Middle East Perspectives by Rick Francona

Any remaining doubts about Iran's nuclear intentions?

2009-11-06T10:02:00.000-08:00

Events of the past few weeks should quiet any remaining skeptics about Iran's true ambitions for its nuclear research and development program. While many of these events taken individually may not be the "smoking gun" that Iran's apologists (IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei/Muhammad al-Barada'i comes to mind) demand, when taken in the aggregate leave little doubt as to what they are attempting to accomplish.

Although Iran insists that its uranium enrichment efforts are to provide fuel for the Tehran research reactor and eventually for an electric power generation capability, the program is much too large, dispersed and protected in hardened facilities for a "peaceful" program. The electric power generation argument fails in light of the simple fact that Iran wastes more energy from the gas flares on its oil wells than all the electricty its combined nuclear facilities could ever produce.

The latest, and probably most damning information to Iran's pretense of a peaceful nuclear program came this last week. Surprisingly, it came from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an agency notoriously ineffective on the Iranian nuclear issue and usually reluctant to find anyone in violation of international nuclear agreements. The IAEA announced that it had acquired information that Iranian scientists may have tested an advanced (even by Western standards) nuclear warhead design based on what is called "two-point implosion."

This technology, closely guarded by the United States and the United Kingdom, is cutting-edge and allows the production of warheads small enough to fit on existing Iranian missiles. The Iranians admit researching this technology. There is no peaceful use for this technology - it is only used to produce thermonuclear weapons.

I suspect that the Iranians have made this rather substantial leap forward by buying the technology, most likely from Pakistani nuclear engineer 'Abd al-Qadir Khan. Khan confessed in 2004 to selling nuclear weapons technology secrets from Pakistan's successful program to Libya, North Korea and Iran. There are also reports of Russian weapons experts involved in Iran as well. Given the status of Russia's economy, this is not out of the question.

On November 7, Iranian senior lawmakers rejected the "deal to disarm Iran" supposedly agreed to on October 1, touted by the American Administration as the breakthrough and vindication that its engagement policy towards Iran has been successful. Under the "deal," Iran was to export its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it would be made into fuel rods for the Tehran reactor. Iran initially agreed, then pressed for a modification whereby it could just buy fuel rods and keep its low-enriched uranium, or slow down the export of the material. Now it has rejected exporting any of its enriched uranium. Delay, delay, delay - all the while continuing to enrich uranium. Call me skeptical, but could "the deal" possibly be in jeopardy? It's not going to happen.

Since the deal was announced on October 1, Iran has continued to enrich uranium at at least one facility, producing as much as 10 pounds of low-enriched uranium every day. Every day that the Iranians are successful in delaying effective sanctions, they are that much closer to producing the amount of material required to develop a weapon.

Is anyone still buying the claim that this is a peaceful program to generate electricity? I mean other than the myopic U.S. intelligence community that has yet to repudiate it ludicrous 2007 assessment that Iran has halted its attempts to develop nuclear weapons....

Wake up! They're building the bomb!

Iran - thankfully no 3:00am phone calls

2009-11-05T09:33:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (above), not to mention a host of special envoys, have yet to show any progress on any issue in the Middle East. Remember the campaign rhetoric - "Who do you want to answer the phone at 3:00am when there is a crisis in the Middle East?" Thankfully, there has not been such a call - yet. Neither the President nor his Secretary of State seems up to the task, regardless of the spin coming out of the White House and Foggy Bottom.

The most serious and urgent issue is the situation with Iran. President Obama, true to his campaign pledges, has made numerous appeals to the Islamic Republic, including allowing a few one-on-one meetings between Iranian and American officials.

In every instance, the Iranians have successfully outmaneuvered the Obama administration. Iran continues its nuclear program (no one really believes it is for electric power), continues to support numerous terrorist groups and continues to oppress its own citizenry who dare speak out against the regime.

Despite being rebuffed at every attempt, the President still hopes to "engage" Iran. When is he going to get the message that they do not want to talk seriously to the United States? In the words of Iran's Supreme Leader just a few days ago, "We do not want any negotiation, the result of which is predetermined by the United States. Every time they have a smile on their face, they are hiding a dagger behind their back. They are telling us to negotiate, but alongside the negotiation there is a threat...."

At some point, hopefully in the not too distant future, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are going to come to the realization that talking to the current regime in Tehran is useless. The Iranian leadership is not going to fore-go its quest to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, nor is it likely to cease its support for terrorist groups, most notably Hizballah and Hamas. Despite United Nations resolutions, Iran has completely rearmed Hizballah after the group's 2006 war with Israel. It continues to ship weapons to the group - a vessel from Iran loaded with 320 tons of munitions was seized off the coast of Israel this week. The weapons are said to have been destined for a Syrian port for final shipment to Hizballah. In Gaza, Iran has supplied rockets to Hamas that can reach all the way to Tel Aviv.

Likewise, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Qods Force continues to provide money, weapons and training not only to Shi'a militias in Iraq, but now also to the Taliban in Afghanistan. While the President seeks to "engage" Iran, the Iranians are killing our troops by proxy.

Thus far, all of the Administration's efforts toward Iran have failed. The Iranians see his repeated attempts to engage them as a sign of weakness and capitulation to their demands. Not only American attempts not worked, the President and Secretary have failed to gain international support for effective sanctions.

Mr. President, your policy toward Iran is not working. If you insist on talking to them, then change the rhetoric. Stop the diplo-speak and be clear. Start with, "We will not allow you to develop a nuclear weapon." Small words, easy to understand. If they still want to talk after that, continue with, "Stop supporting groups that are killing American troops, or we'll start killing yours. We're actually quite good at that."

It can't be any less effective than what you're doing now.

Iran - continuing to play the West

2009-10-31T10:01:00.000-07:00

Iran continues to effectively conduct its foreign policy, often at the expense of American foreign policy. In the last few months, the Iranians have virtually halted the West's efforts to stop its uranium enrichment efforts, have consistently delayed the imposition of sanctions, and in their last horse-trading have succeeded in getting a one-on-one meeting between Iranian and American officials. By having the United States back a plan whereby Iran would export 75 percent of its low-enriched uranium for further processing in Russia and France, Tehran has legitimized its uranium enrichment program.

Once the Iranians achieved that de facto legitimacy, they immediately began the process to renege on the deal. It's typical of the Iranians - agree, then reconsider and ask for changes to the terms, then agree to talk about the need for more talks. While this diplomatic charade goes on, the centrifuges at Natanz, and soon Qom, continue to spin. When the Iranians talk again, it will be about how much enriched uranium they should consider exporting, not whether or not they should be enriching uranium in the first place. The have in effect gained that right.

The Iranians have been very effective in manipulating the West, and now embarrassing President Obama, whether he knows it or not. For all of the overtures made to Iran by the Obama Administration since it took office in January, there has been virtually no progress. Let's look at what Iran is doing right now:

- continues to process uranium
- continues to defy the United Nations and Western powers
- continues to strengthen its relationship with Russia and China - which almost certainly takes meaningful international sanctions off the table
- continues to provide money, weapons and training not only to the Shi'a militias in Iraq but now to elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan
- continues to repress any political dissent in the country
- continues to hold three young American hikers for a minor trespassing incident

The Iranians are masters at playing the West. When they agreed to the uranium export proposal, they had no intention of giving up their enriched uranium. Almost immediately after the agreement was made public, "senior Iranian lawmakers" back in Tehran voiced opposition to the idea and countered that they should not export their uranium for further processing, but instead demanded that the West sell them fuel for the research reactor - I called this "Having their (yellow) cake and eating it too."

The much publicized internal Iranian debate is a sham. There is only one voice that counts in Iran and it belongs to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He will make the decision about what Iran will do despite the support or objection of so-called senior Iranian lawmakers. That debate is for show - the Iranians intend to keep their uranium and continue to demand that the West send them even more. If it wasn't so serious, it would be almost comical.

In the last blast of rhetoric from the Iranians, they proposed that the United States and Iran continue to expand their one-on-one dialog, a key goal of the regime in Tehran. This ill-advised dialogue only legitimizes the regime and its nuclear ambitions. The Iranians even went so far as to offer to have Americans present at their nuclear facilities. Clever - the presence of Americans at what may become targets of Israeli military strikes complicates planning in Tel Aviv.

In response to the Iranian stalling and demands to purchase uranium, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waffled, saying she would "let this process play out." She further said that the International Atomic Energy Agency and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany "are all united and showing resolve in responding to the Iranian response and seeking clarifications. We are working to determine exactly what they are willing to do, whether this was an initial response that is an end response or whether it's the beginning of getting to where we expect them to end up."

Huh? I thought the Iranians were masters of rhetoric, but Mrs. Clinton has also succeeded in using a lot of words to say nothing. Is she serious? The IAEA is worthless - just take the Iranian issue as an example. The permanent members of the Security Council are united? Has she heard the Russian and Chinese statements opposing sanctions on Iran?

While the President and his Secretary of State "let the process play out," Iran continues to effectively pursue its foreign policy objectives virtually unhampered by Washington. Does "play out" mean the announcement that they have a nuclear weapon?

Execution of Saddam - in hindsight a good thing

2009-10-29T11:22:00.000-07:00

According to a new book by Saddam Husayn's lead lawyer Khalil al-Dulaymi, the deposed Iraqi president was planning an escape attempt in 2006. The plan called for Saddam loyalists and other Sunni militants to mount coordinated attacks on American and Iraqi facilities, and eventually overpower the guard force at the detention facility at Camp Cropper and free Saddam.

Camp Cropper was one of the primary U.S. Army facilities in Iraq, located near Baghdad International Airport. The facility was used to house high-value detainees, including many former senior Ba'th Party officials. The security around this facility was probably unsurpassed anywhere in the country. The thought that the insurgents would be able to free Saddam Husayn is ludicrous.

In most cases, I am not a fan of the death penalty. I also believe that there are unique situations in which execution is not only advisable, but essential. The execution of Saddam Husayn was one of those unique cases where the execution, as I look back, was in fact a good thing.

Why do I say that? Saddam Husayn was more that just a deposed dictator convicted of war crimes. Saddam was, and remains, a symbol to his supporters, mostly die-hard Ba'th Party members. The remnants of the Ba'th have been active in the violence directed at Iraqi, American and coalition forces.

Are there still Saddam Husayn supporters? Look at this poster (below) in the city of Tikrit, near to Saddam's hometown of 'Awjah and the center of his support base. There was an AP caption labeling this a "vandalized poster of Saddam." The use of the descriptor "vandalized" has a negative connotation, giving the impression that this was an anti-Saddam gesture. In actuality, the Arabic graffiti spray painted on the poster reads, "Long live Saddam and the Ba'th [party]." This is a pro-Saddam gesture, exactly the opposite of the reporting.

As long as Saddam remained alive - even in a maximum security facility guarded by American troops - there was always the hope that somehow his escape might be possible. In this case, it made sense to quash that hope. Likewise, moving him out of the country would not remove that hope that there was the possibility of his return. There still may be Ba'thi resistance, but Saddam will never again lead the Ba'th Party.

All in all, executing Saddam was a good thing. I don't see another solution.

Mr. President, make a decision already

2009-10-27T09:32:00.000-07:00

Mr. Obama, you must make a decision about the strategy and troop levels in Afghanistan. You must do it now, not in a week, not in ten days, not in a month, but now. American troops are involved in combat operations now - they need to know the plan. Your vacillation, apparent confusion and delays only serve to embolden the enemy and are likely the direct cause of the recent spike in American and coalition casualties. Over 50 American troops have been killed thus far this month. Is there a coherent strategy anywhere in our future?

I understand - and fully support - a review of our strategy in Afghanistan. Obviously what we have been doing has not worked. We have been there for eight years - the situation is still unresolved and our purpose for being there is still undefined. I thought you had stated a policy in March - a counterinsurgency aimed at the defeat of al-Qa'idah. You fired the commander of U.S forces in Afghanistan and gave the mission to General Stan McChrystal. You tasked him to tell you what he needed to get it done.

General McChrystal, regarded as one of the best counterinsurgency operators in the American armed forces, told you he needed 40,000 additional U.S. troops to accomplish the mission. That was probably not the answer you were hoping to hear. Now rather than give the general the resources needed to accomplish the mission you directed, you have decided to take a breather and re-assess the strategy. One wonders if the mission is dictating the resource allocation, or if the resources you are willing to commit now dictate the strategy. I assume the mission remains the same. In any case, the troops are not taking a break while you decide what the strategy will be.

The definition of the mission raises some serious questions that you might consider. Your goals, if I heard you correctly in March, are based on the assumption that al-Qa'idah is still present in Afghanistan, and that presence constitutes a threat to the United States. While you are re-assessing the strategy, you might want to also re-read your intelligence community reports that clearly indicate that except for maybe a few holdouts, al-Qa'idah has moved on to Pakistan and points beyond.

After the mass exodus to Pakistan in late 2001 and early 2002 following their defeat at Tora Bora, many al-Qa'idah fighters moved on to carry on the fight in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. That didn't work out too well for them - eventually U.S. forces in Iraq and Saudi security forces in the kingdom decimated al-Qa'idah's ranks. The remnants appear to have moved on to places like Yemen and Somalia. Wherever they are, it is not Afghanistan.

So, Mr. President, just who is the enemy you are seeking to defeat? The Taliban? While the Taliban are a threat to the Afghan government and are now major supporters of the narco-economy of the country, they hardly represent a threat to the security of the United States. The thought that a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan would re-create an al-Qa'idah threat to the United States is a stretch as well. Most of the al-Qa'idah leadership has been killed, captured or marginalized. Their communications, finances and organization are in disarray. Remaining fighters in Pakistan are under pressure from the Central Intelligence Agency's missile strikes and Pakistan Army offensives in the Waziristan area. You could probably prevent al-Qa'idah from returning to Afghanistan by warning the Taliban (or whoever might emerge as the power in Kabul) that if al-Qa'idah returns, so does massive American air power.

In any case, Mr. President, now is the time to fish or cut bait - you have had more than ample time to make up your mind. You can conduct the counterinsurgency you ordered, or you can re-direct the strategy to that of counter-terrorism. Either will keep America secure, but you have to make a decision. The Taliban, al-Qa'idah and any other groups that wish us ill need to know that you can make a decision and then order the appropriate action to execute it.

Until you make that decision, there will likely be increased attacks on American troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban wants you to re-focus your efforts on a counter-terrorism strategy aimed at al-Qa'idah in the region - that includes Pakistan - rather than on a counterinsurgency beefing up American troop presence in Afghanistan. While that is a reason in itself to not to go with a change in strategy, the bottom line remains that the Taliban is not the real enemy.

Either way, Mr. President, make a decision. Our troops deserve clear direction and adequate resources. Do it now.

Iran: Having their (yellow) cake and eating it too

2009-10-23T08:47:00.000-07:00

You can't make this stuff up.

After three days of talks - something in which Iran excels - the Iranians have thrown another wrench into the nuclear program talks between the Islamic Republic and the West, specifically the United States, Russia and France.

Just a few weeks ago, the Iranians claimed to be open to an arrangement whereby much of its enriched uranium would be exported to Russia and France for reprocessing into reactor fuel for their medical reactor in Tehran. On the surface, that appeared to diffuse one of the major issues between Iran and the West - Iran's continued enrichment of uranium.

This week's talks were held supposedly to continue work on that arrangement. However, yesterday and today there were conflicting and confusing signals from Tehran. It appears that the senior Iranian leadership now has reservations about the arrangement. We may be back to square one. I say "we" because although the West may be back to square one, the Iranians are continuing unimpeded in its nuclear research and development program - the centrifuges at Natanz and possibly the previously undeclared site near Qom continue to spin. While Iran and the West talk, uranium enrichment goes on - in fact, it has never slowed.

To complicate matters further, the Iranians proposed that instead of exporting most of its enriched uranium for reprocessing by the French into reactor fuel, that the West sell them the fuel for the small reactor. Their statement sounds a bit menacing. "The Islamic Republic of Iran is waiting for a constructive and confidence building response to the clear proposal of buying fuel for the Tehran research reactor," and warning the West to "refrain from past mistakes in violating agreements and make efforts to win the trust of the Iranian nation."

You have to almost admire the Iranians for their audacity. Basically what they are saying is, "Not only do we not want to send our enriched uranium to you to be processed into fuel for our reactor, we want you to sell us the fuel so we can keep our uranium and continue to enrich it for our own purposes (I say for nuclear weapons development), in essence, having our (yellow) cake and eating it too."

Do the Iranians think the West is that gullible? Evidently. Then again, what has the West done to disavow the Iranians of that notion? Nothing. The West has been threatening to impose sanctions for years. It has not happened, and the Iranians know full well that is not likely going to happen.

The Iranians have cleverly made oil export and refined product import deals with China. They also have convinced Russia to continue a close military hardware and nuclear power technology purchase agreement. Since both Russia and China are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - meaning they each have veto power - the Iranian leadership has assessed (correctly in my view) that meaningful sanctions are not a threat. To make that point, the Russians reiterated their intention to continue "military-technical cooperation" with Iran. That probably means delivery of advanced surface-to-air missile systems in the not-too-distant future.

I expect there will be recriminations tossed back and forth about Iran's initial indications that it would agree to export its enriched uranium and its subsequent proposal to just buy fuel and keep its uranium. Then there will be a proposal to meet and have more talks - all the while, their program continues.

This is typical of what we have come to expect from the Iranians. Continue to enrich uranium, agree to talk.

Afghanistan Election Runoff

2009-10-20T19:17:00.000-07:00

Dr Abdullah Abdullah and President Hamid Karzai

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has agreed to a runoff presidential election in the wake of convincing evidence that as many as one quarter of the votes cast for him in the recent election were fraudulent. He really had no choice.

The perception of such wide ranging corruption - even in one of the most corrupt places on the planet - did not sit well with many international observers, not to mention with many Americans, who have over 65,000 of their troops in the country. The specter of such fraud and corruption plays into the hands of those who are attempting to draw parallels between U.S involvement in Afghanistan with that of another corrupt government 40 years ago, that being in South Vietnam.

This election has far reaching implications for the future of Afghanistan. As long as there is no final outcome, the Obama Administration cites that as a reason to delay the President's strategy determination. meanwhile, battles go on - American troops are fighting and dying. The Taliban is attemptinf to take advantage of the indecision in Kabul and more importantly, Washington. Not only does the Afghan government appear to have no direction or commitment, neither does the American administration.

Both candidates are true Afghan patriots, even though one may be temporarily tainted by what we in the West consider corruption. We need to be very careful about focusing on Afghan culture and processes through a Western optic. Corruption and payoffs are a way of life - it always has been and from my observations, probably always will be.

Both Karzai and Abdullah opposed the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, and both were intimately involved in the American-supported operation to remove the Taliban after September 11, 2001. Abdullah's credentials may be a bit stronger than Karzai's but both were involved.

There is an ethnic factor to consider as well. Karzai is a Pashtun from an influential Kandahar family. Abdullah has always been considered a Tajik, although during the campaign he chose to reveal that his father had been a Pashtun. In any case, he was raised in the Panjshir valley, the Tajik heartland. Since only a quarter to one third of the population (there has never been a census), his declaration of Pashtun heritage is understandable. It will be difficult, but not impossible to overcome Pashtun solidarity.

Another overlooked but important factor may transcend the ethnic issue. This election runoff will be a referendum on the future structure of the Afghan government. Karzai prefers to continue the status quo with a presidential system - after all, he is the incumbent and likes the power concentrated in the executive.

Abdullah has stated a preference for a parliamentary system with a prime minister as head of government. To do this, he would need to convene a loya jirga and change the constitution, but it is possible.

I tend to favor Abdullah. He seems to be more above the corruption that has permeated the Karzai administration, and might have a broader power base throughout the country. That will be important as the improving Afghan security forces attempt to exert their control over the entire country. Of course, this control will come at the expense of the warlords. They might feel better dealing with Abdullah - he appeals to a wider audience.

In any case, the fact that there are elections in Afghanistan is a good thing. It will happen - there is no need for our president to wait for the results before he decides what our strategy will be. Make a decision and give the country a chance. If we wait too long, it may be a moot point.

Pakistan launches its offensive - a good sign

2009-10-18T05:56:00.000-07:00

The long-awaited and much-anticipated Pakistani military offensive against Taliban elements in South Waziristan (blue circle on map below) kicked off on Saturday. The Pakistani leadership has finally realized that there is no negotiating with the Taliban - they have to be hunted down and killed.

Over the last few weeks, there has been a spate of violence in Pakistan as Taliban militants attempted to convince the public to force the Pakistani leadership to call off their publicized major offensive into the tribal area of South Waziristan. Actually, the plan backfired - all the militants succeeded in doing was galvanizing public opinion and the conviction of the military leadership that such an offensive was essential.

There has been a slow awakening in Pakistan since the Taliban moved closer to the non-tribal areas, such as the attacks in the Swat Valley late in 2008 and earlier this year. In that operation, the Pakistanis entered into a ceasefire with the Taliban after allowing the Taliban to impose Sharia' law in the region. The Taliban did not abide by the agreement and the Pakistanis had to launch an offensive to oust the Taliban from the area.

Swat Valley was a wake up call for the Pakistanis that the Taliban are not content to remain in the autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas - Swat is in the North West Frontier Province, which falls fully under Pakistani sovereignty. It also demonstrated to the Pakistanis that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Agreements, ceasefires, truces - these are only tactics to be used to regroup and re-arm.

The Pakistanis have committed two army divisions to this fight, with air support. It began with a three-pronged assault deep into South Waziristan, the redoubt of numerous Taliban and al-Qa'idah fighters, including chief of the Pakistani Taliban Hakimullah Mehsud and possibly al-Qa'idah leader Usamah bin Ladin himself. The terrain is forbidding, and the Taliban and its Arab and Uzbek allies are tough and committed fighters.

This will be a costly fight for the Pakistan Army in terms of casualties, but a necessary fight if the central government is going to defeat this threat to its very existence. The Taliban militants don't want just to be left alone - they want to impose their own fundamentalist Islamic belief system to what already is an Islamic Republic.

Hopefully, the Pakistanis will execute this offensive to a successful completion rather than fighting for a short period of time, then entering into a ceasefire agreement that never holds. They did this in 2004, 2005 and 2008 - it just does not work. Maybe this time will be different. Maybe this time the Pakistani intelligence service - riddled with Taliban and al-Qa'idah sympathizers and supporters - will not be able to convince the leadership to negotiate.

As I have said before, you cannot negotiate with these people. You have to hunt them down and kill them.

A new NIE on Iran? It's about time....

2009-10-16T14:28:00.000-07:00

"It's about time." I chose those words carefully. For years now, Iran has been playing the world for time, and playing it very well. Iran's foreign policy has focused on delaying the imposition of effective sanctions over its nuclear research and development program, which most analysts (me included) believe is nothing but a cover for a nuclear weapons development effort.

The Iranians have been remarkably successful in blunting and avoiding the type of sanctions that might actually work. They have done this by agreeing to talk, attending preliminary meetings and promising cooperation, combined with deeper ties with UN Security Council permanent members Russia and China. Since either of these countries can veto any Security Council action, close ties to one or the other makes the chances of the adoption of any meaningful sanctions protocol remote at best. (See an article I wrote in July, Iran's Foreign Policy Success.

A review of today's AIPAC Daily News Digest, published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - not Political Action Committee as some have charged - is illustrative of that successful Iranian foreign policy. Five of the six lead stories deal with this issue:

1. U.S. Considers a New Assessment of Iran Threat
2. U.S. Congress sends Obama Iran sanctions bill
4. Iranian go-slow dims deal chances at Vienna atom talks
5. China's links to Iran a snag for sanctions
6. A Hitch in Iran's Nuclear Plans?

Now the Obama Administration is considering a "re-do" of the ludicrous 2007 National Intelligence Estimate - Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. That document assessed that Iran halted its nuclear weapons effort in 2003 and had not re-started it by mid-2007. The idea is so preposterous that not only have the intelligence services of our allies - Britain, France, Germany and Israel - publicly criticized it, so too did both candidates in the 2008 U.S. Presidential race.

Please re-do the NIE - it's about time. However, we need to make sure that the NIE is in fact a real estimate of the intelligence community, not a politically-inspired tool to boost the Administration's fantasy that diplomacy - that means a sanctions protocol - is going to be effective.

US again fails to restart Middle East peace talks

2009-10-11T16:19:00.000-07:00

In a rather surprising turn of events - given the fact that President Obama was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - special Middle East envoy George Mitchell left the region without a commitment for the Israelis and Palestinians to resume talks.

This is not a failure of an initiative, it is the failure to even begin an initiative. The best Mitchell could get was a promise for two low-level Israeli diplomats to travel to Washington later this week for "further discussions." The Palestinians have declined to participate.

Unfortunately, the President has had few - actually zero - successes in his "change" or "reset" foreign policies, especially in the Middle East. His overtures to Iran have been soundly rebuffed at every turn - the talks earlier this month about the Iranian nuclear program yielded nothing but a promise for more talks. Likewise, the Administration efforts to engage Syria have failed - Bashar al-Asad and his Ba'th regime remain firmly allied to Iran.

Attempts to help mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians over Gaza have gone nowhere. American allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia have refused to engage in any kind of comprehensive talks about Israel. Lebanon has come increasingly under the thumb of Hizballah.

In Israel, almost always on the other side of Obama's initiatives, the leadership is not inclined to acquiesce to American demands that will move the peace process forward. They need to agree to a return of the Golan Heights and agree to some curtailment of the expansion of settlements on the West Bank. At some point they will, but not anytime soon, given the perceived slant of this Administration to side with the Iranians, Syrians and Palestinians - at their expense.

To many observers of the Middle East, it would appear that the Nobel Peace Prize was premature, given the failure of the Administration on virtually every front of peace in the region. Then, what do we expect from the legislature of a country that has been a mediocre NATO ally at best? These are the same people that granted this award to the likes of Yasir 'Arafat, Menachem Begin, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan....

Maybe I should be patient and wait for the news from Oslo to reach Damascus, Jerusalem, Ramallah, Tehran, Riyadh, and Amman that the Nobel committee has spoken and they are to fall in line.

After all, has it not been ordained that Obama will bring peace to the Middle East?

Afghanistan and the White House - can you spell V-I-E-T-N-A-M?

2009-10-05T08:37:00.000-07:00

Reading the press accounts and watching the media coverage of the ongoing debate in the Obama Administration over just what our strategy is and will be in Afghanistan unfortunately reminds of the late 1960's and a similar debate on what to do in Vietnam. Do we give the mission to the generals and properly resource their strategy and tactics to execute that mission, or does the White House micromanage the war from the West Wing?

If you recall the meddling from the White House in Vietnam - down to the actual daily targets to be bombed - you can see it starting again. When you have Vice President Joe Biden - whose only military expertise is listening to stories that his Army National Guard son might have overheard while serving as a military lawyer in Iraq - offering strategies that conflict with General Stanley McChrystal, the general on the ground with decades of experience, you have to wonder. When Senator Carl Levin - whose military experience pales in comparison to Joe Biden's - downplays General McChrystal as just someone down chain of command, you have to worry. Military strategy formulated in the Vice President's office and the Senate does not inspire confidence.

The only person in the inner circle with any meaningful military experience is national security advisor, retired Marine general James Jones, and he has not ventured his own opinion. If his stance on Afghanistan policy is anything like his stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions, don't expect anything other than the administration's nebulous line. Jones must be one of the few people left that are not convinced that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon.

So, who is President Obama going to trust? His political cronies who might be superb at organizing activists in inner city Chicago, or a professional military staff with years of training and experience? President George Bush listened to his generals and let them execute the mission of removing Saddam Husayn - a major sccess. Then, however, he changed the mission to one of occupation and nation building based on misguided advice of his political counselors. Now we appear to be watching the same mistake that President Johnson made in the 1960's, that President Bush made after successfully removing Saddam - listening to politicians instead of soldiers.

As I have said and written on numerous occasions, we need to re-evaluate what the mission is in Afghanistan. That debate needs to include politicians to be sure, but not in the formulation of actual strategy and tactics. The White House - which includes Biden - should define the mission and order Secretary of Defense Gates to determine the strategy and tactics, as well as the resources required to accomplish the task.

If the mission is to hunt down and destroy the remnants of al-Qa'idah, then Afghanistan is probably not the best venue for that operation. If that is in fact the mission, then the President better start looking at operations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. There has been little al-Qa'idah presence in Afghanistan since late 2001. In the last few years, thanks to the CIA drone operations and Pakistani military incursions in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border tribal areas, al-Qa'idah has largely moved from Pakistan as wel, although some remain. Others initially moved to Saudi Arabia, but after being decimated by Saudi security forces, most have moved to Yemen and Somalia.

If the mission in Afghanistan is to defeat the Taliban and provide security so that Afghanistan can stand up as a country, fine, but say so. To continue claiming that the presence of almost 70,000 American troops plus scores of thousands of Afghan and NATO forces is to defeat al-Qa'idah is somewhere between disingenuous and misleading, or perhaps just naive. Some pundits have gone further - Council of Foreign Relations president Richard Haass has stated that with the departure of al-Qa'idah, Afghanistan is no longer a war of necessity, but Obama's war of choice.

Whatever the decision, it needs to be made now. The longer the President and Secretary Gates publicly discuss the various options and strategies, the more disoriented and confused we appear. That sends a signal to our enemies that now is the time to create what insurgents term a "significant emotional event." A significant emotional event - a classic insurgent tactic - is one that galvanizes your enemy's public opinion, resulting in a demand that the targeted government end its involvement in the war.

Knowing they cannot defeat American and allied forces in the field, the insurgents will try to shift the battle to public opinion in the United States. It was the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in 1968 that was the significant emotional event of that war, despite the fact that the actual combat virtually destroyed the Viet Cong as a viable fighting force. This weekend's mass attacks on two remote outposts in Nuristan province are just such operations.

The President needs to make a decision, then get out of his generals' way. Either that, or repeat the mistakes of Johnson and Vietnam.

Whispering in the wind - talking to Iran

2009-09-30T11:54:00.000-07:00

France's Sarkozy, America's Obama and the UK's Brown

The much-awaited P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) talks with Iran are set to begin in Geneva on Thursday, October 1. I note that the Obama Administration is already attempting to lower expectations before the talks start. That's probably a smart thing to do - the chances of anything positive coming out of these talks is remote.

In a press conference, Obama's spokesman reiterated that although the Iranians have said their nuclear enrichment program is not a topic of discussion for these talks, the United States intends to raise it. A State Department spokesman went on to say that the President was not in a hurry to impose further sanctions on Iran, that the Administration was not going to make a "snap judgment" in the wake of Thursday's talks.

Not make a snap judgment? How much time are we willing to give the Iranians before at the minimum imposing some real sanctions? This looks very much like our earlier approach to North Korea - talk, negotiate, impose ineffective sanctions, verbally threaten, etc. Then act surprised when either the Iranians detonate a nuclear device or Iranian President Ahmadinejad announces that they have developed a deliverable warhead for their medium range ballistic missiles? Then there's no reason to negotiate - just watch the unavoidable proliferation as nations in the region seek their own capability, realizing that the United States is no longer going to protect them.

Iran's Shahab-3 is capable of striking targets in Israel or American military bases in the Middle East. They are the world's major supporter and practitioner of terrorism. They are supplying, funding and training groups that are killing American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. How much longer are we going to wait until we actually do something?

The Iranians continue their demonstrably successful nuclear policy. Despite being under three rounds of sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, the centrifuges at Natanz and who knows where else continue to spin, continuing to enrich uranium unimpeded. They have accurately assessed the international coalition against them as weak and feckless - they know full well that Russia and China are not likely to allow the imposition of serious sanctions against them, just as they know the Obama Administration is so confrontation-averse that - rhetoric to the contrary - there is no military option on the table.

The Iranians are having a bit of sport with this. It fits into their strategy of delay, appear to talk, delay, agree to talk some more, all the while continuing to enrich uranium. Ahmadinejad said that the upcoming talks will be a "test" of the group's "respect for Iran's rights." He also said the talks give an "exceptional opportunity for US and a few European countries to correct the way they interact with other world nations." Are we to thank them for this unique opportunity?

At the same time, according to British and Israeli intelligence, the Iranians are refining the design of a warhead for their missiles. U.S. intelligence still clings to the ridiculous assessment that Iran stopped its weapons program about five years ago and has not restarted it. I don't know of anyone - President Obama included - that believes the U.S. assessment.

Until Russia and China agree to tough sanctions on Iran's energy sector, any other sanctions will be as ineffective as the current sanctions regime. Neither of the two countries are likely to agree to tougher sanctions - Russia has lucrative energy and military contracts with Iran, while China is a major consumer of Iranian oil and a major supplier of Iran's refined gasoline and diesel.

So where are these talks taking us? The Iranians have outmaneuvered us. Our choices now:

- a. accept the fact that Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon and plan for that eventuality, including the new arms race in the region, or

- b. take military action, or support Israeli military action. That's not going to happen with this White House and Pentagon.

I guess it's Plan A.

Brzezinski and Talabani comments on Iraqi airspace

2009-09-28T19:29:00.000-07:00

As the debate over the Iranian nuclear program gains more attention, the possibility of an Israeli military strike is more in the news. A look at a map of the region indicates that Israel will have to fly over a great distance, some or all of it - depending on the route they take - in hostile airspace.

Several of the possible attack routes involve the use of Iraqi airspace. Any military planner would find that a useful option.

You can fly to Iraqi airspace via Turkey, Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Of the three, Turkey is probably the least confrontational - Turkey and Israel have a defense cooperation treaty - but does add some distance. Distance, of course, complicates the mission and would require more aerial refueling. Using Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia risks having to engage the military defenses of those countries. None really possess the ability to defeat the Israeli air force, but could cause a mission abort. For the Israelis to fly all the way to the target successfully, they cannot risk an engagement along they way.

If I was an Israeli air force officer planning an operation to strike targets in Iran, I would get my aircraft into Iraqi airspace as soon as feasible. Why? Who controls Iraqi airspace? We - the United States - do.

That realization prompted some interesting comments from former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski served under Jimmy Carter and was instrumental in several policy debacles - Iran's 1979 takeover of the U.S.Embassy in Tehran, the botched rescue attempt at Desert One and the virtual dismantling of the Central Intelligence Agency's Clandestine Service. We have yet to recover from the damage done to our human intelligence capability.

Brzezinski's reaction to a possible Israeli overflight of Iraqi as part of a military strike on Iran? He implied that American fighter aircraft should intercept the Israeli aircraft.

His words: "We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?"

Several comments. It's Iraqi airspace, not ours. Yes, we control it, but in the end, it is Iraqi airspace. Does he really expect the United States to engage Israeli aircraft, which in effect puts us in the position of defending Iran? Amazing - let's have a military confrontation with an ally and defend the world's premier sponsor and practitioner of terrorism who is intent on developing (and maybe actually using) nuclear weapons.

Israel's possible use of Iraqi airspace also drew comments from Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Jalal Talabani and the author in northern Iraq - 1995

Talabani issued a warning that Iraq will not allow Israel to use its airspace to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. I like "Mam Jalal," as I respectfully call him. He is an astute politician - this warning is purely for domestic consumption in Iraq and probably in Iran as well. He also knows full well that Iraq's airspace is under the total control of the American military.

Talabani also suggested that the six major powers that will meet with Iranian negotiators this week conduct "a real negotiation" with Iran and guarantee Tehran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. He also said he believes that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon because of inherent Islamic values. Has he heard of Pakistan, more accurately the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

Iran has already made up its mind to pursue a nuclear weapon. All the talks are a delaying tactic as the centrifuges continue to enrich uranium. Sanctions are unlikely to work.

As I have said before, we need to address this issue now.

Iran - the stakes go up

2009-09-25T19:29:00.000-07:00

One day after one of the strangest United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sessions, Iran admitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it has been operating an undeclared nuclear facility. The revelation was prompted by the fact that the Iranians had discovered that their secret was a secret no more, that American and French intelligence services had been monitoring the site for over a year.

That begs the obvious question - why didn't President Obama reveal this little gem when either addressing the General Assembly or chairing the Security Council meeting on, of all things, nuclear proliferation? That would have been a perfect opportunity to put the Iranians on the spot, on the defensive. For whatever reason, the President opted to keep the information to himself.

Fearing that the information was about to be released, the Iranians decided to take control of the release and notify the IAEA. This prompted a three way announcement from President Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, condemning Iran's failure to abide by international agreements and Security Council resolutions.

Iran is already under economic sanctions, ineffective though they may be. There are talks scheduled for October 1 between the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany on one side and Iran on the other. Iran had provided a rambling document on what it has agreed to discuss, insisting that the nuclear program was not up for negotiation. The revelation of the new, undeclared nuclear facility may change that.

France came to the United Nations meeting not in favor of tougher sanctions on Iran. After the Iranian acknowledgement of its failure to abide by the rules, the French may go along with an American and British call for the new sanctions. The most effective sanctions will be a cut off of Iran's imports of refined gasoline.

The key to effective sanctions will be Russia and China. Russia is now favorably disposed toward the United States after President Obama's surprise cancellation of the ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. There may have been a quid pro quo - we dismantle the missile defenses and Russia supports sanctions on Iran.

That leaves China. China has recently begun shipping gasoline to Iran. China has been against any increased sanctions on Iran. At best they will not support tougher sanctions, at worst they will veto the attempt. In any case, sanctions are not likely to be effective.

This is not happening in a vacuum. The Iranian oppossition group Mujahidin-e Khalq (MEK) claims that Iran is working on detonators for nuclear devices. Once regarded as alarmists with no credibility, the MEK was the first group to provide accurate information on the Iranian nuclear program. If this information is equally accurate, it shows that the Iranian program is nearing the weapons design stage. Once they have enriched enough uranium to the level required for weaponization, they will be able to construct a crude device.

The Israelis are of course aware of all this information. They have been uncharacteristically vocal about their intentions to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. If there is no effective United Nations or other international action that prevents Iran from developing a weapon, the Israelis will attempt a difficult, complex military operation.

The consequences of military action against Iran will reverberate around the world. Iran is not only positioned between two deployed American forces - Iraq and Afghanistan - they are providing weaponry to both sets of enemies. Additionally, they are the world's premier supporters and practitioners of terrorism. Expect increased activity on all these fronts.

Sanctions are unlikely to deter Iran, so military action - most likely from Israel since the current American administration seems unwilling to really "engage" Iran - seems unavoidable.

The stakes have gone up. Now is the time to address the Iranian problem - it has been festering since 1979. I hope President Obama is up to the task. Given his track record thus far, I am unconvinced.

Druze cross Syrian-Israeli border - that's change

2009-09-24T21:31:00.000-07:00

In a surprising turn of events, given the current state of relations between Syria and Israel, over 500 Druze men and women from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights were permitted to cross the de facto border into Syria for a five-day visit. The Druze crossed the line of demarcation drawn in 1974 following negotiations after the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

The point of crossing was the United Nations checkpoint in the city of al-Qunaytirah, the same checkpoint through which hundreds of Druze brides have passed over the years, never to return to their families in the Golan Heights.

Once the young women entered Syria, there was no return permitted. This practice was made famous in the movie "The Syrian Bride."

This recent crossing represents a major change in both Israel's and Syria's positions. For many Druze trapped on the Israeli side of the cease-fire line, this is the first chance they have had to visit family on the Syrian side since Israel seized the Golan Heights in the Six Day War of June 1967.

Many of the Druze will make a pilgrimage to the tomb of Habil (Abel), considered by the Druze to be one of their prophets. This is the only picture I was able to take of it, as it sits on the other side of a Syrian air defense radar site at Zabadani, about 30 miles from Damascus. The guards hold all cameras (well, almost all) at a checkpoint while you visit the shrine.

Recently, Syrian President Bashar al-Asad spurned American attempts to restart peace talks between Syria and Israel. Likewise, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated that he had no intention of returning the Golan Heights to Syria.

Why the two sides were able to put aside the tense relations between them and arrange this crossing and visit is a mystery, but it certainly is a positive step. Who knows where it might lead?

Saudi Arabia's first coed university - really?

2009-09-24T09:17:00.000-07:00

With much publicity and fanfare, Saudi Arabia opened its first coeducational university, the King 'Abdallah Science and Technology University (KAUST). The king declared that the school will be a "beacon of tolerance."

That would be a welcome change in a kingdom that is known for its intolerance of things not Islamic. Hopefully, this is one of the reforms ordered by the monarch earlier this year - see my article, Saudi king orders long overdue reforms.

I was excited when I saw the headline, "Saudi Arabia inaugurates its first coed university." This would represent a major change in attitude toward post-pubescent mixing of the genders. As they say, however, the devil is in the details.

First, the campus is located in a remote seaside location about 50 miles north of the major port city of Jiddah. Jiddah is one of the least conservative areas of the kingdom - conservative, yes, but not nearly as repressive as the more traditional capital of Riyadh. Locating it away from a major metropolitan area keeps it from the public eye. Having men and women - reportedly unveiled - attending the same classes will surely raise eyebrows in the kingdom that houses the two holiest sites in Islam. It is important to note that in Arabic, the king is not referred to as the king, but as the "Custodian of the Two Holy Sites."

Second, the great majority of the students and faculty are foreigners. The initial 800 students are from more than 60 countries - the enrollment is expected to increase to 2000 in the next decade. Of the 800 students enrolled this year, only about 100 are Saudis. It would be interesting to know how many of the Saudi students are women. That little but critical detail was missing from the reporting.

If any of the female students at KAUST are Saudis, that would be an almost revolutionary change. It has not been that many years since women were permitted to attend school, let alone study certain subjects. If they are allowed to sit in the same classroom with men and not be veiled and covered, I will be shocked. I suspect that the female students at this institution will be foreigners.

Saudis are slow to change, especially when it comes to women's rights. Women can work only under strict rules. Most female workers in the Kingdom are foreigners - it's just easier. All of the female flight attendants for Saudia, the national airline, are from other Arab or Muslim countries. I remember being on a Saudia flight from Riyadh to Cairo when one Saudi passenger was irate that the flight attendant, a young Turkish woman, could not speak Arabic.

Third, Saudi curricula in any of its institutions is strictly controlled by the government. Repeated American attempts to convince the Saudi government to change its virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Christian lesson plans have failed. It will be interesting to see if this new institution with its highly-paid foreign faculty actually practices academic freedom. That freedom includes contact with educational institutions around the world, something Saudi schools have up until now prohibited. Since KAUST has a relationship with the University of California (Berkeley), it will be interesting to see if there is a free exchange of ideas.

If the Saudis have changed, it is welcome news. I suspect, however, that this will be an isolated show campus that portends no real change in Saudi academic circles, certainly not in its curricula.

Syria - confusing reports and regime stability

2009-09-23T09:17:00.000-07:00

Syrian security forces in action

There are some confusing - and surprising - reports emanating from Syria that raise questions. According to an opposition web site, 30 senior members of the Iraqi jaysh al-mahdi (JAM) residing in Damascus were killed by unknown gunmen. The JAM is a Shi'a militia led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Interestingly, there appears to be no coverage of the alleged incident in the Syrian press, Arabic or English. This is not surprising since all the media in Syria is government controlled and/or regulated. This is not the type of story that the regime of Bashar al-Asad would want made public.

Syria prides itself on excellent internal security. I lived there for almost three years, and they do have excellent internal security. There is little crime and the only public disturbances are either orchestrated by the regime or punished severely. As in Saudi Arabia, the low crime rate comes at a price - all you have to do is forgo freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc.

Back to this incident. Why are members of the Iraqi Shi'a JAM living in Damascus? Syria is one of Iran's only allies, and its only Arab ally. The JAM is funded, equipped and trained by the Iranians. Senior members of the JAM seeking refuge in Syria is not surprising.

What is surprising is the murder of 30 of their number in Damascus. Given the relationship between Iran and Syria, it is highly unlikely that the Syrian security or intelligence services were involved. This immediately focuses suspicion in the illegal Muslim Brotherhood or affiliated fundamentalist Sunni groups who have mounted opposition to the secular Ba'th government for decades.

When I was in Damascus, there were incidents involving the Brotherhood. None were of this magnitude - there was just too much security and pervasive surveillance for this large of an operation. Normally the incidents involved a small group - eight to 10 men, who inalmost all cases had to be killed since they would not give up.

If the Brotherhood or some other anti-government group mounted this operation, it may indicate that the government is not the fearsome entity it once was. This also cannot help Iraqi-Syrian relations, already strained since Syria recently refused to hand over Iraqis suspected of funneling lethal aid to the remnants of al-Qa'idah in Iraq and the Saddamist Ba'th Party.

In any case, the coordinated murder of 30 people in Damascus raises a lot of questions, not the least of which is - who is in charge?

Commander in Afghanistan wants more troops - now what?

2009-09-22T07:39:00.000-07:00

U.S. Marines in Afghanistan

A classic battle between an anti-war administration and the military is forming. President Obama, elected in part on a platform to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now finds himself in an awkward position between his constituency and the military he commands.

Soon after taking office, he committed to winning the war in Afghanistan. Actually, he committed to defeating al-Qa'idah in general and defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are inherent problems with this strategy. There are almost no al-Qa'idah fighters left in Afghanistan - in fact, there have not been any significant numbers of al-Qa'idah in the country since their flight from Tora Bora in December 2001.

There has been a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, thanks to the neglect of the Bush Administration. The new administration has committed to the defeat of the Taliban - I am not sure why. The Taliban pose no threat to the United States, however, they do pose a real threat to the fledgling Afghan government.

The real enemy is al-Qa'idah, not the Taliban. Where is al-Qa'idah? They have moved. Initially they resettled in the lawless tribal region in Pakistan along the Afghan border. After the Pakistan branch of the Taliban became a credible threat to the government in Islamabad, the Pakistani military moved into the area and has contained - but not defeated - them. Al-Qa'idah moved much of its membership to Saudi Arabia. After some attacks against the government there, Saudi security forces decimated the organization - the remnants have now moved to Yemen and Somalia.

Al-Qa'idah is not in Afghanistan. We are, however - a military force with possibly the wrong enemy. So what we have now is a commitment of the new president to intervene in an Afghan civil war. Accusations by President Obama and his supporters that the previous administration took their "eyes off the ball" no longer hold water.

That is exactly what has happened here. To his credit, Obama has recently warned of "mission drift." Perhaps that is what the President means when he says he needs a strategy review. Unfortunately, he has already augmented the force level to almost 70,000 troops. In effect, he "owns" the war.

Now that the President has given the mission to his commanders, he smartly asked them what they need to do the job. The answer is simple - more troops. Read General McChrystal's assessment.

I do not know General McChrystal personally, but I know people who have served with him. No doubt he has provided an accurate assessment of what military force will be required to accomplish the mission - to defeat the Taliban. Whether or not that is the right mission is another question. The general believes he needs 240,000 troops (total, not just American) to accomplish the task.

The President is caught in his own trap. Does he now change the mission because it is politically difficult to send more troops to Afghanistan? The political difficulty is obvious - Defense Secretary Gates has told McChrystal not to ask for more troops until the end of the year. What he actually said was that the Pentagon was working out how the general would ask for more troops. What a joke - ever hear of a phone call or message? It happens thousands of times every day.

Crunch time is here, Mr. President. You have to decide if you have defined the right mission, then decide if you are going to support the troops you have tasked to accomplish it.

The coming showdown with Iran

2009-09-21T12:35:00.000-07:00

The tap dancing - by all players - of the last few years over Iran's nuclear program is about to come to a head. There is a convergence of events coming regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations that goes far beyond the Persian Gulf. The players in this drama are not just Iran and Israel, not just the regional powers Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, but encompassing Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia, as well as the United States.

For several years now, the West has attempted to convince Iran to clarify its intentions about it nuclear programs. While Iran is completely within its rights to conduct nuclear research, even to the point of the development of a nuclear power generation capability, the scope of the multiple Iranian uranium enrichment programs appears to far exceed that required for energy.

For example, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that the goal of the nuclear program is solely to develop electrical power plants. Actually, Iran burns more energy as waste natural gas from its oil wells than it could ever produce even if all its nuclear facilities were used to produce electricity.

The program is obviously too large, too dispersed, too hardened and too well defended to be merely for nuclear power generation. A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (authored primarily by two State Department intelligence analysts with an obvious agenda) in late 2007 assessed that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program a few years earlier. Neither the administration at the time nor the two major candidates for President - Senators Obama and McCain - bought it.

Now President Obama unequivocally states that Iran is conducting a nuclear weapons research and development program. The United Nations' normally ineffective nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency agrees, releasing an assessment that Iran already has the capability to produce a nuclear device, though not yet in a missile warhead. The President also stated that it is "unacceptable" that Iran develop and possess such weapons, and that he will use all elements of American power to prevent that from happening.

There has been speculation that a series of meetings and events are aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring these weapons. If true, good for Mr. Obama - if not, it just highlights the administration's previous naivete - it has been consistently outfoxed by the regime in Tehran since taking office earlier this year.

First, we have the aborted delivery of S-300 (SA-10, SA-12 or SA-23, depending on version) air defense missile systems to Iran on the allegedly hijacked merchant ship Arctic Sea, despite Russian official claims to the contrary. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, have made several trips to Moscow before and after the "recovery" of the vessel. Then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issues a statement that he has been assured by Netanyahu that Israel is not planning a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. This, of course, has been denied by the Israelis, who maintain that a military strike is still an option.

There's more. Last week, Obama and his secretary of defense announced that they were cancelling the installation of a ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe based on a new National Intelligence Estimate that Iranian missiles now pose less of a threat than previously believed. This is from the same group that last year assessed there was no active Iranian nuclear weapons program. Why do we assume they have it right now? Is is reliable enough to literally let down our defenses?

Now the Obama Administration is going to participate in talks with the Iranians, albeit in partnership with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany (P5+1). This represents a major change in the American position that Iran must first halt its uranium enrichment activities before any talks with the United States. Again, outfoxed by Tehran?

I hope that in return for reversing plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia has agreed to exert its influence over Iran to enter into serious dialogue with the P5+1. Up until now, Iran's strategy has been to delay by talking about dialogue while still enriching uranium.

The upcoming talks with Iran may be the last chance for a peaceful resolution to the crisis - and it is a crisis. If Iran does no agree to halt its uranium enrichment and the group does not impose tough sanctions that force a change in Ian's behavior, the Israelis will likely turn to the military option. Maybe just coincidence, but several U.S. Navy ships with the latest American anti-ballistic missile systems are en route Israel.

There will have to be a resolution to this soon. The events of the next few weeks will be interesting.

Talks with Iran - let's not get too excited

2009-09-15T11:19:00.000-07:00

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The foreign policy chief of the European Union and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator have agreed to an initial meeting between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany.

If you read the Obama Administration's version of events, the talks will deal with Iran's nuclear program, specifically to convince Iran to halt its enrichment of uranium at least until international concerns about the full extent of the program are addressed. Few analysts accept the Iranian regime's explanation that the nuclear program is for electrical power generation - most believe it is an attempt to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

President Obama is under a lot of pressure to show at least some results after eight months of an "engagement" policy with the Islamic Republic that has repeatedly fallen on deaf ears. We have failed to change Iran's behavior at all in that period.

According to an administration spokesmen, the American representative at the meeting will "confront" Iran and accuse it of conducting "an illicit nuclear weapons program." Tough talk, but not exactly the reality of what is happening.

The Iranians and the EU have agreed only to have a meeting. There is no agenda or ground rules. The Iranians have won the first round already, though, by providing a five-page package of proposals that in effect sets the agenda. The package is Tehran's response to the July meeting of the G-8 in Italy which established a deadline for the beginning of negotiations over the nuclear issue.

The document is laughable. It is titled "Cooperation for Peace, Justice and Progress: Package of proposals by the Islamic Republic of Iran for Comprehensive and Constructive Negotiations." I would say read it for its entertainment value if it was not so serious a subject.

The document, in excellent English, begins with an assessment that praises the end of "ungodly ways of thinking" in the past, obliquely criticizes the West and the United States, and proposes changes in the international structure, including the United Nations. It also seeks cooperation in combating global terrorism - this from the world's major state sponsor of terrorism.

Not surprisingly, there is no mention of the nuclear program - the U.S. Administration's stated reason for the meeting. Both Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have declared the nuclear enrichment program - described as a "sovereign right" - is not up for discussion.

So why have a meeting? This is merely a continuation of what has been a major foreign policy success for Iran and Ahmadinejad. See my earlier article, Iran's Foreign Policy Success.

The Iranians sense that there is increased concern and are reacting as they always do - let's have a meeting, but not about the issue at hand. The West always views this as an opening - and it always results in failure. All the while the Iranians are talking about talking, and talking about having meetings, and defining the topics of those meetings, the centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear facility continue to enrich uranium.

The Iranians have not stopped processing uranium since their program began - despite years of threats from Washington and European capitals. Every time there has been a chance for effective sanctions, Iran either successfully appealed to their protectors on the Security Council - China and Russia - or agreed to some form of talks that never amounted to anything.

I doubt this round will be any different. Iran will continue to enrich uranium, and the West will continue its feckless rhetoric.

Iraqi shoe thower - symptomatic of ingrates

2009-09-14T13:07:00.000-07:00

The Iraqi coward who threw his shoes at President Bush in 2008 is due to be released from a Baghdad prison tomorrow. While the sentence was arguably somewhat severe, it is his near canonization and the fanfare surrounding his release that is troubling.

Muntazar al-Zaydi, an unknown television reporter before the incident, is being hailed a hero among Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims for his insult to the president and commander in chief of the country that freed his country from decades of dictatorship under Saddam Husayn. Al-Zaydi screeched at Bush (in Arabic), "This is your farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." At the same time, he threw both of his shoes at President Bush who was standing beside Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

In the Arab countries, calling someone a dog is a gross insult. Shoes are also regarded as an instrument of insult. Merely showing the soles to another is regarded as rude. I have heard Arabs shout at each other, "You are shoes...you are shoes." (It loses something in translation.) The juvenile act of throwing the shoes at an American president is an extension of that sentiment.

Yet, Iraqis are embracing this coward as a folk hero. At the family home in Baghdad, there were celebrations in progress. There are posters that read, "Release the one who regained Iraqis' dignity." Iraqi dignity? They should be ashamed and embarrassed by al-Zaydi's actions.

Let's put this into some perspective. What do you think would have happened if al-Zaydi had thrown his shoes at Saddam Husayn. Or more to the point, would this "hero" have even dared to raise his voice to Saddam? I sincerely doubt it. When I lived in Baghdad in the late 1980's, it was impossible to find any Iraqi that did not profess adulation for Saddam - reports of criticism were dealt with swiftly and severely.

When al-Zaydi's release was delayed for a day, his family threatened to stage a sit-in and stop traffic outside the military installation where al-Zaydi is being held. How would that have been treated during Saddam's reign?

So, Muntazar, you criticize, insult and assault the man who engineered your right to do just that. You remind me of another ingrate standing on a corner in post-invasion Baghdad with a sign that read, "Where is my freedom?"

As I explained then, the mere fact that an Iraqi could hold up that sign is the answer. Hopefully, most Iraqis realize that without George Bush, they would still be living with the regime of Saddam Husayn. The Kurds in northern Iraq certainly do - perhaps the Arabs will at some point.

Celebrating this coward's actions are in insult to the memories of the over 4,200 American troops who gave their lives so that he could insult those troops' commander in chief.

Israeli settlements expansion and prospects for peace

2009-09-08T16:49:00.000-07:00

The Israeli government under Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has approved the construction of 400 new housing units in Jewish settlements on the West Bank, a move sure to inflame both Palestinian residents and Western critics of the Israeli policy. This decision may set the tone for Arab-Israeli relations for the near future.

Israeli settlement on West Bank - surrounded by anti-terrorism barrier

The Israeli decision to continue the expansion of settlements comes after numerous attempts by the Obama Administration to curb such activity in the hopes of re-starting the stalled Middle East peace process. Despite these requests, Netanyahu is more concerned with garnering support of the more conservative elements of his governing coalition than appeasing an American administration that many Israelis perceive as pro-Arab at best and anti-Israeli at worst.

There is some justification for that perception on the part of the Israelis. Israeli media constantly report on President Obama's overtures to Iran and Syria, regarded by Israeli officials as their two major threats, some even calling Iranian aspirations to acquire a nuclear weapon an "existential" threat to the state of Israel. While American envoys are in Syria trying to improve relations with Bashar al-Asad, Israelis believe their interests are being sacrificed. Syria, even after Obama's overtures, remains firmly in the Iranian camp.

Israeli settlement separated from Arab village by anti-terrorism barrier

As might be expected, Israeli settlements on the West Bank are a major issue with the Palestinians who live there, as well as other Arabs who are using the Israeli policy as a reason to not enter into any discussions with the Israelis on a variety of topics. It would seem that halting the expansion of settlements would be an easy way to improve relations with the Palestinians and the Arab countries.

Given the Israeli assessment that the current American administration's stance toward Israel is neutral at best and hostile at worst, it makes sense (to them) that Israel would attempt to expand its presence on the West Bank before it is either reined in by a change in American foreign policy or international pressure too great to resist. Once Israel legally expands its settlements, they become de facto Israeli territory, a part of Israel. In the future, these settlements will be assimilated and defended as part of the Jewish state.

Why do the Israelis - or perhaps more accurately, the government of Binyamin Netanyahu - feel a need to expand their presence on the West Bank? A look at the history of Israeli withdrawal from areas it has taken by force of arms might provide an answer.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Soon afterwards, Hizballah fortified the area and began launching attacks into northern Israel. A border incident in 2006 led to a month-long Hizballah-Israel conflict. That conflict resulted in Israel's decimation of Hizballah, but popular opinion in both Lebanon and Israel gave the edge to Hizballah for standing up to the Israelis. By 2009, despite United Nations resolutions to the contrary, Hizballah had been fully re-armed by Syria and Iran.

Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Hamas and Islamic Jihad immediately began launching homemade and imported rockets into Israel - and still does. Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006 - in 2007 they expelled any remaining Fatah members from the Strip in a bloody conflict. By the end of 2008, Hamas had acquired longer range rockets, now reaching as far as Ashdod, halfway to Tel Aviv. This set up the confrontation that resulted in the Israeli invasion of Gaza in late 2008 and 2009. That conflict has yet to be resolved.

Given these experiences, Israel is wary of a withdrawal from the Golan Heights, a plateau overlooking northern Israel, realizing that such a commitment is a requirement for peace with Syria. It was from positions on the heights that Syrian artillery batteries shelled cities in the Hula Valley, including Qiryat Shimona, Tiberias and Metulla.

Israel has occupied the area since seizing them during the 1967 Six Day War. Although military technology has largely negated the geography of the Golan - Syria has missiles that can reach almost any part of Israel from launch positions well north of Damascus - Israelis still are uncomfortable with the thought of Syrians again on the bluffs overlooking their cities. Possibly more importantly, Israel is reluctant to turn over to Syria control of the headwaters of the Jordan River - one of its primary water sources, a key factor in its economy and survival - to the Syrians.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with the author

From my own interactions with the Israelis (certainly not a scientific poll), it appears they are almost evenly split on returning occupied lands in return for peace. I have sensed a slight decrease, however, in the number of Israelis willing to give up occupied territory since the conflict with Hizballah in 2006 and the operation in Gaza earlier this year.

Netanyahu has said that he will not support of return of the Golan Heights to Syria. That has effectively halted the Syrian track of the Middle East peace process. Expanding settlements in the West Bank has effectively halted talks with the Palestinian Authority about any "two-state" solution.

West Bank anti-terrorism barrier separating Arabs and Israelis

What's the answer then? Netanyahu once told me about the "no-solution" solution - he is willing to live with the situation as it is. Israel maintains administrative control of the occupied Golan Heights, protecting the headwaters of the Jordan and the cities of northern Israel, and continues to farm the fertile plateau. It also continues to develop its existing settlements on the West Bank inside the anti-terrorism barrier. As long as the two are kept apart, there is greatly decreased violence.

For now, that's solution enough for many Israelis.

Presentation in Sequim, Washington

2009-09-07T06:59:00.000-07:00

Ex-intelligence officer talks of water wars and terror

Article published Sep 5, 2009

By Diane Urbani de la Paz
Peninsula Daily News

SEQUIM -- Rick Francona took Rotarians on a head-spinning tour of his own "axis of evil" and touched down on a problem people in Sequim -- and elsewhere on the North Olympic Peninsula -- can relate to.

Israel occupies the Golan Heights -- a spine of border land along part of Syria -- because they provide access to the Jordan River, which Israeli farmers can't do without.

"Water is their lifeline," just like "oil is ours," said Francona, who should know.

A retired U.S. Air Force intelligence officer, he served in just about every nation in the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia to Syria to Iraq.

In his 90-minute speech to the Rotary Club of Sequim on Thursday, Francona offered his opinions on U.S. involvement in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

And unlike former President George W. Bush, who labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea the axis of evil, Francona considers Iran, North Korea and Syria more dangerous to global security.

"Iran is the largest supporter of terrorism in the world, bar none," he said.

And "Iran is intent on building a nuclear weapon," despite Iranian assertions to the contrary.

"Syria is the ally of Iran," he added, so if one is attacked, the other will join the ensuing conflict.

Intermingled

Across the Middle East, "everything is intermingled," with Syria and Israel locked in a stalemate over the Golan Heights, among other things.

And while the international media do sweeping coverage of nuclear arms development, petroleum prices and terrorism -- again Francona should know since he was an NBC news analyst from 2003 to 2008 -- he seeks to boil things down to a human scale.

The Golan Heights is a strategic position not just in terms of military buildup, Francona said, but also because if Israel gave them back to Syria, Syria could choke off Israeli access to the Jordan River.

"They won't tell you that," said Francona. But "Israel has turned the area into a bread basket," an agricultural Eden with vineyards providing grapes for Israeli wine, among other products.

To gain a sense of what life is like on both sides of the heights, Francona recommended the movie, "The Syrian Bride," about a woman who crosses over.

Mona, the bride, lives in a Golan village and is engaged to marry Tallel, a television comedian who works in Damascus, Syria. Once they marry, Mona will become Syrian and never see her family again.

Francona spoke next of what he calls the "Islam bomb." It's not a nuclear weapon, he said; it's the birth rate among Muslims.

Birth rates

"Jewish families average two or three children," he said. "Arabs average seven or eight kids per family . . . by 2050 or 2060, Israel is going to be an Arab country because of the birth rate."

After discussing Israeli-Palestinian strife, Francona worked his way over to Afghanistan.

"[President Barack Obama] did the right thing by sending in 28,000 more troops," he began. "We're seeing more casualties because we're being more aggressive . . . and I'm not an Obama fan, but he's done the right thing here, by killing the bad guys," and disrupting the al-Qaida structure in the region.

"We still need to hunt them down," Francona added, now that al-Qaida operatives are on the move.

Finally, he returned to Iran, which lies at the center of the region the United States still depends on to provide the oil that can stabilize prices on the world market.

"We are fast losing leverage in that part of the world" because of our dependence on foreign oil, he said.

Francona reminded the Rotarians of 1973, when they probably waited in lines at gas stations amid that era's energy crisis.

Now as then, Francona said, what this country must do is come up with a coherent national energy policy.

That, he believes, is the primary task before President Obama -- along with defusing nuclear-weapons development in Iran, disabling al-Qaida and dealing with the rest of the tangled Mideast web.
________

Sequim-Dungeness Valley reporter Diane Urbani de la Paz can be reached at 360-681-2391 or at diane.urbani@peninsuladailynews.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All materials Copyright © 2008 Horvitz Newspapers.

Iraq after the death of 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Hakim

2009-08-26T15:22:00.000-07:00

'Abd al-'Aziz al-Hakim - healthy, and later with lung cancer

The death of 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Hakim has created a power vacuum among the Shi'a of Iraq. Since his return in 2003 from exile in Iran, al-Hakim had emerged as the political leader of the nation's Shi'a, the majority group in the country. Although Grand Ayatollah 'Ali al-Saystani (Sistani) remains the most influential Shi'a religious figure in Iraq, al-Hakim had eclipsed him in the last few years in the political sphere.

Al-Hakim was the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) - known in the Saddam Husayn years as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The name was changed in 2007 to remove the word "revolution" after the fall of the Ba'th Party. SCIRI was started by al-Hakim's older brother Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim. The younger al-Hakim was placed in charge of the SCIRI militia, the Iranian-trained and equipped Badr Brigade. The older al-Hakim was assassinated in Najaf, Iraq in 2003 - many (including me) believe that it was the work of radical Shi'a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his jaysh al-mahdi (Army of the Mahdi) militia.

In addition to his leadership of ISCI, he headed the National Iraqi Alliance (NIA), a coalition of Shi'a Islamist parties that are hoping to dominate the January 2010 parliamentary elections. Thus far, Iraqi Prime Minister (and Islamic Dawa' Party leader) Nuri al-Maliki has not joined the coalition - he wants assurances that if the coalition wins that he will continue as prime minister. He has tried to assemble a group of non-sectarian parties to challenge the NIA, but al-Hakim had garnered the support of the Kurds and was generally favored by the Americans.

It appeared to me that unless there was a drastic change in the situation, the NIA (under al-Hakim) would emerge as the clear winners in the election. The Shi'a are easily the majority, although some are still backing the incumbent al-Maliki. If you add the Kurds in with the NIA, the numbers are clearly on the side of the NIA.

The recent increase in violence might have been one of those changes that might have changed the political landscape. Al-Maliki stood to gain from the violence if he handled it correctly. Insisting that American troops remain outside the cities (as called for in the Status of Forces Agreement) instead of asking for their assistance is not the way to do that. He was forced to re-install the blast walls around key government buildings after several truck bomb attacks, a clear demonstration that his forces are incapable of rooting out the remnants of the Ba'th Party and al-Qa'idah in Iraq. People were looking to the NIA, to 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Hakim, as a viable alternative.

With the departure of al-Hakim, the ability of the NIA to challenge al-Maliki in January is in doubt. Al-Maliki was successful in making political gains in the recent municipal elections. He hopes to translate that victory into maintaining his prime minister-ship come January, but municipal elections are not as contested as the parliamentary elections.

Al-Hakim, despite his closeness with Iran - al-Maliki is as well - was probably the best choice to be Iraq's new prime minister. He was popular among the Shi'a, supported by the Kurds and liked by the Americans for his moderate ideas. He did worry the Sunnis, from which the remnants of al-Qa'idah in Iraq and the Ba'th Party come.

Given the passing of 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Hakim, we should prepare for having to put up with Nuri al-Maliki for another term.

Hizballah fully rearmed - is anyone surprised?

2009-08-25T09:11:00.000-07:00

Hizballah rocket launcher

The 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah ended with the adoption by Lebanon and Israel of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. According to the agreement, Israeli forces would withdraw from southern Lebanon and cease offensive operations. In return, Hizballah agreed to disarm its militia members south of the Litani River - the members themselves could remain in the area since many of them are residents there.

Additionally, the Lebanese Army was to deploy into the border area with Israel, supported by an augmented United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). French and Italian military forces were deployed to augment the "interim" force - it has been "interim" for over 30 years, having been created in 1978.

The Lebanese Army and UNIFIL were to ensure Hizballah's disarmament. However, that has not happened. Early on, UNIFIL stated that its role was not to disarm Hizballah, but to assist the Lebanese Army in that mission. The Lebanese Army refused to disarm fellow Lebanese. Thus, Hizballah was never disarmed.

Not only did Hizballah not disarm, almost immediately after the cease-fire took effect in August 2006, weapons began to flow again through the existing pipeline that starts in Iran and Syria, crosses the Syria-Lebanon frontier on the Beirut-Damascus highway and ends in the Biqa' Valley where the weapons are turned over to Hizballah for futher deployment. This has been going on since Hizballah's creation by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in 1982.

Iranian Air Force 747 delivers Hizballah arms in the 1990s

There seems to be no disagreement about the current status in Lebanon. Israeli military intelligence officers, United Nations officials and Hizballah leaders all claim that Hizballah is better armed that it was prior to the hostilities. That armament is not only greater in quantity, but in quality as well. Hizballah claims - and Israeli officials believe - that Hizballah has acquired rockets that can reach Tel Aviv.

There have also been reports that Syria has trained Hizballah fighters how to operate the SA-8 mobile surface-to-air missile system. This system poses a moderate threat to Israeli aircraft operating over Lebanon. Thus far, the SA-8 has not been introduced into Lebanon. If it is, the Israelis will attack them - they did the same thing to the Syrians in 1982 when they introduced the SA-6 mobile system.

Everyone agrees that Hizballah has rearmed. Everyone knows that Syrian and Iran - in violation of UNSCR 1701 - is responsible. This happened under the noses - or with the complicity - of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL with its Italian and French augmentees.

Neither the UN nor the Lebanese military has been effective. Yet, the United Nations keeps asking for funding to continue to pay for the "interim" force. Why bother?