Saturday, March 10, 2007

A forum for rattling sabres

March 10, 200t

A forum for rattling sabres


WASHINGTON says it will confront Syria and Iran directly at a regional meeting on Iraq this week with charges that they are actively fomenting the insurgency in the war-torn country. Tehran seems to think that the Baghdad meeting, which will bring together Iraq's neighbours plus Egypt as well as the UN, US and the UK, could be a forum to ease tensions with Washington. At the same time, Tehran remains wary of being targeted for criticism rather than creative contacts in Baghdad.
Indeed, the Baghdad conference offers a rare opportunity for both Washington and Tehran, which have not had diplomatic ties for more than a quarter of a century, to sit down at the same table as the first step towards launching a broad bilateral dialogue over their differences.
However, that prospect does not seem to be in the cards. Washington said it at first it was open for bilateral contacts with Tehran but then corrected itself and asserted that the issues to be discussed in Baghdad would be limited to those concerning the crisis in Iraq.
David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top adviser on Iraq, went a step further on Thursday and said the US delegation would press Iran and Syria to respond publicly to the accusations at the conference that they are fuelling the insurgency in Iraq.
At the same time, Satterfield also reaffirmed that US officials were ready to hold direct bilateral talks with the Iranians and Syrians only on issues related to Iraq.
Of course, the crisis in Iraq is a central issue for all players, but tackling it on its own is not feasible since there are differences between the Arab and Muslim worlds on the one hand and the US on the other concerning the broader conflict in the Middle East, including the problems in Palestine and Lebanon as well as the long-running fued between Iran and the US.
The US and the UK would be attending a regional meeting of the nature of that of the Baghdad conference for the first time. It could not be said earlier meetings made a serious breakthrough towards addressing the concerns of Iraq's neighbours. However, if there is any prospect for a breakthrough that would be negated if the US seeks to use the forum simply to pull up Iran and Syria over what Washington sees as their role in the Iraq crisis.
Applying public pressure on Iran and Syria and using the regional meeting simply to highlight their alleged meddling in Iraqi affairs could be part of Washington's build-up against them, particularly Tehran, in the wider scheme of things. The Baghdad forum could serve as yet another platform to serve Washington's case, if indeed there is one, against Iran and Syria. Faced with increasing criticism at home against the fiasco in Iran, it would be part of the US effort to blame others for its failures in Iraq.
The Iranian sentiment was summed up Amir Mohebian, the political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper, who said on Friday: “If the result of this meeting in Baghdad was good, maybe it will be the first step and a good start for negotiations in the future.
“If the result of this cooperation is a bad reaction from the United States, it will be a signal for any radical in Iran to say that cooperation with the United States has no result.”
Judging from Washington's approch, that is seems to be the predetermined outcome of the meeting. The Iranians are also aware of it, and this strengthens the feeling that the Baghdad meeting would be a forum more for sabre-rattling than the real purpose of seeking a way to end the raging violence in Iraq.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Catch-22 at every twis

March 9, 2007

Catch-22 at every twist

THE KEY problem that the Democrats, who now control the US Congress after winning November elections mostly on an anti-war platform, is how to end the US military involvement in Iraq. While a majority of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate say they are in favour of recalling the US troops home as early as possible, they are unable to come up with a workable idea to realise that goal.
Many of them are also concerned that chaos would follow a US withdrawal from Iraq and that refusing funds for the administration to continue the war would be seen as unpatriotic since it would deprive the US military of much-needed equipment and logistic support and expose them to dangers in the battlefield.
However, it is clear to everyone — except the Bush administration itself — that there is little viability to a military option to end the crisis in Iraq and it needs dramatic decisions and moves to disentangle the US from the mess the war-hungry, Israeli-driven neoconservatives created there.
The Republican camp is no different. As the Democrats, the Republicans also do no have a clue how to take their country out of the Iraq imbroglio, but they are in a relatively more comfortable position today because the onus is the Democrats to do so.
The best that the Democrats could come up with so far is the outine of a proposal which calls for bringing troops home early next year while removing remaining troops from combat by October 2008. That seems to be the best compromise that party leaders could produce, given that a good number of the Democrat members of congress — around 40, according to Washington insiders — have adopted a cautious attitude and would even bolt the anti-war camp if the party followed too aggressive a line in order to recall the troops home.
The proposal would make it binding on the Iraqi government to bring the situation under control in the chaotic country. In its final form, the proposal is expected to set tough benchmarks for the Iraqi regime to meet. It would have to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November this year, and adopt and implement oil-revenue-sharing legislation. It would be required to spend up to $10 billion of Iraq's oil money on job-creating reconstruction and infrastructure projects and hold provincial elections this year.
On the reconciliation front, the government would have to liberalise laws that purged Baath Party members from the government and establish a fairer process for amending the Iraqi constitution.
These benchmarks have to be met by the end of this year. Otherwise, the US troops would begin leaving Iraq next spring, with all troops out of combat by the fall.
Well, if the Iraqi government could meet these benchmarks, then there would not be any need for the US soldiers to stay because the realisation of these goals means a pacified Iraq with a central government in control. As such, the Democrats' proposal is in contradiction with the very essence of ending the US military presence in Iraq.
Suffice it to say that the Iraqi government stands the chance of a snowball in fire to meet those benchmarks.
It is not a single war or enemy that the US-backed government faces in the country. Different ethnic groups with conflicting priorities and objectives are at work and it is a foregone conclusion that it is next to impossible to find common ground that meets the minimum demands of the various players involved.
Naturally, it means that the goals set in the Democrats' draft proposal are unmeetable and this in turn should lead to the US soldiers' packing up and boarding planes and ships to return home next year.
Washington has yet another tiger by the tail in Iraq. Setting a deadline for US departure from Iraq would play into the hands of the insurgents and sectarian militiamen, who would simply fade themselves into the society and lie low until the time is right for them to re-emerge. That is one of the key reasons that the Bush administration always balked at announcing a schedule for US withdrawal from Iraq, with senior officials suggesting that the US military would remain in the country as long as it takes for the situation to be contained and controlled.
There are many other ifs and buts facing any move for a US withdrawal from Iraq, but all these would cease to be hurdles if there is a realistic acceptance by the Bush administration that the conflict in Iraq is a lost war for the US and there is no option except withdrawal. As long as that political will is missing in Washington, there is nothing the Democrats or Republicans could do to disengage their country from Iraq with dignity for their country and its people and its military.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

From the pan to the fire

March 8, 2007


Iraqis — from
the pan to fire

THE suicide attacks that killed more than 120 Iraqi Shiite pilgrims in Hila on their way to the holy city of Karbala on Tuesday have exposed yet another shortcoming on the part of the US-led coalition forces occupying Iraq.
There were major security lapses on the part of the coalition forces, who could not provide the right protection to the pilgrims.
It should be noted that the Hila attack came after gunmen and bombers hit group after group of Shiite pilgrims elsewhere - some in buses and others making the trek on foot to Karbala. At least 24 were killed in those attacks, which should have alerted the US military to adopt additional precautions to protest Karbala-bound pilgrims.
The first — and indeed valid — argument cited by the Iraqi Shiite community at large is that the US military, by dismantling part of Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army and forcing the rest to go underground, had deprived the pilgrims of the tight-knit security that was until now offered to them by the Mahdi Army.
Mahdi Army militiamen, it could even be argued, were better organised than the US military in Iraq. At least they knew what they were doing and what they were supposed to be doing when they stood guard over pilgrimages to Karbala. Compare that with the obviously confused state of mind of fresh American reservists flown in from tens of thousands of kilometres away to fight in a land which is not their own and a faceless enemy waging an unconventional and unorthodox war (if indeed there could be one).
US military commanders should have known that they would be leaving a major security vacuum when they moved in to remove Mahdi Army militiamen from the streets at the outset of the new security crackdown. It is not that Mahdi Army militiamen are angels sent down to protect Iraqi Shiites, but in the absence of a properly structured and equipped security aparatus of the state, the best bet was on the Sadrists to protect the pilgrims. That was the case in the last three years (although the Mahdi Army also failed to prevent a major bombing attack against pilgrims two years ago).
This week's incident reminds us of the situation immediately after the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. One of the first missions of the invading forces was to dismantle the 800,000-strong Iraqi army, and that blunder is still remembered as one of the worst that the US military committed in Iraq. By dismantling the army, the US military removed one of the central pillars of Iraqi security under the reign of Saddam Hussein. The US-led coalition forces were not in a position to take over the role played by the ousted security forces, and this vacuum continued to grow since then. Today, it poses the biggest challenge to the US quest to limit its soldiers' exposure to enemy fire by handing over security responsibility to the Iraqi government forces.
It is ironic that the US military has been unable to provide security for its own soldiers despite the three-week-old crackdown in Baghdad.
Nine US soldiers were killed on Tuesday in two separate roadside bombings north of Baghdad, making it the deadliest day for US troops in Iraq in nearly a month and raising to 3,166 the number of American military deaths in the country since March 2003.
Even if one were to give the US military the benefit of the doubt, it would only be fair to observe that Washington's much-touted troop "surge" in Iraq has only made things worse for the suffering people of Iraq. They are now left more vulnerable than they were before the fresh crackdown was launched. What is even worse is the certainty that the "death squads" of Iraq have gone into hiding for the time being and would return to the scene when the US-induced heat cools down.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Mossad back to its tricks

March 7, 2007

Mossad back to its tricks

THE "disappearance" of a former deputy defence minister of Iran with detailed information about his country's military programmes adds to the intricacies of the Middle East. It comes at a time when speculation is rife over the shape and nature of a possible American/Israeli military action against Iran in the name of that country's controversial nuclear programme.
Ali Reza Asgari, 63, went missing after checking into an Istanbul hotel on Feb.7 at the outset of a visit to Turkey. According to Turkish officials, the Israeli secret service Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) might have had a hand in the disappearance.
Some accounts claim Asgari, who was a commander in the Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon before being deputy defence minister, "defected" and is now somewhere in Europe with his family and "singing like a canary" about his country's military secrets.
Other reports say that Mossad and the CIA spirited him out of Turkey and now he is in Israeli custody undergoing interrogation about his country's nuclear programme and defence capabilities. Another speculation is that Israelis are seeking information from him about Ron Arad, an Israeli air force pilot who went missing in Lebanon in the 80s when Asgari headed a Revolutionary Guards unit there.
Indeed, there could be a far simpler explanation as to how and why Asgari went missing, but the world at large is not privy to that yet.
The former Iranian minister's disappearance becomes all the more intriguing when seen coupled with the death under mysterious circumstances of an Iranian nuclear scientist in January.
Professor Ardashir Hosseinpour, 45, who was described as a world authority on electromagnetism, was working on uranium enrichment at the facility in Isfahan, one of the central processing sites in Iran's nuclear programme, when he died.
According to the US website - Stratfor.com - which features intelligence and security analysis by former US intelligence agents, Hosseinpour was killed by Mossad agents.
A website of expatriate Iranian communists reported that several other scientists were killed or injured in the operation to kill Hosseinpour at Isfahan, and were treated at nearby hospitals.
The Stratfor.com report says that Hosseinpour died from "radioactive poisoning" as part of a Mossad effort to halt the Iranian nuclear programme through "secret operations." That is indeed a tall claim because it is difficult to accept that Iran's nuclear activities depended solely on a scientist.
Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death gave the cause as “gas poisoning,” but did not say how or where he was poisoned.
At the same time, the claims that he was murdered could not be dismissed out of hand since Mossad does have a long record of eliminating whoever is deemed to be instrumental in posing a challenge to Israel.
It is a well-known secret that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Mossad agents were behind the deaths of scientists involved with the Iraqi nuclear programme.
In 1980, Yahya Meshad was found dead in his Paris hotel room. Over the next several months, two other Iraqi nuclear scientists were also killed as a result of poisoning. All killings bore Mossad hallmarks.
Indeed, Israel leaders have publicly vowed that they would stop at nothing to remove all potential threats to its ambitions in the region, and what we are seeing today is yet another manifestation of those "warnings." And the world, it seems, is unable to prevent Israel from getting what it wants.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Calling the Israeli bluff

March 3, 2007

Calling the Israeli bluff

IT IS disturbing to note the delay in formation of a Palestinian national unity government. A cabinet line-up was expected to be announced on Friday, but both Fatah and Hamas said they need more time to do so.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas had asked the two groups to present names ahead of a planned meeting on Saturday with President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah in the Gaza Strip.
Again, there is no assurance that the Abbas-Haniyeh meeting would produce an agreement on the names. There was no immediate explanation for the delay and it was unclear how long it would take before a cabinet would be announced.
The only consolation, if any, is the pledge by both Hamas and Fatah that they are committed to forming a national unity government and that they would work on it intensely. Obviously, there is awareness on the two sides that there are opponents seeking to exploit opportunities and delays in order to scuttle last month's Makkah agreement that was a watershed in the intra-Palestinian feud and bloodshed that had cast the darkest cloud ever over the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel's brutal military occupation of their land and people.
What we have seen since the Makkah agreement was signed clearly shows that Hamas and Fatah are serious about coming together on a common platform although it might not encompass all aspects of their different political ideologies. However, the seriousness we have seen so far is enough to give the Arab and Muslim worlds hope that Palestinian blood would not be shed in intra-Palestinian feuds and serve the interests of the occupation power.
On the other hand, Israel is continuing its provocation as if with a view to draw Palestinian militants to launch actions that would further strengthen its argument against dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.
Its persistent raids against Palestinian towns and killing and detention of Palestinians seem to be designed to anger Palestinian groups into launching anti-Israeli attacks. Particularly disturbing was the murder of an Islamic Jihad leader and two others last week. Eyewitness accounts say that an undercover force in Jenin opened fire on a vehicle and killed Ashraf Al Saadi, 25, a senior Jihad leader, and Alaa Breiki, 26.
A third Palestinian, Mohammed Abu Naasa, 22, was wounded in the shooting, but an Israeli soldier finished him off with a bullet to the head, according to eyewitnesses.
These are kind of incidents which are designed to provoke the Palestinians.
Until now, the Palestinians have not responded with violence to the Israeli provocation, but it does not mean that they would stay put either.
In the meantime, every moment of delay in the formation of a Palestinian cabinet would be exploited by Israel and its agents in order to create new fait accompli in the occupied territories.
Hamas, Fatah and all other Palestinian groups should but be aware of the pitfall they face if they continue to haggle over cabinet positions. What is at stake is perhaps the only chance for them to call Israel's bluff that they could not get their act together.