Just after George W. Bush released his plan for Iraq, Condi Rice was off to the Middle East to attempt to sell the plan. But what conditions does she face when she gets there?
For starters, people are demanding action on the Arab-Israeli peace process. Abbas who America and Israel are trying to strengthen, has absolutely nothing that he can deliver to his people and as a result it is Hamas that is really calling the shots. Hamas supreme leader Khaled Meshal seemed to recognize Israel when he was visiting in Iran. The move was seen as a huge concession in the Arab world. Tzipi Livni recently proposed a bold new plan that would start negotiations on land, settlements, borders, disarming, the wall, Jerusalem, Arab recognition of Israel, the right of return and water resources now, but would hold off implementation until the terrorists disarmed. The idea is that this plan would give Palestinians a vision for peace and a reason to turn away from terrorism in order to see their negotiated independent state recognized and implemented in exchange for renouncing violence. The Road Map is also being questioned as ineffective as a recent Madrid summit and also the Saudi peace plan seems to be preferred over the US backed road map. The Saudi plan calls for the Israelis withdrawing back to 1967 borders in exchange for full peace and recognition from the entire Arab world. Jordan’s king was advocated that today. On a positive note, it seems Syria is also trying to reach out for peace with Israel. The benefit of reaching peace with Syria is that it cuts the supply lines between Lebanon and Iran. The drawback is that the cost is the full Israeli return of the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for real peace. Rice is also witnessing Iran and Syria meet unilaterally with the current Iraqi government. At this point it seems only America is trying to avoid peace with Syria and dialogue with Iran. Dealing with Syria and Palestine is key to solving the stalemate in Lebanon in which Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is attempting to get a veto power in cabinet over the current Western backed government through six weeks of constant democratic street protests.
In Iran, it appears that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is facing some domestic pressure within Iran. Remember that unlike Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia; Ahmadinejad is elected and accountable to the people. Those people rejected his diplomacy and foreign adventures during the most recent election. They also want him to focus on less confrontation with the West and more focus on the domestic economy and internal issues. Now Ahmadinejad is being challenged by Conservatives, who are questioning his poor diplomacy skills with regards to the nation’s nuclear program. Many feel it is doing more harm than good. Recent reports out of Iran also suggested that Iran’s oil reserves are in the decline. There is a good chance that we do not need a war to bring down this President. Slowly, people in Iran are growing more and more dissatisfied with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as time goes on. We also have to remember that Ahmadinejad is not the real leader of Iran. Ultimately Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls all of the shots in Iran. Despite Iran’s self destruction, it seems that Bush, Rice and Israel are beating the drums to war in Iran. Talk is increasing and it seems that the US is set to add a fifth front to the war on terror before Bush leaves office. An attack on Iran will no doubt be a disaster and should be stopped by the international community. China, Russia, Japan, England, France and Germany all have relations with Iran. Today Ahmadinejad is building relationships right in America’s own backyard South America. It may be time to include Iran in a broader peace conference so that we can move forward in Iraq and in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Attacking another Muslim nation is not the answer to America’s problems in the Middle East.
In Somalia, the United States has gotten into another war that American’s are all to familiar with thanks to the “Black Hawk Down” movie. This war seems to have been a proxy war with Americans using Ethiopian troops to route out the Islamic courts in Somalia. Now they are engaged through air strikes and special operation troops. What is interesting is how little public debate occurred before getting involved in this conflict again. When did Congress or the Senate vote on this? Is this the same strategy that would be implemented by the Whitehouse should the administration attack Syria or Iran? This is scary and the media must put more focus on what is going on in this fourth front on the war on terror. I also find it amazing that Somalia has faced unilateral strikes and intervention without UN approval, yet we continue to play games in Darfur where a legitimate genocide is ongoing.
As Rice faces all of these issues, she finds herself selling an Iraq strategy that doesn’t even have widespread support in America. Saudi Arabia is funding the Sunni militia groups. Iran is supporting the Shiite groups. Turkey is interfering to make sure there is no independent Kurdistan. All sides are trying to drive American forces out so that they can engage in civil war for power over the new Iraq.
Given his lack of credibility around the world, is this a conflict George Bush and the current American administration can solve? The world needs leadership and right now we are not getting it. The conference in Madrid is a good start at moving forward. Who will step up to host a conference with another major round of peace talks? The EU? The Arab League? The United States at Camp David? Canada? Venezuela? With the growing threat of nuclear war and the obvious fact that these conflicts will not be solved militarily when do we change the status quo? Despite the hell that is the Middle East right now, sometimes these negative events can be turned into a real opportunity to move forward. The Middle East now has the opportunity to move forward. When will the West decide to play a positive role in the process? Are Abbas and Olmert strong enough domestically to deliver? Could this be a 2008 Presidential platform to be implemented after new elections in Palestine and Israel? Time will tell when the world moves beyond this unresolved issue now going beyond 60 years without a solution.
The time is now to implement Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s plan of holding negotiations over the tough issues now and implementing once the Palestinians can renounce violence and recognize Israel and pre-1967 borders. Some results must be achieved diplomatically and a vision must be painted before the people believe violence is not the answer to achieve their ends. Negotiations should occur between the Israeli government and a united Palestinian government as soon as possible. Once an acceptable solution to both sides is negotiated, a regional conference should take place to solve the remaining conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world. Finally a push should be made for a nuclear free Middle East.
For all of this to be achieved, it is interesting that we go back once again to Climate Change. The American addiction to oil is one of the central reasons for the state of the Middle East today. Embracing the arguments for global warming, researching new technologies and better using existing technologies such as the electric car, hybrids, fuel cell technology, agriculture fuel, and other green solutions may be the way to not only save our planet; but also reduce Western reliance on the Middle East. Lets get on with the Middle East peace process and climate change as both threaten the world as we know it.
Thanks for reading…
Darryl
'Time to look at the political horizon'By
HERB KEINON AND KHALED ABU TOAMEHTalkbacks for this article: 19
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hinted Sunday that she was in favor of ideas presented recently by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni about negotiations with the Palestinian Authority over the contours of a future state even before the road map is implemented, to give the Palestinians a "political horizon."
Rice, at a press conference in Ramallah after meeting Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, said it was time "to look at the political horizon and begin to show the Palestinian people how we might move toward a Palestinian state."
Palestinian Affairs: What plans?Analysis: Neither Olmert nor Abbas has much to offer RiceAccording to the plan articulated recently by Livni, negotiations with the Palestinians over statehood would take place even though they have not implemented the first stage of the road map - uprooting the terrorist infrastructure - but that Palestinian statehood would only materialize once the Palestinian obligations under the road map were met.
The logic behind this approach is to give the Palestinians an incentive to either vote Hamas out of office or get the organization to change its stripes so that the road map could be implemented and statehood could be achieved.
After meeting Abbas, Rice went to Amman for talks with Jordan's King Abdullah. According to Jordan's official news agency, Petra, Abdullah called on the United States to actively push for a revival of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.
Abdullah warned that without tangible, specific steps to activate the implementation of the road map "the cycle of violence will widen."
Rice's visit to Jordan was part of her efforts to strengthen the "moderate" camp in the Arab world.
She is expected to discuss various ways that this can be done during a meeting scheduled Monday morning with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem.
Following her meeting with Olmert, Rice will travel to Egypt, and then to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
In her press conference with Abbas, Rice promised deeper US engagement in the Middle East peace process. "I have heard loud and clear the call for deeper American engagement in these processes," she said.
"The US is absolutely committed to helping find a solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live in security, in which they can live in peace and which they can live in democracy. You will have my commitment to do precisely that."
Nevertheless, Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah expressed disappointment with the outcome of Rice's talks with Abbas, saying she did not bring any new ideas.
"Rice came only to listen," said a senior PA official after the meeting between Abbas and Rice. "We're disappointed because she did not bring new ideas to resume the peace process."
Abbas told Rice that he opposes the establishment of a provisional Palestinian state with temporary borders. "We reaffirmed to Secretary Rice our rejection of any temporary or transitional solutions, including a state with temporary borders, because we don't regard it as a realistic option," he told a joint press conference with Rice.
Abbas said the Palestinians were keen on resuming the peace process with Israel only on the basis of the road map. He complained that Israel had failed to fulfill its promises to ease restrictions on the Palestinians following his meeting last month with Olmert.
Israel, Abbas added, should give the peace process a chance by stopping the construction of the security fence and settlements in the West Bank, releasing Palestinian prisoners, halting all security measures and lifting the "siege" imposed on the Palestinians.
He also stressed the need to extend the cease-fire that was declared in the Gaza Strip several weeks ago to the West Bank.
Referring to efforts to form a unity government with Hamas, Abbas said it was premature to talk about a summit with Syria-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.
Sources close to Abbas and Hamas said over the weekend that they did not rule out the possibility that the two would meet laterthis week in Damascus.
Abbas reiterated his threat to call early presidential and parliamentary elections if talks with Hamas over the formation of a unity government did not result in a "happy end." Hamas criticized the meeting between Abbas and Rice, saying it was aimed at serving the interests and security of Israel.
Commenting on Rice's statements in Ramallah, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said the US secretary of state did not bring anything new to the Palestinians. "She came to Ramallah to give the Palestinians empty promises," he said. "The purpose of her visit is to consolidate the road map, which does not grant the Palestinians their basic rights."
Rice, meanwhile, said in a Channel 10 interview that talk about a possible military strike against Iran shows just how serious it would be for the Iranians to continue down the path of nuclear development.
"I still think there is room for diplomacy, but even talk of such action shows how serious it would be for Iran to continue their actions unabated," she said.
Rice discussed the recently imposed UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, saying they sent "a strong message to Iran that the world is united against the path that they have embarked on." But, she said, sanctions alone were still not enough.
Rice also backed Olmert's decision not to engage in dialogue with the Syrians, despite various overtures toward negotiations coming from Damascus. "There is no indication that the Syrians have anything but disruptive plans for the Middle East," she said in the interview.
In a related development, chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz told the cabinet Sunday that recent comments about the likelihood of a war this summer with Syria were "premature and exaggerated." With these comments Halutz was trying to "reduce the temperature" with Syria. He said that Damascus was also hearing the talk in Israel of a war in the summer, and that sometimes "miscalculations can lead to unwanted consequences."
Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin, meanwhile, said at the meeting that the unprecedented level of violence last week between Fatah and Hamas had increased the chance of a Palestinian unity government.
"The violence between the two factions is the worst that we've had in a long time, with 20 killed in one week," Diskin said. He said that most of the violence was Hamas members killing Fatah members. He said that as the violence got worse, the chances were better that a Palestinian unity government would be formed.
Diskin said that there was growing talk on the Palestinian street of a unity government that would include Ismail Haniyeh as prime minister, Salaam Fayad as finance minister, and an interior minister from the outside who would be agreeable to both.
He said that the Palestinians themselves were taken aback by the level of violence last week between the two factions.
Regarding the situation in Gaza, Diskin said that Hamas was careful not to fire Kassam rockets on Israel, and that the organization was respecting the "calm" with Israel and using the period to rebuild its forces.
He said that the Kassam rockets were being fired primarily by Islamic Jihad, and that - unlike the situation in the past - these rockets were not being provided by Hamas. He said that Hamas has not and would not take any action against "resistance forces."
Turning to the tenuous security situation along the Gaza-Egyptian border, Diskin said that there has been a decline in arms smuggling from Sinai to Gaza, and that this might be because the Egyptians were doing more to prevent smuggling.
He added, however, that Hamas had continued to receive money from Iran, and that the money continued to be smuggled in through Egypt.
Diskin said that the international isolation of Hamas was depriving the organization of legitimacy and funds, but was as a result driving it into Iran's arms, and that Teheran was happy to provide the group with money and training.
Regarding Hizbullah, Diskin told the cabinet that the organization was working to build an infrastructure in Gaza, the West Bank, and even to a certain degree among Israeli Arabs.
**************************
Ahmadinejad's stand criticized
IRAN Both sides of political divide take aim at leader's nuclear diplomacy
January 14, 2007 Ali Akbar DareiniAssociated Press
TEHRAN–Conservatives and reformists are openly challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line nuclear diplomacy – an unusual agreement across Iran's political spectrum, with many saying his provocative remarks have increasingly isolated their country.
The criticism comes after the UN Security Council voted unanimously last month to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. Some critics view the sanctions as an indication that Iran must change its policy.
After a year of silence, reformists are demanding that Iran dispel fears that it is seeking to build atomic weapons, pressing for a return to former president Mohammad Khatami's policy of suspending enrichment, a process that can produce the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs.
"Resisting the UN Security Council resolution will put us in a more isolated position," said the largest reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front.
Ahmadinejad's popularity already was weakened after his close conservative allies were defeated last month in local elections, which were widely seen as a referendum on his 18 months in power.
Even some conservatives warn his confrontational tactics are backfiring.
"Your language is so offensive ... that it shows that the nuclear issue is being dealt with a sort of stubbornness," the hard-line daily Jomhuri-e-Eslami said in a recent editorial.
Some politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are considering impeaching Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki if the Security Council approves more resolutions against Iran.
"That all 15 members of the Security Council unanimously voted – against the claim by our diplomatic apparatus that there was no unanimity against Iran – shows the weakness of our diplomatic apparatus," said Noureddin Pirmoazzen, a reformist lawmaker.
Despite the criticism, Ahmadinejad has remained defiant, escalating Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States and its allies.
He has repeatedly refused to suspend enrichment, even under pressure from its trade allies Russia and China. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, denying allegations from the United States and its allies that it is secretly trying to build a bomb.
Yesterday, Ahmadinejad met with fellow U.S. critic Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the start of a Latin America tour – his second such visit in four months. Critics say the trip was partly aimed at diverting attention from disapproval at home.
Ahmadinejad has also distanced some of his conservative base by calling for the Israeli government to be "wiped off the map" and hosting a conference last month that cast doubt on the Holocaust.
Many feel he has spent too much time defying the West and too little tackling Iran's domestic issues.
"The sanctions imposed on Iran are believed to have been partly due to Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric and the Holocaust conference," said political analyst Iraj Jamshidi.
The president's tactics, Jamshidi said, have turned Iran's nuclear program from a source of national pride to a hotbed of dispute.
"Ahmadinejad made two major claims in his presidential campaign: to bring oil revenues to the kitchen of every Iranian family and to protect Iran's nuclear achievements. He failed in both," he said.
*********************************
Jordan's king meets RiceAbdullah II told Rice the US should do more to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [AFP]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9BC34E05-132B-45BD-A5A5-0E438B5A11F3.htmJordan's king has told Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that the violence in Iraq can only be ended by a political solution that includes all of Iraq's feuding ethnic and religious groups.
Abdullah II also told Rice during their meeting on Sunday that Washington must "actively push" for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
Abdullah said that Iraq could not be stabilised unless sunnis were not engaged in their country's decision making.
"Any political process that doesn't ensure the participation of all segments of Iraqi society will fail and will lead to more violence," he told Rice, his press office reported.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
"As a key component of the Iraqi social fabric, the Iraqi sunni community must be included as partners in building Iraq's future," said the king, a top US ally in the Mideast.
Along with other US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Jordan is concerned by the growing Shia influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Plea for Palestine
Abdullah also said "called on the United States to actively push for a revival of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations" the statement from his office said.
He said that this "would lead to the establishment of a viable, independent Palestinian state that would fulfill Palestinian aspirations for freedom, independence and security."
Abdullah said "without tangible, specific steps to activate the implementation of the road map in the near future, the cycle of violence will widen."
The US-backed 'road map' peace plan calls for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
He also called on a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on international legality and the Arab Peace Initiative.
This initiative, unveiled at an Arab summit in Lebanon in 2002, calls for Israel to withdraw from all territory occupied since the 1967 Mideast war in return for full recognition by Arab countries.
Rice arrived in Jordan earlier Sunday from the West Bank, where Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, told her that he opposed the establishment of a provisional Palestinian state in temporary borders, a key part of the road map.
*******************************
Abbas rejects temporary border planRice visited Abbas as part of her tour of the Middle East [AFP]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8996A21E-0D83-462F-A5F8-3E57808AE0F9.htmMahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has told Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that he opposes the establishment of a provisional Palestinian state within temporary borders.
Abbas made the announcement after meeting Rice in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Rice visited Abbas as part of a fact-finding tour of the Middle East.
bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
"We told secretary Rice that we reject any temporary solutions, including a transitional stage, because we don't see it as a realistic option," Abbas said during a news conference with Rice on Sunday.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
More US involvement
The border plan was floated last month by Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, and is also part of the US backed "road map".
In response to Abbas, Rice said that the road map was the way towards a lasting solution.
"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for their own state. The Israeli people have waited a long time to live in security and peace with their neighbours"
Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state"My work is going to be best targeted, I think, in these next months on trying to accelerate progress on the road map, which after all would lead us then to a Palestinian state and to helping the Palestinians and Israelis think through the political horizon," she said.
She also said that the United States needed to deepen its involvement in Middle Eastern peace efforts.
"You will have my commitment to do precisely that," she said.
"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for their own state. The Israeli people have waited a long time to live in security and peace with their neighbours," Rice said.
Mohammed Dahlan, an Abbas confidant, said after the meeting that Rice "showed understanding" for the Palestinian position.
However, Rice did not consult any member of the democratically elected Hamas Palestinian government during her trip.
Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, said the US policy of backing Abbas and ignoring Hamas was "doomed to fail because the Palestinian people are not bought with money, and no one believes that trying to lure some [Palestinians] will lead to results".
"American policy has not changed for a long time, and it attempts to create rifts between the parties," he said.
Walid Batrawi, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Ramallah, said that despite Rice's visit to Abbas, the US' main focus for her Middle East tour was the US military plan for Iraq.
However, Batrawi said that the US has said in the past that a resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is necessary for security across the wider Middle East.
Early elections
Abbas said he will aim to go ahead with early elections if current coalition talks with the Hamas government fail.
However, Abbas said it was too early to talk about a meeting between him and Khaled Meshaal, Hamas's leader, who is based in Syria.
Abbas is to visit Syria later this month.
The Palestinian leader said early elections are still an option. "We hope and we work to achieve this [a unity government] as soon as possible," he said. If not, "we will return to the people and hold the early parliamentary and presidential elections".
Rice's meeting with Abbas followed talks on Saturday, Livni, and Amir Peretz, the Israeli defence minister.
Last month, Livni proposed setting up a provisional Palestinian state, with a border based on the separation barrier Israel is building in the West Bank.
Full details on the US-supported road map for the Middle East can be found on the US state department website************************
Turkey mulls action against PKKTurkey fears that Kurds in Iraq are moving towards establishing an independent state [AFP]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9C9E0B77-4A7C-4D4F-B65C-A8F8DA2DE75D.htmThe leader of Turkish largest opposition party has said he would support the government if it chose to launch a cross-border offensive against Turkish Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq.
Deniz Baykal, leader of the Republican People's Party, also called on the government to urgently debate taking military action against northern Iraq.
bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
"We're ready to back the government on this issue," Baykal told his supporters on Sunday.
"We're planning to invite parliament to debate this."
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
Baykal's promise to support the government came just days after Turkey's prime minister called for the US to act against separatist Kurdish guerrillas based in northern Iraq.
Several thousand heavily armed members of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) are believed based in Kurdish-ruled northern Iraq.
Turkey has repeatedly said that it will not tolerate the creation of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq. Military officers have spoken of the possibility of sending in troops to prevent this from happening.
PM criticises US
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, severely criticized the US this week for not keeping its promises to take action against Kurdish guerrillas holed up in the northern Iraqi mountains.
The US has been cooperating with Turkey against guerrillas from the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, but Turkish officials increasingly have found the level of cooperation unsatisfactory.
"We want solid results," Erdogan said earlier this week during an interview with private NTV television.
Asked about past threats of a possible invasion, Erdogan said, "When the time comes, Turkey will do whatever is necessary against those threatening our country with terror".
In the last 20 years, more than 37,000 people in Turkey have died in the fighting between Kurdish groups fighting for independence and the Turkish military.
Turkey has also warned that rival ethnic groups in the oil-rich northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk must share power, amid growing fears that Iraq's Kurds plan to seize control of Kirkuk as part of a push for an independent Kurdish state there.
**********************
Talabani meets Syrian presidentTalabani is expected to sign a number of agreements with his Syrian counterpart [AFP]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7052A896-6A11-4B19-A946-6DE91C06D511.htmJalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, has met Bashar al-Assad, his Syrian counterpart, in the first meeting between the leaders of the neighbouring countries for nearly 25 years.Talabani's five-day visit to Damascus, the Syrian capital, comes after George Bush, the US president, called on Syria to stop supporting Sunni fighters in Iraq.
"We hope this will be a successful visit. We have a desire to develop ties in all fields," al-Assad told Talabani when they met on Sunday.
The countries restored ties in November during a visit to Baghdad by Walid Muallem, Syria's foreign minister, who vowed to help Iraq restore security.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
In December, the countries reopened their embassies in each other's capitals.
Talabani, speaking at the public meeting with the Syrian leader soon after his arrival, said: "Syria stood with us in difficult times. I came here with a large delegation to show our seriousness about advancing our relations with Syria."
Talabani, a Kurd, founded the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in the 1970s, when he, along with other exiled opponents of Iraq's Baathist government, was living in Syria.
Weapons supplies
On Friday, an official from Talabani's office said the Iraqi president and al-Assad are expected to sign a number of agreements related to bilateral security and commercial matters.
"The enmity between the United States and Syria and Iran doesn't benefit the situation in Iraq"Mahmoud Othman, Iraqi politicianUS and Iraqi officials have repeatedly accused of Syria of failing to prevent Sunni fighters from entering Iraq.
Syria denies the charge and says that the Iraqis and US forces are not doing enough to guard their side of the border.When outlining a new strategy for Iraq on Wednesday, Bush vowed military action to disrupt supplies of weapons coming into Iraq from Syria and Iran."The timing may seem a little tricky after what Bush said," Mahmoud Othman, a prominent Iraqi politician with close ties to Talabani, told the Associated Press.
"But our interests differ from those of the United States. The enmity between the United States and Syria and Iran doesn't benefit the situation in Iraq."
Visit planned a year in advance
The visit has been planned for nearly a year and its date was finalised about two weeks ago, he said.Engaging with Iraq could offer Assad's government an opportunity to ease its relative isolation in the region."Syria can play a constructive role in Iraq, but not necessarily a decisive one," Rami Khouri, a Beirut-based Middle East expert, told The Associated Press.
"What Syria can and cannot do will not decide the future of Iraq, but it can help."
**************************
No plan to hit Iran's nuclear program: IsraelUpdated Sun. Jan. 7 2007 11:33 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Israel has denied a British newspaper's report that its pilots are training to strike targets in Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons.
However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev added this about the Sunday Times report: "If diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably."
Zeev Boim, an Israeli cabinet minister, said: "We'll support the international community in its efforts to stop Iran's nuclear plans."
The Sunday Times claimed that Israel has plans to attack nuclear facilities in Iran because it fears that country could be developing nuclear weapons.
The newspaper said Israeli pilots have flown round trips to the British colony of Gibraltar to train for such a possible mission.
Iran has insisted its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. However, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," leading to heightened fears about what could happen if his country should develop nuclear weapons.
The U.N. Security Council has demanded a moratorium on uranium enrichment by Iran, even imposing some economic sanctions recently.
On a talk radio show that Menashe Amir broadcasts from Jerusalem into Iran via shortwave radio, the newspaper's claim was the story of the day -- Israel denials not withstanding.
"There is no doubt the Israeli air force is always preparing proper programs and plans to do the job," he told CTV News.
Israel doesn't officially admit to having nuclear weapons, but it is widely believed to have an arsenal. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made a slip last fall that appeared to confirm it does.
In 1986, the Sunday Times reported on Israel's nuclear program based on the revelations of Mordechai Vanunu, who had been a technician at a secret Israeli nuclear facility. Vanunu served an 18-year prison sentence over his actions.
The tiny Jewish nation has conducted pre-emptive strike before when it considered its national security to be under a grave threat.
In 1981, it conducted a conventional bombing raid on an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction at Osirak.
Several months ago, former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu described a nuclear-armed Iran as "an outcome the world cannot tolerate."
Asked if that meant the military option, Netanyahu said, "It leaves whatever options are necessary to make sure this doesn't happen."
The story said such an attack would be carried out only as a last resort.
The Bush administration has not ruled out the use of force to deal with a possible nuclear threat from Iran, but it has said the priority is to reach a diplomatic solution.
Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent Israeli defence analyst, told the Associated Press: "It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say: 'Someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy.'"
The news didn't appear to intimidate Iran.
The country's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference that "any measure against Iran will not be left without a response and the invader will regret its act immediately."
With a report from CTV's Janis Mackey Frayer and files from The Associated Press
**************************
Teheran: Israel will regret any attackBy
JPOST STAFF AND APIsrael on Sunday denied a British newspaper report that it is planning to attack Teheran's nuclear sites using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters."
Iran said any such attack would provoke a reaction and that "anyone who attacks will regret their actions very quickly." According to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Muhammad Ali Husseini, the report, published in The Sunday Times, confirmed the danger posed by Israel's possession of nuclear weapons.
"This step even comes after the Israeli prime minister's admission, which revealed the fact that the Israeli regime has nuclear weapons in its possession," Husseini said, referring to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's slip-of-the-tongue last month, when he hinted on German television that Israel was among the world's nuclear-equipped nations.
Iran's moment of choice, by Margaret BeckettEditor's Picks: Decision time"Now this will convince the international community that the main threat to the world, and to our region in particular, is the Zionist regime," Husseini added.
Olmert's office said it would not comment on The Sunday Times claim. "We don't respond to publications in The Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.
Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report, which claimed that Israel had drawn up plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
But Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report and said: "The focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions and the expeditious and full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1737. If diplomacy succeeds, the problem [of Iran's nuclear drive] can be solved peaceably."
Earlier, Meretz MK Zehava Gal-On urged Olmert to refute the report.
"It is impossible that Israel would plan to get caught up in another adventure after [our] experience in Lebanon, and act as the world's sheriff," Israel Radio quoted Gal-On as saying. She added that diplomacy was the only way to solve the problem.
According to the British report, military sources have disclosed details of two IAF squadrons that have been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear bunker busters.
A heavy-water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan would also be targeted, using conventional bombs, according to the newspaper.
Reportedly, the plan envisages conventional laser-guided bombs opening "tunnels" into the targets. Nuclear warheads would then be fired into the plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce radioactive fallout.
IAF pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000 mile round-trip to the Iranian targets, the newspaper said, adding that three possible routes to Iran had been mapped out, including one over Turkey.
It suggested that Israel may be trying to scare Iran or to cajole the US into taking stronger action against Teheran's nuclear program.
However, the report went on to speculate that Israel may strike at Iran's nuclear facilities and pressure the Americans to agree with the move after the event.
Israeli analysts derided the report. Ephraim Kam, a strategic expert at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies and formerly a senior IDF intelligence officer, said: "No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to The Sunday Times."
In March 2005, the same newspaper reported that Israel had drawn up secret plans for a combined air-and-ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy failed to halt the Iranian nuclear program.
The newspaper then claimed that the inner cabinet of former prime minister Ariel Sharon had given "initial authorization" for an attack at a private meeting on his ranch in the Negev.
The Sunday Times reported that Israeli military officials believe Iran could produce enough enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons within two years.
***************************
U.S., Britain, Israel called 'axis of evil'January 14, 2007 reuters
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/171022TEHRAN, Jan 14 – The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday the United States, Britain and Israel were an "axis of evil" trying to drive a wedge between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims.
U.S. President George W. Bush originally labelled Iran, North Korea and Iraq – before U.S. troops invaded – as part of an "axis of evil". Washington accuses Iran of backing terrorism and trying to build atomic bombs, charges Tehran denies.
"America, Britain and the Zionist regime (Israel) are an axis of evil against the Islamic world and the whole of humanity," Guards Commander-in-Chief Yahya Rahim Safavi was quoted as saying by Iran's student news agency ISNA.
"They are trying to make enmity among Islamic countries and to make divisions among Shi'ites and Sunnis," he said.
He was echoing comments by other Iranian officials who have accused Washington of stoking sectarian tensions in Iraq where the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite Muslims, like most Iranians. Washington blames Iran for fuelling violence in Iraq.
"Our powerful country does not worry about American and Zionist regime threats and in case of any kind of attack by intruders, we are able to defeat them," he added.
A British newspaper this month said Israel had drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities – the part of Iran's nuclear programme that most worries the West – using tactical nuclear weapons. Israel would not comment on the story, which touched on its assumed atomic arsenal.
The United States has said it wants to resolve Iran's nuclear dispute with West diplomatically, but has refused to rule out using force if diplomacy fails.
**********************
Iraq calls for release of Iranians held by U.S.
January 14, 2007 Kim Gamel
associated press
BAGHDAD – The Iraqi foreign minister called Sunday for the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in what he said was a legitimate mission in northern Iraq, but he stressed that foreign intervention to help insurgents would not be tolerated.
The two-pronged statement by Hoshyar Zebari highlighted the delicate balance facing the Iraqi government as it tries to secure Baghdad with the help of American forces while maintaining ties with its neighbours, including U.S. rivals Iran and Syria.
"Any interventions – or any harmful interventions to kill Iraqis or to provide support for insurgency or for the insurgents should be stopped by the Iraqi government and by the coalition forces," Zebari said in an interview with CNN's "Late Edition."
But he also stressed Iraq has to keep good relations with its neighbours in the region.
"You have to remember, our destiny, as Iraqis, we have to live in this part of the world. And we have to live with Iran, we have to live with Syria and Turkey and other countries," he said. "So in fact, on the other hand, the Iraqi government is committed to cultivate good neighbourly relations with these two countries and to engage them constructively in security cooperation."
The U.S. military said the five Iranians detained last week in the Kurdish-controlled northern city of Irbil were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq. It was the second U.S. raid targeting Iranians in Iraq in less than a month.
The military said the Quds Force faction of the Revolutionary Guard, a hardline military force that reports directly to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is "known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the Government of Iraq and attack Coalition forces."
"Qods" is the Arabic name for Jerusalem, and a frequent name for political or military factions across the Muslim world.
Iran's government denied the five detainees were involved in financing and arming insurgents and called for their release along with compensation for damages.
"Their job was basically consular, official and in the framework of regulations," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Sunday. "What the Americans express was incorrect and hyperbole against Iran in order to justify their acts."
The United States repeatedly has denied the office was a consulate and the State Department has said no legitimate diplomatic activity was being carried out at the site.
Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley said Sunday that the U.S. had the authority to pursue Iranians in Iraq because they ``put our people at risk."
"We are going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq," he said.
Vice-President Dick Cheney added: "Iran is fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq."
Zebari, a Kurd, said those detained had been working in a liaison office issuing travel permits for the local population, and he reiterated that the office was in the process of being regularized into a consulate.
"Well, we have asked for their release," he told CNN. "They are being interrogated by the U.S. forces. But we have established all the information that this office has been there for many years with the approval of the Kurdish regional authorities with their knowledge of the Iraqi government."
Bush accused Iran and Syria of not doing enough to block terrorists from entering Iraq over their borders in his speech last week outlining his new strategy for Iraq. The U.S. has accused them of funnelling arms and fighters to aid the insurgency.
In another indication of Iraqi efforts to reach out to their neighbours hostile toward the U.S., Iraqi President Jalal Talabani visited Syria on Sunday, becoming the first Iraqi president to travel to the country in nearly three decades. Mahmoud Othman, an Iraqi legislator close to Talabani, said the Syria trip was not intended as a snub to Bush. It had been planned for nearly a year, but its date was finalized about two weeks ago, he said from Baghdad.
The Iranian foreign minister said the United States was resorting to "hostility and conflict toward neighbours of Iraq" because it did not want to acknowledge it had failed to stabilize Iraq.
There is already a standoff between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran's atomic program. Iran has rejected all allegations that it is trying to make nuclear arms.
In violence Sunday, at least 78 people were reported killed or found dead on Sunday, including 41 bullet-riddled bodies discovered in Baghdad. The U.S. military also said an American soldier died Saturday in an explosion in northern Iraq.
Separately, the Iraqi army arrested 50 suspected insurgents and seized nearly 2,000 rockets in a raid in a predominantly Shiite area 70 kilometres northeast of Baghdad, Defence Ministry spokesman Maj.-Gen. Ibrahim Shaker said. The suspects were detained late Saturday.
The Iraqi army arrested 32 other suspected insurgents during house-to-house searches in Abu Ghraib, on the western outskirts of Baghdad, Shaker said. They also seized seven cars packed with light weapons and 40 barrels of chemicals that could be used in making explosives.
***********************
Difficult to gauge Tehran's next stepdocument.write('
Email story');
Experts play down role of Ahmadinejad as talk of strike by U.S. or Israel escalates
January 13, 2007 Olivia WardStaff Reporter
Who will strike first, Israel or the United States?
As tensions rise over Iran's nuclear ambitions, rumours are buzzing that one or the other is preparing to blast Tehran's uranium enrichment sites to halt development of an atomic bomb.
This week U.S. President George W. Bush also named Iran as a regime that was allowing "terrorists and insurgents" to attack American troops in Iraq, vowing to "seek out and destroy" networks aiding Washington's enemies there.
The U.S. military, meanwhile, launched two raids against Iranians in Iraq, the latest one scooping up a group of diplomats in the Kurdish region.
As rumours of confrontation escalate, the public face of Iran's defiance is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who delights in hurling heated rhetoric at the West. His recent conference questioning the veracity of the Holocaust set off shock waves, along with accusations that Iran wanted to destroy Israel.
But those who study Iran closely, say that Ahmadinejad is only one in a broad spectrum of political players.
"Iran's political structure is complex and far from monolithic," says BBC Iran analyst Sadeq Saba. "The ruling clerics have not been able to establish a totalitarian state and there is a degree of freedom within the system."
Before confronting Iran, says Patrick Clawson, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "my concern is that we look at it with the appropriate degree of humility about what we know it will do.
"It is a very complicated country and we have great difficulty in judging even what our own society will do."
But says Ali Ansari, director of the Institute for Iranian Studies at Scotland's University of St. Andrews: "Americans like their politics simple. A sound bite will always be easier than analysis.
"There was a sigh of relief when Ahmadinejad took power because all the complicated multi-dimensional aspect of dealing with Iran was gone."
The complexity of Iran's power structure daunts most politicians, who often label it authoritarian, in the mould of the Soviet Union.
"The system of the Islamic Republic is absolutely unique," says Ray Takeyh, author of Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic. "There is no precedent anywhere. The system is not only diverse, but constantly battling itself."
The tensions in Iranian society were codified by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when he created a system that combines both Islamic theocracy and electoral democracy after the fall of the Shah.
"There were all kinds of people who waged revolution in 1979," said Takeyh. "But over the years many of their tendencies have been excised. What remains is the clerical community."
The clerical elite keep a firm grip on the country's power structure. But even there, Takeyh points out, a broad spectrum of opinion prevails. A substantial number prefer accommodation to confrontation with Iran's neighbours and foes: "Shia Islam is not like a Catholic hierarchy. It's a diverse collection of ayatollahs existing within a unitary organization."
The system is made for in-fighting, with elected and unelected, clerical and secular players facing off against each other.
At the top of the political ladder is unelected Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was chosen by the clerical Assembly of Experts. He has sweeping powers to set the direction of Iran's government, declare war, oversee intelligence and security, and appoint some of the most influential people in the country – including the Guardian Council, judiciary, heads of state media, and head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
The "experts" who appoint him are a group of 86 publicly elected "virtuous and learned" clerics. The leader is advised by the Expediency Council, headed by former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a pragmatist with ties to reformers
Khamenei is more powerful than Ahmadinejad, a former Tehran mayor and member of the new group of young hardline conservatives. His powers are checked by the clerics, and he was one of a few candidates approved by the Guardian Council to run in the 2005 elections.
Ahmadinejad may appoint cabinet members, but they must be approved by the notoriously scrappy parliament. The decisions of cabinet ministers, in turn, are overseen by Khamenei.
While the 290 members of the majlis, or parliament, make and pass laws, their bills must be approved by the Guardian Council of a dozen mainly conservative theologians and jurists – the most influential body in Iran. It was the council that banned all female candidates, and most reformers, from running in the last election.
The judiciary enforces Islamic laws and frequently cracks down on the media. It has been accused of complicity in the 2003 death of Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi.
The reach of the official bodies is long in Iran. The Revolutionary Guard that make up part of the armed forces control volunteer militias throughout the country and run their own commercial firms. And wealthy religious foundations controlled by the supreme leader, have become holding companies that dominate the economy, operating without competition, government control or taxes.
Official Iran is only part of the jigsaw puzzle of power. Alongside it is a population of 68 million, 70 per cent of whom are under 30. For the new generation of Iranians, economic progress is frustratingly slow and the corruption of the ruling clerics unacceptable.
"When you look at the totality of Iran's society it's very divided," says Alex Bigham, an Iran expert with the London-based Foreign Policy Centre that advises British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "It's almost equally split between conservative and more liberal elements, and the government has many centres of power. Ahmadinejad is by no means at the top of the pile."
He says the president's belligerent stance toward the West, and his provocation of Israel, is alarming conservatives who value stability over ideology in foreign policy.
"Those around Khamenei are concerned about Ahmadinejad over the long term. He has been the most divisive president since the revolution in terms of public reaction. When they are next trying to engineer candidates they will look for someone more moderate."
Clawson says the majority of young Iranians also believe Ahmadinejad's "spit-in-your-eye" policy toward the West is counter-productive and dangerous.
Recent local elections and polls for the Assembly of Experts showed gains for the moderates who had been swept aside in the 2005 presidential poll.
**************************
DIRE STRAITSThe Straits of Hormuz is the narrowest point of the Persian Gulf. Some 16.5 million barrels of oil - roughly 20 per cent of the world's daily production - pass through it on tankers each day.
CHOKE POINT Should the U.S. bomb Iran, as some say it will, the Straits of Hormuz could be the focus of Iran's response, causing a huge spike in oil prices. By David Olive
January 14, 2007 David Olive
Is there another punishing oil shock around the corner? That depends on what George W. Bush has in mind for the Middle East, a topic on which he was not very informative in his Wednesday speech about his supposedly new U.S. approach to the conflict in Iraq.
But a few keen observers did see cause for alarm in the Bush address. More on that later.
The CEO of Swiss Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance firms, warned last week that the prospect of another oil shock this decade is "relatively high," at 10 per cent to 20 per cent. And that another shock would trigger a global recession with worldwide losses of $1 trillion (U.S.).
Yet the markets don't see it that way, having forced down the price of oil by more than 13 per cent so far this year. A recent flight from oil by the same speculative forces that drove oil above $78 per barrel last summer have since pushed the price down 31.2 per cent, to a 19-month low in the $53 range.
That's been a relief to Canadian motorists, who've seen pump prices fall sharply from last summer's national average of $1.10 (Canadian) per litre to a current 75 cents or so.
So, who to believe – the optimists or Cassandras?
Those betting on continued lower oil prices cite the departure from the market of the speculative hedge funds and institutional investors who are thought to have added $35 (U.S.) to the oil price during its historic run-up.
The appetite for oil in China and India remains voracious. But the astonishing growth rate of their economies has at least flattened out of late. We're also witnessing what appears to be a sustainable commitment to confronting the climate-change crisis, on the part of consumers, industry and governments.
More automakers are following Toyota Motor Corp.'s lead in developing hybrids. Last week, the European Union unveiled a set of ambitious targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that eclipse the targets of the original Kyoto accord. Also last week, Exxon Mobil Corp., which has long tried to discredit global-warming science, conceded the argument and joined BP PLC and other oil majors in acknowledging man's role in causing climate change, boosting R&D funds for alternative fuels.
Public-opinion surveys show climate change ranking second only to health care among issues of greatest concern to Canadians. The anti-Kyoto government of Stephen Harper has gone back to the drawing board after a failed first stab at environmental policy last year.
There is a wild card, however, and predictably it's in the Middle East, still the world's dominant oil supplier.
With the notable exception of Shia Iran, the region is predominantly populated by ethnic Sunnis. For months, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni oil producers have been warning the White House about two things.
The first is an outcome described internally by White House analysts as a "nightmare scenario," in which Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Turkey try to carve up an Iraq engulfed in civil war and lacking a viable government.
Their aim would be to rescue Iraq's besieged Sunni minority, one-third of which, by the recent estimate of a U.S. State Department analyst, has already been driven from Iraq's largest cities by Shiite death squads.
Iran, meanwhile, is making a transparent grab for the immense oil fields of southern Iraq by channelling arms to Shiite militia groups in the south and in Baghdad. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is determined at all costs to contain the growing Iranian influence in the region.
The potential sectarian conflict throughout the region should events unfold this way would make the Balkan upheaval of the 1990s look like a food fight at Riverdale High.
Last month's Iraq Study Group warned, "Ambassadors from neighbouring countries [to Iraq] told us that they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world. Such a broader sectarian conflict could open a Pandora's box of problems – including the radicalization of populations, mass movements of populations, and regime changes – that might take decades to play out."
An Iraqi quagmire conflated into a regional quagmire of decades' duration could trigger a sustained jump in oil prices beyond the $100 range, given that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and Iraq hold a combined two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves.
How to keep the Saudis and other Sunni nations on the sidelines? For the White House, the answer is to go after Iran, their common enemy.
The Americans have already begun escalating their assault on Iranians in Iraq, detaining in the past month two groups of Iranian diplomats in Baghdad and Irbil suspected of supplying weapons to Shia militia. Coalition patrols have been bolstered along the Iraq-Iran border to staunch the flow of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), generally used as roadside bombs, and the leading killer of U.S. forces in Iraq. And U.S. intelligence agents have stepped up their tracking of Iranian arms-supply networks.
"Iran needs to learn to respect us," Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, told the Wall Street Journal last week. "And Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East."
But American efforts to curb Iranian influence have had little effect. The Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is openly pro-Tehran. And local support is growing for the Mahdi Army, a Shia militia led by Moqtada al-Sadr that controls a large portion of Baghdad; and the Badr Brigade, the militant arm of Iraq's largest Shiite political party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
The most expedient means of decisively curbing Iranian influence, the White House may conclude, is to destroy its nuclear ambitions in one stroke with a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The obvious precedent is the 1981 lightning strike by the Israeli air force that crippled Saddam Hussein's nuclear-materials testing reactor at Osirak, near Baghdad.
Bush seemed to signal something big may be in the offing Wednesday by revealing his recent deployment of a second carrier strike group, equipped with Patriot missiles, to the Persian Gulf.
It was to Riyadh and not Des Moines that Bush directed his reference Wednesday to deploying "Patriot air defence systems to reassure our friends and allies" (emphasis added).
A day later, in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Condoleezza Rice dodged repeated questions about Bush's possible intention to widen the Iraq conflict to Iran and Syria. But on Friday, the prospects of a U.S. attack on Iran seemed real enough that White House press secretary Tony Snow took the trouble to dismiss them as an "urban legend."
Yet Snow left open the possibility of a dramatic confrontation. "This notion that somehow what the president was announcing was a precursor to a planned military action – a planned war against Iran, that's just not the case."
A planned war, no. A potential missile attack on one selected target in Iran, who knows? Israel didn't go to war with Iraq in taking out its nuclear facilities one day in 1981.
Burns' objective of showing Iran who's boss by revealing the vulnerability of its cities and military arsenal to missile strikes launched at will could be accomplished with just one brief, deadly shower of missiles.
And the Patriots, designed to defend against missile attacks, would be poised to thwart retaliatory Iranian missile strikes on Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Indeed, that would seem to be the only logical purpose of their presence in the Persian Gulf since Iraqi insurgents don't have the long-range missiles Patriots are designed to defend against.
The crucial question, obviously, is how Tehran would react to having its long-pursued nuclear ambitions suddenly aborted.
Would Iran disrupt the world oil market, as the new regime in Tehran did in 1979 after the fall of the Shah – the second of the two global oil shocks of the 1970s?
Or would Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his Council of Guardians rein in Iranian president and Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and maintain current levels of Iranian oil production, the nation's sole significant source of revenues?
Iran's own proliferation of internal dissident movements like Mujahedin-e Khalq hardly needs the encouragement of further economic deprivation across Iran to mount an even more persuasive case for toppling the regime in Tehran.
So far, this is a high speculative scenario. But it may well trigger a shift in sentiment among oil speculators tempted once again to go long on oil futures.
Which means oil-market bettors won't be far behind.
Rice embarked late last week on a tour of Mideast capitals to sell Bush's supposed "course correction" in Iraq. If Bush does have a Hail Mary play in mind for putting Iran in its place, he might want to send his treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, on a parallel tour of the world's financial capitals.
In the event of a wider Mideast conflict, oil-market traders will need some reassurance that Bush has a scheme for dealing with its assuredly volatile consequences. And a convincing argument as to why speculators shouldn't bid up oil to $150 a barrel by year's end.
***************************
Chavez and Iran unveil anti-US fundAhmadinejad and Chavez have strong ties and frequently call each other "brother" [AFP]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FBBF5028-87F2-4FD5-A411-BF01B23FCBF9.htmThe presidents of Iran and Venezuela have agreed to spend billions of dollars to help other countries free themselves from what they describe as US domination. Hugo Chavez announced the plan in a speech on Saturday with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The two also called for Opec to cut oil production to support falling crude prices.
They had previously announced plans to establish a joint $2bn fund for projects in Venezuela and Iran but on Saturday they said that the money would also be used to help friendly third countries.
"This fund, my brother," Chavez said, "will become a mechanism for liberation."
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
Chavez said the fund "will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the [US] imperialist yoke ... Death to US imperialism."Ahmadinejad, who is on a tour of Latin America, said that Tehran and Caracas had the task of "promoting revolutionary thought in the world"."The reason for all the current problems is the erroneous direction of the powerful countries, where there is poverty, hate, enmity and war," he added.
Oil agreementThe two presidents announced that they would make a joint effort to obtain new oil production cuts.
"Today we know that there is too much crude in the market, that's why we support ... the decisions that have been taken to reduce production and protect the price of oil," Chavez said.
He emphasised that he was sending the message "to all the heads of state in the Opec countries to continue to strengthen our organisation in this direction".
Members of the 11-nation Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) have expressed concern about the falling price of oil, which has slid 14 per cent since the start of the year.
Ahmadinejad has praised Chavez for his outspoken support of Iran's nuclear programme, which the US and European governments say may be part of a project to build atomic weapons.
Vocal supporterFacing the threat of international isolation and sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council over its uranium enrichment work, Iran is keen to demonstrate it has backing among a number of leaders in Latin America.
Chavez is the most vocal supporter in Latin America for Iran and its president, with both men calling each other "brother" and relishing their status as fierce opponents of Washington's influence.
"Hugo is my brother," Ahmadinejad said during his last visit to Venezuela in September. "Hugo is the champion of the fight against imperialism."
In September 2005, Venezuela was alone in opposing a resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that found Iran in violation of nuclear safeguards. Chavez has since backed Iran's right to enrich uranium.
Iran and Venezuela are both important players in Opec and have signed numerous co-operation agreements in the energy sector and other fields.
During a visit to Iran last September, Chavez came out in support of Iran's nuclear programme, as well as denouncing Israeli military operations in Lebanon.
The two presidents also signed deals covering iron and steel production, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and health care equipment and munitions.
Cultivating alliesWhile Ahmadinejad seeks to cultivate Latin American allies, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, is in the Middle East to rally Arab support for a new US strategy in Iraq and counter Iran's alleged "interference" in Iraq.
Ahmadinejad arrived in Nicaragua late on Saturday, where Daniel Ortega has just returned to power. The Iranian president was met at the airport by the new Nicaraguan president.
On Monday, Ahmadinejad will take part in the swearing-in ceremony of Ecuador's new president Rafael Correa, who has vowed to forge stronger ties with Venezuela and not to renew a lease for a US military air base on the country's Pacific coast.
The Iranian president will also hold meetings with other South American presidents including Bolivia's Evo Morales on the sidelines of the ceremony in Ecuador, before finishing his tour on Tuesday.
**************************
Ahmadinejad tours Nicaraguan slums
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, has sought alliances with South American leaders opposed to the US [AFP]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EC04DC3B-51C8-4350-A52D-BAA76473175B.htmMahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has toured shantytowns in Nicaragua with Daniel Ortega, the country's new president.
During Sunday's tour, Ahmadinejad praised Ortega as the latest leftist presidents in the region and as a fellow opponent of the United State.
The trip is the Iranian leader's second to Latin America in four months.
bodyVariable350="Htmlphcontrol1_lblError";
"We have to give each other a hand," Ahmadinejad told reporters during his visit to Managua, the Nicaraguan capital. "We have common interests, common enemies and common goals."
Many Latin American leaders have welcomed Ahmadinejad as a potential ally against the US influence worldwide.
bodyVariable300="Htmlphcontrol2_lblError";
Ahmadinejad, an ex-soldier, and Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla, both came to power on populist platforms.
Ortega drove Ahmadinejad on a jeep tour of Managua's poorest slums, past houses made of plastic sheets and Sandinista supporters waving banners and holding up photographs of the Iranian leader.
Promises to fight corruption
Ortega, a close ally of Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, began his term last week after winning November's election on promises to fight hunger and corruption.
Ahmadinejad is also close to Chavez, a fierce critic of George Bush, the US president, and visited him on Saturday before going to Nicaragua later in the evening.
Ortega said he would sign agreements with Ahmadinejad to help reduce poverty in Nicaragua, the Western Hemisphere's second-poorest country after Haiti. He gave no details.
"In our Iranian brothers we have a people, a government, a president willing to join with the Nicaraguan people in the great battle against poverty," Ortega said.
Nicaragua's troubled history
As president of Nicaragua in the 1980s, Ortega and his Sandinista movement confiscated businesses and farms after toppling a US-backed dictator.
Those policies, combined with a US economic blockade and a civil war against US-backed Contra rebels, plunged the coffee-producing country into chaos.
Since then, Ortega has said he learned his lesson and has dropped Marxism for a center-left program.
Following his stop in Nicaragua, Ahmadinejad will visit Ecuador, where the presidential race was recently won by Rafael Correa, another critic of US policies.
************************
'Talk of attack on Iran shows seriousness of situation'By
JPOST STAFF AND APTalk of a military strike against Iran shows how serious it would be for the Iranians to continue down the path of nuclear development, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview with Channel 10 Sunday evening.
"I still think there is room for diplomacy, but even talk of such action shows how serious it would be for Iran to continue their actions unabated," Rice said.
Analysis: Neither Olmert nor Abbas has much to offer RiceRice elaborated on non-military means of forcing Iran away from its nuclear ambitions when discussing the United Nations Security Council resolution which leveled sanctions against the country.
"The United Nations Security Council resolution will help. It sends a strong message to Iran that the world is united against the path that they have embarked on," Rice said, but she added that sanctions alone was still not enough.
Later in the interview, Rice defended Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's decision not to engage in dialogue with the Syrians, despite the latter's recent peace overtures.
"There is no indication that the Syrians have anything but disruptive plans for the Middle East," she said.
Rice also commented on the recent debate of whether her marital status has influenced her ability to fully appreciate the ramifications of war.
"Of course I am single," she said. "I can't believe that people would think that would make it difficult for me to understand that when people are at war there are terrible sacrifices. We are in a period of extraordinary sacrifice for the American people."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, told Rice during a testy Senate hearing on Thursday that without an immediate family Rice will pay no personal price for the Bush administration policy in Iraq.
Rice has said she was at first perplexed by the exchange, and later told Fox News, "Gee, I thought single women had come further than that."
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh accused Boxer of hitting "below the ovaries."
Standing with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Rice jokingly noted that as a woman with children, Livni is qualified to "make the decisions."
Livni leapt to Rice's defense, saying Rice's strong emotions about the Iraq war toll are clear during their private conversations.
Rice, 52, has never married. She is an only child and her parents are dead.
Boxer's comment came during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in which Rice was questioned about President George W. Bush's new war plans.
"Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family.
"So who pays the price? The American military and their families."
Boxer defended herself in a statement Friday.
"I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price for this escalation," she said. "My point was to focus attention on our military families who continue to sacrifice because this administration has not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq."
*********************
Egypt questions effectiveness of 'road map'By
ASSOCIATED PRESSEgypt questioned Saturday the effectiveness of the "road map" to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians, with President Hosni Mubarak's office saying the Egyptian leader sent a letter to the White House with a counterproposal.
Established in 2003, the US-backed "road map" calls for the dismantling of Palestinian terror groups, a freezing of Israeli settlement activity and the creation of a provisional Palestinian state before a final deal is signed.
But the Palestinians reject the idea of a provisional state, believing it would enable Israel to usurp much of the West Bank, where Israel is pressing ahead with West Bank settlement construction.
Egypt, a regional heavyweight and a top US ally, is a regular mediator in the crisis and is leading efforts to reconcile Palestinian factions whose weeks of deadly fighting have further stalled negotiations for a broader settlement with Israel.
"The last few years proved that unilateral steps ... didn't work out, and its time to talk about a comprehensive peace agreement between the Palestinian and the Israeli sides," Egyptian presidential spokesman Suleiman Awaad told reporters Saturday.
Only broader talks will put the long-stalled peace process in motion again, said the presidential spokesman.
He said Mubarak has sent a letter to US President George W. Bush carrying details of a new Egyptian peace proposal as an alternative to the road map, which he described as having failed.
"The road map stumbled on its first stage, so how about the second phase?" Awaad said.
The spokesman did not describe Mubarak's new proposal, but said the Egyptian leader would discuss it on Monday with visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He said Mubarak's new plan aims a "breaking the frozen peace process."
The Egyptian spokesman warned against a plan proposed recently by the Israeli foreign minister that calls for establishing a provisional Palestinian state with a border following the contentious barrier Israel is building along the West Bank.
"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian brothers are mindful that by establishing a Palestinian state with temporary borders, such state will always remain provisional," Awaad said.
*************************
Madrid conference ends with promise to revive ME peaceBy
MARION FISCHEL JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENTMADRID
The Madrid + 15 Peace Conference concluded Friday with a decision to put the peace train back on track during the first half of 2007.
The conference, organized by private foundations, brought together diplomats, academics and politicians from Europe, the United States, Russia and Middle Eastern countries. It was called to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the landmark 1991 Madrid peace conference that brought Israelis and Arabs to the negotiating table for the first time.
Spanish President Felipe Gonzalez, speaking at the closing session, attributed the failure of the Oslo Accords to the fact that the negotiations had moved from the private into the public domain before the agreements had become permanent.
He compared the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference to the present one, saying that in 1991, the language had been "tougher than the present language, the distance between the parties was greater and the hope for achieving a true and lasting peace was less." This time, he said, the language had been more direct and rational.
Gonzalez referred to the 2002 Arab League Initiative as "amazing," saying he could not believe that the international community had not recognized it as an irreversible step. He asked that the US play a part in the peace process without "too much involvement." "The Arab-Israeli issue may or may not be the epicenter of the problem," said Gonzalez, "but if it is not solved we cannot advance to the other issues." Gonzalez quoted [former executive chairman of UNMOVIC] Hans Blix as saying that "traditional methods are useless against the new international terrorism and arms proliferation." "The use of force," said Gonzalez, produces more international terrorism, both present and potential.
EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, who attended only part of the conference, said that "the moment of action has come." "It is imperative to continue with a step-by-step approach. [UN Representative] Terje Roed-Larsen has said that the totality is 'too big,' so let us take the Israeli-Palestinian issue first," Solana continued.
Outlining the formula for a successful peace process, Solana, who defined himself as "a friend of Israel and of the Palestinians," said that the process would need to be "comprehensive," and include "outside monitoring." Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos called upon the international community to "intervene but not impose," adding that "It is not enough to concentrate on the Palestinian situation while the issues with Syria and Lebanon remain blocked." Moratinos also called for the Arab world to be included in the Quartet, and for unconditional agreements to be reached.
After the conference, Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi told The Jerusalem Post that she was pleased and hopeful with the outcome of the conference.
"I think this is very significant. It is not just symbolic. There is commonality and an agreement on issues. But this is something that must be taken up and run with immediately," she said.
**********************
Barghouti seeks help from Hadash MKBy
SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKELEstablishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, including east Jerusalem; right of return for Palestinian refugees; and releasing a "significant number" prisoners are the Palestinians' minimum demands, former Fatah Secretary-General Marwan Barghouti told MK Muhammad Barakei (Hadash) on Saturday.
Barghouti, who is currently serving five life sentences for the murder of Israeli citizens at the Rimonim Prison in Israel, may have been conveying a message from Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas when he spoke to Barakei.
"The Palestinian people tried resistance without negotiation, and negotiation without resistance. The truth is that there is no other way but resistance for the 1967 occupier," Barghouti was quoted as saying during the meeting.
Barakei, who released all of the details of the meeting, said that the most important issue discussed was the release of security prisoners.
"Keeping 11,000 prisoners in Israeli jails is diplomatic stupidity," said Barakei, who added that true peace would only be achieved once a significant number of prisoners were released.
Barghouti also told Barakei that Palestinian prisoners would stage a hunger strike if the violence between Fatah and Hamas loyalists continued.
Barghouti also urged the Hadash MK to "get more involved" in the prisoner exchange issue, and that the Palestinians were interested in a meeting between Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
The Palestinians were interested in a meeting "despite the fact that Israel didn't uphold any of the decisions" that Olmert had made, Barghouti said.
****************************
Iran, Nicaragua promise to work against 'common enemies'By
ASSOCIATED PRESSThe presidents of Nicaragua and Iran promised to battle poverty and work against "common enemies" on Sunday, as Iran's hard-line leader made the second of three Latin American stops aimed at courting allies in his standoff with Washington.
But unlike Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez, who railed against US imperialism during President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit on Saturday, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega took a less confrontational position, focusing his remarks on how Iran and Nicaragua should work to help the developing world.
Ortega spoke of "constructive agreements to combat hunger, unemployment and poverty."
Ahmadinejad said both leaders "want justice and progress" for the entire world.
"Our two counties have common interests, enemies and goals," Ahmadinejad said. "We may be far apart, but we are close in heart."
The two presidents announced plans to open embassies in each others' countries. They previously had only limited ties through Iran's embassy in Mexico City.
"I'm sure this won't be the last visit" by Ahmadinejad to Nicaragua, said Ortega's foreign minister, Samuel Santos.
After appearing with Ortega, Ahmadinejad drove through a poor, trash-strewn neighborhood in the Nicaraguan capital of Managua, where barefoot children on their parents' shoulders, waved flags from Ortega's Sandinista party.
"We are waiting for this delegation to come and give this country economic support," said Ernesto Picado, among the hundreds who lined the streets.
Ahmadinejad was in Managua as part of a whirlwind tour of Latin America's newly inaugurated leftist leaders as he seeks allies in the international debate over his country's nuclear program and its alleged meddling in Iraq. On Saturday, he and Chavez pledged to spend billions of dollars (euros) financing projects in other countries in a bid to offset Washington's influence around the globe.
Ortega, while pledging close ties to both Ahmadinejad and Chavez, is tempering his anti-US remarks as he tries to maintain friendly relations with Washington, which is wary of his Marxist roots and waged a bloody insurgency against his leftist government during the 1980s.
Ortega and Ahmadinejad were scheduled to sign a cooperation agreement later in the day and the Iranian leader also planned to pray at the Nicaraguan capital's Islamic center.
On Monday, Ahmadinejad will attend the inauguration of Ecuador's new president, Rafael Correa, and meet with Bolivian President Evo Morales, both outspoken critics of the administration of US President George W. Bush and Washington's policies in Latin America.
Venezuela and Iran, both oil-rich nations, had previously announced plans for a joint US$2 billion (€1.55 billion) fund to finance investments in their own countries, but Chavez and Ahmadinejad said Saturday that the money would also be used for projects in friendly third countries."It will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the (US) imperialist yoke," Chavez said.
Ahmadinejad called it a "very important" decision that would help promote "joint cooperation in third countries," especially in Latin American and African countries.
It was not clear if the leaders were referring to investment in infrastructure, social and energy projects - areas that the two countries have focused on until now - or other types of financing.
Before his meeting with Ahmadinejad, Chavez said in his state of the nation address that he had personally expressed hope to Thomas Shannon, head of the US State Department's Western Hemisphere affairs bureau, for better relations between their two countries.
Chavez said he spoke with Shannon on the sidelines of Ortega's inauguration earlier this week, saying, "We shook hands and I told him: 'I hope that everything improves."'
Chavez - a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro whom Washington sees as a destabilizing influence - has pledged billions of dollars (euros) of help to the region in foreign aid, bond buyouts and preferentially financed oil deals.
Iran, meanwhile, is allegedly bankrolling militant groups in the Middle East like Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, as well as insurgents in Iraq, in a bid to extend its influence.
*******************
Conservatives challenge Ahmadinejad's diplomacy tacticsBy
ASSOCIATED PRESSTEHERAN, Iran
Conservatives and reformists are openly challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line nuclear diplomacy tactics, with many saying his provocative remarks are doing more harm than good.
The unprecedented criticism comes after the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran last month for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.
Some critics view the sanctions as proof that Iran must change its policy. The disapproval even has some Parliament lawmakers considering impeaching Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki if further Security Council resolutions are issued against Iran.
"That all 15 members of the Security Council unanimously voted, against the claim by our diplomatic apparatus that there was no unanimity against Iran, shows the weakness of our diplomatic apparatus," lawmaker Noureddin Pirmoazzen said.
Ahmadinejad's popularity already was weakened after his close allies suffered a humiliating defeat last month in local elections, which were widely seen as a referendum on his 18 months in power.
He left Friday for a visit to Latin America to meet anti-US leaders - his second such visit in four months. Critics say the trip was partly aimed at diverting attention from disapproval over his diplomacy at home.
Despite the criticism, the hard-line leader has remained defiant, sharply escalating Teheran's standoff with the United States and its allies over Iran's controversial nuclear activities. He has repeatedly refused to suspend enrichment, even as its trade allies including China have requested Teheran respond to international demands, and has given the topic top priority in numerous speeches over the past month during provincial visits.
His tactics have angered critics on both sides of Iran's political spectrum.
"That Your Excellency talks about nuclear energy in all cities and in all your speeches doesn't seem to be a correct publicity strategy. ... Your language is so offensive and contains not very nice words that inculcates that the nuclear issue is being dealt with a sort of stubbornness," the hard-line daily Jomhuri-e-Eslami said in a recent editorial.
The daily Aftab-e-Yazb, a reformist paper, said the nuclear policy was hurting Iran's ability to gain nuclear technology.
"Positive achievements of getting access (to nuclear technology) and negative consequences resulting from lack of wisdom at the stage of pursuing it is not hidden to any body. ... Some current leaders act as if any person criticizing (the government) is an agent of the enemy," the paper said in a front-page commentary Saturday.
The Security Council on Dec. 23 voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment - a process that produces the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs. The US and its allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, an allegation Teheran denies.
After staying silent over the past year, reformists have been voicing their desire for Iran to dispel fears that it's seeking to build atomic weapons and are asking that the country return to suspending enrichment, the policy under former President Mohammad Khatami.
The Islamic Iran Participation Front, Iran's largest reformist party, said consensus at the Security Council showed Ahmadinejad's government was unable to correctly handle the nuclear dossier.
"Given that resisting the UN Security Council resolution will put us in a more isolated position ... it is recommended that previous policies be enforced to avoid more harms that could not be compensated," the party said in a statement.
"The path of dialogue together with suspension (of nuclear activities) with the aim of returning the nuclear dossier back to the International Atomic Energy Agency can get our country out of crisis," it added.
Ahmadinejad also has sparked international outrage for his comments against Israel and for hosting a conference last month that caste doubt on the Holocaust. The hard-line stance is believed to have divided the conservative base that voted him to the presidency, with many feeling he has spent too much time defying the West and too little time tackling Iran's domestic issues.
"The sanctions imposed on Iran is believed were partly due to Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric and the Holocaust conference. Many of the country's leaders are being convinced that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is harming Iran," said political analyst Iraj Jamshidi.
His diplomacy tactics also are turning Iran's nuclear program, a source of national pride, into a source of dispute, Jamshidi said.
"Ahmadinejad made two major claims in his presidential campaign: to bring oil revenues to the kitchen of every Iranian family and to protect Iran's nuclear achievements. He failed in both," he said.
Esmaeil Gerami Moghaddam, a reformist lawmaker, said even the people who voted for Ahmadinejad in 2005 are gradually losing hope.
"People are now openly showing their dissatisfaction even when Ahmadinejad visits provincial cities. ... The president's nuclear and domestic policies need to be altered," he said.
*****************************
Ki-moon raises concern over US attacks in SomaliaBy
ASSOCIATED PRESSUN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged the international community on Thursday to redouble efforts to stabilize Somalia and reiterated his concern that US attacks were harming civilians and could have "unintended consequences."
At his first press conference since taking the reins of the United Nations on Jan. 1, Ban stressed the importance of protecting civilians and quickly restarting political negotiations to bring peace to the country.
"The situation in Somalia is a stark reminder of the need to redouble our political efforts to bring stabilization of the political and social situation as soon as possible," Ban said.
Somalia has not had a functioning government since clan-based warlords toppled dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991 and then turned on each other, sinking the Horn of Africa nation of seven million people into chaos.
The rout of the Islamic fundamentalist movement that controlled most of Somalia for the past six months by Somali government troops and Ethiopian soldiers has allowed the country's weak UN-backed transitional government to enter the capital, Mogadishu, for the first time since it was established in 2004.
Ban was asked to elaborate on the concerns expressed by his spokeswoman that US bombing in southern Somalia - which Washington said was aimed at fleeing al-Qaida terrorists - could escalate hostilities and harm civilians who are reported to have been killed in the airstrikes.
"I'm concerned about all this impact on the reported loss of civilians," he said. "I believe that we must make every effort to protect civilians and be cautious of other unintended consequences in this situation."
"I was hoping that while I fully understand this necessity behind this attack, we should be cautious enough not to see (that) ... this kind of situation will lead to unwanted directions," Ban said.
He stressed the need for a "political negotiated process" to peacefully resolve the differences in Somalia. Francois Lonseny Fall, the top UN envoy to Somalia, "is now closely discUSsing this matter with the concerned parties there," Ban said.
The UN Security Council on Wednesday backed the speedy deployment of African troops to Somalia and strongly supported a dialogue among all political players and humanitarian aid for the country.
RUSsia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, the current council president, told reporters after a closed-door meeting that members regard Somalia as "a high priority matter" and are concerned about instability, security, and the humanitarian situation.
The council backed a UN plan to send a humanitarian assessment mission to the border between Somalia and Kenya and strongly supported an "inclUSive political dialogue among varioUS political forces in Somalia," he said.
Churkin said the council favors speedy deployment of a new force to be set up by the African Union and a seven-nation regional group. Britain's UN Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said getting this troops on the ground quickly would enable Ethiopian troops to withdraw.
Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari told reporters after briefing the council that Nigeria, South Africa and Malawi "are said to be considering sending troops" to Somalia.
"We hope that these countries will actually go ahead and commit," he said.
Gambari said he emphasized the need to speedily organize and deploy a stabilization force and to encourage leaders of Somalia's transitional government to engage with clan elders, members of civil society, especially women's groups, and "positive members" of the routed Union of Islamic Courts.
"Everybody acknowledged that this has provided a historic opportunity for the Somalis to achieve national reconciliation," said China's deputy UN ambassador Liu Zhenmin.
****************************
Bush's fourth war against the MuslimsBy
ERIC MARGOLISNEW YORK -- In his memorable, 1961 farewell speech, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans to avoid foreign entanglements and beware the growing power of the military-industrial complex.
It was sharply ironic to see American air strikes being launched this week from the decks of the mighty attack carrier USS Eisenhower against the remote East African nation of Somalia.
"The U.S. has opened a fourth front in the war on terrorism," trumpeted the Pentagon, as if it did not have enough failing wars on its hands.
U.S. warplanes and special forces attacked Somalia from the sea and from the U.S. base at Djibouti. Other U.S. units deployed on the Kenya-Somalia border. Much of Somalia is already occupied by Ethiopia's powerful, U.S.-financed army. Ethiopia invaded defenseless Somalia, with Washington's blessing, under cover of the Christmas holiday.
But was Somalia really a "hotbed of terrorism" as Washington claimed? The U.S.-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia was sparked by last fall's defeat of corrupt Somali warlords armed and financed by the CIA. They had kept Somalia in turmoil and near anarchy for 15 years. Last year, a group of Muslim jurists and notables, the Union of Islamic Courts, managed to defeat the warlords and impose law and order on chaotic Somalia.
The conservative Islamic Courts were sympathetic to pan-Muslim causes. But they were not involved in anti-American jihadist movements and had no identifiable links, as Washington loudly claimed, to al-Qaida. Four or five African suspects on the 1998 bombing of U.S. Embassies in East Africa may have been in Somalia, but going to war against a sovereign nation to try to assassinate or capture a handful of suspects (some reportedly escaped) is like using a nuclear weapon to kill a gnat and is sure to generate more anti-U.S. violence.
But in line with increasing militarization of U.S. foreign policy, the Pentagon's new golden-haired boys, Special Operations Command, pushed aside the humiliated CIA and the feckless State Department and vowed to "drain the Islamic swamp" in Somalia.
Thus begins U.S.President George W. Bush's fourth war against the Muslim world. He failed dismally to capture Osama bin Laden, conquer Iraq, or pacify Afghanistan. Dirt-poor, defenceless Somalia is Bush's last stab at glory.
Once again, the administration is recklessly charging into a thicket of tribal politics in a remote nation it knows nothing about. U.S. policy in Somalia is being driven by rabid neocons seeking jihad against the entire Muslim world, by gung-ho, know-nothing generals, and self-serving advice from ally Ethiopia. Eritrea's 1993 secession took away Ethiopia's natural access to the sea, leaving it landlocked. Ethiopia's prime goal in Somalia is seizing one or more deep-water ports, turning Somalia into a protectorate, and crushing any Islamic movements that might inflame its own voiceless Muslims.
America's attack on Somalia recalls Afghanistan. The U.S. is again blundering into ancient clan and tribal conflicts, using foreign troops and local mercenaries to defend a hated puppet regime without any popular support. Unfortunately, the word "Islamic" triggers murderous, knee jerk reactions by Washington's war party and the Pentagon's dimmer generals. The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. As U.S. soldiers once said in that earlier counter-terrorism success, Vietnam, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."
Like Afghanistan, Somalia was easy to invade, but may prove very difficult to rule or eventually leave. The invading Ethiopians, blood foes of Somalis, were not greeted with flowers, as U.S. neocons again promised. Somalis saw the U.S. and Ethiopians as invaders, and the now scattered Islamic Courts militias as their best hope for stability and normalcy.
The White House is using puny Somalia as a straw man to be set up and knocked down. "War president" Bush desperately needs a victory in his bungled "war on terror." After three defeats, a fake victory over a fake Islamic threat in obscure Somalia is just the kind of jolly news Bush & Co. hopes will cheer gloomy Americans and divert attention from the disaster in Iraq.
****************************
Rice Visit Leaves Palestinians GloomySunday, Jan. 14, 2007
By
TIM MCGIRK/JERUSALEM AND JAMIL HAMAD/BETHLEHEMPalestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas listens to a question from a journalist during a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (unseen) in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Rice arrived in Ramallah today for talks with Abbas aimed at reviving the stalled Middle East peace process.
After meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made no effort to hide his grim expression from his staff. From the Palestinian perspective, the talks hadn't gone well. Abbas had complained to Rice that an earlier chat and a bear hug with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, at the Secretary of State's behest, had only landed him in trouble with his fellow Palestinians. According to a presidential aide, he told Rice that "Olmert embarrassed me by not implementing a single Israeli promise."
Olmert had vowed to release $100 million in Palestinian funds frozen by Israel after Hamas became the government last March. Olmert also promised to remove some of the more than 400 roadblocks inside the Palestinian territories. Israel has so far failed to deliver on either promise, according to Palestinian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Abbas was also miffed at the public discussion in the U.S. of Bush Administration plans to secure $86 million from U.S. Congress to arm forces loyal to Abbas for a looming battle with Hamas. According to one insider, Abbas had wanted this kept secret. "This has put us in more trouble with Hamas," griped one Abbas aide.
After Rice and her phalanx of bodyguards and advisers left Abbas's office in Ramallah, one Palestinian source close to the Palestinian president reported gloomily that "She didn't bring anything new." He added: "The American 'Road Map' is a dead body, and implementing the plan will enable Israelis to swallow more of the West Bank." The reasoning, say Abbas supporters, is that Abbas cannot comply with Rice's demands that he disarm Hamas militants, and Abbas's failure to do this will embolden the Israelis to erect more Jewish settlements inside the Palestinian territories. "What she's asking — this is a joke," said one Abbas aide.
Rice also warned Abbas that the Bush Administration took a dim view of the Palestinian leader's proposed trip to Damascus for a meeting with Hamas's exiled leader Khaled Mashaal in a bid to pacify the near-civil war that has erupted in recent months between militants of Fatah and Hamas. Rice made it clear to Abbas, said one Palestinian source, that "she's worried Hamas will impose its conditions on Abbas."
The meeting simply reiterated Abbas's dilemma: "On one hand, Abbas knows it's important to keep U.S. support, but if he does, it will lead him into deeper conflict with Hamas," said one Palestinian source.
Even before this meeting, relations between Abbas and Rice were frosty. A senior Palestine Liberation Organization official, who sat in on meetings between the two says: "She acts like a school headmistress, telling her student in a commanding tone to do this, or don't do that."
Diana Buttu, a political consultant and former legal adviser to the PLO, adds: “They're not interested in solving the conflict in any meaningful way — just uttering nice slogans, that's it."
The view of Rice as being detached from the realities on the ground is underscored by a Palestinian professor who had previously dealt with Rice: "She thinks of big issues as small ones,” he says. "She believed that Israelis could wipe out Hizballah, and she believes — mistakenly — that Abbas can wipe out Hamas from Gaza and the West Bank."
Moreover, Palestinian officials say, their dim view of Rice's efforts is shared by other Arabs. One official spoke of a rift between the Bush Administration and the Saudis that has become so intense that "Abbas was advised by a Saudi official not to believe what Rice says or follow her instructions." Indeed, despite U.S. efforts to persuade Arab regimes to shun and isolate Hamas, the Saudis invited Hamas Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh to join the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, giving him royal treatment all the way, including use of a private jet that flew him from Egypt to Saudi Arabia.
Abbas aides say that in private conversations, the Saudis complain that Rice "doesn't understand the chemistry of the Middle East."
But if Arab officials are frustrated by Rice, their Israeli counterparts enjoy working with her: One Israeli official speaking off the record said: "She's an amazing, eloquent and elegant lady, but she can be as tough as nails. She knows what she wants when she goes into a meeting. She's decided beforehand what's possible and what isn't." Daniel Ayalon, ex-Israeli ambassador to Washington, who has been friends with Rice for 10 years, adds, "She has gravitas. She's grown into this job in a magnificent way. She has toughness and grit."
Still, for all those plaudits, Secretary Rice may discover, once again, in the course of her Middle East tour aimed at restarting peace efforts and building support for Iraq and against Iran, that enjoying the confidence of one side is not enough.
**********************
Somali Terror Suspects Still At Large
Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007
By
AP/SALAD DUHUL(MOGADISHU, Somalia) — A top U.S. official in the region said Thursday that none of the al-Qaeda suspects believed to be hiding in Somalia died in a U.S. air strike this week, but Somalis with close ties to the terrorist group were killed.
A day earlier, a Somali official said a U.S. intelligence report had referred to the death of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, one of the three senior al-Qaeda members blamed for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
But the U.S. official in Kenya, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said that Ethiopian troops and U.S. special forces were still pursuing the three suspects in southern Somalia. U.S. and Somali officials said Wednesday that a small team of U.S. special operations forces are in Somalia hunting suspected al-Qaeda fighters and providing military advice to Ethiopian and Somali forces on the ground.
The U.S. forces entered Somalia with Ethiopian forces late last month when Ethiopians launched their attack against a Somali Islamic movement said to be sheltering al-Qaeda figures, one of the officials said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. U.S. officials have also acknowledged launching one air strike aimed at killing suspected al-Qaeda terrorists. Somali officials say the U.S. has carried out additional strikes, but there is no way to independently verify whether those were launched by U.S. or Ethiopian forces.
Fazul, one of the FBI's most-wanted terror suspects, has evaded capture for eight years. The Somali president's chief of staff told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he had been killed in a U.S. air strike early Monday in southern Somalia.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said Wednesday that eight suspected terrorists were killed in the attack, but their identities would not be confirmed until DNA testing is completed. The U.S. official in the region said eight to 10 individuals were killed in the attack, most of whom were Somalis and had close ties to al-Qaeda.
Meanwhile, Somali and Ethiopian forces skirmished with Islamic militiamen around the area of Ras Kamboni in Somalia's southernmost tip early Thursday, part of mop-up operations Meles said his troops were carrying out against the fighters that were driven from Somalia's capital weeks ago.
One resident in the area, Mosa Aden Hersi, said there were numerous militant and civilian casualties in the fighting. "We saw the dead bodies of 17 men in military uniform under a small hill, but we do not know their identity," he said by two-way radio.
The remote, forested area has few residents and high-frequency radio is the only reliable form of communications.
The Ethiopian Information Ministry said Thursday its military was also launching helicopter and troop attacks around the town of Dobley, about four miles from the Kenyan border.
Ethiopia intervened to protect Somalia's internationally backed government on Dec. 24 after Islamic forces advanced on the only town the government controlled. Within 10 days, Ethiopian and Somali troops had pushed the Islamic fighters into a corner between the Kenyan border and the Indian Ocean.
A Somali human rights group said Thursday that thousands of Somalis fleeing the fighting were now stranded on the Kenyan border, which has been closed.
"Thousands are in a bad condition and they do not have food and water. They are stranded at the border after Kenya closed it and they cannot go back to their houses for two reasons: the ongoing air strikes and lack of transportation," said Ali Bashi, chairman of the Fanole human rights group.
The Red Cross said more than 850 wounded people, both civilians and soldiers, have been treated at medical facilities since fighting started just over two weeks ago. The group said in a statement it was deeply concerned about the plight of civilians and those captured by Ethiopian and government forces.
In addition to the special forces on the ground, the U.S. has moved additional forces into waters off the Somali coast, where they have conducted security missions, monitoring maritime traffic and intercepting and interrogating crew on suspicious ships.
With the arrival of the USS Ramage guided missile destroyer, there were five ships Wednesday: the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, the USS Bunker Hill and USS Anzio guided missile cruisers, and the USS Ashland amphibious landing ship, which officials said they could use as a brig for any captured suspects.
The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday backed the speedy deployment of an African peacekeeping force to Somalia and called for a dialogue among all political players and humanitarian aid for the country.
Somalia has not had an effective central government since clan-based warlords toppled dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991 and then turned on each other. The interim government was established in 2004.
Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Pauline Jelinek in Washington, Chris Tomlinson in Nairobi, Kenya, and Mohamed Olad Hassan and Mohamed Sheik Nor in Mogadishu contributed to this report.
****************************
Hezbollah chief risks his `winner' image
Analysis Hassan Nasrallah's secret of success has been his ability to make his bold rhetoric come true. He kept his promise to face down Israel's military, but a vow will go unkept if his followers fail to bring down Lebanon's government
January 14, 2007 Andrew Mills
Special to the Star
BEIRUT
Hassan Nasrallah, the charismatic leader of Hezbollah, is not accustomed to declaring defeat.
During 15 years at the helm of the Lebanese political and military group, Nasrallah's Shiite Muslim supporters have come to know him only as a winner, a man who always delivers on his promises.
But six weeks ago, Nasrallah, 46, made a promise that has put his winning track record and his status as one of the Middle East's most popular – and menacing – leaders on the line.
Riding a wave of popularity following last summer's war with Israel, Nasrallah led his supporters into the streets of the Lebanese capital. He told them that, if they refused to leave, they could topple Lebanon's Western-backed government and carve out a more powerful role for Hezbollah and its allies.
"I used to always promise you victory and I promise victory again," Nasrallah told the crowds by video-link from his secret hideout.
In the first weeks, nearly a million people showed up. The city was paralyzed. The government, holed up in its fortified headquarters, appeared powerless.
But six weeks on, the protestors' effect seems to be flagging.
Life outside Beirut's downtown core, where the demonstrators remain camped out, is going on as usual. Prime Minister Fouad Sinoria is determined to survive.
His cabinet has no intention of giving into Nasrallah and continues to go about its business, preparing for a major donors' conference in Paris on Jan. 25.
And when Hezbollah and its allies attempted to raise the stakes last week by scattering protests across the capital, their first march, on offices that house civil servants, the relatively thin turnout of 2,000 dashed hopes of a massive escalation.
Writing in the daily newspaper As-Saffir on Wednesday, editor and columnist Sateh Noureddin declared: "If the opposition believes similar protests to what we saw yesterday will exert more pressure on the government, then the opposition groups are in serious trouble."
Indeed, if it doesn't change tactics, and change soon, Nasrallah might stand to lose the most.
That's because his popularity doesn't stem simply from his pan-Islamic message of fighting Israel until "the liberation of Jerusalem."
That appeals to his followers, but it's hardly a unique battle cry in this region.
What's key is Nasrallah's ability to back up his blustery rhetoric by winning political and military battles – something Arab leaders have rarely pulled off.
Nasrallah is most renowned throughout the Arab world for his militia's past ability to fight Israel's armed forces and win.
He was in charge through much of the 1990s while Hezbollah's militiamen waged a brutal insurgency against the Israeli soldiers who occupied much of southern Lebanon.
And he was quick to take credit for the Israeli retreat in 2000.
Nasrallah was also at the helm last summer when Hezbollah's fighters held on for 34 days while Israel's military attempted – and failed – to destroy the group's military capacity.
"His forces were able to stand up to the mighty Israeli war machine," notes Judith Palmer Harik, author of Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism. "No Arab leader has been able to do that successfully."
The summer war marked the high point of Nasrallah's popularity in a region where Arab armies have grown accustomed to being led to defeat against Israel.
"Along comes this rag-tag guerrilla group, which successfully stands before Israel and actually calls it victory, because it prevents Israel from achieving its aims," says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Beirut.
And to his followers, at least, it didn't matter that it was Nasrallah who sparked the Israeli offensive when he authorized a cross-border raid that resulted in the seizure of two Israeli soldiers on July 12.
It also didn't matter that Israel's subsequent attacks killed some 1,200 Lebanese, destroyed countless homes and much of southern Lebanon's infrastructure, and desiccated the Lebanese economy.
What mattered, Saad-Ghorayeb says, is that Nasrallah fought Israel in a way that "gave back the Arabs that sense of pride they had long lost."
Take the third day of the war, for example. Israel had bombed and shelled Beirut for three days straight.
Dozens of people were dead. Bridges, apartment buildings and factories were pulverized. Beirut airport was burning. And there were rumours that Nasrallah had been killed when one of the bombs destroyed his Beirut bunker.
But that evening, Nasrallah phoned the newscast on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television station, sounding weary but very much alive. Then, he did something no Arab leader has ever done before.
"The surprises I promised you will start now," he said. "Now, in the middle of the sea, facing Beirut the Israeli warship that attacked the infrastructure, peoples' homes and civilians will sink and burn in front of you. This is the start."
And sure enough, while Nasrallah was announcing it on live television, Hezbollah's militiamen launched an Iranian-built missile that whistled across the surface of the Mediterranean and slammed into the side of an Israeli destroyer.
Nasrallah was not only promising something and then doing it, but everyone could watch it unfold on live TV.
"It was such a cinematic performance," says Saad-Ghorayeb. "It was out of this world."
But Nasrallah has not been able to offer up anything remotely as dramatic or satisfying to his supporters in his current face-off with Lebanon's government. Is there a point when his loyal followers will begin to question where exactly their leader is taking them?
"Hezbollah and the opposition are banking on the fact their folks can hold out for longer, but it remains to be seen if that is true or not," says Nicholas Noe, editor-in-chief of Mideastwire.com and editor of a translated compilation of Nasrallah's speeches to be released in February.
"Hezbollah and its supporters are the ones who have suffered most in the last seven months," Noe says. "They're vulnerable to the drawn-out deadlock that's beginning to wear down both sides."
And Nasrallah's opponents in the government are counting on Hezbollah's crowds to flinch first.
"This is affecting his image in the Shiite community," says Boutros Harb, a Christian MP allied with the Sinoria government. "These people, who are really courageous in facing Hezbollah, and I know what I'm saying, th
