Arab News Blog

In the HINDU/ here

Russia has upped the United States in a diplomatic tug-of-war over Iran’s nuclear programme. While Washington was busy getting Moscow and Beijing on board for tougher sanctions against Teheran, the Kremlin quietly orchestrated a deal between Iran, Turkey and Brazil for swapping Iranian low-enriched uranium for fuel rods for use in a medical reactor. The deal has taken the wind out of the U.S. sails.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had set up the deal in the course of his recent interactions with the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. In April Mr. Medvedev discussed the proposal with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on the sidelines of a BRIC summit in Brazil. Shortly afterwards the Russian leader pursued the initiative in Ankara, where he travelled last week from Damascus, which is closely allied to Teheran. A day after Mr. Medvedev returned from Turkey he played host to Mr. da Silva who stopped over in Moscow on his way to Teheran to put final touches to the proposed fuel swap arrangement.

Speaking after his talks with the Brazilian President, Mr. Medvedev pointedly urged Iran to respond to the Brazilian-Turkish initiative, describing it as “the last chance before the U.N. Security Council takes its decision”. Predictably, the U.S. was quick to dismiss the Teheran swap deal as Iran’s delaying tactics that would not derail “strong” sanctions Washington claimed to have agreed upon both with Moscow and Beijing.

However, Moscow has declared that the fuel swap agreement does make a difference. Mr. Medvedev welcomed the Teheran accord as a step towards finding “a politico-diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran’s nuclear programme”.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday that while Moscow was still committed to “the understanding in principle” on the draft Security Council resolution on new sanctions, the swap agreement dictated the need to take a fresh look at the Iran problem. “It is necessary now to analyse in the most detailed way the situation that has shaped up in the wake of the Teheran declaration, above all, from the point of view of urgent action Iran must take to implement it, first of all, by making an official application to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency],” Mr. Lavrov said.

Moscow has therefore told Washington that getting Teheran to honour the swap deal had a higher priority than adopting new sanctions and if the U.S. did not support the deal it could be held responsible for its possible failure. “An agreement on acceptable ways of implementing the initiative of Brazil and Turkey would help create a favourable atmosphere for resuming political-diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem in its totality,” Mr. Lavrov told Ms Clinton.

Mr. Lavrov also made it clear that U.S. plans to take unilateral sanctions against Iran could be an obstacle to the passing of the U.S.-pushed Security Council resolution. He voiced Moscow’s “concern” over U.S. planned sanctions describing them as “going against the principle of the supremacy of international law as laid down in the U.N. Charter.” In its push for more talks with Teheran, Russia has received support from China, which said on Wednesday that the efforts by Brazil and Turkey will “aid the process of peacefully resolving the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations”. Washington will also have to factor in strong opposition to new sanctions from Brazil and Turkey, both non-permanent Security Council members.

Go to Source

MEPGS: Excerpts:

As US officials appear to be backing away from a confrontation with Israel in the wake of Vice President Biden's controversial visit, there are more than a few bruised feelings on both sides. More important, it seems likely that the Israeli- US relationship is in for even tougher times in the weeks and months ahead.  To begin with, it is clear that orders came from the top, no less than President Obama, that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was to be confronted over the embarrassing decision......... The scolding delivered Secretary of State Clinton, over the phone to the Israeli Prime Minister and in person to Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the US, was exceptional both in its tone and the scope of its demands.      According to published reports, Clinton not only insisted that the Israelis find a way to insure that such an embarrassment never be allowed to take place again but added three new demands.  First, the US wants assurances, the now delayed "proximity talks" transition to direct talks on all topics [Previously this was an Administration assumption].  Second, they said they wanted Israel to make a gesture to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who was already ambivalent about the value of these talks.  Finally, and most controversial, Israel was to find a way to halt construction of the new housing units.        According to informed sources, a short deadline was set for Israel to respond -- a deadline that has not been met.  Moreover, the tone employed by Clinton outraged Israeli officials.  Said one well-placed source, "They don't talk to [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez that way."  As this drama was unfolding, a number of senior level Administration officials, including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel were trying to calm the waters.  Others, like CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, were, in effect, adding fuel to the fire, when in Congressional testimony, he alluded to the lack of progress on Arab-Israeli talks causing additional problems for US military planners , already engaged in combat in the muslim world.  Moreover, according to well-placed sources, withholding US military and intelligence cooperation is "one of the sticks" the Administration wielded in its conversations with Netanyahu and Oren.

      Even if, as many observers believe, this imbroglio in contained, a number of key officials say it is only a matter of time before Israel and the US are once again at loggerheads, if not over the peace process then over a strategy for dealing with Iran.  Part of the reason for Biden's visit to Israel and that of a number of other top civilian and military leaders there in recent weeks, is to make certain, in the words of one top US official "...that Israel is `on board'" with the American approach to handling Iran's headlong rush towards nuclear development.      US officials candidly share political strategy with the Israelis regarding their approach to implementing new sanctions against Teheran at the UN and elsewhere [US officials have even gone so far as to try to enlist Israeli cooperation in fending off Congressional attempts to pass legislation penalizing foreign companies doing business with Iran.  As one top US official puts it, "We know the Hill's intentions are good.  Just the way they are going about it will upset our plans to work with other countries who will see their efforts as an attempt to impose `extraterritoriality' on them"].      The first goal is to get a new resolution from the Security Council.  At latest count, eleven of the fifteen members have informally signed on.  Brazil and Turkey continue to be a problem.  Lebanon, with its dominant Iranian-backed militia, Hezbollah, is considered a lost cause.  But the big prize remains China and its veto.  So, far US officials have not given up hope on gaining China's acquiescence to a mild resolution but may well have to settle for an abstention.  The importance of the UN vote lies in its acting as a catalyst for other nations, notably the European Union [EU] to impose a series of much stronger, if not exactly "crippling" sanctions on Iran.  And the target will be the Revolutionary Guards, which according to some top US officials, now control more than one-third of the Iranian economy [The prospect of imposing sanctions on oil imports, upon which Iran, ironically is dependent because of its limited refining capacity, has been pretty much taken off of the table -- partly, say top US officials because of the difficulty of enforcing such a regime and according to others, because in could impose "undue" hardship on the average Iranian].      ........But with thousands of American troops destined to remain in next door Iraq

for the foreseeable future and thousands more going into battle

daily in Afghanistan, another Iranian neighbor, the last thing the US military, including Defense Secretary Gates, wants is a military confrontation with Iran.      But if, as some experts argue, sanctions are doomed to failure, what are the other options?  One US expert, close to Gates as well and National Security Advisor Jones, argues that it is time to jettison this "sanctions fantasy" and prepare to deal with a nuclear armed Iran.  According to well-placed officials, this would mean a continued tightening of sanctions and eventual isolation of Iran from most of the world's commerce.  However, opponents of this approach argue that should Israel get wind of "post nuclear planning" for Iran, Jerusalem would be sure to act unilaterally..      Already frustrated by a timetable that has slipped from last December to April for UN sanctions action [considered a good time with Japan as Security Council Chair for the month and preceding Lebanon's assumption of the role], it is clear that the Israelis are running out of patience.  Moreover, intelligence sources believe that while the Israeli security establishment still is unsure of its ability to mount a highly effective attack on Iran proper, it has become increasingly confident of its ability to withstand and defeat any Iranian retaliation, notably a missile attack launched by Hezbollah on Israel's north.

    


A number of well-placed sources say that for Israel, 2010 is the year of decision.  If by the end of the year, Iran has not started to retreat in the face of international pressure, then Israel will begin to seriously prepare for military action.  As one top US official puts it, "Israel hasn't made the decision to act.  But it has crossed the psychological barrier to act." If true, then today's tensions with Washington will seem quite modest. "

Go to Source

     While US policy is aimed at what one official calls "Giving Iran bad news every week," the regime in Teheran appears less on the defensive than ever.  One major contributing factor to its increased sense of power was the failure of the opposition "Green" movement to mobilize earlier this month on the anniversary of the 1979 revolution.  Some of those analysts who have argued that the continuing public and private opposition to last year's rigged Presidential election marked a turning point in the fortunes of Iran, are now reassessing their views.  As one veteran analyst put it this week, "There are cracks in the regime but it won't be toppled anytime soon."      Moreover, key US officials, since the disputed election, have scoffed at the notion that the opposition could moderate Iran's headlong rush toward acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.  As one such official said this week, "These arguments on based on the false assumption that the Greens and the US have a lot in common."  And this official points out that the putative leader of the Greens, Mir Hossein Moussavi and his sometime ally Akhbar  Hashemi Rafsanjani, both supported the development of Iran's nuclear program when they were in power.  And even those analysts, who argue that the leadership's preoccupation with political infighting could delay Teheran's nuclear program, admit that, in the words of one veteran analyst, "Under almost any conceivable scenario the political clock [for regime change] is moving a lot slower than the nuclear clock."

      Further complicating attempts to rein in Iran is what one State Department official calls the schizophrenia of Arab friends and allies, especially the Gulf States.  To begin with, the Gulf states are far from united in their view of Iran.  Says one veteran US analyst, "Oman has ties to Iran that go back generations.  Qatar is always marching to a different drum.  The Saudis would like the US to take care of the Iranian threat but are fearful we will make a mess of it like we have done in Iraq.  And even the most outspoken advocates of a hardline, the UAE and Bahrain, doubt that economic sanctions will be sufficient to change Iran's course."  This official points out that given this skepticism, it will be hard to gain the unequivocal support of the Gulf states to assist in implementing sanctions.  [This is especially important in the case of the UAE, one of whose Emirates, Dubai, has long been an important conduit of legal and illegal trade with Iran].  "The bottom line," says another State Department official, "is that these countries don't want to antagonize Iran only to be caught flatfooted in the event of what might be charitably called a US `policy shift.'"      Skepticism about the efficacy of sanctions is not limited to erstwhile Arab allies.  Some veteran US officials flatly predict that "crippling sanctions" just aren't going to be adopted, either by the United Nations or what are called "like-minded" countries.  The Israelis point out that the Obama Administration had promised to reach a decision by the end of 2009.  In December that date was allowed to slip a month.  Then it was thought best to have the UN Security Council take up the issue in February, while France, a strong supporter of sanctions, held the Council Presidency.  But, say well-informed sources, the month has passed with France, and fellow permanent Council member Britain unable to agree with the US (and Germany, which also helps to coordinate a common European position) on a proposal to present to the Council.  Now, say US officials, the goal is to have the Council act by the end of March.

     In the wings is Israel, alternately threatening and quiescent.  It is clear that Jerusalem does not want to act unilaterally.  For one thing, while in conversations with US officials, Israelis argue that the Administration tends to overestimate the negative impact on the region of military action against Iran, privately its own Defense Establishment is anything but sanguine about taking on Iran.  In fact, some key Israeli officials fear that Iran may be able to press its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, into provoking a clash with Israel just to divert current international pressure. (NOT happening!)      Meanwhile, US officials continue to stream to Israel in an effort to reassure the government of American sensitivity to their security concerns.  The latest and highest ranking visitor is Vice President Biden.  The idea to send Biden to Israel originated, ironically, among veteran Middle East officials at the Near East Affairs Bureau,  They have argued for some time now that the Israelis need to be reassured.  Their argument is based on the realization that President Obama continues to be regarded as less than supportive of the Jewish state.  During the 2008 campaign, Israelis were the only American allies who, in polling, favored John McCain over Obama.  The President's outreach to the Arab and Moslem world, especially in last year's Cairo speech did little to alter Israelis' nervousness about him.  His manner with foreign leaders, which even his admirers at the State Department describe as "less than warm and fuzzy," also contributed to the decision to send Biden, perceived to be a long time supporter, to help repair the US-Israel relationship.       Tending to Israeli sensibilities will be useful if the Administration is able to get the Palestinians to reengage in talks with the Netanyahu government.  The immediate goal is to arrange what are called "proximity talks", an effort to circumvent Palestinian insistence on a complete settlement freeze before engaging directly with Israel.  Moreover, well-placed US officials say they have promised Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that they will offer "bridging proposals" should the talks bog down.  However, they sometimes despair of Abbas' willingness to take any kind of chance.  They say he is "gun shy" after being severely criticized for siding with the US on a call for delay in the issuance of the so-called "Goldstone" report, which was highly critical of Israeli military action in Gaza last January.  "It wasn't just Palestinians who attacked him but Arab states as well," noted one US official.  "You can imagine what he thinks will happen if he makes real concessions to Israel." US officials are worried that an Arab League summit, set for next month could further discourage the already risk averse Abbas.  They place little faith in Arab support particularly in light of Special Envoy George Mitchell's failure to enlist Arab and especially Saudi cooperation in his peacemaking efforts over the past year.      Next month will also see crucial elections in Iraq and what US officials believe will be the beginning of a long process of forming a new coalition government in Baghdad.  Neither heightened violence nor the political machinations of pro-Iranian figures like the former US favorite, Ahmed Chalabi, have prevented the Sunnis from participating in an election that is certain to result in a government led by a Shia politician.  Whether that politician is current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is uncertain.  However, to get to agreement is going to take time and the fear among US officials is that in the interim, the caretaker government will have to deal with an increasing level of violence.  Still, there is very little appetite in the Administration to delay the draw down of US combat forces slated to begin this summer. 

Go to Source

HRC talks to Der Spiegel, here

Go to Source

MEPGS: Excerpts:

Go to Source

”  … At this annual gathering of financial backers of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), …. the crowd heard experts suggesting the military option is a very realistic one; and a retired U.S. Air Force general said Israel might open fire first – and that the United States would find it wise to join in. 

Gen. Charles Wald, former head of strategic planning and policy for the Air Force who also had been deputy commander at U.S. European Command, said a bombing campaign – while “unpalatable” – could set back Iran’s nuclear work for many years. 

“I don’t think Israel can do it alone,” Wald added. “They have a fantastic military, but not big enough for weeks or months of attacks – hundreds of sorties per day.” 

Wald said the U.S. would not exactly be dragged into air strikes on Iran, but if “our great ally Israel” decided that it “can’t take it anymore” then “pressure will mount for us to stand by Israel.” …..

Sitting near Wald, a former head of Israel’s military intelligence, retired General Aharon Farkash, agreed that the U.S. Air Force could be far more effective than Israel in crippling Iran’s nuclear program. “The U.S. can destroy the nuclear capacity, and the war would not be long,” Farkash said, though he cautioned that Western intelligence still might not know about all of Iran’s nuclear sites….

“The Teheran regime doesn’t seek suicide,” said the Israeli, who heads a new high-tech security company. “When they realize we mean business this time, they won’t want to lose their regime.” 

David Makovsky, a senior analyst at the Washington Institute and co-author (with Obama administration official Dennis Ross) of a book on Middle East policy, commented that the generals gave the impression of two different attack philosophies: “The U.S. believes do it huge, and make it overwhelming, while Israel would do what it can because not acting is so much worse.” 

Makovsky asked General Wald to comment on the suggestion by Jimmy Carter’s former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski – in a Daily Beast interview last month – that the U.S. shoot down Israeli warplanes if they try to fly over Iraq to attack Iran. 

“The chance of that,” Wald replied, “is zero – no, less than zero.” 

Earlier Saturday, the same audience heard a former vice president of the Islamic Republic of Iran argue that if his country is attacked, the pro-democracy “Green Movement” would be extinguished. Ata’ollah Mohajerani, who resides in London but is considered close to opposition candidate Mehdi Karoubi, said he strongly supports the reform movement, and considers Ahmadinejad’s reelection illegitimate. But he said a military strike or severe sanctions would serve to strengthen the regime. 

The Iranian politician’s unexpectedly long speech included references to books by Dostoevsky, Kafka, Walt Whitman, Elie Wiesel, and even Britain’s chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Mohajerani claimed that any good Muslim would not want nuclear weapons, but he made a point of saying that most of the nations putting pressure on Iran now have their own nuclear arsenals, alleging also that the United States and Israel wanted Iran to have atomic bombs when the late Shah was in power. 

Responding to questions from supporters of Israel at the conference, Mohajerani refused to condemn Iranian-supported terrorism and declined to say if he thought Israel has a right to exist. Many in the crowd, believing that Mohajerani’s goal in this rare appearance near Washington was to raise money and support for the Green Movement, said they were bitterly turned off. It looked to them like a Green-led Iran would not necessarily be much different from Ahmadinejad’s regime.”

Go to Source

WorldTribune, here

“… Officials said the intelligence community has assessed that Riyad was financing the current Al Qaida offensive in Iraq, particularly in the provinces of Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala and Nineveh. They said Saudi Arabia has recruited other Gulf Cooperation Council states to pour money to Sunni tribes to resist the Shi’ite-dominated Al Maliki government…..

Despite U.S. appeals, Saudi Arabia has refused to return its ambassador to Iraq. Officials said Riyad has instead chosen to embroil Iran in an insurgency war similar to that waged by Taliban against Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s. “The Saudis are ready to pay anybody willing to stop Al Maliki, whom they believe is a tool of Teheran,” an official said…”

Go to Source

Via the Pulse:

Etgar Lefkovits in the Jerusalem Post reports:

“In the struggle between darkness and terror, advancement and prosperity, the vast majority of Muslim societies would pick advancement and prosperity,” Netanyahu said, in an address to the graduating class of the National Security College at a ceremony at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

“Prosperity and peace will win in the struggle and, in the end, Islamic radicalism will be defeated,” he [Netanyahu] said, adding that the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program was an essential condition for a victory of moderates in the region.

While Netanyahu does not believe that the Gazans currently have the power to overthrow the Islamic radicals of Hamas, he believes that in the future they will. To substantiate this belief, Netanyahu cited the recent events in the West Bank saying, “We have seen this in Teheran and in the West Bank and tomorrow we will see it in Gaza.” (he did not say, however, whether Gaza will be free of his savagery first …or not!)

On the current economic status of the West Bank, Lefkovits reports:

Netanyahu noted that the question for the Palestinian Authority running the West Bank, where he is seeking to promote the Palestinian economy as a cornerstone of a future peace deal, is “do they progress economically like Dubai , or do they go backwards like Gaza?” (borrowed from Walid Jumblat’s “Hong Kong or Saigon” example)

Ariel Kahane in Makor Rishon-Hatzfone reports:

The prime minister said he believed that radical Islam was on the decline (apart from bombing Arab cities, ‘Yahu has not walked Arab streets much!)and that Hamas was likely to lose its control over Gaza-provided Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons. “Ultimately, radical Islam will be defeated by the information revolution throughout the world, by the freedom of ideas and by means of technology. That isn’t going to happen immediately, but it is going to happen. The only thing that might delay and disrupt the pace of extremist Islam’s decline is the possibility that it will arm itself with nuclear weapons.”

Go to Source