Mathis”? – I can’t think of who that would be in this context.

      • I believe “Mathis” is a typo for Gen James N. Mattis (USMC, ret.).

      • Thanks! Now I must confess and with ‘egg’ on my face, that I have no idea who “Mathis” is either…;-0

      • You are correct, regime change was not as widely discussed or supported in the West as were military strikes. It was sloppy writing on my part to indicate that they had similar support and interest in the US.

        On the other hand, the Shia of Iran were impressed w/the example of Shia receiving political rights w/US support in Iraq post-2003, as well as with the Sistani model of religious leaders not taking a direct role in government. Iranian Shia were (anecdotally) more aligned w/Sistani than Khamenei and with the Iraqi seminaries of Najaf than the official seminaries of Qom. For example, see media reports of the shift in Iranian bazaar merchant contributions to seminaries. The protected 2009 protests in Iran are decent evidence of these phenomena

        “Mathis (sic) should have been, of course, Mattis.

  2. The problem with Israel’s approach to this problem is that there’s no consequence for, in this case, either Iran, Syria or Gaza. Thus, it’s a game for them, of ever more clever subterfuge.

    Nothing will change until the operative paradigm changes.

    • May I propose an elegant solution. Let us suppose, just for conversation, when the Israeli Forces intercept ships carrying arms and ammunition for said terrorist groups, an Iranian military ship goes missing with all hands. Start with their little submarine force.
      Horrific, instant, total destruction without comment.
      The IDF could offer to help in the search to see what happened to the poor Iranian vessel.
      Perhaps a news release from the Israeli Govt. vowing to continue to seek peaceful resolution to the problems in the region.

      • Israel is the only nation in the West which might possibly have the guts to execute this seductive CoA. On the other hand, sea faring nations are fairly serious about mysterious attacks on ships (I know and agree, Iran is actually at w/Israel).

        It seems to me that Israel has thus far confined its attacks w/out attribution to Lebanese territory and a rare stand-off attack into Syria.

      • At first glance, I like it!

  3. Update: STATE DEPT.: PALESTINIANS DO NOT NEED TO RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AS JEWISH STATE
    “The U.S. State Department does not consider it necessary for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, said spokesperson Jen Psaki, according to an interview in the Palestinian daily newspaper Al-Quds Saturday.”

    There it is, Israel’s core condition, undercut by Obama. Obama’s message; Israel agrees to cut its own throat ‘or else’…

    This, combined with denial of US visas to Israelis, while allowing entry to terrorist supporters makes Obama position perfectly clear.

    “At the same time the US State Department is relaxing entry requirements to visa applicants with Islamist terrorist connections, and reassuring President Putin of Russia that any sanctions against travel to the US placed upon those responsible for Russia’s invasion Ukraine will be limited to no more than a “few dozen” named individuals, it is dramatically increasing its rejection rate of Israelis seeking visas to visit the US.”

  4. Yes, I saw the report on Jen Psaki’s disgraceful comments earlier, GB. There’s a post on the way.

    • A general question please. I have noticed over the decades that Democratic Administrations usually have children as spokesmen for various agencies and heads of depts. Why is that?

      • Well, it’s an interesting question, WR. I don’t remember Ari Fleischer or Dana Perino seeming so awful darn OLD, when they were spokes-ing for the White House. But they did come across as mature, in a way Psaki doesn’t. (Nor does Carney, over in that White House job.)

        You can imagine either Psaki or Carney in the Onesie-Guy commercial, with the coffee cup and looking clueless. Perino looked like she would have been telling him to clean his room; Fleischer like he would have been telling him to mow the lawn, and make sure to bring the car back with the tank full.

  5. Re: the Psaki announcement:

    This is an administration that has already demanded that Israel release terrorist-murders of young mothers and senior citizens. Is there any despicable or dishonorable act out of bounds for them?

    • No

    • Perhaps not, MarcH. Up through November 2014, the prospect of the election will hold the administration in check to some extent. Regardless of what Team Obama “believes” in, it knows that going full-frontal anti-Israel will hurt Democrats at the polls.

      But assuming we see continuing gains for Republicans this fall, we can expect Obama to give up all pretense at moderation, in any realm in which Congress has little power to force policy on him. Foreign affairs is one of the main areas.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: