Iraq Is Calmer. But For How Long?
There's less violence. U.S. troops are finally getting help from locals in rooting out troublemakers. But things may well turn sour again next year.

By Andrew C. Schneider, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

December 3, 2007

Iraq's security situation is greatly improved -- really. Sunni tribesmen and erstwhile insurgents have aligned themselves with U.S. forces in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, providing roughly 70,000 fighters -- likely rising to as many as 100,000 by spring -- and a flood of intelligence on cell leaders and weapons caches. The result: a dramatic decrease in violence in Baghdad and in the Sunni-majority regions of central Iraq and Anbar province.

Increasing cooperation between Sunnis and Shiites at the local level has been a critical factor. One of the greatest success stories took place in Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad. Back in 2005, al Qaeda in Iraq exploited the tensions between the town's Shiite civil leaders and rural Sunni sheikhs, allowing al Qaeda to move in and take over. After U.S. and Iraqi Army forces cleared out the intruders, the Shiite mayor sought U.S. assistance in hammering out an accord with the tribal sheikhs to get Mahmudiyah back on its feet -- the sheikhs having earlier fled to Oman in the face of al Qaeda death threats. The talks led to a three-year work plan that encompassed everything from economic reconstruction to the rule of law.

"We set up the process, but the Iraqis did it for themselves," says Paul Hughes, a retired U.S. Army colonel, now with the U.S. Institute of Peace, who helped facilitate the negotiations. U.S. and Iraqi deaths in the area have since plummeted. And when a Shiite mosque in the town burned down recently, Mahmudiyah's Sunnis donated supplies to rebuild it.

In addition, the flow of arms from Iran to Iraq's Shiite militias is way down, reducing the fuel for sectarian attacks. Credit goes to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for his efforts to reach out to Tehran and convincing Iranian leaders to tone down their cross-border meddling.

But the calm is most likely temporary, largely because the local political gains aren't being mirrored at the national level. Maliki opposes any truce with Sunni ex-insurgents and resents U.S. cooperation with such forces. The prime minister argues that, instead of helping to secure the country, such actions amount to sanctioning the creation of illegal Sunni militias. For their part, the armed Sunnis tend to view Maliki's government as doing Tehran's bidding at best, and at worst, as an active supporter of sectarian cleansing performed by Shiite militias.

The lack of progress on the political and economic concerns of Iraq's broader Sunni community isn't helping matters. There has been no movement on amending the country's de-Baathification laws, which bar hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs from government employment. An oil revenue sharing agreement, without which oil-poor Sunni regions would remain impoverished and resentful, is still out of reach. And the Kurdistan Regional Government's determination to assert control over Kirkuk and other areas where Sunni Arabs have a strong presence intensifies tensions further in the north of the country.

We see the violence escalating again next year as the U.S. draws down its forces from the surge. The largely Shiite and Kurdish forces of the Iraqi Army and the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Police will greatly outnumber the Sunni Arabs that oppose them. But what they lack in numbers, the Sunnis more than make up for in discipline and skill. Many of the Sunni forces previously served in the Special Republican Guard and elite commando brigades of Saddam Hussein's army. Pro-U.S. Sunni forces already clash with Iraqi Army and Police units whenever U.S. troops aren't present to come between them.

Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Mideast intelligence unit, estimates that the U.S. and Baghdad have until midsummer to match the security gains with political ones. Failing that, civil war is likely to return, deadlier than ever. "And we created the monster," White says, referring to the support the U.S. has provided the Sunni forces.

Time for a new foreign policy
Instead of projecting our might around the world, maybe it's the moment for strategic military nonengagement
ALAN BOCK

Sr. editorial writer
The Orange County Register
abock@ocregister.com

We've seen a reduction in violence in Iraq in the past couple of months, which is probably at least in part due to the 30,000-person "surge" in U.S. troops. This is being hailed as a triumph of U.S. military prowess, and is certainly welcome. But compared with the expansive goals expressed earlier – after the weapons of mass destruction, the initial justification for the invasion, inconveniently failed to show up – establishing a model democracy that would inspire a surge of freedom, democracy and civility in the Middle East and neutralize terrorist ambitions, this is pretty thin gruel.

The latest prognosis, based on an agreement between the largely fictional Iraqi government and the U.S. government, is that about 50,000 U.S. troops will be required for a long-term commitment – read that as indefinite. The Pottery Barn rule – you break it, you own it – has created a situation in which it has become almost impossible to leave gracefully, given the latent hostilities stirred up, so U.S. troops could be in Iraq as long as they have been in Korea and Germany.

While those troops may eventually be quartered on large-scale bases away from heavily populated areas and only brought out to deal with purported emergencies, they will serve under much greater stress than troops in Korea and Germany. The upshot of our invasion of Iraq, rather than bringing democracy and stability, has been to exacerbate Shia-Sunni tensions within Iraq and to strengthen Iran (which now borders on a country where Shia rather than Sunni are in nominal control) as a regional power and to deepen its nuclear ambitions. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are notably more nervous.

The U.S. occupation of two Muslim countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been a boon to extremist jihadist terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, enhancing their recruitment by making credible dire warnings about the U.S. ambition to engage in a crusade against Islam and providing handy targets on which those recruits can gain real-life experience in guerrilla warfare. We'll be dealing with those experienced "holy warriors" for years or decades to come.

One brutal dictator has been eliminated from the Earth, to be sure, but more Iraqis have died violent deaths in the past few years than did so under Saddam's last five years in power. More than a million Iraqis have been forced from their homes, and hundreds of thousands have fled to other countries. Even if the central government were to reach agreement tomorrow on sharing oil revenue, constitutional revision, power-sharing, respect for minority rights and new provincial elections, it will be years before a semblance of normality is possible in Iraq.

During those years the people will be subject to the threat of roadside bombs and suicide bombings, and the oil fields – which especially in today's market have some potential to ease the path toward stability with plentiful money – will be subject to sabotage. As long as U.S. troops remain it will be easy to recruit disaffected people for such bloody tasks. To be sure, leaving could unleash even greater violence for a while, but staying will also be a source of instability, even in the best of circumstances.

Abandon Pottery Barn policies

Have we had enough of Pottery Barn international relations, blundering around the world, breaking things? Is there a way to avoid such unfortunate commitments in the future?

A number of analysts warned against the Iraq war – a war of choice rather than necessity, as even proponents acknowledged at the time – before the invasion. With a different administration in power their warnings might have been heeded.

But I submit that unless we drastically rethink the fundamental underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy – our grand strategy, in the parlance of national security Big Thinkers – we are likely to blunder into other conflicts and commitments without considering the full consequences of our involvement. Not all of them will cost as many U.S. lives or stir up as much anti-American hatred around the globe as the Iraq adventure. But all will cost the taxpayers money and lead to incursions on traditional American civil, economic and personal liberties. Such is the price of empire.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, beginning with the brutal squashing of democratic aspirations in the Philippines and then the decision to enter a typical European power struggle in which neither side had much to recommend it (World War I), the United States has assumed the position of a typical world power. Our definition of our interests has expanded exponentially, and our determination to intervene in conflicts, power struggles and disagreements has increased to the point that there is hardly a civil war, ethnic struggle or border dispute in the world that can't stir up an interest group to demand U.S. intervention.

One could argue that there was little choice but to be involved when Hitler threatened to dominate Europe or when the Soviet empire was in expansion mode and stirring up revolutionary violence wherever local discontents offered an opening. But Hitler is gone, and so is the Soviet empire. It's time to reconsider our true interests in the world at large.

Strategic non-engagement

I would argue for a policy of strategic nonengagement with the rest of the world. We would define our military-security interests narrowly, as defense of North America against any threat of invasion or domination, warning the world at large that any such threat would be met forcefully and overwhelmingly. As a nation of continental scope on an island-continent, the U.S. is favorably positioned, more so than some other countries, to adopt such a strategic posture with a fair amount of confidence that it would be successful.

Missiles and long-distance bombers have changed the security environment somewhat since the 19th century, but not enough to obviate the fact that a United States that defines its defense perimeter thus narrowly would be remarkably secure. Invading and subduing the United States would be a formidable task, well beyond the capacity of any current world power or one likely to emerge in the near future, As we have discovered to our sorrow, acts of subversion and terrorism are possible within the United States, but the likelihood of their overthrowing the existing order and replacing it with foreign domination are slight.

A strategically nonengaged United States would be open to all kinds of economic and cultural interchange with the rest of the world. I would advocate unilateral dismantling of all of our tariff and other trade barriers as the best path to leading the rest of the world toward freer trade by example, perhaps combined with occasional negotiations in strategically chosen situations where the prospects of persuading others to reduce their trade barriers seem especially fruitful. But a strategically nonengaged U.S. would eschew embargoes, retaliatory tariffs, quotas and other punitive actions. Free trade is its own reward, and the best way to promote it is by example.

One of the first implications of such a policy would be bringing home U.S. troops now stationed in far-flung corners of the world, beginning with Germany and Korea and eventually including places like Kazakhstan and Iraq. As we brought them home and advertised our renewed commitment to a live-and-let-live world, other countries might well be suspicious for a while. But eventually, insofar as we lived by our newfound – or rediscovered – principles of political and military nonintervention, they would adjust. The end result would be more friends overseas than potential enemies.

Role of military

Would a threat of terrorism from fanatics and jihadists still exist? Probably so. But prior to 9/11 a Pentagon study noted that there were more terrorist actions against U.S. installations in areas of the world where the U.S. was involved in active interventions in the affairs of other countries than in places where we were less active. Fanatics might hate us for our wealth and "decadence" – which would almost certainly increase in a strategically non-engaged America – but they would have a harder time recruiting motivated foot soldiers to carry out terrorism if we were not meddling in "their" countries.

But isn't it necessary to have a military presence in, for example, the Persian Gulf, to ensure our access to oil and other natural resources we find essential to maintaining a modern, diversified economy? David Henderson, who teaches economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, has thoroughly demolished that myth. The short version is that most oil-producing countries need to export oil at least as much as we need to import it; most would have little or no economy if they didn't sell us oil. There might be temporary shortages or interruptions in resource supplies in the event of conflicts or power shifts, but they could be handled and wouldn't last long.

A policy of strategic nonengagement would allow us to cut our bloated defense budget in half, for starters, freeing up that money for private investment and economic activity. There would be transition problems as thousands of military people moved into civilian life, but the economy would grow to accommodate them.

A strategically nonengaged United States would be more likely to restore the proper constitutional balance among legislative, executive and judicial powers, as there would be no need for an "imperial" presidency with "plenary" powers. Respect for civil liberties and tolerance of differences among us would increase. Smaller government might actually become a live possibility.

There is a "realist" school of internationalism whose adherents would abjure Wilsonian moral and political crusades and wouldn't have started the Iraq war. Other thinkers advocate "offshore balancing" – maintaining enough sea, air and military power that we could intervene in other countries on the rare occasions when truly dangerous chaos threatens to break out, but whose existence would serve as a deterrent against such occurrences and wouldn't have to be used often. Or we could follow presidential candidate George W. Bush's advice in 2000 and adopt a "humbler" attitude without changing our basic strategic posture much.

All of these policies would be an improvement on our apparent present policy of active crusading and intervening wherever we see problems in the rest of the world. But the least-risky policy – the policy likely to promote genuine U.S. security – would be strategic nonengagement.

December 4, 2007 The Anti-Iran Annapolis Conference
Philip Giraldi At the Annapolis Middle Eastern peace conference much more went on behind the scenes than took place before the cameras. The prearranged commitment of the Palestinians and Israelis to talk again was little enough gain from the one-day meeting, particularly as the agreement did not explicitly address any of the substantive issues that continue to divide the two sides. One Palestinian described the concluding remarks as "more of the same," with the United States essentially adhering to a status quo defined by Israel.

As there is little chance of a breakthrough for peace, there has been much speculation over why the conference took place at all. The U.S. media, always seeking a simple explanation, is suggesting that President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice see Middle East peace as a legacy issue that could result in a positive historical assessment of the Bush foreign policy after the disastrous mishandling of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the fight against terrorism. But that explanation assumes that Bush, Rice, and their Israeli counterparts believe a peace agreement to be possible within the next year. Almost no one involved in the process would agree that such an outcome is likely barring major bilateral concessions, which are difficult to envision given the political weakness of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, coupled with the unwillingness of the White House to pressure the Israelis.

The conference is only comprehensible in terms of the other agendas that drove it. Behind the scenes, the United States and Israel were less interested in making peace with the Palestinians than they were in building up a de facto coalition of Arab states against Iran, which is why there was intense diplomatic pressure to obtain the participation of every Arab country. Many foreign ministries only reluctantly sent-low ranking officials, knowing in advance that the views of anyone but Israel and the United States were irrelevant. The decision on whom not to invite was also significant. The refusal to include Tehran and Hamas was irrational if there was any serious intention to address the core issues that might lead to peace in the Middle East, but it was perfectly rational if one assumes that one aim of the conference was to marginalize the two and confirm their pariah status.

The Iranians are undoubtedly aware of what the conference was all about. They are maneuvering to counter any Arab front being stitched together by Washington and Tel Aviv to challenge their regional ambitions, while the Arab states for their part have been quick to assure Tehran that they pose no threat as a result of their attendance in Annapolis. Tehran knows that its influence in the region means it has the ability to derail any substantive agreements that might be reached as a result of the conference, but it also knows that its relationship with its neighbors depends on leverage over key surrogates Syria and Hezbollah. As a Shi'ite, Persian state surrounded by largely Sunni and mostly Arab countries, its regional power needs to be exercised indirectly.

It is that exercise of power through surrogates that Israel and the United States are seeking to take away. In the discussions that preceded the actual meeting in Annapolis, many key Arab states balked at committing themselves to any explicit anti-Iran alignment, but the U.S. and Israel were able to focus on Syria, which they see as the weak link in Iran's strategic arrangements. The Syrians attended the conference because the issue of the Golan Heights was placed on the agenda. Israel and Syria were able to restate their adversarial positions, but the United States was also able to arrange a series of secret meetings between senior U.S. diplomats and Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad, followed by additional meetings with senior Syrian representatives in Washington on the two days after the conference closed. Syria is seen as vulnerable both to economic and political pressure, and it has long been believed that President Bashar Assad is eager for a deal that will establish peaceful coexistence with Israel and end U.S. attempts to destabilize the country and bring about regime change.

The discussions centered on the subject of Damascus' ties to Iran and to Hezbollah. The U.S., coordinating closely with Israel, sought to determine what would be necessary to detach Syria from its support of Hezbollah and its strategic relationship with Iran. The Syrian representatives conveyed Syrian President Bashar Assad's position that Syria has at least two demands that must be met before it will consider changing its foreign policy alignment. The first requirement is an agreement on the return of the Golan Heights to complete Syrian control, and the second is a guarantee that the UN Special Court that is investigating the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri will neither implicate nor indict Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The U.S. State Department was not surprised by either demand, as they have been raised before, but several senior analysts also noted that the Syrian statement is the first solid indication that Damascus is willing to break with Iran if it can obtain a substantial political payoff in return. Washington was also aware that nothing is necessarily as it seems. Damascus carefully hedged its bets before the Annapolis conference began by sending a high-level emissary to Tehran to assure the Iranians that their interests would not be affected by the Syrian participation.

But there are also signs that Israel might be more willing to cut a deal. The Syrians, through their own bilateral contacts with the Israelis, believe that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is anxious for some kind of agreement with Damascus, because military action by Israel and the U.S. against Iran would be easier without the danger that Syrian territory might be used to launch Iranian missiles. The Israelis know that it is hard to detect and intercept such short-range missiles before they actually strike their targets.

In the Washington follow-up meetings both Israel and the Syrians were informed that the U.S. has no objection to discussions on the status of the Golan Heights at the next peace talks, tentatively scheduled to be held in Moscow later this year, although the State Department is not optimistic that it will lead anywhere because Olmert is in no position to make the major concessions required. Last year the Bush administration adhered to a policy shaped by Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Council Deputy Elliott Abrams that actively discouraged Olmert from pursuing talks with Damascus, but the Bush administration is now less ideologically driven on the subject. A number of leading neocons have left the government, and the president is reportedly heeding the advice of the "realists" in his cabinet, particularly Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

A Miracle: Honest Intel
on Iran Nukes
by Ray McGovern For those who have doubts about miracles, a double one occurred today. An honest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program has been issued, and its "Key Judgments" were made public.

With redraft after redraft, it was what the Germans call eine schwere Geburt – a difficult birth, 10 months in gestation.

I do not know how often Vice President Dick Cheney visited CIA headquarters during the gestation period, but I am told he voiced his displeasure as soon as he saw the first sonogram/draft very early this year and is so displeased with what issued that he has refused to be the godfather.

This time Cheney and his neocon colleagues were unable to abort the process. And after delivery to the press, this child is going to be very hard to explain – the more so since it is legitimate.

The main points of the NIE:

"We judge that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program…

"We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.

"We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely…

"We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.

"We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015."

Having reached these conclusions, it is not surprising that the NIE's authors make a point of saying up front (in bold type), "This NIE does not [italics in original] assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons."

This, of course, pulls out the rug from under Cheney's claim of a "fairly robust new nuclear program" in Iran and President Bush's inaccurate assertion that Iranian leaders have even admitted they are developing nuclear weapons.

Apparently, intelligence community analysts are no longer required to produce the faith-based intelligence that brought us the Oct. 1, 2002, NIE "Iraq's Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction" – the worst in the history of U.S. intelligence.

Truth be told, one of the Iran NIE's findings was written into its first draft, from which Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell drew in telling the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 27 that Iran could possibly develop a nuclear weapon by early-to-mid-next decade.

McConnell said not a word, though, about Iran's having halted its nuclear weapons program in fall 2003. And in February, he was still adhering to the faith-based approach, saying, "We assess that Iran seeks to develop a nuclear weapon."

At which point Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) tried to sum up the proceedings with the disingenuous comment "We all agree, then, that the Iranians are trying to get nuclear weapons."

Curiously, McConnell indicated recently that the key findings of NIEs would no longer be made public.

My guess is that the Pentagon, and especially Adm. William Fallon, commander of our forces in the Middle East, succeeded in persuading McConnell to go public. Several months ago, Fallon was reliably reported to have said, "We are not going to do Iran on my watch."

And it is an open secret that he and other senior military officers, except those of the Air Force, are strongly opposed to getting into a war with Iran for which the U.S. is so ill prepared.

Will President George W. Bush and our domesticated media succeed in dismissing this latest NIE as "guesswork," as he has in the past? It is going to be highly interesting to see how the White House will try to spin this one.

Iraq: A Failed Congress – National Review editorial
Battle of the Surge - The Nation editorial
Sustaining the Surge - Martin Gross, Washington Times
Iraq Winter Offensive – Alexander Benard, National Review
Iraq: Now and Forever - Bob Herbert, New York Times
Nuclear Testing Realities - Robert Monroe, Washington Times
A Sudden Switch on Iran's Nuclear Threat - USA Today editorial
Iranian 'Terror' Groups - Dick Armey, Washington Times
Bin Laden's True Priorities - Thomas Hegghammer, Guardian
Shariah's Trojan Horse - Frank Gaffney Jr., Washington Times
A Muslim-Christian Handshake - Christian Science Monitor editorial
Sudan's Grotesque Stunt - London Daily Telegraph editorial
The Brittle Culture of Islam – Robert Spencer, Human Events
Sudan: Not Child’s Play – National Review Symposium
Barbarian Obscenities Dishonour Islam – Rober Coombs, Sydney Daily Telegraph
Teddy Bear Tyranny - Anne Applebaum, Washington Post
Annapolis: 1 Cheer, 1 Yawn, 1 Cynical Shrug – Barry Rubin, Jerusalem Post
Policy Surge Key to Mideast Peace - H.D.S. Greenway, Boston Globe
Reviving the Cold War in the Middle East? – Robert Freedman, Daily Star
Our Friends the Syrians – Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Revolution in Africa, Deaf Ears in Iowa - Heather Wilhelm, Real Clear Politics
Two Votes in Venezuela - Washington Post editorial
Viva, Venezuela – London Times editorial
Venezuelans Rain on Hugo - Wall Street Journal editorial
Democracy Stirs in Venezuela - Boston Globe editorial
Chavez Isn't Finished - Los Angeles Times editorial
Voters Correct Course in Venezuela - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
Venezuela: Letting People Say 'No' - London Daily Telegraph editorial
A Loss for El Loco - New York Post editorial
Cheers to Venezuelans - Washington Times editorial
Venezuela: Good Day for Democracy - Conor Foley, Guardian
Down But Not Out in Caracas - Seumas Milne, Guardian
The Allure of Tyranny - Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
A Tale of Two Strongmen - New York Times editorial
Democracy Pains - Ralph Peters, New York Post
Backward March in Russia - Washington Post editorial
Putin’s Farcical Vote – The Australian editorial
Deals Can be Made with Putin – Bronwen Maddox, London Times
A Putin Village - Reuben Johnson, Weekly Standard
Russia: Membership Carries Responsibilities – Jerusalem Post editorial
No Wonder They Like Putin – Norman Stone, London Times
Sarkozy Beat the Mob – Keith Spicer, Ottawa Citizen
Debating Turkey and the EU - Tulin Daloglu, Washington Times
Gitmo: Six Years, No Charges - USA Today editorial
FISA Reform Debacle in the Making? – Andrew McCarthy, Human Events
War's Unfortunate Bond - James Zumwalt, Washington Times
Don't Need 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' - Nathaniel Frank, Los Angeles Times
TNR's Iraq And A Hard Place - Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters

A sudden switch on Iran's nuclear threat When the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies produce what are known as NIEs (National Intelligence Estimates) — essentially their best judgment of where things stand in various hotspots — official Washington and much of the rest of the world take notice. How much notice? In 2002, an NIE concluding — inaccurately — that Saddam Hussein was making weapons of mass destruction helped persuade a majority in Congress to authorize war.

A new NIE on Iran produced a very different kind of bombshell Monday. Seemingly at odds with recent bellicose statements from President Bush and Vice President Cheney, it concluded that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, appears "less determined" to develop nukes than previously thought and probably couldn't get one before 2010 to 2015. The reason: "international pressure," in the form of economic sanctions, United Nations inspections and a range of diplomatic overtures from the Europeans, Russia and China.

The report nevertheless cautions that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium, which can be used for nuclear power, and could re-start its weapons program at any time.

There are three reasons to cheer.

The first is that the bombers that might be used to strike Iran can be left in the hangar for now. The threat is not imminent.

The second is the apparent return of intelligence developed without political meddling. The pre-Iraq war NIE became notorious because of White House political interference and the lack of rigor in sourcing and reporting. Its assertions were almost all disproved, and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction proved to be a mirage. The latest NIE may or may not turn out to be right, but it at least appears to be untainted.

Third, the NIE lays a foundation for the more sophisticated statecraft that the Bush administration now seems more open to. The administration should continue to press sanctions. They've helped. But it can also open lines of communication with Iran — avoiding the unacceptable extremes of either bombing and risking wider regional war, or appeasing Iran at equal peril. It's worth remembering that the United States negotiated constantly with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.

Despite obvious hostility, the United States and Iran have common interests. Part of the lowered violence in Iraq, for instance, is because Iran-backed militias have stood down.

Sensibly, the NIE acknowledges Iran will not easily repudiate nuclear weapons, which it sees as central to achieving "security, prestige and goals for regional influence." But there seems no doubt that the best way to alter that thinking is international pressure combined with negotiation.

US on Pakistan's campaign trail
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - United States ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson made a direct appearance on Pakistan's political stage on Monday with a strong call for all political parties to participate in the national elections scheduled for January 8.

She personally met with several politicians, including Nawaz Sharif, and insisted that he take part in the polls. Former premier Sharif, recently returned from years in exile, has said that he, along with some other parties, might boycott the vote.

This open intervention by a senior US diplomat follows prolonged backroom efforts by the George W Bush administration to dictate Pakistan's strategic and domestic political issues, as well as matters related to foreign policy, such as Kashmir, to bring Islamabad in line with the US-led "war on terror" and its regional policy on Iran and Afghanistan for the remaining year or so of Bush's term.

The US envoy's direct role comes as civil society is demanding the reinstatement and release of about 60 judges sacked and detained by President General Pervez Musharraf on November 3 on the eve of a decision by the Supreme Court on the validity of Musharraf's victory in presidential elections. Replacement judges picked by Musharraf upheld the poll results and last week he was sworn in as a civilian president.

There are strong concerns that without an independent judiciary, free and fair elections cannot be held next month. Indeed, all opposition parties suspect that the elections will be "engineered" and former premier Benazir Bhutto even predicted that 25,000 polling stations would return the former ruling Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-i-Azam.

And in a setback for Sharif, the election authorities have barred him from contesting, citing his criminal record dating from a verdict in 2000 when Sharif was sentenced to life imprisonment on the charge of ordering the hijacking of a plane a year earlier. This related to orders from Sharif, who was then premier, to delay the landing of a plane carrying Musharraf, then army chief, so that a new military head could be appointed. But the military staged a coup, enabling Musharraf to land and take charge of the country.

Leaders of Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz said he will not contest the decision because of lack of faith in the top judges.
There is not much Washington can do about these political games, other than to stress the need for the parties to contest the polls because that would be a major milestone for Washington in having a popular party at the helm of the country with the political will to carry out certain actions, including stirring an insurgency against the Iranian government and supporting counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan.

After serving a year in jail in 2000, Saudi Arabia brokered a deal for Sharif to go into exile in that country, just as it arranged for his recent return as the Saudis' "card" in Pakistani politics.

Yet, Sharif appreciates that unless he complements Washington's designs in the region, he will remain an underdog in the political process. And although all polls place him as the country's most popular politician, he will remain behind Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party and Musharraf's allied Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-i-Azam.

Despite Sharif's statements aiming at showing his support for Washington's aims, such as cracking down on militants, he is still considered to be conservative and under the influence of religious political parties like the Jamaat-i-Islami, and therefore Washington is reluctant to back him as a decision-maker.

Khalid Khawaja, a retired Inter-Services Intelligence official and once a close aide of Osama bin Laden, told Asia Times Online, "Sharif is a better person compared to others, but ironically he also turned his back on his mentors, like Osama bin Laden and retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul in the past."

Bhutto and others have pointed to Sharif's alleged links to bin Laden, with Bhutto claiming that the al-Qaeda chief financed Sharif in the late 1980s to topple her government.

Independent analysts might dismiss such matters as being a case of Sharif simply furthering his domestic political ambitions, and nothing else. But for Washington, it sheds light on his linkages with Islamic forces, which could be activated in any form at any time.

And Sharif might be isolating himself over his call for a boycott of January's polls. He stands alone with the Jamaat-i-Islami on this issue and is even facing pressure from within his own party to reverse his stand and may face defections.

The year 2008 is crucial for Washington's regional plans, for which a politically stable Pakistan is required - preferably in the form of a unity government of parties with various backgrounds.

Already, an insurgency has been ignited against Iran from Pakistani soil. A training camp belonging to the banned militant organization Lashkar-i-Toiba has been established in Mund, Balochistan province, to train Iranian Baloch tribes to ferment sectarian insurgency against the Iranian government. Iran's response is to support the Baloch Liberation Army, which has offices in Turbat in Balochistan.

The Pakistani army has for now won the battle of the Swat Valley in Northwest Frontier Province against militants, and recaptured all districts that had fallen to militants loyal to Mullah Fazlullah. The militants are seemingly on the run. Pakistan Taliban leader Moulvi Faqir Mohammed has been quoted as saying that the militants have just retreated from their positions to give the new army chief (General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani) a chance for a truce, but if the army continues its operations, the militants will start a guerrilla war in the valley.

Nevertheless, Washington and Islamabad will build on this development to continue their initiative for ceasefire talks with the Taliban. This will be done through small jirgas (councils) .

The alliance of the neo-Taliban and al-Qaeda, though, will always be waiting to thwart the US's best-laid plans.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

SUN WUKONG
'Secrets' may push
press to come of age
Several maverick Chinese newspapers have recently snapped a long-standing taboo against independently reporting information about the political careers of Communist Party and state leaders, much to the approval of readers. Now, as the party slowly concedes obvious details behind such issues as compulsory retirement, it's hoped the hush-hush careers of state leaders will become more public. (Dec 4, '07)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL05Df03.html

India flies the red flag
For the first time, the Indian Air Force will take part in the prestigious "Red Flag" training exercises in the United States. Delhi is already taking steps to enhance its air strike capabilities, and has the money to spend to do it. - Siddharth Srivastava (Dec 4, '07)

China casts wary eye on North Korea
Formerly cozy relations between Beijing and Pyongyang have chilled following North Korea's pledge to abandon its nuclear programs - a move that some Chinese analysts see as hurting China's interests. North Korea's traditional strategy is to play larger nations against each other and after decades of being extremely reliant on China, Pyongyang is likely to pit that country, the US and South Korea against one another to see who can be of most use. - Ting-I Tsai (Dec 4, '07)

OPINION
US shunts Japan at its own peril
As Washington continues to warm up to Pyongyang over the denuclearization issue, the Japanese government is beginning to quietly fume over the United States' failure to hold North Korea accountable for its abduction of Japanese nationals. It would behoove Washington to make the kidnapping issue a high priority and take measures to divert Tokyo's growing urge to go nuclear by offering Japan non-nuclear military hardware to counter Pyongyang's threats. Otherwise, Japan risks becoming a wild card. (Dec 4, '07)

COMMENT
Neo-cons have it wrong on Pakistan
Neo-conservatives in the United States have been wringing their hands over what to do about Pakistan, suggesting the US military could intervene, alongside the Pakistani army, to keep the country's nuclear weapons safe. What will do the trick, though, is not playing footsie with the Pakistani military, which is far from a force for "Westernization", but a culture of civilian supremacy. - Najum Mushtaq (Dec 3, '07)
SPENGLER
Hirsi Ali, atheism and Islam
Muslim apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of several high-profile such people to have gravitated towards atheism. She is unequivocal that the West is - or should be - at war with Islam. The reasons she has chosen atheism are less clear, but, contrary to superficial impressions, Islam is much closer in character to atheism than to Christianity or Judaism. (Dec 3, '07)

Iran turns the charm on its neighbors
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has unexpectedly been invited to attend the summit meeting of the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council as a special guest. With his new mantra of resolving problems "through love and kindness", Ahmadinejad will be looking to find allies as Iran faces a third round of United Nations sanctions over its nuclear program. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Dec 3, '07)

Myanmar back on a roadmap to nowhere
Myanmar's constitution drafting commission has resumed plodding along the junta's "Seven-point Road Map" towards a new constitution. Democracy advocates have virtually nothing to hope for from the process that began four years ago. Instead of a template for democratic reform, the junta seems very likely to create a mandate for military rule while specifically excluding the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi from ever holding any office. - Bertil Lintner (Dec 3, '07)

China's show of strength ups military ante
Beijing's recent military muscle flexing in naval and air exercises was aimed primarily at Taiwan and the US, but covered a wide swath of the Pacific, including some islets claimed by Vietnam. They also ruined Thanksgiving holiday plans for the 8,000 US sailors aboard the USS Kitty Hawk. While it was a mighty show of force, it also revealed coordination flaws between China's party, government and military, and put a chill on US Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recent upbeat talks in Beijing. - Willy Lam (Nov 30, '07)
[color="#000000"][/color]

Feature: Assessing the NIE, Carnegie Analysis; To read the newly unclassified National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, click here.
Report May Reset Debate on Iran, The Wall Street Journal
EU to Keep up Pressure on Iran after US Report, Deutsche Welle
A Partner For Dealing With Iran?, The Washington Post
North Korea Nuclear Disarmament Talks Delayed, Reuters
123 Agreement Won't Be Reopened: Burns, The Hindu
Canada to Join Controversial Nuclear Partnership, The Toronto Star

Intelligence on Iran – Washington Post editorial
Good and Bad News About Iran? – New York Times editorial
Iran and its Democratic Friends – Washington Times editorial
The New Intelligence on Iran – Boston Globe editorial
Iran’s Nonexistent Nuclear Program – Los Angeles Times editorial
(Some) Good News on Iran - New York Post editorial
We Still Need to Curb Iran’s Ambitions – London Times editorial
Despite Intelligence, Iran Still a Threat – London Daily Telegraph editorial
A Measure of Intelligence – Baltimore Sun editorial
Mulling Iran’s Nuclear Threat – Christian Science Monitor editorial
The Myth of the Mad Mullahs – David Ignatius, Washington Post
Time to Talk to Iran – Robert Kagan, Washington Post
Was Bush Behind Iran Report? – Robert Baer, Time
Iran NIE: I’m Not a Believer – Michael Ledeen, National Review
The Right Nuclear Red Line – Gareth Evans, Washington Post
Relax? Don’t, Iran Can Still Build a Bomb – Bronwen Maddox, London Times
Don’t Ask CIA What’s Going On in Iraq – David Blair, London Daily Telegraph
Intercepting Iran’s Take on America? – Thomas Freidman, New York Times
The View from Iran - Afrasiabi and Barzegar, Boston Globe
Mission Accomplished When? – Cal Thomas, Washington Times
Iraq: The War on Funding – David Freddoso, National Review
A New Course on Iraq (for Democrats) – Michael O’Hanlon, USA Today
Bearing Down on Democracy – Helle Dale, Washington Times
Unexpected Fruit from Annapolis – Claude Salhani, Washington Times
The Politics of Chicken Littleism - Benjamin Friedman, Washington Post
Some Simple Security Steps – Michael Levi, Washington Times
Teddy Bear Totalitarianism - Joseph Loconte, Weekly Standard
The Russian Lesson – Baltimore Sun editorial
Putin Rolls On - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
Russia’s Rigged Elections – Michael Weiss, Weekly Standard
Chinese Fill Gap in Romania - Harry de Quetteville, London Daily Telegraph
A FISA Fig Leaf – Mac Thornberry, Washington Times
Gitmo Inmates Deserve Better Protection – Los Angeles Times editorial

NIE: Diplomatic Signal or Cheney Embarrassment? Or Both? Steve over at TWN quotes the recently released NIE on Iranian nuclear capabilities, which seems to be exactly what you’d expect: a nuanced attempt to tell the administration something of what it wants to hear without overtly lying or stating confidance where little exists.

E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.

~ Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might — if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible — prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be. ~ We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons — and such a decision is inherently reversible.

But how difficult is it really to specify the basis of a combination of carrots and sticks, backed by credible US statements, that would induce whatever entity runs Iran to bargain in good faith? Seems to me that if we told them we wouldn’t attack them unless they attacked us or our allies, and they believed it, everything else could be worked out. The problem is that the current US “strategic posture”, as announced by the Pentagon, is to exert a certain level of control over all the world, allowing no rivals in military power. This requires us to “take out” — a phrase until recently more associated in the US with food than bombs — any potential threat.

How could any conception of a world community, ordered or otherwise, contain the idea of one globally dominant country, claiming the sole right of intervening at any time, place, or hour, without everyone else feeling threatened? This seems to me an instantiation of the abstract object I call the Mythical Knockout Punch. Truman rode this sucker to the everlasting infamy of two needless massacres, thinking the Russians, little men that they were from Harry’s grand viewpoint, would be quaking in their boots with respect for the Americans, proudly standing tall; possibly they would even concede, like the Japanese.

…Read on

Posted by Chuck Dupree at 3:58 AM | Permalink

Iran seizes on US turnaround

Rare is a US intelligence report that seems to strike joy in the hearts of Iranian leaders. But the new US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which concludes that Iran is not currently at work on a nuclear weapons program, appears to have done just that.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking in Tehran after the NIE on Iran was released in Washington on Monday, welcomed the report, saying "of course we are pleased".

The NIE, which is considered the most authoritative written US
intelligence judgment, represents the consensus view of 16 intelligence agencies.

The last NIE on Iran in 2005 expressed "high confidence that Iran currently is determined to have nuclear weapons". Two years later, the NIE states with an equal degree of "high confidence" that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The report, which said it is "moderately confident" the weapons program has remained inactive since then, is largely seen by Western analysts as likely to blunt arguments in Washington for military strikes to stop Iran's nuclear drive.

So far, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have not publicly reacted to the report - nor have any so-called moderates led by former president Mohammad Khatami. But Mottaki was echoed by officials from both the "pragmatic conservative" camp of former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the "ultraconservative" grouping led by Ahmadinejad.

The head of Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Alaeddin Borujerdi, who is considered a pragmatic conservative, was quoted by IRNA news agency as saying the report has "nullified" claims by US administration officials that Iran "is thinking of producing nuclear bombs". He said those officials are "under the strong influence of the Zionist lobby" and had wanted to deflect attention from Israel's nuclear program, but added that the NIE should now provide the basis for a new US approach to Iran.

Another committee member, Elham Aminzadeh, told IRNA that the administration of US President George W Bush should apologize to Iranians, and that the UN Security Council should cancel economic sanctions on Iran. She added that the great powers and international bodies should compensate Iran for the moral and financial harm it has suffered from sanctions, and allow it to resume unrestricted trade and business around the world.

Gholamhussein Elham, an Iranian government spokesman, also said the United States must pay for the damage its "lies" had inflicted on Iran, IRNA reported. He told reporters in Tehran that Iran would continue its nuclear program "on the basis of international treaties" and insisted that its activities are supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog.

Mohammad Ali Hosseini, Mottaki's spokesman, said that the report "contains good news for the European partners" of the United States, such as Germany, Britain and France - all of which have been involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

Those European Union countries, known as the EU-3 in their negotiations with Iran, have been considering backing a third round of harsher UN sanctions on Iran for failing to suspend uranium enrichment as demanded by Security Council resolutions. But Hosseini said that in light of the US report, the EU-3 can revise their approach and choose "wise and practical" decisions rather than further punitive measures.

The Foreign Ministry spokesman added that the most important part of the NIE is that "it shows that what Bush and other US officials claimed about the 'dangers' of Iran's nuclear program is baseless and fabricated".

Iranian officials have not commented on the NIE assessment "with high confidence" that "until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons". The US intelligence agencies go on to conclude "with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons".

As for Tehran's major newspapers, they have not yet reacted to the US report.

Meanwhile, observers are waiting for Ahmadinejad's and Khamenei's reactions to set the tone of the Iranian debate. But moderates and pragmatic conservatives are expected to use the US report as an opportunity to push for more talks with the United States. Indeed, IRNA quoted some "observers" as saying that "the US is getting ready for a grand bargain with Iran".

Shahram Chubin, an Iranian-born analyst, expressed a similar view in an interview with RFE/RL's Radio Farda. "I think what happens now is a much more deliberate effort by the Europeans to push the US to engage Iran across the board," said Chubin, who is the director of research at the Geneva Center for Security Studies.

He said any such talks should "look for a solution that, on the one hand, allows Iran some [uranium] enrichment, and on the other hand, allows more intensified or more intrusive [nuclear] inspections".

(RFE/RL's Golnaz Esfandiari, Iraj Gorgin, and Vahid Sepehri contributed to this report.)

Copyright © 2007, RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC 20036

The Syrians are back
It's sunshine for Syria now after nearly three years of international gloom. After a strong US-led anti-Syria campaign, the White House has done a U-turn with its invitation to Syria to attend the Annapolis peace conference and its backing for Michel Suleiman's bid for the Lebanese presidency. Britain, Germany and Italy have also woken up to the reality of Syria's large potential for helping to resolve Middle East issues. - Sami Moubayed (Dec 5, '07)

The plan to topple Pakistan's military
For the United States, it is not about President Pervez Musharraf any more. It is about clipping the wings of a strong Pakistani military, denying space for China in Pakistan, squashing the intelligence services, stirring ethnic unrest and neutralizing Pakistan's nuclear program. Musharraf shares the blame for letting things come this far. But he is also punching holes in Washington's game plan. - Ahmed Quraishi (Dec 5, '07)

Oil showdown in Kurdistan
The Kurdistan Regional Government is pressing ahead with plans for wide-scale oil exploration, despite Baghdad's charges that the contracts are illegal. But by using oil to stamp their autonomy, the Iraqi Kurds risk worsening their already hostile relationship with Turkey. (Dec 5, '07)

Victor Comras & Larry Johnson Debate the New NIE & Iran

By Andrew Cochran


Several of the CTB Contributing Experts and I periodically participate in an email discussion on CT issues, hosted by Philip "Rick" Henika, with others including former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson. Today, after Rick sent Larry Johnson's analysis of the new NIE on the Iranian nuclear situation as posted on his "No Quarter" website, Victor Comras engaged Larry in an e-mail debate on the NIE and the broader question of the threat posed by Iran. The two have graciously agreed to let me post the full text of their debate, beginning with the text of Larry's No Quarter post. I edited only for punctuation errors and rare misspellings.

Larry Johnson

Now we know why some in the Bush Administration-Dick Cheney’s folks in particular-fought like hell to keep the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program under wraps. IRAN HALTED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN 2003. Here’s what CNN is reporting:

Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says. A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with “high confidence” that the Islamic republic halted an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

This report was ready to go in December of 2006 but Cheney and his allies pushed back hard to stop it. They knew, as they know today, that this headline does not help them in their rush to start a new war. Damn it all!!! How dare those pesky Iranians prove malleable to diplomatic initiatives and pressure. You mean we can solve things without starting a war and killing civilians?

Boy there are going to be some grumpy neo-cons. This is probably part of the war on Christmas. This kind of news will make it very difficult for the agitators for war with Iran to hoist a glass of eggnog and toast bombing ragheads in Tehran.

Don’t be surprised to hear about how the intelligence community is now filled with partisans intent on undermining the Bush Administration. They’ll sound an awful lot like Hugo Chavez, who also is whining about the vagaries of democracy and insisting he only lost the referendum in Venezuela-which would have allowed him to become President for life-because of a nefarious CIA plot.

There are some unsung heroes in the National Intelligence Council who insisted on the integrity of the product. In the face of enormous political pressure to tailor information and pull punches that undermine Bush Administration talking points, the intelligence professionals did their job. They told the truth based on the facts in hand.

Now we need to wait and see-will the Bush Administration and the Congress take no for an answer?

Victor Comras

It seems to me that we are all missing the real questions here:

At what point did the Iranians halt their Nuclear Weapon program? How advanced are they? How close are they to Nuclear weapon capability if and when they recommence? Is uranium enrichment the last remaining component needed? Did they put their NW program on hold to await sufficient enriched fuel? What other explanations for putting enrichment on such a fast track? At what point in the NW development program do we consider them so close that intervention is necessary? How far are they from that point? Can we tolerate them having enriched fuel on hand? Can we tolerate them having Nuclear weapon fuel enrichment capability? These are just some of the questions that need answers before we can truly pronounce on how best to secure our national security interests.

Read More »


Larry Johnson

Iranians with a nuke is not a threat to us. At least not as long as our extensive nuclear arsenal is intact and available for use. I find it amazing we can live under the threat of Soviet nukes for 40 plus years without collapsing into a puddle of sweat, but mention Iran and we go all wobbly. Iran is seeking parity in the region. The key for us is finding those steps or gestures that will reassure both Israel and Iran that they have nothing to fear from each other. As long as that fuse is lit there is the potential for gross miscalculation by either side.

Victor Comras

"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masksherebecause of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing." Neville Chamberlain, 1938.

Larry, I disagree with you on this one.

Global leadership comes with being the Global Leader. I do not agree that we can tolerate a Nuclear armed Iran in any case. Rather, I agree with France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that a nuclear armed Iran would make military action inevitable.

I do not believe that Iran's nuclear program is directed at achieving the same basic balance of terror that underscored US-USSR relations. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and US interests in the Gulf and worldwide are all potential targets of a Nuclear Armed Iran.

I do believe that using nuclear weapons is scarily consistent with Iran's current leadership's fanatical religious ideology (although such ideology is not shared by all of Iran's top leaders). We cannot rely on deterrence only as a strategy for dealing with Iran.

I also believe that it is incumbent on us to take the steps necessary now to head off such a situation, and that our best hope for doing so is well targeted and effective economic sanctions that put sufficient pressure on Iran's leadership to suspend enrichment.

Larry Johnson

Do you seriously believe Iran contemplates, somehow, someway, attacking us in the United States with nukes? If they had ICBMs, not to mention megaton warheads and a stated intent to attack us, then I would share your concern. But we have spent as much time threatening Iran, perhaps more so, than they have us. If Iran was conducting military operations in Canada and Mexico along the lines of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you believe we would act with the restraint Iran has so far?

The heart of the matter remains the relationship, or lack thereof, between Israel and Iran. Israel has nukes, Iran doesn't. Israel has a record of launching military strikes against other countries. Iran doesn't. Now, I understand why Israel did what she did, but let's not kid ourselves create Iran as a modern version of Nazi Germany intent on Lebensraum. Even under the "religious fanatics", Iran has never invaded a neighbor. Iraq did (with our encouragement and support). So I have trouble buying the Hitler analogy.

Iran has been a consistent sponsor of terrorism and has used terrorist attacks to great effect to strengthen its political position in the region. But that said, Iran, even with the mullahs, has not demonstrated a crazy commitment to escalate without regard to its own future. To the contrary, Iran has been very savvy from what I have seen of avoiding trip wires that might elicit a large military strike by us.

I think arguing that Iran can't have a nuke is silly for us on several fronts. First, we do not have the means of stopping it without the cooperation of Russia and China. Second, we've been able to live with nuclear states in Israel, Pakistan, India, and South Africa. Third, Iran's primary concern is and has been securing itself from external attacks. Undertaking measures that ensure Iran's internal security (while maintaining our ability to subvert them with capitalism) strikes me as a far more sane strategy rather than bellicose, empty-handed saber rattling.

Victor Comras

Thank you for your message.

Let me make it clear that I am not so much concerned about a possible nuclear attack on the United States, as on the implications of a nuclear arm-backed Iran projecting its power and influence in an already unstable region that is now so critical to the perceived interests of so many countries, including those that also possess nuclear weapons.

I also remain less convinced than you that Iran’s current leadership can be counted on to make rationale decisions concerning its national interests, as separate and distinct from its fanatical theology/ideology. I fear that we must take their own religious declarations and writings in this regard seriously.

I also disagree with your assertion that Iran has not exercised, nor does it harbor aggressive attitudes towards its neighbors. Iran exercises tight reign and control over Hizbollah, which has been quite aggressive in Lebanon and against Israel. They retain active surrogates in Iraq, and they retain a deep hatred and rivalry vis a vis the Saudi Royal Family. We must all recognize that we are already at the very cusp of a religious civil war between fundamentalist Shiites and Sunni.

The United States, Europe, Russia and China all continue to have major vested interest in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions. And the Global economy remains very dependent on these areas as principal sources of critical supplies of gas and oil. The US and Europe have particularly exposed crucial interests in these regions that must be protected. The United States also remains solidly committed to the security of Israel - a principle of US foreign policy that I fully support. These interests remain very vulnerable to an aggressive nuclear arm-backed Iran.

I believe that it is clearly in our foreign policy interest to take the steps necessary, in conjunction with other like minded countries in Europe and elsewhere, to dissuade Iran, and its leaders from holding to their present course. Iran’s leadership is not homogeneous, and there are different religious and political currents running through the leadership. Unfortunately, this includes a powerful segment of Mullahs now in key positions of authority that espouse an apocalyptic theology that could well envisage the use of nuclear weapons.

You point out that we have come to live with the fact that several other countries now possess nuclear weapons capability. This represents past international diplomatic failures, and has already increased the risks of nuclear catastrophe considerably. The current situation in Pakistan alone should cause us all sleepless nights. Nevertheless, in my view, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, under its present leadership dwarfs these current risks and concerns.

Re Sanctions as a tool. Yes, I believe they can still be effective in either dissuading this regime (for its own survival) to suspend/stop its uranium enrichment, or for deposing this regime. Unfortunately, we have not put together the sanctions appropriate to this objective. I believe that, here, Europe holds the key.

Europe is still Iran’s largest trading partner by far and still exports to Iran much more than it imports from Iran. European banks still remain critical to financing this trade, funding critical infrastructure projects in Iran, and Iran’s oil/gas transactions. European banks are still the principal repository of Iran’s middle class overseas money caches. This commercial class plays a growing critical role in providing urban employment opportunities, and from preventing urban unemployment from plummeting further. In my view this represents Iran’s Achilles Heel. Appropriate European pressure on these pressure points would cause very considerable economic pain to this Iranian urban commercial/middle class. Russia and China would not be able substitute here quick enough to stave off the economic consequences of such European sanctions measures.

Neither Russia or China have an interest in seeing Iran develop nuclear weapons. But, they are well positioned to allow the US and European to do the heavy lifting here. They like being able to enjoy the short term trade benefits from this situation. China is also in this to secure long term energy supply sources. We need to focus our diplomacy on convincing Russia and China that their long term interests are best secured by assuring also that Iran does not develop Nuclear Weapons. Re China, this means also assuring them that they will have assured access to needed energy supplies.

I could go on for a long time re a suggested workable sanctions strategy, but won’t tax you with that here.

Last point - Re Oil -- It’s a two-edged sword - Iran’s government cannot survive without exporting oil which accounts for 80 percent of Iran’s export earnings and 50% of the Government Budget. Even with great windfall oil profits, Iran’s economy is still a basket case. They simply cannot afford a significant cut-off or downturn in these revenues.

All for now, Best regards, Vic

Larry Johnson

Vic,

One final point worth noting. You and I agree that Iran wields significant influence over Hezbollah. However, Iran's grip has weakened over the years as Hezbollah has emerged as a substantial political movement with significant military clout of its own. It is far less dependent on Iran than was the case in the 1980s. Iran meddling in Lebanon to secure its own interests is no different in principle from U.S. efforts in pursuit of her interests in various countries in the region. And a significant difference remains between the U.S. and Iran--it is the United States, not Iran, that has committed major military forces--ground and air--to invading countries in the region. We have convenient memory loss of our significant commitment of support to Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war. It is not like the Iranians reflexively hate us for our freedom. We do have a history and our role in Iran puts us more in the category of the wife beating husband rather than the beaten wife. We certainly feel justified in those actions we have pursued but my point is that we should not assume that Iran does not have the same level of moral certainty about the "righteousness" of its actions in pursuit of its national interests, no matter how reprehensible we find those actions to be.

Best
LJ

« Close It

December 4, 2007 11:00 PM Link

Pakistan’s Democratic Insurgents: Inside the Awakening Youth Movement
by Amber Vora / December 5th, 2007

Talk of armed insurgents and Taliban hideouts near the Afghanistan border used to dominate the scant US media coverage of Pakistan affairs. These days, it’s Pakistan’s de-facto martial law, media blackouts, and court-martials for civilians that fill the newspapers, accompanied by images of police battling lawyers and journalists, and nationwide students protests. (Full article …)

Turkey, Still a Western Ally?
By: Daniel Pipes
The Islamist shadows falls on a nearly 60-year alliance. More>

Day Jobs for Terrorists
By: Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Spyer
How the UN creates dependency. More>

The Worst Archbishop
By: Mark D. Tooley
Rowan Williams of Canterbury brands America "the worst imperialist" -- and delights a Muslim magazine. More>

Iran: The Unknown Unknown
By: Alan W. Dowd
Think the new National Intelligence Estimate on Tehran's nuclear program condemns Bush's foreign policy? Think again. More>

Symposium: Saddam’s Files
By: Jamie Glazov
Hussein’s secret documents reveal startling new information about the mystery of the “missing” WMDs. More>

Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update December 5, 2007

THE NIE REPORT: LOSERS (ISRAEL) AND WINNERS (CHINA, IRAN) - JOHN MCCREARY (NIGHTWATCH, DECEMBER 3; POSTED AT INTELFUSION, DECEMBER 4): The National Intelligence Estimate is declassified, not leaked. The US government decided to put the Key Judgments in the public information domain. By doing so, the administration is continuing the public diplomacy and signaling to Iran a conciliatory message. The burden of going forward has now shifted to Iran -- to send a reply that it understands the US message. http://idolator.typepad.com/intelfusion/20...mccreary-r.html

THE EVER-HELPFUL VOA AL KAMEN (IN THE LOOP, WASHINGTON POST, DECEMBER 5): Payvand Iran News, an Iranian Web site, carried a down-the-middle report of the new nukes assessment: "A new U.S. intelligence estimate says it is not clear that Iran is determined to produce nuclear weapons. The estimate says Iran stopped nuclear weapons development four years ago, but adds that Tehran is keeping its options open." .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402048_pf.html
GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS - RAJ PUROHIT (PARTNERSHIP FOR A SECURE AMERICA, DECEMBER 4): "Citizens for Global Solutions strongly urges Secretary Rice to reconsider her decision to appoint Paul Wolfowitz to the chairmanship of the State Department International Security Advisory Board. ... The Board is designed to provide the Secretary of State with important independent insight and advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. Mr. Wolfowitz has shown that his analysis on weapons of mass destruction and related security matters cannot be trusted; therefore he is an inappropriate choice for this position."
http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/12/04/good-news-and-bad-news/
SAVE AMERICA FROM THE MOSH PIT: GOOD MANNERS AND DECENCY MATTER TO A NATION'S FUTURE - PAMELA MICHAELS (CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, DECEMBER 5): In this current political and cultural climate, in which Americans are pretty self-righteous about sharing the exalted virtues of democratization with the world at all costs, perhaps we should clean up our act a bit.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p09s02-coop.htm
AN ASSESSMENT JARS A FOREIGN POLICY DEBATE ABOUT IRAN - STEVEN LEE MYERS (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 4): An administration that had cited Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons as the rationale for an aggressive foreign policy -- as an attempt to head off World War III, as President Bush himself put it only weeks ago -- now has in its hands a classified document that undercuts much of the foundation for that approach. The impact of the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion -- that Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses -- will be felt in endless ways at home and abroad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washingt...agewanted=print NIE REPORT AT
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nat...iran_120307.pdf
SEVEN DAYS IN DECEMBER? - MAUREEN DOWD (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 4): After getting Iraq wrong and Iran wrong in 2005 and almost every other big thing wrong since the nation began spending billions every year on intelligence, the burned spooks may not have wanted to play the patsy again while W., Cheney and the neocons beat the drums for an Iran invasion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/...agewanted=print
FACT-BASED INTELLIGENCE PREVAILS ON NUKES AND IRAN RAY MCGOVERN (COMMON DREAMS, DECEMBER 3): Apparently, intelligence community analysts are no longer required to produce the faith-based intelligence that brought us the Oct. 1, 2002 NIE Iraq's Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction -- the worst in the history of U.S. intelligence.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/03/5590/
A BLOW TO BUSH'S TEHRAN POLICY - PETER BAKER AND ROBIN WRIGHT (WASHINGTON POST, DECEMBER 4): President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0302210_pf.html
IT TURNS OUT AHMADINEJAD WAS THE TRUTHFUL ONE - ROBERT SCHEER (TRUTHDIG, DECEMBER 4): In October, Bush charged that Iran?s nuclear weapons program was bringing the world to the precipice of World War III, even though the White House had been informed at least a month earlier that Iran had no such program and had stopped efforts to develop one back in 2003.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200712...ejad_is_honest/
NECK-SNAPPING SPIN FROM THE PRESIDENT - DAN FROOMKIN (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, DECEMBER 4): By concluding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, the national intelligence estimate released yesterday undermined a key element of President Bush's foreign policy. It raised questions about whether the president and vice president knowingly misled the public about the danger posed by Iran. And it added to Bush's profound credibility problems with the American people and the international community.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0401026_pf.html
IRAN NIE VALIDATES 2003 EUROPEAN DIPLOMACY - GARETH PORTER (ANTIWAR.COM, DECEMBER 5): Despite the White House spin that the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) supports its policy of increasing pressure on Iran, the estimate not only directly contradicts the George W. Bush administration's line on Iranian intentions regarding nuclear weapons, but points to a link between Tehran's 2003 decision to halt research on weaponization and its decision to negotiate with European foreign ministers on both nuclear and Iranian security concerns.
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12007
THE NEW INTELLIGENCE ON IRAN EDITORIAL (BOSTON GLOBE, DECEMBER 5): The latest National Intelligence Estimate of Iran's nuclear program is a welcome turnabout. A declassified summary of the estimate released Monday said that Iran ceased pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Regardless of the spin President Bush and others may try to give this new assessment, there can be no doubt that it undercuts the argument for an urgent military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...on_iran?mode=PF
IRAN'S NONEXISTENT NUCLEAR PROGRAM: SCORE ONE FOR DETERRENCE -- AND THE RUSSIANS ? EDITORIAL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, DECEMBER 5): A nuclear-armed Iran should be deterred. The tragedy for U.S. security and global peace is that Bush has squandered his chances to lead that vital effort.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-...pinion-leftrail
THE MYTH OF THE MAD MULLAHS - DAVID IGNATIUS (WASHINGTON POST, DECEMBER 5): For the past several years, U.S. intelligence analysts have doubted hawkish U.S. and Israeli rhetoric that Iran is dominated by "mad mullahs" -- clerics whose fanatical religious views might lead to irrational decisions. In the new NIE, the analysts forcefully posit an alternative view of an Iran that is rational, susceptible to diplomatic pressure and, in that sense, can be "deterred."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0401669_pf.html
GOOD AND BAD NEWS ABOUT IRAN - EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 5): Bush has yet to make a serious offer of comprehensive talks and real rewards if Iran is willing to give up its fuel program and cooperate fully with inspectors. He is going to have to send someone a lot higher ranking than the American ambassador in Baghdad to deliver the message. We suggest Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/...agewanted=print
INTELLIGENCE ON IRAN: THE NEW U.S. ASSESSMENT HAS SOME GOOD NEWS -- BUT THE REACTION TO IT COULD BE BAD EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, DECEMBER 5): Before the United States attempts to negotiate directly with Iran about its nuclear program, the administration should have some indication that the Iranian regime is prepared to comply with binding U.N. resolutions and seriously address other U.S. concerns. A report by U.S. intelligence agencies is an unsatisfying substitute for a signal that has yet to come from Tehran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0401772_pf.html
TIME TO TALK TO IRAN by ROBERT KAGAN (WASHINGTON POST, DECEMBER 5): There is a good case for negotiations. Many around the world and in the United States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behavior has been America's unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamper American efforts now and for years to come. Eventually, the United States will have to take the plunge, as it has with so many adversaries throughout its history.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0401146_pf.html
THE VIEW FROM IRAN - KAVEH L. AFRASIABI AND KAYHAN BARZEGAR (BOSTON GLOBE, DECEMBER 5): The intelligence report gives the United States the opportunity to set US-Iran relations on a more constructive track, and US leaders should avoid steps that would close that window.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...om_iran?mode=PF
SCOTT RITTER ON THE NIE REPORT AND WAR WITH IRAN - JAMES HARRIS (TRUTHDIG, DECEMBER 4): Ritter, the Truthdig columnist (and WMD expert), warns that war with Iran could be inevitable, despite the National Intelligence Estimate report that says Iran dismantled its nuclear program in 2003. Bush, Ritter argues, doesn?t let facts get in the way of what he wants.
http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/item/20071..._war_with_iran/
NO IRAN ATTACK? DON'T BE SO SURE... NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE NEOCONS ? JUSTIN RAIMONDO (ANTIWAR.COM, DECEMBER 5): The nuclear issue has never been the primary thrust of the neocons' case for war with Iran: far more important has been the accusation that we are already at war with Iran because they're supposedly funding, harboring, and directing "terrorist" activities against U.S. troops in Iraq.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12005 BE INTELLIGENT EDITORS (NATIONAL REVIEW, DECEMBER 5): We can't know for sure whether the claims in the NIE are correct. What we do know is this: The Islamic Republic is killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has exported terror around the globe. It has powerful strategic reasons to want an atomic bomb: to counterbalance American influence, and to become a hegemon in the Middle East.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDA2O...OWY1MTA2NmRhM2Q=
'HIGH CONFIDENCE' GAMES REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, DECEMBER 5): Over the course of a decade, our intelligence services badly underestimated Saddam's nuclear ambitions, then overestimated them. Now they have done a 180-degree turn on Iran, and in such a way that will contribute to a complacency that will make it easier for Iran to build a weapon.http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB1196...0187314033.html
IRAN AND ITS DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, DECEMBER 5): If anything is clear from the new National Intelligence Estimate, it's that the U.S. intelligence agencies have no clear idea of what's going on in Iran.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
THE GULF STATES AND IRAN - MAX BOOT (WALL STREET JOURNAL, DECEMBER 5): What particularly concerns Gulf Arabs is the possibility that Iran could go nuclear -- a concern unlikely to be erased by the ambiguous findings of the new NIE.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB1196...7350614074.html PAID SUBSCRIPTION

KEY FIGURES ABOUT IRAQ AP (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 3): Note: Current Baghdad megawatt figures are no longer reported by the US State Department's Iraq Weekly Status Report.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-I...he-Numbers.html
US ADMITTING FEWER IRAQI REFUGEES - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 3): The United States admitted only 362 Iraqi refugees in November, almost 100 fewer than in October, and far less than half the number it needs per month to meet a goal of 12,000 by the end of this budget year, according to State Department statistics.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-I...agewanted=print
A MICROSCOPIC INSURGENT - MARK D. DRAPEAU (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 4): Cholera is a grave threat for the American project in Iraq, but also an opportunity to capture the hearts and minds of the population. The average Iraqi will feel truly secure only when the vicious disease-poverty-insurgent feedback loop is snapped. As we plan the post-surge phase of American operations, our leaders must bear in mind that healthy people make healthy decisions that serve as the bedrock for healthy societies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/...agewanted=print
A CALMER IRAQ: FRAGILE, AND POSSIBLY FLEETING - ALISSA J. RUBIN (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 5): The reduced violence in Iraq in recent months stems from three significant developments, but the clock is running on all of them, Iraqi officials and analysts warn.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/mi...agewanted=print
WHY BUSH'S TROOP SURGE WON'T SAVE IRAQ: THE INFLUX OF U.S. TROOPS BROUGHT A RELATIVE LULL IN VIOLENCE -- BUT THE FAILING STATE REMAINS IN POLITICAL CHAOS AND IS HEADED FOR COLLAPSE - JUAN COLE (SALON, DECEMBER 4)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/...iraq/print.html
NOW AND FOREVER - BOB HERBERT (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 4): Youngsters who were just starting high school when the U.S. invaded Iraq are in college now. Their children, yet unborn, will be called on to fork over tax money to continue paying for the war. Seriously. How long do we want this madness to last?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/...agewanted=print
IRAQ'S LOVELY THIS TIME OF YEAR AL KAMEN (IN THE LOOP, WASHINGTON POST, DECEMBER 5): The opportunity of a lifetime! The government is paying up to $144,000 for a "business development/tourism" expert to "work with private sector businesses and local governments in fostering business development with a particular focus on tourism and related services." The 13-month job also offers a 35 percent "danger pay" premium and other bonuses because it's based in Baghdad.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402048_pf.html
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED WHEN? - CAL THOMAS (WASHINGTON TIMES, DECEMBER 5): President Bush has made an enormous gamble -- in Iraq and with the push for a Palestinian state. If he's right, future historians will regard him as one of this country's greatest presidents. If he's wrong, the United States and the world will be paying the price for his misjudgment for much longer than 50 years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
UNEXPECTED FRUIT FROM ANNAPOLIS - CLAUDE SALHANI (WASHINGTON TIMES, DECEMBER 5): Moscow and Riyadh, much like Washington, London, Paris, Madrid, Istanbul and other countless cities that have experienced firsthand devastating attacks by Islamist terrorists, also agree on a fundamental focus point of the Middle East conflict: Until the Palestinians have their own state, the continued unrest in the Middle East will provide extremist Islamists a perfect recruiting poster for their cause.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
VENEZUELANS RAIN ON HUGO REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, DECEMBER 4): The stunning defeat Sunday of President Hugo Chávez's constitutional reform agenda is more than a setback for Venezuela's messianic strongman. It is a victory for the ideal of liberty across Latin America. What an affirmation of that ideal it would be if the US Congress now did its part to keep it alive by voting to liberalize trade with Venezuela's neighbors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1196734346...days_us_opinion
THE CLIMATE IN BALI AND WASHINGTON - EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, DECEMBER 3): It will be much easier to get China, India and others to adopt aggressive policies regarding global warming if the United States is also on board.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/opinion/...agewanted=print
THE U.S. RESPONSE TO TERRORISM: A FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED STRATEGY HAVILLAND SMITH (AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, NOVEMBER 13): The puerile braggadocio with which we alternately dehumanize and belittle the Muslims may make some of us feel better, but is directly counterproductive to our goals for dealing with terrorism. Equating all Muslims with terrorism is not only inaccurate, but also demeaning and infuriating for mainstream, moderate Muslims.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/200...h_response.html
THE POLITICS OF CHICKEN LITTLEISM - BENJAMIN FRIEDMAN (WASHINGTON POST, DECEMBER 5): Why do we conjure up so many possible monsters to destroy, and then overspend to confront them? One answer is that our defense policies are made by politicians and organizations that benefit from precautionary policies. In American politics today, there are no powerful dove