Arab News Blog

President Obama urges Mid-East leaders not to let the chance of a peace deal slip away, ahead of a new round of talks.
Go to Source

The Cable | FOREIGN POLICY

“…The settlements issue is the most pressing item on the agenda, because the current moratorium is set to expire by the end of September. Without some new agreement on even a limited settlement freeze, analysts fear, the new talks could break down only weeks after they begin — dealing a perhaps mortal blow to President Obama’s Middle East ambitions.
Peled indicated that there was a deal to be worked out, and we’ve heard that a compromise is in the works that would expand exemptions for building in areas that are expected to fall on the Israeli side of the line after final borders are established.
But for now, the Israeli government is making clear that the settlement freeze in place, which the Palestinians have argued is not being strictly enforced, is not guaranteed to continue. Netanyahu is under pressure from members of his coalition to let the freeze expire.
“The latest moratorium that this government took about 10 months ago was a one-time gesture with the aim of jumpstarting the process,” Peled said….”

Go to Source

Reuters – Israel and the Palestinians have virtually no chance of reaching a peace deal within the one-year target set by the United States, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Wednesday.

Go to Source

“The Puntland delegation went ahead anyways, returned to Dubai and signed an agreement on August 30th, 2005 at the Hilton Dubai with Consort Private forexclusive rights to explore and drill for oil in the Nogal and Dharoor blocks. Two days prior to this, the Somali Prime Minister sent a warning to non-Somali companies that any oil deals would have to go through the federal government, not any state government (this despite the fact that Puntland was and is independent of the federal government in all but name).^[2]  While the details of the deal are known only to the four men who signed it, what is known is that following the deal, a number of Puntland ministers were added to the board of directors, and the government of Puntland by extension must have a sizeable (perhaps even controlling) share in Consort Private.   Not to be put off so easily, Somali TFG President Abdullahi Yusuf, in an interview with the BBC on September 9, 2005, says that legally “natural resources belonging to the nation is the responsibility of the federal government”. A few weeks later on September 29, 2005 a delegation from Puntland composed of ministers and businessmen travelled to the TFG’s interim capital at Jowhar to led by finance minister Mohamed Yusuf “Gaagaab” to unsuccessfully negotiate again for Yusuf’s signature on the deal.” (thanks Abdirahman)

Go to Source

Reuters – Israel and the Palestinians accepted on Friday an invitation by the United States and other powers to restart direct talks on September 2 in a modest step toward forging a deal within 12 months to create a Palestinian state and peacefully end one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.

Go to Source

‘Inept’ but oh, so suave: Catherine Deneuve, Louis Vuitton’s guy & Saad …

Slightly old piece in FP, flagged by our friends at SyriaComment. Here

“… This is not only a settlement the U.S. can live with but one it should support, even if tacitly. It advances broader U.S. objectives in Lebanon, in part simply by avoiding renewed sectarian conflict and preserving a government led, however ineptly, by the residue of the March 14 movement. More significantly, and despite Nasrallah’s attempts to delegitimize the Special Tribunal, the indictments will bend Lebanon’s tenuous balance of power in directions favorable to U.S. interests, placing Hezbollah on the defensive and diminishing Iranian influence in favor of a Syrian-Saudi co-dominion over critical Lebanese security issues. It is not too late, however, for the U.S. to undermine these modest gains….. let events unfold, and be prepared to take advantage of incremental but positive shifts on the ground.

The key brokers of a settlement are Saudi Arabia and Syria. The Saudis see their role as defending the interests of Lebanon’s Sunni community, sometimes against the narrower interests of Saad Hariri and his supporters, and balancing the influence of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran in Lebanon’s domestic affairs. The Syrians see their role as Lebanon’s principal power broker in all matters domestic, and have used this and previous crises to restore the influence Syria lost following Hariri’s assassination in February, 2005…. From a U.S. perspective, a Saudi-Syrian deal that avoids a deadly crisis and keeps Saad Hariri in power is not a bad thing…”

Go to Source

AFP – Israel and the Palestinians will resume direct peace talks here in early September with the aim of a deal within a year to create an independent Palestinian state, US officials announced on Friday.

Go to Source

NYTimes/ here

Go to Source

Robin Wright in the Atlantic: (whatever happens in the Atlantic, stays in the Atlantic)

“…We’re nowhere near the point of no return. Far from it…….., Iranians are masters at brinksmanship. ….
Iran has called for talks with its Western interlocutors after Ramadan, the holy month of fasting that ends in mid-September. (Last week, The New Yorker published an interview with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivering that message yet again.) The Obama administration is currently preparing for those talks — and taking them seriously. The main focus would be an interim deal, which would in turn open the way for comprehensive talks on Iran’s nuclear program. If Iran is also serious, this two-phase diplomatic process could go into late 2011 or longer.
Second, the Islamic Republic is also adept at not saying no. If diplomacy ultimately breaks down, Tehran has a long history of making it appear (sometimes accurately) that the impatient West walked away first — and should be blamed for failure. The perception about who is to blame is critical to the next step — returning to the United Nations for another resolution imposing more stringent sanctions or endorsing other punitive action. For the United States and its European allies to win backing for meaningful measures — and not face a Russian or Chinese veto — Iran must be seen as the guilty party. The shrewd Iranians know that….
Third, among the many things being debated in many capitals is just what the threshold for military action should be. Should it be Iran building a bomb, like Pakistan? Or having a quick turn-around capability, like Japan? Or achieving a certain number of centrifuges? Or gaining some murkier level of knowledge? Capitals currently disagree……
Sure there’s a clock. In fact, there are lots of clocks, all ticking at different speeds. Israel’s is just the fastest. Its alarm has been close to ringing for at least a decade. And Iran’s clock is the slowest…..
But for the tough decisions that lie ahead, it would have been useful to do the same extensive reporting in Beijing, Moscow, Ankara, and Riyadh, as well. Unlike the previous administration’s decision on Iraq, the Obama administration appears intent on developing international consensus on Iran. Each of the four will have an important say in finding common ground. They also reflect how the world has changed since Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirek reactor and why attacking Iran will be far different than Israel’s 2007 bombing of Syria’s secret reactor.
China is now one of Iran’s most important trading partners (as well as one of the largest holders of U.S. debt). Its companies could help Iran circumvent sanctions. Beijing also views Iran as an issue it can leverage to enhance its position. Russia built Iran’s light water reactor that is about to open at Bushehr. It views Iran as a growing market for conventional arms. And the Islamic Republic has become one of its few Middle East allies in the post-Cold War world — and one it does not want to lose. Turkey borders Iran and recently brokered a deal with Tehran that was rejected by Washington. It, too, views Iran as an issue to prove the importance of rising middle powers. All three countries firmly oppose the military option. All three are also on the U.N. Security Council, two with veto power.
Saudi Arabia certainly doesn’t want Iran to get the bomb. But the kingdom is just as traumatized over prospects of yet another conflict in the world’s most volatile region that pits the West against a Muslim land — and potentially unleashes nightmarish political, economic, and security consequences.
Last but not least, Iran itself needs to be factored into the equation. “The Point of No Return” assumes that the Iranians have no real interest in negotiations — and are only willing to engage to buy more time to develop a bomb. Maybe. It’s easy to draw that conclusion from their exasperating failure to cooperate with the international community over the past seven years and their often childish negotiating tactics. But maybe not. Tehran understands the consequences of being caught red-handed with the bomb. For the right price, the theocrats may still be willing to do a deal. Iranians love to barter, but any transaction has to be seen to profit both sides. The more basic problem may be simply knowing how to read each other — a problem that has characterized most dealings between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 revolution……
I would now like to make that same bet with Goldberg. By July next year, I’ll wager that neither Israel nor the United States will have bombed Iran.”

Go to Source

“…Israel is not expected to oppose the deal, for a variety of reasons. The F-15s being sold to the Saudis will not be equipped with standoff systems – long-range missiles to be used against land and sea targets. Also, the US and Israel may clinch a deal for the sale of about 20 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, which would help us maintain an uncontested military edge. In addition, US lawmakers can always hold up parts of the deal or seek assurances that Israel’s core military interests will be protected when all the details of the sale are presented to Congress next month. And if the US does not sell to the Gulf states, EU countries or even Russia, which are much less receptive to Israeli interests, might fill the vacuum.

……. today, the US, Israel and the Saudis are on the same page as far as Iran is concerned….

Nonetheless, while the mooted arms deal might reflect geopolitical changes in the area, it is no substitute for the determined action necessary to thwart an intransigent, saber-rattling Iran.

The question remains whether, if the current sanctions effort does not quickly bear fruit, America will take more concrete moves to stop Iran or ultimately remain passive. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a challenge to this region – as the US evidently recognizes, and the latest arms packages underline – and to the free world. It should not have to fall to Israel to act alone on behalf of Saudi-US-Israeli interests.”

Go to Source